Talk:Bobath concept

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Bobath concept.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Translation details

Article: de:Bobath-Konzept
Corresponding English-language article: Bobath concept
Worth doing because: No English-language article.
Originally Requested by: Roland2 15:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Status: Translated from article on de. Website noted below added as ext link. SteveW | Talk 21:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC).[reply]
Other notes: a cited definition + some external links + crossreferences are available; from http://www.bobath-instruktorinnen.de/2_1_theorie.php: "Dr. Karel Bobath, ein Arzt, und Berta Bobath, Gymnastiklehrerin, später Zusatzausbildung zur Physiotherapeutin, wurden beide Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts in Berlin geboren und emigierten während des 2. Weltkrieges nach England."

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bobath concept. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041211200710/http://www.bobath-instruktorinnen.de:80/2_1_theorie.php to http://www.bobath-instruktorinnen.de/2_1_theorie.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of effectiveness

Cheers fellow wikipedians !

I decided to delete part of evidence description which says "there are no evidence for non-effectiveness". It's obsolete, next to information, that "there are no evidence for effectiveness". In scientific method you cannot prove non-existence, therefore only statements about proofs for existence or lack of evidence for existence are sensible. Statements like "there is no evidence for absence of" can mislead the public- they suggest that there is something missing in research.

I'm eager to discuss and work on improvement of this part :)

Peace and science to all Very large shadow (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article is biased

While I embrace that appropriate criticism is included in this article, the overall tone of this article is biased towards dismissing the Bobath work. Besides being unencyclopedic it does not reflect the context and historical development of this work and it's place in terms of introducing Developmental Concepts into Physio- and occupational therapy.

I intend to do some work to rebalance this to a more encyclopaedic tone.SebastianBechinger (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]