Knowledge

Talk:German acupuncture trials/Archive 1

Source đź“ť

3623:, tables like the one shared above are not standard for inclusion into Knowledge articles. If this is added it would require broad input - at least dozens of other opinions to address the years of other opinions which say that this is not appropriate. I do not favor inclusion of this kind of information unless the article is otherwise developed in the usual way first, and I would not participate in discussions about unorthodox additions like this myself. This kind of data has no particular meaning to anyone; even if it is from a secondary source it is primary data which needs to be interpreted, and I am not sure right now that much interpretation should go into this article. Other thoughts from others? 2960:@Alexbrn: (a) I'm not clear on what you mean here: "You're using primaries to report clinical findings in the face of a reliable secondary that says they can't be trusted for that." Which RS are you referring to, and with regard to which findings? The equivalence of sham (of one kind or another) and verum acupuncture, and both being superior to some kind of no-needling control, is far from an uncommon finding. (b) Re your concern about excluding bogus information: think of GERAC as something historically relevent (history of science and public health policy); surely we can note where it's been superseded? (c) Although you characterized FJC as non-MEDRS, it looks to me like it falls under 5401:
the things done to create the control group, then this would be meaningless data until someone interpreted it. Knowledge is not supposed to contain much data which needs interpretation unless it is widely agreed that the public is supposed to know what it means. The kind of data that I would expect to see is something on the order of "The scientists assigned a control group, the FJC recognized its suitability, other groups challenged its credibility". The data presented above is in prose form, but actually it is just jargon. I am not sure how to properly articulate this, but I am going to try to give an example. It could be written as
5233:, but would you be kind enough to split this information for me? Pull out 1-2 contentious statements with their sources, replicate them here, and then let me comment. Otherwise confirm that you like the statement that I pulled and the way I am framing this. I am looking at what you and QuackGuru have done and I expect that I have a third opinion different from what either of you are doing. I think it would be more useful to talk about 1-2 items initially to see if we can work together rather than for me to try to comment on those 5 points you made all together. Let me start with something - 3959:
predefined outcome measure of this trial, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.18). The predefined outcome measure was the proportion of patients with at least 50% reduction at 6 months, but patients with protocol violations were counted as non-responders. For example, patients who changed from one analgesic to another were reclassified as non-responders. Thus, only 33% in the true acupuncture and 27% in the sham group were counted as responders, while the commonly used response criterion without reclassification yielded responder proportions of 66% and 55%, respectively.
5106:"POV language": 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.{{refn|group=n|In the GERAC back pain study, 1162 patients with chronic low back pain were randomized. The studies found the effectiveness of acupuncture to be almost twice that of standard therapy with 6-month response rates being 47.6, 44.2 and 27.4% for true acupuncture, sham and standard groups, respectively.<ref name= "shenker"/: --> 5470:
of the studies. This article should focus on the interpretations of the studies and on published analyses of the impact of the studies. This maintains the historical distinction (as opposed to medical information). The notability of this article was established based on the impact of these studies in legal and financial arenas and the discussion in the scientific and medical community of these studies, not on the scientific findings of these studies. Third party secondary sources commenting on this should make up the content of this article. - -
109:. They say that the study of traditional medicines must take into account the traditional context of its practice: i.e., how treatments are formulated (which goes to theory) and delivered. The fact that the IOM makes this point establishes it as a well-weighted, mainstream scientific approach to acupuncture. This is obvious on the merits: It's very hard to see how anyone would argue that the possible use of active control group should be ignored unless that person were scientifically illiterate or disingenuous. -- 5256:(1) I like the idea of giving the number of test subjects because it is a fundamental question for any clinical trial. I recognize that this information is coming from a primary source, but I that since it is a defining characteristic of a trial, if a trial is worth describing the the number of participants is worth mentioning. Is there opposition to including this number whenever a trial is mentioned? Is there opposition to mentioning the names of trials which constitute the "German acupuncture trials"? 2883:"While taken overall the trials reported that acupuncture was significantly better than conventional treatment, later assessment found that they were unlikely to have emitted clinically significant findings because of flaws in the design of the placebo control". (ref this to Howick, or something). This satisfies MEDRS and FRINGE, and is not too wordy either ... (Add: if if is really intractable - it shouldn't be - how about trying some kind of dispute resolution: DRN maybe?) 31: 2896:. And it's fine to include dissenting opinions (from secondary sources - we have more than one) regarding the interpretations, of course. However, the results themselves, the raw data, are not disputed by anyone. They're an important aspect of the trials, we have reliable sources for them (certified by the RS noticeboard) - of course they should be in the article. The reader has to be able to understand why the FJC decided how it did, no? -- 4227:
clear that the article is discussing the studies in a historical context and that they have been superseded discussion of the results is appropriate, subject to due weight (fairly heavy as the studies are the subject of the article). I think the coverage of the impact and discussion of the studies should be increased in the article. I don't assert a misrepresentation of sham vs. verum, I do insist it be made/remain clear.- -
363:"... beschloss der Gemeinsame Bundesausschuss (B-BA) am 16. Oktober 2000, dass Akupunktur nur noch im Rahmen von Modellvorhaben ... von der Gesetzlichen Krankenkasse bezahlt werden kann." ("... on October 16th 2000, the Joint Federal Committee ruled that acupuncture may only be covered by statutory health insurance companies within the framework of field studies ..." As seen at: Endres et al. 2007, p. C101 2094:"This trial was one of the first large-scale controlled clinical trials of acupuncture in the world. The results suggested that there was no difference between acupoints and non-acupoints, and some insurance companies in Germany stopped reimbursement for acupuncture treatment. The trial's conclusion has had a negative impact on acupuncture and moxibustion in the international community." 4207:+1 re Mallexicon's comments. Not sure what's been discredited here, although it is plainly not meant to be current. I don't see any effort to misrepresent the sham vs. versum results; can you elaborate? Re currency of results, consider this an historical article; after all, it's about GERAC, not the state of current research. As an extreme example, the article on 4592:
on ANI or anyone on the medicine board to give comments on this article because the points of contention are not obvious despite the large amount of discussion here. I know that you recognize problems because you are here. Can you please, without too much commentary, say what you propose to include in the article with the source? Thanks.
2332:
Once that is done it will probably be appropriate to edit down the notes. We don't need to quote extensively from sourcesĕ those interested can refer to the sources, again this needs to wait until contention has subsided. The quoting is support for various arguments about the article but does not belong in an encyclopedic article. - -
1360:@Alexbrn -- re "fringe" -- acupuncture is near the line of demarcation, and some of it might cross over (even past the fuzzy part of the line), depending on where the non-fringe research goes. (And note that "alt-med" sometimes means "what MD's don't usually do", which doesn't always coincide with pseudoscience -- e.g. 5449:, but still, rules can be ignored in the service of readers. Tell me about this 10-20% of people who need to know how the trial was conducted. When they see this paragraph, what will they think? Are they going to make some assessment about the validity or lack of validity of the trial based on this information? Thanks. 5353:
without highly specialized knowledge not available on Knowledge - would you not agree? Why do you feel it is necessary to include this? What insight do you expect a typical reader to gain from reading this? And if you assert that this comes from secondary sources, why use a primary source as your citation?
5569:
Re WP and more it is an ongoing balance between completeness and conciseness. Sometimes readers value getting all the information they are looking for on a subject, sometimes readers appreciate getting the core information quickly and laid out accessibly. I like to think that multiple editors working
5400:
3) The issue in this case is less about primary and secondary sources and more about primary or secondary data. The interpretation that a control group was used is secondary data based on primary data describing all the practices which were actually done. If this article included a description of all
5352:
The secondary source you cited says, "The control methods of sham acupuncture used in Germany may not be standardized and may not be suitable for acupuncture clinical trial research." The summary which I pulled above is a series of statements on treatment which cannot possibly mean anything to anyone
4774:
For 1 and 2 there is similar text in the article that characterises whatever outcome the study had. "As a result of the GERAC trials, the German Federal Joint Committee ruled in April 2006 that the costs of acupunctural treatment for chronic back pain and knee osteoarthritis will be covered by public
4750:
Also QG, have you ever made a suggestion about how the results of this study could be reported? Can you suggest a way to report the results of this study which would not be a weight violation, violate MEDRS, or otherwise mislead readers? How would you characterize whatever outcome the study had which
4671:
This is a review of GERAC and several smaller acupuncture studies. On the basis of this report, the Federal Joint Committee concluded that acupuncture should be included in the list of services reimbursable by Germany's statutory health insurances. I've used this source throughout the article, mainly
3958:
The meta-analyses on response, headache days per 4 weeks and intensity are heavily influenced by the large, rigorous trial by Endres 2007. For headache frequency (response and headache days per 4 weeks), this trial found statistically significant benefits over sham acupuncture. Interestingly, for the
3765:
The GERAC trials were being conducted to compare acupuncture to sham acupuncture and guideline-oriented standard therapy. Unlike ARTs though, GERAC found very little difference between acupuncture and sham acupuncture. In results published by Scharf et al. in 2006, the success rates (defined as a 36%
2606:
My opinion is not that strong either, only three remain and they are pretty decent. My support is based on a preference for a clean tight article, concise. Also anything worth saying should go into the text unless it is needed for explanation of a brief statement. To play the devil's advocate I would
2568:
I propose a standard format for refs: last, first initials, display authors 2, numeric format for dates, etc. Just to make them consistent. I would also suggest breaking the three refs that have 5 plus citations into a bibliography section and using harv format for them in the references section. - -
1013:(would you please, please read their English summary on page 2?) and then decided to have acupuncture reimbursed. However, I'm not interested in explaining this again and again. Please take it to the reliable sources noticeboard if you still think that the FJC should be considered a primary source. -- 740:
These are reliable sources. Your requests to throw out the secondary source "being part of this event" doesn't make sense. We're talking about the highest control body in the German healthcare system other than the ministry of health - and it's independent. As I pointed out before, the use of primary
5469:
I definitely support the type of paraphrasing that Blue Rasberry is proposing. This is how a WP article should read. I do not think a discussion of the set up of the trials is encyclopedic or useful. References and external links allow those who have the expertise and interest to examine the details
5315:
We do have a secondary source for all this information (the FJC report). However, while the primary source explains that and how the sham design was the same for all GERAC sub-trials, the FJC report discusses/describes each sub-trial separately. Thus, it would be quite hard to work their information
5091:
for your POV crusade too: it says "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published". Since we're talking about GERAC here (and not
4591:
I am here and I would help. Could you help break the issue into small points which could be discussed? For example, could you please take 1-2 statements at the center of the controversy, put them here with a reference, and let us talk about this together? It would be very difficult for either anyone
4147:). This article is not the place for a discussion of research methodology, particularly flawed methodology. Essentially what we have is that these studies were conducted, they were fairly large, they had an impact, they were discussed in popular, political and scientific publications, they have been 4075:
The trial by Endres 2007 was originally designed to include a third arm of patients randomized to amitriptyline, the currently most widely accepted therapy (Diener 2004). However, as patients were unwilling to participate in a trial with the possibility of being randomized to amitriptyline, this arm
3222:
Haake, M.; Müller, H. H.; Schade-Brittinger, C.; Prinz, H.; Basler, H. D.; Streitberger, K.; Schäfer, H.; Molsberger, A. (2003). "The German Multicenter, Randomized, Partially Blinded, Chronic Low-Back Pain: A Preliminary Report on the Prospective Trial of Acupuncture for Rationale and Design of the
1149:
again ("Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered
968:
Ok, I get a little tired repeating myself here... Please show some evidence for this suspicion of yours that the Joint Fed. Committee was "part of the event", since they're clearly not. Independent entities. The people of the Committee and the people responsible for GERAC are different people. Thus,
664:
The Joint Federal Committee initiated the project to compare the effectiveness of acupuncture to conventional therapy for pain. Four randomized studies were done as part of the German Acupuncture Trials (GERAC). The Joint Federal Committee is part of this event. Since they are too close to the event
88:
bogus points were used: i.e. where were they on the body with respect to the affected area, other acupuncture points, or other acupuncture meridians. For example, if the knee pain study used non-acupoints at or very near the knee, that would mean that the control could have been active according to
4307:
That might work -- could someone do it, so we can see how it would look? (Maybe you've already started; I'll stay tuned.) BTW, I'm still not clear on what you're referring to when you say the results were superseded and that the studies were widely criticized; which other sources are you referring
4177:
I very much disagree. a) The results are important in order to understand what was going on (although I agree that adding the raw data might be superfluous). 2.) I still haven't seen any evidence that these studies "have since been discredited". I've seen criticism, yes, but it seems quite petty to
3187:
Before deciding what information should go in the article perhaps we should consider what sources ought to be cited. Could we decide which sources are primary and which are secondary? Here are some sources for consideration. Please add others, and most importantly, let's identify secondary sources.
646:
No, so far I haven't heard any real rationale from you why you reject the FJC as a reliable source. It's an independent medical body, and they reviewed not just the GERAC, but quite a few other acupuncture trials before their decision (which makes them a secondary source). Please read their English
99:
Overall, it would be good to note that both controls, though less active than the treatment, are still potentially or actually active according to TCM theory. Ideally, we could use a source saying this in context of GERAC, to avoid coming even close to WP:SYN. But it could still be mentioned in a
4226:
I spoke brashly (see my self edits) discredited is not an entirely accurate description. My primary point remains that the focus of the article should be on the event. I don't know what level of detail is needed and am open to discussion. I think there is too much detail now. As long as it is made
2363:
There are numerous unreliable sources in the articles that should be removed first. The extensive quotes should be removed. These should not be broken out into a notes section. This article contains coat rack information and adding the coat rack information to a notes section is not right at all.
