Talk:German acupuncture trials/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Federal Joint Committee source

I got a sneaking suspicion that nobody here actually wants to deal with this source as it's written in German... So I'll add the English summary for reference:

"Abstract

The paramount decision-making body of the joint self-governance is the Federal Joint Com-mittee (the so-called “Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss” [G-BA]). The G-BA has been estab-lished as a legal entity under public law. It has wide-ranging regulatory powers. The various duties and wide-ranging powers of this committee are laid down in Volume Five of the Social Code Book (SGB V), which governs statutory health insurance. One of the main tasks of the G-BA is to assess and to appraise benefit (efficacy and safety), efficiency and necessity of new health care interventions. Future coverage of interventions within the statutory health insurance system depends on a favourable conclusion after the review process. The result of any evaluation and decision making process is published as a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) report.

Acupuncture was evaluated by the former Federal Joint Committee (the so-called “Bunde-sausschuss der Ärzte und Krankenkassen”, the predecessor of the G-BA) in the years 1999 and 2000 for many different indications. In the decision of the Committee of October 16th, 2000 “body acupuncture with needles without electric stimulation” was excluded from reim-bursement of the statutory health insurance system except for the three indications „chronic headache“, „chronic pain of the lower back“ and „chronic pain in osteoarthritis“. These three indications could be reimbursed within scientific investigations under the terms of § 63 of the Volume Five of the Social Code Book (SGB V). Results of randomised controlled trials which were performed in Germany following the above decision were the underlying data of the actual consultations of the G-BA.

The recent consultations of the G-BA included questions of the methodology of acupuncture studies, assessment of the safety of acupuncture and assessment of efficacy of acupuncture in „chronic tension headache and migraine“, „chronic pain of the lower back“ and „chronic pain in arthritis of the knee and hip“. The randomised trials included in the consultations on acupuncture at the G-BA were not only results of the German acupuncture studies but also of an additional systematic literature research.

As far as the indications „chronic pain of the lower back“ and „chronic pain in arthritis of the knee“ are concerned the G-BA was able to relate to the positive results of these studies. The decision was determined by the findings of the studies that acupuncture therapy in these cases showed significant advantages compared to „standard therapy“. Whether the specific selection of acupuncture points according to Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) had any influence on these findings remained unclear but did not lead to a negative vote of the G-BA. The consultations on the indication „chronic tension headache and migraine“ did not reveal similar valid evidence of an advantage of acupuncture therapy over standard therapy. The G-BA’s final session of consultation and decision making on Acupuncture took place on April 18th and September 19th, 2006. The G-BA decided to include “acupuncture with needles without electric stimulation” for the indications „chronic pain of the lower back“ and „chronic pain in arthritis of the knee“ into the benefits catalogue of the statutory health insurance sys-tem. Acupuncture for „chronic tension headache and migraine“ and all other indications were excluded from coverage in the ambulatory treatment sector. On January 1st, 2007 the directive which was supplemented by recommendations on quality assurance has come into force."

This is a primary source. Is there any specific proposal? QuackGuru (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

As you can see very clearly, this report is a review. That makes it a secondary source. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

What is proposed to be done with this? Make a simple proposal without spending much time, get feedback, and expand after establishing what is non-controversial. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is now merging into the one above :)... I'd like to use this source for material like the one you cited way above: "The acupuncture point selection was partially predetermined. Needles were to be manipulated until arrival of de-qi sensation. For sham acupuncture, needles were inserted only superficially (3 mm at most), and at bogus points; there also was no subsequent manipulation. Thus, only the patients (not the performing acupuncturists) could be blinded. Assessment regarding the therapy's efficacy was undertaken by blinded interviewers." --Mallexikon (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

To keep the extreme technical details about the set-up in the article is pointless. A summary is better. QuackGuru (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Support Mallexikon's use and wording of source. In an article about a given experiment, of course we should explain the controls in adequate detail. The upside is that the article will actually be educational, and what's the downside? That some readers might not understand an encyclopedia article right off the bat, and maybe have to do some background reading? Please. Remember, WP:NOTPAPER, and in this case the science is really simple compared to many of our articles. For heaven's sake, I think our readers can handle a control group that deals with three variables a ten-year-old could understand (i.e., point location, depth of insertion, and whether the needle is manipulated -- see? I just summarized it, and it wasn't scary).

At some juncture in an article about a famous study, the articles should explain the science itself, not just who liked the results and who didn't. Have a look at double-slit experiment, and imagine how it would read if we applied Quackguru's razor to its "extreme technical details". BTW, I don't understand why more skeptically-oriented editors aren't clamoring to have these details included: they go far toward suggesting that acupuncture is a placebo, and are consistent with more recent studies suggesting the same (which is why this study is FAR FROM discredited -- that objection makes no sense to me either, factually or "NPOV-ly"). Are our readers' sensibilities too dainty to be subjected to this cold logic? --Middle 8 (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

What specifically do you want to add? I want to hear what you have to say, but talking about this abstractly is not useful because everyone has a different abstract concept of how this would look. What you say may be so, but if you want this content in the article, can you please write it out? Are you talking about the kind of explanation that is discussed above? Are those sentences the ones you like? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

For starters, I think these two deletions could be undone (and I undid the first already): results across groups, more results. I don't see what's so confusing. (BTW, the results are consistent with more recent studies showing verum acupuncture equal to sham. I think that Quackguru, and some other skeptic supporting his edits, are misreading this as a pro-acupuncture-believer result. It was indeed spun that way by some acu believers who were too stupid or disingenuous to see that the results suggested acu was a placebo. But it's actually quite damning to traditional acu beliefs.) This level of detail is nothing compared to other science articles. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The text you want restored is currently in the article. Your previous edit was against consensus. There is no consensus to continue to keep it in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Blue Rasberry, hope you're enjoying the holiday, and I'll check in later for your reply.

