Talk:Reflexology

Archives
Feb 2004 - 2008 Note: Original article written by Chinese students for school

Sceptical slant

I have no problem with the sceptical slant in the article, but aren't there guidelines advising against the use of the word "claim"? "Reflexologists claim..." etc.

Also, there used to be studies cited in the article that supported the therapeutic benefits - I'm not sure why they were removed, as they were reliable sources. I'll try and put them back in at appropriate points; although I object to the scepticism (which is pretty harsh) I don't want to make it POV the other way.

Has this article ever been neutral? Large sections have been cut since last time I was here, and the rest has been made a bit useless. Lottie (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that, overall, this is a rather poor article, I must say that I don't have a problem with there being a skeptical slant. Sure, there could be more historical info about reflexology, better graphic(?), and grammatical/syntax cleanup. But I think its fair, considering the non-scientific approach taken by reflexologists in general. Any article medical claim that is not supported by empirical data MUST have some skeptical viewpoint, in my opinion. Full disclosure: I am not a believer, but I do know the value of a good foot massage :) Messiahxi (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's hard to be encyclopaedic about something like this without dropping "claim" in every so often, not to mention Wikipedia:GEVAL. Stuff like "you can manipulate vital energy by manipulation of specific parts of the body, particularly feet" is just unsupportable - there's no meter that you can use to detect the energy being manipulated. You can test the results of doing it and it might have an effect or it might not but the actual, this-is-how-reflexology-works is without our ken. Everyone is relying on the hunches of other people for why it might work and that needs "Reflexologists claim" --86.167.24.242 (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The skeptical slant, as commenters are calling it, needs to stay in this entry. For unproven therapies such as reflexology, it is completely impossible to fully discuss it without the article sounding skeptical, given that reflexology is pure bullshit. Of course, someone could give the article a credulous tone, but that would be inappropriate for an encyclopedia, not to mention the fact you would have to ignore every single scientific study on reflexology.74.138.45.132 (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"Found" vs. "claimed" (v pedantic, I know!)

Not so long ago, Adam changed an edit of mine. I don't mean to be aggressive or anything, I'd hate for there to be an edit war, but this is how it goes and I'd like to hear what anyone else thinks. This is from the History section of the main article.

Reflexology was introduced to the United States in 1913 by William H. Fitzgerald, M.D. (1872-1942), an ear, nose, and throat specialist, and Dr. Edwin Bowers. Fitzgerald claimed that applying pressure had an anesthetic effect on other areas of the body.

I changed the word "claimed" to "found", as he did some studies into it (long ago!) and a citation is provided. Personally I would like to see the study repeated under very unbiased conditions, but I'll never get the funding...

Adam changed it, with the comment: "It's not demonstrated that it does have an effect." I'm puzzled as to why his work was not a demonstration? If it's the citation that's the problem, perhaps it could be removed and a cite tag added.

If people think this is too pedantic then I'm happy to drop it - I'm all for scepticism with this subject but it's easy to go too far in either POV direction and I think it's important to avoid POV words at all costs.

Thanks in advance! Lottie (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience (2)

Is Reflexology a confirmed "pseudoscience" in terms of what we require at Wikipedia as mandated by WP:PSCI? IOW, are there strong reliable sources which verify that the scientific community generally considers Reflexology to be a pseudoscience? If not, per my understanding of WP:PSCI, we cannot stick the article in the Pseudoscience category. That being said, if there are reliable sources which support some critic's opinion that Reflexology is a pseudoscience, then that can be included in the article as long as it is stated to be the critic's opinion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Presumably if the medical community sees it as not trying to be scientific, there won't be any material that says it's a pseudoscience. It's tricky. Thanks though - I'm talking to Fyslee and WLU about it. More people should post bits here too. Lottie (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't force people to post unfortunately. Though I've edited the page, it's not one of my central interest areas. The best thing that could possibly happen Lottiotta, is if you could muster every source you have or can find about Reflexology, try to figure out if they're reliable or not, and gut the page, replacing all the unreferenced stuff with valuable, referenced material. However, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and textbooks published by academic press. I don't think reflexology has had much study by these groups. Failing that, you could try for newspaper articles, but not random websites. WP:MEDRS is a good page to look at as well, it details the most esteemed sources that are the only ones appropriate for medical articles. If reflexology is seen and promoted as a valid form of treatment, pseudoscience may be appropriate if it's never been demonstrated as efficacious, if there's no coherent theory, or if it mis-uses or mis-represents actual science in order to justify it's practices. For me it comes down to 'is there any reason to think that rubbing the feet will help any other part of the body, particularly non musculo-skeletal parts?' If reflexologists assert that there is, but they're not backed up by evidence, it's a pseudoscience. Also, the page on pseudoscience might be surprisingly helpful. WLU (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

