Talk:Elastic therapeutic tape

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Older entries

Also known as kinesiotape

But..what is it? How does it work? This article is so vague as to be maddening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.140.205.7 (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to other taping techniques

This section (Comparison to other taping techniques) is directly lifted from http://www.kinesiotaping.com/faq.php (section 8: Difference between Taping Techniques). It should be rewritten or removed. Kjl (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the previous comment, so I am removing the section. AllenDowney (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific effectiveness

Are there studies as to its effectiveness? The skeptic in me is... not convinced that it does anything Kjl (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've seen plenty of athletes wearing the tape (mostly volleyball, soccer, and rugby), but appearances tell me that it does about as much good as sticking a piece of duct tape to your skin does. I can't find anything saying exactly WHAT the tape does (scientifically). It certainly doesn't constrict movement to offer joint/muscle 'support' as you get with traditional tape methods. The only real information the article provides on this is the first paragraph under "Adoption". The rest of it seems biased and reads like an advert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.73.180 (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note the "For the first decade after its introduction, orthopedists, chiropractors, acupuncturists and other medical practitioners in Japan were the main users of the theraputic tape.". This basically says that orthopedist (real doctors) and acupuncturists are equals. They are all called medical practitioners, which is obviously false. IMHO this is a candidate for a rewrite, but we need real sources (any major papers on this topics?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.21.17.160 (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acupuncture is considered a medical procedure, in Japan.[1] — Echoback (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt it is a medical procedure. However it does not hold up to scientific scrutiny and is a pseudoscience. Acupuncture 72.11.214.253 (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ WHO Service Delivery Profile for Japan (page 2)

Promotional page with competing interests and socks

This article is a promotional mess, created by the efforts of shifting editors and socks who try to promote their products. How can this article become neutral? Maybe we should ban mention of ANY brand! -- Brangifer (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completly. Kinesio is using this page as free advertisement. Many of their statements are false. First of all Kase states over and over in every interview that he was the inventor, that is simply not true. Several other people had patents for elastic therapeutic tape long before he ever filed. If you compare his writing to the original inventors it borders on plagerism. Just about all the tape at the Olympics belonged to Spider Tech, but Kase touch every opportunity to claim everything as his own. Do not use this page as a resourse, you will be wrong. [Tape4World], August 13, 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T4UBTold (talk • contribs) 17:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest edit replacing KT and "Kinesio tape" references to the generic "kinesiology tape" as KT and Kinesio® Tape are brands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.197.182 (talk) 06:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article completely ignores the actual benefits of therapy tapes

This article doesn't even touch on the actual benefits of therapy tapes, namely their interaction with the myofascial layer and lymphatic function. The tape releases pressure on the lymphatic nodes when compressed (wrinkled), creating a negative space and allowing the drainage of fluid from muscles with recurring edema (such as with long term structural injuries). Upon stretching, if applied properly it pulls certain muscles in to their neutral state, retraining your global muscular system for stability and proper position.

Don't have the time to find all the linking articles, but the research is out there, hopefully someone will update this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.46.211.162 (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like the very plug for the product being described above. The whole cruz of the problem is the lack of sources for it so I'm afraid in light of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" it'll have to be ambiguous until someone coughs up 188.222.111.223 (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, research is needed.

Two articles that show more research behind elastic taping. They show that elastic taping is therapeutic in comparison to non-elastic taping in prophylactic ankle taping and also in helping rehabilitate patella dislocation.

Abián-Vicén J, Alegre L, Fernández-Rodríguez J, Aguado X. Prophylactic ankle taping: elastic versus inelastic taping. Foot & Ankle International [serial online]. March 2009;30(3):218-225. Available from: CINAHL with Full Text, Ipswich, MA.

Osterhues D. The use of Kinesio Taping ® in the management of traumatic patella dislocation. A case study. Physiotherapy Theory & Practice [serial online]. December 2004;20(4):267-270. Available from: Consumer Health Complete - EBSCOhost, Ipswich, MA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matrix1539 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverts

I have reverted this change for 2 reasons:

  1. There is no doubt that many therapists actually do use it to treat MSK conditions, It is the efficacy of treatments that is under question. Thus the change was incorrect.
  2. The added text contained weasel words

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Puhlaa (talk • contribs) 02:26, September 9, 2012

'History' section

I have deleted this section as promotional, and as not complying to WP:MEDRS. Any further claims not complying with the required sourcing standards will also be deleted. This is not a platform for promotion of such products. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's curious. I cleaned up this article a few weeks back, and I don't believe anything in the History section was inappropriately sourced. Clean version. Please explain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewrittten a (brief) portion of History, with two cites (journal reviews are not necessary for that kind of information, although I believe I've also seen the same information in journals, as well as multiple lay reports). I also removed a throw-away OR sentence from the lead, removed curly quotes, and restored MEDRS tags on two primary sources which should not be cited in the article, as there are at least two secondary reviews available and already cited in the article. [1] If anyone has time, the primary sources could be replaced with the secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edits by User:67.168.206.47 that readded promotional language. Is there some reason I'm missing to include this? LeadSongDog come howl! 03:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Page