1230:
Yes. Edit conflict. I wanted to delete "Within the academic community, the trials have received criticism for failing to show that needling has any effect", which was sourced with the quote "These programmes of research do not confirm the hypothesis that needling at specific points is essential to
918:
I'm afraid you have to read more closely. It was a couple of statutory health insurances who initiated GERAC. The Joint Fed. Committee is a higher-level body who exempted acupuncture from being reimbursable, and only allowed it for reimbursement for two indications (low back pain, knee pain) after
813:
No, your edits seem to be non-neutral. This is clearly not poorly sourced, and instead of nukeandpave, you could just as well wait what the discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard results in. The Federal Joint Committee is an independent medical organization, and their source is a review of
5549:
Responding to Mallexikon's cmt to Bluerasberry, a very interesting analysis of the importance of some particular information from the studies. In my opinion this is more appropriate for the acupuncture article and should be found discussed in up to date MEDRS. If you can find any secondary source
5444:
2) There is harm in presenting information on Knowledge in which is open to too much interpretation. I am in favor of the reader having access to links to read about the setup of a trial, but the kind of parameters cited above are beyond what is usual here. To cite Knowledge rules, data like this
4858:
these trials were done. It's important to have information on how many test subjects they had, how sham acupuncture was designed, how well the acupuncturist were trained, how the "standard care" control group was treated etc. And it's also important to say what the outcome was: the FJC made their
4025:
The researchers then returned to the patients between 23 and 26 weeks later and checked on whether they had been "migraine free" for 50% of days. It was found 47% of those receiving traditional acupuncture, 39% of those given sham acupuncture and 40% of those in the drug treatment group had been
2331:
The references include extensive notes/quotes. These should be broken out into a notes section. The general references should be broken out into a bibliography section (preferably with anchors). Once the editing disputes have settled down some I will perform these edits unless there is objection.
1493:
I've left primary source citations next to secondary source citations at quite a few places now... The reason for this is that the primary source citations are more reader-friendly (English translation given), while their data is the same. One could argue, however, that the primary sources should
5285:
which is all taken from a primary source, right? Why can all of this not be summarized simply by saying "sham acupuncture was used"? If no secondary source is identified to cite for this information and interpret it, then why include it at all? Is it correct to say that Mallexikon, you feel this
987:
The Federal Joint Committee (Germany) decided to reimburse acupuncture treatment for low back pain and knee pain. That makes them a primary source because they are part of the event. The details of this trial are not important because this is not a medical article and it is not notable. It is an
4292:
I think taking the numbers out would do the trick. That would keep it from seeming like a report of current medical claims. Local consensus can be achieved by reasonable discussion objections to reasonable consensus forming can be taken elsewhere as can any necessary steps to curb disruption as
4192:
Thanks for your input Mallexikon. I await consensus and discussion re: discrediting of studies. It seems to me that no effectiveness over sham = no effectiveness. If a medicine has no more effect than a sugar pill (or other placebo) the medicine is not judged effective. By what standard is the
1384:
will be discussed at the AfD... Regarding the quoted words I allegedly erroneously deleted ("The trials found no significant differences between acupuncture and sham acupuncture"): calm down. I only paraphrased them ("It has been pointed out that the GERAC study couldn't find any advantage of
1348:
the words you erroneously deleted in my opening comment here; I can't really be more explicit than that. When you were notified of the edit conflict by the Wikimedia software, did you not check to see what was happening to the text as a result? there is text missing an a mis-used source now.
577:
be used in medical articles - and this article here is a good example for it because it's mainly descriptive. For trial conclusions and claims of medical efficacy, primary sources won't do but we don't use for that here. And the GERAC are notable because they had a direct impact on the FJC's
5373:
1.) No sorry, there seems to be a misunderstanding. The secondary source I would cite is the FJC report. I think what you are citing is a Chinese source that QG contributed, it's a review of several different acupuncture studies done in Germany without giving information about the GERAC in
4632:
Zusammenfassender Bericht des Unterausschusses 'Ärztliche Behandlung' des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über die Bewertung gemäß §135 Abs.1 SGB V der Körperakupunktur mit Nadeln ohne elektrische Stimulation bei chronischen Kopfschmerzen, chronischen LWS-Schmerzen, chronischen Schmerzen bei
2942:
My concern is simply that we don't include bogus health information. Since I've said this many many times now, and am suggesting a way forward to settle the dispute, I really don't want to have to re-state it again, but ... here goes: as I see it, you want to include medical "results" from
1031:. We don't have articles about specific studies. All the medical information about the trial itself should be deleted. The Fed. Joint Committee originally looked at GERAC. You must provide secondary sources and not use The Fed. Joint Committee source itself or the trial itself as a source. 2910:
I disagree; we don't include medical content that contradicts secondaries - this is exactly the coat rack fear that came up at AfD. Anyway, it's probably time for dispute resolution rather than this dragging on here ... Why not try and draft a concise statement of what the dispute *is* ?
3151:, where multiple editors agreed that the sourcing was fine; see Mallexicon's reply to Alexbrn above. The article is not intended to be about current medical consensus, but rather a notable experiment; to whatever degree it's been superseded, the article can and should say so. -- 3280:
Haake, M.; Muller, H. -H.; Schade-Brittinger, C.; Basler, H. D.; Schafer, H.; Maier, C.; Endres, H. G.; Trampisch, H. J.; Molsberger, A. (2007). "German Acupuncture Trials (GERAC) for Chronic Low Back Pain: Randomized, Multicenter, Blinded, Parallel-Group Trial with 3 Groups".
4459:"The coats hanging from the rack hide the rack – 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 5307:
The specific design of the sham acupuncture is very important, especially regarding the findings of GERAC that verum and sham had the same efficiency... The first thing that miffed TCM proponents jumped on was to allege that the sham acupuncture was badly designed (e.g.
538:
noted that the German Acupuncture Trials (GERAC) had attracted criticism for not controlling the risk of patient de-blinding, and said that they " to conclusively answer the question whether acupuncture helps patients through a specific or a nonspecific effect".<ref:
2928:)... The main point of dispute here is your attempt to irrationaly label the FJC source as primary. Besides, I'd like to hear the exact quote from Howick you want to use as a source - because I doubt that we have anything in our article that actually contradicts him. -- 2512:
Quotes remain in references, they should be split off into a notes section. Some of the recent edits eliminated specific page numbers. The same reference can be used with different page numbers using the harvnb template. I will make a few edits to provide examples. - -
5385:
3.) I tried to explain why I would prefer to use the primary sources instead of the secondary source (from the Federal Joint committee), but maybe that makes things too complicated here - I'll be happy to just use the secondary source if you think that'd be better.
4445:: "A coatrack article is a Knowledge article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject". What tangentially related biased subject do you suspect this article be the cover for, if I may ask? -- 712:
I'm still not convinced that this topic merits a standalone article, though it does seem to be mentioned a bit in the literature (as an exemplar of misleading suggestions from RCTs, it seems). Maybe a sentence or two in the main acupuncture article would be due?
161:, which gives more detail. Based on a quick reading, it sounds like GERAC actually used pretty good controls -- it's hard to argue they'd be active other than as "local points" (the activity of which we know in biomedical terms as the "needling effect"; see 884:. Nowhere it says that generally, primary sources can't be used. They can't be used (for long) for studies' conclusions and for medical efficacy claims... But we're merely talking about the description of an RCT here. Of course they can be used for that. -- 946:
Based on your own comments The Joint Fed. Committee is a primary source because they were part of the event. Even if the The Joint Fed. Committee was a secondary source there are newer sources presented. That means The Joint Fed. Committee fails MEDRS and
661:"As a result of the GERAC trials, the Joint Federal Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss) decided to include acupuncture into the catalogue of services covered by the German statutory health insurances, for the treatment of low back pain and knee pain." 438:"As a result of the GERAC trials, the Joint Federal Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss) decided to include acupuncture into the catalogue of services covered by the German statutory health insurances, for the treatment of low back pain and knee pain." 3193:
Molsberger, A. F.; Streitberger, K.; Kraemer, J.; Brittinger, C. S.; Witte, S.; Boewing, G.; Haake, M. (2006). "Designing an Acupuncture Study: II. The Nationwide, Randomized, Controlled German Acupuncture Trials on Low-Back Pain and Gonarthrosis".
3251:
Molsberger, A. F.; Boewing, G.; Diener, H. C.; Endres, H. G.; Kraehmer, N.; Kronfeld, K.; Zenz, M. (2006). "Designing an Acupuncture Study: The Nationwide, Randomized, Controlled, German Acupuncture Trials on Migraine and Tension-Type Headache".
1259:
for commenting on acupuncture; this is not a usable source since (most obviously) it lacks independence of the topic (the article cited is written by Mike Cummings, a director of the British Medical Acupuncture Society); it needs to be removed.
5275:(2) If the design of the sham treatment and the training of the acupuncturist are mentioned, then that should go into a critical response section and be tied to a source which is not a paper published by the study coordinators. Right now I see 2864:): there's no problem with our sourcing as it is, even as we use primary sources, because we do it sparsely and far from exclusively. On top of that, the FJC source is a secondary one even though you try to abstrusely argue that it's not. -- 2430:. I previously explained that this article is about the impact the trials have had on the society and politics. The specific information about the trials was coat rack text and excessive details. You restored many primary sources against 2878:
You're using primaries to report clinical findings in the face of a reliable secondary that says they can't be trusted for that. That's a big no-no. The way to do this which is due is to do it through Howick (e.g.) by saying something
741:
sources is also permissible as long as it doesn't cover the conclusions of a trial or claims of medical efficiency. I've asked for comment from the reliable sources noticeboard. Let's wait what they say before you nukeandpave again. --
4803:, QuackGuru is proposing text which seems to me to meet what you expressed wanting. Could you be explicit in stating what you want in addition to this? Show the links to the history if you already attempted to execute your proposal. 187:
I found a good secondary source and just added it to the references... Don't have time to go through it right now and it's all in German, but this source should be able to cover most citations in this article. Will come back to it.
1173:
in opening paragraph, "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge". The overview section is a massive
2725:
again and dumping in a lot of low level details. "It is "vital" that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." See
828:
Deleting reliably-sourced content (Howick) and adding poorly-sourced content does not advance us towards neutrality. Sourcing health-related content to the output of a middle tier government committee six years ago fall afoul of
3871:
The proportion of responders, defined as patients with a reduction of migraine days by at least 50%, 26 weeks after randomization, was 47% in the verum group, 39% in the sham acupuncture group, and 40% in the standard group (P=
3096:
and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. Being a "medical source" is not an intrinsic property of the source itself; a source becomes a medical source only when it is used to support a
1642:
Exactly right. It's experimental details like this help us figure out what's going on. The point Mallexikon raises is actually a valid complaint about some other studies; GERAC did it more or less properly, and the results
2846:. Even detailing the trial setup strikes me as a little undue, but heh ... I'll not argue over that. What you really need here is to use a secondary source that gives a historical perspective and a mainstream, current view. 4211:
talks about Priestley's results, while making clear they are not current. We can do the same here. (Although the results are consistent with many recent findings re sham vs. verum; though not all, cf. Vickers.) Thanks,
3766:
improvement in WOMAC scores at 13 and 26 weeks) were 53.1% for acupuncture, 51.0% for sham acupuncture, and 29.1% for standard therapy. Both acupuncture and sham acupuncture were significantly better than standard therapy.
540:{{cite journal|doi=10.1111/j.1365-2796.2005.01584.x|title=Acupuncture - a critical analysis|year=2006|last1=Ernst|first1=E.|journal=Journal of Internal Medicine|volume=259|issue=2|pages=125–37|pmid=16420542}}</ref: --> 157:, which says a little about GERAC's controls (and makes a rather dumb argument against "sham" acu generally -- of course a nonspecific noxious stimulus is gonna be more active as a placebo/nocebo than a sugar pill). And 2956:
is secondary; the article isn't about the FJC nor even their decision, but about GERAC. The FJC is an independent regulatory body, and as such is an excellent secondary source, being both independent and scientifically
5492:: When the 10 to 20% of readers I talked about (readers with some knowledge about acupuncture, like me) read this paragraph, they will see that the verum-not-more-effective-than-sham result of these trials carries 5377:
2.) You're right that the typical reader will not gain too much from this material, but that can be said about a lot of material in science-related articles in WP... And if 10 or 20% of the readers of this article
5286:
information must be included? If so, is it correct that there is no secondary source and that you would like this referenced to a primary source? Why should there be an exception to the general rule in this case?
4135:
Results from these studies should not be included in the article as they are medical claims. A statement that the studies showed positive results but have since been discredited is appropriate. We can't have old,
4161:
of the studies are undue and not MEDRS. Detail on the impact of the studies, the depth and nature of discussion of the studies and changes that resulted from the discussions are what belong in this article. - -
4241:
Thanks, MrBill, this discussion is a very pleasant contrast to what I've gotten used to here in the last weeks... So, if we'd take the raw data, the numbers from the article, would that address your concerns?
