Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doc James (talk | contribs) at 22:31, 16 August 2010 (→NPOV violation of lead). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transcendental Meditation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: New religious movements Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Transcendental Meditation movement Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transcendental Meditation 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.Transcendental Meditation movementWikipedia:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTemplate:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTranscendental Meditation movement Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transcendental Meditation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Other subpages:

• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Sources
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/religion
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/promotion of studies
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/341 studies

References

RfC: How to best summarize the scientific literature on TM

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

We have been having an ongoing disagreement over how to best summarize the scientific literature on TM. I have proposed the following to replace "Scientific studies published in peer review journals have examined the effects of the technique. A 2007 review of Transcendental Meditation reported that the definitive health effects of meditation cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence examined was of poor quality. A 2006 Cochrane review found that TM was equivalent to relaxation therapy for the treatment of anxiety." Others may also make proposals. Recent discussion have taken place: RS Noticeboard, ArbCom case, and on the TM talk page.

Addendum added by involved editor: All commenting editors please make sure to read the research section in the article to make sure proposed leads summarize that section per WP:LEAD(olive (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

Suggestion 1

Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education. It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation as the quality of research has a lack of methodological rigor. Part of this difficulty is due to the fact that many studies appear to have been conducted by devotees or researchers at universities tied to the Maharishi and on subjects with a favorable opinions of TM.

1. Ospina MB, Bond TK, Karkhaneh M, Tjosvold L, Vandermeer B, Liang Y, Bialy L, Hooton N, Buscemi N, Dryden DM, Klassen TP. (June 2007). Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research (PDF). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. p. 4. A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
2. ^ Krisanaprakornkit T, Ngamjarus C, Witoonchart C, Piyavhatkul N (2010). "Meditation therapies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)". Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 6: CD006507. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006507.pub2. PMID 20556767. As a result of the limited number of included studies, the small sample sizes and the high risk of bias, we are unable to draw any conclusions regarding the effectiveness of meditation therapy for ADHD.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
3. ^ Krisanaprakornkit T, Krisanaprakornkit W, Piyavhatkul N, Laopaiboon M (2006). "Meditation therapy for anxiety disorders". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1): CD004998. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004998.pub2. PMID 16437509. The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
4. Ospina MB, Bond K, Karkhaneh M; et al. (2007). "Meditation practices for health: state of the research". Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) (155): 4. PMID 17764203. A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
5. Ospina MB, Bond K, Karkhaneh M; et al. (2007). "Meditation practices for health: state of the research". Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) (155): 1–263. PMID 17764203. Scientific research on meditation practices does not appear to have a common theoretical perspective and is characterized by poor methodological quality. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
6. Canter PH, Ernst E (2004). "Insufficient evidence to conclude whether or not Transcendental Meditation decreases blood pressure: results of a systematic review of randomized clinical trials". Journal of Hypertension. 22 (11): 2049–54. PMID 15480084. All the randomized clinical trials of TM for the control of blood pressure published to date have important methodological weaknesses and are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
7. Canter PH, Ernst E (2003). "The cumulative effects of Transcendental Meditation on cognitive function--a systematic review of randomised controlled trials". Wien. Klin. Wochenschr. 115 (21–22): 758–66. PMID 14743579. All 4 positive trials recruited subjects from among people favourably predisposed towards TM, and used passive control procedures... The association observed between positive outcome, subject selection procedure and control procedure suggests that the large positive effects reported in 4 trials result from an expectation effect. The claim that TM has a specific and cumulative effect on cognitive function is not supported by the evidence from randomised controlled trials. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 1: Comments from involved users

1. I feel this is an better summary than we currently have. It is the best avaliable articles on the subject matter at hand. I have added the lines of texts used under "quote" in the references to make it easier to determine how each sentence is supported.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
2. I'm no scientist, but I have read some of the cited papers. This draft seems to be a good summary of their relevant findings. The choice of studies appears to be in keeping with the guidelines at WP:MEDRS, using the best available sources while avoiding excess weight on fringe views. This draft is easier to read than the existing text in the intro and would be a significant improvement to the article, from what I can tell. I hope this is something that can be resolved without turning it into a major fight.   Will Beback  talk  08:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
3. Doc, you can't make stuff up, as you have. And you can't completely ignore NPOV, as you have. Please show me the clinical research that compares Transcendental Meditation with relaxation. There are only three randomized controlled trials in the citations you give that compare TM with relaxation, and the AHRQ meta-anlaysis of two of them found that TM had a statistically and clinically significant effect on blood pressure compared to relaxation. The only generalization one could make about relaxation based on the research you cite is that TM has found a health benefit compared to relaxation. TimidGuy (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

