Talk:Therapeutic ultrasound

category

Article is in category:Energy therapies which appears to include (only) "alternative" med. Wondering if this article really belongs there.
(Someone is busily putting articles into that cat; Light therapy has just been removed from it.) - Hordaland (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no talk about the efficacy of therapeutic ultrasound treatments? There is absolutely no evidence that therapeutic ultrasound is any more effective than placebo treatments, yet there is no mention of it on this page. This treatment seems to be nothing more than pseudoscience, and BELONGS in alternative medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.81.168 (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with above. I work in the medical field and most of these studies have thready evidence to advocate FOR u/s use. I wouldn't be questioning this science if there was ANY evidence listed that backed it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.243.237 (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Need clarity on effectiveness of use in physical therapy

I came to this article to learn about therapeutic ultrasound, specifically as used in physical therapy. My physical therapist's assistant told me that it "draws white blood cells to the area". First, does it do that? Second, what benefit is there to that? (referring to a joint being worked on to improve range of motion, diminished by a soft tissue tear). I suspect it's bunk, but the evidence on all sides should be weighed objectively. 24.57.218.21 (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Wait -- you've posted that the article "needs clarity" and that "all sides should be weighed" because your "therapist's assistant" told you something that you "suspect ... is bunk?" Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.106.59.197 (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

There are lots of articles on the Internet saying that therapeutic ultrasound doesn't do much good in physical therapy. For example, Ultrasound in Physical Therapy: Does it Work?. I came here hoping to get some help in sorting things out. Maybe the page could address that better? 47.152.252.100 (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Therapeutic ultrasound. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071012222403/http://www.acoustics.org:80/press/135th/crum.htm to http://www.acoustics.org/press/135th/crum.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Sustained Acoustic Medicine

An obvious parent page - article really promotional of device - 11 of the refs given include the device maker's name of Lewis Iztwoz (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Proposing a merge implies that there is information worth saving from Sustained Acoustic Medicine and I don't know if that's the case. The Sustained Acoustic Medicine article should be deleted, yes, but I don't think that we need to clutter up this article with an advertisement. --ITasteLikePaint (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Doing research and found articles on intervention that should be added:

Sustained acoustic medicine: wearable, long duration ultrasonic therapy for the treatment of tendinopathy.

Best TM, Moore B, Jarit P, Moorman CT, Lewis GK.

Phys Sportsmed. 2015 Nov;43(4):366-74. doi: 10.1080/00913847.2015.1095617.

PMID: 26468991

Sustained Acoustic Medicine Accelerates Recovery From an Acute Bout of High Intensity Resistance Training: 1887 Board #39 June 2, 2: 00 PM - 3: 30 PM.

Mattern CO, Byrne HK, Henry T, Stratton K, McHale S, Lewis G, Langer MD.

Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016 May;48(5 Suppl 1):519. doi: 10.1249/01.mss.0000486560.62074.0b. No abstract available.

PMID: 27360712

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.82.144 (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC) — 24.151.82.144 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Sustained acoustic medicine is a wearable home use medical device different from ultrasound therapy applied in the medical setting so it should not be merged with therapeutic ultrasound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firepuck25 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC) — Firepuck25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• no MEDRS refs for this topic. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Really article is saying nothing that hasn't already been added by Firepuck25 to Therapeutic ultrasound page imo page only needs a redirect now. None of the added comments here are from known unbiased editors which leaves a support from ITasteLike Paint --Iztwoz (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Western Ontario supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: WikiMed Fall 2024

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 October 2024 and 22 November 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shaddizal (article contribs). Peer reviewers: DoubleDoctorZack.