QuackGuru asserted that my article edit from Dec. 1st -- which restored some details about study design -- was against consensus, but for evidence points only to an assertion he made on Mallexikon's user talk page; this means nothing, given that QG constantly IDHT's and can't be trusted for an honest account of talk page discussion. In fact, since Dec. 1st (when AlexBrn last commented) I see only one editor strongly against including this material, and that is -- surprise -- QuackGuru. Mallexikon and I are in favor of inclusion, and if I read MrBill3 and BlueRasberry correctly, they are dubious but not outright opposed. So we'll see how things develop. --Middle 8 (talk) 07:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

There's way too much detail from primary resources here. A heavy trim is needed. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure. However, this has been discussed to some length. Would you bother giving some rationale for your assessment, in the light of the many rationales given already for including this material? What downside do you see in leaving this material in the article? --Mallexikon (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

One could argue from guidance and policy (don't built articles on too much primary stuff; think of the general reader) but the bigger reason (and the reason why we have guidance and policies) is that it makes for a crappy article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Alexbrn, thanks for commenting. Here is your preceding comment from Dec. 1; I asked about it above[1][2]. Please comment. Note that the FJC is both secondary and a MEDRS, just as the NIH or FDA (which play a similar role) are. Also note that GERAC's results, far from having been discredited/superseded, are among the first and best examples of sham acu being found equal to verum acu: that's one reason the study is notable. --Middle 8 (talk) 11:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

FJC is too old per WP:MEDDATE for a start, and later better sources (Howick) have discounted the trials' ability to emit clinically significant data. Anyhow, this is beside the point. Loading the article with tedious details about trial set up make it a poor article. You don't see stuff like "In this trial, a total of 960 patients was randomized; immediately after randomization, however, 125 patients (almost all of them from the standard group) withdrew from the study" in decent medical articles here, for a reason. The reason I've been quiet is because I've pretty much given up: if a bunch of acupuncture fans want to make this little corner of WP like this, and will devote endless time and effort to it, then it can join the vast number of small crappy articles WP harbours, and is "mostly harmless". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Re Howick, do you realize that he's criticizing all sham acupuncture, and therefore dismissing the validity of all subsequent placebo-controlled research? His view on placebos is obviously not shared by most reviewers and is undue weight here. I doubt that you'd really want to support such a source.

Agree that what you quoted would be a bad inclusion. My proposal is this and this, which are technical, but informative.

MEDDATE provides an exception for historical material, and since this article is about an historical event (and isn't represented as current medical info), we should be fine. --Middle 8 (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

My proposal is we start from this version and fix the remaining problems. The Academic community section should be in the Overview section. QuackGuru (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Alexbrn, you can return to the article and continue improving it. User:Bluerasberry, I want your expert opinion for further improvements to this article. I think we have reached a rough consensus based on the validity of the arguments. There is no consensus for the coat rack text and unimportant low level details. QuackGuru (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying you're in favor of restoring/including this and this? And what part of the article do you believe is coatrack-ish? --Middle 8 (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Edits against WP:LOCALCON at German acupuncture trials. QuackGuru (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You just went to FTN and falsely characterized my preceding question to you as if it weren't a question. You know that I and Mallexikon support including some experimental details, and that you don't, that we're in the middle of a conversation with Alexbrn and Bluerasberry, and that MrBill3 hasn't weighed in lately. So when you said there was consensus, I wondered if you, and maybe others, had just changed your mind -- hence my question. Unfortunately it appears you were ignoring my & Mallexikon's objections and falsely asserting a consensus -- and then you go to FTN and accuse me of mischaracterizing your position! Lovely. Well, at least I know the answer to my first question. I still don't know what specifically you think is coatrack-ish, other than a general "alt-med-POV-pushing", but which POV specifically? That this experiment was one of the first and best-designed ones showing sham acu to be the same as verum? I don't get it. --Middle 8 (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Beats me, too. But to get back to the point: the FJC source is secondary, and as it used to cover the set-up of an historic event here, WP:MEDDATE doesn't apply (as the set-up of the trials is not going to change anymore. In contrast to a finding like "aspirin is effective in preventing heart attacks"). --Mallexikon (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It was previously explained the problems with set-up of the trials. Further, FJC is too old. Middle 8 wrote: "I still don't know what specifically you think is coatrack-ish..." What you added to the article is dated coatrack-ish medicals claims. Please move on. QuackGuru (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Doing things the Right Way vs. doing things the Wrong Way

I would like to encourage those on both sides of the current content dispute to re-read Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. In particular, I like to point would point out that some of the participants have been violating Wikipedia:Consensus while loudly proclaiming that Wikipedia:Consensus supports their misbehavior.

Here is a basic truth: if you follow the letter and spirit of WP:CON and WP:DR while the other side does not, the end result is that -- after some temporary drama -- you end up getting your way. It is a basic truth about the way the world works that even if the other side is right they lose because they refused to follow community standards. It doesn't matter whether you like it or whether you believe it; that's the way the world works.

This isn't a free pass, of course; sooner or later someone who does follow the rules will come along and at that point, now that everyone is following the rules, the issue will be decided by Wikipedia policies such as WP:V, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT.

Practical Advice

No matter what the other side does, follow the advice found in Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If this other side does not follow WP:BRD, do not sink to their level. Instead, calmly start working your way through the dispute resolution process. It really does work, but at least one side of the dispute has to give DR a chance.

Helpful hint: You may find yourself in the situation where the next step as detailed in WP:CON and WP:DR is something that you know will not work. Do it anyway. As it says at WP:CON,

"Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. Discussing heatedly or poorly – or not at all – will make other editors less sympathetic to your position, and prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus."

Eventually an administrator will end up going through the edit histories, and if he see that you are following the WP:CON in good-faith, the hammer will drop on those who are not.

So please, take the high road. If you do that, I will make it a point to personally assist you, no matter what my personal opinions on the matter under dispute are. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Please review my comments here. QuackGuru (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Individual trials

• Low back pain trial – 1162 patients were randomized in this trial. The treatment given in the standard therapy group consisted of a combination of physical therapy and NSAID medication.

• Knee osteoarthritis trial – A total of 1039 patients were randomized in this study. Treatment in the standard therapy group consisted of diclofenac or rofecoxib medication on an as-needed basis. Patients in the acupuncture and sham acupuncture groups were also allowed additional medication with diclofenac (as needed), but limited to a small amount (i.e., a total of 1g between week 2 and 23). Patients in all three groups could attend six physiotherapy sessions.

• Migraine prophylaxis trial – In this trial, a total of 960 patients was randomized; immediately after randomization, however, 125 patients (almost all of them from the standard group) withdrew from the study. Primary outcome was defined as reduction in migraine days in week 21 to 25 after randomization. Treatment for the standard group consisted of medication according to the 2005 therapy guidelines issued by the German Neurological Association, usually comprising a beta-blocker.

• Tension-type headache trial – The standard, guideline-based therapy arm for the RCT for chronic tension type headache provided for amitriptyline medication. Since only a few patients were willing to take this antidepressant, the standard therapy arm had to be aborted. In the two remaining arms (real against sham acupuncture), 405 patients were included altogether.

