User talk:Ocaasi - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by QuackGuru (talk | contribs) at 04:42, 26 October 2010 (→Mass changes were not minor copy edits: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:42, 26 October 2010 by QuackGuru (talk | contribs) (→Mass changes were not minor copy edits: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Click here to leave me a message...

if I reverted good edits by mistake, let me know
here are my contributions
sometimes I'm i.p. 69.142.154.10

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

VANDALISM THREAT

Moderate

Links

Template:MultiCol Little Kids

| class="col-break " | Big Kids

| class="col-break " | Bigger Kids

Template:EndMultiCol

Special:SpecialPages Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ Misplaced Pages:Requests Misplaced Pages:Replies_to_common_objections Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources Misplaced Pages:Alphabet_soup Misplaced Pages:Deletion_process Misplaced Pages:RS Misplaced Pages:Avoiding_common_mistakes Special:Statistics Help:Contents/Site_map Misplaced Pages:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index Misplaced Pages:Tips Misplaced Pages:Requested_moves#Requested_move_Requested_move Misplaced Pages:RFC#Request_comment_through_talk_pages RFC FEED signpost/resources/discussion/watchlist

--clthng, dmbg, ar, rbns, mcd, chna, pndg chngs, npov, psdscnc

Open Questions

Does ASF/MEDRS apply to a systematic review if only one exists?
Are article naming conventions using PRIMARY topic guidelines based on WP page views or on common popularity?

Great Diffs

STiki Feedback

Hello, Ocaasi. You have new messages at West.andrew.g's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

change to republican def

ok I have legit reasons for said change....gay black republican....possible definition one who is suddenly gay, not accepted by other gays so becomes republican for attention....republican party needs minority vote till after elections hence pic or web ugly dance......of said gay black republican also note said gay black republican is real person does really exist known said person since elementary school openly bashes gays and black please refer to race and sexual orientationjust thought the world should know how why and yes it is possible.....it has to be in wiki the world must know not racist, or judging but did you know.....one who knows all......i didn't unsigned comment added by Jewskin (talk links removed

PC

I am happy to see pending changing continuing. I personally feel that this tool will improve the encyclopedia and that is what matters in the end. I also feel that 65% support is sufficient and no good arguements were put forth for turning it off. We need to attract academics and increase our legitimacy and this will help achieve this. I deal with so much vandalism it gets kind off depressing at times. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. dave souza, talk 14:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Chiropractic edits

Recent controversial edits/comments to Chiropractic/Talk:Chiropractic
ASF violation when there is no serious dispute

"Two reviews of published studies on chiropractic practices found a lack of good methodology in the studies that were examined." was added by Sir Anon.

This is attribution in the text and a violation of WP:ASF. The part "in the studies that were examined" is also editorializing which is a common problem on Misplaced Pages.

"Two reviews of published studies on chiropractic practices" is still a violation of ASF whern there is no serious dispute. I asked on the talk page which reference said there are "Two reviews of published studies" in accordance with WP:V.

Do we have recent reviews that say the evidence base is good / excellent? If there is no disagreement of equal quality than I agree with ASF. ASF expects that we should assert these views as facts, without the distraction of attribution (after all, anyone can see the reference used for the text).

What we mean is that when it is a fact (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it can be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ...", and when it is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it can be attributed using this sort of inline-text attribution.

Most facts, except the most obvious ones - like “Mars is a planet” and “Plato was a philosopher” - must be verified through a reliable source regardless of whether it is a truthful statement. However, for WP:ASF, it is how we present the verified text from reliable sources.

Misplaced Pages is devoted to stating facts and only facts, in this sense. Where we might want to state opinions, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them.

Requiring an inline qualifier for widespread consensus of reliable sources on the grounds that it is "opinion" would allow a contrarian reader to insist on an inline qualifier for material about which there is no serious dispute, using the argument that the material is an "opinion". This would mean, in the end, that all material in Misplaced Pages would require an inline qualifier, even if only one Misplaced Pages editor insisted on it, which is not the goal of ASF. Presenting a "fact" as an "opinion" is needlessly attributing uncontroversial statements, and so creating the appearance of doubt or disagreement where there is none.

I don't see any valid reason why we should not comply with ASF. I think the original version without the ASF violation should be restored. See Talk:Chiropractic#ASF violation when there is no serious dispute.