5007:. And the same goes for the wikilink you provided - there is not a single MEDRS in there "discrediting" GERAC. If you're not just bluffing, please provide one here clearly for everybody to see and discuss. -- 3497:
For details on the methodology of the trials themselves, these sources are perfectly fine. For medical claims in this article, it is better to use secondary sources to summarize the results, as shown below:
2212:
I don't follow you. Why would the text have to be in the body as well? And if it did, where do you want to put it? The subsection it was in was wrong - do you want to create a new subsection about "results
2020:
that the study "echoes the findings of two studies published last year in the British Medical Journal, which found a short course of acupuncture could benefit patients with low back pain". "Pointed out" is
5147:- to stay with the example you've given above, numbers like the "response rates being 47.6, 44.2 and 27.4% for true acupuncture, sham and standard groups, respectively". And those numbers are long gone. -- 973:
so it should be able to answer all the questions a reader could have about it (how many patients involved? What concept of sham acupuncture did they use? What concept of standard control? etc. etc.). --
3643:
The extreme details in the table is about the trial itself. That is not what this article is about. The acupuncture article does not even go into this kind of details no matter what sources are used.
2140:
It's a fringe journal alright, and so not usable for any claims on fringe topics that are not otherwise verifiable in good RS. For statement that are not in the fringe space, it is however usable.
2607:
say: encyclopedic, due and OR. Again not a major bone of contention for me (the previous quoted content was excessive, now reasonable). Willing to bend to consensus, see what others have to say.
5496:
of weight... According to the traditional concept, the ultimate sign that the acupuncturist's needling is actually effective is the onset of a certain sensation (reported by the patient) called
1647:
weren't flattering to TCM ideas about point specificity. Seems to me that any skeptic, any honest person interested in discovering the truth, would want these details left in the article. --
4256:
There was a discussion at the AFD about the coat rack material. There is consensus to delete the coatrack material. Uninvolved editors comments about the many problems with this article. See
1251:
I see. So, we have still ended up with a misrepresentation and a deletion; please repair the damage cause by the edit conflict by restoring the text that got lost and citing it correctly per
4573: 4412: 4257: 2427: 1628:
How can this not be relevant? Every acupuncture proponent feeling miffed by the results of the trials could just claim that the performing acupuncturists were just not skilled enough. --
1611:"Only registered physicians with an additional license for acupuncture and at least two years of clinical experience in acupuncture treatment qualified as performing acupuncturists." 5550:
discussing this in terms of GERAC I would support it's inclusion here. Absent that couldn't those with interest follow links to the publication of the studies for such information?
4742:
The FJC authorized state-run insurance programs to reimburse acupuncture providers for delivery of treatment to the general insured public who met requirements to receive treatment
3101:. It is "vital" that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. See 950:
The article should be about how the results of the trial influenced policy in Germany. The trial itself in not what this article is about. The details about the trials itself is
1212:
the words "The trials found no significant differences between acupuncture and sham acupuncture" with the comment "deleting material not supported by the source given ...". Yet
5092:
about a medical claim like "acupuncture is efficient in treating low back pain"): how on earth do you get the notion that there should be active research about a 2006 trial? --
3425:
He, W.; Tong, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, L.; Ben, H.; Qin, Q.; Huang, F.; Rong, P. (2013). "Review of controlled clinical trials on acupuncture versus sham acupuncture in Germany".
845:
Sources seem reliable to me (academic journals). The references are messy (cite journal template should be used), but overall I cannot support removal of that information. --
4178:
me. All in all, the results of GERAC seem to be very much in line with those of the newest research (= some effectiveness of acupuncture, but not necessarily over sham). --
5122:
about the specific results. You did restore information about the has-been GERAC medical claims gibberish but this article is about the outcome of the trials. You're not
3098: 132:
was reached). However, if you want to include this allegation in the article, we would have to find a source for it - otherwise it would be Original Research. Cheers, --
4419:. You have been told this article is about the event but not about the trials itself. Results from the studies itself cannot not be included in the article as they are 5280:
For sham acupuncture, needles were inserted only superficially (3 mm at most), and at bogus points; there also was no subsequent manipulation.<ref name="da1"/: -->
4293:
needed. On reading the article in it's current state it actually looks pretty good, excepting the ref/notes issue I will revisit in the appropriate section. Best.- -
1540:
It is mainly being used to describe the set-up and outcomes of the RCTs. It is a clear secondary source even if you stubbornly repeat it was primary. On top of that,
89:
TCM theory. (TCM suggests needling points close to a painful area even if those points are not traditional acupounts, especially if those same points are painful or
1002:
Yes, but this article is not about some kind of "event". It's also not about "how a clinical trial impacted society". It's about the trial itself. Of course, GERAC
2565:
If there is consensus to remove the notes by all means do so. I support removal of the notes. Please try to keep the references intact. I have split the notes off.
3707: 1205:
There have been some edits to the article recently that appear to misrepresent the sources and have the unfortunate effect of skewing POV. For example just now,
3188:
Here are some sources that seem significant, but which may be primary. Is there anyone here who thinks that these sources should form the base of the article?
1269:
Beg to differ. If a director of the British Medical Acupuncture Society points out findings that are contrary to TCM beliefs, that's the opposite of bias. --
550:
This is the one of the few references I could find in the article that discusses the trials. The Federal Joint Committee (Germany) is not reliable. It is an
2765:) that there's no problem with our sourcing as it is, even as we use primary sources, because we do it sparsely and far from exclusively. Your very deep in 5047:. And I'm still waiting for a single MEDRS that GERAC has been "discredited". You're just throwing these allegations around without a shred of evidence. -- 1522:
The primary sources were replaced with more primary sources. All the primary sources and dated sources about the trials itself must be deleted. The dated
1340:"By definition" here means it defines itself: alternative medicine is outside the mainstream and so fringe by definition. If you doubt this, the folk at 345:
This text is sourced using unreliable sources. "In 2000, the paramount decision-making body within the self-government of medical service providers and
1558:
You did not tell other editors this is not a medical article and that you used the source to discuss unimportant low level details about trial itself.
261:
The secondary source is from the Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss? Don't you mean it is a primary source. You did not show how this is a secondary source.
3665:
I think several of the suggested sources could be used to improve the article. The discussion of the trials and their impact could be expanded. - -
203:
I don't see good secondary sources. This article relies heavily on primary sources. All content that relies on primary sources must be deleted now.
71: 66: 3147:
My reply to your comment, QG: Under MEDRS, as you well know, primary sourcs are acceptable in some situations. My edit was per the discussion at
726:
might work. A redirect would work but I think an AFD may be the only way to resolve this situation with the previous edit history of this article.
4863:
verum and sham acupuncture was more effective than standard care (in treatment of back pain and osteoarthritis). And the TCM community was miffed
4714:
The Federal Joint Committee primary source is being used to discuss the specific results of discredited studies. The low level details is a gross
803:
secondary sourced has been removed (N.B. Howick gives a "negative" assessment of the worth of these trials). This edit appears to be non-neutral.
2583:
I don't have a strong opinion regarding the quotes but what exact problem do you see with them? I always thought more transparency is good...? --
3148: 3102: 3046: 2753: 2727: 2439: 2045: 1541: 2044:
Please stop tagging everything in this article. If you have serious issues with a particular source, there's already an ongoing discussion at
1725:
The trials received coverage from most of the major media outlets in Germany. This article is very poorly written. The source an editor added
969:
the Committee is a secondary source. And why you personally think the details of this trial are not important eludes me... This is an article
900:
The Joint Federal Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss) source is heavily used in this article and they initiated the trials. Does not pass
3406: 357:), ruled that acupuncture treatment may not be covered by statutory health insurance companies except within the framework of field studies." 1317:
applies to all "Alternative medicine" articles on WP by definition. I specify the text you deleted in the opening message of this section.
1213: 384:. Why would these be unreliable sources? And no, the RCTs being primary sources is not a reason to generally throw them out. Please read 247:
tagging, and questioning the primary source regarding how many health insurances actually initiated GERAC, appears pretty pointy here. --
2695:
Alright, one thing up front: I'd actually not like to hear the term "nonsense" anymore when you talk about my edits. Now, these are not
2279:
source (next to a secondary) in a few places as well... I don't understand how this would be too much reliance on primary sources...? --
301:
Agree, this article needs to be filleted - in fact probably deleted, with any usable remnant merged into the main acupuncture article.
5003:
No, no more diversionary tactics... in the diff you gave, there is not single example of POV language. If you really got one, please
402:
These are not secondary sources or reliable sources. AFD or redirect are the only options. Don't make this harder than it has to be.
4624: 3832: 2953: 2382:
I cleaned up the article and removed most of the coat rack information. The extensive quotes and other nonesense has been removed.
1939: 505: 468: 381: 350: 276: 5508:
to be elicited in the center or immediate vicinity of an acupoint, but not really dependent on it; it would also come up, e.g., at
5421:
which is meaningless in the broader context of Knowledge. In contrast, secondary information will be some translation of the data:
4739:, is it correct to say that you feel that the available sources do not sufficiently and duly back the insertion of the following? 554:. The dated RCTs are the trials. We don't have enough secondary sources or reliable sources on the trials for a separate article. 441:
Joint Federal Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss) is too close to the event. Please provide a secondary source for the text.
5512:
points (that can pop up everywhere on the body). If the sham acupuncture (where no subsequent manipulation was allowed) showed
4493:
who tries persistently to limit information about the trials - for example, by trying to delete material about their set-up. --
2817:
to be of some interest, especially in a trial with consequences like GERAC, I think your allegation can be safely dismissed. --
1789:
The trials were published in 2006. How could a dated 2005 source be reliable? This seems too old when there are newer sources.
4693: 2613:
Any comments on breaking out multiply cited refs into a bibliography section? I don't know if its needed or appropriate. - -
47: 17: 2610:
I am probably going to boldly edit the format of the refs. I wish the page numbers hadn't been removed from several refs.
100:
brief background section without violating SYN as long as we avoided putting a big "however" qualifier in the conclusion.
1145:
effect (inclusion of acupuncture into the list of services covered by the statutory health insurances). Please also read
1104:
because of its impact on health care in Germany". Any sources for this (not contemporary news items or primary sources)?
2426:, an affront to the intelligence of our readers. I cleaned up the article according to the many concerns raised at the 1283:
It doesn't matter what he's saying, but having Knowledge state that he "points out" something clinical is contrary to
1129: 943:
are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.
243:." It does NOT say that primary sources can not be used at all, or have generally considered to be not reliable. Your 4959:
1.) Please give an example of POV language, I can't see it. 2.) Please provide MEDRS evidence that these studies are
2297:. The overview section relies on primary sources and the text is a weight violation with all the low level details. 5531:
material... However, I so understand your and Bluerasberry's concerns, and I see that there is consensus forming to
2943:
out-of-date, discredited sources (either directly, or laundered through a non-MEDRS source). Why? There's no need.
38: 4689: 3375:
Foot, Doug; Ridge, Damien (2012). "Constructing the placebo effect in the placebo wars: What is the way ahead?".
1562: 1216:
states: "the difference between real and sham acupuncture in the GERAC trial was not statistically significant".
5336: 486:
Sure, man. In your wrath against acupuncture and everybody who is not 100% against it, why not delete the whole
4696:. We found consensus to limit the information about the results; however, QG opposes this consensus as well. -- 4140:
medical claims presented. Details of the studies methodology are undue (especially since the studies have been
3850: 2925: 1583:
Its not. Its simply letting the reader know about the findings of the trials, according to secondary sources. -
1544:
consensus has made very clear that no, all the primary sources and dated sources must not at all be deleted. --
4630: 2752:
very specific trial and its results. It has been pointed out to you repeatedly and by 3 different editors at
2275:
The only places we use the primary sources now is where we explain the trials' set-up, and we use them as an
795:(specifically for being either a primary source, a non-medical source for health information, or for failing 4441:
Yes, and more editors have stated their opinion that the coat-rack allegation is bogus... Let me quote from
1804:
The trials were covered in the media and in academic sources from the early 2000s onwards. 2005 isn't old. -
1256: 103:
Some editors may say that the above sounds like special pleading, but the reasoning comes straight from the
5382:
gain something from it, wouldn't that be worth including this material? What reason is there to exclude it?
5282:
Assessment regarding the therapy's efficacy was undertaken by blinded interviewers.<ref name="da1"/: -->
424:
sources. These trials are not notable because there are very few reliable sources that discuss the trials.
5457: 5361: 5294: 4811: 4762: 4600: 3631: 3484: 2766: 5527:: I personally think the great thing about WP in contrast to other encyclopaedias is that we can include 4893:
the disputed coat hook information and POV language. You even restored the original research I removed.
3337:
Musial, F.; Tao, I.; Dobos, G. (2009). "Ist die analgetische Wirkung der Akupunktur ein Placeboeffekt?".
