Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:15, 11 January 2010

India Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Alternative medicine Start‑class

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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

/Archive 1 /Archive2

Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)

I've just been looking over WP:MEDRS and I'm concerned that many of the sources we use do not comply. First, this does seem to be an article which concerns "biomedical information", so WP:MEDRS does appear to be an appropriate standard. Let's go over some elements of the guideline:

• Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources: In general, medical information in Misplaced Pages articles should be based upon published, reliable secondary sources whenever possible. Reliable primary sources can add greatly to an article, but must be used with care because of the potential for misuse.
• Definitions: A primary source in medicine is one where the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats or filled the test tubes, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, papers published in medical journals are primary sources. A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic. Literature reviews, systematic review articles and specialist textbooks are examples of secondary sources, as are position statements and literature reviews by major health organizations. A good secondary source from a reputable publisher will be written by an expert in the field and be editorially or peer reviewed. Do not confuse a scientific review (the thing) with peer review (the activity)

The discussion of studies in this article appears to rely mostly upon primary sources.

• Assess evidence quality: Several systems exist for assessing the quality of available evidence on medical subjects, and these should be kept in mind while assessing whether a particular viewpoint is a majority or minority one, and in deciding what constitutes evidence-based medicine. The best evidence comes from meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and from systematic reviews of bodies of literature of overall good quality and consistency addressing the specific recommendation. Narrative reviews can help establish the context of evidence quality. Roughly in descending order of quality, lower-quality evidence in medical research comes from individual RCTs, other controlled studies, quasi-experimental studies, and non-experimental studies such as comparative, correlation, and case control studies. Although expert committee reports or opinions, along with clinical experience of respected authorities, are weaker evidence than the scientific studies themselves, they often provide helpful overviews of evidence quality. Case reports, whether in the popular press or a peer-reviewed medical journal, are a form of anecdote and generally fall below the minimum requirements of reliable medical sources.

How many of the studies in this article meet the higher standards in this scheme, such as RCTs?

• Use up-to-date evidence: Prefer recent reviews to older primary sources on the same topic. If recent reviews don't mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious. Conversely, an older primary source that is seminal, replicated, and often-cited in reviews is notable in its own right and can be mentioned in the main text in a context established by reviews. For example, Genetics might mention Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species as part of a discussion supported by recent reviews.

It seems like many of the sources are older than five years, and few (any?) have been included in reviews. Can we use reviews instead?

• Use independent sources: Many medical claims lack reliable research about the efficacy and safety of proposed treatments, or about the legitimacy of statements made by proponents. In such cases, reliable sources may be much more difficult to find and unreliable sources can often be more readily available. Whenever writing about medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used. Sources written and reviewed by the advocates of such marginal ideas can be used to describe notable personal opinions, but extreme care should be taken when using such sources lest the more controversial aspects of their opinions be taken at face value or, worse, asserted as fact. If the independent sources discussing a medical subject are of low quality, then it is likely that the subject itself is not notable enough for inclusion.

How many of the studies in this article were conducted be researchers independent of the proponents of the remedies?

How can we bring this article into compliance with the guideline?   Will Beback  talk  04:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that the article is out of compliance with the guideline. The guideline doesn't say that primary sources can't be used. It doesn't say that studies older than five years can't be used. And it doesn't say that studies by proponents published in independent peer-reviwed publications can't be used. I'm open to discussion in regard to contextualizing the research in the article. TimidGuy (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Good points Timid. Giving context to the research seems appropriate. --BwB (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The guideline places an emphasis on using recent reviews of random, independent studies. Few of the papers cited in this article are independent, random, reviews, or recent. I'm not suggesting deleting them entirely. Even a feather pillow has weight. Perhaps something like "studies conducted by involved researchers have reported positive results" expanded to fit a paragraph or two.   Will Beback  talk  12:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

These are studies published in independent peer-reviewed journals. Which of the journals are you suggesting are peer reviewed by advocates? And in general, which research sections are you referring to? TimidGuy (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we've been over this again and again. With respect to Will I'd like to get rid of the word proponents that he uses and which has been tossed around here to suggest biased involvement, and further to TG's question concerning peer review, what journals are not reliable per Misplaced Pages. Further clarification would be good.(olive (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

