![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Each time I return to this heading I see that the language of the non-believers has crept into this article after less than ten words and fills the entire first paragraph. That is utterly ridiculous. If this continues it will warrant an appeal to the Wiki observers. Thank you. ExecTaxes ( talk) 20:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to be honest that there is a fault line running through the osteopathic profession and the cranial issue is contentious. It would be wise to refrain from manifesto and reflect the reality of the dispute. It may be comforting to dismiss non believers as invalid, but it means a line has been crossed into faith without reason. If we are to avoid schism in the profession head squeezers and structuralists need to remain in dialogue. Lets no label the 'others' as osteo-infidel and close down dialogue. The parallels with cultish behaviour are perhaps becoming more obvious, will 'cranial' be the basis of reformation and schism?
Babbybulldog (
talk)
21:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Osteopathy, like chiropracty, is just out and out quackery and should be illegal. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.190.103.110 (
talk)
14:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Please see the To Do talk page Talk:Osteopathy/to_do for remaining tasks to clean up this article, and avoid duplication with Osteopathic medicine when adding new material. apers0n 17:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it was a conceptual error to split osteopathy from osteopathic medicine, as real issue is scope of practice permitted in a jurisdiction and the training required to deliver that set of competencies rather than a philosophical divide. One ought to be minded that osteopathy has a philosophical basis from which flowed technique, scope of practice evolved within regulatory context Babbybulldog ( talk) 21:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
First let me preface this entry with the statement that this is my first entry in this discussion of Osteopathy. Second let me state that I am currently the president-elect of the Cranial Academy, and have been practicing "Traditional Osteopathy" including Osteopathy in the Cranial Field in the United States, for the last 24 years. I have trained in both MD and DO hospital settings and despite my exclusive devotion to the practice of Osteopathy, I am MD residency trained in Psychiatry.
As your are probably aware by this time that the definition and practice of Osteopathic Medicine is complex and difficult to "pin down." I have read much of the discussion on this site, and have the following comments generally:
1. Internationally each country has its own regulatory and educational processes that differ not only between countries, but also many countries have their own internal differences and complexities. It should be noted that at present, the emergence of non-medical Osteopathy is literally exploding internationally. There are presently 5 osteopathic schools in Munich Germany, alone. The problem with this explosion will be establishing and maintaining standards.
2. The US has the most rigorous of educational processes and has had the most influence politically, as the US is the site of origin of the osteopathic profession... and, US osteopathic physicians train in hospital settings, specialize in all fields, diagnose, prescribe medications, and are often indistinguishable from their MD counterparts. Osteopathic Manipulation, or as I prefer to call it... "Osteopathy," is taught in a basic form in all osteopathic colleges during the first 2 years. Students tend to be enthusiastic initially, but as the rigours and orientation of conventional medicine are intensely emphasized, the students tend to lose their interest, even to point of osteopathic manipulation losing its credibility.
This is the context in which much of the discussion existing on this webpage occurs.
Further:
1. The osteopathic profession is presently in the process of developing and collecting a body of research that supports the already established efficacy of osteopathic manipulation.
2. The practice and philosophy of "Traditional Osteopathy" (osteopathic manipulation)... is uniquely different from convential "allopathic" or "AMA style" medicine... and by definition should be considered "alternative." Politically, it is not in the interest of the US profession to call Osteopathic Medicine "alternative." Hence the NCCAM does not support research on Osteopathy, which is ludicrous.
I am certain that other issues will become apparent as I read further... Overall the discussion of Osteopathy on Wikipedia has merit, but will always be fraught with controversy and contain inacuracies due to the complexity of the issues.
Markdo 19:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Please leave it in but briefly dicuss all 5 methods osteopathic manipulation (to my understanding.) and of course medicine and surgery.