Unreliable chiropractic literature failed RS

This sourced sentence was deleted from the Effectiveness section: "A 2010 systematic review found there is no good evidence to assume that chiropractic neck manipulation is effective for any medical condition.<ref name=Ernst-death/>"

This direct quote did verify the claim Sir Anon deleted. Without explanation for the second time Sir Anon removed the above sentence, added duplicate material about risk-benefit that is from the Risk-benefit section, and added an unreliable source from ChiroACCESS. This unreliable article is not a response from a peer-reviewed journal or from an expert researcher on the subject of chiropractic.

Chiroaccess is not a reliable source and cannot per WP:MEDRS be used to refute a review article. Now if Anthony L. Rosner published his own review and it came to different conclusions than yes we could add him. The article in Chiroaccess is an opinion piece, with no evidence of peer-review or quality of editorial oversight for the publication process. It fails WP:RS. The only possible way Rosner's opinion could be considered to meet RS is to demonstrate here that he is an acknowledged, published expert in this field. Even then, it will fail WP:MEDRS, since it is a primary WP:SPS and cannot be used to rebut a secondary source such as Ernst's review. Many reviews will have critics, but there are no grounds for including every (or any) piece of criticism of a secondary source unless that criticism enjoys wide-spread support as evidenced by other reviews expressing that view. That does not appear to be the case here.

Trying to "balance" Ernst's study like this is not good editing: "A 2010 review by Edzard Ernst focusing on deaths after chiropractic care stated that the risks of spinal manipulation "far outweigh its benefit". The study received criticism in chiropractic literature, with one review calling it "blatantly misleading", citing a lack of risk-benefit analysis and the inclusion of deaths that were not related to chiropractic care." We shouldn't juxtapose peer reviewed literature with the opinions of chiropracters or chiropractic promotional articles. Of course chiropracters won't like a study that says that their practice may not be so safe. The reference is not even peer-reviewed or from a journal. References like this were removed a long time ago from this article. They were replaced with peer-reviewed literature per WP:MEDASSESS. Chiroaccess cannot possibly be considered a reliable source, and not even for the opinions of the author of the article, because they don't meet WP:SPS.

I see WP:CON to remove the unreliable Chiroaccess article from the chiropractic page. See Talk:Chiropractic#Unreliable chiropractic literature failed RS.

The word Critics failed verification

There was a controversial edit made by you.

Per OR: Misplaced Pages does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.

Per V: The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

Which sentence from the reference verified the word "Critics"?

I requested verification but none was provided for the word "Critics". It is "OR" since the word is not written in any of the sources given. See Talk:Chiropractic#The word Critics failed verification.

Unreliable references against MEDRS

The extensive recent literature from reliable references currently used in the Chiropractic page supports the fact that there has been progress in terms of research per MEDRS.