Perhaps the best way to proceed would be to copy in a list of the studies we cite and see which ones are reviews versus primary sources, which are older than five years, and which are not independently published or reviewed. It's my impression that few of the sources for studies that we now have in the article would meet all three criteria.   Will Beback  talk  20:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: I looked over this page and the archive, and I don't see where this has been discussed and resolved. Many of the sources were added relatively late in the editing of this article, so older discussions might not have included all of the studies currently in the article.   Will Beback  talk  20:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The guideline does not restrict use of primary sources, or the use of studies older than 5 years, but qualifies their use. I do think we could check through and see which studies are independently published and reviewed, and if there are studies which do not fit this criteria then decide if the studies have a place in this article or not.(olive (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

Rather than apply a general criteria for the sources here , I would prefer to take each source individually and assess its importance and usefulness to the article. WP:MEDRS is a multi faceted guideline whose wording makes it clear that it describes possible guides for diverse situations, and could require different kinds of sources for those situations rather than being a restrictive, set of rules.(olive (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

I agree that it's better to use the specific criteria rather then the general WP:RS criteria, that's why I've quoted the specific criteria from WP:MEDRS. I also agree that we should look at the studies individually, but it's not necessary to do so one by one. We can look at all of them based on objective standards and see which are the best which should be kept. I don't think this article should follow rules of its own that contradict those existing guidelines, unless there's a god reason and explicit agreement.   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Will, you haven't shown that any of the research in this article is noncompliant, that it contradicts existing guidelines. All of this research should be included. The guideline doesn't say that primary sources can't be used. It doesn't say that studies older than five years can't be used. And it doesn't say that studies by proponents published in independent peer-reviwed publications can't be used. Perhaps as a starting point, you could select one study and explain why it's noncompliant. TimidGuy (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I haven't tried to show that yet. I'm proposing a framework for deciding which studies are compliant and which, if any, are noncompliant. As a test, I'll take your suggestion and pick one to review according to WP:MEDRS.   Will Beback  talk  12:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

My concern with a framework is that the guideline WP:MEDRS is clearly flexible per source, while a framework is probably less so. I wouldn't support a generalized framework specific to sources on this or to any TM articles. We can if it seems necessary analyze every source per the WP:MEDRS guideline.(olive (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)(

If there's a special reason to include a source that doesn't otherwise qualify then we can add it back. See the example of Darwin's 1859 book in the text above.   Will Beback  talk  03:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

At this point I'm against creating a framework. We should deal with the sources per the guideline. (olive (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC))

I think there's a misunderstanding here. The "framework" I'm suggesting is just a way of checking to see if the sources meet the specific criteria in WP:MEDRS. There's nothing tricky or original about a framework - I was thinking of a table listing the sources and checkmarks or whatever to see which criteria are met or not met. Your help would be appreciated, but otherwise we can just move forward and you can give input as you see fit. It's all good.   Will Beback  talk  04:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, is Olive being blown off ? Tsk, tsk. As I said, above I'll be referencing the guideline. (olive (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC))

Using the guideline is all I'm asking for.   Will Beback  talk  19:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are saying more than "using the guideline". You seem to wanting to create a "self-designed" framework to judge the MVAH studies. I have to agree with Olive that we should apply the WP:MEDRS to each study individually and discuss here to see if it merits inclusion - no blanket application of a created standard. --BwB (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the should apply the WP:MEDRS guideline: that's what this thread is all about. However most of these studies have many elements in common so it isn't necessary to discuss them individually. I might add that there was no discussion of them before they were added. Here for example. The burden of proof is on the editors who wish to add the material.   Will Beback  talk  00:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

MEDRS example

• Wallace, RK; Dillbeck, M; Jacobe, E; Harrington, B (1982). "The effects of the transcendental meditation and TM-Sidhi program on the aging process". The International Journal of Neuroscience. 16 (1): 53–8. doi:10.3109/00207458209147602. PMID 6763007. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Study or review?

This appears to be a primary study rather than a secondary review.

Quality of study?

No evidence that it was a randomised, controlled trial.

Up-to-date evidence?

It is over 17 years old.

Independent?

Two of the authors, including the lead author, are or were faculty at MIU.

