Talk:Scrambler therapy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:37, 8 April 2015

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Medicine Start‑class Mid‑importance

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

previously deleted

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scrambler therapy. MastCell you had nominated this before, and Sandstein you had closed it. I have put up for speedy per G4. Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined, the article is significantly different from last time around, with more sources. But it does read vaguely quackish and promotional, and needs cleanup at the least. Sandstein 18:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks - could not see old version. will re-nom, 2nd time, i guess. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a flippin chance. There are a lot of research papers on this subject including some I have not listed, most later than 2008. Two are from 2015 so the device is currently actively studied. I have only just launched this article. You hardly expect it to be the final word. The research papers are diverse. I cant see anything promotional or quackish in the text written so far - just basic information - for example i say there are no known side effects, i have found nothing from anything i have read to suggest otherwise.--Penbat (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Penbat. What MEDRS compliant sources do you find for the treatment? I looked and found none. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You replied here, but not at the message I left on your talk page. please reply there. Here is a link: User_talk:Penbat#SPA_.2F_COI. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Penbat - i have no more concerns about COI on your part. Thanks for replyingJytdog (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog Please could you explain why Sparadeo F, Kaufman C, D'Amato S (2012) is not MEDRS compliant?__DrChrissy (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog Now that you have removed the completely inappropriate COI template you imposed to try and bully another editor, perhaps you would turn your mind to answering my question about why Sparadeo F, Kaufman C, D'Amato S (2012) is not MEDRS compliant?__DrChrissy (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of deleting my edits, why do you continue to refuse to answer the question?__DrChrissy (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misapplication of WP:MEDRS

If you want a case study in misapplication of WP:MEDRS, look at the recent edits to this article. Alexbrn has tagged-bombed two clearly reliable secondary sources because they are a "practice guideline" and an "opinion piece." Meanwhile, WP:MEDRS describes "medical guidelines or institutional position papers" as "ideal sources for clinical evidence." Alexbrn also replaced my neutral summary of what the sources actually said with his own conclusion that "there is no good evidence." 24.215.92.54 (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another misapplication in this article? Alexbrn removed a reference here[1] with the edit summary "journal does not appear to be in PUBMED/MEDLINE". I am unable to find anywhere in WP:MEDRS a statement that only journals in PUBMED/MEDLINE can be used. If I am wrong, please direct me to the relevant passage of text.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There may be exceptional circumstances in which such lesser sources could be used, but MEDRS warns against non-MEDLINE indexed articles, and WP:REDFLAG applies. If you disagree, cd always check as WT:MED ... Alexbrn (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you forget to login? And did you forget to quote MEDRS with some integrity? What it actually says is "medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies" (my emphasis) – which one of your sources ain't. Alexbrn (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC); amended 11:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The clinical guideline is by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, which is, in fact, a nationally recognized expert body. Even if it were not, the issue is what WP:MEDRS forbids or discourages. It certainly does not discourage guidelines. 24.215.92.54 (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I missed that and shall de-tag. Alexbrn (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn Please quote the section of WP:MEDRS that "warns against" non-MEDLINE index publications. The only relevant piece I can see is "Other indications that a biomedical journal article may not be reliable are its publication in a journal that is not indexed in the bibliographic database MEDLINE"....hardly a warning against! As for PUBMED, I can find nothing that relates to this being a criterion for including/excluding a source. This makes your edit summary rather misleading to say the least.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That something may be unreliable is indeed a warning—it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge; so if something seems iffy (by not being MEDLINE-indexed or not included in PUBMED) then its reliability is in question. Better to use strong sources. My edit summary—"rmv. journal does not appear to be in PUBMED/MEDLINE; also likely copyvio link"—is perfect. Alexbrn (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So is the sentence I quoted the one you would use to support your actions - or is there another relevant piece somewhere in WP:MEDRS?__DrChrissy (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I edit according to all of our WP:PAGs, not wikilawyered single sentences (though it is important; read my response again). But as I said, if in doubt, check consensus at WT:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK: I take that as a refusal to quote the section of the guidelines which you say support your behaviour.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New sources

yep the Hershman source (PMID 24733808) that was added here is MEDRS. a good one. scrambler is mentioned in it, in a "special commentary" section that starts out saying "A number of nonpharmacologic interventions have been investigated for their role in preventing or treating peripheral neuropathy. However, the paucity of RCT evidence prohibited inclusion of those studies in this systematic review." They briefly talk about acu, then briefly talk about scrambler and make it clear that there is insufficient evidence to say much about it, and use some scare quotes when they do. Thanks for pointing it out, Alexbrn.

Rivera (PMID 25596818) was added here. Also a good MEDRS source; also a passing mention and saying only "we don't know yet".

These were added after i nominated the article. I'll add mention of them there. Passing mention is not enough for NOTABILITY in my view. Jytdog (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 :::::::So is the sentence I quoted the one you would use to support your actions - or is there another relevant piece somewhere in WP:MEDRS?__[[User:DrChrissy|DrChrissy]] ([[User talk:DrChrissy|talk]]) 13:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 ::::::::I edit according to all of our [[WP:PAG]]s, not wikilawyered single sentences (though it is important; read my response again). But as I said, if in doubt, check consensus at [[WT:MED]]. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 13:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
+:::::::::OK: I take that as a refusal to quote the section of the guidelines which you say support your behaviour.__[[User:DrChrissy|DrChrissy]] ([[User talk:DrChrissy|talk]]) 13:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 == New sources ==