• Observational study – 12,617 physicians took part in the observational study, reporting on adverse events during or after acupuncture therapies they performed between 2001 and 2005. This resulted in data of roughly 2.6 million patients, out of which a random sample of 190,924 was reviewed in terms of frequency of adverse events and serious adverse events.

• Comments below for improving German acupuncture trials#Individual trials:

This section requires fixing. Both Alexbrn and User:Bluerasberry have concerns about this section. Please edit the above section. QuackGuru (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

What's the problem? "Low level details"? "Coatrack"? Please be specific. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

A one or two sentence summary in prose stating what was studied is what would be appropriate for an encyclopedic article. Details about each study group, it's numbers and methods is not needed and leans towards presenting the material as something other than a discussion of a historic study. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I summarised the individual trials. I think this fixed the concerns with the text. QuackGuru (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well it certainly fixed your concerns with the text... What I don't understand here is why you did this edit while the discussion is not even finished? And did you notice that the article is worse now? Its structure is so bad that the reader will not even be able to understand why acupuncture was included in the list of reimbursable services. It's a mess now. --Mallexikon (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It fixed the concerns that User:MrBill3 and other editors had. I wanted to fix this concern and move on to other articles. I do not know what you want me to do about the structure. QuackGuru (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this section is a reasonable summary of the individual trials. I do think the article needs some explication of the interpretation of the trials that led the German Federal Joint Committee to include acupuncture in the list of reimbursable services. Does such analysis and explanation appear in any of the sources interpreting or comenting on the German Federal Joint Committee ruling? The "why" is definitely something that should be sourced not synthesized. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I added information about why was it reimbursed by public health insurance companies in Germany using the primary source. QuackGuru (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Note. MrBill3 wrote on 07:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC): A one or two sentence summary in prose stating what was studied is what would be appropriate for an encyclopedic article. Details about each study group, it's numbers and methods is not needed and leans towards presenting the material as something other than a discussion of a historic study.

I agree. I trimmed the text that was undueweight. Using favorably primary sources is also a MEDRS violation and creates somewhat of a COATTRACK article. QuackGuru (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

As below if secondary sources providing some more description can be found I think this section could be expanded. If someone finds material from an appropriate source please propose and edit here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Trial set-up

An entire section devoted to the set-up is an extreme weight violation. QuackGuru (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Why on earth would this be a weight violation? The trials are the nominal subject of this article - they have to be explained. And how should the reader understand criticism from acupuncture proponents that alleges that the sham design wasn't exact enough or that the experience of the involved acupuncturist wasn't adequate? --Mallexikon (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Editors thought a summary would be better. You previously said there is consensus forming to not include this material. QuackGuru (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by that. Did you follow the discussion below (#Threaded discussion)?

References

RfC: What level of detail should be included in German acupuncture trials?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the German acupuncture trials article contain fewer low-level details, as seen in this version, or more low level details, as seen in this version? The specific details of the studies are undue and not MEDRS. The outdated sources are being used to describe in extreme detail about the trial itself in the German acupuncture trials#Individual trials section. For example, QuackGuru prefers a summary rather than keeping the technical details about the set-up of the trials. The problems with the technical details was also explained here. The problems with the excessive details was also explained here.

• See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 160#GERAC for a discussion about the sources. The article should not violate WP:MEDRS, WP:WEIGHT, or WP:COATHOOK.

see sample differences emphasized here

Less here Low back pain trial – 1162 patients were randomized in this trial. The treatment given in the standard therapy group consisted of a combination of physical therapy and NSAID medication. Knee osteoarthritis trial – A total of 1039 patients were randomized in this study. Treatment in the standard therapy group consisted of diclofenac or rofecoxib medication on an as-needed basis. Patients in the acupuncture and sham acupuncture groups were also allowed additional medication with diclofenac (as needed), but limited to a small amount (i.e., a total of 1g between week 2 and 23). Patients in all three groups could attend six physiotherapy sessions. More here Low back pain trial – 1162 patients were randomized in this trial. The treatment given in the standard therapy group consisted of a combination of physical therapy and NSAID medication. In the outcome, true acupuncture and sham were significantly more effective than standard therapy; however, there was no statistical significant difference between the effectiveness of true and sham acupuncture. Knee osteoarthritis trial – A total of 1039 patients were randomized in this study. Treatment in the standard therapy group consisted of diclofenac or rofecoxib medication on an as-needed basis. Patients in the acupuncture and sham acupuncture groups were also allowed additional medication with diclofenac (as needed), but limited to a small amount (i.e., a total of 1g between week 2 and 23). Patients in all three groups could attend six physiotherapy sessions. The observed success rates amounted to significant superiority of acupuncture and sham acupuncture over standard treatment, but no statistical significant efficacy difference between true and sham acupuncture. References References

Survey

• Less Detail. As proposer. See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• More Detail, within reason - I'd like to include the details in bold (earlier versions) from this and this. That's for the sake of science-literate readers, who are able to evaluate that kind of information. The small amount of additional text is fine per WP:NOTPAPER, and that level of detail is nothing compared to some of WP's science articles -- T cell, for example. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
• Don't care about detail; as long as the only question is over the "less detail" vs "more detail" version in the collaposed text above, let's move on. Better things to do, like get that crappy Howick source (the one bitching about sham acu being not valid as a placebo control -- and he's wrong per Goldacre) weighted less. Or work on other articles, even. --Middle 8 (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
• Much less detail. As I said above content like "In this trial, a total of 960 patients was randomized; immediately after randomization, however, 125 patients (almost all of them from the standard group) withdrew from the study" is completely unencyclopedic (and at the time, Middle 8 agreed). We should be building our articles by digesting secondary sources, not assembling details of primary studies. Quite apart from anything else, selectively quoting primary studies strongly risks engaging in original research; we should be guided by secondaries on which aspects are pertinent. The content in question should be boiled-down to a couple of sentences something like: "The studies investigated x, y and z. Overall they found blah", where "blah" is something sourced to a good secondary. I pity the reader who comes across this - any (rare) specialist reader who wants to dig down into the details of the primary studies can simply read the cited sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
• Keep current detail level. The interested reader will have trouble reading the primary sources since they're in German. And as pointed out above, there is no reason to keep this material out. Maybe it only benefits 10% of our readers - so what? The rest can skip this subsection. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• Much less detail Here I side with Alexbrn rather than Mallexikon; it would take special contexts to justify inclusion of material that one might find in "Materials and methods" or "Results" of a technical article rather than "Introduction" or "Discussion" sections. Inclusion will rarely be justified by difficulties such as inability of some users to read the source language. OTOH I reject the suggestion that quoting, collecting, or digesting any published material whatsoever amounts to original research, but I still insist that details of the experimental procedure and events of the type quoted should have no place in an article unless it adds value in context, just as one would reject any other material that fails to add value. For example, 125 patients? What on earth does that add to the article that 124 or 126 would not? If it can be stated that a particular study was criticised because only 12 patients were included, there might be some point, but even then it generally would be better to state the likes of "the FDA rejected the study because the number of subjects was far too small for statistical significance and its conclusions contradicted the nationwide survey of 1997 (ref 17)...", not: "...included x candidates, of which y were rejected after w days and z..." etc etc. JonRichfield (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Neutrality re details -- It's good form to try to frame RfC's neutrally. "Low level" or "extreme" aren't neutral characterizations of a few sentences about, e.g., how many people participated in the study, or how the control experiments were set up. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Although Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief does say "If you feel as though you cannot describe the issue neutrally, ask someone else to write a summary for you. You can also do your best, and invite others to improve your question or summary later", the current lead isn't unusual - lots of RfCs advocate one side or the other in the lead. If you ask him nicely, QuackGuru will most likely be willing to move some of his arguments from the lead to his comment, but in my opinion it will not make any real difference in the result. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. Changing it isn't a big deal to me; just wanted to get the caveat out there. Happy New Year! --Middle 8 (talk)