The extensive recent literature from reliable references currently used in the Chiropractic page supports the fact that there has been progress in terms of research per MEDRS.
Clin J Pain. 2006 Mar-Apr;22(3):278-85. Are manual therapies effective in reducing pain from tension-type headache?: a systematic review. Fernández-de-Las-Peñas C, Alonso-Blanco C, Cuadrado ML, Miangolarra JC, Barriga FJ, Pareja JA. Department of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (URJC), Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain. cesarfdlp@yahoo.es Abstract OBJECTIVES: A systematic review was performed to establish whether manual therapies have specific efficacy in reducing pain from tension-type headache (TTH). METHODS: Computerized literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, MANTIS, CINAHL, PEDro, and Cochrane databases. Papers were included if they described clinical (open noncontrolled studies) or randomized controlled trials in which any form of manual therapy was used for TTH, and if they were published after 1994 in the English language. The methodologic quality of the trials was assessed using the PEDro scale. Levels of scientific evidence, based on the quality and the outcomes of the studies, were established for each manual therapy: strong, moderate, limited, and inconclusive evidence. RESULTS: Only six studies met the inclusion criteria. These trials evaluated different manual therapy modalities: spinal manipulation (three trials), classic massage (one trial), connective tissue manipulation (two trials), soft tissue massage (one trial), Dr. Cyriax's vertebral mobilization (one trial), manual traction (one trial), and CV-4 craniosacral technique (one trial). Methodologic PEDro quality scores ranged from 2 to 8 points out of a theoretical maximum of 10 points (mean=5.8+/-2.1). Analysis of the quality and the outcomes of all trials did not provide rigorous evidence that manual therapies have a positive effect in reducing pain from TTH: spinal manipulative therapy showed inconclusive evidence of effectiveness (level 4), whereas soft tissue techniques showed limited evidence (level 3). CONCLUSIONS: The authors found no rigorous evidence that manual therapies have a positive effect in the evolution of TTH. The most urgent need for further research is to establish the efficacy beyond placebo of the different manual therapies currently applied in patients with TTH. The text "A 2006 review found no rigorous evidence supporting SM or other manual therapies for tension headache." is supported by Fernández-de-las-Peñas C, Alonso-Blanco C, Cuadrado ML, Miangolarra JC, Barriga FJ, Pareja JA (2006). "Are manual therapies effective in reducing pain from tension-type headache?: a systematic review". Clin J Pain. 22 (3): 278–85. doi:10.1097/01.ajp.0000173017.64741.86. PMID 16514329.`{{cite journal}}`: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Headache. 2005 Jun;45(6):738-46. Physical treatments for headache: a structured review. Biondi DM. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Abstract BACKGROUND: Primary headache disorders, especially migraine, are commonly accompanied by neck pain or other symptoms. Because of this, physical therapy (PT) and other physical treatments are often prescribed. This review updates and synthesizes published clinical trial evidence, systematic reviews, and case series regarding the efficacy of selected physical modalities in the treatment of primary headache disorders. METHODS: The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE), The Cochrane Library, and other sources of information were searched through June 2004 to identify clinical studies, systematic reviews, case series, or other information published in English that assessed the treatment of headache or migraine with chiropractic, osteopathic, PT, or massage interventions. RESULTS: PT is more effective than massage therapy or acupuncture for the treatment of TTH and appears to be most beneficial for patients with a high frequency of headache episodes. PT is most effective for the treatment of migraine when combined with other treatments such as thermal biofeedback, relaxation training, and exercise. Chiropractic manipulation demonstrated a trend toward benefit in the treatment of TTH, but evidence is weak. Chiropractic manipulation is probably more effective in the treatment of tension-type headache (TTH) than it is in the treatment of migraine. Evidence is lacking regarding the efficacy of these treatments in reducing headache frequency, intensity, duration, and disability in many commonly encountered clinical situations. Many of the published case series and controlled studies are of low quality. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Further studies of improved quality are necessary to more firmly establish the place of physical modalities in the treatment of primary headache disorders. With the exception of high velocity chiropractic manipulation of the neck, the treatments are unlikely to be physically dangerous, although the financial costs and lost treatment opportunity by prescribing potentially ineffective treatment may not be insignificant. In the absence of clear evidence regarding their role in treatment, physicians and patients are advised to make cautious and individualized judgments about the utility of physical treatments for headache management; in most cases, the use of these modalities should complement rather than supplant better-validated forms of therapy. The text "A 2005 review found that the evidence was weak for effectiveness of chiropractic manipulation for tension headache, and that it was probably more effective for tension headache than for migraine." is supported by Biondi DM (2005). "Physical treatments for headache: a structured review". Headache. 45 (6): 738–46. doi:10.1111/j.1526-4610.2005.05141.x. PMID 15953306. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(3):CD001878. Non-invasive physical treatments for chronic/recurrent headache. Bronfort G, Nilsson N, Haas M, Evans R, Goldsmith CH, Assendelft WJ, Bouter LM. Wolfe-Harris Center for Clinical Studies, Northwestern Health Sciences University, 2501 W 84th St, Bloomington, MN 55431, USA. gbronfort@nwhealth.edu Abstract BACKGROUND: Non-invasive physical treatments are often used to treat common types of chronic/recurrent headache. OBJECTIVES: To quantify and compare the magnitude of short- and long-term effects of non-invasive physical treatments for chronic/recurrent headaches. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following databases from their inception to November 2002: MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, CINAHL, Science Citation Index, Dissertation Abstracts, CENTRAL, and the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Pain, Palliative Care and Supportive Care review group. Selected complementary medicine reference systems were searched as well. We also performed citation tracking and hand searching of potentially relevant journals. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing non-invasive physical treatments for chronic/recurrent headaches to any type of control. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers abstracted trial information and scored trials for methodological quality. Outcomes data were standardized into percentage point and effect size scores wherever possible. The strength of the evidence of effectiveness was assessed using pre-specified rules. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-two studies with a total of 2628 patients (age 12 to 78 years) met the inclusion criteria. Five types of headache were studied: migraine, tension-type, cervicogenic, a mix of migraine and tension-type, and post-traumatic headache. Ten studies had methodological quality scores of 50 or more (out of a possible 100 points), but many limitations were identified. We were unable to pool data because of study heterogeneity. For the prophylactic treatment of migraine headache, there is evidence that spinal manipulation may be an effective treatment option with a short-term effect similar to that of a commonly used, effective drug (amitriptyline). Other possible treatment options with weaker evidence of effectiveness are pulsating electromagnetic fields and a combination of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and electrical neurotransmitter modulation. For the prophylactic treatment of chronic tension-type headache, amitriptyline is more effective than spinal manipulation during treatment. However, spinal manipulation is superior in the short term after cessation of both treatments. Other possible treatment options with weaker evidence of effectiveness are therapeutic touch; cranial electrotherapy; a combination of TENS and electrical neurotransmitter modulation; and a regimen of auto-massage, TENS, and stretching. For episodic tension-type headache, there is evidence that adding spinal manipulation to massage is not effective. For the prophylactic treatment of cervicogenic headache, there is evidence that both neck exercise (low-intensity endurance training) and spinal manipulation are effective in the short and long term when compared to no treatment. There is also evidence that spinal manipulation is effective in the short term when compared to massage or placebo spinal manipulation, and weaker evidence when compared to spinal mobilization. There is weaker evidence that spinal mobilization is more effective in the short term than cold packs in the treatment of post-traumatic headache. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: A few non-invasive physical treatments may be effective as prophylactic treatments for chronic/recurrent headaches. Based on trial results, these treatments appear to be associated with little risk of serious adverse effects. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of non-invasive physical treatments require further research using scientifically rigorous methods. The heterogeneity of the studies included in this review means that the results of a few additional high-quality trials in the future could easily change the conclusions of our review. The text "A 2004 review found that SM may be effective for migraine and tension headache, and SM and neck exercises may be effective for cervicogenic headache." is supported by Bronfort G, Nilsson N, Haas M; et al. (2004). "Non-invasive physical treatments for chronic/recurrent headache". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3): CD001878. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001878.pub2. PMID 15266458. `{{cite journal}}`: Explicit use of et al. in: `\|author=` (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) J R Soc Med. 2006 Apr;99(4):192-6. A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation. Ernst E, Canter PH. Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter & Plymouth, 25 Victoria Park Road, Exeter EX2 4NT, UK. Edzard.Ernst@pms.ac.uk Comment in: J R Soc Med. 2007 Oct;100(10):444; author reply 447. J R Soc Med. 2006 Jun;99(6):278; author reply 279-80. J R Soc Med. 2006 Jun;99(6):278-9; author reply 279-80. J R Soc Med. 2006 Jun;99(6):277-8, author reply 279-80. J R Soc Med. 2006 Jun;99(6):277; author reply 279-80. Abstract OBJECTIVES: To systematically collate and evaluate the evidence from recent systematic reviews of clinical trials of spinal manipulation. DESIGN: Literature searches were carried out in four electronic databases for all systematic reviews of the effectiveness of spinal manipulation in any indication, published between 2000 and May 2005. Reviews were defined as systematic if they included an explicit and repeatable inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies. RESULTS: Sixteen papers were included relating to the following conditions: back pain (n=3), neck pain (n=2), lower back pain and neck pain (n=1), headache (n=3), non-spinal pain (n=1), primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea (n=1), infantile colic (n=1), asthma (n=1), allergy (n=1), cervicogenic dizziness (n=1), and any medical problem (n=1). The conclusions of these reviews were largely negative, except for back pain where spinal manipulation was considered superior to sham manipulation but not better than conventional treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively these data do not demonstrate that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for any condition. Given the possibility of adverse effects, this review does not suggest that spinal manipulation is a recommendable treatment. The text "Two other systematic reviews published between 2000 and May 2005 did not find conclusive evidence in favor of SM." is supported by Ernst E, Canter PH (2006). "A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation". J R Soc Med. 99 (4): 192–6. doi:10.1258/jrsm.99.4.192. PMC 1420782. PMID 16574972. `{{cite journal}}`: Unknown parameter `\|laydate=` ignored (help); Unknown parameter `\|laysource=` ignored (help); Unknown parameter `\|laysummary=` ignored (help)

