Jump to content

Talk:Alexander Technique

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2600:4040:912f:2f00:c085:bd4c:9659:da0e (talk) at 13:31, 2 November 2023 (contd.: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

There is no evidence for AT being used as an Alternative for any mainstream treatment

Subject. Relevant opening sentence: When used "in place of" conventional medicine, it's considered "alternative".

A definition of AM has no place in the article, especially as AT isn't AM. 2600:4040:9126:6300:5D24:53A0:7C60:4D5E (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources identify it as a form of alternative medicine. End of story. Editorial opinions do not trump that fact. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are just as many RSs that identify it as an awareness/mindfulness/educational method; there is no consensus on this point, even among AT practitioners, and the voice of Wikipedia is being used (mainly by vocal AM skeptics) to make it seem as if there is one on the matter. 2600:4040:9129:9200:9056:7758:DD78:DEAD (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can it be both? If the reliable sources cite it from different contexts/perspectives, then can the consensus can be that both are true? D1doherty (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I would point to MBSR as a parallel example that should receive similar treatment as this page and vice versa. 2600:4040:9129:9200:9056:7758:DD78:DEAD (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Valjean ? Who are the reliable sources you claim are reliable ? You claim other peoples sources are opinions and your reliable sources are reliable. What nonsense. 45.148.15.125 (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A model for this wiki

https://www.physio-pedia.com/Alexander_Technique 2600:4040:9121:4400:1D87:6F75:2DE7:16C2 (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What, illiterate garbage? Bon courage (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful info you can be more specific about how the linked definition is not accurate, or words that cause concern. Do you have an alt definition to propose? D1doherty (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about the first sentence? Bon courage (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a pretty accurate description of AT and it’s purpose with links to sources. Would need to see if they stand up as WP:RS. It avoids medical claims that seem to trigger concerns. When you say “a model”, do you mean it’s an example of how the AT article could be written? I think the flow could be refined. D1doherty (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It obviously a garbage source, SPS and seemingly machine-translated or from a poor AI. Bon courage (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the odd tone that would need to be improved, are there any statements that you believe are not true? D1doherty (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea, but neutral articles are based on the WP:BESTSOURCES, not semi-literate random websites. Bon courage (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. We are making progress. You don’t see any factual errors and we’ve moved from “illiterate garbage” to “semi-illiterate” based on the first sentence. I believe the author was offering it as an example of the type of info to include, not a polished article. I’ll see if I can clean it up, for further discussion. D1doherty (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed my draft until I hear back from the author.
D1doherty (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a huge copyright violation from an unreliable source. Bon courage (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addition RS

The following excerpt is from this textbook: Moroz, A., Cohler, M. H., & Schulman, R. A. (2011). Body Work and Movement Therapies. In Pain Procedures in Clinical Practice (Third Edition, pp. 212–213). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-4160-3779-8.10021-1

Alexander technique is a methodology for the treatment of chronic illness or conditions due to stress. Although it does not cure any of the conditions, Alexander technique does manage to make the condition less taxing on the afflicted individual. In general, the technique works through psychosensory education; the afflicted individuals are taught by teachers of Alexander technique to identify habits that may be the cause of unnecessary and extra discomfort. Interestingly, Alexander technique does not involve any exercises or forms of meditation; it is essentially a system of self-analysis and eventually, one of self-care.

The Alexander technique generally applies to individuals with neurologic and musculoskeletal problems. Typical afflictions and conditions that Alexander technique can help include pain management, chronic fatigue syndrome, disc herniation, sciatica, osteoporosis, stenosis, occupational injuries, and strains of musicians, dancers, computer workers, and singers.