   Ah these are two of the most prestigious research organizations in the world. They are systematic reviews of the literature. They looked at nearly everything that was published. I provide direct quotes from all the sources to support these statements.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

   I don't understand. For example, you quote a finding that uses health education as a comparator. How does that allow you to make a generalization regarding relaxation? TimidGuy (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

   Agree and changed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

   The problem remains that there's no support for the first statement, and the second is one-sided, as is the rest. Remember the feedback that we got at RSN. The lead is supposed to be a fair summary of what's in the article. This is not. TimidGuy (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

   Let agree to disagree and wait for outside opinions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

   This isn't rocket science. The lead must summarize what's in the article. If it doesn't, it must be considered poorly written in a technical way, and can end up, as is the case here, being biased because it omits information. Simple.(olive (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

4. The first and second sentences use the same sources (the first and the fourth references are about the same meta-analysis, a meta-analysis done for the AHRQ). The first sentence is only an interpretation against TM of the second sentence: if no conclusion can be drawn, then no advantage has been found. However, only the second sentence is the main conclusion of these sources. In particular, the AHRQ meta-analysis was also published in a peer-reviewed journal which did not mention at all that TM has no advantage over other approaches. The two references provided by Doc James for the AHRQ meta-analysis were not peer-reviewed. If the first sentence was an important conclusion of the meta-analysis, why it is not included in anyway in the peer-reviewed version? Similarly, the Cochrane review only says that no conclusion can be drawn. Doc James refers (not even correctly) to a conclusion of a 1980 paper that was included in this review, but it was not the conclusion of the review. The last sentence is a subjective point of view that is highly controversial and assume that the peer-reviewed journals, the editors and the reviewers, did not properly review the studies on TM that were submitted to them. Though it may happen, it may happen against as much as in support of TM. A response was published (I think in the same journal) to rebut this controversial viewpoint. This controversy has no place in the Intro, even if we presented the two sides, certainly not if we present only one side. The main problem, however, with this proposal is that it excludes important point of views about the physiological and health effects of TM that are found in other reliable systematic reviews that are published in peer-reviewed journals. It is totally one sided. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

One again all sources that I have used are from the most highly respected evidence based research organizations in the world. I do see that the science is being less and less well represented in the article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The AHRQ should not have more weight than other respectable peer reviewed journals. In fact, since it acted as the editor while it was the source of funding for the report and moreover used a non standard peer-review process, it should have less weight. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 1: Comments from uninvolved users

Sources appear to be of the sort promoted by MEDRS and the summary neutral. I support the change, as it is much clearer than the original text and provides an accurate summary.Yobol (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

In reply to the addendum added by another user, I agree that the proposed suggestion #1 does not follow explicitly WP:Lead in summarizing the research section; clearly the way to resolve this problem is to update the research section to follow it. I agree with the proposer of the RfC that most weight in research section should come from large, independent reviews (i.e. Cochrane reviews, the AHRQ review) with less weight to other smaller reviews. Yobol (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we change the article to suit a lead? (olive (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC))

No, I'm suggesting that the article needs revision, and this lead would be a good template for that change. Yobol (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but that's backwards. We need to look at the research in a holistic way, be aware of it, in its entirety then draft the article. Choosing a lead with out that knowledge can only create inaccuracy and subsequent slant and bias. A lead can only be a template if we have a comprehensive view first. (olive (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC))

All medical issues, per MEDRS should be based on high quality reviews (such as Cochrane, etc). That is the comprehensive view. Both the lead and the article can be adjusted at the same time.Yobol (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

In support to Yobol, I must say that a Misplaced Pages article is not static and both the Intro and the body of the article can change. I don't think we can use WP:LEAD to fix the content of the article. In support to Littleolive, I must say that, in general, it is common to first write the body of an article, without worry about the Intro, and write the Intro after. Therefore, I would suggest that those who edited the Intro against WP:LEAD in the past should not repeat that again.