1. Facial release 2. Lymphatic Drainage 3. Strain/Counterstrain 4. High Velocity Low Amplitude 5. Crainial Sacral
Thank you for your article. 72.197.205.99 07:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC) BobDO Babbybulldog ( talk) 21:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that this thread establishes that splitting osteopathy into osteopathy: osteopathic medicine was a conceptual error. It is the scope of practice / regulatory framework in a jurisdiction that is being (wrongly) being interpreted as a philosophical split. I doubt that it is. May I pose a question? What of AUS/NZ/Uk permit osteopaths to prescribe or undertake cortisone injections/minor surgery, effectively permitting them to work as GPs/family physcians, what then of the great divide between osteopathy and osteopathic medicine? (Babbybulldog)
All this means to me is that it has gained official recognition. It doesn't tell me what it is or how it's different from "standard" Western medicine (or similar to it). Also, how does it relate to chiropractic? This article doesn't say anything, and as such, is properly a candidate for deletion. But I'd rather it get finished. Please, someone answer my questions above. -- Uncle Ed 21:45 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)
Do M.D.s call themselves allopaths? As far as I can tell, "allopathic" is a term used by homeopaths and alternate practitioners to describe standard modern medicine, not a term it uses for itself. As such, saying that an MD "is properly called" an allopath is misleading at best: it's not a term used commonly or by the doctors themselves. Vicki Rosenzweig
One of my colleagues forwarded me an article that I thought might be useful, either as a source or as a link; it seems to present a relatively clear, mostly unslanted view of osteopathy. It is aimed at pre-med students, but I think the information in it could be useful to all. I'll leave it up to y'all to decide what to do with it. Kaplan Osteopathy page - SargonZ 20:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have edited this page a little to widen the perspective, osteopathy has developed differently outside the USA. I am an osteopath that trained in the UK and have worked in the Uk & NZ. When I havd time I shall add a section on the osteopathic paradigm and the philosophies that profession applies in clinical reasoning and treatment regimes. -AntaineNZ
I have added to the Canadian section as well, for the same reason as above. Canadian osteopaths are not osteopathic physicians, their training is as extensive but VERY different, we do not compare ourselves. -Jen, Canada
I've edited some modifications on this section since the author made some self-advertisement for his website and the information given was false and misleading. -Alain Guierre DO(UK)
See also: External link spamming. Respectfully, Alain
Isn't there usually a section for criticism? The word "critics" appears only once in the entire article, and this is a highly controversial practice!
This seems incredibly slanted to me at present, comes off as more of an advertisement than a critical analysis of both sides of the issue. If you can't see it in the text I think the inclusion of the pejorative Osteopath term "allopath" proves it's not exactly getting input from both sides.
I find it frustrating that there is no mention of the fact that there is no one funding manipulative medicine out there so OF COURSE there isnt a whole lot of research. -jen, canada
I think it would be useful to include research on the efficacy or otherwise of osteopathic treatment or links to investigations into the theoretical basis of some claims made for techniques. Some such links have been included.
I dont think that it can be asserted that osteopathic practice is a 'highly controversial practice', controversial to whom and on what basis? Exclamation mark not required. I have edited this page to try and include information and balance, to give some detail on the regulatory framewrok and hte profession outside the USA. I appreciate the contributions on visceral etc. I myself do not pratice cranial osteopathy and have tried to treat that area sensitively but evenhandedly. I see no need for the editorial policy to be defined solely by a narrow bio-medical paradigm. The page is intended as information on osteopathy not a manifesto for or against it. -AntaineNZ
I just finished a health professions degree BScKin, and the term 'allopathy' was used regularly, and with no negative connotations inferred, whatsoever. It's the actual noun.
There seems to be some confusion in terms here. Osteopathy is simply the philosophy that the body has certain intrinsic abilities to heal and that medical practice should be applied with that particular focus--that is, apply treatment that works in concert with the bodies own healing mechanisms. Osteopathy is not the same thing as manual medicine! Manual medicine is simply the most well known and easily recognized application of osteopathy. Osteopathy is a very simple and easily accepted concept whereas manual medicine is generally the subject of these debates. I have never heard a legitimate criticism of modern osteopathic practice (remember, all the philosophy claims is that the body can do a lot of healing on its own--no one can deny that, we all heal from injury and disease constantly). Every criticism I have ever heard of osteopathy was actually directed at manual medicine--not osteopathy! I am an osteopathic medical student and I for one have huge issues with the way manual medicine is taught--I believe it works because patients consistently report improvements after treatment--but there is dire need for more evidence based teaching in some of osteopathic schools (I won't name which schools). That being said, I absolutely embrace the philosophy of osteopathy because it is a separate concept from manual medicine. So perhaps we can remove the "controversial" claim on this article and apply that to a separate article about manual medicine.