1752:. The unreliable sources are not needed in the reference section. They were not used to verify the text. 380:
This is getting silly. We are talking about huge RCTs published in respectable medical journals, and the
5607: 5332: 5309: 4082: 3965: 3878: 3772: 3609: 3595: 3445: 2409: 2197:. The text is supposed to be in the body and then summarised in the lead. 08:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 2095: 2057: 1988: 1809: 1588: 685: 509: 487: 279:, and other the primary sources are unreliable. The source Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss is not reliable. 158: 3003:
No need to use my talk page when here will do. I'm cutting and pasting your comments here. You wrote,
2438:. The extreme detailed information about the trials itself is also dated information that went against 1473:"No difference between A and B"... "no advantage of A over B"... why would this not be a paraphrase? -- 5632: 5628: 5558: 5554: 5540: 5536: 5391: 5387: 5343: 5339: 5338:) that MEDRS doesn't forbid primary sources in general, it just tells us to use them with caution. -- 5265: 5261: 5230: 5152: 5148: 5097: 5093: 5052: 5048: 5012: 5008: 4968: 4964: 4928: 4924: 4876: 4872: 4823: 4800: 4701: 4697: 4581: 4577: 4498: 4494: 4450: 4446: 4398: 4394: 4283: 4279: 4247: 4243: 4183: 4179: 3504:
Rates of improvement among patients treated with acupuncture, sham acupuncture, and standard therapy
2933: 2929: 2901: 2897: 2869: 2865: 2822: 2818: 2774: 2770: 2712: 2708: 2633: 2629: 2588: 2584: 2354: 2350: 2284: 2280: 2218: 2214: 2162: 2158: 2127: 2123: 1969: 1965: 1633: 1629: 1549: 1545: 1499: 1495: 1478: 1474: 1393: 1389: 1331: 1327: 1305: 1301: 1274: 1270: 1242: 1238: 1217: 1206: 1155: 1151: 1119: 1115: 1094: 1018: 1014: 978: 974: 924: 920: 889: 885: 819: 815: 746: 742: 652: 648: 583: 579: 495: 491: 393: 389: 252: 248: 193: 189: 137: 133: 4042: 3925: 2748:
We're not talking about generalized statements which have to be updated here... We're talking about
1178:
violation because it contains low level details and coat rack information. The article is about the
5662: 5656: 5636: 5621: 5615: 5579: 5562: 5544: 5479: 5464: 5395: 5368: 5347: 5301: 5269: 5182: 5176: 5156: 5139: 5133: 5101: 5074: 5068: 5056: 5038: 5032: 5016: 4998: 4992: 4972: 4954: 4948: 4932: 4906: 4900: 4880: 4847: 4841: 4818: 4795: 4789: 4769: 4731: 4725: 4705: 4607: 4585: 4562: 4556: 4524: 4518: 4502: 4480: 4474: 4454: 4436: 4430: 4402: 4383: 4377: 4361: 4355: 4317: 4302: 4287: 4273: 4267: 4251: 4236: 4221: 4202: 4187: 4171: 3674: 3656: 3650: 3638: 3613: 3491: 3160: 3054: 2998: 2992: 2973: 2947: 2937: 2915: 2905: 2887: 2873: 2850: 2826: 2800: 2794: 2778: 2743: 2737: 2716: 2687: 2681: 2665: 2659: 2637: 2622: 2592: 2578: 2548: 2542: 2522: 2503: 2497: 2476: 2455: 2449: 2431: 2413: 2395: 2389: 2377: 2371: 2358: 2341: 2310: 2304: 2288: 2270: 2264: 2240: 2234: 2222: 2204: 2188: 2182: 2166: 2144: 2131: 2116: 2110: 2083: 2061: 2034: 2030: 2008: 1992: 1973: 1958: 1954: 1919: 1915: 1839: 1833: 1813: 1798: 1794: 1779: 1775: 1761: 1757: 1738: 1734: 1715: 1711: 1693: 1689: 1656: 1637: 1623: 1619: 1606: 1602: 1592: 1578: 1574: 1553: 1535: 1531: 1517: 1503: 1482: 1467: 1437: 1415: 1411: 1397: 1373: 1353: 1335: 1321: 1309: 1291: 1278: 1264: 1252: 1246: 1224: 1195: 1191: 1159: 1146: 1136: 1123: 1108: 1076: 1072: 1058: 1054: 1040: 1036: 1022: 997: 993: 982: 963: 959: 934: 928: 913: 909: 901: 893: 871: 857: 837: 823: 807: 768: 764: 750: 735: 731: 717: 707: 703: 692: 674: 670: 656: 641: 637: 623: 619: 605: 601: 587: 563: 559: 521: 517: 499: 480: 476: 450: 446: 433: 429: 421: 411: 407: 397: 375: 371: 328: 319: 315: 305: 288: 284: 270: 266: 256: 230: 226: 212: 208: 197: 174: 141: 118: 4154:, some of the legal/financial impacts have been revised. That is the subject of this article. The 3476:
What are some better sources? Has discussion centered around individual sources already happened?
552:
organization comprising of the Central Federal Association of Health Insurance Funds, among others
5520:
in the verum group, that raises a lot of (more) questions about traditional acupuncture practice.
5431:
Control group evaluation *Coordinating scientists = valid *government = valid *critics = invalid
4867:
verum and sham were shown to have no efficiency difference . In short, the text I want to add is
4644: 4464: 4442: 4416: 4313: 4217: 3156: 2969: 2079: 2071: 1652: 1433: 1369: 1028: 170: 114: 124:
Unfortunately the source doesn't elaborate on the bogus points, and as far as I understand they
5281:
Thus, only the patients (not the performing acupuncturists) could be ].<ref name="da1"/: -->
3309:
Cummings, M. (2009). "Modellvorhaben Akupunktur - a summary of the ART, ARC and GERAC trials".
1344:
could comment but it would be a waste of that noticeboard's time to ask in my view. I actually
5575: 5485: 5475: 5450: 5446: 5354: 5287: 5144:
Relax, man, I'm a very good listener actually :)... The consensus was to take out the numbers
5088: 5044: 5022: 4804: 4755: 4613: 4593: 4298: 4232: 4198: 4167: 4067: 3950: 3757: 3670: 3624: 3477: 3434: 3403: 3354: 3326: 3298: 3269: 3240: 3211: 3093: 3085: 3081: 2921: 2618: 2574: 2518: 2337: 1899: 1871: 1566: 1142: 851: 796: 346: 5602:"the results suggested that there was no difference between acupoints and non-acupoints, and 4574:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#Disruptive editing by User:QuackGuru
1680:
According to Schweizer Fernsehen, the total cost of the trials amounted to 7.5 million Euros.
791:
has re-added a large quantity of poorly-sourced health information to the article that fails
5123: 4715: 4058: 4050: 3941: 3933: 3862: 3748: 3740: 3620: 3605: 3587: 3528: 3397: 3384: 3346: 3318: 3290: 3261: 3232: 3203: 3058: 2810: 2472: 2435: 2405: 2053: 1984: 1891: 1863: 1805: 1699: 1584: 1381: 1314: 1297: 1284: 1175: 788: 236: 154: 4661: 4111: 4095: 3994: 3978: 3907: 3891: 3825: 3813: 3797: 3785: 3462: 3089: 2961: 2920:
It has been pointed out at AfD as well that the coatrack allegation is unfounded (both by
2843: 2404:
that is directly related to the trials, included the results. That's why I reverted you. -
2001: 1170: 1009:
because of its impact on health care in Germany: The Fed. Joint Committee looked at GERAC
881: 864: 830: 792: 570: 385: 310:
I don't think there is a single sentence that is usable for the main acupuncture article.
5553:
Probably not... it's in German. Also couldn't find a secondary source discussing this. --
5111:
Here is one example of the discredited POV language you restored against consensus above.
1565:
section is a coat rack. I propose the entire section must be nuked unless anyone likes a
1231:
achieve satisfactory clinical effects of acupuncture". But you deleted it simultaneously
596:
now. The Federal Joint Committee is too close to the event. I request secondary sources.
5650: 5609: 5324: 5170: 5127: 5062: 5026: 4986: 4942: 4894: 4835: 4783: 4736: 4719: 4673: 4550: 4512: 4468: 4424: 4371: 4349: 4261: 4062: 3945: 3752: 3728: 3644: 3518: 3418: 2986: 2788: 2731: 2675: 2653: 2536: 2491: 2443: 2383: 2365: 2298: 2258: 2228: 2198: 2176: 2104: 2026: 1950: 1911: 1827: 1790: 1771: 1753: 1730: 1707: 1703: 1685: 1615: 1598: 1570: 1527: 1407: 1341: 1326:
Could you please show me that definition? And I'm still not sure what text you mean. --
1187: 1068: 1050: 1032: 989: 955: 939: 905: 760: 727: 699: 666: 633: 615: 597: 555: 513: 472: 442: 425: 403: 367: 311: 280: 262: 222: 204: 5328: 5162: 4694:
Talk:German acupuncture trials#Results should not be should be limited in the article
4309: 4213: 3866: 3591: 3512: 3152: 3070: 2965: 2075: 1867: 1648: 1429: 1365: 1300:? And what content from a reliable source remaining deleted are you talking about? -- 239:: "When using a primary source, Knowledge should not overstate the importance of the 166: 110: 5279:
Needles were to be manipulated until arrival of ] sensation.<ref name="da1"/: -->
5278:
The acupuncture point selection was partially predetermined.<ref name="da1"/: -->
3590:
could not be determined because a large number of patients who were prescribed with
2090:
Insurance companies in Germany have stopped reimbursement for acupuncture treatment.
1822:
because you believe it is reliable. I agree it is reliable. I added text to the the
1684:
The low level details using unreliable sources are used everywhere in this article.
1428:, nor would it be cited in review articles in unquestionably mainstream journals. -- 107: 5604:
some insurance companies in Germany stopped reimbursement for acupuncture treatment
5571: 5524: 5471: 4294: 4228: 4194: 4163: 3666: 3367: 3066: 2944: 2912: 2884: 2847: 2614: 2570: 2514: 2333: 2141: 2005: 1514: 1464: 1350: 1318: 1288: 1261: 1221: 1133: 1105: 868: 847: 834: 804: 714: 689: 535: 325: 302: 162: 2892:
The dispute you talk about is not about the findings themselves, it's about their
5535:
include this material. So if you'd rather delete it, that's also fine with me. --
5061:
The dates sources are "discredited" because we have newer sources on the topic.
3294: 1406:. The Acupuncture in Medicine is as fringe as it gets. There are better sources. 5169:
along with the extreme unimportant details that are not helpful to the reader.
4782:. I don't see a reason to include the extreme details for each specific trial. 4193:
effectiveness of a treatment judged if not significantly greater than sham? - -
2862:"I don't see how the use of these sources in GERAC presents a reliability issue" 2468: 2175:
most of the text. The text must stay in the body too. Looks like whitewashing.
1931: 1402:"It has been pointed out..." undermines the source. The fringe journal has been 723: 544: 46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
4507:
Editors agreed there is a problem with this article. The information about the
3388: 3236: 2652:. It was a cut and paste copy that was part of an old version of the article. 4688:
2.) QG opposes including material about the trials' results (as in subsection
4208: 4054: 3937: 3744: 3350: 2100: 2067:
If anyone still has doubts that QuackGuru is disruptive, have a look at this:
1895: 420:
in the article. The primary sources are being challenged because they are not
5411:
Control group setup *De-qi = positive *location = incorrect *Insertion = 3mm
1425: 1287:. Meanwhile, the content from the reliable secondary source remains deleted! 3322: 3265: 3207: 2048:, so why not wait and listen to the opinions of other editors first, before 4070: 3953: 3760: 3437: 3357: 3329: 3301: 3272: 3243: 3214: 1902: 1874: 1114:
Could you please explain why the Spiegel quote shouldn't be good enough? --
235:
The secondary source is from the Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss. Please read
4008: 3523: 3092:, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or 2769:
by now. And the Fed. Joint Committee source is a secondary one anyway. --
4692:). This view was shared by other editors; please find the discussion at 4411:
Editors have repeatedly been concerns about the coat rack material. See
4260:. The results is not what this article is about. It should be deleted. 1526:
source is being misused in this article to discuss medical information.
551: 5165:
to limit the information about the results. So why did you restore the
2813:
violation would be your only rationale... Since the results of a trial
1910:
There are two sources but I think only one is used to verify the text.
1049:. There is no reason to keep low level details about the trial itself. 867:? For biomedical content, academic journal ≠ good source, necessarily. 569:
a) The Federal Joint Committee is a medical organization as defined by
128:
have been ashi points (not very likely, though, given the fact that no
2227:
The text has to be in the body because the lead summarises the body.
1361: 4854:
I don't want to include unlimited information, but I want to include
4830:
of coat rack information in the article but Mallexikon admitted that
2422:
of low level details. You didn't see how bad the article was? It was
5108:{{harvnb|Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses|2007|pp=309–10}}</ref: --> 2157:
Great! Definitely no objection to using this source from my side. --
1385:
needling specific acupuncture points in contrast to random points")
1150:
in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards..." --
755:
I don't think you understand Knowledge policy on secondary sources.
471:
article notable. Does it meet Knowledge notability guidelines? Hmm.
5323:
Also I'd like to emphasize that it has been emphasized already (by
4915:
information you deleted yesterday is making sure that this article
2699:, but vital information about the trials - we're talking about the 4620:! There's two main points of contention here as far as I can see: 1509:
Yes, and that includes nearly all of the material coming from the
1255:. This brings me to a second problem, the use of a fringe journal 2004:(obviously so, since it implies a true thing is being revealed). 5441:
How do you feel about my framing of the prose as a list of data?
1597:
Do you think this is a medical article about the trials itself?
4754:
Thanks, and please excuse my asking you to repeat information.
3088:
in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable
578:
decisions concerning reimbursement of acupuncture treatment. --
4012: 2486:. I think things will move along much faster if we start from 104: 25: 4919:
turn into a coat hook - because it makes sure that we give a
4832:
We found consensus to limit the information about the results
647:
abstract on p. 2. And please stop this disruptive tagging. --
4672:
for information about the set-up and outcome of the trials.