Clin J Pain. 2006 Mar-Apr;22(3):278-85.

Are manual therapies effective in reducing pain from tension-type headache?: a systematic review. Fernández-de-Las-Peñas C, Alonso-Blanco C, Cuadrado ML, Miangolarra JC, Barriga FJ, Pareja JA.

Department of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (URJC), Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain. cesarfdlp@yahoo.es

Abstract OBJECTIVES: A systematic review was performed to establish whether manual therapies have specific efficacy in reducing pain from tension-type headache (TTH).

METHODS: Computerized literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, MANTIS, CINAHL, PEDro, and Cochrane databases. Papers were included if they described clinical (open noncontrolled studies) or randomized controlled trials in which any form of manual therapy was used for TTH, and if they were published after 1994 in the English language. The methodologic quality of the trials was assessed using the PEDro scale. Levels of scientific evidence, based on the quality and the outcomes of the studies, were established for each manual therapy: strong, moderate, limited, and inconclusive evidence.

RESULTS: Only six studies met the inclusion criteria. These trials evaluated different manual therapy modalities: spinal manipulation (three trials), classic massage (one trial), connective tissue manipulation (two trials), soft tissue massage (one trial), Dr. Cyriax's vertebral mobilization (one trial), manual traction (one trial), and CV-4 craniosacral technique (one trial). Methodologic PEDro quality scores ranged from 2 to 8 points out of a theoretical maximum of 10 points (mean=5.8+/-2.1). Analysis of the quality and the outcomes of all trials did not provide rigorous evidence that manual therapies have a positive effect in reducing pain from TTH: spinal manipulative therapy showed inconclusive evidence of effectiveness (level 4), whereas soft tissue techniques showed limited evidence (level 3).

CONCLUSIONS: The authors found no rigorous evidence that manual therapies have a positive effect in the evolution of TTH. The most urgent need for further research is to establish the efficacy beyond placebo of the different manual therapies currently applied in patients with TTH.

The text "A 2006 review found no rigorous evidence supporting SM or other manual therapies for tension headache." is supported by Fernández-de-las-Peñas C, Alonso-Blanco C, Cuadrado ML, Miangolarra JC, Barriga FJ, Pareja JA (2006). "Are manual therapies effective in reducing pain from tension-type headache?: a systematic review". Clin J Pain. 22 (3): 278–85. doi:10.1097/01.ajp.0000173017.64741.86. PMID 16514329.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Headache. 2005 Jun;45(6):738-46.

Physical treatments for headache: a structured review. Biondi DM.

Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Primary headache disorders, especially migraine, are commonly accompanied by neck pain or other symptoms. Because of this, physical therapy (PT) and other physical treatments are often prescribed. This review updates and synthesizes published clinical trial evidence, systematic reviews, and case series regarding the efficacy of selected physical modalities in the treatment of primary headache disorders.

METHODS: The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE), The Cochrane Library, and other sources of information were searched through June 2004 to identify clinical studies, systematic reviews, case series, or other information published in English that assessed the treatment of headache or migraine with chiropractic, osteopathic, PT, or massage interventions.

RESULTS: PT is more effective than massage therapy or acupuncture for the treatment of TTH and appears to be most beneficial for patients with a high frequency of headache episodes. PT is most effective for the treatment of migraine when combined with other treatments such as thermal biofeedback, relaxation training, and exercise. Chiropractic manipulation demonstrated a trend toward benefit in the treatment of TTH, but evidence is weak. Chiropractic manipulation is probably more effective in the treatment of tension-type headache (TTH) than it is in the treatment of migraine. Evidence is lacking regarding the efficacy of these treatments in reducing headache frequency, intensity, duration, and disability in many commonly encountered clinical situations. Many of the published case series and controlled studies are of low quality.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Further studies of improved quality are necessary to more firmly establish the place of physical modalities in the treatment of primary headache disorders. With the exception of high velocity chiropractic manipulation of the neck, the treatments are unlikely to be physically dangerous, although the financial costs and lost treatment opportunity by prescribing potentially ineffective treatment may not be insignificant. In the absence of clear evidence regarding their role in treatment, physicians and patients are advised to make cautious and individualized judgments about the utility of physical treatments for headache management; in most cases, the use of these modalities should complement rather than supplant better-validated forms of therapy.

The text "A 2005 review found that the evidence was weak for effectiveness of chiropractic manipulation for tension headache, and that it was probably more effective for tension headache than for migraine." is supported by Biondi DM (2005). "Physical treatments for headache: a structured review". Headache. 45 (6): 738–46. doi:10.1111/j.1526-4610.2005.05141.x. PMID 15953306.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(3):CD001878.

