Misplaced Pages

Talk:German acupuncture trials: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:09, 20 November 2013 editMallexikon (talk | contribs)2,929 edits Poorly-sourced health information; neutrality: r← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:53, 14 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,300,501 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 5 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 5 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Medicine}}, {{WikiProject Alternative medicine}}, {{WikiProject Skepticism}}, {{WikiProject Germany}}, {{WikiProject Law}}. 
(588 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Medicine|class=stub}} {{WikiProject Medicine |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=stub}} {{WikiProject Alternative medicine }}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=stub}} {{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Germany|class=stub}} {{WikiProject Germany |importance=low|b1=|b2=|b3=|b4=|b5=}}
{{WikiProject Law|class=stub}} {{WikiProject Law }}
}} }}
{{British English Oxford spelling|date=November 2013}}

{{oldafdfull| date = 20 November 2013 (UTC) | result = '''no consensus''' | page = German Acupuncture Trials }}
==Clarifying controls==

It would be helpful if the article said ''which'' bogus points were used: i.e. where were they on the body with respect to the affected area, other acupuncture points, or other acupuncture meridians. For example, if the knee pain study used non-acupoints at or very near the knee, that would mean that the control could have been active according to TCM theory. (TCM suggests needling points close to a painful area even if those points are not traditional acupounts, especially if those same points are painful or ''ashi'' points.)

Needling shallowly at a verum point is also active.

Overall, it would be good to note that both controls, though less active than the treatment, are still potentially or actually active according to TCM theory. Ideally, we could use a source saying this in context of GERAC, to avoid coming even close to WP:SYN. But it could still be mentioned in a brief background section without violating SYN as long as we avoided putting a big "however" qualifier in the conclusion.

Some editors may say that the above sounds like special pleading, but the reasoning comes straight from the ] . They say that the study of traditional medicines must take into account the traditional context of its practice: i.e., how treatments are formulated (which goes to theory) and delivered. The fact that the IOM makes this point establishes it as a well-weighted, mainstream scientific approach to acupuncture. This is obvious on the merits: It's very hard to see how anyone would argue that the possible use of active control group should be ignored unless that person were scientifically illiterate or disingenuous. --] (]) 22:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

:Unfortunately the source doesn't elaborate on the bogus points, and as far as I understand they ''could'' have been ashi points (not very likely, though, given the fact that no ''de-qi'' was reached). However, if you want to include this allegation in the article, we would have to find a source for it - otherwise it would be Original Research. Cheers, --] (]) 04:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

==Primary sources tag==
I found a good secondary source and just added it to the references... Don't have time to go through it right now and it's all in German, but this source should be able to cover most citations in this article. Will come back to it. --] (]) 03:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
:I don't see good secondary sources. This article relies heavily on primary sources. All content that relies on primary sources must be deleted now. ] (]) 02:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
:This is a ? ] (]) 02:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
::The secondary source is from the Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss. Please read ]: "When using a primary source, Misplaced Pages should not overstate the importance of the ''result or the conclusions''." It does NOT say that primary sources can not be used at all, or have generally considered to be not reliable. Your ''unreliable source'' tagging, and questioning the primary source regarding how many health insurances actually initiated GERAC, appears pretty pointy here. --] (]) 03:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
::The secondary source is from the Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss? Don't you mean it is a primary source. You did not show how this is a secondary source. ] (]) 03:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
::The ], and other the primary sources are unreliable. The source Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss is not reliable. ] (]) 03:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

:::Agree, this article needs to be filleted - in fact probably deleted, with any usable remnant merged into the main acupuncture article. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 03:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
::::I don't think there is a single sentence that is usable for the main acupuncture article. ] (]) 04:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
:::::There is Ernst's comment .... ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 04:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

::This text is sourced using unreliable sources. "In 2000, the paramount decision-making body within the self-government of medical service providers and ] in Germany, known as the ] (''Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss''), ruled that acupuncture treatment may not be covered by statutory health insurance companies except within the framework of field studies."
::Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss 2007, p. 2
::"... beschloss der Gemeinsame Bundesausschuss (B-BA) am 16. Oktober 2000, dass Akupunktur nur noch im Rahmen von Modellvorhaben ... von der Gesetzlichen Krankenkasse bezahlt werden kann." ("... on October 16th 2000, the Joint Federal Committee ruled that acupuncture may only be covered by statutory health insurance companies within the framework of field studies ..." As seen at: Endres et al. 2007, p. C101
::These are unreliable sources. ] (]) 03:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
:::This is getting silly. We are talking about huge RCTs published in respectable medical journals, and the ]. Why would these be unreliable sources? And no, the RCTs being primary sources is not a reason to generally throw them out. Please read ] more carefully. --] (]) 04:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
::::These are not secondary sources or reliable sources. AFD or redirect are the only options. Don't make this harder than it has to be. ] (]) 04:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
::::You do know there are in the article. The primary sources are being challenged because they are not ] sources. These trials are not notable because there are very few reliable sources that discuss the trials. ] (]) 04:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
::::"As a result of the GERAC trials, the Joint Federal Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss) decided to include acupuncture into the catalogue of services covered by the German statutory health insurances, for the treatment of low back pain and knee pain."
::::Joint Federal Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss) is too close to the event. Please provide a secondary source for the text. ] (]) 05:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

