158:
692:
a meaningful randomized clinical trial or group design. It would not have been feasible, nor ethical, because these participants had already gone through many other treatments without success and SIBIS was the treatment of "last resort". They had a ran 41, 84, 47, 460, and 115 session with each respective participant, and demonstrated a functional relation between using SIBIS and levels of head-directed self-injury 25 times (9, 7, 3, 3, and 3 demonstrations of functional control for each respective participant).
374:
356:
142:
931:
spirit of MEDRS, while allaying
Wolololol's concerns to have something in the article that touches on the possibility of effectiveness. As long as we make clear the numbers involved and the primary nature of the studies, can we leave the interested reader to investigate the sources themselves and reach their own conclusions? If anyone feels that my efforts are not acceptable, please feel free to revert me, in whole or in part. I'm not in any way attached to my wording. --
891:, but did not work for these participants. The authors demonstrated a functional relation between SIBIS and levels of SIB 25 times in those participants. This is considered extremely high-quality research. See citations 1 and 2 from my post above. This wasn't a case study, this wasn't a pre-post design, this wasn't an A-B design. There was a ton of experimental control. But we can have it your way, I'll cite from a textbook written in 2009.
214:
868:
the SIBIS". I'm sorry, but it just isn't a good idea to take the authors' word on that the work is "top quality" - we really need a review where other independent authors make that sort of determination for us. If this device is actually effective, it will have been discussed in an independent review sometime in the last 25 years since the primary study was done.
431:
266:
245:
276:
702:
691:
page, among other experts on methodological designs. The experimenters included 5 participants with intellectual disabilities that engaged in head-targeted self-injurious behavior - and I need to be note that this is not a population-behavior combination that is common to the point where you can run
867:
You can't use a single report on five people from 1990 to baldly claim that the SIBIS device is beneficial. You're going to need to find a good quality source that reviews the field and independently assesses the strength of such claims before you can use language like "demonstrate the efficacy of
930:
Further: given the edits that have taken place today, I'll suggest a compromise. Perhaps we can mention the Salvey 2004 case report as an example of the small amount of research available. If we don't endorse any claims of efficacy in
Knowledge (XXG)'s voice, I think we may be able to respect the
906:
Absolute illiteracy. You think a single twenty-five year old case study on five subjects, which has no corroboration whatsoever, is "considered extremely high-quality research". It might be on the planet where you're living, but not here on Earth. That is clearly a case report; as I've already
886:
It actually won't be, because there is an agenda against using devices that deliver contingent electric shock, like SIBIS, from being approved by IRBs in medical research. You also seem to be missing that those 5 cases are very hard to come by, they (a) had developmental disabilities, (b) had
660:, with regard to WP:MEDDATE, I was talking about the part of it that states, "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas with little progress or where few reviews are published."
707:
I see no reason to cite the textbook when we could just, in two or three sentences, summarize the study. The
Linsched et al. (1990) study should be on this page, as is it pertinent information, and we should be spreading information on Knowledge (XXG), not hiding it.
911:
You're right about one thing though: there are virtually no studies examining this device and no third-party analysis of its effectiveness. So you want to ignore our agreed standards of evidence for a treatment that has no independent evidence of its efficacy
461:
Hey everyone, I would like to start editing this page to provide a more comprehensive overview of SIBIS. TheAtomicBen and I would be editing this page as part of the APS Knowledge (XXG) Initiative. We have some material written up if anyone is interested.
686:
I would like to add evidence for SIBIS from a time-series replication design (also known as a single-case research design or a single-subject experimental design) of top quality according to the authors that determined the content on the
566:
135:
441:
150:
613:
that looks at just one case. That's simply far too weak a set of sources to base any claim of effectiveness, and without stronger sourcing that claim needs to be exorcised from the article. I'll take a scalpel to it in a moment.
628:
Update: see if that's any better. If the claims of medical effectiveness are no longer a concern, then the primary sources would seem to be usable to talk about the device's design, size, intended purpose, etc.
44:
171:
605:
section makes claims of efficacy: "Researchers can attribute this success ..." as if it were in
Knowledge (XXG)'s voice. I have concerns with the two references used in that section: one is the
294:
184:
298:
799:
Horner, R; Carr, E; Halle, J; McGee, G; Odom, S; Wolery, M (2005). "The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education".
850:
Linsched, T; Iwata, Brian A; Ricketts, R; Williams, Don; Griffin, James (1990). "Clinical evaluation of the self-injurious behavior inhibiting system (SIBIS)".
483:
Linsched, T; Iwata, Brian A; Ricketts, R; Williams, Don; Griffin, James (1990). "Clinical evaluation of the self-injurious behavior inhibiting system (SIBIS)".
79:
338:
732:
Logan, L R; Hickman, R R; Harris, S R; Heriza, C B (2008). "Single-subject research design: recommendations for levels of evidence and quality rating".