So this reference does not appear to meet any of these four criteria from WP:MEDRS.   Will Beback  talk  22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. These aren't criteria for inclusion. Are you presenting them as such? It doesn't make any difference how old a study is, for example. Research doesn't somehow rot with time. The reason this guideline exists is because in active, dynamically changing areas of research recent studies and reviews will sometimes supersede earlier studies. So then you go with the more recent work. The purpose is to forestall use of studies that have been made obsolete. That's not the case here. That section of the guideline explicitly says, "These guidelines are appropriate for actively-researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews, and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made and few reviews are being published." TimidGuy (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point Timid. I would also question the Independent criteria. When research is done on a particular new scientific theory, idea, drug etc., it is very often those closest to the new development who do the study. The studies on TM were done by the scientist who learned the technique, were familiar with the "subjective" changes that occurred both during and after the practice of TM, and wanted to understand the physiological changes that TM produced. As the knowledge of brain physiology, for example, developed, scientists wanted to investigate the implications to the TM technique. Naturally, it is the scientists most familiar with the technique who are going to lead the way. A roundabout way of saying that just because a scientist who practices TM researches the physiological effects of TM does not necessarily negate the findings. Could we not say that a scientist who researches the lungs and breathing should be disqualified for researching asthma because he practices the technique of "breathing"? --BwB (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that it isn't a criterion, as Will seems to be suggesting, and note that he hasn't correctly characterized what the guideline says. Which is that a source is considered not to be independent if both the authors and reviewers are proponents. All of this research was published in independent journals and was independently peer reviewed. (And according to the guideline, even in the case that both the authors and reviewers are proponents, it can still be used.) TimidGuy (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've quoted the guideline above. It says, "If recent reviews don't mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious." Do we want to use dubious sources?   Will Beback  talk  19:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you point to a recent review of the effect of Transcendental Meditation on the aging process that doesn't mention this study? TimidGuy (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should start by compiling a list of reviews. Individual studies that have been included in those reviews may merit additional details.   Will Beback  talk  11:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The relevant test is finding this paper in a review. If this study hasn't been included in a review then it's considered dubious. It also doesn't appear to be a randomised trial, so it's not high quality in that respect. It was conducted by proponents of the technique so it wasn't done independently. This does not appear to meet the standards of WP:MEDRS on several counts.   Will Beback  talk  19:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You're free to make rules up, but Misplaced Pages editors aren't obligated to abide by guidelines that you invent. TimidGuy (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh? What have I written here that's contrary to WP:MEDRS? How would you consider this source in light of that guideline?   Will Beback  talk  11:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Where in the guideline does it state that a study must be a randomized controlled trial to be included in Misplaced Pages, where does it state that a study by a proponent isn't considered independent, where does it state that there must be a review on the topic in order for a study to be included? This source is acceptable in the light of this guideline, which only disallows case reports, popular media, and conference presentations. TimidGuy (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree with Timid on this. --BwB (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's take it point by point and see where we are at the end. Does any here argue that this is a randomized, controlled study?   Will Beback  talk  19:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This page in a nutshell: Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies.

I've posted the WP:MEDRS nutshell to answer the question of how we define ideal sources. the guideline goes on to say: ... it is vital that biomedical information in articles be based on reliable published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. and A Misplaced Pages article should cite the best and most-reliable sources ... Are editors here suggesting that we should use dubious sources instead of those that are the best or most reliable?   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that editors here have read Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Definitions, despite the fact that I quoted most of it above. Studies are primary sources. Let's go through it more slowly:

• A primary source in medicine is one where the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats or filled the test tubes, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, papers published in medical journals are primary sources.

Is there any question that this study is a primary source, per the definition above?   Will Beback  talk  13:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You are reframing the issue. The issue isn't whether this is a primary source or not.The issue is the guideline and its application. Refer to TG 's points above in bold. (olive (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC))

The issues is all of the criteria in WP:MEDRS. Does anyone disagree that this is a primary source?   Will Beback  talk  19:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a note on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine#Research studies on alternative medicine asking for advice on how to proceed.   Will Beback  talk  00:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to comment fully on this one source without knowing what the article text is saying based on it. The citation scheme used by this article is bizarre and very hard to work out even if that reference is used at all. To be honest, it is very unlikely that this little primary study should be a source for any text in an encyclopaedia article. These little studies are published to be read by other medical researchers. They are little stepping stones on the way to finding something of clinical importance. I don't have access to the full text of the paper (and if you guys don't either, then you absolutely shouldn't cite it) but according to this letter in the BMJ the author's point out that "long term prospective studies using random assignment methods are obviously needed". That letter also suggests the results of the study are "open to interpretation", which is a polite way of saying the conclusions may not be valid.