Where Yobol does not have a point at all is when he says that we should exclude the meta-analyses that are not published in Chochrane review or the AHRQ. In particular, this excludes peer reviewed journals that cover traditional medicine. Modern medicine is more recent and thus complementary in a sense to traditional medicine. Traditional medicine might not have a large weight in some specific governmental agencies and in large pharmacological corporations, but it has a large weight in the population and is supported by very respectable governmental agencies. It is used a lot. It makes no sense in an article about TM not to give an equal weight to these other reliable peer review journals. Besides, excellent meta-analyses, other than those in Cochrane Review and AHRQ, were published in journals covering a more general area than traditional medicine. Why should we exclude any of these excellent meta-analyses, which also respect WP:MEDRS? The specific scales used to exclude studies in Cochrane and AHRQ are not MEDRS policy. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes though I would start with the lead and than move onto the body of the text.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

At no point did I say we exclude everything except Cochrane and the AHRQ analysis. I said the highest quality secondary sources that are independent should be given the most weight (both in terms of coverage and our wording and summary) and form the framework of the section on medical researech; other MEDRS compliant secondary sources should be added to supplement this, with due weight (if they are not independent, if they are smaller, etc.) Yobol (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This proposed text summarises the article content accurately and is more compliant with WP:MEDRS.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 2

TM is among the most widely researched meditation techniques. Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. Some studies have found specific physiological effects, and clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being.

1. Murphy M, Donovan S, Taylor E. The Physical and Psychological Effects of Meditation: A review of Contemporary Research with a Comprehensive Bibliography 1931-1996. Sausalito, California: Institute of Noetic Sciences; 1997.
2. Benson, Herbert; Klipper, Miriam Z. (2001). The relaxation respons. New York, NY: Quill. p. 61. ISBN 978-0-380-81595-1.
3. Sinatra, Stephen T.; Roberts, James C.; Zucker, Martin (2007-12-20). Reverse Heart Disease Now: Stop Deadly Cardiovascular Plaque Before It's Too Late. Wiley. p. 192. ISBN 978-0-470-22878-4.
4. Ospina MB, Bond K, Karkhaneh M, et al. (June 2007). "Meditation practices for health: state of the research". Evidence Report/technology Assessment (155): 1–263
5. Cite error: The named reference Dakwar09 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. Cite error: The named reference Wien Klin Wochenschr. was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
7. Anderson JW, Liu C, Kryscio RJ (2008). "Blood pressure response to transcendental meditation: a meta-analysis". Am. J. Hypertens. 21 (3): 310–6. doi:10.1038/ajh.2007.65. PMID 18311126. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
8. Black DS, Milam J, Sussman S (2009). "Sitting-Meditation Interventions Among Youth: A Review of Treatment Efficacy". Pediatrics. 124: e532. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-3434. PMID 19706568. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Suggestion 2: Comments from involved users

1. The first ref by Murphy is from 1997. The Dakwar ref looked at "The emerging role of meditation in addressing psychiatric illness" not physiological effects. The next ref says that physiological effects are NOT supported by the evidence. "The association observed between positive outcome, subject selection procedure and control procedure suggests that the large positive effects reported in 4 trials result from an expectation effect. The claim that TM has a specific and cumulative effect on cognitive function is not supported by the evidence from randomised controlled trials." The Anderson ref was funded by an unrestricted gift from Howard Settle a well known TM supporter and thus not independent. The conclusion of the peads study with respect to ADHD is refuted by a 2010 Cochrane review mentioned above.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

   Fine, we can use Ospina for information about the extent of the research. Canter and Ernst say that there are physiological effects. Their conclusion about cognitive function is unrelated. There are many additional sources for physiological effects. If funding disqualifies a study, then we'd have to remove all the findings regarding the pharmaceutical research. The Peds mention of ADHD research isn't mentioned in this article. It cites the other findings. TimidGuy (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

   Were do Canter say physiological effects? I provided their text above were they said it was do to "expectation effect" . This version totally misrepresents the references used and the sum of the scientific literature. It emphasizes point that are neither here no there (the amount of research done) without sufficiently emphasizing it actually conclusions. This reads too much like a TM press release. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

2. This looks good to me. The first and second sentences are supported by the Cochrane and AHRQ reviews. The second sentence corresponds to the main conclusion of these reviews. The third sentence is supported by other reliable systematic reviews. The whole paragraph is simple and cover all point of views. Doc James is incorrect when he says that the main conclusion of the Cochrane and AHRQ reviews is that TM is not better than relaxation. He argued before that, if no conclusion can be drawn, then no advantage has been found. This argument uses an absence of conclusion to actually suggest a negative conclusion on TM. In one study included in the Cochrane review TM showed effects comparable to biofeedback and relaxation therapy. This was a 1980 study. It is not a conclusion endorsed in the review, which endorsed no conclusion. More recent systematic reviews (and studies included therein), which did not use the strict criteria used in the Cochrane and the AHRQ reviews, support the third sentence. These other reviews are peer-reviewed. Some of their authors were independent from the TM organization. Certainly, the reviewers and the editors were independent of the TM organization. These are thus independent peer-reviewed reliable sources. The criteria of the Cochrane and AHRQ reviews are not Misplaced Pages policy. They are supported by one point of view and cannot be used to exclude other point of views and thus violate Neutral Point of View and Reliable Source . They should not be used by an editor to create its own interpretation of the sub-policy WP:MEDRS for medical claim, which does not specify any specific criteria to assess studies, but suggest that we rely on recent systematic reviews instead. Not all of them use the criteria of the Cochrane and AHRQ reviews. It is not the job of the editors to assess the criteria used in reliable peer reviewed systematic reviews. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 2: Comments from uninvolved users