Non-invasive physical treatments for chronic/recurrent headache. Bronfort G, Nilsson N, Haas M, Evans R, Goldsmith CH, Assendelft WJ, Bouter LM.

Wolfe-Harris Center for Clinical Studies, Northwestern Health Sciences University, 2501 W 84th St, Bloomington, MN 55431, USA. gbronfort@nwhealth.edu

Abstract BACKGROUND: Non-invasive physical treatments are often used to treat common types of chronic/recurrent headache.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify and compare the magnitude of short- and long-term effects of non-invasive physical treatments for chronic/recurrent headaches.

SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following databases from their inception to November 2002: MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, CINAHL, Science Citation Index, Dissertation Abstracts, CENTRAL, and the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Pain, Palliative Care and Supportive Care review group. Selected complementary medicine reference systems were searched as well. We also performed citation tracking and hand searching of potentially relevant journals.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing non-invasive physical treatments for chronic/recurrent headaches to any type of control.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers abstracted trial information and scored trials for methodological quality. Outcomes data were standardized into percentage point and effect size scores wherever possible. The strength of the evidence of effectiveness was assessed using pre-specified rules.

MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-two studies with a total of 2628 patients (age 12 to 78 years) met the inclusion criteria. Five types of headache were studied: migraine, tension-type, cervicogenic, a mix of migraine and tension-type, and post-traumatic headache. Ten studies had methodological quality scores of 50 or more (out of a possible 100 points), but many limitations were identified. We were unable to pool data because of study heterogeneity. For the prophylactic treatment of migraine headache, there is evidence that spinal manipulation may be an effective treatment option with a short-term effect similar to that of a commonly used, effective drug (amitriptyline). Other possible treatment options with weaker evidence of effectiveness are pulsating electromagnetic fields and a combination of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and electrical neurotransmitter modulation. For the prophylactic treatment of chronic tension-type headache, amitriptyline is more effective than spinal manipulation during treatment. However, spinal manipulation is superior in the short term after cessation of both treatments. Other possible treatment options with weaker evidence of effectiveness are therapeutic touch; cranial electrotherapy; a combination of TENS and electrical neurotransmitter modulation; and a regimen of auto-massage, TENS, and stretching. For episodic tension-type headache, there is evidence that adding spinal manipulation to massage is not effective. For the prophylactic treatment of cervicogenic headache, there is evidence that both neck exercise (low-intensity endurance training) and spinal manipulation are effective in the short and long term when compared to no treatment. There is also evidence that spinal manipulation is effective in the short term when compared to massage or placebo spinal manipulation, and weaker evidence when compared to spinal mobilization. There is weaker evidence that spinal mobilization is more effective in the short term than cold packs in the treatment of post-traumatic headache.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: A few non-invasive physical treatments may be effective as prophylactic treatments for chronic/recurrent headaches. Based on trial results, these treatments appear to be associated with little risk of serious adverse effects. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of non-invasive physical treatments require further research using scientifically rigorous methods. The heterogeneity of the studies included in this review means that the results of a few additional high-quality trials in the future could easily change the conclusions of our review.

The text "A 2004 review found that SM may be effective for migraine and tension headache, and SM and neck exercises may be effective for cervicogenic headache." is supported by Bronfort G, Nilsson N, Haas M; et al. (2004). "Non-invasive physical treatments for chronic/recurrent headache". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3): CD001878. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001878.pub2. PMID 15266458. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

J R Soc Med. 2006 Apr;99(4):192-6.

A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation. Ernst E, Canter PH.

Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter & Plymouth, 25 Victoria Park Road, Exeter EX2 4NT, UK. Edzard.Ernst@pms.ac.uk

Comment in:

J R Soc Med. 2007 Oct;100(10):444; author reply 447. J R Soc Med. 2006 Jun;99(6):278; author reply 279-80. J R Soc Med. 2006 Jun;99(6):278-9; author reply 279-80. J R Soc Med. 2006 Jun;99(6):277-8, author reply 279-80. J R Soc Med. 2006 Jun;99(6):277; author reply 279-80.

Abstract OBJECTIVES: To systematically collate and evaluate the evidence from recent systematic reviews of clinical trials of spinal manipulation.