A very brief look at this WP article indicates to me that all the wrong things are going on. Editors are attempting to perform their own review of the primary research literature. This is exactly what MEDRS recommends to avoid: we should not decide which research study to mention and which to ignore. The job of judging WP:WEIGHT falls to the weight given by reliable sources (and primary sources cannot establish their own weight/notability). Although MEDRS gives some guidance on how to judge a research paper (and links to resources that contain much more in this regard) we should generally be leaving that job to the experts and for us to cite their considered opinion. According to http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/3/4/513?ijkey=214ef7578314e2bb716eae68a0f5677398d587df#SEC6] Scholar, that paper is cited by 49 others. Follow the chain up till you find some more useful and more recent source. A 21st century article shouldn't be based on a paper written in the early 1980s. What is the current opinion of experts? What do reviews and other academic monographs and articles from the last 5 years say on the subject? If nobody says anything about it today, or nobody has followed up the little study with a better one, then it suggests it is no longer important or perhaps never was.

The "is it a primary source" question is complex and fully depends on what information is being drawn from the cited source. For most purposes, the description in MEDRS is accurate enough. The section "Maharishi Amrit Kalash research studies" is currently just a dumping ground for editors to cherry-pick the primary research that suits whatever case they want to give. Citing animal studies is a big red warning sign that editors are misusing the sources. This section can probably be replaced by a short paragraph drawn from a good secondary source (review, academic book). Colin° 10:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I've found the article text: "Studies have suggested a positive correlation between the practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique and ... an effect the researchers termed "younger biological age"". I'd say that was an accurate claim, meeting WP:V and the phrase "suggested a positive correlation" is appropriately muted based on the sources given. However, the paragraph containing it only lists positive research studies. This might well mean the balance of the paragraph is wrong and the impression given to the reader is there's lots of positive research on TM. We need secondary sources in order to judge this weight and balance. It might be, for example, that such sources indicate most such studies are to small or contain too many methodological errors for them to be taken seriously. Also, it might be that there are lots of (better) studies showing no correlation or the opposite. So while the above text might be literally correct, so might the hypothetical statement "Of the many studies on TM, most showing positive results are very small and poorly designed while the larger, better designed trials show no effect." That's just an example of the sort of thing that might result from looking at better sources (and is quite a common finding with alternative medicine). Colin° 11:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Colin. I guess that goes along with my point of view that it's appropriate to have a muted, brief mention but not to entirely eliminate studies, as Will seems to be suggesting (unless, of course, they can be shown to have been superseded). And early on in this discussion I told Will that I was open to creating context for this research. We don't want to give the impression that it's evidenced-based medicine when it isn't. I think it could be said that some of the research on Transcendental Meditation is now evidenced-based, with RCTs and meta-analyses. But the Amrit Kalash research, for example, is in a different ballpark. I agree that that can be condensed and contextualized. Where I disagree with Will is that I think it's important in an article about Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health to at least note that these studies exist as a way of letting the reader know that this is being researched and that there are tentative results. There are around 50 studies on the herbs done at quite a few different universities, so I think it's appropriate to mention that this research is going on and what areas are being looked at, but without making health claims, of course. I think your last point captures the spirit of MEDRS in a way that Will may be ignoring. It's important to look at the research in the total context. If there's a meta-analysis or review that draws a conclusion that obviates specific primary sources, then that's what we go with. But if such a meta-analysis or review doesn't exist, then it may be appropriate to have a muted mention of a study. TimidGuy (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Beware of interpreting my last paragraph as encouragement to explicitly mention/cite these studies, albeit in a muted way. There was a big "however" in there! There are three issues. Firstly, let's imagine there are only three studies on drug X and they each show promise for treating conditions A, B and C respectively. What we've got at the moment is equivalent to

Studies on drug X show promise for treating conditions A, B and C.

where 1, 2 and 3 are citations to primary research papers. One would expect to find such a style of text+citations in a literature review in a medical journal. We, however, are an encyclopaedia so our approach should be

Studies on drug X show promise for treating conditions A, B and C.

where 4 is a literature review paper published in 2009 in a reliable journal.