988:
328:
24:
585:
It's an old primary source, probably usable for non-controversial statements that don't state or imply things about the effectiveness of the device.
1003:
998:
393:
85:
993:
983:
303:
191:
30:
389:
384:
361:
99:
289:
250:
104:
20:
198:
909:"Five cases involving the treatment of longstanding, severe, and previously unmanageable self-injurious behavior are presented."
74:
509:
225:
65:
887:
head-directed self-injurious behavior, and (c) had been exposed to a ton of other evidence-based practices to reduce it,
177:
437:
513:
548:
109:
699:
665:
609:
that examines just five cases and uses anecdotal follow-up data to reach its conclusions; and the other is the
126:
231:
213:
165:
696:
968:
940:
925:
900:
881:
717:
669:
638:
623:
594:
580:
560:
540:
517:
471:
467:
55:
964:
820:
753:
576:
70:
463:
528:
430:
896:
713:
661:
505:
956:
688:
869:
872:
is a good guide to what sort of sources are good for making claims of medical effectiveness. --
610:
590:
556:
536:
373:
355:
51:
960:
808:
741:
657:
572:
936:
921:
877:
836:
785:
769:
634:
619:
281:
892:
709:
606:
569:
497:
977:
745:
586:
552:
532:
812:
932:
917:
873:
630:
615:
271:
547:
I also think the title of this article is supposed to use lowercase, per
125:
265:
244:
301:. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at
141:
425:
207:
15:
293:, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the
568:?...(I think WP MEDDATE might be an issue with the article
392:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
527:. Are primary sources necessary in this case? Is there a
149:
481:
We have been discussing the use of this primary source "
914:
because there's no independent evidence of its efficacy
524:
197:
611:2004 "Contingent electric shock" research article
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
297:and that biomedical information in any article
916:. Have you any idea how ludicrous that is? --
907:pointed out to you, it begins with the words
295:Manual of Style for medicine-related articles
157:
8:
734:Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology
698:. It is mentioned in a few legal cases here
211:
350:
239:
701:, and it is mentioned in a textbook here
380:Self-Injurious Behavior Inhibiting System
304:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Medicine
25:Self-Injurious Behavior Inhibiting System
724:
352:
241:
889:which will succeed in most other cases
832:
828:
818:
781:
777:
765:
761:
751:
458:Injurious is my new favorite word. :3
402:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Disability
183:
7:
852:Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
485:Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
313:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Medicine
287:This article is within the scope of
525:not a lot of sources in the article
440:on 4 September 2015. The result of
230:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
695:The article can be accessed here.
388:. For more information, visit the
14:
682:Adding empirical evidence to page
50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
989:Low-importance medicine articles
746:10.1111/j.1469-8749.2007.02005.x
429:
372:
354:
299:use high-quality medical sources
274:
264:
243:
212:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
1004:WikiProject Disability articles
999:Start-Class Disability articles
436:This article was nominated for
405:Template:WikiProject Disability
333:This article has been rated as
994:All WikiProject Medicine pages
1:
984:Start-Class medicine articles
316:Template:WikiProject Medicine
42:Put new text under old text.
941:19:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
926:19:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
901:01:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
882:23:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
718:18:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
670:07:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
639:18:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
624:18:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
595:13:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
581:12:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
561:06:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
541:06:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
518:05:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
472:18:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
969:14:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
1020:
813:10.1177/001440290507100203
607:1990 "Clinical evaluation"
339:project's importance scale
367:
332:
259:
238:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
601:The problem is that the
382:is within the scope of
385:WikiProject Disability
220:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
224:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
123:Find medical sources:
100:Neutral point of view
801:Exceptional Children
523:There currently are
290:WikiProject Medicine
105:No original research
496:People's thoughts?