• Sources not outdated - Sources for events in the history of medicine, like this one, aren't subject to the same up-to-date requirements as current medical information. For example, some of the sources in Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori aren't current either. Which is OK as long as such sources aren't misrepresented as being current. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• What is the potential WP:COATHOOK and/or WP:WEIGHT problem? (cf. comments from editor initiating this RfC.) What POV is being pushed? The results (sham, or placebo, acupuncture being equal to real acupuncture) are in line with the findings of later trials and reviews. --Middle 8 (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Still no answer - QuackGuru brings up the "coathook" objection again, [3], but can't seem to explain why. [4][5] Whatever. --Middle 8 (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Can't have a "coatrack" without bias - so where's the bias? Anyone? This is a content fork (WP:NOTPAPER), not a POV fork or coatrack. --Middle 8 (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• WP:COATHOOK an article ostensibly about a group of studies that presents content from these studies as a way of discussing acupuncture (the subject of a separate article). WEIGHT the volume of material from the studies themselves as opposed to material from secondary and tertiary, third party sources analyzing, interpreting and discussing the impact, importance and interpretation of the studies. I have contended from the begining if the notability of the subject is the impact of these studies that should be the focus of the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This is absurd. If this article was a coatrack, it would contain almost no information about the trials itself, but just go on and on about acupuncture in general. Which it obviously doesn't. The definition of WP:COATHOOK is that the "nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subject. Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject. A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject." Our nominal subject here is the German acupuncture trials. User:QuackGuru just deleted a lot of information about the set-up of these trials that he calls low-level details (number of patients randomized. Design of the control group. Success rates). And you cheered him for it! And now you turn around and criticize that the article might "fail to give a truthful impression of the subject"??? --Mallexikon (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The focus is meant to be the circumstances and impact of the trials (as picked up by secondaries). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The GERAC are notable because of their impact, and thus the article shouldn't neglect that part. In order to not have a coatrack article, however, we have to give a "truthful impression of the subject". This article's nominal subject is not the Federal Joint Committee's decision. This article's nominal subject is the trials itself. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and we reflect what the preponderance of reliable secondary sources say about them ... which is about circumstances and impact, not about how 25 people dropped out of a trial after 43 days (or whatever). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, then we don't have a problem. All the material we talk about here is backed up by a secondary source (the review by the Fed. Joint Committee). Only in a few sentences the primary sources (the reports of the people who actually did the studies) are retained as an additional citation. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

A document out of some middle-tier govt committee ≠ "the preponderance of reliable secondary sources". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You haven't read the summary of the Federal Joint Committee, have you? It's not "some middle-tier govt. committee". It's the paramount decision making body in the German health care system regarding the decision of what therapies to include in the list of reimbursable services. And it's not a part of the government; it's independent. --Mallexikon (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right, it's a (kind of) quango acting under supervision of the health ministry. That still ≠ "the preponderance of reliable secondary sources". Their 2007 report is 527 pages long, so is very inclusive - that fact that fiddly details got swept up along with everything else does not lend them any weight there. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

In the spirit of the current climate of reasonable discussion and some stability, I would like to nuance my position and suggest that some more description of the trials themselves is probably appropriate. I think Mallexikon made a valid point in that the notability of the subject was established by it's impact and the amount of discussion it engendered. Given that the subject is notable the WP article on the subject should provide enough detail about the subject to give readers a clear understanding of the subject itself. Short version the article is "German acupuncture trials" not "Impact of German acupuncture trials" and the trials themselves should be adequately described.

To follow WP policy and avoid inflammation do any of the secondary sources (other than the gov't report) provide a description of the studies that would provide additional (limited) detail? The five W's of reporting should cover "what" in some manner. However if no secondary source provides such a description I don't know if it belongs here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have a couple of other secondary sources and I'll write the text again as a proposal. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

As a possibly interesting aside, I'm currently wrestling with Circumcision and HIV#African trials which - as a set of historical trials - presents similar problems. (I will also wryly note that these trials - with their comparatively enormous impact on human health, only get a subsection in an article, while GERAC is standalone; how important it must be!) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I'll not take that bait and start rambling about amount of media coverage etc... I'm done with my proposal and added it to the article. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

As an invitee to comment, I'm uncertain about whether the article is better with more detail or less, although if anything I lean towards less. However, the initial section, which should give a cogent summary of the article's content, is extremely confusing, structured as a series of unconnected facts. It states that as a result of the trials there was a ruling that public insurers should cover acupuncture, and other insurers decided to not cover acupuncture. It also says no significant differences were found between acupuncture and sham, and a later trial found the trials' designs to be flawed. These facts must be connected, using words such as "however", "because", "subsequently", "in contrast", etc. Otherwise readers won't be able to see the forest for the trees. My conclusion: focus more on making the article readable and accurate than on exactly how much detail is the "correct" amount. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Dan. For caring. As I pointed out in the threads below (#Lack of logic and #Lack of readability), the current confusing state of the article is largely User:QuackGuru's work, and no matter what I try to make the article more readable, he just reverts me anyway. Any bright ideas how to solve this problem? --Mallexikon (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'd try myself to focus on the forest rather than the trees. You feel like User:QuackGuru's sole purpose is to disable this article, and a brief look at his edit history and talk page seems to show that he isn't into collaboration. That's a problem, and makes our work more difficult. But, what if some of his ideas are legitimate? For instance, on the detail to be included on studies. Protesting his choices where you don't really have to protest just gives him a feeling of being on a righteous crusade, and raises the temperature all around.