Even though the text is the same, there's a lot of hidden benefit in citing the review. We are saying "An expert has performed a literature search, has selected these studies on certain quality, importance and clinical relevance criteria, and has published this analysis in a reliable source". What is more, we are able to say that even if study A was from 1982, its findings are still noteworthy today.

The second issue, which I mentioned above, is that in the real world it is likely that those are not the only three studies, or that there is some aspect of those studies (size, method, conclusions, etc) that deserves comment. These are the issues that come to light when reading the reviews but cannot or must not come from a DIY approach. If there were just three studies on the whole subject then perhaps one could give them space, but in fact if there are thirty studies then it might be the article text just has to give a broad brush treatment to the subject. Perhaps just a sentence on the state of the limited research to date.

The last issue is that we should be really reluctant to mention studies at all. We aren't "Medical News Today". Encyclopaedias mention facts. We don't say "Studies have found aspirin to be an effective painkiller" (though one might mention the early or seminal studies in the history section of the article on aspirin). For areas where the research is conclusive, we can give the results as fact and need not give the background. However, I suspect most of the research on this topic is a long way from conclusive. Small studies cannot be extrapolated to the general population (at least, not by Wikipedians) so we must never say something like "Practising TM lowers anxiety leading to longer, less stressful life", citing a study of 20 individuals over two months. Whenever we find that the point being made cannot be made conclusively, then one must question whether that point should be made at all in an encyclopaedia. Unless some herb has been conclusively shown to treat or prevent some cancer in humans, then mentioning and citing some lab study on the herb's effect on melanoma cells is just wrong. The hidden message in mentioning that study is that a person might benefit from the herb: such a hidden message needs a source and that can only come from a very reliable secondary source.

If you do want a section or paragraphs discussing the current state of the research into TM, etc, then this will be best done by finding a source whose purpose is to document the current state of the research into TM, etc. Colin° 13:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If we examine a number of WP articles on medical topics having only a modest amount of research, do we find that the strict guidelines being proposed by Colin and Will Beback are adhered to? I would guess that the application of such strict guidelines would result in the removal or major curtailment of a large number of articles. This position also assumes that WP editors are never specialists in the topic of the article they are editing. I question whether this is so. If it were, WP would become essentially useless when it comes to leading edge articles. ChemistryProf (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that 20 year old research is really "leading edge". I'm not sure what the definition is of "only a modest amount of research". We cite dozens of studies in this article alone. The movement repeatedly mentions the number of studies showing the efficacy of their treatments, so those engaged in the research seem to think it is well-researched. That being the case, the use of reviews and meta-analysis instead of primary studies is appropriate. This is like any topic: if we don't have sufficiently reliable sources to support an assertion then we should leave it out rather than lowering our standards.   Will Beback  talk  20:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Will Beback on this. The above study is cited 49 times in the literature: this is not a marginal neglected subject. Surely one of those citations is a useful review source. Just because it is easy to do a PubMed search of the primary research literature doesn't mean that is an appropriate way to build an article on WP. Searching PubMed for "transcendental meditation" shows there are 260 reviews mentioning the topic, and at least 28 of them have freely available full text online. Searching for "Maharishi Vedic" highlights 7 reviews, all of which are freely available online. I'm sure there are academic books on the topic too. This says to me there is absolutely no excuse for this subject to not be founded upon such sources. Perhaps the resistance here is that folk are trying to build the article based on the little snippet of information in a PubMed abstract rather than do proper research and get hold of the literature in full. Typically, a review's abstract says bugger-all, forcing you to read the damn thing :-) See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange if you need help here. Colin° 21:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and "WP editors are never specialists in the topic of the article they are editing". Very very true. They might be in real life, and it is enormously helpful if they are, but we can't trust/believe this to be the case. Misplaced Pages editors have no authority and their opinions on the primary research literature carry no weight. We are anonymous. We aren't notable. We have no reputation. This is why we refuse original research and academic journals and publishers demand original research. Colin° 21:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have clearly stated my position earlier. Per WP:MEDRS virtually everything in the TM, TM-Sidhi and MVAH articles relating to the purported medical effects of these programs and products should be deleted as based on primary sources. Virtually all of the studies being cited are primary sources. There has never been any rational basis advanced by any editor as to why, out of the nearly one thousand studies on TM and its affiliated programs and products, the handful cherry picked by the TM-Movement affiliated editors should merit special mention or prominence. It gives the featured studies undue weight and creates false impressions as to how that research is regarded in the scientific and medical community. MEDRS is quite specific that the highest and best sources for these matters are independently-conducted metaanalyses. Those handful of independent metanalyses should be what these articles feature and concentrate on when they discuss medical effects. Instead, they are buried as if mere afterthoughts (when the Fairfield contingent has ultimately proven unsuccessful in getting them excised entirely, or alternatively completely misrepresented) among an avalanche of primary sources. Fladrif (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There are some issues here that should be clarified. The article has a section listing studies related to Amrit Kalash. If those studies are simply describing the research and if the language used in the section carefully ensures that the information given is describing the study and its results, but is not being used to support content that is laying out information such as, "Amrit Kalash is known to be a cure for cancer" then the studies themselves are not being used as sources, but contribute to the available information on Amrit Kalash. The issues then are not whether a study is a primary source , but whether it is significant and necessary in describing the state of research on Amrit Kalsh. The the study's weight per the article and per the section must be determined.(olive (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