I'm looking to help improve this page by updating some of the unreliable sources, and finding recent studies to add in. Being a beginner in Wikipedia I welcome any input and/or help. Eva Popp

Hi! being sure any health-type information is sourced to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources is a good starting point ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input! I added recent research into the Effectiveness section to support what was already stated. Eva Popp (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Type of adhesive

The Properties section states: "It is a latex free material with acrylic adhesive, which is heat activated."

The Application section states: "Once applied, it is rubbed to activate the pressure-sensitive adhesive."

So is it heat- or pressure-activated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wigui (talk • contribs) 12:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing of POV issues

I have made changes to this article to bring it in-line with Wikipedia policy on alt-med and pseudoscience topics. Please discuss any concerns or suggestions for further improvement here. RobP (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Too many studies

There are currently 13 paragraphs listing who wrote what in which year. Instead, we should summarize the results and just quote secondary literature. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was also surprised to see all the accumulation that often repeated the same things. Some of them also discuss lympathic drainage (that itself is controversial therapy) and one that claimed more muscle resistance in Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation, those should likely be reassessed for adherence to citation and source reliability... —PaleoNeonate – 17:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the repetition I think I addressed these (one source was actually about another topic, another was not properly summarized). There remains doi:10.1016/j.jht.2011.09.008 that is already marked as possibly unreliable. I can only access its abstract that doesn't say much. —PaleoNeonate – 18:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Science based medicine over-cited

I can't even imagine what kind of charlatan or possible fraud would turn this wiki article into a counter-KT tape mouthpiece. But Science Based Medicine is clearly over-cited and over-quoted. Perhaps, its their own agents pushing their agenda to promote themselves. I don't know. Seems like a conflict of interest violation. Stono rebellion (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice that almost all mentioned citations in the body remind that more research is needed or that there was no conclusive effect beyond the use of other tapes, etc. The lead is a summary of the body (WP:LEAD). —PaleoNeonate – 18:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's cited as if it's a scientific journal, but it's a cleverly named blog. I think the section should be edited, shortened/condensed (see Too many studies with which I also agree), and mentions of SBM removed. LemonadeAndIcedTea (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's WP:SBM ! good for quackery like this tape stuff. Bon courage (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improper Use of KINESIO Trademark

We represent Kinesio IP LLC (“Kinesio”) in intellectual property matters. This article improperly uses our client’s federally registered KINESIO® trademarks in a descriptive and infringing manner.

When our client was founded by Dr. Kenzo Kase over forty years ago, he coined the distinctive term KINESIO® as a trademark identifying the innovative therapeutic taping products he invented and would devote the following decades to developing, marketing, and selling around the world. Through his and the company’s hard work, Kinesio grew into a world leader in the therapeutic taping field and developed a wide variety of KINESIO® branded products and services. Additional details about Kinesio and its KINESIO® products and services are available on Kinesio’s website at https://kinesiotaping.com/.

Kinesio owns numerous incontestable U.S. federal trademark registrations comprised of, and/or containing KINESIO®, including U.S. Registration Nos. 1,613,689, 2,277,481, 3,461,972, 3,614,525, 4,383,077, 4,930,585, and many others in the United States and around the world. Such registrations provide important legal presumptions, including the distinctiveness and protectability of the KINESIO® mark.

Our client recently discovered that this Wikipedia entry is using the term “Kinesio” as a non-trademark descriptor for therapeutic tape generally. “Kinesio” does not describe elastic therapeutic tape or a method of applying elastic therapeutic tape. As noted above, the KINESIO mark was coined by Kinesio’s founder and should be appear exclusively as a trademark identifying Kinesio’s KINESIO® goods and services.

To correctly identify the Kinesio’s registered trademarks and to prevent misuse of Kinesio’s intellectual property, and in light of the extensive misuse of “Kinesio”, this article should add the ® symbol to the term “Kinesio” where the article specifically references Kinesio’s goods or services to make clear that “Kinesio” is not a generic or descriptive term. Alternatively, when the context of the sentence does not refer to our client’s products or services but to therapeutic taping generally, “Kinesio” should be changed to “elastic therapeutic taping”.

