Talk:Acupuncture/to do: Difference between revisions

< Talk:Acupuncture Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:48, 10 February 2011 editPPdd (talk \| contribs)11,006 edits →Help fix and watch for ambiguities in the article: moving ambiguities in RS section to collapsed section on to do list← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:52, 10 February 2011 edit undoPPdd (talk \| contribs)11,006 edits →Help fix and watch for ambiguities in the article: collapse comments not part of listNext edit →
Line 42:		Line 42:
	:*(11) Use "significant efficacy" to distinguish from "minor efficacy".		:*(11) Use "significant efficacy" to distinguish from "minor efficacy".
	:*(12) Never use "further study is needed".		:*(12) Never use "further study is needed".
	::*Instead use "have an opinion that expenditure of limited medical research funds is merited" when the cited entity expresses a subjecive opinion and thinks further research funding is a good idea for limited available medical research funding.		::*Instead use someting similar to "have an opinion that expenditure of limited medical research funds is merited" when the cited entity expresses a subjecive opinion and thinks further research funding is a good idea for limited available medical research funding.
	::*Use "further study would have to be funded to draw conclusions" to express an objective fact from a MEDRS entity, when there is no ''opinion'' on the merits of spending limited medical research funding, but when no conclusions can be objectively drawn from what has been spent so far.		::*Use use someting similar to "further study would have to be funded to draw conclusions" to express an objective fact from a MEDRS entity, when there is no ''opinion'' on the merits of spending limited medical research funding, but when no conclusions can be objectively drawn from what has been spent so far.
			{{Collapse top\|Comments on this to do list section}}
	*That is alot of conventions, but there are ''at least that many'' ambiguous semantic abuses in the article itself, which both misleads the reader, and causes meaningless debates over semantics at talk.		*That is alot of conventions, but there are ''at least that many'' ambiguous semantic abuses in the article itself, which both misleads the reader, and causes meaningless debates over semantics at talk.
	* I further propose that this list become a FAQ answer at the top of talk.		* I further propose that this list become a FAQ answer at the top of talk.
Line 49:		Line 50:

	:::More bullet points at the top, please! True greatness awaits! --] (]) 11:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)		:::More bullet points at the top, please! True greatness awaits! --] (]) 11:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
			{{Collapse bottom}}

Revision as of 19:52, 10 February 2011

There are no active tasks for this page

Help fix and watch for ambiguities in the article

Ambiguities in RS from the article
There are various definitions of “acupuncture”, and expressions like "placebo treatment", "effectiveness", and "need for further research". The different definitions appear in various combinations in the acupuncture literature. First, “acupuncture” may refer only to insertion of needles in traditionally determined acupuncture points; in which case, it is contrasted with randomly inserting needles, which is called a “sham treatment” or “placebo for acupuncture”, which is referred also to as “needling”, or "medical acupuncture" if the points are determined by anatomy and not by TCM. Second, in some cases the very opposite is the case - “acupuncture” refers to this random needling with needle insertion, and this random needling is compared to pressing needles against the skin at the same points but not puncturing the skin, which is called a "sham treatment", or "the placebo for acupuncture". So in the first case "needling with penetration" is called "the placebo for acupuncture", and in the second case "needling is with penetration" is the same as "acupuncture", but "nonpenetrating needles" is "the placebo for acupuncture". Another reversal of definitions is that sometimes "stimulation" by pressing acupuncture points without penetration is called "acupuncture", not "placebo", and is compared to some other placebo treatment or nontreatment "control". Some claim that acupuncture may be "effective", and mean that it may be effective for all of its claims, such as prevention of disease. Others might mean by a claim of "effectiveness" that acupuntire treats pain or nausea, but not necessarily other conditions. Some may mean by a claim of "effectiveness" for pain relief that the relief is significantly large and longlasting that it justifies spending limited medical research funds for further study. Others may mean that it is only barely detectable but still measurable, or of very short duration. There are more than one usages of expressions such as "need for further research"; some may mean by this that spending money on additional research is a good expenditure of highly limited medical research funds, while others mean by it that, if conclusions are to be drawn, more research funds would have to be spent, but express no opinion as to whether or not they think it is a good place to spend limited research funds.

Ambiguities in RS from the article

There are various definitions of “acupuncture”, and expressions like "placebo treatment", "effectiveness", and "need for further research". The different definitions appear in various combinations in the acupuncture literature.