The origin of Alexander technique is rooted in the personal experiences of Frederick Matthias Alexander. Born in 1869, he eventually became a Shakespearean recitalist at age 19. However, he experienced recurrent laryngitis. The medical help he sought was unable to identify the cause of his condition. Alexander managed to overcome his problem by being consciously aware of himself while he spoke. He discovered that by doing so, he could release the tension in his body and be more relaxed while he spoke. The key to his method rests in the focus of the moment, or having active sensory awareness, rather than focusing on the product, the outcome of the moment.

In practice, the Alexander technique involves a one-to-one lesson between the student and the teacher, in which the teacher aids the student in identifying his or her own unwanted tensions and reactions, allowing the student to eventually develop self-care. The teachers of Alexander technique emphasize everyday activities, which include reading, sitting, lying down, and so on. By doing so, the student goes through each of the Alexander technique stages: the means-whereby (process over product, conscious awareness in action), non-endgaining/inhibition (non-doing, non-interference), and direction (carrying out clear intention to move).

In Maher's 2004 article analyzing scientific evidence for various physical treatments of low back pain, he groups the Alexander technique with other therapies of "unknown efficacy" given the paucity of high-quality clinical trials evaluating it. Alexander technique has been shown to be effective when it is part of a multidisciplinary approach to chronic lower back pain.

Alexander technique has been shown to be effective when it is part of a multidisciplinary approach to chronic lower back pain. Elkayam and colleagues in Israel found significant reductions in pain after a 4-week program of back school, psychological intervention, chiropractic manipulation, Alexander technique, and acupuncture. Using the VAS, pain ratings dropped from a mean of 7.02 to 4.67 and were maintained for 6 months following treatment. Yet the researchers did not identify the contributions of the different modalities, and thus, no conclusions can be made about any of them individually. Researchers in the United Kingdom performed a systematic review of controlled clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of the Alexander technique. In their search of various sources, two trials were methodologically sound and clinically relevant. One of those addresses pain, an unpublished trial by Vickers of patients with chronic mechanical low back pain.

When compared to controls who received weekly self-help meetings, there seemed to be pain improvement in the experimental group at 3-month follow-up. However, more recently, Little and colleagues reported the results of an RCT to determine the effectiveness of Alexander technique lessons, exercise, and massage for chronic and recurrent back pain. The 579 participants in the trial (average age 45 years) reported an average of 279 days of pain in the past year. The participants were assigned to receive either normal care (control), 6 sessions of massage, or 6 or 24 lessons on the Alexander technique. Half of the patients in each of these groups also received a prescription for exercise from a doctor as well as behavioral counseling from a nurse. At follow-up after 3 months, the patients in the massage and Alexander technique groups reported statistically significant fewer days with back pain in the previous month when compared with the control group. The patients who received 24 sessions of Alexander technique had the greatest mean decrease in days with back pain with an average of 16 fewer days. The exercise prescription group also showed a modest effect, decreasing the number of days with pain in a month by 6. In addition, at 1-year follow-up, the group who received 24 lessons in Alexander technique continued to have significantly fewer days with pain (a mean of 18 fewer days). The participants who had received 6 lessons on Alexander technique or massage also had significantly fewer days with pain (10 fewer and 7 fewer, respectively). At 1 year, however, the exercise group failed to show significantly fewer days with pain. This high-quality study gives strong support for the long-term benefits of the Alexander technique. The fact that those participants who received only six sessions still had nearly as few days of back pain as the group who received 24 sessions may indicate the powerful nature of this method. However, this is just one clinical trial and more need to be performed.

References

Irwin MR, Olmstead R, Oxman MN. Augmenting immune responses to varicella zoster virus in older adults: A randomized, controlled trial of Tai Chi. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55(4):511-517.

Elkayam O, Ben Itzhak S, Avrahami E, et al. Multidisciplinary approach to chronic back pain: prognostic elements of the outcome. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 1996;14:281-288.