I believe there are webpages that list all of the studies and even have abstracts. We could link to those and say something like, "There have been many studies..." That would address the issue of letting readers know there have been the studies without using them as sources.   Will Beback  talk  00:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Here: Scientific Research on Maharishi Ayurveda. That links to lists of studies, which link to abstracts.   Will Beback  talk  00:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

We could just link everything and have no article at all . We are writing an encyclopedia so our job is not to abdicate the responsibility to links to other sites but to give the reader a good sense of what is on those sites.(olive (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC))

Our job is to summarize secondary sources, not to pick and choose primary sources and then decide which details are interesting.   Will Beback  talk  00:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody advocating that. Nice edit summary by the way.:o) (olive (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC))

They may or may not be "advocating" it, but that's what's happening.   Will Beback  talk  01:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Will, that's just not fair. If there's cherry picking going on its going on all over the place. Rather than assume editors are cherry picking why not just assume they come at this from different angles, they don't always agree, and they are doing the best they can. Collaboration levels the playing field.

Disagreeing does not equal cherry picking, its just disagreeing.(olive (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC))

I never used the term "cherry picking". But it's a general principle across Misplaced Pages to avoid using primary sources. That limitations serves several purposes: one of which is that secondary sources act as a filter separate worthwhile information from less valuable info. Without secondary sources the only other criteria we have is personal interest. Remember, too, that there was no discussion or consensus to add most of these sources, which were added late in the editing process. Anyway, Colin and WhatamIdoing have added outside views, let's pay attention to what they say.   Will Beback  talk  03:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If editors are using primary sources then they will be doing the selection. Whether this is blatantly biased enough to call "cherry picking" or an honest attempt to select those studies that are of high-quality, novelty and interest to the reader, or ends up a battle between two opposing camps to include an equal proportion of studies favouring their case, it is still a game that Wikipedians should not play. WP:WEIGHT makes it clear that the judge is the proportion of weight given by reliable sources (i.e. those commenting on the studies, which will be necessarily secondary sources). Weight is not determined by the consensus of wikipedians looking at the raw data (i.e., the primary studies themselves). That path just leads to endless talk-page discussions every time some newbie adds something. There are plenty good secondary sources out there that would cover this topic more than adequately. There is no excuse not to be using them. Colin° 10:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Colin, for your input. You make some good points. First I have a dumb question, if you don't mind. When I search on 'Transcendental Meditation" in Pubmed, I get about 260 results. You said above that such a search produces 260 reviews. But the results that I see are mostly links to individual studies. And apart from that, let's continue with the example of this study. I followed your tip and used Google Scholar to find this review of studies on Transcendental Meditation that I wasn't aware of. What would be the next step? Remove the individual study and summarize the discussion in this review? Since this is a secondary source, would we include more than the few words that were originally given, for example mentioning some of the components of aging that were studied? TimidGuy (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't put "Transcendental Meditation" in quotes when I searched so got far more results. Perhaps a bit of a mix of both search styles will be useful. I'm sure there will be other phrases you guys know to search for (sometimes literature reviews will tell you what PubMed search terms they used, which is valuable). You need to work form the bottom up (sources citing the ones you've found) and top down (finding reviews and books and looking at what they cite). Once you've amassed a small collection of literature, it should be clearer what the consensus is.

