![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
On the basis of this credulous website: [1], I believe that the reliability of his book is fairly well impeached. jps ( talk) 17:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
jps and User:Middle 8: in his test edit of today, QuackGuru has reintroduced Howick for this content "A 2011 assessment of the trials judged that since the sham acupuncture was not a well-designed placebo, they were unlikely to have emitted clinically significant findings", without making clear that this is a pseudoscience source, and also put it in, next to Novella as a source for statements about the overall outcome. Jytdog ( talk) 17:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
[4].
This has got to be one of the worst sources I've read in a long time and really should not be used in this article. The source waxes eloquent about acupuncture topics without actually dealing with the outcomes of the trials. It is a terrible article and should not be used as a source for anything as they obviously don't get the basics of the story right at all and spend most of the rest of the article shilling for acupuncture. This would be the equivalent to a public relations churn. Let's remove it.
jps ( talk) 12:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Of possible use: "Fake acupuncture works nearly as well as the real thing for low back pain..."
"Dr. Heinz Endres of Ruhr University Bochum in Bochum, Germany, said... [p]ositive expectations the patients held about acupuncture — or negative expectations about conventional medicine — also could have led to a placebo effect and explain the findings."
[5] jps ( talk) 13:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Ya'all had an RfC above on the level detail in the article. Here is the version cited by QG when he set up the RfC as his preferred example of containing " fewer low-level details". However the current article lacks the detail found even there. I think the version that QG proposed is reasonable and it was supported in the summary of the RfC. And I don't see any reasoned discussion of why the level of detail was moved yet lower. I intend to restore the RfC-validated level of detail. Objections? If so, they should be based on changes to PAG or new sources that emerged subsequent to the RfC, or somebody should explicitly say "I changed my mind" and give reasons... Jytdog ( talk) 13:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
You're becoming increasingly volatile in your talkpage discussions. Can you please calm down? QG posted a very short sentence that referenced a previous discussion, and you're accusing him of "changing your mind" on that basis? Perhaps you should consider taking a break from this rather oppressively hot kitchen rather than setting more fires. jps ( talk) 17:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
In Science Based Medicine: "Verum (or true) acupuncture and sham acupuncture treatments are no different in decreasing pain levels," says Steven Novella, referring to GERAC. [6]
jps ( talk) 05:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Novella, referencing GERAC in Skeptical Inquirer Volume 35.4, July/August 2011:
"Some trials also control for the variable of needle insertion, using placebo or simulated acupuncture in which opaque sheaths are used and a dull needle is pressed against the skin when the plunger is depressed, but there is no skin penetration. Alternatively, toothpicks have been used to simulate the sensation of acupuncture without going through the skin. Again, when this variable is isolated, it turns out that simulated acupuncture works as well as verum acupuncture. This is true of the largest and best trials of acupuncture for the most common uses, such as reducing back pain (Haake et al. 2007) and treating nausea (Enblom et al. 2011).
"Therefore, if we define acupuncture as using needle insertion to stimulate acupuncture points, and the best scientific evidence shows that acupuncture points do not exist (it doesn’t matter where you stick the needles) and needle insertion has no effect (it doesn’t matter whether or not you stick the needles), then does acupuncture work? I think the only reasonable answer is no; there is no reality to acupuncture or the concepts upon which it is based."
Note that (Haake et al. 2007) is GERAC.
jps (
talk) 05:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
::Thanks for bringing up this interesting debate. Reading that blog post, it says that "About a year ago the editors of Anesthesia & Analgesia solicited a written debate on whether or not acupuncture is effective or simply an elaborate placebo. Four experienced acupuncture researchers agreed to write the pro-acupuncture article, Wang, Harris, Lin and Gan. They asked David Colquhoun to write the con position, and David asked me to write it with him (which, of course, I enthusiastically agreed to do). The article is fortunately published in open access, and so I can reprint it here (full article is below). What I think David and I convincingly demonstrated is that, according to the usual standards of medicine, acupuncture does not work." So, if we are going to use the Novella article from this journal, then we can also use the Wang, Harris, Lin and Gan article?
