Talk:Graston Technique

initial note

Just a friendly note about the changes I recently made. Wikipedia is not for promotion, link farming, or advertising WP:NOTADVERTISING. Trademark symbols TM and (R) are not used MOS:TM. Wikipedia citations (footnotes) avoid self-serving primary sources WP:PRIMARY.

I'm glad to discuss this further, note that I am a friendly Wikipedia Admin WP:ADMIN (not a big deal I assure you). I am genuinely here to help improve this article, any reversions (changes made to your edits) are not personal, and are simply meant to follow along with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV. Let's work together to improve and expand this interesting article. I can't wait to get some good photos of the Graston Technique tools. My photo was a snapshot with a low quality mobile phone. Purely to keep the article from being orphaned. Bear in mind that although I am admittedly a supporter and user of GT, the article needs to be balanced, with verifiable, reliable, SECONDARY citations instead of the mass of self-referencing cites now used. Caltrop (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I am the marketing coordinator at GT. When we saw that a page had been started, we just wanted to improve it. We'll consider ways to expand the page in the future. For now, the new photos and copy are a good start. I am new to Wikipedia and will be learning along the way. Thanks for your help and for your interest in GT. GTindy (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You therefore have a conflict of interest and should exert great care in editing the page. I have removed the reference to how great 9000 therapists think it is, referenced to the company's website. That's blatant promotion and inappropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. I didn't realize conflict of interest was such an issue, obviously. I will retreat from editing this page, although it pains me. This is a fairly obscure technique and there won't be many folks rushing to submit quality information. I also respectfully disagree that the number and type of clinicians using this technique is promotion; it seems to me one of the first things that a person curious about GT would want to know. Thankfully, at least the references provide this information. At any rate, in the interest of keeping the point of view neutral and not negative, I am submitting several links for consideration. It would be helpful if just one (1) of these could be incorporated into the article, should you deem it appropriate and within WP guidelines. Perhaps Caltrop would be willing. Let me know your thoughts, and I appreciate your time. Peace. News stories:

• [1]
• [2]

Abstracts and articles

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]

GTindy (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources are short, popular, tangential, primary and/or non-pubmed indexed. They are of limited use, and essentially would have to be used with extreme caution, if at all. I wouldn't support their use for medical claims. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

I am amazed that nobody can find criticism of this technique. Kortoso (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, here we are: "It really all boils down to a handful of mice pro, a handful of mice con, one human pilot study showing no advantage over manual mobilization, and a lot of testimonials. Would you be willing to try a new pharmaceutical treatment on the basis of nothing but one favorable mouse study out of two, and one pilot study? Would you agree to let someone deliberately injure you on such flimsy evidence? I would be very happy if the Graston Technique proves useful, but for the time being it must be considered experimental."

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-graston-technique-inducing-microtrauma-with-instruments/ Kortoso (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"Palpate"?

I doubt that this is the best term to describe this technique. Kortoso (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)