I'm a bit disappointed in the review you found to be honest. It has some of the advantages I listed but the author is clearly utterly devoted to his Master (see Acknowledgments) and a quick glance at some of the papers the chap has produced show someone on the fringe of science. Without being able to read the Wallace 1982 paper, I can't fully judge the review text but to say "Wallace found, that instead of increasing with age as is normally the case, auditory threshold decibel levels tend to decrease with years of regular meditation, a reversal of the aging process" you need two things: a randomised controlled trial, and to follow people over a period of many years. Instead, the the study appeared to be a one-off snapshot of the "biological age" of a small number of people. Without a RCT, only can only claim an association with folk who happen to have meditated for several years, not a "decrease with years of meditation". The abstract gives no confidence intervals or even whether the claimed reduction in biological age was statistically significant. I'd be very suprised if a trial with only 11 controls could claim much. As I said, the more literature you find on the topic, the more confident you will be that you are reflecting the true picture. Colin° 20:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Will wrote: "I never used the term "cherry picking". But it's a general principle across Misplaced Pages to avoid using primary sources." You make a very important point here. It's important to keep in mind that much TM and Maharishi Ayurveda research is primary research. This issue is further exacerbated by the fact that even if TM researchers are involved, they may not be labelled as such.It makes one wonder what can be added and retain the spirit of the wikipedia. On a separate point, while recently lead containing and mercury containing herbal compounds produced by the Maharishi pharmaceutical companies stopped "officially" being shipped to the US, smuggling by individuals is still relatively common. For example I know people who frequently (several times a year) have Maharishi Ayurvedic heavy metal-based compounds smuggled in by movement members (Purusha). Of course the most famous example of this trend was the poisoning of a mothers fetus with Maharishi medicines containing, I believe lead, in Maharishi Vedic City and she (Frances Gaskell) retaliated by a law suit. The mother was not only born with high lead levels, so was the baby. I believe this was settled out of court. Of course this doesn't mean you could not still get these medicines in India easily. And the FDA often will not frown on individuals carrying their own medicines from abroad, so it's easy to get the stuff back into the USA still. Numerous men take the Maharishi Ayurveda "boner pill" which is made from mercury and gold, even Purusha. You still find them listed on Maharishi Ayurveda Indian websites.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The pills are called "Energol MA" and are shown at: http://maharishiamritkalash.com/euro/maharishi-energol-ma

I believe these sites are not MAPI official sites, but an MAPI product retailer in India who exports. Close examination of the MA product does show them to contain a small amount of mercuric sulfide and this is listed in milligrams on the product labeling and in it's package insert.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The actual product was called Garbhapal Ras. See http://www.religionnewsblog.com/20848/maharishi-ayurveda "Tests by the Iowa Department of Public Health found the herb Garbhapal Ras was comprised of nearly 3 percent lead. Maharishi Ayurveda Products Ltd. is identified on the product bottle as the manufacturer, the lawsuit states."--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a review in the Journal of Aging and Health. It has the advantage that it also includes research on herbs. Seems like a source we could use. TimidGuy (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

COI and independence

Regardless of whether you think this group's reputation is deserved, the fact is that it has a strong reputation for suppressing negative information and promoting positive information about the people, ideas, and practices that are connected with it. Because of this, I believe that every single paper that was produced by employees of MIU or other 'wholly owned subsidiaries' should be (briefly) identified as such for the reader.

We should do this in exactly the same way that we do this (and should do this) for a paper published by employees of a nutraceutical manufacturer or other outfit with a clear conflict of interest. So it's not "A study showed reduced aging"; it's "A study at the Maharishi International University showed reduced aging", or whatever simple description provides appropriate context.

In doing this, we are providing strictly factual information, not passing judgment. It's up to the reader to decide whether MIU's connection means "ignore this, because those cultists would never publish the truth" or "finally, an AltMed study that was run by a true expert on the subject instead of some government bureaucrat".