DESIGN: Literature searches were carried out in four electronic databases for all systematic reviews of the effectiveness of spinal manipulation in any indication, published between 2000 and May 2005. Reviews were defined as systematic if they included an explicit and repeatable inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies.

RESULTS: Sixteen papers were included relating to the following conditions: back pain (n=3), neck pain (n=2), lower back pain and neck pain (n=1), headache (n=3), non-spinal pain (n=1), primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea (n=1), infantile colic (n=1), asthma (n=1), allergy (n=1), cervicogenic dizziness (n=1), and any medical problem (n=1). The conclusions of these reviews were largely negative, except for back pain where spinal manipulation was considered superior to sham manipulation but not better than conventional treatments.

CONCLUSIONS: Collectively these data do not demonstrate that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for any condition. Given the possibility of adverse effects, this review does not suggest that spinal manipulation is a recommendable treatment.

The text "Two other systematic reviews published between 2000 and May 2005 did not find conclusive evidence in favor of SM." is supported by Ernst E, Canter PH (2006). "A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation". J R Soc Med. 99 (4): 192–6. doi:10.1258/jrsm.99.4.192. PMC 1420782. PMID 16574972. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

Newer references and text from Chiropractic#Effectiveness under Headache:

"A 2006 review found no rigorous evidence supporting SM or other manual therapies for tension headache. A 2005 review found that the evidence was weak for effectiveness of chiropractic manipulation for tension headache, and that it was probably more effective for tension headache than for migraine. A 2004 review found that SM may be effective for migraine and tension headache, and SM and neck exercises may be effective for cervicogenic headache. Two other systematic reviews published between 2000 and May 2005 did not find conclusive evidence in favor of SM."

This edit made by Sir Anon added more unreliable references. References from 1978 are not reliable because we have newer sources currently used in the article. These old references do not pass Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Use up-to-date evidence.

Per MEDRS: * Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years. The range of reviews examined should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies.

Per MEDRS: "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".

We should not relax the reference selection because there are currently plenty of sources on the topic of hand. There has not been little progress and there has not been a few reviews being published. In fact, there has been a lot of progress and there has been more than a few reviews on the topic. MEDRS is not a policy but for alternative medicine articles like Chiropractic editors have followed MEDRS.

Let's stay away from sources older than 5 years old. They're too dated. If a subject hasn't been reviewed in the past 5 years, then it's probably not worth summarizing here.

Again, there is no intent to ignore old data. If old data is still important, it should appear in a recent review. If it doesn't appear, that's good evidence that it wasn't that important after all, at least according to published expert reviewers.

Misplaced Pages is not the place to conduct research reviews on our own, overriding reviews already published by experts in the field. Multiple reviews are cited in Chiropractic; they are from many different authors. Other reliable review sources are welcome, as per the usual WP:MEDRS guidelines. Reaching down into primary studies is dubious.

No argument has been put forth that the reviews in question are incongruent with the topic at hand. On the contrary, the reviews are quite congruent with the topic of effectiveness. There is no good reason to disregard reliable reviews and to substitute our own opinion about the the reviewed studies.

Per Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Use up-to-date evidence: "These are just rules of thumb. There are exceptions: Cochrane Library reviews are generally of high quality and are routinely maintained even if their initial publication dates fall outside the above window."

Every section must have a certain amount of information to thoroughly cover each specific topic. I think we are going to keep the reference until a newer, similar reference would replace Bondi 2005. We can strive for 5 but don't disqualify a ref because it is six or seven years old.

Using dated unreliable references to argue against much newer high quality references like the 2004 Cochrane Database Syst Rev is against MEDRS. I see WP:CON to remove the dated 1978 articles from the chiropractic page. Editors should try to stick within five years using recent reviews. If the section is very short then we can relax MEDRS a bit to include an additional ref or two. See Talk:Chiropractic#Unreliable references against MEDRS.

Failed verification

This change by another editor was made without explanation and does not seem to be written from a neutral point of view. Then this claim did not identify substantial benefits failed verification and seems to be your own personal interpretation. We report what the source say not review the references ourselves. We don't put words in the cited source's mouth. See WP:V and WP:OR.

It is a personal opinion that the review did not identify substantial benefits to spinal manipulation when it is not in the citation given and not in the results. The text failed verification because it is not in the source.

This edit by Sir Anon did not provide verification for the part of the text that failed verification. The part "did not identify substantial benefits" is still original research. I tried to discuss the matter with Sir Anon but the editor just reverted my comment without explanation.