Please read sources

In this edit and editor removed references that was supporting a statement. It is unclear if the editor read the source. In the 2010 Cochrane it spends many pages discussing the limitation of the best studies available that address the question at hand and concludes: "As a result of the limited number of included studies, the small sample sizes and the high risk of bias" and "Risk of bias in included studies: Systematic biases directly affected the validity of the included studies. See also the ’Risk of bias’ graph (Figure 1) and ’Risk of bias’ summary (Figure 2)." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Doc, Cochrane 2010 didn't look at any TM studies. No TM study was among the included studies. TimidGuy (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah. What else is there to say if we are not even reading the same papers. TM is mentioned multiple times: "Five broad categories of meditation practice were identified by a group of experts using modified Delphi methodology:

mantra meditation (comprising the Transcendental Meditation ® technique (TM®), Relaxation Response (RR) and Clinically Standardized Meditation (CSM)), mindfulness meditation (comprising Vipassana, Zen Buddhist meditation, Mindfulnessbased StressReduction (MBSR) andMindfulness-basedCognitive Therapy (MBCT)), yoga, Tai Chi and Qi Gong" If you read the paper you will see mention of a couple studies specifically dealing with TM.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There was no study on TM among the included studies. Cochrane only considers RCTs. There are no RCTs on TM and ADHD. The statement that you cite is in reference to research that's not on TM. Your use of this review to support the statement that TM research lacks rigor is problematic, and yet another example of your putting false information in Misplaced Pages. Please stop. TimidGuy (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Cochrane review of meditation research on ADHD considered the universe of such research -which would include all TM research - and then excluded from further analysis, for lack of rigor, any study that was not a RTC. It then did further analysis of the four studies that met its criteria, only one of which it concluded had good data. Everything else (including any non-RTC studies of TM and ADHD) it dismisssed as being no better than anecdotal and unworthy of further analysis. If, as TG claims, there are no RTC's on TM and ADHD, then it is more than a bit problematic to complain about a statement that TM research on the subject lacks rigor, and accusing Doc of putting false information in the article based on that claim is an inappropriate personal attack. Fladrif (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

All very interesting, but we must use sources accurately. --BwB (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, "the universe of research" on meditation and ADHD would contain only a single study on TM : http://cie.asu.edu/volume10/number2/ . I am not aware of any other study of TM on ADHD. It is announced as an explanatory study. The authors explain that since there was only 11 students diagnosed with ADHD in the group, the size of the controlled and intervention groups would have been too small in a RCT. They used a different methodology and they did it rigorously. A preliminary study can be rigorous as long as it is presented as such. This incorrect qualification of preliminary or explanatory studies as "lacking of rigour" appears also in AHRQ and other Cochrane reviews. This issue is not specific to the 2010 Cochrane review. However, it is particularly easy to observe it in this case because there is only one study on TM Vs ADHD to look at. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(undent) They looked at all the studies and thus are able to conclude what the evidence does and does not show. And then comment on the quality of evidence. If there is no evidence they can thus say the quality of evidence is poor or lacking. Here are so more quotes. So evidence does not show that TM has a benefit in ADHD because there is little to no evidence.:

Some reports exist which detail the usefulness of meditation for

childrenwith ADHD.Grosswald (reported inMicucci 2005) conducted a study in April 2004 at Chelsea School in Silver Spring, Maryland, a private school for children with learning disabilities. The study compared ten students with ADHD before and after they learned and practiced Transcendental Meditation for ten minutes twice daily for three months. Participants reported being calmer, less distracted, less stressed and better able to control their anger and frustration. However, there was no control/comparison

group in this study.

French 1975

French AP, Schmid AC, Ingalls E. Transcendental meditation, altered reality testing, and behavioural change: a case report.

Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 1975;161(1):55–8.