By wikipedia's standards, I'd say that it doesn't meet the threshold for being characterized as pseudoscience. Basically, our standards here are what the sources say, and I don't think there are any from large, reputable scientific or skeptical bodies which characterize it as such. If there are sources from individual critics alleging this, that information could be included if it's notable, but that isn't enough for us to simply say it's pseudoscience. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been referred to you on the subject of Pseudoscience...

[This section was started by Lottie on my talk page and is now copied here. -- Fyslee / talk 16:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)]

... and having read through some of your talk page, I can see why! I was having a bit of a discussion at my (and WLU's) talk page, about whether Reflexology is a pseudoscience. Two options. 1: It's not, because it never claimed to be scientific, or 2: It is, because it doesn't conform to the scientific method. If you don't mind getting involved, what d'you reckon? Thanks. :) Lottie (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

May I ask what your interest is on the subject? Are you a user, practitioner, skeptic, etc.? It doesn't make any real difference to me, as I can cooperate with people on either side of the "skeptical fence". It's just nice to know people's background. -- Fyslee / talk 04:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a practitioner, I've been trying to make the article on Reflexology NPOV but it's hard work. I'm trying to be really careful not to edit it into oblivion, and I don't want to make it seem like the article is promoting it as effective or dissing it as bunkum. I think part of that is establishing whether or not it actually is a pseudoscience, and saying so... Lottie (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice to meet you Lottie. Keep trying for an NPOV article. When it has V & RS that make claims it's effective and make claims it's bunkum, then you may well have arrived! It's a controversial subject and the article should show that controversy. I believe it's a pseudoscience because it makes some claims that are falsifiable, others that aren't, makes wrong anatomical and pathological claims, and fails to adhere to the scientific method. That's my opinion. What is your position on the matter? -- Fyslee / talk 07:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My position is a little bit wobbly. I've never really been shown proper scientific evidence that it can find illnesses and make people feel better - on the other hand, as a practitioner I've had many people tell me how much better it made them feel (especially with hormonal problems and pain management). I have a few theories as to how it helps, but they're not exactly proven with the scientific method...

When I was being taught the techniques, never was I told that reflexology could diagnose problems, nor was I told that it was medically... erm... correct? I'm not sure of the right word. On the contrary, we were told that our practice was in no way medical or scientific, and that we could not indicate that the imbalances found in the foot correlated to illnesses, nor could we claim to cure people. It was made clear that reflexology was a relaxing therapy that has roots in Chinese meridian theory and that some people believe in that and find it to be helpful.

So I'm of the opinion that as it's not trying to scientific, to cure people or to diagnose anything other than undetectable energy imbalances, it's not pseudoscience. I think my logic here fits with the wikipedia article on pseudoscience - Pseudoscience may be defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but... Well, it doesn't in my experience. I suppose some people try to make it appear scientific to give it credibility, which may be where the problems come in... I think it must basically be down to individual experience and training, which varies a lot.

Thank you for your input, it's appreciated. If it's okay, could I please paste your answer into the talk page subject? I think the more views we have, the better. Another idea that's been put forward is that we can't say it's a pseudoscience unless we have a reliable source to back it up, which makes a lot of sense to me. What do you think?

Thanks again! Lottie (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[The content above is from my talk page. We can continue below.]

I suspect that the approach you were taught was an attempt to "fly under the radar" (by refraining from making falsifiable claims that get proven false), since in some countries the practice of reflexology gets dangerously close to practicing medicine without a license. By refraining from making medical and scientific claims, practitioners can get away with performing innocent relaxation therapy. I know that Reflexology can be very relaxing, and that can help some things like tension headaches and stress related matters. It generally does make claims regarding anatomy, pathology, and abilities to heal. There should be plenty of sources on that. We can safely ignore the obligatory disclaimers at the bottom of website pages which state the opposite of what the websites actually do. -- Fyslee / talk 16:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe there are V & RS that claim it is a pseudoscience, and they could be used. -- Fyslee / talk 16:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Where would I find these medically accepted V & RS? And does anyone know of any sources that say reflexology does work as often described? I suppose reputable medical people have better medicine to test than holistic stuff like reflexology... Thanks, Lottie (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Given what Lottie has said, I'd say that pseudoscience might be inappropriate, though does it get an alt. med category instead? However, if they can be sourced, Lottie's statements about it not being desinged to diagnose or treat should definitely be given due weight to indicate it's not really a medical practice. Alternative medicine might itself be too strong, since it doesn't portray itself as a medical procedure used to diagnose or treat. Perhaps Category:Massage might be best. As for sources, you can't get much more 'reflexology is pseudoscience and practitioners should be beaten with sticks' than quackwatch, though it's a controversial site regards being used as a source. Overall, given your statements above, it might be best to simply start editing the page to add sources and information; problematic statements can be weeded out, tagged or reworked rather than trying to establish a NPOV from the talk page before any editing. WLU (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Lottie, I agree with you. Why should this have to fit into Western science and its parameters about what it will accept and what it won't accept. If people from the East have benefitted from having the meridian points of their feet stimulated for millennia, what business is of it of Western science that has yet to discover, mainly because it hasn't looked, the existence of chi energy? I'm wondering - I haven't checked yet, but I will - whether the kind of negativity reflected on this page is also played out on the acupuncture page, or the ayurvedic page? These are both perfectly respectable health systems that have practised in the East for thousands of years, and long before Western science started drawing its parameters around what it will accept as 'scientific' and what it won't.

5 mins later - OK, have now checked and the acupuncture page is in much better shape in terms of objectivity, and the history section is a great improvement on this one too.

Ishtar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.21.36 (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Reputable/Reliable studies

So, I'm having a look at a couple of websites that WP:MEDRS says is okay - namely BMJ.com and Medscape.com. Although I'm not finding much on the pseudoscience front (see above!) I'm finding the odd study on the efficacy of reflexology, here and there.

I'm just wondering how they fit into the article? I think I might make a new section for them, just to say "this source found that reflexology was/wasn't effective in this area", and bung in some of the articles from the above sites as sources.

Most notable so far: Reflexology made no difference---statistically or clinically---to the experience of pain, altered bowel habit, or abdominal distension (British Journal of General Practice 2002;52:19-23). BMJ.com article Minerva

Another trial, involving 55 women, compared reflexology with rest. Reflexology significantly reduced the symptoms associated with oedema (reduction in symptoms: RR 9.09, 95% CI 1.41 to 58.54). There was no evidence of significant difference in the women's satisfaction and acceptability with either intervention (RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 39.11). Medscape.com article Interventions for varicose veins and leg oedema in pregnancy

Although all patients greatly enjoyed the treatments, there was no discernible difference in outcome between those receiving reflexology and those receiving standard foot massage. The pilot study was small (only 17 patients), but it was clear that large numbers of patients would be required to prove the null hypothesis and we decided not to proceed. BMJ.com article Research in complementary medicine is essential

All the participants in a controlled trial of reflexology for people with asthma felt better during the trial (Respiratory Medicine 2001;95:173-9). Symptoms improved by about the same amount in both groups---treatment with real or simulated reflexology for 10 weeks ... It's likely that patients were more compliant with drug treatment during the trial. BMJ.com article Minerva

