Talk:Middle back pain

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chiropractic Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chiropractic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chiropractic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChiropracticWikipedia:WikiProject ChiropracticTemplate:WikiProject ChiropracticChiropractic articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Middle back pain.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

I

I removed the Surgery section, which discussed a cervical artificial disc replacement surgery as a treatment for upper back pain, because cervical artificial discs are only a treatment option for cervical spine disorders, not for use in the upper back. All other edits made to the text were to add clarifications, many internal links to help readers navigate, and add the reference upon which this article was clearly based. Hope this has helped improve accuracy and completeness of the article. 67.162.37.84 18:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Designed to Be

I changed: "The upper spine is designed to be very strong and stable to support the weight of the upper body, as well as to anchor the rib cage which provides a cavity to allow the heart and lungs to function and protect them." to: "The upper spine is very strong and stable to support the weight of the upper body, as well as to anchor the rib cage which provides a cavity to allow the heart and lungs to function and protect them." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badmuthahubbard (talk • contribs) 05:22, 6 April 2007

"this is an encyclopedia not an ad site"

I restored multiple internal links and easily verifiable information, while removing unsourced medical advice. I don't see how this is contentious. --Ronz 15:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscientific Treatments

I separated out some of the pseudoscientific treatments from the main list of common solutions. Osteopathy and acupuncture are clearly contradicted by Western medical practices and have clear (and recent) evidence against them. I didn't move Chiropractic out of the section, since there's limited evidence that its procedures might reduce symptoms, although the theory behind it is clearly pseudoscientific.

Acupuncture specifically has recent research showing no effect in true double-blind studies using a placebo needle[1].

[1] http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/563472

Phleg —Preceding comment was added at 22:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the word "pseudoscientific" anywhere in this text (nor is this about back pain, for that matter). We are not here to label things as such from our own POV. Regardless, I don't see how doing so would help the article. Both osteopathy and acupuncture have their own articles which can (and do) discuss their scientific basis or lack thereof. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that science is considered a POV. Yes, both have their own articles, but it's conceivable that there are some who would use Wikipedia as a primary source when looking for treatment, misguided or not. Listing treatments that simply have no reliable evidence of efficacy encourages their use, and they should be labeled distinctly. Phleg (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reference which expressly states that the use of these methods to treat "upper back pain" specifically is considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community at large. Without that reference, stating such cannot be included in this article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of trying to label treatments as scientific or not, why not try labeling them based upon effectiveness instead? It accomplishes the same thing and places the burden of proof upon those that are promoting the pseudoscience. --Ronz (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do we determine effectiveness? I am all for this but I know that if we rely on scientific studies, we will most likely find some that say acupuncture (for instance) is effective and some that say it is not effective. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3/22 Revision

Undid prior edit. Formatting of infobox had been ruined by irrelevant comments about football. 206.54.221.193 (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]