Maher CG. Effective physical treatment for chronic low back pain. Orthop Clin North Am. 2004;35:57

Ernst E, Canter PH. The Alexander technique: A systematic review of controlled clinical trials. Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd. 2003;10:325-329

Little P, Lewith G, Webley F, et al. Randomised controlled trial of Alexander technique lessons, exercise, and massage (ATEAM) for chronic and recurrent back pain. BMJ. 2008;337:A884. 2600:4040:9123:1300:4447:B8EF:F495:86C7 (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty old, but does at least confirm the proponents of this stuff push it as a hardcore medical intervention. Bon courage (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence AT is "pushed as a hardcore medical intervention", what would it be replacing? 162.120.138.193 (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't need to be replacing anything (non-woo physical therapy maybe), for "chronic fatigue syndrome, disc herniation, sciatica, osteoporosis, stenosis, occupational injuries ..." Bon courage (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More specific description of AT in intro

As is:

The Alexander Technique, named after its developer Frederick Matthias Alexander (1869–1955), is a type of alternative therapy for stress-related chronic conditions based on the idea that poor posture gives rise to a range of health problems.[1][2]: 221  It does not attempt to cure the underlying cause(s), but teaches people how to avoid bad habits which might exacerbate their condition.[3]

Proposed changed:

The Alexander Technique, named after its developer Frederick Matthias Alexander (1869–1955), is a type of Mind–body intervention for stress-related chronic conditions based on the idea that poor posture gives rise to a range of health problems.[1][2]: 221  It does not attempt to cure the underlying cause(s), but teaches people how to avoid bad habits which might exacerbate their condition.[3]


Both link to Alternative Medicine and the banner is still present. "Mind-body intervention" more accurately and specifically describes Alexander Technique than an Alternative therapy (which mind-body intervention is clearly form of if you look at the relevant wiki. 2600:4040:9126:EC00:59F4:7781:EC5D:3CD3 (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference ee150 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference bloch was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b Moroz A, Cohler MH, Schulman RA (2011). "Chapter 21: Body Work and Movement Therapies". In Lennard TA, Walkowski S, Singla AK, Vivian DG (eds.). Pain Procedures in Clinical Practice (3rd ed.). Elsevier. pp. 205–222. doi:10.1016/B978-1-4160-3779-8.10021-1. ISBN 978-1-4160-3779-8. (subscription required)
I think 'Mind–body intervention' is in-universe jargon our readers won't understand; let's stick with the mainstream view. Bon courage (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's one click away from its definition linked within Wikipedia. Do you have a legitimate reason beyond your typical vandalism of this page? The edit is made in good faith within attempt to improve the articles specificity. 2604:CA00:160:6944:0:0:1260:9D7 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Mind–body intervention' is clearly listed in the Alternative Medicine banner that's present on the page, it's very clear it's labeled and links to Alternative Medicine. Every source I can see on AT calls it a mind-body method/technique and there's clearly a category for that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_interventions 2600:4040:9126:EC00:59F4:7781:EC5D:3CD3 (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the first reference places it as altmed. Anyway, since your 'vandalism' comment show trolling, it's time to ignore. Bon courage (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re: a now-reverted post, I'm "another editor", and my opinion is that I agree with Bon courage. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems UNDUE and FRINGE to change it as proposed. --Hipal (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. The historical anecdotes belong in the history section.
2. Mind-body intervention and alt therapy are interchangeable as far as I can tell, the former is more specific and relevant to the subject of the wiki
3. It's supported by the source provided and others in the wiki. 2600:4040:9126:EC00:59F4:7781:EC5D:3CD3 (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Systematic review

