Talk:Chiropractic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk.
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I.
Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.
There is a page Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log for the use of uninvolved administrators in managing this article.
Contents
[edit] Removal of references
I would like the following two references removed from the article:
I would also like the associated article text removed. These two references are opinion pieces. Certain editors of this article are misusing them to present the opinions in those articles as established fact, in a thinly veiled attempt to discredit the chiropractic profession. This is in violation of WP:NPOV --Surturz (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- PMID 18759966 (How can chiropractic become a respected mainstream profession? The example of podiatry) is a review written by five expert authors, published in a specialist peer-reviewed journal. I think this is an excellent reference to include in the article and use to support factual statements. The other article, by Ferrance on vaccinations, is used to reference the statement that "Within the chiropractic community there are significant disagreements about vaccination". This does not seem a controversial statement to me, but this reference isn't as high-quality as the review, and the use of this citation could therefore be improved by attributing this as an opinion of the author. An additional reference on this point would be useful, such as PMID 15530683 or PMID 10742364 Tim Vickers (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
-
-
I agree with TimVickers on both sources. The stronger source (Murphy et al. 2008 (PDF), PMID 18759966) is indeed an opinion piece, and its advocacy should not be stated as fact here; but its discussion of facts can be cited here as facts, which is what Chiropractic is doing. The weaker source (Ferrance 2002 (PDF)) is there because of a longrunning controversy over whether vaccination is controversial within chiropractic:
-
Surturz objected to the former lead sentence of Chiropractic #Vaccination, which said that vaccination "remains controversial within the chiropractic community"[1] (citing Busse et al. 2005, PMID 15965414), on the grounds that Busse et al. used neither the word "controversial" nor the phrase "chiropractic community". After a long discussion involving Surturz and other editors (see Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 26 #Topic sentence of Vaccination and Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 26 #Topic sentence of Vaccination should summarize the section), the phrase was eventually changed to its current form "Within the chiropractic community there are significant disagreements about vaccination", citing Ferrance 2002. Ferrance 2002 was brought in not because it was a better source, but because its lead sentence's phrasings correspond more closely to the phrasing used in Chiropractic.
I agree with TimVickers that Russell et al. 2004 (PMID 15530683) and/or Campbell et al. (PMID 10742364) would be better than Ferrance. Of the two, I'd prefer Campbell et al. as it's a review not a primary study. However, Busse et al. would be even better than Campbell et al., as it's newer and focuses on today's attitudes rather than focusing on a historical perspective. With the above in mind, perhaps the best approach would be to cite both Busse et al. and Campbell et al., instead of citing Ferrance. That is, we could replace this:-
- <ref>{{cite journal |journal= J Can Chiropr Assoc |year=2002 |volume=46 |issue=3 |pages=167–72 |title= Vaccinations: how about some facts for a change? |author= Ferrance RJ|url=http://jcca-online.org/client/cca/JCCA.nsf/objects/Issue+46_3/$file/Pages167-172.pdf |format=PDF}}</ref>
- with this:
- <ref name=Busse/><ref name=Campbell/>
This would remove the reference to the weaker source. A possible objection to this change would be that neither Busse et al. nor Campbell et al. support a claim that there are significant disagreements about vaccination within chiropractic, but I don't think this objection would be a reasonable one, as both sources clearly establish the existence of the controversy. -
- Eubulides (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
-
No comments for five days. Can we take it that there's no objection to the most recent proposal, which was to replace the citation to Ferrance (the weaker source) with citations to Busse et al. and to Campbell et al.? Eubulides (talk) 07:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
As described above, in Chiropractic #Vaccination, please replace this citation:
- <ref>{{cite journal |journal= J Can Chiropr Assoc |year=2002 |volume=46 |issue=3 |pages=167–72 |title= Vaccinations: how about some facts for a change? |author= Ferrance RJ|url=http://jcca-online.org/client/cca/JCCA.nsf/objects/Issue+46_3/$file/Pages167-172.pdf |format=PDF}}</ref>
with these two citations:
- <ref name=Busse/><ref name=Campbell/>
This was proposed in the above discussion, with no comment or dissent. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Add lay summaries to two citations
{{editprotected}} I recently found two lay summaries to citations used in Chiropractic. It would improve the article to use the laysummary= parameter of {{Cite journal}} to mention these, as they're easier for the general public to read. So here are two changes I propose for Chiropractic.
-
- Ernst E, Canter PH (2006). "A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation". J R Soc Med 99 (4): 192–6. doi:. PMID 16574972, http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/full/99/4/192.
- to this:
- Ernst E, Canter PH (2006). "A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation". J R Soc Med 99 (4): 192–6. doi:. PMID 16574972, http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/full/99/4/192. Lay summary – BBC News (2006-03-22).
-
- Ernst E (2007). "Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review". J R Soc Med 100 (7): 330–8. doi:. PMID 17606755, http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/full/100/7/330.
- to this:
- Ernst E (2007). "Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review". J R Soc Med 100 (7): 330–8. doi:. PMID 17606755, http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/full/100/7/330. Lay summary – Med News Today (2007-07-02).
Eubulides (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- No objection for a week, so I added an {{editprotected}}. Eubulides (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Update CCGPP citation
- This section is subsumed by #Update to low back pain bullet below. Eubulides (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Update to low back pain bullet
It is requested that an edit should be made to this fully protected page (see protection log).
This template should be followed by a specific description of the request.
This template should only be used to request edits, to fully protected pages, that are uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If you believe the proposed edit might be controversial, please discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. To request that Chiropractic itself be protected or unprotected, please make a request at requests for page protection.
Our mediation in Talk:Chiropractic/Mediation #Proposed text (may be changed freely subject to rules above) seems to have converged on a working consensus, so let's install the changes we have so far (more later, we hope). The changes are mostly to the low back pain bullet in Chiropractic #Effectiveness, although one phrase is moved to another section and one citation is updated to a later version. Here is the change. First, in Chiropractic #Effectiveness, change the Low back pain bullet from this:
to this:
Also, in Chiropractic #Effectiveness's Other bullet, please change this:
- A 2007 literature synthesis found fair evidence supporting assurance and advice to stay active for sciatica and radicular pain in the leg.[1]
to this:
- A 2008 literature synthesis found fair evidence supporting assurance and advice to stay active for sciatica and radicular pain in the leg.[2]
Finally, in Chiropractic #Treatment techniques, change this sentence:
- Medicine-assisted manipulation, such as manipulation under anesthesia, involves sedation or local anesthetic and is done by a team that includes an anesthesiologist.[8]
to this:
- Medicine-assisted manipulation, such as manipulation under anesthesia, involves sedation or local anesthetic and is done by a team that includes an anesthesiologist; a 2008 systematic review did not find enough evidence to make recommendations about its use for chronic low back pain.[12]
For reference, I have applied this change to my sandbox: you can see the diff here. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] References
Please keep this section at the bottom. TO ADD A NEW SECTION, just click the EDIT link at the right and add the new section ABOVE this one. Then copy the heading into the edit summary box.
(The following resolve otherwise-dangling references: [13][14][7][8] )
