Talk:Urotherapy

standaerd urotherapy

@Rutebega Hi, and thanks again for taking the time to review the article. I saw that the Standard urotherapy section was removed with the note “non MEDRS synthesis,” and I also noticed the maintenance tag at the top of the page indicating that the article contains instruction like material. I want to make sure I understand both issues clearly so I can rewrite the section appropriately. The sources I used were peer reviewed medical journals, but I now understand that even high quality primary studies may not meet Wikipedia MEDRS on their own, and combining multiple primary studies can be viewed as original synthesis. I also recognize that listing interventions in a step by step style can be interpreted as instructional content, which Wikipedia avoids under Wikipedia: NOTGUIDE. To rebuild this section correctly, I would appreciate your guidance on a few points:

Would ICCS (International Children’s Continence Society) guidelines be acceptable as a MEDRS compliant secondary source for summarizing the components of standard urotherapy? If a systematic review describes standard urotherapy and lists its components, can that be used as the main MEDRS source without violating synthesis? Since standard urotherapy is described in several secondary sources as the first line, conservative management approach for pediatric bladder and bowel dysfunction, is it acceptable to include that point as long as it is attributed to those sources?

To avoid instructional tone, is it preferable to describe the components of standard urotherapy only in general terms, rather than in a step by step or guideline like structure? I’m happy to rewrite the content strictly using secondary sources (guidelines, systematic reviews, textbooks) and to ensure the tone is descriptive rather than instructional. Thanks again for your help and for pointing me in the right direction. BananaNotes (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the ICCS. As you can see at WP:MEDORG, some major medical and scientific organizations are MEDRS for certain types of information. I don't think ICCS guidelines clear this bar since it's a smaller private non-profit, but others might disagree. Any reputably published systematic review is generally a good source for medical content, but be sure whatever content you add accurately reflects what the source says. I did remove some otherwise reliable sources because they never specifically mention "urotherapy" or don't appear to directly support the passage they are being cited in.

I did not add the maintenance tag (that was @Pppery) but yes, the article's contents should describe the topic in general terms. NOTGUIDE, which you mentioned, has some brief guidance for avoiding this problem. —Rutebega (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks very much for taking the time to review and improve the article.

I wanted to clarify the intent behind the material I added about standard urotherapy and to understand better how to bring it into compliance with MEDRS and NOTGUIDE.

I’m a pediatric pelvic floor physiotherapist, and in clinical practice (both in Europe and the US) the term urotherapy is widely used for the group of behavioral interventions that serve as the first-line treatment for children with Bladder and Bowel Dysfunction (BBD). In some countries these interventions are carried out by physiotherapists, nurses, or occupational therapists who have gone through the proper training (which is why it is sometime called urotherapy, and not physiotherapy).

I completely understand that Wikipedia content has to follow MEDRS and cannot rely on clinical familiarity or professional norms alone. My goal is to rebuild the section using high-quality secondary sources, not to give instructions or create a guidebook. For that reason, I based most of the content on systematic reviews that directly discuss “urotherapy,” including reviews that outline standard urotherapy components such as education, hydration advice, constipation management, scheduled voiding, and follow-up protocols. In some of the sources the treatment may be described as physiotherapy. If some of the sources I used do not meet MEDRS or did not explicitly mention “urotherapy,” I appreciate the clarification and can remove or replace them.

I’m happy to rewrite the text to keep it general and strictly descriptive, focusing on what the literature reports about urotherapy as a first line behavioral intervention for BBD. Thanks again for your help and for maintaining high standards in the article. I would appriciate if you don't mind going over my rewrite and advising me again. Thank you in advance.

BananaNotes (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: The article seems adequately sourced and the subject notable, but it lacks structure and details of its relationship to other types of therapy (see Therapy) or treatments for the dysfunction.

Tony Holkham (Talk) 00:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Tony Holkham, Could you please take another look at the article? I'd appriciate you r feedback. Thanks! BananaNotes (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@BananaNotes - I see you have done some work on the article, which is good. I cannot contribute myself, as I do not have any medical expertise (I was just reviewing the article as it was unreviewed), but if you approach WikiProject Medicine I'm sure you will find support there. I'm going to leave a welcome note on your talk page as I see you have had a few advisory messages there. The welcome note will introduce you to more of Wikipedia's guidelines which you should find helpful. Good luck and best wishes. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:11, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Tony Holkham Thanks so much!!! BananaNotes (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)