Strong evidence exists for the effectiveness of Alexander Technique lessons for chronic back pain and moderate evidence in Parkinson's-associated disability. Preliminary evidence suggests that Alexander Technique lessons may lead to improvements in balance skills in the elderly, in general chronic pain, posture, respiratory function and stuttering, but there is insufficient evidence to support recommendations in these areas.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22171910/ 2604:CA00:169:49C3:0:0:1260:A704 (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Science moved on. Bon courage (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To say that more clearly, there should be more recent systematic reviews, that we should give more weight to. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The wiki currently heavily relies on a review from 2003... 2012 is not old. Wiki project skepticism is running a muck on this wiki. 2604:CA00:16C:24C1:0:0:861:93B0 (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What 2003 source would that be? Do you want to involve WP:SKEP? I guess this topic would be in scope for them. Bon courage (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ernst 2003... 2604:CA00:16C:24C1:0:0:861:93B0 (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? The string "2003" is nowhere in the article. Bon courage (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's because Ernst, Edzard (2019). Alternative Medicine – A Critical Assessment of 150 Modalities. Springer. pp. 153–154, (the section on AT) is mostly a reprint of his 2003 review (what's cited in the wiki):
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14707481/
If you actually read the 153-154 of the 2019 Ernst review, he cites Woodman 2012 (as it's the most substantial review of AT trials since his 2003 review and generally). Ernst is far more positive in his 2019 review than this wiki's tone suggests. 2600:4040:9120:A00:61C4:67D8:4D38:A376 (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you were wrong. If something's published in 2019 it's from 2019. If you disagree with the experts about what science they cite in these modern publications, that's not Wikipedia's problem. Perhaps take it up with the publishers and get back to us when they're withdrawn? Bon courage (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm confused... Woodman 2012 which is cited favorably by Ernst 2019 as only systematic review of trials isn't new enough for Wikipedia? That's the majority of what Ernst is reporting in the 2019 paper is from Woodman 2012. In light of that the largest RCT on AT to date of AT (Little et. al 2008). I think the wiki reflects his 2003 review more than the updated 2019 review and Woodman should be included as a source in the wiki. 2604:CA00:16C:24C1:0:0:861:93B0 (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are confused. Ernst's book is not really suitable for hard biomedicine, which is why it is not used for them. We have better WP:MEDRS sources for that. It's fine for background Bon courage (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're dancing around the issue that Woodman 2012 is a RS suitable for inclusion in the wiki. As even the king of Alr med skeptics Ernst approves of it in the 2019 book review. 2604:CA00:169:2D6D:0:0:A61:E804 (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's out-of-date for us. Ernst can do what he likes making his secondary sources; we're writing a tertiary source in accord with the English Wikipedia's WP:PAGs. Since everything you've said is either irrelevant or wrong, I think we're done here, and I shall not respond further unless substantial new information is offered. Bon courage (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the Wiki policy page that says 2012 is out of the relevant date range for MEDRS when it's the most recent (and only true) systematic review. 2600:4040:912F:3F00:2CF1:E21C:D293:7392 (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point is you are cherry picking skeptical sources and rejecting neutral and favorable conclusions from reliable sources. 2600:4040:912F:3F00:2CF1:E21C:D293:7392 (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Ernst's book is not really suitable for hard biomedicine" Who's talking about hard biomedicine, this is a mind-body awareness technique like MBSR compare the treatment of the two wikis and you'll see what this one should look like. 2600:4040:912F:3F00:2CF1:E21C:D293:7392 (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well where is the standard that 2012 is old in the wiki RS outline? 2604:CA00:178:2236:0:0:860:F63F (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

contd.

Woodman & Moore (2012) is peer reviewed in a reputable journal (not on Beall's list etc.). It's the only systematic review of trials of AT other than Ernst & Canter (2003). Ernst (2019) is not a systematic review but a book on Alt. Med. which includes Woodman & Moore because it's the only systematic review of trials.

From MED:RS Guidelines -

"Prefer recent reviews to older primary sources on the same topic. If recent reviews do not mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious. Conversely, an older primary source that is seminal, replicated, and often-cited may be mentioned in the main text in a context established by reviews."

By this standard Little et. al (2008) published in the BMJ should be included as the most cited seminal RTC which has been replicated multiple times.