Does anyone object to this or think that readers are better served by concealing these connections? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Since there is a long, long history of MIU/MUM/TM advocates, etc. publishing biased and non-NPOV research, I believe it would be imperative to include such connections WhatamIdoing. For example, it we were writing about cigarette safety, would we want to include a study, performed by tobacco companies that said 'cigarettes are good for you' to not show that it was performed by an institute created by the tobacco companies themselves? Would we want research by coal companies that said acid rain and CO2 were good for the environment which pretend there was no connection to the coal companies? Same with TM, it's sold by the TM movement and they benefit from the studies they put out. The sad thing is, even after decades, the research quality is still poor. A recent one on cardiac health doesn't even correct for placebo (they are mostly compared to "health education"), a long-standing problem with TM investigations by TM people. If you don't show these connections, you're doing the readers a great disservice.--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If all this is true (and I don't doubt you) then we should be able to find sources that explicitly say these things. Most of the criticisms you make can be thrown at the drug industry and I wouldn't want our drug articles to be littered with caveats and "by the way, did you know" comments and aspersions. We must neither make our encyclopaedic article prove, in front of the reader, the case for the efficacy of these treatments, or imply the worthlessness of the research. What do our best sources say about the efficacy and the research? Colin° 19:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If these "connections" and issues with the research are as you say, then you'll be able to provide sources to let you say them. Find someone who says TM research is rubbish quality, biased and loaded. We mustn't say that ourselves, or imply such issues by what apparently neutral text we add. There are plenty folk on WP who think all drug-funded research is impossibly tainted and the same "sold by ... benefit from the studies they put out...research quality poor..." arguments are made there too! Colin° 19:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Pharmaceutical companies have also been in the news for concealing negative research and we don't publish any COI statements about research funded by them. I think it is a slippery slope towards implicit editorialising by Wikipedians. Now, if a secondary source were to say "most of the studies conducted by XX are of poor quality" or "are biased" or whatever, then that sort of info could be explicitly stated. But this all comes back to the issue that we should try hard not to be the ones judging what primary research is poor/biased/tainted. Use the independent secondary sources as a filter and to allow us to explicitly comment on the studies' qualities or choose not to mention those studies that nobody else mentions. Colin° 20:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

See my comment at the end of the above discussion section. I think it is usually good to mention the study site, especially when talking about a primary study in the absence of any secondary studies in the field. As a scientist, I certainly like to know when I am reading a drug research study that was funded by a pharmaceutical company. In fact, authors of research articles must list their funding sources and potential conflict of interest information when publishing in any decent journal. This is as it should be. ChemistryProf (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If a primary research study has been mentioned/discussed by no secondary sources, then it almost certainly shouldn't be mentioned/discussed by a tertiary source (Misplaced Pages). We are not writing for scientists and we are not writing a literature review (which does typically cite the seminal primary research, and scientists can follow the citation chain to find out any COI if they want to). This is an encyclopaedia for the general reader. Colin° 23:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Colin about the slippery slope. Our role as Wiki editors is to summarize and present material cited to reliable sources. Yes some studies have been conducted by MUM, many have been conducted by other universities, yet others have been conducted at independent universities but in coordination with MUM. To complicate things further many of the studies are published in peer reviewed journals. I don't think that it is our role to decide which studies go in which category and them give them an editorial label. The references give the reader the info they need to make their own decisions and judgment. -- — Kbob • Talk • 22:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The job of deciding which studies are worthwhile is performed by writers of reviews, which is why we should depend on those rather than our own judgements.   Will Beback  talk  22:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a joke, right?

By what stretch of the imagination do these edits make the entry more accurate or more readable? Answer: They don't. These edits are pointless, KBob, though it is nice to see that this time you actually bothered to read the source material before editing, which your edit summaries make clear that you apparently felt was totally unnecessary before rewriting this paragraph last time through. Bad form, and a bad habit you make a point of repeating. It is a recurring bad joke with these TM-related articles for the Fairfield contingent to insist on turning these article into unreadable quotefarms, in the apparent belief that no-one is capable of accurately summarizing what is written on the page.

And why did this take you six edits? Other than artificially upping one's editcount,which you are doing with admirable gusto what is the purpose of consuming all this bandwidth? You do realize that Misplaced Pages caches every single one of these revisions as separate versions of the same article? Or don't you.

This stopped being amusing a long time ago.Fladrif (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

References

1. Cite error: The named reference BMJSystematicReviews was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Young JM, Solomon MJ (2009). "How to critically appraise an article". Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol. 6 (2): 82–91. doi:10.1038/ncpgasthep1331. PMID 19153565.

• Start-Class India articles
• Unknown-importance India articles
• Start-Class India articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• Start-Class Alternative medicine articles