=== Federal Joint Committee (Germany) ===
Is the ] article notable. Does it meet Misplaced Pages notability guidelines? Hmm. ] (]) 05:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
:Sure, man. In your wrath against acupuncture and everybody who is not 100% against it, why not delete the whole ] article? --] (]) 05:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
::I propose redirect ] to ]. ] (]) 05:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

=== Propose AFD or redirect ===

In 2006, ] noted that the German Acupuncture Trials (GERAC) had attracted criticism for not controlling the risk of patient de-blinding, and said that they " to conclusively answer the question whether acupuncture helps patients through a specific or a nonspecific effect".<nowiki><ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.1111/j.1365-2796.2005.01584.x|title=Acupuncture - a critical analysis|year=2006|last1=Ernst|first1=E.|journal=Journal of Internal Medicine|volume=259|issue=2|pages=125–37|pmid=16420542}}</nowiki></ref>

I propose we add this text to ] after the article has been deleted or redirected.

This is the one of the few references I could find in the article that discusses the trials. The Federal Joint Committee (Germany) is not reliable. It is an . The dated RCTs are the trials. We don't have enough secondary sources or reliable sources on the trials for a separate article. ] (]) 04:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
:a) The Federal Joint Committee is a medical organization as defined by ]. b) Primary sources ''can'' be used in medical articles - and this article here is a good example for it because it's mainly descriptive. For trial conclusions and claims of medical efficacy, primary sources won't do but we don't use for that here. And the GERAC are notable because they had a direct impact on the FJC's decisions concerning reimbursement of acupuncture treatment. --] (]) 05:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
::The primary sources must be now. The Federal Joint Committee is too close to the event. I request secondary sources. ] (]) 05:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
::I . I previously gave my reasons for these types of sources. ] (]) 05:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
::This was . ] (]) 05:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
:::No, so far I haven't heard any real rationale from you why you reject the FJC as a reliable source. It's an independent medical body, and they reviewed not just the GERAC, but quite a few other acupuncture trials before their decision (which makes them a secondary source). Please read their English abstract on p. 2. And please stop this disruptive tagging. --] (]) 06:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
:::"As a result of the GERAC trials, the Joint Federal Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss) decided to include acupuncture into the catalogue of services covered by the German statutory health insurances, for the treatment of low back pain and knee pain."
:::The Joint Federal Committee initiated the project to compare the effectiveness of acupuncture to conventional therapy for pain. Four randomized studies were done as part of the German Acupuncture Trials (GERAC). The Joint Federal Committee is part of this event. Since they are too close to the event I requested secondary sources. ] (]) 06:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

{{od}}
I have executed a ], which has resolved the problems noted. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 06:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
:That fixes the advertizement problems. ] (]) 06:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
::I'm still not convinced that this topic merits a standalone article, though it does seem to be mentioned a bit in the literature (as an exemplar of misleading suggestions from RCTs, it seems). Maybe a sentence or two in the main acupuncture article would be due? ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 06:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
:::A couple of sentences in the ] might work. A redirect would work but I think an AFD may be the only way to resolve this situation with the previous edit history of this article. ] (]) 06:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
::::These are reliable sources. Your requests to throw out the secondary source "being part of this event" doesn't make sense. We're talking about the highest control body in the German healthcare system other than the ministry of health - and it's independent. As I pointed out before, the use of primary sources is also permissible as long as it doesn't cover the conclusions of a trial or claims of medical efficiency. I've asked for comment from the reliable sources noticeboard. Let's wait what they say before you nukeandpave again. --] (]) 07:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
:::::I don't think you understand Misplaced Pages policy on secondary sources. . ] (]) 07:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

== Poorly-sourced health information; neutrality ==

I notice {{u|A1candidate}} has re-added a large quantity of poorly-sourced health information to the article that fails ] (specifically for being either a primary source, a non-medical source for health information, or for failing ]). Conversely Howick, one of only two ''genuine'' secondary sourced has been removed (N.B. Howick gives a "negative" assessment of the worth of these trials). This edit appears to be non-neutral. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 08:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
:No, your edits seem to be non-neutral. This is clearly not poorly sourced, and instead of nukeandpave, you could just as well wait what the discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard results in. The Federal Joint Committee is an independent medical organization, and their source is a review of different primary sources regarding acupuncture. --] (]) 08:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
::Deleting reliably-sourced content (Howick) and adding poorly-sourced content does not advance us towards neutrality. Sourcing health-related content to the output of a middle tier government committee six years ago fall afoul of ], and including it all gives undue weight. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 08:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources seem reliable to me (academic journals). The references are messy (cite journal template should be used), but overall I cannot support removal of that information. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 08:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
:Errr, are you familiar with ]? For biomedical content, academic journal ≠ good source, necessarily. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 08:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
:The Joint Federal Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss) source is heavily used in this article and they initiated the trials. Does not pass ] because they are too close to the event. ] (]) 08:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
::I'm afraid you have to read more closely. It was a couple of statutory health insurances who initiated GERAC. The Joint Fed. Committee is a higher-level body who exempted acupuncture from being reimbursable, and only allowed it for reimbursement for two indications (low back pain, knee pain) after the results of GERAC came out. --] (]) 09:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:53, 14 January 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the German acupuncture trials article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMedicine Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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 Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconSkepticism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGermany Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLaw
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 20 November 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Categories: