Talk:McKenzie method

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CuriousGeorge16. Peer reviewers: Schmids.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit-warring

I applied protection again, due to edit warring. Can we not do that please? Guy (help!) 09:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

History

Right now the history section starts with...

"The McKenzie method has its roots in an event in 1956 that led to..."

...which is sourced to McKenzie's book Treat Your Own Back. from "Spinal Publications".

I don't have a problem with a history based upon a primary source talking about itself, but I would like to be able to read that source and confirm that is says what we say it says. I would also like to attribute any claims about the history of the method. I know that there are some practitioners and patients reading this, so if someone would be so kind as to email me a copy of the section in the book where McKenzie talks about the history that would help. You can reach me at [ https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Guy_Macon ]. Any format I can read is fine. If all you have is a printed copy and a digital camera, attach pictures, but make sure the text is readable. Or, if anyone knows where I can see the contents of those pages online, please send me a link. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Capital 'M'

Hey, the McKenzie Method is a trademarked name with a capital M in Method. Can this be updated (page is locked) and this page should be a redirect to McKenzie Method, not the other way around. Hank McAwesome (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

No. See Wikipedia:Article titles#Standard English and trademarks, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles, headings, and sections, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). --Guy Macon (talk) 05:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah OK - thanks. Hank McAwesome (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Bias is evident

There’s clear bias in this article, but not from the people trying to add new information, the bias is coming from the editors that took an article’s conclusion that "There is moderate- to high-quality evidence that MDT is not superior to other rehabilitation interventions for reducing pain and disability in patients with acute LBP. In patients with chronic LBP, there is moderate- to high-quality evidence that MDT is superior to other rehabilitation interventions for reducing pain and disability" and interpreted it as "There is weak evidence for the effectiveness of the Method's use for treating lower back pain". This statement makes it sound like MDT is less effective than other methods, when what the journal article is actually saying is that the method is as effective as other methods at reducing pain and disability in patients with acute LBP, and more effective than other methods at reducing pain and disability in patients with chronic LBP.

This appears to me like a deliberate attempt to misinterpret the conclusions of a study, and I believe it clearly shows bias, and potentially a conflict of interest or some sort of personal agenda. Some of these editors have been edit-warring for months, which leads me to believe that they're letting their personal animosity towards the people trying to update the article cloud their judgement. The fact that someone with power is letting his personal feelings affect the information presented in a Wikipedia article on a scientific matter is troubling. Looking through the Talk section I can see several personal attacks being thrown around, which are not only unprofessional, they betray a lack of objectivity from these editors.

I would urge the editors currently involved in this relentless edit-warring to recuse themselves and allow a new unbiased editor, someone completely unrelated to any of them who won't simply stick up for his buddies, to look at the new evidence being proposed and help guide the person trying to add the new information so that it meets all of Wikipedia's guidelines. Choosing to remain constantly reverting edits, deliberately misrepresenting findings, and bordeline bullying someone who is simply trying to improve an article shows clear bias. SantiagoRamosPhysio (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "not superior to" does not mean "as effective as". It means it is worse than, or at best as effective as. In mathematical terms, the operator <= is not the same as =. We also need to mention that the evidence is poor, to properly reflect the source. Alexbrn (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Is that a fact, or your opinion? How about instead of interpreting other people’s research you simply copy/paste the conclusion from the research paper? It’s not that long, there’s no need for you to summarise it in your own words. Let the readers make their own conclusion about what it means.

Also, you seem to be one of the people that is quite involved in this edit war, and I see form the History section you’ve been making edits to this article since 2018. I’m not sure what your personal stake is on this topic, but I’d encourage you to follow Wikipedia guidelines and disengage. You and your friends are coming across as more interested in proving your point than in cooling things down, and you seem to have absolutely no interest in actually updating and improving the article.

As it stands, this Wikipedia page is incredibly misleading. I feel bad for the people who were trying to update it, it looks like you’ve bullied them into submission and punished them by making the article even worse than when they started trying to update it. I had no idea Wikipedia worked this way, it really makes me question all the other Wikipedia articles out there… SantiagoRamosPhysio (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a fact based on how the English language works. We are meant to summarize and not copy/paste parts of sources. I have, however, adjusted the wording to follow the formulation of the source: see what you think. This topic has already been the subject of wide discussion, both at this Talk page and elsewhere.[1] Wikipedia content is decided by consensus and must be neutral, and is not determined by the evident procession of WP:MEDCOI-tainted editors we have had here, unethically trying to boost their wares. Alexbrn (talk) 05:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It’s definitely better than before, although I don’t understand the reluctance to use the author’s own words when quoting a research paper. Wikipedia guidelines say "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." Since this is supposedly not your own point of view, and it is in fact the research paper’s conclusion, it would be much more forthright to put it in quotation marks and cite it as a quote.

You may not be aware of your own unconscious bias, but it’s definitely coming across in your rewording of the papers’ conclusions. When you state "research into the effectiveness of the McKenzie Method has been of poor quality" it sounds like you’re making your own judgment. It might be your opinion that a study without therapist-blinding is "poor", but the author of the paper cited never used those words, and in fact literally stated that "the importance of having blinding should not be overstated," which it appears you are doing. They also explain that "blinding is not always possible in clinical trials, especially physiotherapist-blinding in clinical trials regarding physiotherapeutic treatments. Therefore, the methodological quality of the trials should not be considered as significantly downgraded due to this limitation." And go on to state that "Despite these limitations, many strengths exist within the studies." All of that is not conveyed by lazily saying "poor research".