Jytdog (
talk)
10:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I included material from the Birch source to present the acu-proponents criticism of GERAC: it centers mainly around alleged inadequate training of the participating acupuncturists, and a "too powerful" placebo. In order to put this criticism into perspective, I think it is important to include some information about participating acupuncturists' training and sham acupuncture design in our set-up section. -- Mallexikon ( talk) 08:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Can you workshop here what your proposed inclusion would look like? If it is properly weighted so we it's clear that it's the opinion of pseudoscientists, then we might be able to move forward. Is there any evidence that the competency level of acupuncturists affects outcomes? I haven't seen any independent evidence to that effect, just complaining that is done in WP:FRINGE sources and so not admissible as anything but pseudoscientific protestations. jps ( talk) 14:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
(refactor: moved discussion of another journal below to own section)
(refactor: journal in question unrelated to above discussion; moved to own section)
Is Acupuncture In Medicine really a fringe journal just because of its subject matter? The "independent sources" part of WP:FRINGE has been construed more narrowly than in academia. See
Independent sources & refs therein. Dependence isn't a function of a journal's topic in the real world; it actually has to do with external relationships (e.g., a reviewer being the parent of an author). No important conflicts -- according to prevailing standards in academia -- are declared by its editorial board (most/all of whom practice acu, not surprising given the subject matter, and have additional qualifications as well). The journal appears to fulfill WP's other tests for sources, such as peer review and indexing; furthermore, studies published in it have been used by Cochrane and in other accepted MEDRS's, and MD's and PhD's publish in it (e.g. Ernst). "Dependence" seems to have been misinterpreted by editors unfamiliar with what it actually means. Why should WP have different standards than academia -- are we supposed to be more prestigious or something? Sounds like pretension to me. --
Middle 8 (
leave me alone •
talk to me •
COI)
02:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Who publishes it hardly matters. What matters is its editorial policy and it is clear that this one does not promote independent review. Therefore, it is only reliable for the opinions of acupuncturists. jps ( talk) 12:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey all quick note. I posted a question on this on the MEDRS talk page, here. If you choose to participate there, please don't battle each other there as it will bore the pants off third parties and drive them away, and it would be useful to get independent input. Please just make your own argument on the question and let others chime in. (That's what I want, but ya'all will of course do as you will do!) Jytdog ( talk) 13:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Let's talk about this separately: "The Journal of Chinese Medicine found that this decision was made in part on the results of the trials and in part for socio-political reasons". Note that "this decision" refers to the decision to reimburse acu. QG has been pushing for this language for a while - however the earlier version of it stated it in Wikipedia's voice: "This decision was made in part on the results of the trials and in part for socio-political reasons". I can see how this language is very useful for the acu-skeptics; it says explicitly that Germany decided to reimburse acu not just based on the science, and so provides a very useful block to acu-proponents who want to point to the Germany approvals and say "see? it works!", which I understand has been happening. I see how this is very useful. The double-irony is that Mallexikon has been the main one wanting to include this source in the article, albeit for the narrowly stated purpose of giving the acu-proponents' view on the outcome, so that we cover the whole range of reactions. The triple irony is that other acu-skeptics here have wanted to exclude the source altogether for being fringe. The quadruple irony, is that as I discuss below in b), Birch is trying to use the "socio-political" angle to argue that acu should be more widely reimbursed. So there are just layers and layers here, making this all very difficult. So here are some points. i am signing each separately to invite interposed comments. Jytdog ( talk) 12:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
You are misinterpreting WP:FRIND. It says: "In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles."
-- Mallexikon ( talk) 04:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)The Bigfoot Field Researchers Association has stated, 'Scientists from various disciplines put the most compelling sasquatch evidence to the test. Collectively their conclusions are ground-breaking. There is now scientific proof for the existence of a giant primate species in North America – a species fitting the descriptions of sasquatches (bigfoots).'"