I have added a few things such as clinical trial information, and attempted to clarify the visceral portion of the article to remove some POV aspects. DocJohnny 22:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
"Many without direct experience of the benefits of treatment dismiss cranial osteopathy as pseudo-science". That is a rubbish statement. It pre-supposes that there are indisputed 'benefits' that would be quite apparent to people who criticise the practice if they had experience of it. It also assumes that those who have experienced it don't dismiss it as psuedo science. Where is the evidence for that? Whether or not some one has experienced it or not is not even slightly relevent to forming an informed oppinion on whether it is psuedo science or not... If it is then lets only allow astronauts to edit the article on space travel. In fact it could be argued that those who have experienced these benefits have a conflict of interest in evaluating its scientific merit.
The section on Cranial Osteopathy contains a great deal of incorrect information, especially the first paragraph. Insurance companies do reimburse for osteopathic treatment and that includes cranial treatment. I have hundreds of EOBs from insurance companies that verify this.
There is no easy means for an insurance company to differentiate between types of treatment. Treatment codes only involve number of areas treated, not which techniques or philosophies were used in the treatment. This means that it is impossible for an insurance company to even tell that a physician utilized cranial osteopathy in treatment unless they request the medical records.
I do not believe that it is legal to refuse payment due to the type of osteopathic treatment performed. On providing requested records to insurance companies, I have never had a payment refused on the grounds that I utilized Cranial Osteopathy. All this information is common knowledge.
Cranial Osteopathy is not a "contested issue within the profession." It is considered accepted practice within the profession. Please contact the American Osteopathic Association for further clarification.
Please correct the erroneous and misleading information and note that I have contributed correct information in the past that was not used to update the document. ::—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ericdo ( talk • contribs) 23.19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
"Interrater reliability of craniosacral rate measurements and their relationship with subjects' and examiners' heart and respiratory rate measurements." - This study clearly found that examiners could not measures craniosacral movements effectively, yet the previous interpretation was that this study proves such movements exist and the actual findings of the study were completely ignored. I have fixed this interpetation to reflect the authors findings and their interpretation of the results. Given that the only evidence for cranialsacral movements in this section was this study, which in fact found the opposite, I think the entire section should be rewritten to reflect the entirely questionable scientific bases of this practice. Furthermore, the section suggests that the practice "is rejected by many physicians because it was previously understood that cranial bones fuse by the end of adolescence". Personally, I can think of a whole bunch of other reasons to reject this practice which I'm sure physicians are aware of. Like for example the fact that the movements are so small, its entirely possible that the examiners are imagining them or the fact that the presence of Sharpey's fibres don't necessarily imply movement as there may be other fibers joining these areas as well. I could go on, but I feel it is better to just adopt the practice of adding fact tags to or removing unreferenced claims from the article itself, unless of course anyone can provide me with some evidence. JamesStewart7 ( talk) 03:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
"Cranial Osteopathy is not a "contested issue within the profession." It is considered accepted practice within the profession. Please contact the American Osteopathic Association for further clarification." Im afraid the above statement reflects an "american" osteopathic viewpoint. Within Europe where there is practiced (arguably) a more traditional form of osteopathy in the tradition of AT Still, and where arguably osteopaths have not been inclined to adapt to a more conventional medical mode of practice,there is a great deal of discord within the profession regarding cranial osteopathy, witness practically any issue of the professional journals. Ribfin (medical doctor and DO, europe) 17.00 hrs 19/12/2007 (Europe style date) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribfin ( talk • contribs) 16:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It is silly to present Cranial osteopathy as if it were uncontested. Osteopathy itself is contested! So how could 'cranial osteopathy' be uncontested? The reality is that belief in cranial osteopathy is both widespread within the profession AND contested. It is a verifiable fact from merely reviewing this talk page that individual osteopaths differ in their views on the subject. I think it mysterian nonsense but that is only MY view. It is out there and it is contested. Cyberdrivel ( talk) 06:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I reverted the edit by 72.185.98.234 ( talk) that changed the first sentence in the article from
to
