Talk:Active Release Technique

[Proper placement of Active Release Technique]

Due to the highly similar nature of myofascial release and active release (which relies primarily on primary sources) I propose that these two articles be merged. DVMt (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Similar does not mean equal. They each deserve their own articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree Bellagio99 (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Active Release is one of many techniques used in myofascial release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuanYera (talk • contribs) 18:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Industry sources indicate that they are distinct, and at least one is patented.

http://www.stana.ca/descrip/activere.html Kortoso (talk)

This article's support from sources is very weak. That puts it at risk of WP:speedy deletion. I am not confident that there are enough secondary sources to support this, but if there are, it would be helpful if someone were to locate and cite them. I agree that ART is not the same thing as MFR, and ART is indeed used primarily by chiropractors. For that reason I think merging ART as a type of bodywork (in the massage article - though ART like a number of other forms of bodywork is not massage per se) would be more appropriate than the MFR article. The material here could be condensed into a small paragraph, with citations from the two decent sources (I'd really like to see the primary web sources removed completely). --Karinpower (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The speedy move to merge, with no current discussion, dismayed me as non Wikipedian. Bellagio99 (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Attempted to start a discussion one month ago. No takers, sounded like a lack of strong opinion.

Lack of sources has been flagged on this article since 2011, and I also attempted a separate thread on that subject below, in June 2014. I consulted a half dozen books that summarize various bodywork treatment methods and it's not mentioned (perhaps because it's too new? though these books are fairly current). Certainly if support can be found, that would be great. Is that something that you are interested in pursuing?

PS. I'm still new regarding learning about merges, deletions, etc, so if I skipped some step in the etiquette, forgive me. --Karinpower (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I added three additional sources from pubmed showing current literature involving active release techniques. Two of these studies are of good quality, one is more of an anecdote. MFR and ART are distinct, in both specificity and technique. I believe these two high-quality citations are enough to warrant it's own article. If other users disagree, I can produce more references. Mobiusrage (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Need to use high quality secondary sources per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

{u|Mobiusrage}, thanks for your efforts. It takes some time to learn how things work here at WP, so please don't be discouraged if some of your early edits get reverted. In particular WP is strict about what sources are good enough to claim "medical benefit", so it's quite possible that none exist yet; that's the case for many health practices actually. What might be helpful is if you can find a number of good-quality sources that describe the method, including its origins etc and add those as inline citations. That won't *necessarily* prevent the article from being deleted or redirected to some other topic, but it could help. Print sources from mainstream publishers are preferred over web sources (especially commercial ones). There's lots more info about sources and citations if you care to dig through the Wikipedia resources for editors. Also, I'd highly suggest branching out and editing on a wide variety of pages. You'll find medicine-related topics are carefully monitored and hotly contested at times while many other areas of WP are simply in need of a careful editor who is willing to take the time to look up a source or two to flesh out an article or clarify something. Happy editing!--Karinpower (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

when you're going to use a source just follow Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine), primary sources are not a good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

History? Influences?

This article could use more information about the founder, what teachers/modalities/etc influenced them, and whether there have been any other significant figures in that field who could also be considered "founders." That would help clear up its relationship, if any, to Myofascial Release (discussed in the above section). --Karinpower (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources

A bunch of primary sources were added in this edit [1]. I have removed them per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Since I am relatively new to wikipedia - how does this work for a source? It's not primary, it is from a major publisher - but it's not print Mobiusrage (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Mobius, Telegraph is a very good source, Many reputable sources are now online. This looks as if it is even better: an online version of the printed newspaper.Bellagio99 (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

No, Telegraph is not a very good source. It fails WP:MEDRS. Please read MEDRS and use sources that comply with it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Merge to myofascial release

There are no pubmed indexed secondary sources for this technique which raises concerns. Not sure if a merge would be a good idea? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you proposing deletion instead? I'm not attached to delete vs. redirect vs. article improvement but I'm not ok with the very poor sourcing that presently exists. Basically only one proper source and 2 of the 3 primary (and commercial) web sources have broken-ish links and perhaps should be removed (or link updated if possible). Looking forward to hearing other editors' opinions on the best way to move forward. Especially {u|Bellagio99} since you seem to feel strongly about this. --Karinpower (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there support that these two are the same? If there are no good sources maybe we should just delete. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I support deletion, seems like nothing in MEDRS quality sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes same. And leave a redirect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I was coming here to ask whether we should go to AFD, but can we get consensus for redirecting? User:Jytdog? SmartSE (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Do not support delete or redirect. As long as unsupported medical claims are kept out, there is enough activity on the subject to support an article. Lfstevens (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