We understand that the Wikipedia Manual of Style/Trademarks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks) prefers to avoid the use of the ® symbol. However, without this symbol providing the proper context in an article titled “Elastic therapeutic tape,” the references to “Kinesio” in the article infringe on Kinesio’s trademark rights. Further, readers will be led to believe the “Kinesio” can be used descriptively to refer to elastic therapeutic tape, rather than a trademark indicating the source of our client’s specific products and services. Because Wikipedia also prefers to avoid branding in the title pages of its entries, we therefore believe the use of ® to be unavoidably necessary in this article to prevent infringement of our client’s brand.

If the Wikipedia Oversight Team needs assistance with these changes, we are prepared to provide a specific list of edits to the article.  Please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Uffelman

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP FHFGD (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks. The pertinant bit says the following -
"Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context".
We will of course, per policy, not follow a stranger on the internetz wishes. You are welcome. - Roxy the dog 17:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have more faith in the intelligence of Wikipedia's readers than your firm apparently does. In particular, the prominent mention -- it's the first thing stated in the article's main body -- of the product's proprietary nature suffices to alert the reader, and I for one am at a loss to imagine how a reader could be under any misapprehension to the contrary.

That being said, are you sure you really want to attract more attention to the article, given how much of it is devoted to sources categorizing it as a placebo at best, quackery at worst? Ravenswing 18:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Streisand effect. After reading the article and the information regarding the efficacy of the tape, I think the last thing KINESIO® would want to do is call attention to this article, which they have now done. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OP hardblocked and directed to wiki legal dept. - Roxy the dog 20:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Damn you beat me to the Streisand effect mention. Also how in the heck are we to know that this Finnegan, Henderson et all is who they say they are? Where is their blue checkmark? Sgerbic (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to get a checkmark. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, it's not unreasonable to presume this is really Uffelman. Our response isn't founded in the editor being fraudulent. Ravenswing 00:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is some humor being deployed in the conversation regarding the blue checkmark. Yes, I believe the person is who they say they are. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, they are likely to be who they say they are; a VRTS ticket was received a while back with a similar concern, and they were directed here to discuss the matter. Primefac (talk) 09:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we put aside the awkward legal framing, there is a legitimate editorial question as to whether "Elastic therapeutic tape" is "also called... Kinesio tape". If Kinesio is a specific brand, then this is no more accurate than having the lead of Hamburger say that a hamburger is "also called a Big Mac". BD2412 T 18:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that they are the major player in this particular field, I feel like it is likely a Band-Aid/adhesive bandage situation wherein the common name is the brand name, if only because of the latter's ubiquity, so it might be difficult to tease apart references to make the distinction. Primefac (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's why they're being so aggressive. If they fail to keep it distinct from the common name, they could lose ownership of the trademark. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be the case that this is informally a shorthand for the product (this is certainly not as broadly well-known as a Band-Aid or a Kleenex), but I think our readers would probably be better served by greater precision. We have no obligation to protect their brand name, but we should also avoid inadvertently appearing to promote the brand where a more generic identification of the product is possible. I note that Band-Aid and adhesive bandage are two separate articles, and we in the latter article we do not generically refer to the subject as a band-aid. Maybe that should be the case here. BD2412 T 19:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too familiar with these sorts of tapes and its brands, but if this sitution is similar to the "adhesive bandage/Band-Aid" one as referenced by Primefac above, then splitting this article into Elastic therapeutic tape (for the generic tape) and Kinesio Tape (the actual brand) seems like the best solution here. Some1 (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So if Kinesio is a common word for elastic therapeutic tape then we should be able to find a reliable source for that. The current source against it in the first line doesn't support that claim. Lets not overlook legal things as they often show there is actually a bit of an issue, and currently we don't have referenced that it is the common name. That needs a reliable source or we should remove any such claims that the name is synonymous. Canterbury Tail talk 19:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we could find sources supporting that position, it does not serve our readers to be effectively directing them to the brand when we mean to discuss the generic product. BD2412 T 21:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does the therapeutic effectiveness of the tape have anything at all to do with whether or not the term "kinesio tape" is trademarked? This seems like a fairly straightforward issue -- either we have reliable sources using it as a genericized trademark, in which case it should be used as one, or we do not, in which case it should not. In no event does this depend on whether it works or not. Am I missing something? jp×g 09:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When a citation discusses 'Kinesio tape' it is not always clear if they mean this specific brand or all similar tapes. MrOllie (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well isn't it incumbent on us to not use it if we cannot make that determination then? If it's not clear what the reference is referring to then surely we really can't use it to refer definitively one way or another for that particular part. I mean references should be clear, if they're not then are they really references? At that point we're guessing at what they mean, which isn't right. Canterbury Tail talk 11:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elastic therapeutic tape

Should the growing trend that this tape is being used in beauty routines be mentioned here? 2600:100C:A211:7F18:80D7:EA01:179:459F (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Elastic_therapeutic_tape"