because osteopathy is an alternative to modern Western medicine, not a facet of it. Osteopathy provides an alternative approach to healthcare based on the inherent restorative capacity of the body rather than suppressing symptoms. -- apers0n 07:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the reversion by ApersOn, what is your source, other than your own perceptions, that lead you to label Osteopathy as "alternative medicine" The PRACTICE of ostopathic medicine itself is not an alternative to traditional western medicine, it IS part of traditional western medicine. Osteopaths engage in a full scope of practice of traditional Western medicine, in traditional hospitals. Perhaps you MIGHT be able to label the osteopathic philosophical approach to traditioanl medicine as unique, but here again, the philosophies were all by A.T. Still, who himself, was a westerner, and a surgeon. Openly labeling the profession as "alternative medicine" is highlys subjective and deceptively implies that if a patient were to visit an oesteopath for a conventional problem, e.g., an infected appendix, they might receive some alternative or unconventional form of therapy, e.g., herbs or manipulation. This simply is not case. I refer everyone to the American Ostepathic Association, the worldwide governning body of th profession, and their own description of Osteopathy. "Osteopathic medicine is one of the fastest growing healthcare professions in the U.S. and brings a unique philosophy to traditional medicine. With a strong emphasis on the inter-relationship of the body's nerves, muscles, bones and organs, doctors of osteopathic medicine, or D.O.s, apply the philosophy of treating the whole person to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness, disease and injury". Note the word traditional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.98.234 ( talk)
The history section ends around 1890 as far as I can tell, yet the intro mentions a significant change in 1969. Can some-one add to the hsitroy seciton? Kdammers 03:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
What are D.O.s? Benqish 08:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed the link to "Dubious Aspects Of Osteopathy" by Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch. The link contains original research that is not peer reviewed. Links such as the one to NEJM are much better. We have many many external links here and Wikipedia is not a link farm. This also fails WP:EL (Links to be avoided point#1 and #2). A user interested in keeping this link has accused me of being in WP:COI here. I don't see why. Perhaps that user can explain that position here? Levine2112 01:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Let's start in the beginning of this assessment of Osteopathy, section one which Barrett labels: "Cultist Roots". To me, this would mean that Still was a cultist or osteopathy was a cult in the beginning. Yet, in the rest of this section, Barrett doesn't say how or why Osteopathy's roots are "cultists". He only makes the unsupported claim that organized medicine rejected it as a cult. Therefore to state that Osteopathy had "cultist roots" is misleading and unsubstantiated by Barrett in this assessment. That and that alone is reason enough to strinke this link from the external links section of our Wikipedia for being a misleading, unreliable source of information. Shall we continue? Under the charming section which Barrett entitles "AOA Hype" he states: "A 1991 brochure falsely claimed that OMT encourages the body's natural tendency toward good health and that combining it with all other medical procedures enables DOs to provide "the most comprehensive treatment available." My problem here is the use of the word "falsely". How does Barrett know that it is a false claim. It is his opinion that OMT is baseless. The use of the word "falsely" shows Barrett's opinion but doesn't state that this is his opinion. Again, this is misleading to the reader. Then he goes on and tells us why is outraged and lambasts Chelation Therapy and Cranial Osteopathy as dubious, but not once does he present any of the plethora of scientific research supporting these therapies. This is what is known as confirmation bias, where the assessment only shows information which support the opinion of the piece; rather than presenting all of the facts. I'm sorry. I just don't think that Barrett's assessment is credible and worse, it is misleading by presenting itself as absolute fact rather than a series of opinions from a guy who hasn't practiced medicine in nearly 15 years, never studied osteopathy, and failed the neurological portion of his board certification. Levine2112 02:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
taken seriously at all? Surely one can find critiques of osteopathy (if that is what is desired) that are even-handed, fair-minded and generally sane. Why rely on the mad dogs of Quackwatch for "information"? -- Alan2012 04:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the link should be retained. [ http://quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/QA/osteo.html Quackwatch's comments on osteopathy are of reasonable interest to someone trying to explore the range of opinions about this subject. It is reasonably well cited. The (apparent) evidence of hostility and unprofessionalism by some osteopaths is pertinent. Subsolar 02:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no legitimate "apparent evidence of hostility and unprofessionalism" contained in the quackwatch article. There is no way to verify that those comments were even posted by an osteopathic physician. Judging by the grammar and complete lack of professionalism used in the comments I would guess they were not made by a physician at all. Regardless, in the real world DOs and MDs work together in every clinical setting without any issues. Both branches of the medical profession have come a long way since AT Still came up with his version of "Osteopathy". MDs are no longer attempting to "heal" patients by blood-letting and DOs are no longer attempting to "cure" every disease with osteopathic manipulation of the musculoskeletal system. It is easy to find MDs and DOs who are on the fringes of accepted medicine and who push therapies not considered proper evidence based medicine. Modern DOs welcome and encourage additional research into the effectiveness of osteopathic manipulative techniques. In medical school we are taught that OMM is primarily a tool for treating idiosyncratic lower backpain or other musculoskeletal dysfunctions that are not responding well to other treatments. I don't have time to list many examples of research that has been done but I would recommmend anyone interested in including some search JAMA and PubMED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.148.172 ( talk) 08:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Besides the bottom half of the QW osteopathy article being author controlled "Readers' Comments", chock full of unverified (-iable), non WP:RS, objectionable, and non-encyclopedic opinion & material, let's start to consider the author's text, without dwelling on a number of WP:RS policies about his specific expertise, COI, extreme behavior, etc.