1785:
Dated 2005 Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift as unreliable
5087:- now that's what I call POV language. And you're misusing 3069:
guideline. Editors at the talk page disagree with you. See
2628:
Never crossed my mind... But no objections to it either. --
2418:
Seriously, A1candidate. The article is awful. You restored
1938:
that the results of GERAC couldn't be brushed aside by the
1296:
Could you please produce some evidence that acupuncture is
614:. I previously gave my reasons for these types of sources. 2842:
The trial results should not be detailed as that violated
1201:
Recent problematic edits / faithfully representing sources
4745:
These payments were actually made for some period of time
4413:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials
4258:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials
2428:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials
1234:, which resulted in my edit merely being a paraphrasing 5646: 5642: 5603: 5166: 5145: 5119: 5115: 4982: 4978: 4938: 4886: 4868: 4831: 4827: 4779: 4681: 4546: 4508: 4420: 4367: 4345: 4278:
Yeah, I'm not even going to comment on that any more.--
3469: 3062: 3050: 2982: 2979: 2861: 2784: 2783:
I previously explained the excessive details is also a
2763: 2760: 2757: 2722: 2671: 2649: 2532: 2528: 2527:
The quotes were removed from the article but an editor
2487: 2483: 2482:
If you check the edit history I cleaned up most of the
2294: 2254: 2250: 2194: 2172: 2068: 1943: 1854:
Ernst, E. (2006). "Acupuncture - a critical analysis".
1823: 1819: 1767: 1749: 1726: 1403: 1386: 1235: 1232: 1210: 1183: 1064: 1046: 951: 756: 629: 611: 593: 417: 218: 4676:
wants to ban this source on the grounds of it being a
2000:
It's expressly listed as a problematic formulation at
3254:
The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine
3225:
The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine
3196:
The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine
3103:
Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources#Medical claims
3047:
Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources#Medical claims
2728:
Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources#Medical claims
2440:
Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources#Medical claims
1380:
Your statement about acupuncture automatically being
988:
article about how a clinical trial impacted society.
5320:
about sham design without risking allegations of OR.
4485:
Our article gives a very truthful impression of the
3586:
Note: The treatment outcome of standard therapy for
2962:
Knowledge:MEDRS#Medical_and_scientific_organizations
96:
Needling shallowly at a verum point is also active.
5516:even though they were supposed to actually elicite 5260:
No opposition on my side to any of these points. --
4941:from discredited studies to the overview section. 4666:... but they included an English summary on page 2. 1706:. Is there a reason to keep the low level details. 1063:The medical information about the trial itself was 814:
different primary sources regarding acupuncture. --
5021:It is the definition of POV language according to 4549:in the lead. I propose the OR should be removed. 1882:Wettig, D (2005). "Die GERAC-Gonarthrose-Studie". 1463:That's not a "paraphrase" of the deleted content. 954:and not the direction of an encyclopedia article. 547:after the article has been deleted or redirected. 1721:Low level unimportant details failed verification 2400:You did not just remove the quotes, you removed 2122:So this journal is no fringe in your opinion? -- 1182:. It is not about the trials itself. So, I made 4467:. Editors know this is not a medical article. 2535:into a notes section. They should be deleted. 2529:restored the quotes and other excessive details 1614:This text does not seem relevant to this page. 5118:but you previously said there is consensus to 4911:Your coat hook allegation is irrational. This 4389:Please don't remove reliably sourced material 4076:was dropped after 1 year of very poor accrual. 2467:I cleaned out some of the more obvious fluff. 1766:The unused primary sources have been restored 1744:Unreliable sourced under the reference section 1047:non-notable information about the trial itself 5645:to summarise the body. But I did restore the 2648:The excessive details and other nonsense was 1675:Dated 2003 source does not summarise the body 783:Poorly-sourced health information; neutrality 8: 5243:design of sham treatment (treatment control) 4041:Linde, K (2009 Jan 21). Linde, Klaus (ed.). 3924:Linde, K (2009 Jan 21). Linde, Klaus (ed.). 3149:Knowledge:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#GERAC 2754:Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#GERAC 1542:Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#GERAC 1045:I started the cleanup process to delete the 757:Advertizements do not belong in articlespace 5641:You did not restore the information to the 5570:to consensus builds a good compromise. - - 4690:German acupuncture trials#Individual trials 4047:The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 4026:migraine-free for at least 50% of the time. 3930:The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 3855:Headache: the Journal of Head and Face Pain 3183:What sources should and should not be used? 3057:and you restored excessive details against 833:, and including it all gives undue weight. 5043:There is no definition of POV language in 4923:. And what do you mean by POV language? -- 4921:truthful impression of the nominal subject 4629:Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (2007-09-27). 2707:the Fed. Joint Comm. decided as it did. -- 2434:and you restored extensive quotes against 2072:User_talk:Middle_8#User_conduct:_QuackGuru 4751:led the FJC to start disbursing payments? 4061: 3944: 3919: 3917: 3751: 3695: 3693: 3691: 3399:The Philosophy of Evidence-based Medicine 1027:This article about the trial itself is a 904:because they are too close to the event. 880:who doesn't seem to be too familiar with 688:, which has resolved the problems noted. 5252:response of stakeholders (TCM community) 4036: 4034: 3849:Taylor, Frederick R. (13 October 2006). 3733:Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice 3500: 2293:You dumped a lot of text that relies on 84:It would be helpful if the article said 4489:- which is GERAC. Interistingly, it is 4043:"Acupuncture for tension-type headache" 3926:"Acupuncture for tension-type headache" 3844: 3842: 3706:was invoked but never defined (see the 3687: 3427:Journal of traditional Chinese medicine 698:That fixes the advertizement problems. 4657: 4653: 4642: 4107: 4103: 4091: 4080: 3990: 3986: 3974: 3963: 3903: 3899: 3887: 3886:Italic or bold markup not allowed in: 3876: 3821: 3809: 3805: 3793: 3792:Italic or bold markup not allowed in: 3781: 3770: 3722: 3720: 3718: 3458: 3454: 3443: 1424:really were fringe, Cochrane wouldn't 799:). Conversely Howick, one of only two 360:Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss 2007, p. 2 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3396:Jeremy H. Howick (23 February 2011). 1011:plus several other acupuncture trials 848:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 7: 5335:) at the RS noticeboard discussion ( 4985:section discredited these studies. 3402:. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 92–94. 3105:. Please be more careful next time. 347:statutory health insurance companies 4885:All you did was revert back to the 4778:A summary of the trials is seen in 4461:fails to give a truthful impression 3698: 5445:should not be included because of 4680:source (he's just tagged it again 4009:"Acupuncture 'like migraine pill'" 2531:to the article. The quotes should 1563:German Acupuncture Trials#Overview 1494:generally eliminated. Comments? -- 24: 919:the results of GERAC came out. -- 506:Federal Joint Committee (Germany) 469:Federal Joint Committee (Germany) 463:Federal Joint Committee (Germany) 382:Federal Joint Committee (Germany) 277:Federal Joint Committee (Germany) 3867:10.1111/j.1526-4610.2006.00594.x 1890:(4): 330–1, author reply 331–2. 1868:10.1111/j.1365-2796.2005.01584.x 510:Healthcare in Germany#Regulation 29: 4572:Enough. I filed a complaint at 4344:The specific results should be 2860:as well at the RS noticeboard ( 1220:- have you got an explanation? 665:I requested secondary sources. 630:not a reliable secondary source 5236:Here are the items requested: 543:I propose we add this text to 366:These are unreliable sources. 324:There is Ernst's comment .... 18:Talk:German acupuncture trials 1: 5663:16:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 5637:07:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 5622:06:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 5580:06:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC) 5563:07:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC) 5545:01:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC) 5480:08:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC) 5465:13:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC) 5396:08:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC) 5369:03:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC) 5348:04:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC) 5302:04:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC) 5270:04:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC) 5183:20:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC) 5157:08:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC) 5140:18:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC) 5102:09:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC) 5075:07:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC) 5057:07:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC) 5039:07:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC) 5017:05:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC) 4999:04:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC) 4973:04:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC) 4955:04:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC) 4933:03:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC) 4907:02:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC) 4881:02:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC) 4848:20:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 4819:19:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 4796:19:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 4770:19:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 4732:04:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 4706:04:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 4608:20:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC) 4586:09:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC) 4563:05:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC) 4525:16:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 4503:11:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 4481:05:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC) 4455:05:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC) 4437:04:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC) 4403:04:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC) 4384:19:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC) 4362:20:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC) 3729:"Acupuncture in Primary Care" 3283:Archives of Internal Medicine 3049:: You restored the disputed 2504:04:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC) 2477:04:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC) 2456:03:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC) 2414:22:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC) 2396:19:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC) 2378:17:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC) 2359:16:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC) 2342:11:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC) 2311:16:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 2289:08:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 2271:08:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 2241:16:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 2223:08:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 2189:08:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 2167:06:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC) 2145:05:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC) 2132:02:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC) 2117:02:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC) 2062:14:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC) 2035:18:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC) 2009:14:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC) 1993:14:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC) 1974:02:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC) 1959:01:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC) 1920:20:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC) 1814:14:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC) 1799:20:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC) 1780:01:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC) 1762:19:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC) 1739:19:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC) 1716:17:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC) 1694:19:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC) 1638:03:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC) 1624:22:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC) 