Talk:Postural restoration

Reliable sources for medical articles

I have a concern that this article makes medical claims, but the references do not seem to comply with WP:MEDRS. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I have been asked by Alex.e.miller for clarification. In my judgment, the article relies far too much on published articles written by the developer of Postural Restoration, Raymond Hruska, and a prominent advocate, Kyndall L. Boyle. These are not independent sources about Postural Restoration as they are written by advocates.

According to WP:MEDRS:

"Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies."

One of the references is a small town newspaper article about a local practitioner, which should not be used in a medical article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

(Copied over from User talk:Cullen328):

Jim, I am committed to revising and bettering the article "postural restoration" as i feel it is a relevant wikipedia page. That being said i understand the use of medical journals and their authors and can somewhat agree that the use of the creators articles is potentially biased. Also the small town newspaper which was inappropriately used as a source. However in relation to the other sources i feel as if they are all medically reviewed, and published journals which could contribute to this article. I feel that the author, (Boyle) which you discussed on the talk page "postural restoration", has simply published her results of using the science in her practice, whether or not she is advocating it should not pertain because she has simply discussed the results of case studies where this approach has been used. And as mentioned they are in mediacl journals. So upon removal of the creators (Ronald Hruskas) sources and the newspaper source, could your dispute be removed from the article? Thank you for your help. Alex.e.miller (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe that that the sources in question comply with WP:MEDRS because they are individual research articles and not survey articles, which summarize a significant number of individual articles. Therefore, I will not remove the tag from the article at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

This article has huge issues. There are no review articles on the topic. Cases studies were being used to support effectiveness. Still looking. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

There are not even any RCTs? Pubmed has 6 sources of which at least 4 are case reports. Gah Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I have edited boldly.... feel free to contradict or undo if I have overstepped. It seems that almost all the sources are ineligible for use on WP.... actually I wonder if it's a significant enough topic to warrant an article. --Karinpower (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps this page needs to be categorized differently? I have tried adding several 3rd party, including internationally recognized randomized controlled trials. These were briskly removed and reverted by Jytdog I am not sure how Internationally recognized medical journals are "a big pile of primary sources" If these medical articles are not supplemental, there must be another category more fitting for this article that will allow supplemental references like the ones I tried to add today.Any clarification or other thoughts are welcomed. Doc James I tried adding RCT's to no success, thoughts?

Jen.Gloystein, this is a medical article and recategorizing it will not change that. References in medical articles must comply fully with WP:MEDRS. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

If it were a Fitness and Health article solely, it would not need to comply with WP:MEDRS presumably? If internationally recognized articles do not contribute then how can you merit the references that are currently used to comply any better with WP:MEDRS Cullen328 Following the WP:MEDRS guidline, none of the sources used would be acceptable which is clearly why this article needs to be re-categorized or deleted and re-created under another category.

Jen.Gloystein, please sign your posts. Any article that discusses medical claims must use WP:MEDRS compliant sources. That applies to most "health" articles. A ploy like deleting and recreating the article would not change that basic reality in any way. Sources do not become acceptable because they are "internationally recognized" but only when they comply with MEDRS. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess i am questioning how the current references have held up to WP:MEDRS as they are also primary sources. There has simply been no consistency in this article by the watchers of this page regarding which "primary sources" have remained and which have been deleted. User talk:Jen.Gloystein

I agree, some of the current sources are "primary" (that is, a single clinical trial), and I personally did not pull them out because they presently are being cited for some basic factual details which ultimately should be provided by other sources. The key thing is that they cannot be used to claim medical benefit. If you want to improve this article, I would suggest that you find quality printed sources (that are written by people who are not practitioners of this method), and use those sources to flesh out some basic details about what it is, what they believe, what a session looks like, etc. Try to paraphrase accurately but also try to find very neutral wording, like you would read in a dictionary, and strictly avoid any promotional or marketing language. Other editors will definitely "help" you refine your word choices but if you do a good job of finding neutral phrasing yourself, your text won't be edited as heavily. Tread very lightly with stating any benefits that it can accomplish since there haven't been review studies (metastudies) to support it. You might find it helpful to read various alternative medicine articles to see how it is handled elsewhere. Also, know that editing health-related articles is more difficult than many other topics on Wikipedia so it takes time and patience to learn how. I hope that helps!--Karinpower (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

CAM?

Is it reasonable to say that "postural restoration" would be classified as complementary or alternative medicine? Thx Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it is a type of physical therapy? It seems to use bodywork and movement teaching to change posture and movement habits.... like Rolfing, Alexander, Trager, etc. So I think we treat it the same as alt-med topics even if it might technically be a spin-off of PT. --Karinpower (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it is considered a practice within physical therapy, which seems like a home within regular medicine. Yet it suffers from "a lack of strong evidence" making it more similar to alternative medicine. I've added this lack of evidence to the article without describing it as alternative. Jno.skinner (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)