Lazarus 1976

Lazarus AA. Psychiatric problems precipitated by transcendental

meditation. Psychological Reports 1976;39(2):601–2.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Doc, the problem is that you quoted from their comments about the included studies to support your point. But none of the included studies was on TM. This was a misrepresentation -- one that you repeated on WP:AE. TimidGuy (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

They did look at TM. And yes found that evidence was not sufficient to draw conclusions. This is stated above.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Arguing with TG when he cannot reply is not so appropriate. I would have participated, but the last time I checked, the Cochrane review was not available online from my institution. I checked for it on Wiley Online using their filter "Journals" (i.e., removing entries that are not in journals) and I could not find it. It was in their database, but not indexed as a journal entry. Perhaps, this is why I cannot get it online from my institution. Also, I saw this edit in the talk page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation&diff=378081498&oldid=378080524 ), but could not find where in the talk page you explain why you did that. It is very delicate to edit previous text in the talk page because it can interfere with subsequent comments. Make sure that you acknowledge explicitly this change where it can be relevant. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A number of people have commented on this thread. It is a discussion between all of us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Have fixed a typo in your posting above, "threat">"thread", just to avoid misunderstandings. Hope you don't mind. --Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, fine. Still, I cannot get the article, which is not indexed as a journal. Perhaps, we should wait until after it gets indexed as a journal before including it. Also, can you address my last point. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean indexed like it is here ? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

And here, in the Wiley system: .   Will Beback  talk  17:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I had seen these two entries. I was referring to the main Wiley Online library site. When you search for meditation, you find the the 2010 Cochrane review, but after you filter for Journals, it disappears. I am guessing that explains why I cannot get it from my institution. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The 700 studies

• Many of the 700 studies have been conducted by researchers associated with the TM organization.

1. Canter PH, Ernst E (2004). "Insufficient evidence to conclude whether or not Transcendental Meditation decreases blood pressure: results of a systematic review of randomized clinical trials". Journal of Hypertension. 22 (11): 2049–54. PMID 15480084. All the randomized clinical trials of TM for the control of blood pressure published to date have important methodological weaknesses and are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
2. Canter PH, Ernst E (2003). "The cumulative effects of Transcendental Meditation on cognitive function--a systematic review of randomised controlled trials". Wien. Klin. Wochenschr. 115 (21–22): 758–66. PMID 14743579. All 4 positive trials recruited subjects from among people favourably predisposed towards TM, and used passive control procedures... The association observed between positive outcome, subject selection procedure and control procedure suggests that the large positive effects reported in 4 trials result from an expectation effect. The claim that TM has a specific and cumulative effect on cognitive function is not supported by the evidence from randomised controlled trials. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

What 700 studies are being referred to here? This is the only mention of them in the lead, so it's a non-sequitor. Do C&E mention "700 studies"?   Will Beback  talk  05:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it states "Our searches have identified some 700 research papers on TM and most of these have been written by researchers directly associated with the TM organization. Many have not been subjected to peer review." and "All the randomized clinical trials of TM for the control of blood pressure published to date have important methodological weaknesses and are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization. There is at present insufficient good-quality evidence to conclude whether or not TM has a cumulative positive effect on blood pressure."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case the sentence should be written so that we communicate what these studies are. Also, "many" seems significantly different than "most". How about this: Most of the 700 studies on TM have been conducted by researchers associated with the TM organization, and many did not go through peer-review. All of the studies on blood pressure have been found to have methodological weaknesses and potential biases by some reviewers.   Will Beback  talk  05:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think that sums up the source.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You did not ask all the relevant questions. "Where is it sourced?" and "Did it fairly represent the source?" are only two of the many aspects to consider. Here are some other aspects: "Was the statement prominent in the source?", "Was the source prominent for an article on TM?", "Are there other reliable sources that say the same thing?", "Is the statement contradicted in other reliable source?" The first of these other aspects is actually a refinement of "Did it fairly represent the source?" Also, I am not saying that we can exclude a statement because it is contradicted or ignored in other reliable sources on the same topic. This can only be used to give it a lower weight. Most importantly, there are other important issues that need to be discussed. This one (i.e., this new section) is also important. We can discuss it, but we will not succeed to address the NPOV violation of the lead without also considering the other issues. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason this is misleading is that the figure of 700 includes everything, such as dissertations, conference abstracts, pilot studies included in the early editions of Collected Papers. It's a matter of fact that many of this list of 700 weren't peer reviewed. But that doesn't in any way reflect on the hundreds of peer reviewed studies. Most of the studies published in the last 25 years have been peer reviewed. It really skews things to cherry pick this point and let it define the body of research. This shouldn't be in the lead. It doesn't matter how many pilot studies or conference presentations there were; what matters is the peer-reviewed research. And there's plenty of that. TimidGuy (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused, TG. You're the one who made the edit that I'm questioning. If we all agree that many of the 700 studies were not peer-reviewed, and that most of them were conducted by TM-related researchers, then what is the problem with saying that?   Will Beback  talk  18:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