1607:18:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC) 1593:18:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC) 1579:18:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC) 1554:01:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC) 1536:19:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC) 1518:08:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC) 1504:08:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC) 1483:05:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC) 1468:05:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC) 1416:19:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC) 1398:05:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC) 1354:09:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 1336:09:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 1322:08:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 1310:08:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 1292:08:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 1279:07:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 1265:07:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 1247:07:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 1225:07:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 1196:19:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC) 1160:05:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC) 1137:04:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC) 1124:09:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 1109:05:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 1077:01:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC) 1059:00:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC) 1041:00:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC) 1023:04:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 998:03:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 983:03:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 964:19:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC) 929:09:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 914:08:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 894:09:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 872:08:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 858:08:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 838:08:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 824:08:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 808:08:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 769:07:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 751:07:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 736:06:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 722:A couple of sentences in the 718:06:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 708:06:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 693:06:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 675:06:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 657:06:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 642:05:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 624:05:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 606:05:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 588:05:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 564:04:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 522:05:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 500:05:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 481:05:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 451:05:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 434:04:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 412:04:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 398:04:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 376:03:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 329:04:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 320:04:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 306:03:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 289:03:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 271:03:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 257:03:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 231:02:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 213:02:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 153:-- interesting, just noticed 4775:health insurers in Germany." 4318:09:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 4303:04:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 4288:04:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 4274:03:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 4252:03:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 4237:03:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 4222:02:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 4203:02:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 4188:01:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 4172:00:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 3675:04:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 3657:18:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 3639:18:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 3614:13:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 3492:13:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 3295:10.1001/archinte.167.17.1892 3161:02:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 2999:18:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 2974:09:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 2948:09:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 2938:08:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 2916:08:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 2906:08:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 2888:07:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 2874:07:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 2851:07:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 2827:06:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 2801:06:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 2779:06:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 2744:04:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 2717:04:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 2688:04:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 2666:04:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 2638:08:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 2623:08:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 2593:07:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 2579:05:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 2549:04:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 2523:04:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 2084:08:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 1856:Journal of Internal Medicine 1840:04:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 1768:inside the reference section 1657:07:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC) 1438:11:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 1374:11:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 1237:and actually no deletion. -- 1141:Not needed. GERAC has had a 1128:I'm looking for evidence of 863:Errr, are you familiar with 592:The primary sources must be 198:03:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC) 175:10:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 2856:It has been pointed out to 1826:from the reliable source. 1524:Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss 1511:Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss 355:Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss 5681: 4511:is still in the article. 3831:CS1 maint: date and year ( 3568: 3551: 3534: 3417:Additional suggestions by 3389:10.5172/hesr.2012.21.3.355 3366:Additional suggestions by 3237:10.1089/107555303322524616 2046:Knowledge:Reliable_sources 5249:rationale for FJC outcome 5246:training of acupuncturist 4055:10.1002/14651858.CD007587 3938:10.1002/14651858.CD007587 3851:"Abstracts and Citations" 3745:10.1016/j.pop.2009.09.010 3585: 3503: 3351:10.1007/s00482-009-0810-9 1896:10.1007/s00482-005-0404-0 349:in Germany, known as the 241:result or the conclusions 3727:Mao, Jun J. (2010 Mar). 2978:You have been told your 2952:@Mallexicon: Agree the 2926:User:ImperfectlyInformed 2705:because of these results 1698:This is a violation and 142:04:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC) 119:22:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC) 5647:information to the lead 5240:number of test subjects 4625:Federal Joint Committee 3377:Health Sociology Review 3323:10.1136/aim.2008.000281 3311:Acupuncture in Medicine 3266:10.1089/acm.2006.12.237 3208:10.1089/acm.2006.12.733 1940:Federal Joint Committee 1257:Acupuncture in Medicine 530:Propose AFD or redirect 351:Joint Federal Committee 4623:1.) The report of the 4090:Check date values in: 3973:Check date values in: 3780:Check date values in: 2670:The nonsense had been 724:Acupuncture#Modern era 545:Acupuncture#Modern era 416:You do know there are 5333:User:Andrew Lancaster 5120:limit the information 5079:Alright, so you mean 4463:of the subject." Per 3078:biomedical assertions 2193:Looks like even more 1067:for no valid reason. 573:. b) Primary sources 488:Healthcare in Germany 42:of past discussions. 4568:Editing complexities 3702:The named reference 2809:here, so alleging a 2703:for God's sake. And 2099:The abstract of the 1964:Fine. Changed it. -- 1130:WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE 5514:the same efficiency 4937:You added a ton of 4889:you last edit with 4149:largely discredited 2985:. Please move on. 2767:WP:ICANTHEARYOUland 1727:failed verification 612:deleted the sources 504:I propose redirect 183:Primary sources tag 80:Clarifying controls 5161:You know there is 5005:write it down here 4983:academic community 4652:Unknown parameter 4102:Unknown parameter 3985:Unknown parameter 3898:Unknown parameter 3820:Unknown parameter 3804:Unknown parameter 3453:Unknown parameter 3094:medical guidelines 3086:systematic reviews 3076:Ideal sources for 3043:(begin QG comment) 2249:The problems have 1750:unreliable sources 684:I have executed a 388:more carefully. -- 5167:dated information 4826:wants to keep an 4391:against consensus 4152:widely criticized 4129:should be limited 3602: 3601: 3569:Standard therapy 3552:Sham acupuncture 3472: 3459:|display-authors= 3408:978-1-4443-4266-6 3289:(17): 1892–1898. 2922:User:Bluerasberry 2697:excessive details 2644:Excessive details 245:unreliable source 151:(super-belatedly) 77: 76: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5672: 5659: 5653: 5618: 5612: 5490: 5462: 5461: 5455: 5366: 5365: 5359: 5299: 5298: 5292: 5179: 5173: 5136: 5130: 5071: 5065: 5035: 5029: 4995: 4989: 4951: 4945: 4903: 4897: 4844: 4838: 4828:unlimited amount 4816: 4815: 4809: 4792: 4786: 4767: 4766: 4760: 4728: 4722: 4665: 4659: 4655: 4650: 4648: 4640: 4638: 4618: 4605: 4604: 4598: 4559: 4553: 4521: 4515: 4477: 4471: 4433: 4427: 4380: 4374: 4358: 4352: 4340:Nonsense deleted 4270: 4264: 4116: 4115: 4109: 4105: 4099: 4093: 4088: 4086: 4078: 4065: 4038: 4029: 4028: 4022: 4020: 4005: 3999: 3998: 3992: 3988: 3982: 3976: 3971: 3969: 3961: 3948: 3921: 3912: 3911: 3905: 3901: 3895: 3889: 3884: 3882: 3874: 3861:(9): 1464–1473. 3846: 3837: 3836: 3829: 3823: 3817: 3811: 3807: 3801: 3795: 3789: 3783: 3778: 3776: 3768: 3755: 3724: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3705: 3697: 3653: 3647: 3636: 3635: 3629: 3588:tension headache 3529:Tension headache 3501: 3489: 3488: 3482: 3470:a fringe journal 3468: 3466: 3460: 3456: 3455:|displayauthors= 3451: 3449: 3441: 3412: 3392: 3361: 3333: 3305: 3276: 3247: 3218: 3107:(end QG comment) 3090:medical journals 2995: 2989: 2797: 2791: 2785:weight violation 2740: 2734: 2684: 2678: 2662: 2656: 2545: 2539: 2533:not be split off 2500: 2494: 2452: 2446: 2392: 2386: 2374: 2368: 2327:Reference, Notes 2307: 2301: 2267: 2261: 2237: 2231: 2207: 2201: 2185: 2179: 2113: 2107: 1949:is not neutral. 1906: 1878: 1836: 1830: 1818:You removed the 854: 219:secondary source 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5680: 5679: 5675: 5674: 5673: 5671: 5670: 5669: 5657: 5651: 5616: 5610: 5600: 5486: 5459: 5458: 5451: 5432: 5412: 5363: 5362: 5355: 5296: 5295: 5288: 5177: 5171: 5134: 5128: 5069: 5063: 5033: 5027: 4993: 4987: 4949: 4943: 4901: 4895: 4842: 4836: 4813: 4812: 4805: 4790: 4784: 4764: 4763: 4756: 4726: 4720: 4651: 4641: 4636: 4628: 4614: 4602: 4601: 4594: 4570: 4557: 4551: 4543: 4519: 4513: 4487:nominal subject 4475: 4469: 4431: 4425: 4378: 4372: 4356: 4350: 4342: 4268: 4262: 4160: 4157: 4153: 4150: 4146: 4143: 4139: 4133: 4130: 4127: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4101: 4089: 4079: 4049:(1): CD007587. 4040: 4039: 4032: 4018: 4016: 4007: 4006: 4002: 3984: 3972: 3962: 3932:(1): CD007587. 