I'd like to sum up and close this section. No support from other sources has been brought for the criticism of GERAC stated by Birch, so we have no idea if that criticism is idiosyncratic or widespread among the pro-acu community, so the criticism should not come in even as a representative of the or even a "pro-acu view". The source itself has also been dismissed. So nothing from Birch should be in the article. Jytdog ( talk) 10:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
In a few places above, the claim has been made that this article is not about a FRINGE topic, but instead, is about a mainstream scientific topic - namely, a clinical trial. My sense, is that the preceding statement is true. MEDRS applies to any health-related content, since the topic is decidedly health related. And all policies and guidelines about sourcing of course apply as well (ie, sources must not fail FRIND). And any claims about any underlying theories of acupuncture within the article, of course fall within FRINGE. But descriptions of the clinical protocol, and description of results, are all standard health-related content that are not FRINGE. I think this is pretty clear -- the trial design seems to have been carefully done to make it a good placebo-controlled RCT, and the results were decidedly negative for two indications, and borderline negative for two others - this was far from a rah-rah-acupuncture outcome. I would be interested to hear thoughts on this, based of course as much as possible on policies and guidelines (no big hand-wavy claims, please!!). Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 01:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The section on the intervention should be basically a copy/paste condensed version of the lead of the acupuncture article, already written to FRINGE and MEDRS standards. WP:AGF for pete's sake.17:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Now there is is another source in the article about the insurance corporations we can include this too. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
According to the original discussion the source was reliable. See Talk:German acupuncture trials/Archive 1#Insurance companies in Germany have stopped reimbursement for acupuncture treatment. I posted a review for this source at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#German acupuncture trials. I think the 2013 review is reliable for the claim. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
The review [8] is pubmed indexed. What is wrong with the source in question? Has anyone tried a RfC to get in more opinions and if not what not? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
the article is FRINGE out the wazoo. Have you even read it? And the claim they make there, about reimbursement, is itself unsourced, based only on the authors own authority, which has been found invalid. It is a controversial and FRINGE statement, especially since you have not found any other source that says it. If any of alexbrn or 2Q or jps want to revert their position and support you, they can certainly do that here - they have all been pinged plenty. If they do not speak up, the consensus to not use this source stands. You are the only one who wants to use it. Let it go. Drop the stick. Jytdog ( talk) 19:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Jinkinson noticed a problem with the archives. The archive is malformed. See Talk:German acupuncture trials 1. It should start with /Archive 1. The bot is archiving to the wrong page again. QuackGuru ( talk) 05:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
So although the Birch source was thoroughly discussed here and at Talk:MEDRS, User:QuackGuru continued trying to push it into the text with his "propose and delete" edits - first adding it here and then deleting right away here and then right away again adding it here and immediately again deleting it here, right after which User:Simonm223. an editor not involved with, and probably ignorant of, the discussions accepted one of those versions here. I didn't notice in this in the flurry of small edits until today, and just took the Birch source back out. Ugly. Jytdog ( talk) 19:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Note that WP:QuackGuru started a discussion about the Birch and He sources on the FRINGE noticeboard, here. sigh. Nice move, not participating in the long discussion we had here already, then re-opening it elsewhere. Talk about WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Jytdog ( talk) 22:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
In a series of edits today, A1candidate introduced a source - an editorial from Spine ( PMID 21217438 and indexed by MEDLINE as an editorial). The content based on the source, is about the outcome of GERAC for chronic low back pain. Do folks here find the source acceptable for that content? If so, why or why not? Thanks Jytdog ( talk) 21:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
On the basis of this credulous website: [1], I believe that the reliability of his book is fairly well impeached. jps ( talk) 17:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
jps and User:Middle 8: in his test edit of today, QuackGuru has reintroduced Howick for this content "A 2011 assessment of the trials judged that since the sham acupuncture was not a well-designed placebo, they were unlikely to have emitted clinically significant findings", without making clear that this is a pseudoscience source, and also put it in, next to Novella as a source for statements about the overall outcome. Jytdog ( talk) 17:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
[4].
This has got to be one of the worst sources I've read in a long time and really should not be used in this article. The source waxes eloquent about acupuncture topics without actually dealing with the outcomes of the trials. It is a terrible article and should not be used as a source for anything as they obviously don't get the basics of the story right at all and spend most of the rest of the article shilling for acupuncture. This would be the equivalent to a public relations churn. Let's remove it.
jps ( talk) 12:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Of possible use: "Fake acupuncture works nearly as well as the real thing for low back pain..."
"Dr. Heinz Endres of Ruhr University Bochum in Bochum, Germany, said... [p]ositive expectations the patients held about acupuncture — or negative expectations about conventional medicine — also could have led to a placebo effect and explain the findings."
[5] jps ( talk) 13:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Ya'all had an RfC above on the level detail in the article. Here is the version cited by QG when he set up the RfC as his preferred example of containing " fewer low-level details". However the current article lacks the detail found even there. I think the version that QG proposed is reasonable and it was supported in the summary of the RfC. And I don't see any reasoned discussion of why the level of detail was moved yet lower. I intend to restore the RfC-validated level of detail. Objections? If so, they should be based on changes to PAG or new sources that emerged subsequent to the RfC, or somebody should explicitly say "I changed my mind" and give reasons... Jytdog ( talk) 13:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
You're becoming increasingly volatile in your talkpage discussions. Can you please calm down? QG posted a very short sentence that referenced a previous discussion, and you're accusing him of "changing your mind" on that basis? Perhaps you should consider taking a break from this rather oppressively hot kitchen rather than setting more fires. jps ( talk) 17:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
In Science Based Medicine: "Verum (or true) acupuncture and sham acupuncture treatments are no different in decreasing pain levels," says Steven Novella, referring to GERAC. [6]
jps ( talk) 05:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Novella, referencing GERAC in Skeptical Inquirer Volume 35.4, July/August 2011:
"Some trials also control for the variable of needle insertion, using placebo or simulated acupuncture in which opaque sheaths are used and a dull needle is pressed against the skin when the plunger is depressed, but there is no skin penetration. Alternatively, toothpicks have been used to simulate the sensation of acupuncture without going through the skin. Again, when this variable is isolated, it turns out that simulated acupuncture works as well as verum acupuncture. This is true of the largest and best trials of acupuncture for the most common uses, such as reducing back pain (Haake et al. 2007) and treating nausea (Enblom et al. 2011).