What "activity" are you seeing? The sources include one printed book (a book that seems to be aimed toward chiropractors), and three websites which are essentially promotional. These sources don't meet the bare minimum quality level, and if there aren't at least a half dozen or so decent sources, there isn't a basis for a WP article. Unless someone has some sources up their sleeve, the debate is: redirect or delete. And if redirect, to what? There don't seem to be sources to support redirect to MFR, so perhaps redirect to Chiropractic.--Karinpower (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not support delete or redirect either. There are a plenty of sources that show ART is a "thing", that it exists, is a part of some practices and offerings, and that it is notable. Whether or not those sources meet the particular recent Wikipedia guidelines on medical sources, there is enough to meet the general notability guideline for article existence. Recommend you take it to a full AfD if you want to push the matter to delete or redirect. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• support merge. there are not sufficient independent reliable sources to justify a standalone article. Jytdog (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
• Do not support merge since ART claims to be quite distinct from traditional myofascial release To save you from reading the patent: traditional myofascial release is where the provider massages/pushes-on the patient, whereas in ART they massage/push while also moving limbs and joints. Don't exactly support deletion either, since it might meet the general notability guideline, although I'm not experienced enough on WP to know if it does or not. Armadillo1985 (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Misleading efficacy disclaimer

Currently (April 15, 2015), the article's has two statements about its efficacy: "there is little evidence to support its efficacy" and "ART has not been scientifically shown to have medical benefit." Although these are technically true, I feel they may be misleading.

For any treatment for any medical problem, there are 3 scenarios:

1. its been rigorously scientifically investigated, and shown to be effective
2. its been rigorously scientifically investigated, and shown to be ineffective
3. not enough rigorous scientific studies have been done, so its efficacy is unknown

Since proper studies are few, I feel ART falls into #3. Do people agree? If so, I feel we should make that clear. I feel that while the current statements are technically supporting #3, they are phrased in a way that's suggesting #2. I feel the statements should be more neutral.

Therefore, I propose we remove the current statements and add something like "From a scientific perspective, the effectiveness of ART is unknown. Although the technique has been investigated, there are too few studies to conclude whether it is effective (or ineffective) at resolving soft tissue problems."

Armadillo1985 (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here. We don't need to include the part about "From a scientific perspective," because that is the only perspective that matters. I would be OK with the rest of it I think, but I need to consider more. Thanks again for coming to talk about this. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This is an issue that I see across many of the alt-med articles as well. Often the wording is so strong that it sounds like there is evidence *against* it (which is only true for a few methods, such as homeopathy). It would be worthwhile to craft a pithy phrase that could be consistently used for all methods that lack adequate studies. Health methods that have a similar level of lack of strong evidence include (I've linked directly to the relevant section for each):

Bowen (fairly neutral wording),

Rolfing (negative wording),

Shiatsu (perhaps a bit too positive),

Alexander (neutral-ish, maybe a bit negative on the asthma wording),

Zero Balancing (neutral wording but should specifically say "no evidence"),

Thai ("benefits" listed with no scientific caution - this should be edited),

Watsu#Health_effects (same here, sources cited but these aren't meta-studies or even primary studies]].

I see a wide range of section titles for what is essentially the same material, and a very wide range of tone and wording. I would like to see more consistency across topics in this regard. Just wanted to give some larger perspective on this issue. --Karinpower (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Now that this has been discussed, do we want to change the article? I'd vote for changing the efficacy statement to "The effectiveness of ART is unknown. Although the technique has been investigated, there are too few studies to conclude whether it is effective (or ineffective) at resolving soft tissue problems." Is that fine with everyone? Armadillo1985 (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence to its efficacy. I assume by evidence you mean reputable peer reviewed journal articles. The National Institute of Health certainly qualifies (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2647071/), this article also references others. --Oddible (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of articles (primary sources)

I am puzzled why the recently scholarly articles were deleted. Bellagio99 (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

my edit note said: revert addition of a bunch of WP:PRIMARY sources - not reliable per MEDRS" Please do read all of WP:MEDRS and the definitions of primary and secondary sources there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

From what I understand, we need meta-studies to show health benefit. Individual studies are "primary" (even though they are objective in POV), and meta-studies would be "secondary." This means most alt-med topics are many studies away from having even "preliminary evidence" in support of specific health benefits. --Karinpower (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Sources modified on Active Release Technique

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just attempted to maintain the sources on Active Release Technique. I managed to add archive links to 1 source, out of the total 1 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.

Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct. If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with {{cbignore}} to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further. Alternatively, you can also add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page's sources altogether. Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources

I went looking for good sources for this.

• Reviews at Pubmed: none
• NIH Health Topics: nothing
• NHS Health Choices: nothing
• Active Release Technique Therapy: Proactive Chiropractic

Hm. Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I found a textbook that said something about this and rewrote based on it. It became clear this needed to be somewhere else, so I merged it to Massage - there is a list of techniques there like this one. Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)