@Will, first it is not our job to evaluate the truth of a statement in a source. However, it is our job to understand it so that we represent it fairly in the article. I think TG problem is summarized here Misplaced Pages:NOR#Using_sources. The problem is that this statement is unclear in terms of numbers of peer-reviewed studies (how many is many?). I think if we need to say something about the studies, we need a better reference, more precise. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm also wondering about the difference between "700 studies" and "over 600 studies". I assume that these are mostly the same studies. The movement makes frequent mention of the "over 600 studies", yet they rarely if ever make the distinctions that TG refers to. Since there are a variety of views on those studies, I don't see why we'd exclude an important, scholarly view about them. It would be incompatible with NPOV to leave the impression with readers that all of the over 600 studies are published in high-quality, peer-reviewed papers. If we're going to refer to these studies, then we need to give views besides those of the TMM.   Will Beback  talk  21:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see the same issue as Will here. I previously made the point that the "over 600 studies" does not have its place in the Intro because it does not convey the quality of the research. I am going even further : how many studies are peer-reviewed is also not so important. The existing meta-analyses have already done the job of analysing the quality of the research and they counted the number of studies that were eligible for consideration. However, why focusing on one or two sentences in seven years old reviews to address this issue? I guess I am reaching the same conclusion as TimidGuy. I believe that the ratio of high quality studies over all studies is about the same for research on meditation in general and possibly also in many other areas of research, if anything perhaps the ratio is higher in the TM case. This is cherry picking statements to imply that there is something wrong with the TM research in particular. I have no problem in citing the number of studies illegible for consideration in the various meta-analyses, but not only in Cochrane and AHRQ. We can mention that the TMO says that there are over 600 studies, if the con-TM wants it. This will imply that the majority of these studies were not illegible. However, I disagree with cherry picking one or two statements that draw unsupported negative conclusions specifically about the TM research from these numbers and then refer to them in the Intro. Moreover, if we do include such statements in the article, not in the Intro, they should be clearly attributed to C&E because they are highly controversial statements. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"Cherry picking" implies that the sentences being summarized are not typical of the entire study. I don't think that's the case here. The sentences seem to be important conclusions, not just passing comments.   Will Beback  talk  23:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Let us consider this version of the statement in the Intro

According to Canter and Ernst, all of the studies on TM and blood pressure are potentially biased as they were conducted by researchers connected to the TM organization, and on subjects with favorable opinions of TM.

For the record, I say that your last argument (if used to include the above statement in the Intro) belongs in category one. I recall that category one contains arguments that are "Giving more weight to points out of the main scope of a source rather than to its main conclusions and findings." Before, I substantiate my position, I would like to ask you a question. What was the main scope of the C&E analysis in your opinion? Did they do a systematic analysis of the effect of a TM affiliation on the outcome of the studies? If they did I hope they controlled for a complete negative view of TM, the opposite of an affiliation, just in case the effect was the same but in the opposite direction. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Objective: To carry out an independent, systematic review of randomized clinical trials of Transcendental Meditation (TM) for cumulative effects on blood pressure.
• Conclusion: All the randomized clinical trials of TM for the control of blood pressure published to date have important methodological weaknesses and are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization. There is at present insufficient good-quality evidence to conclude whether or not TM has a cumulative positive effect on blood pressure.

Perhaps I'm dense, but it wold appear to me that the scope of the review covers studies on the effects of TM on blood pressure, and the conclusion is that the studies are insufficient to make any conclusion about those effects. Does anyone think the review had a different scope?   Will Beback  talk  03:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is indeed the scope of the study. It conclusions agree with other independently done systematic reviews.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

We really shouldn't be using C&E 2004 on blood pressure, since it's superseded by Ospina 2007, and since Ospina makes essential the same point. It's out of date. It doesn't include two of the highest quality studies: Schneider 2005 and Paul-Labrador 2006. In addition, the latter study was conducted by researchers who don't do TM. It can no longer be said that all studies to date are potentially biased by affiliation to the TM organization. TimidGuy (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If two highly reliable source say the same thing, that doubles the message rather than cancelling it out. WP:MEDRS says: "Although the most-recent reviews include later research results, do not automatically give more weight to the review that happens to have been published most recently, as this is recentism." In the text, we can describe the 2004 review, and then describe newer reviews and mention that additional research was conducted in between. That's too much detail for the intro, though.   Will Beback  talk  20:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

