![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
There are far too many entries using primary sources, and even speculative and inconclusive studies. This is awful. The article needs to be cleaned up and follow our WP:MEDRS guidelines. -- Brangifer ( talk) 08:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I have moved this from the lead to here, since it wasn't discussed in the body at all. Maybe it has potential for reinclusion, but not in the lead:
Brangifer ( talk) 20:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The material on diet can be expanded upon. I have three paragraphs of possible content on my sandbox: /info/en/?search=User:NoKap64/sandbox. Please let me know of any feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoKap64 ( talk • contribs) 23:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
It can not be said that acupuncture is effective for migraine, then followed by the data that both 'true' and 'sham' acupuncture are equally effective. 'Sham' acupuncture is not acupuncture at all....it is the 'placebo' for acupuncture. If the 'real' treatment and the placebo have the same effect, then the treatment is shown to be ineffective.
This section needs to be changed to reflect this reality.
Any support for this from other editors? I don't want to get in some sort of editing war with the Acupuncture Gatekeepers Assoc.
KipHansen ( talk) 17:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
This is pretty basic. A procedure that does not differ in effect from the sham procedure is not an effective treatment. You cannot argue that it works because of the placebo effect. The placebo effect is due to patient belief that is modified by the information provided by the caregiver and thus fundamentally unrelated to the procedure itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.104.145 ( talk) 12:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi @ Doc James
I think this article should be moved to either “Prevention of migraine” or “Prevention of migraine attacks”. In general, I see that the word “migraines” is used quite often on Wikipedia, like in the general migraine article, where it’s used 32 times. I also read in the guidelines that what patients group prefer being used (like person-first language) is important. I will link to CHAMP and Migraine Australia as references to why we should remove the word “migraines” from Wikipedia in general, but in short, like we never say “asthmas” or “epilepsies”, “migraines” shouldn’t be used either. All of them are chronic diseases that affect people also when they don’t have an attack (like having to take preventative medicines or avoiding triggers), and the language we use around migraine now, marginalises that.
Rogalendingen ( talk) 13:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
A lot has changed in the last five years or so. This article is really out of date. It has no mention of CGRP biology or gepants, for example. Jaredroach ( talk) 16:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
There are far too many entries using primary sources, and even speculative and inconclusive studies. This is awful. The article needs to be cleaned up and follow our WP:MEDRS guidelines. -- Brangifer ( talk) 08:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I have moved this from the lead to here, since it wasn't discussed in the body at all. Maybe it has potential for reinclusion, but not in the lead:
Brangifer ( talk) 20:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The material on diet can be expanded upon. I have three paragraphs of possible content on my sandbox: /info/en/?search=User:NoKap64/sandbox. Please let me know of any feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoKap64 ( talk • contribs) 23:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
It can not be said that acupuncture is effective for migraine, then followed by the data that both 'true' and 'sham' acupuncture are equally effective. 'Sham' acupuncture is not acupuncture at all....it is the 'placebo' for acupuncture. If the 'real' treatment and the placebo have the same effect, then the treatment is shown to be ineffective.
This section needs to be changed to reflect this reality.
Any support for this from other editors? I don't want to get in some sort of editing war with the Acupuncture Gatekeepers Assoc.
KipHansen ( talk) 17:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
This is pretty basic. A procedure that does not differ in effect from the sham procedure is not an effective treatment. You cannot argue that it works because of the placebo effect. The placebo effect is due to patient belief that is modified by the information provided by the caregiver and thus fundamentally unrelated to the procedure itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.104.145 ( talk) 12:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi @ Doc James
I think this article should be moved to either “Prevention of migraine” or “Prevention of migraine attacks”. In general, I see that the word “migraines” is used quite often on Wikipedia, like in the general migraine article, where it’s used 32 times. I also read in the guidelines that what patients group prefer being used (like person-first language) is important. I will link to CHAMP and Migraine Australia as references to why we should remove the word “migraines” from Wikipedia in general, but in short, like we never say “asthmas” or “epilepsies”, “migraines” shouldn’t be used either. All of them are chronic diseases that affect people also when they don’t have an attack (like having to take preventative medicines or avoiding triggers), and the language we use around migraine now, marginalises that.
Rogalendingen ( talk) 13:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
A lot has changed in the last five years or so. This article is really out of date. It has no mention of CGRP biology or gepants, for example. Jaredroach ( talk) 16:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)