Talk:Osteopathy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emarti84. Peer reviewers: Zsmith7.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomenclature

The sentence in the lead, "People practicing osteopathy are referred to as osteopathic practitioners" is inaccurate and contradicts two of the cited sources (the link to the third source appears to be dead). Non-physician, manipulation-only practitioners of osteopathy are referred to as osteopaths. Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine are referred to as osteopathic physicians. This is stated in the sources as well as the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine's website (http://www.aacom.org/become-a-doctor/about-om/US-vs-abroad). Both call themselves "DO's". In the United States, osteopaths are prohibited from referring to themselves as "DO's" to avoid being confused with osteopathic physicians.SympatheticResonance (talk)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Osteopathy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 10:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This article has way too paragraphs without citations and too many maintenance tags, so I have to quickfail it. Medical articles have higher standards than other articles. --FunkMonk (talk) 10:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Alternative medicine

Osteopathic care is a recognized health profession with official state university level training in the UK, Switzerland and Australia. In all these countries, osteopathy is considered as an allied health integrated in the public health system.

What does the term “alternative” refer to when we add it to the term “medicine”? Medicine offers alternative treatments based on evidence, patient preferences and clinical experience. Medication, psychotherapy, surgery are just as much alternatives in musculoskeletal health as is physical therapy.

As such, all treatment are alternatives to other forms of treatment. Here, the term “alternative medicine” refers to an entire system of thought as if health could be seen in alternative ways. This is not how osteopathic care is taught in countries that have integrated the profession in their health system. Osteopathy should therefore be described as an allied health profession rather than an alternative medicine. 2A02:1210:7A75:7C00:B9B3:E8EA:1299:73F3 (talk) 06:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I second this. DrJacobFischer (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

This whole subject is confusing to me and the article makes it more confusing

Maybe the whole subject of osteopathy is confused as it is fundamentally quackery trying to gain recognition for its own ends and this is reflected in the article, but as an alternative medicine with no cited efficacy, how can there be recognised medical degrees and such titles as osteopathic physicians in various jurisdictions?

The opening paragraph describes Osteopathy as being an alternative medicine. An alternative medicine (from the Wikipedia article) is any non proven practice attempting to provide medical outcomes. The article goes on to describe Osteopathy as originating from assumptions (my précis) rather than medical facts. In the efficacy section, no significant examples are provided of provable efficacy.

As there is no proven efficacy of osteopathy using conventional medical and scientific methods, like double blind trials etc. how can there be medical degrees in osteopathy and osteopathic physicians in various jurisdictions? The article also states that osteopathy has evolved into 2 branches. The differences between the 2 branches are poorly described.

The terms medical degree and a physician would imply recognition by the governing bodies in the various national jurisdictions and this is stated in various places.

Some jurisdictions, like Germany, recognise many alternative medical practices. If this is the case, where osteopathy (or a particular branch of it) is recognised in particular jurisdictions, the fact that these particular jurisdictions also recognise other alternative medicines should be stated.

The only other range of subjects, which I can think of that degrees are awarded for at university level, which are based on belief without facts are religions.

Since there is no proven efficacy, but osteopathy or parts of it appears to be accepted by many medical bodies, can it actually be classed a religion?

Alternatively, maybe there are other reputable studies which do prove efficacy, and / or they only apply to particular areas of osteopathy, but if such studies exist, they should be described in the efficacy section.

Can someone make the article clearer, particularly wrt my points above? It has probably grown untidy and confusing over the years. Lkingscott (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The NHS in the UK now recognises osteopathy as an Allied Healthcare Profession, and NICE clinical guidelines support the use of osteopathy for a number of conditions.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/osteopathy/ 88.202.147.91 (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Bias article ignoring current osteopathic practice

It is interesting that you frame osteopathy in such a derogatory light whereas the Wikipedia on Physiotherapy praises it as an evidence based form of complementary medicine. Are you aware that Osteopaths in Australia complete a 5 year double degree and treat/manage patients using education, exercise rehabilitation and manual therapy techniques based on the most current biopsychosocial model. Almost identically to how physios treat and manage patients however you will claim that Osteopathy is Pseudoscience. If you are worried about citations there is plenty of peer reviewed evidence that education in combination with exercise helps manage conditions 202.7.239.156 (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You need to read more carefully. You're at a different article than where you should be. We split up the subject of osteopathy into two main articles, and this article is for the alternative medicine/quackery practice originally started by Still, with no modernization or updating in accordance with modern scientific and medical knowledge.

You need to follow the links at the top of the article. Here they are: Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine#International practice rights and Osteopathic medicine in the United States. There you will see we document how modern osteopaths with real scientific training and degrees are classified as full-fledged, evidence-based, physicians. You mention that "Osteopaths in Australia complete a 5 year double degree". Do we mention that in any of our articles? If not, that should be fixed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I see your point however, Australian Osteopaths aren’t physicians, they are classified as Osteopathic practitioners who are regulated under the same board as MD’s but did not complete med school. They either have a double degree bachelor of health science/applied science (osteopathy) or a bachelor of health science with a masters in Osteopathy. Hence it doesn’t fit under the title DO as we aren’t technically Doctors in Australia so don’t come under the other wiki page that you alluded to. However we are given the title Dr as an honory title which is rarely used by practitioners in Australia and can cause confusion. Non physician Osteopaths within NZ and Aus are regulated under a strict board and throughout the uni curriculum are only taught the highest level of available evidence and the skills in which to critically analyse the current medical evidence to proves patients with evidence based care. The article above alludes to the profession as an absolute quack and doesn’t acknowledge the science/health background of the course and how we have completely changed from the older irrelevant teachings of A still to the most current available evidence pertaining to musculoskeletal injuries 202.7.239.156 (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