408:Disability articles
689:levels of evidence
226:content assessment
129:
86:dispute resolution
47:
957:a relevant source
776:More than one of
549:WP:Article titles
452:
451:
424:
423:
420:
419:
416:
415:
349:
348:
345:
344:
319:medicine articles
206:
205:
128:Source guidelines
127:
66:Assume good faith
43:
1011:
860:
859:
847:
841:
840:
834:
830:
826:
824:
816:
796:
790:
789:
783:
779:
773:
767:
763:
759:
757:
749:
729:
502:
492:
433:
426:
410:
409:
406:
403:
400:
376:
369:
368:
358:
351:
321:
320:
317:
314:
311:
284:
279:
278:
277:
268:
261:
260:
255:
247:
240:
223:
217:
216:
208:
202:
201:
187:
161:
153:
145:
131:
95:Article policies
16:
1019:
1018:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1010:
1009:
1008:
974:
973:
953:
864:
863:
849:
848:
844:
827:
817:
798:
797:
793:
775:
760:
750:
731:
730:
726:
684:
498:
482:
479:
477:Primary sources
456:
407:
404:
401:
398:
397:
318:
315:
312:
309:
308:
282:Medicine portal
280:
275:
273:
253:
221:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1017:
1015:
1007:
1006:
1001:
996:
991:
986:
976:
975:
972:
971:
952:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
928:
862:
861:
842:
791:
723:
722:
683:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
662:Flyer22 Reborn
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
603:Specifications
599:
583:
565:use textbooks
544:
543:
478:
475:
455:
453:
450:
449:
442:the discussion
434:
422:
421:
418:
417:
414:
413:
411:
377:
365:
364:
359:
347:
346:
343:
342:
335:Low-importance
331:
325:
324:
322:
286:
285:
269:
257:
256:
254:Low‑importance
248:
236:
235:
229:
218:
204:
203:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1016:
1005:
1002:
1000:
997:
995:
992:
990:
987:
985:
982:
981:
979:
970:
966:
962:
958:
955:
954:
950:
942:
938:
934:
929:
927:
923:
919:
915:
910:
905:
904:
902:
898:
894:
890:
885:
884:
883:
879:
875:
871:
866:
865:
857:
853:
846:
843:
838:
829:|access-date=
822:
814:
810:
806:
802:
795:
792:
787:
771:
762:|access-date=
755:
747:
743:
739:
735:
728:
725:
721:
719:
715:
711:
705:
703:
700:
697:
693:
690:
681:
671:
667:
663:
659:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
640:
636:
632:
627:
626:
625:
621:
617:
612:
608:
604:
600:
598:
597:
596:
592:
588:
584:
582:
578:
574:
570:
567:
564:
563:
562:
558:
554:
550:
546:
545:
542:
538:
534:
530:
526:
522:
521:
520:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
501:
494:
490:
486:
476:
474:
473:
469:
465:
459:
454:
447:
443:
439:
435:
432:
428:
427:
412:
395:
391:
387:
386:
381:
378:
375:
371:
370:
366:
363:
360:
357:
353:
340:
336:
330:
327:
326:
323:
306:
305:
300:
296:
292:
291:
283:
272:
270:
267:
263:
262:
258:
252:
249:
246:
242:
237:
233:
227:
219:
215:
210:
209:
200:
196:
193:
190:
186:
182:
179:
176:
173:
172:ScienceDirect
170:
167:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
137:
134:
130:
124:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
913:
908:
888:
855:
851:
845:
821:cite journal
804:
800:
794:
754:cite journal
737:
733:
727:
706:
694:
685:
602:
499:
495:
488:
484:
480:
460:
457:
445:
390:project page
383:
379:
334:
302:
288:
232:WikiProjects
194:
188:
180:
174:
168:
162:
154:
146:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
961:Wikiman2718
858:(1): 53–78.
807:: 165-179.
784:specified (
658:Ozzie10aaaa
573:Ozzie10aaaa
531:exception?
491:(1): 53–78.
464:SIBISEditor
222:Start-class
31:not a forum
978:Categories
903:Wolololol
740:: 99-103.
720:Wolololol
529:WP:MEDDATE
399:Disability
394:discussion
362:Disability
893:Wolololol
831:requires
764:requires
710:Wolololol
500:Doc James
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
870:WP:MEDRS
510:contribs
438:deletion
310:Medicine
251:Medicine
178:Springer
143:Cochrane
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
778:|pages=
587:Alexbrn
553:Flyer22
533:Flyer22
337:on the
951:Source
782:|page=
228:scale.
166:OpenMD
136:PubMed
933:RexxS
918:RexxS
874:RexxS
833:|url=
766:|url=
631:RexxS
616:RexxS
514:email
192:Wiley
84:Seek
965:talk
959:. --
937:talk
922:talk
897:talk
878:talk
837:help
786:help
780:and
770:help
714:talk
666:talk
635:talk
620:talk
591:talk
577:talk
557:talk
537:talk
506:talk
468:talk
446:keep
444:was
185:Trip
159:Gale
151:DOAJ
73:and
809:doi
742:doi
704:.
571:)--
329:Low
199:TWL
980::
967:)
939:)
924:)
899:)
880:)
856:23
854:.
825::
823:}}
819:{{
805:71
803:.
774:;
758::
756:}}
752:{{
738:58
736:.
716:)
668:)
637:)
629:--
622:)
614:--
593:)
579:)
559:)
551:.
539:)
516:)
512:·
508:·
493:"
489:23
487:.
470:)
54:;
963:(
935:(
920:(
895:(
876:(
839:)
835:(
815:.
811::
788:)
772:)
768:(
748:.
744::
712:(
664:(
633:(
618:(
589:(
575:(
555:(
535:(
504:(
466:(
448:.
396:.
341:.
307:.
234::
195:·
189:·
181:·
175:·
169:·
163:·
155:·
147:·
139:·
133:·
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