They don't say the same thing. Please be more explicit. What part exactly of the 2004 C&E review is also found in recent meta-analyses? Is it "have important methodological weaknesses" or "are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization."? Except for the generalization to all studies, I agree that the first part is also mentioned in more recent meta-analyses. I didn't check for the second part, but it is irrelevant. The phrase "are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization" is not within the scope or objective of this 2004 review or of more recent reviews. They did not study that: the affiliation of the authors was not a variable in these reviews. I understand that it is mentioned in the 2004 C&E conclusion, but it remains a controversial opinion, not supported by their work, a passing comment and it should not receive too much weight even if we were to consider this review alone (which we should not do.) Whenever we present this opinion, normally not in the Intro, it should be separated from the true findings and, to respect WP:NPOV, presented together with the other opinion: "Probably all investigators bring bias to implementation of clinical trials—either enthusiasm or skepticism.", which can be found in the Anderson review and most likely elsewhere as well. The true findings can receive more weight than this opinion as long as they are not contradicted but supported by the most recent meta-analyses (thus with no all). Also, the wordings "lack of rigour" or "important methodological weaknesses" have a subjective component. It is unfortunate that these weasel expressions have been used to qualify studies that are rigorous, provide very useful information, but only cannot be used to draw definitive clinical conclusions according to some standard. These expressions should definitively be explicitly attributed to their sources. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll let you and TG argue over whether these reviews have the same conclusions or not. If C&E's conclusion is just an opinion then I suppose all conclusions are opinions. I don't see the difference. I disagree that a core conclusion is the same thing as a passing comment. All conclusions found in reviews and papers should be attributed. However we don't need to name obscure scholars in the intro; that conveys no information to the readers. It's sufficient to name them generically or refer to their paper, and then give the details in the body.   Will Beback  talk  21:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I recall, we did not insist to attribute to the authors. I think TimidGuy finally attributed the statement to the review, not to the authors. The statement we are talking about is " are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization". This is not a finding of the systematic review. The affiliation was not a variable in the review. It was not a rigorous well supported scientific statement. The statement " are potentially biased by authors or funding agencies that are detractors of the TM organization" is as true. The emphasis on one possible bias here is a question of opinion. The true finding is that the studies did not meet their quality assessment criteria. This is a systematic finding based on their systematic review. They express it by saying that the studies were of pour methodological quality. I feel there is a subjective component in the way it is expressed, but at the least it is linked to the actual finding. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 04:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Orme-Johnson specifically criticized this review yet he didn't mention anything about the potential bias conclusion, so it's probably OR for us to raise it here. Since MUM exists to promote TM and related technologies, it's not a stretch to assert that researchers there could be biased. Is there actual bias? Last year I asked if any study conducted by TM-affiliated researchers had ever failed to achieve a positive finding. The answer then was, basically, "no". Out of more than 500 studies, every single one found the expected result. That's a remarkable achievement but it also implies bias on the part of the researchers. Another form of bias is evident in the choice of topics. How is it that prolific researchers like Orme-Johnson, Dillbeck, and Travis have never conducted research on any topic unrelated to TM?   Will Beback  talk  08:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I would take issue with you assertion Will that "MUM exists to promote TM and related technologies". Surely it exists to provide an education to the students that attend? Yes the education system there includes TM and related technologies, but it provide both undergrad and grad programs in a wide verity of subjects. --BwB (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to graduate from MUM without learning TM?   Will Beback  talk  08:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thread is drifting off into personal-opinion territory again. Can you two please re-focus? As I understand, the original topic of this thread was whether the summary cited at the beginning was a fair and accurate reflection of the research it meant to summarise. Is there still anything to debate about that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. The text that I questioned at the beginning of the thread is now gone, so it's not about that topic anymore. Then it took a turn over whether some material in the conclusion of a review is just an opinion or not. I'd be happy to close this in favor of a more focused thread.   Will Beback  talk  09:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV violation of lead

Selecting a few studies to support a view while ignoring others, and ignoring a summary of the content in the article itself to present a one sided view constitutes and creates a POV, and creates a lead that is patently absurd. The lead must summarize and reflect the article. if this paragraph is not pulled out and rewritten to comply with NPOV and WP:LEAD standards we need to ask for formal mediation. Enough is enough. (olive (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC))

Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education. It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation as the quality of research has design limitations and a lack of methodological rigor. Part of this difficulty is due to the fact that many studies appear to have been conducted by devotees or researchers at universities tied to the Maharishi and on subjects with a favorable opinions of TM.