That's very interesting. That should be described in an article here, with proper sourcing. As far as "The article above alludes to the profession as an absolute quack...", that won't change, and this article is not about Australian and New Zealand osteopaths, although, without an article on their educational and licensing status, people could get confused. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Well that’s my point, the article is misleading as readers will assume that Australian Osteopaths practice Pseudo-science based on this article. It’s quite disappointing considering Osteopaths spend a large portion of there education doing rigours training on pain science, neuroscience, exercise rehab, biomechanics, physiology and anatomy to be told that their profession is pseudo-science. It would be less misleading if that article was split into ‘Historic Osteopathy’ and then an article reflecting modern Osteopathy. I guarantee if I search Doctor or Surgery on Wiki it doesn’t talk about all the dodgy outdated procedures they did 200 yrs ago in the intro 202.7.239.156 (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, in the article you focus solely on OMT as our core technique. That is incorrect, it is only one technique that is sometimes used depending on clinical reasoning. You’ve mislead readers into thinking that Osteoapaths only do OMT similar to Chiro which is a fallacy. I’m happy to provide you with references supporting the other techniques we use such as Isometric contractions, exercise rehabilitation, joint articulation, assisted stretching, myofascial release, patient education, general nutritional and lifestyle advice and ergonomic evaluation 202.7.239.156 (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

In summary this article is extremely outdated and misleading. This does not reflect the professions views in any way and seems like an attempt to spread misinformation about a profession. It’s very unfortunate that you would look down on a profession as pseudo science even though it is covered under private health insurance and even government funded public health as an allied health profession that works closely with MD doctors in collaborative management of patients. If you search Osteoapthy Australia or AHPRA and look at Osteopathy and it’s role you’ll see a clear idea that it is inline with modern medicine and rejects the outdated notions of Still 202.7.239.156 (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Instead of arguing with you, I think it would be more constructive if you turn your energies toward improving the section about Australia. Use good sources and document the stuff that isn't mentioned. Maybe after that's done it will be easier to figure out a better approach. I'd like to see a list of the modalities you use. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see an Australian section within the article. I can list the modalities in order and then cite them with for and against evidence. Once that’s done hopefully you’ll consider reframing the tone in the intro. I also noticed myotherapy is considered allied health on wiki, but Osteoapthy isn’t even though we are classified by the governing body and government health department as. Is there a reason for this ? 220.253.143.109 (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The Australian section is quite informative. It is more the introduction and image used that doesn’t make sense. The image is outdated and not a technique used by our profession. As for being classified pseudo-science that is a reach. Is there evidence to prove that exercise, education and manual therapy has no therapeutic benefit, I highly doubt. You’ve mainly just spoken about OMT which is one small aspect. Same as if I wrote an article about clinical psychiatry and only talked about labotomies in the intro and used a photo of one in the intro. I will post the current research supporting Osteoapthy as complementary medicine and hopefully then you will reconsider its current classification as ‘pseudo science’ which isn’t supported by any health governing body 220.253.143.109 (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Critique section

The sources in the criticism section are extremely old, you have references from the 1920’s as apart of a critical analysis of the literature. If you claim to be evidence based and science based the least you could do is find some actual sources that critique Osteopathy instead of quotes from the 1920’s 202.7.239.156 (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent evidence for effectiveness

Editors: will you review current evidence to consider implementation into the article

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/4/e053468

I assume it has to be a systematic review at minimum to be considered 2402:B801:284B:AB00:90BE:D5D4:8C49:1369 (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Would evidence supporting exercise, patient education, stretching and cognitive behavioural therapy be considered as these are aspects of a typical Osteopathy appointment in Australia and which some have very strong evidence to support there use in a variety of musculoskeletal injuries. OMT is only a small part of the management plan so it would be more balanced to evaluate the other aspects of a consultation rather than one aspect when deciding on a professions effectiveness 2402:B801:284B:AB00:90BE:D5D4:8C49:1369 (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Evidence for use of spinal manipulation in lower back pain

Kuczynski JJ, Schwieterman B, Columber K, Knupp D, Shaub L, Cook CE (December 2012). "Effectiveness of physical therapist administered spinal manipulation for the treatment of low back pain: a systematic review of the literature". International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 7 (6): 647–62. PMC 3537457. PMID 23316428.

This was used by wiki to support effectiveness of Physical therapy spinal manipulation in the Physiotherapy wiki page: If it meets guidelines for wiki would it not be suitable in the effectiveness section for Osteopathy considering spinal manipulation is employed by Osteos the exact same as it was used in the study. 202.7.238.198 (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The source would need to say that. Bon courage (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Osteopathy is a recognised by the NHS as an Allied Health Profession in the UK

To allow this article to remain, with the first statement describing osteopathy as a 'pseudoscience', is unjustified and damaging to a recognised and valuable profession, and to the patients we support. Please see the following links https://www.england.nhs.uk/ahp/role/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/osteopathy/ 88.202.147.91 (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)