Per WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

All material in Misplaced Pages articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question.

The source did not support the claim "did not identify substantial benefits" to spinal manipulation. It is true that the systematic review did not identify or say that were substantial benefits to chiropractic neck spinal manipulation. When the reference did not verify or support the claim that the source "did not identify substantial benefits" to spinal manipulation it is absolutely WP:OR. Per WP:V, the threshold for inclusion in chiropractic is verifiability, not truth. So the text did fail verification.

The direct quote did not verify the claim "did not identify substantial benefits" per WP:OR or WP:V. But the direct quote did verify the claim "A 2010 systematic review found there is no good evidence to assume that chiropractic neck manipulation is effective for any medical condition.<ref name=Ernst-death/>" that Sir Anon deleted without a specific explanation.

A lot of problems were introduced into the article recently against MEDRS, ASF, V, and OR. There was also a lot of rephrasing that diluted the meaning of numerous sentences. See Talk:Chiropractic#Failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You added text that Talk:Chiropractic#Failed verification and Talk:Chiropractic#The word Critics failed verification. Please explain why you think it is appropriate to include original research in the chiropractic page. It would help if you went to the talk page and explain this. I have repeatedly asked for verification but you have not provided it. So far your comments in the discussion did not provide verifaction for the disputed text you added to the article. Do you agree that it would be best that the original research you added to the chiropractic page should be removed since you were not able to verify the text. QuackGuru (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted talk page discussion

I think QuackGuru or someone else deleted the discussions that lead to the page from the talk page because they could not even be found in the archives. I went through the history and pasted one of them into the cabal. C====3 Javsav (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC) 8====D

Correction, I'm a fool, I looked in the wrrong archive. But QG is sidetracking the cabal discussion --Javsav (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk

Hi Ocaasi, would you mind adding me on facebook(if you have it)? I'd like to talk privately.

my profile is

(and no, unfortunately i am not a girl, just a song by an artist that i love.) cheers! i think when you add you can leave a personalised message so i know it is you

Javsav (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Javsav, I don't know what we can talk about privately that we can't talk about publicly. Even criticism of QG's editing style is not a secret. Let's keep it out in the open as a sign of our reasonble tactics. Also, did you sign your posts with phallic symbols??? Ocaasi 03:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I found this website Chatzy where we can chat online. I'd prefer to keep a transcript though, in case anyone wants to see what was discussed. Ocaasi 03:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I set up a room here . Just click it, pick a name, and it's there. Ocaasi 03:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was drunk re the phallic symbols. -Javsav (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey ocaasi - sorry hadn't been in the chat, was very nice of you to set it up. I had been studying for my OSCES in less than two weeks. I'll be in now constantly as my laptop is on constantly, so give me a yell next time you;re on. --Javsav (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Systematic review about safety on chiropractic and quack guru reverting

Please read ]. He has reverted 4 times now without discussion. --Javsav (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that, he didn't alert me to the fact that there was a discussion --Javsav (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Russell Brand Edits

Ok dude fair enough, I did try to find a more credible source than the sun. But couldn't find anything, and the credible sources were just quoting what the sun had said. Thank you for giving me a reason, don't like it when other people just edit and delete text without saying why.

RCP

I am so sorry, some imbecile was using my computer and posted that without authorisation.

Please accept my apologies, you have my assurance this will not happen again.

Many thanks, 118.127.19.170 (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverting to previous vandalism

When you revert edits, please make sure you're not just reverting to a previously-vandalized version. Propaniac (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token 429f023399011fed35160b775830d68e

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Chiropractic POV tag

Hey ocaasi, please comment here so I can cite WP:CON to reinstate the NPOV tag —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javsav (talk • contribs) 09:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Great Patriotic War

Thanks for posting your well-worded message to user:121.220.77.220. He has stopped making wholesale changes. You are right of course, the edits are not vandalism per se, but it was late and I couldn't think of where to ask for advice. I have now posted a message at WP:MILHIST to ask for input. Regards, --Diannaa 16:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

answered on IP page

User_talk:69.142.154.10#evidence-based... you really ought to combine these accounts - it's confusing. --Ludwigs2 00:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Mass changes to NPOV FAQ were not minor copy edits

The controversial changes were not copy editing. The major rewrite weakened the meaning of the text. QuackGuru (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)