Not having done any research, and without any claim that what follows is actually correct, here's a set of facts that could be highlighted. Due to dispute as to the usefulness of acupuncture, in 2001-2006 several German health insurance companies commissioned studies involving XXXXXX (how many?) patients to discern whether acupuncture had demonstrably better outcomes than placebo treatment. The results generally showed both sham acupuncture and real acupuncture had statistically better results than conventional treatment, but there wasn't a statistically valid difference between sham and real acupuncture's results. At the time, different insurers took different messages from this; some decided that acupuncture should be covered because it had better outcomes than conventional treatment, but others noted that it wasn't better than a sham and so shouldn't be covered. In 2011 there was a reassessment of the trials by XXXXXX (who?) that found that the sham acupuncture wasn't a well-designed placebo because people could tell the difference between sham and real acupuncture, further confusing the conclusions.

Assuming I guessed right on the facts (stress the word guessed), with some cleanup this could be a good lead section. It shows the progression and the basic, supportable facts. Someone reading it knows the gist of what happened with the trials. The rest of the article can fill in the details, but even if it does it poorly then readers will still have that gist.

So, assuming you can come up with something clear and supportable, edit that initial section to match it. If, then, User:QuackGuru continues to obstruct you even on that level, then it's time to invoke dispute resolution. Line up your supportable facts, make sure you have them correct, and then ask for help.. It may take time, but the end results should be good. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. It was previously explained, for the set-up a summary was better. User:Mallexikon previously said there is consensus forming to not include this material but he tried to restore the details about the set-up against consensus. After reading this comment at the talk page, for balance and readability I added this information to acupuncture. User:Mallexikon previously said We found consensus to limit the information about the results; however, QG opposes this consensus as well. It is fairly obvious I do not oppose limiting the information about the results. I prefer less detail about the results. In this RfC, so do a lot of other editors. Alexbrn said in part: As to GERAC, the concern there (and in fact other editors raised the coat rack issue more than I did at the AfD) was the picking out of impressive-sounding details from the primaries to construct a coat rack of undue details: something which is still happening (but not for long?)... We should interpret what reliable secondary sources say opposed to favoroble outdated primary sources. QuackGuru (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Think about the reader

Lack of logic

After QuackGuru's multiple deletion orgies, this article is not even coherent anymore... If you were a reader who has never before heard about these trials, would you understand why the GERAC resulted in inclusion of acupuncture in the list of reimbursable services? --Mallexikon (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Or, what to make of the accusation that the involved acupuncturists didn't have enough training (as voiced in an article in the Journal of Chinese medicine)?
Or, what to make of criticism regarding the sham acupuncture concept (as voiced in two different articles)? --Mallexikon (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I added "This decision was made in part on the results of the trials and in part for socio-political reasons". The reader can make their own conclusions. QuackGuru (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That's cynical. You want to include "This decision was made in part on the results of the trials and in part for socio-political reasons" but you steadfastly object to mentioning the results of these trials (other than "were was no difference between verum and sham acupuncture". Which doesn't explain anything.) And what socio-political reasons do you mean? You can't just write something like that and then leave the reader wandering what. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I wrote the text according to the source. The specific details about the results of these trials was previously rejected. The article should focus on the circumstances and impact of the trials. QuackGuru (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Mallexikon, it is hard for me to know how to comment on a lot of this and I have tried to follow. Honestly I tend to favor removing content in disputes because there is less to argue over in those cases. That does not mean that the article is better for removing the content, but rather it means that I find fewer controversial assertions present in a purged article. While QuackGuru is not dainty either in editing or in having discussions, this user is straightforward and not making proposals with much controversy standing in the content proposed. I am not saying this to settle anything, or say how the article should be. I am as uncertain as ever.

The Journal of Chinese Medicine article seems to meet not to meet WP:MEDRS. It is difficult to know what to do with a source like this, because I do not often see a primary source address and critique such thorough research as GERAC. The default practice would be to avoid using it but also - though I cannot point to it - I expect that somewhere in the primary documents describing the trial the study description also described problems in the trail design which would have the same effects described in that journal. I do not know what to do. I think it would be noncontroversial to say, "The trial design was criticized as faulty by various other researchers" and then cite any number of papers after a sentence like that, if otherwise the Chinese paper or the other sources were not acknowledged at all.

I do not feel very helpful. I am afraid that everything about this article seems slow going with multiple perspectives worth addressing. I feel unsure about much of this article, but I would rather make it not give improper information and remain mediocre than actually take risks to give it potential to be awesome. I do see significant risk in misrepresenting the sources here and I think I have a conservative bias about much of this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks anyway. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Lack of readability

On top of the content dispute, QuackGuru is also steadfastly refusing any attempts to make this article more readable. I've tried to improve the structure of the subsections in different ways, and QG reverted me each time ([6], [7]). Even when I try to unclutter the text QG reverts me ([8]). Since QG has been wanting to delete this whole article for a long time ([9]), I can understand his strategy of trying to wreck it as well as possible after it survived the AfD discussion; and I have given up trying to re-revert since otherwise we're just having an edit war... But I need some other editors to step in and do something here. As it is now, the article is almost incomprehensive. --Mallexikon (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Information about the overview and the results are in the German acupuncture trials#Overview and results section. QuackGuru (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the current version of the article has achieved a pretty good level of readability and a balance between details and critique. I am interested in the opinions of other editors. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree. I specifically value these last edits of QuackGuru [10]. Good work. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

WOULD YOU PLEASE STOP DELETING RS MATERIAL WITHOUT CONSENSUS

I think we should revert back to here becuase there was not enough discussion about the changes. I agree with both User:Mallexikon and User:Middle 8. QuackGuru (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a very generous offer. I think we don't have to go back to an older version, though; maybe we can try some WP:BRD while I make a few changes to the article? --Mallexikon (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