3923: 3922: 3915: 3897: 3885: 3875: 3848: 3847: 3840: 3830: 3819: 3803: 3791: 3779: 3769: 3726: 3725: 3716: 3703: 3701: 3699: 3689: 3651: 3645: 3633: 3632: 3625: 3486: 3485: 3478: 3452: 3442: 3424: 3409: 3395: 3374: 3336: 3308: 3279: 3250: 3221: 3192: 3185: 3051:primary sources 2993: 2987: 2805:No, there's no 2795: 2789: 2738: 2732: 2723:primary sources 2682: 2676: 2660: 2654: 2646: 2543: 2537: 2498: 2492: 2450: 2444: 2390: 2384: 2372: 2366: 2329: 2305: 2299: 2295:primary sources 2265: 2259: 2235: 2229: 2205: 2199: 2183: 2177: 2111: 2105: 2092: 2042: 1927: 1881: 1853: 1850: 1834: 1828: 1787: 1746: 1723: 1677: 1491: 1489:Primary sources 1203: 971:about the GERAC 940:Primary sources 856: 852: 785: 532: 465: 418:primary sources 185: 82: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5678: 5676: 5668: 5667: 5666: 5665: 5599: 5596: 5595: 5594: 5593: 5592: 5591: 5590: 5589: 5588: 5587: 5586: 5585: 5584: 5583: 5582: 5567: 5566: 5565: 5521: 5488:Blue Rasberry 5453:Blue Rasberry 5442: 5430: 5429: 5428: 5427: 5426: 5425: 5424: 5423: 5422: 5410: 5409: 5408: 5407: 5406: 5405: 5404: 5403: 5402: 5383: 5375: 5357:Blue Rasberry 5325:User:Podiaebba 5321: 5313: 5310:in this source 5290:Blue Rasberry 5273: 5272: 5254: 5253: 5250: 5247: 5244: 5241: 5228: 5227: 5226: 5225: 5224: 5223: 5222: 5221: 5220: 5219: 5218: 5217: 5216: 5215: 5214: 5213: 5212: 5211: 5210: 5209: 5208: 5207: 5206: 5205: 5204: 5203: 5202: 5201: 5200: 5199: 5198: 5197: 5196: 5195: 5194: 5193: 5192: 5191: 5190: 5189: 5188: 5187: 5186: 5185: 5114:You added the 5112: 5109: 5107:}}<ref: --> 5083:but you write 4821: 4807:Blue Rasberry 4776: 4758:Blue Rasberry 4752: 4748: 4747: 4746: 4743: 4737:User:QuackGuru 4709: 4708: 4685: 4684: 4674:User:QuackGuru 4668: 4667: 4633:Osteoarthritis 4616:Blue Rasberry 4612:Thanks a lot, 4596:Blue Rasberry 4569: 4566: 4542: 4539: 4538: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4421:medical claims 4406: 4405: 4341: 4338: 4337: 4336: 4335: 4334: 4333: 4332: 4331: 4330: 4329: 4328: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4324: 4323: 4322: 4321: 4320: 4158: 4155: 4151: 4148: 4144: 4141: 4137: 4132: 4131:in the article 4128: 4125: 4122: 4118: 4117: 4030: 4015:. 2 March 2006 4000: 3913: 3838: 3739:(1): 105–117. 3714: 3686: 3685: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3660: 3659: 3641: 3627:Blue Rasberry 3600: 3599: 3583: 3582: 3579: 3576: 3573: 3570: 3566: 3565: 3562: 3559: 3556: 3553: 3549: 3548: 3545: 3542: 3539: 3536: 3532: 3531: 3526: 3521: 3519:osteoarthritis 3515: 3510: 3506: 3505: 3499: 3498: 3480:Blue Rasberry 3422: 3421: 3414: 3413: 3407: 3393: 3371: 3370: 3363: 3362: 3345:(4): 341–346. 3334: 3306: 3277: 3260:(3): 237–245. 3248: 3231:(5): 763–770. 3219: 3202:(8): 733–742. 3184: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3074: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 2958: 2894:interpretation 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2645: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2566: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2507: 2506: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2380: 2361: 2328: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2257:was removed. 2251:not been fixed 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2191: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2135: 2134: 2091: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2041: 2038: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 1979:"Pointed out" 1977: 1976: 1929:News magazine 1926: 1923: 1908: 1907: 1879: 1849: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1786: 1783: 1748:I removed the 1745: 1742: 1722: 1719: 1676: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1612: 1609: 1559: 1520: 1490: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1422:Acupunct. Med. 1378: 1377: 1376: 1202: 1199: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1097:wrote: "GERAC 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1061: 1043: 948: 944: 898: 897: 896: 846: 843: 842: 841: 840: 784: 781: 780: 779: 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 771: 686:WP:NUKEANDPAVE 682: 681: 680: 679: 678: 677: 662: 659: 626: 608: 531: 528: 527: 526: 525: 524: 464: 461: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 455: 454: 453: 439: 436: 414: 364: 361: 358: 340: 339: 338: 337: 336: 335: 334: 333: 332: 331: 294: 293: 292: 291: 273: 259: 215: 184: 181: 180: 179: 178: 177: 145: 144: 81: 78: 75: 74: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5677: 5664: 5660: 5654: 5648: 5644: 5640: 5639: 5638: 5634: 5630: 5626: 5625: 5624: 5623: 5619: 5613: 5608: 5605: 5597: 5581: 5577: 5573: 5568: 5564: 5560: 5556: 5552: 5551: 5548: 5547: 5546: 5542: 5538: 5534: 5530: 5526: 5522: 5519: 5515: 5511: 5507: 5503: 5499: 5495: 5491: 5489: 5483: 5482: 5481: 5477: 5473: 5468: 5467: 5466: 5463: 5456: 5454: 5448: 5443: 5440: 5439: 5438: 5437: 5436: 5435: 5434: 5433: 5420: 5419: 5418: 5417: 5416: 5415: 5414: 5413: 5399: 5398: 5397: 5393: 5389: 5384: 5381: 5376: 5372: 5371: 5370: 5367: 5360: 5358: 5351: 5350: 5349: 5345: 5341: 5337: 5334: 5330: 5329:User:TimidGuy 5326: 5322: 5319: 5314: 5311: 5306: 5305: 5304: 5303: 5300: 5293: 5291: 5283: 5276: 5271: 5267: 5263: 5259: 5258: 5257: 5251: 5248: 5245: 5242: 5239: 5238: 5237: 5234: 5232: 5184: 5180: 5174: 5168: 5164: 5160: 5159: 5158: 5154: 5150: 5146: 5143: 5142: 5141: 5137: 5131: 5125: 5121: 5117: 5116:obsolete text 5113: 5110: 5105: 5104: 5103: 5099: 5095: 5090: 5086: 5082: 5078: 5077: 5076: 5072: 5066: 5060: 5059: 5058: 5054: 5050: 5046: 5042: 5041: 5040: 5036: 5030: 5024: 5020: 5019: 5018: 5014: 5010: 5006: 5002: 5001: 5000: 4996: 4990: 4984: 4980: 4979:some examples 4976: 4975: 4974: 4970: 4966: 4962: 4958: 4957: 4956: 4952: 4946: 4940: 4936: 4935: 4934: 4930: 4926: 4922: 4918: 4914: 4910: 4909: 4908: 4904: 4898: 4892: 4888: 4884: 4883: 4882: 4878: 4874: 4870: 4866: 4862: 4857: 4853: 4852: 4851: 4850: 4849: 4845: 4839: 4833: 4829: 4825: 4822: 4820: 4817: 4810: 4808: 4802: 4799: 4798: 4797: 4793: 4787: 4781: 4777: 4773: 4772: 4771: 4768: 4761: 4759: 4753: 4749: 4744: 4741: 4740: 4738: 4735: 4734: 4733: 4729: 4723: 4717: 4713: 4712: 4711: 4710: 4707: 4703: 4699: 4695: 4691: 4687: 4686: 4682: 4679: 4675: 4670: 4669: 4663: 4658:|trans-title= 4654:|trans_title= 4646: 4635: 4634: 4626: 4622: 4621: 4619: 4617: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4606: 4599: 4597: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4587: 4583: 4579: 4575: 4567: 4565: 4564: 4560: 4554: 4548: 4540: 4526: 4522: 4516: 4510: 4506: 4505: 4504: 4500: 4496: 4492: 4488: 4484: 4483: 4482: 4478: 4472: 4466: 4462: 4458: 4457: 4456: 4452: 4448: 4444: 4440: 4439: 4438: 4434: 4428: 4422: 4418: 4414: 4410: 4409: 4408: 4407: 4404: 4400: 4396: 4392: 4388: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4381: 4375: 4369: 4364: 4363: 4359: 4353: 4347: 4339: 4319: 4315: 4311: 4308:to? thanks, 4306: 4305: 4304: 4300: 4296: 4291: 4290: 4289: 4285: 4281: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4271: 4265: 4259: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4249: 4245: 4240: 4239: 4238: 4234: 4230: 4225: 4224: 4223: 4219: 4215: 4210: 4206: 4205: 4204: 4200: 4196: 4191: 4190: 4189: 4185: 4181: 4176: 4175: 4174: 4173: 4169: 4165: 4126:should not be 4123: 4113: 4097: 4084: 4077: 4072: 4069: 4064: 4060: 4056: 4052: 4048: 4044: 4037: 4035: 4031: 4027: 4014: 4010: 4004: 4001: 3996: 3980: 3967: 3960: 3955: 3952: 3947: 3943: 3939: 3935: 3931: 3927: 3920: 3918: 3914: 3909: 3893: 3880: 3873: 3868: 3864: 3860: 3856: 3852: 3845: 3843: 3839: 3834: 3827: 3815: 3799: 3787: 3774: 3767: 3762: 3759: 3754: 3750: 3746: 3742: 3738: 3734: 3730: 3723: 3721: 3719: 3715: 3709: 3696: 3694: 3692: 3688: 3684: 3676: 3672: 3668: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3658: 3654: 3648: 3642: 3640: 3637: 3630: 3628: 3622: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3611: 3607: 3597: 3593: 3592:Amitriptyline 3589: 3584: 3580: 3577: 3574: 3571: 3567: 3563: 3560: 3557: 3554: 3550: 3546: 3543: 3540: 3537: 3533: 3530: 3527: 3525: 3522: 3520: 3516: 3514: 3513:Low back pain 3511: 3508: 3507: 3502: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3490: 3483: 3481: 3474: 3471: 3464: 3447: 3439: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3420: 3416: 3415: 3410: 3405: 3401: 3400: 3394: 3390: 3386: 3382: 3378: 3373: 3372: 3369: 3365: 3364: 3359: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3344: 3340: 3335: 3331: 3328: 3324: 3320: 3316: 3312: 3307: 3303: 3300: 3296: 3292: 3288: 3284: 3278: 3274: 3271: 3267: 3263: 3259: 3255: 3249: 3245: 3242: 3238: 3234: 3230: 3226: 3220: 3216: 3213: 3209: 3205: 3201: 3197: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3182: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3108: 3104: 3100: 3099:medical claim 3095: 3091: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3075: 3072: 3068: 3065:violated the 3064: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3048: 3045:Violation of 3044: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2996: 2990: 2984: 2981: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2971: 2967: 2963: 2959: 2957:credentialed. 2955: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2946: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2914: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2895: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2886: 2882: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2859: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2849: 2845: 2828: 2824: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2798: 2792: 2786: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2761: 2758: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2741: 2735: 2729: 2724: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2714: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2685: 2679: 2673: 2668: 2667: 2663: 2657: 2651: 2643: 2639: 2635: 2631: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2611: 2608: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2567: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2550: 2546: 2540: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2520: 2516: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2505: 2501: 2495: 2489: 2485: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2474: 2470: 2457: 2453: 2447: 2441: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2393: 2387: 2381: 2379: 2375: 2369: 2362: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2326: 2312: 2308: 2302: 2296: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2268: 2262: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2242: 2238: 2232: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2211: 2210: 2208: 2202: 2196: 2192: 2190: 2186: 2180: 2174: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2146: 2143: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2114: 2108: 2102: 2097: 2096: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2077: 2073: 2070:. And here: 2069: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2039: 2037: 2036: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2019: 2010: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1941: 1937: 1934: 1933: 1924: 1922: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1904: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1880: 1876: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1862:(2): 125–37. 1861: 1857: 1852: 1851: 1847: 1841: 1837: 1831: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1784: 1782: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1764: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1743: 1741: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1728: 1720: 1718: 1717: 1713: 1709: 1705: 1701: 1696: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1682: 1681: 1674: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1610: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1576: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1533: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1519: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1466: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1352: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1320: 1316: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1263: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1233: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1208: 1200: 1198: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1172: 1169:According to 1161: 1157: 1153: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1107: 1103: 1100: 1096: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1005: 1001: 1000: 999: 995: 991: 986: 985: 984: 980: 976: 972: 967: 966: 965: 961: 957: 953: 949: 945: 942: 941: 936: 932: 931: 930: 926: 922: 917: 916: 915: 911: 907: 903: 899: 895: 891: 887: 883: 879: 875: 874: 873: 870: 866: 862: 861: 860: 859: 855: 849: 839: 836: 832: 827: 826: 825: 821: 817: 812: 811: 810: 809: 806: 802: 798: 794: 790: 782: 770: 766: 762: 758: 754: 753: 752: 748: 744: 739: 738: 737: 733: 729: 725: 721: 720: 719: 716: 711: 710: 709: 705: 701: 697: 696: 695: 694: 691: 687: 676: 672: 668: 663: 660: 658: 654: 650: 645: 644: 643: 639: 635: 631: 627: 625: 621: 617: 613: 609: 607: 603: 599: 595: 591: 590: 589: 585: 581: 576: 572: 568: 567: 566: 565: 561: 557: 553: 548: 546: 541: 537: 529: 523: 519: 515: 511: 507: 503: 502: 501: 497: 493: 489: 485: 484: 483: 482: 478: 474: 470: 462: 452: 448: 444: 440: 437: 435: 431: 427: 423: 419: 415: 413: 409: 405: 401: 400: 399: 395: 391: 387: 383: 379: 378: 377: 373: 369: 365: 362: 359: 356: 352: 348: 344: 343: 342: 341: 330: 327: 323: 322: 321: 317: 313: 309: 308: 307: 304: 300: 299: 298: 297: 296: 295: 290: 286: 282: 278: 274: 272: 268: 264: 260: 258: 254: 250: 246: 242: 238: 234: 233: 232: 228: 224: 220: 216: 214: 210: 206: 202: 201: 200: 199: 195: 191: 182: 176: 172: 168: 164: 160: 156: 152: 149: 148: 147: 146: 143: 139: 135: 131: 127: 123: 122: 121: 120: 116: 112: 108: 106: 101: 97: 94: 92: 87: 79: 73: 70: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5601: 5532: 5528: 5517: 5513: 5509: 5505: 5501: 5497: 5493: 5487: 5452: 5379: 5356: 5317: 5289: 5284: 5277: 5274: 5255: 5235: 5229: 5084: 5080: 5004: 4960: 4939:POV language 4920: 4916: 4912: 4890: 4864: 4860: 4855: 4806: 4780:this version 4757: 4677: 4660:suggested) ( 4639:(in German). 