| Revision as of 06:56, 4 March 2017 editClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,373,904 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:LesVegas/Archives/2017/February. (BOT)← Previous edit |
Revision as of 08:09, 11 March 2017 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,373,904 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:LesVegas/Archives/2017/February. (BOT)Next edit → |
| Line 11: |
Line 11: |
|
|box-advert=yes |
|
|box-advert=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
== Acupuncture Research == |
|
|
I hope that your are a good resource to discuss omissions and changes to article pages. If this seems inappropriate, please delete. |
|
|
I believe I addressed concerns of two individuals on the validity of modern research (2017) on acupuncture; however, they don't believe in it and simply refuted the research with logical fallacies. After trying the talk page for acupuncture, I added it to the article page. Do you have an opinion on this issue? I am concerned that bias against acupuncture is precluding accurate information regarding its mechanisms of action and efficaciousness from being posted. I am not sure how to reference the reverting that was done on: 04:38, 9 February 2017 on the acupuncture article page. The research was presented in the talk page as: |
|
|
Feedback on this meta-analysis is appreciated. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics) and University of York researchers conclude, “We have provided the most robust evidence from high-quality trials on acupuncture for chronic pain. The synthesis of high-quality IPD found that acupuncture was more effective than both usual care and sham acupuncture. Acupuncture is one of the more clinically effective physical therapies for osteoarthritis and is also cost-effective if only high-quality trials are analysed."<ref>{{cite journal|last1=MacPherson|first1=H|last2=Vickers|first2=A|last3=Bland|first3=M|last4=Torgerson|first4=D|last5=Corbett|first5=M|last6=Spackman|first6=E|last7=Saramago|first7=P|last8=Woods|first8=B|last9=Weatherly|first9=H|last10=Sculpher|first10=M|last11=Manca|first11=A|last12=Richmond|first12=S|last13=Hopton|first13=A|last14=Eldred|first14=J|last15=Watt|first15=I|title=Acupuncture for chronic pain and depression in primary care: a programme of research|date=January 2017|pmid=28121095}}</ref> |
|
|
Next, I rebutted complaints about the section (each logical fallacy, one by one). Next, i added it to the article page but it was reverted. I inserted it as: |
|
|
"Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics) and University of York researchers conclude that acupuncture is an effective therapy for the treatment of osteoarthritis and is cost-effective." (I included the citation) |
|
|
Any advice or help to get impartiality added to the page? I am concerned there is extreme bias and potential ethnocentric concerns blocking accurate medical data from the page. --] (]) 05:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC) |
|