A nurse reflexologist taught partners how to perform reflexology on patients with metastatic cancer pain in the hospital, resulting in an immediate decrease in pain intensity and anxiety; minimal changes were seen in the control group, who received usual care plus attention. Medline article Partner-delivered reflexology: effects on cancer pain and anxiety

PMS treatment: The reflexology study applied pressure to actual reflex points on the ears, hands, and feet and compared the response with application to incorrect reflex points as the control. The group receiving the "true" reflexology treatment improved more than the control group. [http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/408913_3 Medscape.com article Evaluating and Managing Premenstrual Syndrome]

Lottie (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reflexology page needs sraping and starting from scratch

Hi further to the various comments regarding [1] I think it is important to recognise that there is some research out there on reflexology published in respectable journals and throwing some light on the arguements of how reflexology works and what it can work on. I - as you can see by my name - upfront- believe in reflexology and follow research in this area. I will include the references to the articles so you can go and read them yourselves- this is how you should comment on research - not simply by rehashing someone elses comments as in the Minerva quote. The BMJ was never going to be particularly unbiased in reporting CAM research. However, I admit that this particular piece of evidence did show a negative result - but it was not a reasonable test of the treatment - long term, 'having failed all else' IBS patients were unlikely to be treatable in 6 half hour treatments. Its like giving two paracetamol amd expecting long term Migraines to dissapate. ''''A single-blind trial of reflexology for irritable bowel syndrome. BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE Tovey, P,2002 VOL 52; JAN; ISSUE 474 , page(s) 19-23 I can provide other studies that have a positive outcome should anyone care to go and read them?''

However, those with a particular interest in the method of action need to be aware of the newly published research in the esteemed journal Neuroscience Letters that not only show a link between the foot and the brain but that link is specific to the area thus labelled by the reflexologist. So if there is stimulation of the left hand foot eye reflexology point, the area of the brain that is responsive to the tactile (touch) stimulation of the eye or neighbouring area responds in the left brain. This speicificity was repeatable with a different reflex point, although further work is required for sure. Somatotopical relationships between cortical activity, reflex areas in reflexology: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study Neuroscience Letters,Tomomi Nakamaru, Naoki Miura, Ai Fukushima and Ryuta Kawashima, Volume 448, Issue 1, 19 December 2008, Pages 6-9

It would suggest that there are links between the feet and specific areas of the brain that are responsible for specific bodily areas. Whomever came up with the idea that reflexology is pleasurable due to the foot being close to the genitals in the brain (in the archive) should be aware that this research was based on Penfields Homunculus and shows activation nowhere near that area. This confirms other work carried out with fMRI on acupuncture.

While I understand the concept of NPOV and not wanting bias, I think that sometimes this can be taken to extremes the other way and while I would not expect a reflexology organisation to be listed I would also not expect a quackbusting organisation either. There are reflexologists that can work form a scientifc perspective, I myself have a BSc and I can provide more evidence published in peer reviewed journals that reflexology has an effect. Much of that that has been put on these pages come from general understanding rather than evidence, and that is both a weakness and a criticism of the reflexology info and the comments about it.(Admittedbeliever (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admittedbeliever (talk • contribs)

Firstly there is somewhat of a problem with this approach "I can provide other studies that have a positive outcome should anyone care to go and read them?" just as there would be a problem with specifically searching for studies with negative outcomes. Studies should be selected based on methodological quality, not outcome. I would suggest only controlled trials including a sham treatment group with at least some attempt at blinding should be included. Even this is problematic, however, as this relies on wikipedians evaluating the quality of the studies. It would be better to find a systematic review of the area and cite that instead if one is available.

I wouldn't really consider Neuroscience Letters a highly esteemed journal. Even they say that they expedite the peer review process by reducing the number of reviewers but that's beside the point really. Anyway, I have a few problems with their data analysis; "Furthermore, to remove false-positive activation in the statistical testing of each subtraction image, we excluded the voxels that did not reach the level of significance using task versus task contrast (e.g., eye − shoulder) from each statistical test of the subtraction image... The statistical threshold of each activation map was set at p < 0.05 [corrected for multiple comparison using family-wise error (FWE) [6] T.E. Nichols and S. Hayasaka, Controlling the familywise error rate in functional neuroimaging: a comparative review, Stat. Method Med. Res. 12 (2003), pp. 419–446. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (104)[6] by voxel level." It seems they removed any non significant data points and subsequently controlled for the problem of multiple comparisons (see familywise error rate) based on the number of comparisons they had left with all the non significant points removed. If this is correct, then they did it wrong and inflated the type I error rate as a result. The correction for multiple comparisons should be based on the total number of comparisons performed not just the number of significant points.

