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as something historically relevent (history of science and public health policy); surely we can note where it's been superseded?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*Â ?
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 (3Â 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:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.