| Revision as of 14:32, 5 October 2019 editZefr (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers69,477 edits →Insomnia treatment: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:03, 6 October 2019 edit undoSignimu (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,692 edits →Reason for divergence?: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| The sources and quackery-based content do not meet the standards of an encyclopedia; see ]. --] (]) 14:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC) | The sources and quackery-based content do not meet the standards of an encyclopedia; see ]. --] (]) 14:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC) | ||
| {{reflist-talk}} | {{reflist-talk}} | ||
| == Reason for divergence? == | |||
| Hello Zefr, I'm wondering if maybe our divergences might not be rooted in a difference in how we perceive how articles should be edited: I think (and I'm probably not the only one) that a gradual increase in quality is acceptable, eg, for an article where there is mostly animal studies, removing to replace with human primary studies is already an enhancement, or placing reviews without detailing the content (because the editor is not an expert or does not have the time to dig) is good for future editors so that they can expand. But it fell on me that maybe you could expect edits to always meet the highest quality standard, whatever the current state or quality of the article. Is my intuition correct? I am not making any judgement, I can understand this viewpoint, it's just that I did not think of it and I'm trying to better understand your editing process to better collaborate :-) --] (]) 15:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:03, 6 October 2019
MEDRS tutorials for new medical editors
Wikiproject Medicine tutorial for new medical editors
Wikiproject Medicine resources summary
2017 Published review of medical content on Misplaced Pages
PDF for editing Misplaced Pages articles on Medicine
WP:MEDHOW: Useful Misplaced Pages tips for editing medical and general content
Insomnia treatment
Could you please provide further reasoning as to the unreliability of the sources concerned with the clinical review of acupuncture and hypnotherapy in the treatment of insomnia, as well as further reasoning as to the low value of such reviews in comparison with the reviews of the other treatment approaches listed in Insomnia § Alternative medicine? Thanks. 77.126.7.100 (talk) 11:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hello. The issue is treatment of insomnia, a medical topic requiring high-quality medical sources, as described in WP:MEDRS. All the sources below used in your edit are from alternative medicine practices not based in science.
- The European Journal of General Practice has a low impact factor of 1.6; Misplaced Pages medical content relies on high impact factor sources, typically well above 2.0
- Complementary Therapies in Medicine has an IF of 1.9
- hypnotherapy is quackery
The sources and quackery-based content do not meet the standards of an encyclopedia; see WP:MEDRS. --Zefr (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
References
- Ernst E, Lee MS, Choi TY (June 2011). "Acupuncture for insomnia? An overview of systematic reviews". The European Journal of General Practice. 17 (2): 116–23. doi:10.3109/13814788.2011.568475. PMID 21463162.
- Shergis JL, Ni X, Jackson ML, Zhang AL, Guo X, Li Y, Lu C, Xue CC (June 2016). "A systematic review of acupuncture for sleep quality in people with insomnia". Complementary Therapies in Medicine. 26: 11–20. doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2016.02.007. PMID 27261976.
- Deirdre Barrett (1998). The pregnant man: tales from a hypnotherapist's couch. New York: Times Books. ISBN 9780812929058.
- Lam, Tak-Ho; Chung, Ka-Fai; Yeung, Wing-Fai; Yee-Man Yu, Branda; Yung, Kam-Ping; Ho-Yee Ng, Tommy (October 2015). "Hypnotherapy for insomnia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials". Complementary Therapies in Medicine. 23 (5): 719–732. doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2015.07.011. Retrieved October 2, 2019.
Reason for divergence?
Hello Zefr, I'm wondering if maybe our divergences might not be rooted in a difference in how we perceive how articles should be edited: I think (and I'm probably not the only one) that a gradual increase in quality is acceptable, eg, for an article where there is mostly animal studies, removing to replace with human primary studies is already an enhancement, or placing reviews without detailing the content (because the editor is not an expert or does not have the time to dig) is good for future editors so that they can expand. But it fell on me that maybe you could expect edits to always meet the highest quality standard, whatever the current state or quality of the article. Is my intuition correct? I am not making any judgement, I can understand this viewpoint, it's just that I did not think of it and I'm trying to better understand your editing process to better collaborate :-) --Signimu (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)