"Many treatments or proposed treatments lack good research into their efficacy and safety. In such cases, reliable sources may be difficult to find, while unreliable sources are readily available. When writing about medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used."

"High-quality textbooks can be a good source to start an article, and often include general overviews of a field or subject. However, books generally move slower than journal sources, and are often several years behind the current state of evidence. This makes using up-to-date books even more important."

According to the MED:RS page, Ernst 2019 is getting to be at the end of the window of relevance and it's more important that books be up to date than systematic reviews according the the wiki policy.

"Guidelines do not always correspond to best evidence, but instead of omitting them, reference the scientific literature and explain how it may differ from the guidelines."

The UK's NHS cites and created its guidelines around Woodman & Moore (2012) and I guarantee their standards are higher than wikipedia for reliable sources.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)

Again it seems like skeptical editors are letting their personal bias' cloud their judgement. 2600:4040:912F:2F00:C085:BD4C:9659:DA0E (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answered above. The NHS page is not a 'guideline'. Bon courage (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You did not answer any of the below:
Woodman & Moore (2012) is peer reviewed in a reputable journal (not on Beall's list etc.). It's the only systematic review of trials of AT other than Ernst & Canter (2003). Ernst (2019) is not a systematic review but a book on Alt. Med. which includes Woodman & Moore because it's the only systematic review of trials.
From MED:RS Guidelines -
"Prefer recent reviews to older primary sources on the same topic. If recent reviews do not mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious. Conversely, an older primary source that is seminal, replicated, and often-cited may be mentioned in the main text in a context established by reviews."
By this standard Little et. al (2008) published in the BMJ should be included as the most cited seminal RTC which has been replicated multiple times.
"Many treatments or proposed treatments lack good research into their efficacy and safety. In such cases, reliable sources may be difficult to find, while unreliable sources are readily available. When writing about medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used."
"High-quality textbooks can be a good source to start an article, and often include general overviews of a field or subject. However, books generally move slower than journal sources, and are often several years behind the current state of evidence. This makes using up-to-date books even more important."
According to the MED:RS page, Ernst 2019 is getting to be at the end of the window of relevance and it's more important that books be up to date than systematic reviews according the the wiki policy.
"Guidelines do not always correspond to best evidence, but instead of omitting them, reference the scientific literature and explain how it may differ from the guidelines." 2600:4040:912F:2F00:C085:BD4C:9659:DA0E (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the NHS page isn't a guideline what is it? 2600:4040:912F:2F00:C085:BD4C:9659:DA0E (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A public information page. NHS Guidelines come from nice.org.uk. Bon courage (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, re: NHS. I'm still not conviced by your reasoning re: wiki policy on Woodman 2012 as Woodman & Moore (2012) is peer reviewed in a reputable journal (not on Beall's list etc.). It's the only systematic review of trials of AT other than Ernst & Canter (2003). Ernst (2019) is not a systematic review but a book on Alt. Med. which includes Woodman & Moore because it's the only systematic review of trials.
From MED:RS Guidelines -
"Prefer recent reviews to older primary sources on the same topic. If recent reviews do not mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious. Conversely, an older primary source that is seminal, replicated, and often-cited may be mentioned in the main text in a context established by reviews."
By this standard Little et. al (2008) published in the BMJ should be included as the most cited seminal RTC which has been replicated multiple times.
"Many treatments or proposed treatments lack good research into their efficacy and safety. In such cases, reliable sources may be difficult to find, while unreliable sources are readily available. When writing about medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used."
"High-quality textbooks can be a good source to start an article, and often include general overviews of a field or subject. However, books generally move slower than journal sources, and are often several years behind the current state of evidence. This makes using up-to-date books even more important."
According to the MED:RS page, Ernst 2019 is getting to be at the end of the window of relevance and it's more important that books be up to date than systematic reviews according the the wiki policy. 2600:4040:912F:2F00:C085:BD4C:9659:DA0E (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]