So the consensus of the RfC is overturned? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, at the present both Middle 8, Dan Griscom, and QuackGuru are neutral. You and JonRichfield favor less details, while I myself favor much more details, and Mr.Bill favors "some more". Looks like we'll have to walk a thin line of consensus. --Mallexikon (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Mallexikon is correct. At this point, only Alexbrn and JonRichfield favor less details. On another article there were two RfCs and Alexbrn still wants to change consensus. WP:CCC. QuackGuru (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I favor enough detail to provide an understanding of what the trials were (an article should give the reader an understanding of it's subject). While clearly enough phrased and with adequate context before and after to make it clear the article is describing the trials from a historical perspective and providing clearly and explicitly (well in so far as possible) what the current mainstream scientific consensus. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at this change. Some of the extreme details I deleted have been restored. Can we really ignore the consensus of the RfC? See #RfC: What level of detail should be included in German acupuncture trials.3F. QuackGuru (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I wouldn't have thought that your offer at the start of this thread was just tactics and that you would take it back... I added material about the set-up in order to put the criticism into perspective that was voiced by the acupuncture proponents (in our article represented by Birch and the Chinese) - you know, that the acupuncturists in the trials weren't experienced enough, and that it wasn't a suitable placebo. Both are weak arguments when you look at the facts... What problem do you see? --Mallexikon (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the level of details in the article is appropriate to give the reader an understanding of the subject and to put the criticism/evaluation in context. I do not think the level of detail exceeds the lesser level of information supported by the RfC. I am open to hearing opinions on why it does. Specific suggestions regarding what particular details are excessive would be most helpful. I think if editors work collaboratively we can reach a consensus that retains a lack of coathook while providing information to the reader about the trials, places critiques in context and maintains readability. I have no interest in revisiting the RfC (its closed) but work to make this a good article can and should proceed. Lets discuss this with specifics and rationale. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

This was specifically part of the RfC: For example, QuackGuru prefers a summary rather than keeping the technical details about the set-up of the trials. The problems with the technical details was also explained here. The problems with the excessive details was also explained here.

I previously explained the extreme details about the set-up is undue weight and unnecessary. This level of technical details is not found in other articles. QuackGuru (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

At the present, we don't even mention the main reason why the GERAC led to acupuncture being reimbursed: the fact that verum and sham acupuncture worked better than conventional treatment. And IMO it's justified to leave that fact out, in order to avoid the misleading impression that these trials proved acupuncture's efficacy. So what are you so concerned about? --Mallexikon (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

What specific sentence do you think should be included using reliable secondary sources? QuackGuru (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The details about the set-up were deleted. So I also deleted this part about the criticism of the set-up to move the discussion forward. QuackGuru (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Why did you delete that criticism? We have to give a balanced view of this subject. That includes the criticism from the acu-proponents. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material

This recent revert orgy [11] by QuackGuru constitutes removal of reliably sourced material: not just information about the trials' set-up, but also about the criticism voiced against it. This is making the article worse since it keeps us from giving the reader a balanced and truthful picture of the nominal subject. These reverts also go against WP:Revert only when necessary ("Don't revert an edit because it is unnecessary — because it does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse.") and WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". I hope we don't have to get page protection again. I also hope we don't have to start dispute resolution over this. --Mallexikon (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

2 questions for you all related to these deletions.

1. A bunch of the content near the end of the section formerly known as "Overview, results and analysis" and consolidated by QG in this dif in the third paragraph seem to be "reception"; for which there is a separate section. Is there some reason that content is not down there? Jytdog (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
2. Also QG, about your deletion of detail about the trial. I do see that there was an RfC above and the "low level" of detail was decided, but the article is now below the "low level" of detail that you yourself specified as being OK - this is the dif you specified in the RfC as defining that level. You cannot use the RfC to go yet lower than that. Please reply! Thx Jytdog (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding question 1.: Very good point. I tried to improve the structure before ([12]) but was immediately reverted by QG ([13]). As usually, there was no reason given by him. --Mallexikon (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

QG's edit note on the reversion was: "information about trials must be in the same overview section". That doesn't make sense to me. QG? Jytdog (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Fringe journals

We really should not be linking to fringe journals. I would appreciate it if we could keep these out. If we are to include them, it can only be to source the notable opinions of the authors and nothing more. They aren't reliable for asserting anything about this subject. jps (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I agree with you, but to help keep the discussion rational and measured (reasoning from policies and guidelines as opposed to just making claims), would you please name the journals you object to, and state why you understand they are not reliable sources for the content they were supporting? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure:

1. Acupuncture in Medicine was a journal being used to source claims about the Federal Committee of Physicians and Health Insurers.
2. Thieme Almanac 2007: Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine was being used to describe the trial.
3. Journal of traditional Chinese medicine was being used to claim acceptance of acupuncture by the international community, that no significant differences between acupuncture and sham acupuncture were found, that the reimbursement procedures were made for unstated "socio-political reasons", and that some insurance corporations in Germany no longer reimbursed acupuncture.

The only thing these journals are good for is describing what acupuncturists believe, in my opinion.

jps (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! here is the medline version of the pubmed listing for #3. It is a medline-indexed review from 2013, which is exactly what we look for under MEDRS. It was also, as near as i can tell, introduced by QB and I think alexbrn was ok with it too, as were middle8 and mallexikon. I think this one it is OK. if you disagree can you please provide reasoning (the kind of thing i stated above, is the kind of reasoning that is helpful; you didn't say anything about the source itself and why it is not OK) if you don't disagree, perhaps you could reinstate the content related to it? I need to check the other 2.. don't have time right now.Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I think (3) would be okay for any non-controversial & non-fringe claims. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn, can you please provide reasoning? In what way does 3 fail MEDRS? Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE guides us to use independent sources. The Journal of traditional Chinese medicine is not independent (of TCM). Any significant claims made there which have permeated the mainstream will be easy to source independently. The claims jps mentions aren't primarily biomedical ones, so how would MEDRS apply in any case? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry I am unfamiliar with this term "independent" - where is that in RS or MEDRS? Again this is a recent, MEDLINE-indexed secondary source - those are all the checkboxes I am used to looking at. With regard to content, here is the original text that QB deleted - there are three sentences; the first makes a non-health related claim and second two make health related claims (the latter are in italics). "A 2013 Chinese review complained that the results of controlled clinical trials of sham acupuncture in Germany had an adverse impact on the acceptance of acupuncture in the international community. At the same time, the review found there was "not enough evidence to support the statements that 'acupuncture and sham acupuncture have no difference in treatment effect' and 'acupuncture is just a placebo effect'". The review stated that the "sham acupuncture used in Germany may not be standardized and may not be suitable for acupuncture clinical trial research".Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry I got this mixed up, I must have been working off the wrong dif. Working off the recent dif where QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV deleted the sources: The He ref which I linked the MEDLINE/Pubmed abstract for above (again it is here) was actually used for the following: "However, because of the trial's conclusions, some insurance corporations in Germany no longer reimbursed acupuncture." "No significant differences between acupuncture and sham acupuncture were found in any trial." "A 2013 Chinese review stated that the results of controlled clinical trials of sham acupuncture in Germany had an adverse impact on the acceptance of acupuncture in the international community." "However, since no difference in efficacy of verum and sham acupuncture was found in the trials, some insurance corporations in Germany chose to stop reimbursement of acupuncture."Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