"Therefore, if we define acupuncture as using needle insertion to stimulate acupuncture points, and the best scientific evidence shows that acupuncture points do not exist (it doesn’t matter where you stick the needles) and needle insertion has no effect (it doesn’t matter whether or not you stick the needles), then does acupuncture work? I think the only reasonable answer is no; there is no reality to acupuncture or the concepts upon which it is based."
Note that (Haake et al. 2007) is GERAC.
jps (
talk) 05:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
::Thanks for bringing up this interesting debate. Reading that blog post, it says that "About a year ago the editors of Anesthesia & Analgesia solicited a written debate on whether or not acupuncture is effective or simply an elaborate placebo. Four experienced acupuncture researchers agreed to write the pro-acupuncture article, Wang, Harris, Lin and Gan. They asked David Colquhoun to write the con position, and David asked me to write it with him (which, of course, I enthusiastically agreed to do). The article is fortunately published in open access, and so I can reprint it here (full article is below). What I think David and I convincingly demonstrated is that, according to the usual standards of medicine, acupuncture does not work." So, if we are going to use the Novella article from this journal, then we can also use the Wang, Harris, Lin and Gan article?
Jytdog (
talk)
10:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I included material from the Birch source to present the acu-proponents criticism of GERAC: it centers mainly around alleged inadequate training of the participating acupuncturists, and a "too powerful" placebo. In order to put this criticism into perspective, I think it is important to include some information about participating acupuncturists' training and sham acupuncture design in our set-up section. -- Mallexikon ( talk) 08:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Can you workshop here what your proposed inclusion would look like? If it is properly weighted so we it's clear that it's the opinion of pseudoscientists, then we might be able to move forward. Is there any evidence that the competency level of acupuncturists affects outcomes? I haven't seen any independent evidence to that effect, just complaining that is done in WP:FRINGE sources and so not admissible as anything but pseudoscientific protestations. jps ( talk) 14:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
(refactor: moved discussion of another journal below to own section)
(refactor: journal in question unrelated to above discussion; moved to own section)
Is Acupuncture In Medicine really a fringe journal just because of its subject matter? The "independent sources" part of WP:FRINGE has been construed more narrowly than in academia. See
Independent sources & refs therein. Dependence isn't a function of a journal's topic in the real world; it actually has to do with external relationships (e.g., a reviewer being the parent of an author). No important conflicts -- according to prevailing standards in academia -- are declared by its editorial board (most/all of whom practice acu, not surprising given the subject matter, and have additional qualifications as well). The journal appears to fulfill WP's other tests for sources, such as peer review and indexing; furthermore, studies published in it have been used by Cochrane and in other accepted MEDRS's, and MD's and PhD's publish in it (e.g. Ernst). "Dependence" seems to have been misinterpreted by editors unfamiliar with what it actually means. Why should WP have different standards than academia -- are we supposed to be more prestigious or something? Sounds like pretension to me. --
Middle 8 (
leave me alone •
talk to me •
COI)
02:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Who publishes it hardly matters. What matters is its editorial policy and it is clear that this one does not promote independent review. Therefore, it is only reliable for the opinions of acupuncturists. jps ( talk) 12:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey all quick note. I posted a question on this on the MEDRS talk page, here. If you choose to participate there, please don't battle each other there as it will bore the pants off third parties and drive them away, and it would be useful to get independent input. Please just make your own argument on the question and let others chime in. (That's what I want, but ya'all will of course do as you will do!) Jytdog ( talk) 13:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Let's talk about this separately: "The Journal of Chinese Medicine found that this decision was made in part on the results of the trials and in part for socio-political reasons". Note that "this decision" refers to the decision to reimburse acu. QG has been pushing for this language for a while - however the earlier version of it stated it in Wikipedia's voice: "This decision was made in part on the results of the trials and in part for socio-political reasons". I can see how this language is very useful for the acu-skeptics; it says explicitly that Germany decided to reimburse acu not just based on the science, and so provides a very useful block to acu-proponents who want to point to the Germany approvals and say "see? it works!", which I understand has been happening. I see how this is very useful. The double-irony is that Mallexikon has been the main one wanting to include this source in the article, albeit for the narrowly stated purpose of giving the acu-proponents' view on the outcome, so that we cover the whole range of reactions. The triple irony is that other acu-skeptics here have wanted to exclude the source altogether for being fringe. The quadruple irony, is that as I discuss below in b), Birch is trying to use the "socio-political" angle to argue that acu should be more widely reimbursed. So there are just layers and layers here, making this all very difficult. So here are some points. i am signing each separately to invite interposed comments. Jytdog ( talk) 12:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
You are misinterpreting WP:FRIND. It says: "In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles."