— Assignment last updated by Wendyxieyang (talk) 06:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Summary of Changes

Summary of Changes Week 1:

In the article "Therapeutic Ultrasound" currently rated "Start" class, the main room for improvement is the addition of reputable resources across the entirety of the article. I mainly want to focus on the "Medical Uses Section." In this section, here is a summary of changes I want to incorporate:

• Include images of the ultrasound procedures that are mentioned
• Incorporate sources and reputable references throughout the section
• Create sub-headings for this section separating the ultrasound procedures by specialty/indication in medicine
• Re-organize the section/entire article to follow the Wikepedia manual of style for medicine-related articles

Shady Faltaous (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Summary of Changes 11/11

Hello! Below is a summary of changes that I have included in the medical uses section:

- Added sections separating the medical uses by field of medicine or technique

- Added secondary sources to the extracorporeal shockwave therapy, oncology, ophthalmology, vascular surgery, and plastic surgery sections

- Added images highlighting some of the therapeutic ultrasound indications

- Moved the paragraphs on potential therapeutic mechanisms for musculoskeletal injuries to the physical therapy section as it was more relevant to this section

- General punctuation and grammar edits

What is the consensus on the knee osteoarthritis section? Should this section be moved to the medical uses heading, physical therapy heading, or stay as its own heading? Shady Faltaous (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review [WikiMed Course 2024]

See below the peer review from the 2024 WikiMed Course.

Evaluate the drafted changes

This article was Start-class before editing began.

Lead

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • No, the lead section has not yet been updated at this time.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, absolutely.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • The lead contains some information from most sections, though I would say it needs to be updated to include more information on the 'research' section.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • I would argue it's a bit too concise, particularly given that it doesn't cover all of the relevant sections of the article. It's not too far off, but it should be expanded.

Content

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, but it's somewhat limited in scope. Much of the work thus far has been re-organizing the article and adding references/pictures (which have been quite helpful and has increased readability).
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes, as far as what's been added, though since there hasn't been a ton added, I had a hard time judging. Some reviews could potentially be slightly newer (past 5 rather than past 10 years), but not the end of the world.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • I would note that the physical therapy section is arguably hugely imbalanced with the other sections, and if continuing to work on this article, I would substantially increase the amount of content in the other sections relative to the PT section (which seems to have an adequate amount).

Tone and Balance

• Is the content added neutral?
  • A neutral tone is maintained throughout.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No, not particularly.

Sources and References

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Yes, secondary sources are used throughout.
• Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
  • Yes, in the citations I looked at.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Yes, StatPearls is bae <3
• Are the sources current?
  • For the most part, all those added in past 10 years. Could be slightly newer.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • All of the links I checked work.
• Other
  • Parts of the article you haven't edited yet (Research/Research Tools) are arguably in need of some love, and I think it's worth adding some additional content here if you can.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Again, not a lot of additions to the text proper (references/pictures help a lot), but the article as a whole is not hard to read. Additions were largely made to improve prose and do help.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • No
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • I think so. Could still definitely make some more changes though!

Images and Media

• I think there was some plan to do this, but I didn't see any uploads here.

Overall Impressions

This article still has quite a ways to go, but it's doing a bit better with your additions. I think you're on the right track, and I'm glad it's getting some love. The lead section in particular needs to be updated as you go, and the physical therapy section could potentially be a model for other sections of the article. I think your thus far do improve understanding of the topic, though.

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • Yep, definitely.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • I appreciated the small changes that improved readability.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • I think the biggest need right now is quantity! This page needs some serious love, so it's not a "less is more" type assignment!

Overall, nice work! -Zack DoubleDoctorZack (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello DoubleDoctorZack!

Thank you so much for the wonderful feedback. I agree, this article still has lots of room for improvement, particularly in the physical therapy and research sections. For the lead section, I agree that it could be expanded to touch on more sections of the article. I went ahead and added a paragraph to the end of the lead section highlighting some of the medical uses, research, and physical therapy sections of the article. I also moved the ultrasound therapy vs diagnostic ultrasound image to the top of the article in the lead section as it provides a nice illustration of the content of the article.

I agree with your comments on the physical therapy and research sections. The article needed a lot of reliable secondary sources for the medical uses section and I focused on improving this section as I felt comfortable with the knowledge in this section. I believe similar efforts could be made soon for the physical therapy and research sections, particularly with the addition of references and credible secondary sources to back up the claims made. Shady Faltaous (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)