"Independent" is in the title of a section of WP:FRINGE, guidance rooted on the WP:PSCI policy. WP:MEDRS is a guideline built on a guidelines (WP:RS). Neutrality is a core pillar of WP. Using the journal in question freely would allow all kinds of crap onto WP, as a quick glance at its articles will show. I see only one sentence in italics that you mention, and I agree it's healthy. But - don't other, better, sources say this too? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry but I really don't understand this - really! I thought if it is good enough for MEDLINE it is good enough for us. I am unfamiliar with analysis of "independence." (btw, I tracked down where and when #3 came in - it was introduced by QG back on Nov 30th, in this dif, and has been used for health content from that day until just now.) I would like to bring source #3 to the MEDRS Talk page if that is OK with you, Alexbrn. Unless it has been brought there already? Thanks.19:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Independence is evaluated by means of editorial policy of the journal. The issue with certain journals that are devoted to WP:FRINGE theories is that the peer-review is only done "in house". That is, the papers submitted are not reviewed by independent reviewers but instead by sympathetic believers in a fringe theory. Evaluating independence means looking for an indication that they have critical review, not just rubber stamping. jps (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

For the journal in question, here are the redflags: [14]. Note that the chief editor, Hu Ximing, is a promoter of various pseudoscientific fringe beliefs. [15] It is clear that under his guidance, the journal would not permit proper independence. Additionally note that the sponsorship of this journal is by the China Association of Chinese Medicine (which is a mistranslation of this trade group: [16] and the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences [17] which is clearly a front organization for the TCM juggernaut in the PRC. There is absolutely no sense in which this is an independent journal in the normal sense. In fact, this is much closer to astroturfing than legitimate academic research. jps (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

kinda struggling here. you could say pretty much the exact same thing about most Journal of X Society publications(e.g. J of Neurosci, and the Society for Neurosci). This is a bit hand-wavy. But i am thinking. thanks for talking.Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No, not really. The Society for Neuroscience has a well-defined mission that does not include activities that explicitly promote neuroscience as a trade. Contrast that with the Chinese Association of Traditional Medicine which, among other things, is dedicated "to propagat[ing] the culture of Chinese medicine and to better satisfy the need of the people" and to helping members "dealing with the international trade disputes". Very different beasts. jps (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

like i said, i have a hard time seeing your point on this hand-wavy argument; everything you wrote there you can find on the SfN mission and activities. I think this is peripheral to what they each work on. just not a productive line of argument.Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

In general, WP:FRINGE does not apply to neuroscience. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No... they don't have any indication in their mission statement that they propagate the culture of neuroscience to better satisfy the need of the people. Nor do they deal with international trade disputes. Compare the two links I posted. The differences are striking and obvious. SfN's promotion is all related to propagating literacy about the best understanding of neuroscience, regardless of what that understanding is. If tomorrow, a landmark Science paper came out about how neuroscience is actually a sham and essentially another case of phrenology, it is totally within the remit of the SfN mission statement to disseminate that information. This is not the way the CATCM approaches their mission. They are trying to promote TCM as a concept. If tomorrow, a landmark study came out showing conclusively that TCM works only because of the placebo effect, it is within the remit of the organization's mission to attempt to combat that general understanding. Just read the two mission statements one after the other. The difference is pretty apparent. jps (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

really, this is not a compelling line of argumentation. But I have heard you that you find J Tradit Chin Med. to be an unreliable source for anything nontrivial (and maybe even for trivial things).Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think that it's appropriate to compare neuroscience and acupuncture in this fashion? Just curious. I think the differences between the two groups are obvious, but even if they had identical mission statements, shouldn't a reliable source producer for acupuncture have at least some nod to the contested nature of the general topic? jps (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I actually just went and read the section of Fringe that Alexbrn pointed me to. I kind of see the point. I am more concerned that it doesn't seem to be peer reviewed. I need to think about this; the MEDLINE-indexed part is sticking in my craw a bit.Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Source #1: (Birch - does not appear to be medline or pubmed indexed; journal is here and it does not appear to be peer-reviewed..... was used to support the following: "This decision was made in part on the results of the trials and in part for socio-political reasons." and "The trials were conducted using sham acupuncture." and "This decision was made in part on the results of the trials and in part for socio-political reasons." (yes this appears twice). I am OK letting this source go.

• Source #2: Thieme Almanac 2007. It was used here: "In October 2000, the Federal Committee of Physicians and Health Insurers decided that acupunctural treatment may not be reimbursed by statutory health insurance companies except within the framework of experimental field studies.(ref)Cummings, M. (2009). "Modellvorhaben Akupunktur - a summary of the ART, ARC and GERAC trials". Acupuncture in Medicine. 27 (1): 26–30. doi:10.1136/aim.2008.000281. PMID 19369191.(/ref)" This is kind of a tertiary source.Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Source not mentioned by QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV but deleted by him/her: "Modellvorhaben Akupunktur - a summary of the ART, ARC and GERAC trials" which is MEDLINE/pubmed indexed - is not a review (!) but is listed under MESH headers "evidence based medicine" and "Cost-Benefit Analysis"). Used to support (redundantly): "In October 2000, the Federal Committee of Physicians and Health Insurers decided that acupunctural treatment may not be reimbursed by statutory health insurance companies except within the framework of experimental field studies." What about this? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