First, “acupuncture” may refer only to insertion of needles in traditionally determined acupuncture points; in which case, it is contrasted with randomly inserting needles, which is called a “sham treatment” or “placebo for acupuncture”, which is referred also to as “needling”, or "medical acupuncture" if the points are determined by anatomy and not by TCM. Second, in some cases the very opposite is the case - “acupuncture” refers to this random needling with needle insertion, and this random needling is compared to pressing needles against the skin at the same points but not puncturing the skin, which is called a "sham treatment", or "the placebo for acupuncture". So in the first case "needling with penetration" is called "the placebo for acupuncture", and in the second case "needling is with penetration" is the same as "acupuncture", but "nonpenetrating needles" is "the placebo for acupuncture". Another reversal of definitions is that sometimes "stimulation" by pressing acupuncture points without penetration is called "acupuncture", not "placebo", and is compared to some other placebo treatment or nontreatment "control".

Some claim that acupuncture may be "effective", and mean that it may be effective for all of its claims, such as prevention of disease. Others might mean by a claim of "effectiveness" that acupuntire treats pain or nausea, but not necessarily other conditions. Some may mean by a claim of "effectiveness" for pain relief that the relief is significantly large and longlasting that it justifies spending limited medical research funds for further study. Others may mean that it is only barely detectable but still measurable, or of very short duration.

There are more than one usages of expressions such as "need for further research"; some may mean by this that spending money on additional research is a good expenditure of highly limited medical research funds, while others mean by it that, if conclusions are to be drawn, more research funds would have to be spent, but express no opinion as to whether or not they think it is a good place to spend limited research funds.

(0) When the source so indicates, use "TCM acupuncture", "Japanese acupuncture", etc.
(1) Use "traditional TCM acupunture" to refer to TCM based points.
(2) Use "penetrating needling" to refer to random points.
(3) Use "nonpenetrating needle stimulation of TCM acupuncture point" when the RS uses "acupuncture" in this qualified usage.
(4) Use "nonpenetrating needle stimulation of random points" when the RS talks about this.
(5) Use "placebo for traditional TCM point needling" for "random penetrating needling" as placebo, per the RS.
(6) Use "placebo random nonpenetrating needling as placebo for randon penetrating needling" per the RS.
(7) Use "placebo non-needling control" per the RS.
(8) Use "efficacy for all TCM claims" when appropriate.
(9) Use "efficacy for relief of (this specific kind of nausea)" for that specific kind of nausea.
(10) Use "efficacy for relief of (this specific kind of pain)" for that specific kind of pain.
(11) Use "significant efficacy" to distinguish from "minor efficacy".
(12) Never use "further study is needed".

Instead use someting similar to "have an opinion that expenditure of limited medical research funds is merited" when the cited entity expresses a subjecive opinion and thinks further research funding is a good idea for limited available medical research funding.
Use use someting similar to "further study would have to be funded to draw conclusions" to express an objective fact from a MEDRS entity, when there is no opinion on the merits of spending limited medical research funding, but when no conclusions can be objectively drawn from what has been spent so far.

Comments on this to do list section
That is alot of conventions, but there are at least that many ambiguous semantic abuses in the article itself, which both misleads the reader, and causes meaningless debates over semantics at talk. I further propose that this list become a FAQ answer at the top of talk. Please suggest modifications to the list by number, or add to the list other ambiguities you have found in the article, which I have overlooked. PPdd (talk) More bullet points at the top, please! True greatness awaits! --Middle 8 (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments on this to do list section

That is alot of conventions, but there are at least that many ambiguous semantic abuses in the article itself, which both misleads the reader, and causes meaningless debates over semantics at talk.
I further propose that this list become a FAQ answer at the top of talk.
Please suggest modifications to the list by number, or add to the list other ambiguities you have found in the article, which I have overlooked. PPdd (talk)

More bullet points at the top, please! True greatness awaits! --Middle 8 (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

^ Braverman S (2004). "Medical Acupuncture Review: Safety, Efficacy, And Treatment Practices". Medical Acupuncture. 15 (3).
^ Acupuncture and Dry-Needling for Low Back Pain: An Updated Systematic Review Within the Framework of the Cochrane Collaboration, Cochrane Collaboration Review, Spine, 15 April 2005, Volume 30, Issue 8, pp 944-963, AD Furlan, M van Tulder, D Cherkin, H Tsukayama, Lixing Lao, Bart Koes, Bria Berman,
^ Cite error: The named reference pmid12564354 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Cochrane back 2005 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "Get the Facts, Acupuncture". National Institute of Health. 2006. Retrieved 2006-03-02.
^ Cite error: The named reference NIH-1997consensus was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference pmid15266478 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference pmid12801494 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).