Talk:Graston Technique

Text and/or other creative content from Graston Technique was copied or moved into Chiropractic treatment techniques. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Graston Technique redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

initial note[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

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

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)[reply]

"Palpate"?[edit]

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

Not necessarily chiropractic / separate page[edit]

I'm not sure it makes sense for IASTM (instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization, including the Graston technique and others) to be on this page. David Graston himself was a machinist and athlete, not a chiropractor, and although he's worked with chiropractors, is not himself a practitioner. Unlike other chiropractic treatments (see Chiropractic controversy and criticism), the Graston technique is used by licensed physical therapists and has some research backing it. There have also been a number of studies published since the last time this talk page was edited. The 2017 literature review "Therapeutic effectiveness of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization for soft tissue injury: mechanisms and practical application" found benefits from IASTM for pain reduction:

The pain reduction effects of IASTM have already been proven in some studies of musculoskeletal diseases. Lee et al. (2016) reported that when IASTM was applied for 4 weeks in 30 patients with chronic lumbar pain, the pain decreased significantly. Earlier, Howitt et al. (2006) demonstrated that applying eight treatment sessions of IASTM over 4 weeks on trigger thumb patients was helpful in reducing pain. Similar results have been found in studies of sports injury. Aspegren et al. (2007) stated that when IASTM was applied twice a week for 2 weeks in female collegiate volleyball players diagnosed with acute costochondritis, pain was reduced, enabling the players to participate in their sport again, while in a study by Daniels and Morrell (2012), pain was reduced in youth football players with plantar fasciitis by applying IASTM once a week for 6 weeks. Howitt et al. (2009) also reported that when IASTM was included in the rehabilitation program for triathletes with tibialis posterior sprain, pain was reduced 2 weeks after applying IASTM, and after 6 weeks, pain dissipated completely to allow the triathletes to participate again in running or swimming. Meanwhile, White (2011) applied one to two sessions of IASTM a week for 6 weeks in a 36-year-old distance runner with hamstring tendinopathy, following which the hamstring pain resolved.

Could we move IASTM to its own article and include a note on the Chiropractic treatment techniques page that it's often used by chiropractors? B637275 (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]