AiM is owned by the British Medical Acupuncture Society (BMAS). It clearly does not have the necessary editorial independence that would be required to publish reliable papers on a contested subject. They would obviously refer their papers only to affiliates and other acupuncturists. There can be no independent analysis as long as the journal is owned by a trade group rather than a serious academic organization or a group committed to editorial integrity. Rather, BMAS is in the business of selling training courses to various medical professionals. They are vying for legitimacy via smokescreen, and were able to get a BMJ publishing mark in order to lend themselves such credentialistic imprimitur. It's very untoward and has no place in a serious reference work. jps (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I am definitely getting the theme of how you argue; this is much like what you said above. Thanks for responding. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

by the way, is it irrelevant to Alexbrn and jps that AiM at at least says that "Acupuncture in Medicine aims to promote the scientific understanding of acupuncture and related treatments by publishing scientific investigations of their effectiveness and modes of action as well as articles on their use in health services and clinical practice. Acupuncture in Medicine is aimed at Western-trained physicians and other health professionals. The Western understanding of neurophysiology and anatomy is used to interpret the effects of acupuncture. The Journal uses the term 'Western medical acupuncture' and largely restricts its published articles to this Western approach. Evidence-based articles on traditional acupuncture (both clinical and theoretical) will, however, be considered. The editorial board welcomes scientific reports, systematic and general reviews, audits, case reports, descriptive and educational papers and other articles that may be of interest to readers." So, is this out of bounds to you as well? I am just trying to understand where you are coming from. thx. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Laudable, but not really good enough. An appropriate journal policy for contested topics would be that independent referees would be sought. That they only accept the currency of "Western understanding" is a rather euphemistic way of saying that there are some extremely kooky things that people will want to publish at AiM and they are covering their asses for why they might reject the latest pseudoscientific trope (quantum voodoo qigong energy of meridians and chakras) to come down the pipe. The problem is with the editorial bent rather than the content per se. Legitimate and incredulous journals with decent editorial policies do not suffer from critiques such as this. They are clearly not getting the best reviewers. They are creating a biased source on purpose. jps (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

1. As long as we don't use a source for a medical claim (e.g. when we inform the reader about the Fed. Joint Committee decision), WP:MEDRS does not apply, and policy only calls for the sources to be secondary.
2. WP:FRINGE says: "One important barometer for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer-reviewed research on the subject. While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia, there must be adequate reliable sources to allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research. Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular viewpoint. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals"
3. I recommend to keep the sources of Birch and of He et al. in order to depict the acu-proponents criticism of GERAC
4. The claim of He et al. regarding the claim that some health insurers in Germany stopped reimbursing acupuncture is obviously wrong. I've pointed this out a long time ago already (here). It has to be suspected that their claim is just hearsay. I'd invoke WP:MEDSCI ("Be careful of material published in a journal that lacks peer review or that reports material in a different field" - in this case, a TCM journal that reports details about the German health care system) to delete this claim. --Mallexikon (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

interesting responses thank you. the thing about a MEDRS compliant source needed for a political decision is strange to me; heck we could use the NY Times (or frankfurt allgemeine as it were) for that! in light of your point 3 - that He is an outright bullshitter, i would prefer that we leave that source in the garbage and not use it in 2. but we need less bullshit not more. the idea about 3 is interesting. hm. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If there is some indication that He et al. and Birch are indicative of "acu-proponents" criticism of the trials, I haven't seen a reliable source to that effect. Do we have, for example, any reliable source citing them and indicating as much? jps (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Well there is a little bit of an indication... they're all acupuncturists. --Mallexikon (talk) 04:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The Birch source from Journal of Chinese Medicine includes some information about the author: "Stephen Birch PhD, LicAc (US), MBAcC (UK) has been practising acupuncture for 25 years. He is author of several books and teaches widely throughout Europe. He has been engaged in research on acupuncture for almost 20 years and has written numerous papers about clinical trials of acupuncture, especially the needs of “sham” and “placebo” controlled acupuncture trials. Stephen currently practises in Holland."

I can agree with Jytdog to leave the He et al. source out altogether; I would, however, recommend to keep the Birch source. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to include some statement in this article that "Stephen Birch believes..." that would be the only way you could include the source. To do this, you'd have to argue that we aren't overly weighting the acupuncturist's opinion on the matter. Since the vast majority of medical professionals dismiss acupuncture as essentially a placebo, any claim Birch makes beyond this should be balanced with enough content to show his marginal and pseudoscientific stance. jps (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I tried a compromise with in-text attribution for the He 2013 source. QuackGuru (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

above, jps removed the He source calling it unreliable. i agreed above as did Mallexikon. This is the first disagreement on the issue. I don't see how you can justify including this source for any statement. I looked and have not found the statement about some insurers cancelling coverage due to GERAC in any other source, so it is not like you are using He for something well known and well validated otherwise. Took this back out... Jytdog (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The source is reliable enough for the claim. Leaving this out is an NPOV violation. We should include different views per NPOV. At this point, it did not seem jps had an issue with the source. Mallexikon had a previous disagreement with the source but originally stated "Great! Definitely no objection to using this source from my side. --Mallexikon (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2013 UTC" QuackGuru (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with the content. If there is a reliable source for the statement, I would not oppose its inclusion at all. This is not a reliable source for anything - it is an article by acu-proponents that seek to show that the GERAC trials were bad bad things. Their unsourced claim that some insurers dropped coverage is part of their attack. As far as I can see, you are the only editor in the current discussion who wants to use this source at all. jps deleted it in his first round of source-checking, Mallexikon supports keeping it out too. Again, if there is some reliable source for the claim that some insurers dropped coverage, please do bring it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

A note on indexing

Do not be fooled into thinking that just because a journal is indexed it is automatically reliable. Indexing is normally a decision based on panel referral and often subject only to subcommittee review. Some publishers get automatic indexing of everything they publish sight unseen. That's not a good way to evaluate reliability. Indexing is cheap and thankless. It's a good first step but the presence of a journal on an index cannot be the sole evidence for reliability (though the absence of a journal on a high-quality index, however, can be good evidence for lacking reliability). jps (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

thanks for this. still thinking. I believe that the discussion here is the first time I have seen a MEDLINE indexed secondary source thrown out. Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Throwing out "not MEDLINE indexed" sources is a good policy. Keeping every source that is MEDLINE indexed is not good policy. This may be the first time you've seen this, but MEDLINE is not magic pixie dust (to use a Wikipedianism). It is a good starting point, but you absolutely must evaluate the journal on its own independent of the indexing. These days, putting up a "journal", especially an open access one, is as easy as starting a website. That's why indexing is a good first stop. But there are plenty of indexed journals that have pushed and prodded their way into various places that are absolutely unreliable in every sense of the word. WP:MEDRS, I point out, is fairly clear that indexing isn't the be-all and end-all of acceptable inclusion criteria. It is, rather, a good starting point for having the conversation. When one's journal is under the full editorial control of a trade organization with an agenda that is inimical to independent and critical review, the reliability of the journal is suspect regardless of whether or not it has managed to be indexed. jps (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)