-- Mallexikon ( talk) 04:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)The Bigfoot Field Researchers Association has stated, 'Scientists from various disciplines put the most compelling sasquatch evidence to the test. Collectively their conclusions are ground-breaking. There is now scientific proof for the existence of a giant primate species in North America – a species fitting the descriptions of sasquatches (bigfoots).'"
I'd like to sum up and close this section. No support from other sources has been brought for the criticism of GERAC stated by Birch, so we have no idea if that criticism is idiosyncratic or widespread among the pro-acu community, so the criticism should not come in even as a representative of the or even a "pro-acu view". The source itself has also been dismissed. So nothing from Birch should be in the article. Jytdog ( talk) 10:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
In a few places above, the claim has been made that this article is not about a FRINGE topic, but instead, is about a mainstream scientific topic - namely, a clinical trial. My sense, is that the preceding statement is true. MEDRS applies to any health-related content, since the topic is decidedly health related. And all policies and guidelines about sourcing of course apply as well (ie, sources must not fail FRIND). And any claims about any underlying theories of acupuncture within the article, of course fall within FRINGE. But descriptions of the clinical protocol, and description of results, are all standard health-related content that are not FRINGE. I think this is pretty clear -- the trial design seems to have been carefully done to make it a good placebo-controlled RCT, and the results were decidedly negative for two indications, and borderline negative for two others - this was far from a rah-rah-acupuncture outcome. I would be interested to hear thoughts on this, based of course as much as possible on policies and guidelines (no big hand-wavy claims, please!!). Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 01:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The section on the intervention should be basically a copy/paste condensed version of the lead of the acupuncture article, already written to FRINGE and MEDRS standards. WP:AGF for pete's sake.17:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Now there is is another source in the article about the insurance corporations we can include this too. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
According to the original discussion the source was reliable. See Talk:German acupuncture trials/Archive 1#Insurance companies in Germany have stopped reimbursement for acupuncture treatment. I posted a review for this source at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#German acupuncture trials. I think the 2013 review is reliable for the claim. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
The review [8] is pubmed indexed. What is wrong with the source in question? Has anyone tried a RfC to get in more opinions and if not what not? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
the article is FRINGE out the wazoo. Have you even read it? And the claim they make there, about reimbursement, is itself unsourced, based only on the authors own authority, which has been found invalid. It is a controversial and FRINGE statement, especially since you have not found any other source that says it. If any of alexbrn or 2Q or jps want to revert their position and support you, they can certainly do that here - they have all been pinged plenty. If they do not speak up, the consensus to not use this source stands. You are the only one who wants to use it. Let it go. Drop the stick. Jytdog ( talk) 19:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Jinkinson noticed a problem with the archives. The archive is malformed. See Talk:German acupuncture trials 1. It should start with /Archive 1. The bot is archiving to the wrong page again. QuackGuru ( talk) 05:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
So although the Birch source was thoroughly discussed here and at Talk:MEDRS, User:QuackGuru continued trying to push it into the text with his "propose and delete" edits - first adding it here and then deleting right away here and then right away again adding it here and immediately again deleting it here, right after which User:Simonm223. an editor not involved with, and probably ignorant of, the discussions accepted one of those versions here. I didn't notice in this in the flurry of small edits until today, and just took the Birch source back out. Ugly. Jytdog ( talk) 19:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Note that WP:QuackGuru started a discussion about the Birch and He sources on the FRINGE noticeboard, here. sigh. Nice move, not participating in the long discussion we had here already, then re-opening it elsewhere. Talk about WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Jytdog ( talk) 22:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
In a series of edits today, A1candidate introduced a source - an editorial from Spine ( PMID 21217438 and indexed by MEDLINE as an editorial). The content based on the source, is about the outcome of GERAC for chronic low back pain. Do folks here find the source acceptable for that content? If so, why or why not? Thanks Jytdog ( talk) 21:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)