There results are hardly without reservation too "Therefore, our results indicate that sensory stimulation of the reflex area corresponding to the SI was related to a tactile sensation of the trunk. In addition, its perception was not necessarily limited to visceral sensation and may include cutaneous sensation in the trunk. Furthermore, these activation clusters from the eye-specific and SI-specific contrasts were located in the left hemisphere, generally meaning that tactile information came from the right side of the body." I hardly think that this is proof and I could speculate as to other ways that these results could have occurred eg strong force on the middle of the foot (the activation point for the small intestine) could compress the trunk resulting in the aforementioned pattern of activation whereas pushing firmly on the top edge of the foot would have produced more of a shearing force which could effect the position of the shoulder. At most all the evidence shows is the areas in question received some sort of sensory input at that time.

There is undoubtedly going to be debate about my review of the article which I hope illustrates the need for secondary sources. Please feel free, however, to post any peer reviewed studies on the efficacy of reflexology here. The article does need some better citations. JamesStewart7 (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

External links

Please read our External links guidelines before adding more external links. I just removed a few which don't meet our guidelines, or were added for purposes that aren't in harmony with why we have this encyclopedia. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Body reflexology

There's a one-use account, User:Body reflexology, who keeps trying to create a Body reflexology how-to page, which I changed to a redirect to this page. Please review the information he/she's adding in this diff [1] and see if any of it should be added to this page, or if it should remain a redirect. --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 18:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

New user User:LWD1234 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) added the following material. I've reverted and moved it here for further discussion just in case there's a WP:MEDRS in there somewhere. LeadSongDog come howl 20:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Reflexology has shown to impact hundreds of physical weaknesses including (but not limited to) abdominal pain, Acne , Arthritis , Bedwetting , Cancer , Cardiopathy , Cerebal Palsy , Diabetes , Ear Disorders , Gallstones , Headache , Hypertension , Hypothyroidism , Infertility , Lupus , and Urinary Problems .

As far as I know reflexology has never been referred to as "body reflexology" it may be a language issue. But the research is real. And the effects are real. I am a licensed acupuncturist and have studied this so I am familiar with the concepts. Redbaronesse (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Redbaronesse

Definition for reflexology

Definition for reflexology with a citation any objecitons? Reflexology is the physical act of applying pressure to the feet and hand with specific thumb, finger and hand techniques without the use of oil or lotion. it is based on a system of zones and reflex areas that reflect an image of the body on the feet and hands with a premise that such work effects a physical change to the body. (The Complete Guide to Foot Reflexology (Third Edition) by Barbara and Kevin Kunz)02:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusella dawn (talk • contribs)

More References Needed?

Since 2007, this article has been tagged because it lacked a good amount of sources and references. However, it has about 15 at the moment, and given the size of the article, I believe that is a decent number. Should we remove the "needs more references" tag? Gadev (talk) 09:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. {{citation needed}} where indicated should suffice. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly this article is horrible and obviously written by someone who knows nothing of TCM theories or medical licensing issues. It is poorly written. You should change the needs more references to needs real references and get rid of the skeptic's comments because it can be easily proven that there IS science and research backing reflexology. refer to any of my comments above to find the research. I will gladly act as a consultant on a re-write. Redbaronesse (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)redbaronesse

If you believe there is substantial evidence contrary to what the article says, please present reliable sources demonstrating such. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV removed

I've removed the NPOV tag on the article, please use {{POV-section}} for sections or {{POV-statement}} for a sentence, and clarify the issue(s) here. This will help address problems. - RoyBoy 03:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)