I believe a much more complete and accurate representation of what the quoted paper concluded would be to state "a systematic review of the effectiveness of the McKenzie Method compared to manual therapy (MT) for treating chronic low back pain concluded that despite a handful of studies showing significant improvements in pain level in the McKenzie group, beyond those reported in the MT group, a lack of assessor-blinding and the relatively small size of three of the included studies reduced the value of their evidence." SantiagoRamosPhysio (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

"You may not be aware of your own unconscious bias" By definition people aren't aware of unconscious bias. However, any neutral observer is likely to think bias more likely in a WP:SPA with a conflict of interest, then somebody with a long record of improving article across the encyclopedia, and who has no financial interest in boosting the Mckenzie method, as your cherry picked excerpt would do. Alexbrn (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

"By definition people aren't aware of unconscious bias."And do you know the definition of "pedantic"? I obviously know that unconscious bias is unconscious, but people can be either aware or unaware that unconscious bias exists, and they can be self-aware enough to recognise that they may suffer from unconscious bias. By saying you may not be aware of it I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, although perhaps you are aware of your own bias and are acting maliciously, which is of course much worse.

Any neutral observer (which you absolutely aren’t, having been edit-warring this article for months) is likely to agree that my summary of the research paper’s findings is way more complete and accurate than the one currently on Wikipedia. Have you even read the research in full? Every word in my summary came from the research paper. I did not "cherry pick" an excerpt. I read the paper and summarised its actual conclusions. What you're doing by stubbornly clinging to "poor quality reasearch" as a better qualifier than a full description of the findings is to misrepresent that research paper’s conclusion with your own opinion.

I have no financial interest in boosting the McKenzie Method, I work for the NHS. And yes, I might not dedicate my life to Wikipedia like you do, but as a Physiotherapist with nearly two decades of experience I think perhaps I’m a bit more qualified than you are on this topic. I created this account for the sole purpose of commenting on this Talk page because I saw how misleading and outdated the references on this page were, and when I went to the History and Talk pages noticed that someone had been trying to add relevant information for months, only to be constantly reverted and bullied.

I’ve tried to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines, which is why I haven’t just made changes by myself and instead I posted my suggestions on the Talk page. But if you’ve become the self-appointed guardian of this article, and you’re letting your pride cloud your judgment, I don’t understand how it will ever be improved. How about you step away and allow other editors to read the research paper and both proposed summaries and come to a consensus? Of course, these should not be the three of four editors that appear to be your friends who have been tag-teaming here for months. You may not have a financial interest, but your comments make it clear that you have a HUGE interest in proving to others that you’re right, and that you know more than they do. It really does look like you’re letting your personal feelings affect your judgment, and you’re not being objective, so perhaps you should step away and let someone else with less of a personal stake in this step in. SantiagoRamosPhysio (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Basically, your argument is nothing more than a pompous assertion that you're right and others are wrong. The only disruption to this article has been from editors who are now banned, for that reason. We are going to follow the sources faithfully and no amount of bluster is going to change that. Alexbrn (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." ―Upton Sinclair

A self-described Physiotherapist who clearly employs the McKenzie method in his job has an innate conflict of interest regarding the McKenzie method. SantiagoRamosPhysio asks "How about you step away and allow other editors to read the research paper and both proposed summaries and come to a consensus?" but in the very next sentence declares that he will not accept any such consensus: "Of course, these should not be the three of four editors that appear to be your friends who have been tag-teaming here for months."

There is only one right way to properly test something like the McKenzie method, and "as a Physiotherapist with nearly two decades of experience I think perhaps I’m a bit more qualified than you are on this topic" is not the right way. The right way is with a double-blind randomized randomised placebo controlled clinical trial. One such trail can be found at [ https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/52/9/594 ] which had the following conclusion:

"Conclusion: We found a small and likely not clinically relevant difference in pain intensity favouring the MDT method immediately at the end of 5 weeks of treatment but not for disability. No other difference was found for any of the primary or secondary outcomes at any follow-up times."

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, so you decide which research articles are worth summarising properly and which ones aren’t? I’m so glad you’re here to protect the rest of us plebs from information you don’t agree with! You and your pals are clearly enjoying your power trip. Personally, I’ve greatly enjoyed putting you down, but I have better things to do with my life, so I'll try to think of other ways to make this right (mostly out of principle) and perhaps come back one day. Or not. Entitled trolls like you are what give Wikipedia a bad name. Enjoy the afterglow! You are the winningest of all the winners and not at all pathetic! (And PLEASE correct me once more because I wouldn’t want to deprive you of another orgasm. In case you don’t know, "winningest" is not a real word). SantiagoRamosPhysio (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Reported at ANI: SantiagoRamosPhysio --Guy Macon (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with these remarks, the editing seems biased, opinionated. Also, why is there almost exclusive focus on the back and so little mention of the extremities? In particular I would like to hear more about shoulder treatments for example. Sjohnsun (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)