4631: 4615: 4595: 4571: 4544: 4490: 4486: 4460: 4393:. Thanks. -- 4390: 4365: 4343: 4134: 4110:suggested) ( 4083:cite journal 4074: 4046: 4024: 4017:. Retrieved 4003: 3993:suggested) ( 3966:cite journal 3957: 3929: 3906:suggested) ( 3879:cite journal 3870: 3858: 3854: 3812:suggested) ( 3773:cite journal 3764: 3736: 3732: 3700:Cite error: 3682: 3626: 3603: 3598:to take it. 3535:Acupuncture 3479: 3475: 3461:suggested) ( 3446:cite journal 3433:(3): 403–7. 3430: 3426: 3423: 3398: 3380: 3376: 3342: 3338: 3317:(1): 26–30. 3314: 3310: 3286: 3282: 3257: 3253: 3228: 3224: 3199: 3195: 3186: 3106: 3077: 3055:WP:SECONDARY 3042: 2893: 2880: 2857: 2841: 2814: 2806: 2749: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2669: 2647: 2612: 2609: 2605: 2466: 2432:WP:SECONDARY 2423: 2419: 2401: 2330: 2276: 2213:overview"?-- 2195:whitewashing 2098: 2093: 2049: 2043: 2022: 2017: 2015: 1980: 1978: 1946: 1935: 1930: 1928: 1909: 1887: 1883: 1859: 1855: 1848:Reference 78 1788: 1765: 1747: 1724: 1697: 1683: 1679: 1678: 1644: 1523: 1510: 1492: 1462: 1421: 1345: 1253:WP:INTEGRITY 1204: 1179: 1168: 1147:WP:EVENTCRIT 1101: 1098: 1093: 1010: 1006: 1003: 970: 938: 935:WP:SECONDARY 902:WP:SECONDARY 877: 844: 800: 786: 683: 574: 549: 542: 536:Edzard Ernst 533: 466: 422:WP:SECONDARY 354: 244: 240: 186: 163:dry needling 150: 129: 125: 102: 98: 95: 90: 85: 83: 60: 43: 37: 5506:more likely 5374:particular. 5085:discredited 4961:discredited 4887:old version 4718:violation. 4465:WP:COATRACK 4443:WP:COATRACK 4417:WP:LOCALCON 4142:discredited 4138:discredited 4104:|coauthors= 4019:26 November 3987:|coauthors= 3900:|coauthors= 3806:|coauthors= 3606:A1candidate 3339:Der Schmerz 2983:violated RS 2721:Your using 2406:A1candidate 2101:2013 source 2054:A1candidate 2018:pointed out 1985:A1candidate 1947:pointed out 1936:pointed out 1932:Der Spiegel 1925:Pointed out 1884:Der Schmerz 1806:A1candidate 1585:A1candidate 1561:The entire 1209:has removed 1184:this change 1029:WP:COATHOOK 952:not notable 789:A1candidate 490:article? -- 36:This is an 5629:Mallexikon 5555:Mallexikon 5537:Mallexikon 5447:WP:PRIMARY 5388:Mallexikon 5340:Mallexikon 5262:Mallexikon 5231:Mallexikon 5149:Mallexikon 5094:Mallexikon 5089:WP:MEDDATE 5049:Mallexikon 5045:WP:MEDDATE 5023:WP:MEDDATE 5009:Mallexikon 4965:Mallexikon 4925:Mallexikon 4873:Mallexikon 4824:Mallexikon 4801:Mallexikon 4698:Mallexikon 4578:Mallexikon 4495:Mallexikon 4447:Mallexikon 4395:Mallexikon 4280:Mallexikon 4244:Mallexikon 4209:phlogiston 4180:Mallexikon 4145:superseded 3683:References 3509:Treatment 3383:(3): 355. 2930:Mallexikon 2898:Mallexikon 2866:Mallexikon 2819:Mallexikon 2771:Mallexikon 2709:Mallexikon 2630:Mallexikon 2585:Mallexikon 2402:everything 2351:Mallexikon 2349:Agreed. -- 2281:Mallexikon 2277:additional 2215:Mallexikon 2159:Mallexikon 2124:Mallexikon 2052:tagging? - 1983:neutral. - 1966:Mallexikon 1945:The words 1630:Mallexikon 1567:WP:SOAPBOX 1546:Mallexikon 1496:Mallexikon 1475:Mallexikon 1390:Mallexikon 1328:Mallexikon 1302:Mallexikon 1271:Mallexikon 1239:Mallexikon 1218:Mallexikon 1214:the source 1207:Mallexikon 1152:Mallexikon 1143:WP:LASTING 1116:Mallexikon 1095:Mallexikon 1015:Mallexikon 975:Mallexikon 947:SECONDARY. 921:Mallexikon 886:Mallexikon 853:reply here 816:Mallexikon 797:WP:MEDDATE 743:Mallexikon 649:Mallexikon 580:Mallexikon 492:Mallexikon 390:Mallexikon 249:Mallexikon 217:This is a 190:Mallexikon 159:this (pdf) 134:Mallexikon 5652:QuackGuru 5611:QuackGuru 5172:QuackGuru 5163:consensus 5129:QuackGuru 5124:WP:LISTEN 5064:QuackGuru 5028:QuackGuru 4988:QuackGuru 4977:Here are 4944:QuackGuru 4896:QuackGuru 4859:decision 4837:QuackGuru 4785:QuackGuru 4721:QuackGuru 4716:WP:WEIGHT 4656:ignored ( 4645:cite book 4552:QuackGuru 4545:There is 4514:QuackGuru 4470:QuackGuru 4426:QuackGuru 4373:QuackGuru 4370:deleted. 4351:QuackGuru 4263:QuackGuru 4156:specifics 4106:ignored ( 3989:ignored ( 3902:ignored ( 3888:|journal= 3824:ignored ( 3808:ignored ( 3794:|journal= 3708:help page 3646:QuackGuru 3621:WP:MEDMOS 3457:ignored ( 3419:QuackGuru 3059:WP:WEIGHT 2988:QuackGuru 2811:WP:WEIGHT 2790:QuackGuru 2733:QuackGuru 2677:QuackGuru 2655:QuackGuru 2538:QuackGuru 2493:QuackGuru 2445:QuackGuru 2436:WP:WEIGHT 2385:QuackGuru 2367:QuackGuru 2300:QuackGuru 2260:QuackGuru 2230:QuackGuru 2200:QuackGuru 2178:QuackGuru 2106:QuackGuru 2027:QuackGuru 2025:neutral. 1951:QuackGuru 1912:QuackGuru 1829:QuackGuru 1791:QuackGuru 1772:QuackGuru 1754:QuackGuru 1731:QuackGuru 1708:QuackGuru 1700:WP:WEIGHT 1686:QuackGuru 1616:QuackGuru 1599:QuackGuru 1571:QuackGuru 1569:article. 1528:QuackGuru 1408:QuackGuru 1382:WP:FRINGE 1315:WP:FRINGE 1298:WP:FRINGE 1285:WP:FRINGE 1188:QuackGuru 1176:WP:WEIGHT 1069:QuackGuru 1051:QuackGuru 1033:QuackGuru 990:QuackGuru 956:QuackGuru 906:QuackGuru 876:No, its' 787:I notice 761:QuackGuru 728:QuackGuru 700:QuackGuru 667:QuackGuru 634:QuackGuru 628:This was 616:QuackGuru 598:QuackGuru 556:QuackGuru 534:In 2006, 514:QuackGuru 473:QuackGuru 443:QuackGuru 426:QuackGuru 404:QuackGuru 368:QuackGuru 312:QuackGuru 281:QuackGuru 263:QuackGuru 237:WP:MEDREV 223:QuackGuru 205:QuackGuru 93:points.) 72:Archive 3 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 5081:outdated 4917:does not 4368:nonsense 4310:Middle 8 4214:Middle 8 4124:Results 4108:|author= 4071:19160338 3991:|author= 3954:19160338 3904:|author= 3810:|author= 3761:20189001 3594:did not 3524:Migraine 3438:24024341 3358:19557440 3330:19369191 3302:17893311 3273:16646722 3244:14629854 3223:Trial". 3215:17034279 3153:Middle 8 3080:include 3053:against 2966:Middle 8 2844:WP:MEDRS 2674:again. 2672:restored 2650:restored 2484:nonsense 2424:terrible 2255:template 2253:but the 2076:Middle 8 2016:The BBC 2002:WP:CLAIM 1942:anymore. 1903:16145742 1875:16420542 1649:Middle 8 1430:Middle 8 1404:restored 1366:Middle 8 1171:WP:MEDRS 1065:restored 882:WP:MEDRS 865:WP:MEDRS 831:WP:MEDRS 793:WP:MEDRS 571:WP:MEDRS 386:WP:MEDRS 167:Middle 8 111:Middle 8 5572:MrBill3 5525:MrBill3 5472:MrBill3 5318:summary 5316:into a 4913:sourced 4865:because 4861:because 4678:primary 4346:deleted 4295:MrBill3 4229:MrBill3 4195:MrBill3 4164:MrBill3 4159:details 4063:3099266 3946:3099266 3822:|month= 3753:2830903 3704:shenker 3667:MrBill3 3368:Alexbrn 3082:general 3061:. Your 2945:Alexbrn 2913:Alexbrn 2885:Alexbrn 2848:Alexbrn 2701:results 2615:MrBill3 2571:MrBill3 2515:MrBill3 2334:MrBill3 2173:deleted 2142:Alexbrn 2040:Tagging 2006:Alexbrn 1704:WP:LEAD 1515:Alexbrn 1465:Alexbrn 1364:.) -- 1362:massage 1351:Alexbrn 1342:WP:FT/N 1319:Alexbrn 1289:Alexbrn 1262:Alexbrn 1222:Alexbrn 1134:Alexbrn 1106:Alexbrn 1102:notable 1007:notable 869:Alexbrn 835:Alexbrn 805:Alexbrn 801:genuine 715:Alexbrn 690:Alexbrn 594:deleted 467:Is the 326:Alexbrn 303:Alexbrn 39:archive 5627:Ok. -- 5500:- and 5460:(talk) 5364:(talk) 5297:(talk) 5126:ING. 4981:. The 4814:(talk) 4765:(talk) 4603:(talk) 4541:OR tag 4509:set-up 4415:. See 4092:|date= 3975:|date= 3872:.133). 3782:|date= 3634:(talk) 3596:comply 3575:29.1% 3572:27.4% 3558:51.0% 3555:44.2% 3541:53.1% 3538:47.6% 3487:(talk) 3071:WP:CON 2469:aprock 1426:use it 165:). -- 5598:Quote 5518:de-qi 5510:A-Shi 5502:de-qi 5498:de-qi 5494:a lot 5380:would 4637:(PDF) 4366:More 3581:N.A. 3517:Knee 3067:WP:RS 2964:. -- 1645:still 1346:quote 1180:event 130:de-qi 126:could 86:which 16:< 5658:talk 5643:lead 5633:talk 5617:talk 5576:talk 5559:talk 5541:talk 5529:more 5476:talk 5392:talk 5344:talk 5331:and 5266:talk 5178:talk 5153:talk 5135:talk 5098:talk 5070:talk 5053:talk 5034:talk 5013:talk 4994:talk 4969:talk 4963:. -- 4950:talk 4929:talk 4902:talk 4877:talk 4871:. -- 4869:this 4843:talk 4791:talk 4727:talk 4702:talk 4662:help 4582:talk 4576:. -- 4558:talk 4520:talk 4499:talk 4476:talk 4451:talk 4432:talk 4399:talk 4379:talk 4357:talk 4314:talk 4299:talk 4284:talk 4269:talk 4248:talk 4233:talk 4218:talk 4199:talk 4184:talk 4168:talk 4112:help 4096:help 4068:PMID 4021:2013 3995:help 3979:help 3951:PMID 3908:help 3892:help 3833:link 3826:help 3814:help 3798:help 3786:help 3758:PMID 3671:talk 3652:talk 3619:Per 3610:talk 3578:40% 3564:27% 3561:39% 3547:33% 3544:47% 3463:help 3435:PMID 3404:ISBN 3355:PMID 3327:PMID 3299:PMID 3270:PMID 3241:PMID 3212:PMID 3157:talk 3063:edit 2994:talk 2980:edit 2970:talk 2934:talk 2924:and 2902:talk 2881:like 2870:talk 2823:talk 2815:tend 2807:also 2796:talk 2775:talk 2739:talk 2713:talk 2683:talk 2661:talk 2634:talk 2619:talk 2589:talk 2575:talk 2544:talk 2519:talk 2499:talk 2488:here 2473:talk 2451:talk 2420:tons 2410:talk 2391:talk 2373:talk 2355:talk 2338:talk 2306:talk 2285:talk 2266:talk 2236:talk 2219:talk 2206:talk 2184:talk 2171:You 2163:talk 2128:talk 2112:talk 2080:talk 2074:. -- 2058:talk 2050:mass 2031:talk 1989:talk 1970:talk 1955:talk 1916:talk 1900:PMID 1872:PMID 1835:talk 1824:lead 1810:talk 1795:talk 1776:talk 1758:talk 1735:talk 1712:talk 1702:and 1690:talk 1653:talk 1634:talk 1620:talk 1603:talk 1589:talk 1575:talk 1550:talk 1532:talk 1500:talk 1479:talk 1434:talk 1412:talk 1394:talk 1388:. -- 1370:talk 1332:talk 1306:talk 1275:talk 1243:talk 1192:talk 1156:talk 1120:talk 1073:talk 1055:talk 1037:talk 1019:talk 994:talk 979:talk 960:talk 933:See 925:talk 910:talk 890:talk 820:talk 765:talk 747:talk 732:talk 704:talk 671:talk 653:talk 638:talk 620:talk 602:talk 584:talk 560:talk 518:talk 496:talk 477:talk 447:talk 430:talk 408:talk 394:talk 372:talk 316:talk 285:talk 275:The 267:talk 253:talk 227:talk 209:talk 194:talk 171:talk 155:this 138:talk 115:talk 91:ashi 5649:. 5533:not 5504:is 5025:. 4891:all 4856:how 4834:. 4491:you 4423:. 4348:. 4059:PMC 4051:doi 4013:BBC 3942:PMC 3934:doi 3863:doi 3749:PMC 3741:doi 3385:doi 3347:doi 3319:doi 3291:doi 3287:167 3262:doi 3233:doi 3204:doi 3084:or 2954:FJC 2858:you 2787:. 2750:one 2730:. 2490:. 2442:. 2103:. 2023:not 1892:doi 1864:doi 1860:259 1820:tag 1420:If 878:you 575:can 539:--> 508:to 105:IOM 5661:) 5635:) 5620:) 5606:." 5578:) 5561:) 5543:) 5478:) 5394:) 5386:-- 5346:) 5327:, 5312:). 5268:) 5181:) 5155:) 5138:) 5100:) 5073:) 5055:) 5037:) 5015:) 4997:) 4971:) 4953:) 4931:) 4905:) 4879:) 4846:) 4794:) 4730:) 4704:) 4683:). 4649:: 4647:}} 4643:{{ 4627:: 4584:) 4561:) 4547:OR 4523:) 4501:) 4479:) 4453:) 4435:) 4401:) 4382:) 4360:) 4316:) 4301:) 4286:) 4272:) 4250:) 4242:-- 4235:) 4220:) 4201:) 4186:) 4170:) 4100:; 4087:: 4085:}} 4081:{{ 4073:. 4066:. 4057:. 4045:. 4033:^ 4023:. 4011:. 3983:; 3970:: 3968:}} 3964:{{ 3956:. 3949:. 3940:. 3928:. 3916:^ 3896:; 3883:: 3881:}} 3877:{{ 3869:. 3859:46 3857:. 3853:. 3841:^ 3818:; 3802:; 3790:; 3777:: 3775:}} 3771:{{ 3763:. 3756:. 3747:. 3737:37 3735:. 3731:. 3717:^ 3710:). 3690:^ 3673:) 3655:) 3612:) 3473:) 3450:: 3448:}} 3444:{{ 3431:33 3429:. 3381:21 3379:. 3353:. 3343:23 3341:. 3325:. 3315:27 3313:. 3297:. 3285:. 3268:. 3258:12 3256:. 3239:. 3227:. 3210:. 3200:12 3198:. 3159:) 2997:) 2972:) 2936:) 2904:) 2872:) 2825:) 2799:) 2777:) 2762:, 2759:, 2742:) 2715:) 2686:) 2664:) 2636:) 2621:) 2591:) 2577:) 2547:) 2521:) 2502:) 2475:) 2454:) 2412:) 2394:) 2376:) 2357:) 2340:) 2309:) 2287:) 2269:) 2239:) 2221:) 2209:) 2187:) 2165:) 2130:) 2115:) 2082:) 2060:) 2033:) 1991:) 1981:is 1972:) 1957:) 1918:) 1898:. 1888:19 1886:. 1870:. 1858:. 1838:) 1812:) 1797:) 1778:) 1770:. 1760:) 1737:) 1729:. 1714:) 1692:) 1655:) 1636:) 1622:) 1605:) 1591:) 1577:) 1552:) 1534:) 1513:. 1502:) 1481:) 1436:) 1414:) 1396:) 1372:) 1334:) 1308:) 1277:) 1245:) 1194:) 1186:. 1158:) 1132:. 1122:) 1099:is 1075:) 1057:) 1039:) 1021:) 1004:is 996:) 981:) 962:) 937:: 927:) 912:) 892:) 822:) 767:) 759:. 749:) 734:) 706:) 673:) 655:) 640:) 632:. 622:) 610:I 604:) 586:) 562:) 520:) 512:. 498:) 479:) 449:) 432:) 410:) 396:) 374:) 318:) 287:) 269:) 255:) 229:) 221:? 211:) 196:) 188:-- 173:) 140:) 117:) 5655:( 5631:( 5614:( 5574:( 5557:( 5539:( 5523:@ 5484:@ 5474:( 5390:( 5342:( 5264:( 5175:( 5151:( 5132:( 5096:( 5067:( 5051:( 5031:( 5011:( 4991:( 4967:( 4947:( 4927:( 4899:( 4875:( 4840:( 4788:( 4724:( 4700:( 4664:) 4580:( 4555:( 4517:( 4497:( 4473:( 4449:( 4429:( 4397:( 4376:( 4354:( 4312:( 4297:( 4282:( 4266:( 4246:( 4231:( 4216:( 4197:( 4182:( 4166:( 4114:) 4098:) 4094:( 4053:: 3997:) 3981:) 3977:( 3936:: 3910:) 3894:) 3890:( 3865:: 3835:) 3828:) 3816:) 3800:) 3796:( 3788:) 3784:( 3743:: 3669:( 3649:( 3608:( 3604:- 3467:( 3465:) 3440:. 3411:. 3391:. 3387:: 3360:. 3349:: 3332:. 3321:: 3304:. 3293:: 3275:. 3264:: 3246:. 3235:: 3229:9 3217:. 3206:: 3155:( 3073:. 2991:( 2968:( 2932:( 2900:( 2868:( 2821:( 2793:( 2773:( 2756:( 2736:( 2711:( 2680:( 2658:( 2632:( 2617:( 2587:( 2573:( 2541:( 2517:( 2496:( 2471:( 2448:( 2408:( 2388:( 2370:( 2353:( 2336:( 2303:( 2283:( 2263:( 2233:( 2217:( 2203:( 2181:( 2161:( 2126:( 2109:( 2078:( 2056:( 2029:( 1987:( 1968:( 1953:( 1914:( 1905:. 1894:: 1877:. 1866:: 1832:( 1808:( 1793:( 1774:( 1756:( 1733:( 1710:( 1688:( 1651:( 1632:( 1618:( 1601:( 1587:( 1573:( 1548:( 1530:( 1498:( 1477:( 1432:( 1410:( 1392:( 1368:( 1330:( 1304:( 1273:( 1241:( 1190:( 1154:( 1118:( 1071:( 1053:( 1035:( 1017:( 992:( 977:( 958:( 923:( 908:( 888:( 850:| 818:( 763:( 745:( 730:( 702:( 669:( 651:( 636:( 618:( 600:( 582:( 558:( 516:( 494:( 475:( 445:( 428:( 406:( 392:( 370:( 353:( 314:( 283:( 265:( 251:( 225:( 207:( 192:( 169:( 136:( 113:( 50:.

Index

Talk:German acupuncture trials
archive
current talk page
Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
IOM

Middle 8
talk
22:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Mallexikon
talk
04:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
this
this (pdf)
dry needling
Middle 8
talk
10:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Mallexikon
talk
03:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
QuackGuru
talk
02:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
secondary source
QuackGuru
talk
02:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