You mean while not mentioning reviews done by people affiliated with the TM organization? It specifically says independent. One could say non independent reviews done with funding from supporters of TM found favorable results. But we already say that in the body of the text and I do not think it warrants mentioning in the lead.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

A single editor does not define the lead. The lead summarizes the article. Further, your insistence on using the self defined word "independent" to create a POV, while ignoring the peer review process and the reviews used in the article, discredits the researchers, the peer review, and the publication. That strikes me as a mighty tenuous position for any editor. Further your implied and continued insistence that the so called TM editors are not capable of neutral editing smacks of a violation of WP:AGF. Lets see if we can move along here and leave those concerns behind. The lead must be rewritten to fairly and neutrally summarize the article. End of story.(olive (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC))

The lead still does not summarize what is in the article rather than make specific references to certain kinds of reviews and as opposed to summarizing the state of the research as a whole, but I made some changes to the wording to try and reflect the sources more closely.(olive (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC))

If you read the RfC you will notice a number of editors commented in support of the version I put forwards. I changed it back to the RfC version which already correctly summarized the research. I agree with Olive above enough is enough. Misplaced Pages is not a platform for promoting TM. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Would that "number of editors", that is uninvolved editors be the number 2, or am I miscounting? --BwB (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The point of an RfC is to get outside input. In an RfC, two responses is typical. In this case all (both) of the outside input gave the same response. Is anyone here suggesting we ignore the outside input?   Will Beback  talk  21:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

We already answered that question. TimidGuy pointed out that these external editors were misinformed. We saw one of them gradually change its view point as he received more information. Besides, these inputs are there or should be there to help us apply the policy. So, let us work on it. Edith Sirius Lee (talk)

Ah, they were misinformed. Of course! And we know that how? Because TG said so? Should we ignore the outside input since you and TG believe it's wrong?   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a fair amount of opinion flying around here. We are looking for agreement among a majority of editors, and we don't have that, but are at an impasse. Right now we have two major issues; whether the lead in a short paragraph that for the most part references two reviews summarizes, health outcomes, mental function, criminal rehabilitaion and addiction, effects on the brain, and effects on the physiology, and second whether whatever is in the lead now accurately reflects the sources. If we delineate these two issues rather than conflate them and stick to the issues at hand we might be able to reach some agreement. No?(23:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC))

If there's an impasse among involved editors then the preferred way of resolving that is to get outside input.   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Misplaced Pages is not a platform for promoting TM. We should keep this in mind. It is also not a platform to compensate for a legitimate and normal promotion of TM outside Misplaced Pages. I do not think that the popular media and the research is biased by this TM promotion more than it is in any other direction, but even if it was, the job of all editors is to represent fairly and proportionally what is in the published research outside Misplaced Pages (especially, the meta-analyses). If you want, you can try having peer-reviewed journals stop publishing meta-analyses that show the positive effects of TM, but in Misplaced Pages you must respect these highly reliable sources. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

War? That's hyperbole. Let's try to keep the discussion here on a more reasonable basis and avoid inflammatory language.   Will Beback  talk  21:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Made some modifications. Took out war. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In the future, please review your edits before pressing the "save page" button.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Will. I'm sure all editors make comments which that they might later like to retract or which contain errors. (olive (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC))

In any case, even though it is not useful in this thread, because Doc James insisted, here are some paste and cut from this talk page. You can easily find the context using a search.

I propose that a statement that represents fairly the 2008 Anderson meta-analysis on the effect of TM on blood pressure is added in the Intro. The only argument against its inclusion have been shown against policy in this thread and no one counter replied. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the fascinating use of the term "we", which I will not comment on, the suggestion that whether or not TM is religious or founded in Hinduism isn't something on the radar of "the general population" and that to raise the issue is a violation of WP:NPOV or WP:WEIGHT misapplies both policies. I don't know what "the general population" thinks about TM; I suspect that they don't think about it much at all, given the collapse of new enrollment some 35 years ago from which the movement has never recovered, although there was and is extensive newspaper coverage of the court cases in New Jersey, and Lynch's initiative to put TM into public schools, which were met with considerable opposition in several communities over precisely that controversy. The point is what do reliable sources say about it, and what is the weight given to the question in reliable sources? As Will points out, there is considerable mention of the controversy in secondary sources, and considerable scholarly work on this issue.

Yes, it would be easy to interpret the previous discussion as a personal TM propaganda followed by a personal anti-TM propaganda, but let us not go into this. The fact is that we must discuss the TM position in the talk page so that we have an idea of what could be eventually included and sourced in the article. We must also discuss the other viewpoints for the same reason. Let us just do it without taking side personally (emotively, etc.) as much as possible.

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Start-Class Alternative medicine articles
• Start-Class Alternative views articles
• Mid-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Start-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• Start-Class New religious movements articles
• High-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Start-Class Transcendental Meditation movement articles
• Top-importance Transcendental Meditation movement articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment