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 2600:4040:9126:3500:dff:c328:4199:a921 (talk) at 17:53, 7 November 2023 (→Consensus: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]
Primary sources are a no-no. We have the recent Australian review from a major medical org. No need to scrape up older sources. Can somebody close this? Bon courage (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Woodman & Moore (2012) is a systematic review of trials in a reputable journal (not on Beall's list etc.) There are obviously conflicts among reputable sources, UK's NHS and Woodman & Moore (2012) vs the recent Australian review and Ernst (2019). There seems to be a conflation by editors between research validity and insurance coverage and because of the apparent bias of some editors the debate on research validity is not reflected but rather insurance coverage is highlighted which should arguably be a separate topic. 2600:4040:9132:1900:C085:BD4C:9659:DA0E (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My initial comment was all that need to be said: the science has moved on. Ernst is only used for general background, and is not time-specific. We're not going to undercut more recent knowledge with old stuff. Bon courage (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your condescending tone is not helpful. I'm attempting to add RSs in good faith. The more recent 'reviews' are for determining cost-benefit for insurance companies, this was the main point of inquiry in the BMJ study Little et al. 2008 (which is the main source for all systematic reviews since 2008). The purpose of Woodman & Moore(2012) was different than the insurance reviews, "Complementary medicine and alternative approaches to chronic and intractable health conditions are increasingly being used, and require critical evaluation ... The aim of this review was to systematically evaluate available evidence for the effectiveness and safety of instruction in the Alexander Technique in health-related conditions."
Again suitability for insurance coverage and validity are two separate topics, and it should be reflected that way in the wiki. If insurance coverage was the criterion, there are some pain clinics that have covered the AT in the UK under the NHS. 2600:4040:9132:1900:C085:BD4C:9659:DA0E (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be seen as attempting to add RSs in good faith, then best stop making comments like Your condescending tone is not helpful.
Re suitability for insurance coverage and validity are two separate topics: Says who? --Hipal (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Says me and it's obvious. "Science moved on" is not only an oversimplification, it's not true and not productive or helpful and improving the wiki. I'm not here to argue about tone, stop stonewalling. 2604:CA00:178:3545:0:0:C61:DADB (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It's useless, so we're not paying for it". Seems the Aus DOH rather closely coupled efficacy and health insurance considerations. So there is that. Sources matter. Bon courage (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's some pretty bad paraphrasing, maybe ChatGPT could do a better job? 2604:CA00:178:3545:0:0:C61:DADB (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian government named the Alexander Technique as a practice that would not qualify for insurance subsidy, saying this step would "ensure taxpayer funds are expended appropriately and not directed to therapies lacking evidence". Bon courage (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Useless and early stages of research are not the same, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence so to speak; not to mention there are systematic reviews and acceptance guidelines (NICE) that are being ignored because of a misperception of AT as alt. med. by members of wiki project skepticism mostly. 2600:4040:9124:A900:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Such accusations and assumptions are inappropriate. Continued comments like this may result in a ban or block. --Hipal (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Model of AT Research Topic

The wiki on dance therapy offers a nice model for how to present the research on Alexander technique, in the "research" topic section.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_therapy 2604:CA00:178:3545:0:0:C61:DADB (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A "C" class article tagged for neutrality and sourcing problems? Err, no. Bon courage (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An article on a niche therapy with a little research. Exactly how the wiki should be on such an article. Notice that there is no designation of alternative medicine. Also take note that the research is more infantile than Alexander, as far as I know there are no systematic reviews whereas there are multiple for Alexander, Woodman 2012 and Klien 2014.
It presents the individual studies which should be allowed here on this wiki. It's only that certain editors seem to have have a particular problem against this particular topic. 2604:CA00:178:3545:0:0:C61:DADB (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a word for that... It starts with a B but we're not allowed to say it here. 2604:CA00:178:3545:0:0:C61:DADB (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want an example of a WP:GA for altmed, try Homeopathy. Bon courage (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that editors here are looking at alt-med articles as examples. Many arts practices have therapeutic effects, IE dance therapy. That doesn't make them alt-med. The way this article is portrayed is that the Alexander technique is an alternative medicine rather than something that came out of the arts, namely acting and is still majority part of the arts i.e. it's taught at basically every high level music and drama school and many dance schools.
There's a huge discrepancy and how these two (dance therapy and Alexander technique) disciplines are being treated. The dance therapy article while it has problems, is a far better way to present the research in a growing body of knowledge. 2604:CA00:178:3545:0:0:C61:DADB (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed up the Dance therapy article to remove the worst of the "problems" you mention. However, Wikipedia articles follow the WP:PAGs, not the precedent set by other poor articles. Bon courage (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" Through the unity of the body, mind, and spirit, DMT provides a sense of wholeness to all individuals. " Yet it is less woo than AT?
According to WP:PAGs Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view; this wiki reads like a skeptic's review as much as an encyclopedia article. 2600:4040:9124:A900:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is AT alt. med. and that isn't? There is some very strange double standard with regards to AT. It's got a lot more research validity than any of the Alt. Med. practices listed in that category. 2600:4040:9124:A900:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's what every alt-med proponent says about their own brand. Other alt-med articles may be in a poor shape, that doesn't mean we should worsen this one. Bon courage (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1.7.4 Consider the Alexander Technique for people with Parkinson's disease who are experiencing balance or motor function problems. [2017]
https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng71
Cochrane Library reviews and NICE guidelines are generally of high quality and are periodically re-examined even if their initial publication dates fall outside the 5-year window.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) 2600:4040:9124:A900:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is every alt-med included in NICE guidelines and have systematic reviews of RCTs published in peer reviewed journals? I appreciate your skepticism of alt. med. generally; there's tons of trash out there but AT isn't that.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22171910/ 2600:4040:9124:A900:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until you hear about acupuncture! We already cover the Parkinson Disease evidence. Bon courage (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Acupuncture is traditional medicine and a completely different category. No one is positing a mystical energy force in AT. 2600:4040:9124:A900:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AT Included in NICE Guidelines

1.7.4 Consider the Alexander Technique for people with Parkinson's disease who are experiencing balance or motor function problems. [2017]

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng71

Cochrane Library reviews and NICE guidelines are generally of high quality and are periodically re-examined even if their initial publication dates fall outside the 5-year window.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) 2600:4040:9124:A900:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the article? Parkinson disease is covered (including in the lede even). Bon courage (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mention NICE and nice is on par with Cochrane which is used as justification against AT's effectiveness. The article is misleading as is. 2600:4040:9124:A900:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is looking more and more like trolling or incompetence, either of which would be bad. The article does mention NICE. Bon courage (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Wikipedia policies on the neutral point of view and not publishing original research demand that we present prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles, in statements and practice guidelines issued by major professional medical or scientific societies (for example, the European Society of Cardiology or the Infectious Disease Society of America) and widely respected governmental and quasi-governmental health authorities (for example, AHRQ, USPSTF, NICE, and WHO), in textbooks, or in scholarly monographs.

Clearly there are conflicts between the NICE & NHS and Cochrane and Atena reviews; this should be reflected in a section that states that there is not clear scientific consensus about efficacy at this time and present the NHS, NICE, and Systematic review of Woodman 2012 on one side with the Ernst and insurance reviews on the other. 2600:4040:9124:A900:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To make statement about 'scientific consensus' sources are needed which meet WP:RS/AC. Bon courage (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, there isn't one. The RS/AC that have made statements on AT don't agree. From WP:RS/AC:
A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.
I.e. According to systematic reviews of Klien et al. 2014 and Woodman et al. 2012 blah blah, According to insurance reviews, According to infamous alt med. critic Ernst blah blah... 2600:4040:9126:3500:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexander_Technique&oldid=1183987438"