Talk:Muscle energy technique

Merge with soft tissue technique
I think they ought to remain as separate articles, since they are distinct therapeutic approaches. Any confusion that may arise regarding the distinction should be addressed by improving the two articles. Those are my thoughts. Rytyho usa (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

MET has a distinct etiology and is the term used by Massage therapists. I have been practicing MET fro over 20 years and am unfamiliar with the terminology Soft Tissue Technique. Tracy Firsching, BA, LMT, LNMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.246.229 (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

MET should be kept distinct from other manual therapy techniques. It is unique in that it treats both muscle and structural dysfunction through both post-isometric relaxation and reciprocol inhibition. It is one of the most useful manual therapy techniques. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.179.26 (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes i agree, keep MET separate as they are a separate technique which differs in the way they are applied and the mode of action, also the outcome is the movement of joints as well as stretching muscles and fascia. 213.219.49.160 (talk) 09:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Unclear phrasing
"Despite the many claims made regarding the efficacy of these techniques, there are only two peer-reviewed studies that have shown that muscle energy techniques can significantly decrease disability and improve functionality in patients with disorders such as low back pain."

Does this mean that there are more studies that demonstrate no significant difference? Or just that 2 is typically not regarded as enough? Sunealoneal (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)