Even in the top half, this wikipedian's article on osteopathy shows substantial OR that is unverified and unreferenced of questionable accuracy. For example, one seldom notices a DO explicitly *offering* "orthomolecular medicine" or "orthomolecular therapy" (vs MD, ND, PhD, DDS) or vice versa. Yet this OR statement, "The percentages of DOs involved in...orthomolecular therapy,...and several other dubious practices appear to be higher among osteopaths than among medical doctors. " Perhaps Dr Barrett meant naturopathic or even (claimed) nutrition based therapies - not necessarily the same as orthomolecular therapies, many fuzzier naturopathic and "nutrition based" therapies are *not* orthomolecular.
Which directories for orthomolecular therapies? - not even resource references were listed. Dr Barrett says he used directories. Well how about Orthomolecular Practitioners listed on Orthomolecular.org (Int'l Society for Orthomolecular Medicine)?. Nope. MD, PhD, DDS, ND but no DO. Google ("orthomolecular therapy" osteopath directory) - how about here, CERI? (first one that I opened from Google search). Nope, no DO claiming Orthomolecular, closest was Nedra Downing, D.O. Specializing in nutritional and environmental medicine. DO + orthomolecular here? Nope. hmm, getting kind of discouraged about literal accuracy, much less V RS. Removing it, again.-- I'clast 23:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi I live in the UK and osteopaths never have the medical aspect others have described above, such as prescribing medications, surgery etc. They are not even sent patients from the NHS, who would be sent to a physiotherapist. So are the US really completely different from the UK in this regard? I would say osteopathy is not part of the mainstream health service here, and they receive nothing comparable to the training of a medical doctor and perform none of a medical doctor's functions. Merkinsmum 21:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
As a second year student of osteopathy currently undergoing a 4 year Hons Degree, I'd take issue that UK osteopaths "receive nothing comparable to the training of a medical doctor and perform none of a medical doctor's functions". We go through extensive training in diagnosing pathologies, taking case histories, undertaking general medical testing on top of our intensive anatomical studies. We make regular trips to Guys Hospital to enable us to study cadavers. Later in the course we will be observing surgery (probably knee or hip). Our course is very, VERY intensive and highly medically based and our training, especially in physiology and neuroscience is classed as well above degree level by outside examiners. We study how to read x-rays and other scans. We are trained to make differential diagnosis so we can refer when necessary. This is just the tip of the iceburg as the training is far more extensive than this and our first two years are comparable to a doctors or nurses first two years of study (external examiners views again). Some of our lecturers are linked to NHS institutions so patients see them first. Patients can chose to go straight to an osteopath who can, if needed, refer them onto elsewhere for x-rays or specialist treatment. Please note that osteopaths in the UK are primary care professionals. If you wish to use a label, please use complimentary rather than alternative as we work closely with other skill bases to ensure the patient gets the best treatment. With regard to scientifically provable research into the efficacy of osteopathy, please refer to such persons such as Herzog and Bogduk amongst others to who's research we are often directed. As a post script, I'd accept that UK osteopaths do not undertake surgical proceedures or prescribe drugs although we are taught pharmacology. We are not like chiropracters as they generally (not all) use high velocity techniques only whilst osteopathy does work within the principles of the body is a unit - ie, all aspects of a patient's life - the psycological, physical, environmental, spiritual (some people believe in this), etc, have an impact on treatment. This means we do HVTs, soft tissue, visceral, fascial and cranial work but we also give lifestyle advice on exercise, healthy eating, ergonomic working and so forth and when necessary suggest referral to counsellors or psychiatrists to deal with emotional issues. A bit more than bone clicking I think (although I assume there are lots of chiropracters out there who do more than use specialist tables to click a single vertebra). Please do not make unfounded and detrimental remarks about osteopaths unless you have either trained as one or have extensive experience of such treatment. Criticism is meant to be a balanced argument with evidence based points being made not an uneducated and blinkered viewpoint with no facts behind it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel2loveu67 ( talk • contribs) 18:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The intro needs to emphasise that it's different from osteopathic medicine, I've changed it slightly to reflect that Merkinsmum 11:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This section seems rather unbalanced and from the PoV of osteopathy advocates. "It is a continuing challenge for osteopaths to resolve their differences and present a united front if the profession is to become more widely accepted." It is not for WP to say whether it's desirable that osteopaths present a united front, or become widely accepted.
