Talk:Spinal manipulation

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 Top‑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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Emergency Medicine Section Removal

The Emergency Medicine section and its contents should be removed from "Spinal Manipulation". The section itself is also listed in joint manipulation, and does not pertain to spinal manipulation.

Removal of 2016 meta-analysis from "Neck Pain"

@QuackGuru, you removed a section where I wrote: A 2016 meta-anyalysis concluded "There was moderate level evidence to support the immediate effectiveness of cervical spine manipulation in treating people with cervical radiculopathy." ^[1]

^ Zhu L, Wei X, Wang S (Feb 2015). "Does cervical spine manipulation reduce pain in people with degenerative cervical radiculopathy? A systematic review of the evidence, and a meta-analysis". Clinical Rehabilitation. 30 (2): 145–55. doi:10.1177/0269215515570382. PMID 25681406.

Citing "No it didn't" as your reason for removing it. My statement was a direct quote of the conclusion, would you please elaborate?Jmg873 (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake it was CFCF who removed it. My question stands.Jmg873 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Jmg873 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is interesting is the authors names. See Zhu L, Wei X, and Wang S. QuackGuru (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with review's inclusion into this wiki?Jmg873 (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asian authors have been known to right very favorably reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three authors from China. Enough said. Publication bias and fraud are endemic in Chinese medical research (80% of results fabricated in one review), to the point that we'd only consider including a Chinese study if it appeared in an absolute top tier journal. Which this is not. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source seems good for inclusion to me. The source meets MEDRS requirements for high-quality medical sources (review and meta-analysis) and the journal is very high-quality for a rehabilitation journal, with indexing in Medline and an impact factor ~2.5. I am not aware of any policy that suggests Chinese authors make the source inherently unreliable. I have posted at the reliable sources noticeboard for other opinions.2001:56A:75B7:9B00:A5FC:56E7:D1A6:3966 (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it would seem good to anyone unaware of the problem fo fabrication of data and systemic bias towards SCAM in Chinese studies. It's almost as if that's why they do it... Guy (Help!) 21:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Spinal manipulation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060530110614/http://www.nelh.nhs.uk/hth/chiro.asp to http://www.nelh.nhs.uk/hth/chiro.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927011638/http://www.ptjournal.org/cgi/content/full/79/1/50/F1 to http://www.ptjournal.org/cgi/content/full/79/1/50/F1
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070225062108/http://www.ptjournal.org/cgi/content/full/79/1/50/F2 to http://www.ptjournal.org/cgi/content/full/79/1/50/F2
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625173624/http://www.hom.ucalgary.ca/Dayspapers2002.pdf to http://www.hom.ucalgary.ca/Dayspapers2002.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.aaompt.org/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828022608/http://www.ifomt.org/ to http://www.ifomt.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose replacing most of Effectiveness section

Currently, the Effectiveness section of this article cites numerous conflicting systematic reviews. I propose replacing directly citing systematic reviews with citing A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation and the article's 2011 update, unless the individual systematic review is specifically relevant (ie, the ACP/APS recommendation).

Please let me know if there is any reason not to do this. -- userdude 01:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Zhu L, Wei X, Wang S (Feb 2015). "Does cervical spine manipulation reduce pain in people with degenerative cervical radiculopathy? A systematic review of the evidence, and a meta-analysis". Clinical Rehabilitation. 30 (2): 145–55. doi:10.1177/0269215515570382. PMID 25681406.

[1]