I think we can stick to the facts more by saying: that osteopathy is criticized, that practitioners have differing opinions, that it is not widely accepted.
Even the heading is questionable, sounding more like the final slide of a powerpoint presentation than an encyclopedia. Other controversial topics have "criticisms" and that would seem appropriate here too. -- Subsolar 02:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Any claim that osteopathy is effective in any area must be followed by a reference. Claims that medical conditions such as middle earn infection are only "seemingly organic" must also be referenced. Claims that violate widely held medical principles are especially in need of reference. Several long standing, unreferenced claims such as these have been removed. Please do not re-add them without citing a source JamesStewart7 ( talk) 03:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
In the edit summary I said to find the journal article. Well, I found it http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/329/7479/1377. Looking at this graph, http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/329/7479/1377/FIG2, best care plus exercise does not significantly differ from best care plus manipulation or best care plus manipulation and exercise. Also the manipulation group included a lot more than just osteopathy "A multidisciplinary group developed a package of techniques representative of those used by the UK chiropractic, osteopathic, and physiotherapy professions" so you can't attribute the gains to osteopathy alone, like the article did. JamesStewart7 ( talk) 05:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm interested in alternative systems of medicine, but a little confused on whether to do Naturopathy or Osteopathy. Can someone here help me? Which is better, talking monetarily? Happening ( talk) 15:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is a link to allopathy relevant here when it isn't mentioned in the article? Hopping, please justify your edits with reasons (like you just did on the NRMP page... eventually). "Clearly" isn't good enough. SesquipedalianVerbiage ( talk) 22:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this article (and Chiropractic) would benefit from a short section describing how they are different from each other. I am certainly not qualified to write it - any takers? – ukexpat ( talk) 21:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The Licciardone et al. study is meta. As a general rule, meta-analysis/systematic review cannot be used to prove a claim. There are several limitations to meta analysis, but the most important one is that by definition meta analyses compile the results from multiple studies. No two studies are conducted the same way, so aggregating the results of dissimilar things doesn't tell you much. But the most important reason to not cite meta studies is that the Licciardone et al. article cites its parent studies. If this study can conclude that there is a "significant" reduction in lower back pain, the parent studies should demonstrate the same (albeit with less robust and strong results). Hiding the parent studies in a meta review runs the risk of shielding invalid practices from scrutiny. 68.51.75.50 ( talk) 15:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Clearly there's ongoing back-and-forth editing over how osteopathy in Canada should be treated in the article. Specifically, how information about the roles of osteopaths in the international sense and osteopathic physicians in Cananda should be described. There's much discussion at user_talk:osteocorrect about it, but this is where it should be.
Osteocorrect, the article needs to describe both sides even-handedly, based on the actual situation as described in reliable sources. It doesn't matter what you think the official status of any given practice style is, it only matters what is actually practised and what it is called.
Bryan, you are shutting down the osteopathic physican perspective to an extent not justiable by WP:WEIGHT. While this article is about osteopathy in the broadest sense, which is the international sense, it also briefly describes the practice of US-trained osteopathic physicans to give context - for example, in the United States section. It's fine for the Canada section to link to an article specifically about osteopathic physicians in Canada, but it should also describe in brief their role. And if "osteopaths" in the general sense aren't recognised by Canadian state(s), that needs to be described. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 02:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought this recent letter from the President of the American Association of the Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine was relevant to this discussion. Bryan Hopping T 00:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)