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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 40 |
I appreciate Doc's efforts to rearrange the lead so we have four paragraphs. I've attempted to do more in that direction. I'll continue tomorrow.( olive ( talk) 03:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC))
We have this line starting the section on Research quality:
Various research reviews have identified some studies as being well-designed, rigorous, or high quality. [1] [2]
The first ref looks at a limited amount of research. The second ref is not completed and older. They contradicts the AHRQ review which covered all of the research. Therefore the AHRQ's conclusions should come first per WP:DUE. Attempted to change this but was reverted.
Here is more info for the second ref "An Analysis of Recent Meditation Research and Suggestions for Future Directions Shauna L. Shapiro and Roger Walsh 86 url= http://www.brittonlab.com/publications/Shapiro,%20Walsh,%20Britton%2003.pdf "It is not indexed in pubmed. The paper does not actual say the research is rigorous but "The results of past research are qualified by their limitations in methodology. We suggest the following criteria to insure future rigorous designs:" So it says the research is infact not rigorous.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I feel that this will provide a context for a discussion on the quality of the research. Many readers might naively think that this standard consist only of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) or know even less about it. Of course, it's more than RCT. The need for RCTs was known much before, even in the 1980's. This best practice requires that the controlled conditions are as close as possible to the evaluated conditions, much closer than in RCT only. For example, the subjects should not be able to find out in which of the two conditions they are. The person who makes the measurements also should not know in which of the two conditions a subject is. This is double blinded RCT. The best practice requires even more than that. Anyway, we would have to take this directly from a reliable source. I think the reviews themselves explain it. We might not need other sources. Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 03:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Besides the fact it is not published in Cochrane or AHRQ and that it conflicts with their conclusions, what is wrong with http://www.tmcentrum.cz/image/metaanalysis_anderson.pdf . The authors work for independent organizations. The journal was American Journal of Hypertension. Here is the summary of the results from the paper:
Nine randomized, controlled trials met eligibility criteria. Study-quality scores ranged from low (score, 7) to high (16) with three studies of high quality (15 or 16) and three of acceptable quality (11 or 12). The random-effects meta-analysis model for systolic and diastolic blood pressure, respectively, indicated that Transcendental Meditation, compared to control, was associated with the following changes: −4.7 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI), −7.4 to −1.9 mm Hg) and −3.2 mm Hg (95% CI, −5.4 to −1.3 mm Hg). Subgroup analyses of hypertensive groups and high-quality studies showed similar reductions.
It is interesting to note that 7 out of the 9 eligible studies controlled for Health Education. Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 22:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
(undent) If the community supports one version over another with the only people disagreeing with the changes being a group with ties either financially or personal to the topic at hand than yes we will go with the version supported by the wider community. One does not need consensus of all editors involved. Reading some of the comments here I think this might be a situation in which a consensus may not be possible. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
For mantra meditation 141 RCTs and CCTs were found during a systematic review. This is much less than the questionable claims of the TM literature. TM is a subgroup of mantra meditation so the numbers for TM might be slightly less. 111 of these were RCTs. PMID: 19123875 Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
That's just a summary of the appendices in their 2007 review. Which covered the period through September 2005, excluded studies not done on adults, and missed 90 relevant studies on TM. And of course we have Canter & Ernst's independent tally of over 700 studies. TimidGuy ( talk) 10:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I am proposing that for now we use the following as a summary and focus on the research section itself.
In the 1950s, the Transcendental Meditation movement (TMM) had presented itself as a religious organization. By 1970, the organization had shifted its focus on scientific research. Today, TM is reported to be among the most widely researched meditation techniques. However, a 2006 Cochrane review on the effectiveness of meditation for anxiety disorders found that only two studies were eligible for analysis. It further noted that in one of the two studies TM was equivalent to relaxation therapy, but said that no conclusion can be drawn. A 2007 review reported that meta-analyses show transcendental meditation and other techniques significantly reduce blood pressure, but following its own meta-analysis concluded that the definitive health effects of meditation cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence examined was of poor quality.
It contains only Cochrane and AHRQ, but it is temporary. We will make sure that WP:LEAD is respected, but first let us make sure that we agree on the research section. Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 18:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
"Best quality sources" is a judgement call and not agreed upon here. As well, the lead and how it is written is a technical writing concern. It must summarize what is in the article. Then, it must do so to comply with WP:NPOV, without bias. Discussion of the sources needs to take place, but per what is added to the article. Although WP:IAR, we might as a group decide to do something unusual in the lead, good writing style anywhere dictates a lead or intro to a paper or article summarize clearly what is to come in the article, and is an aspect of writing style and not a negotiable point of we want a good article. So yes, the lead needs work., and the research aspect of it is not acceptable at this point.( olive ( talk) 13:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC))
I wonder if what we are saying about TM being taught in some public and charter schools in recent years is really accurate. A superficial review of the sources seems to indicate that TM is being offered as an option - one of many - during "Quiet Time", but I get the impression that TM is actually being taught outside the schools, and outside of regular school time, and that a big deal is made out of the fact that the puja ceremony - which is the center of much of the controversy - at which the student is given his or her mantra, is never conducted on school property or during school time. Have I missed something in the sources saying that TM is actually being taught in these schools, or do we need to tweak the text a bit to say that it is being practiced in public and charter schools, rather than taught? Fladrif ( talk) 21:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
What happened in the arbitration case that was going last spring? How do you find about about the decision? Things seem to be the same around here. It would be helpful for occasional editors like me, who gave up some time ago, to see what happened and whether it makes sense to ever work on this article. Judyjoejoe ( talk) 14:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
We have heard over and over that the AHRQ is not peer reviewed. This is a claim that is pushed by the TM movement in an effort to discredit this major scientific report. It is however wrong as on page 25 of the report it states:
Peer Review Process
During the course of the study, the UAEPC created a list of 18 potential peer reviewers and sent it to the AHRQ TOO and NCCAM representatives for approval. In May and June 2006, the individuals on the list were approached by the UAEPC and asked if they would act as peer reviewers for this evidence report. Seven experts agreed to act as peer reviewers (Appendix A)* and were sent a copy of the draft report and guidelines for review (Appendix D6).* Reviewers had one month in which to provide critical feedback. Replies were requested in a word processing document, though comments were also accepted by email and telephone. The reviewers’ comments were placed in a table and common criticisms were identified by the authors. All comments and authors’ replies were submitted to the AHRQ for assessment and
approval. As appropriate, the draft report was amended based on reviewer comments and a final report was produced.
[3] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
(undent)Huh? The journal this was published in is the journal of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHRQ) [Title%20Abbreviation] Were are you getting the claim of another journal from? This is an independent organization. They have not republished it in a separate journal. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
This study is based on a comprehensive evidence-based report available online at www.ahrq.gov: Ospina MB, Bond TK, Karkhaneh M, et al. Meditation practices for health: State of the research. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2007;155:1–263.
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)This study was a systematic and comprehensive review of clinical trials indexed in the scientific literature that have evaluated the effects of meditation techniques.
It had 7 reviewers. Usually the peer reviewers have the opportunity to evaluate whether the study authors appropriately implemented their suggestions. That step didn't happen with AHRQ. Instead, there was an internal review. It was a woman with a master's degree in public health, no training in the sort of analysis used in this review, and no experience with clinical research. In every case where the study authors didn't implement the suggested change, she didn't ask for further revision. She basically rubber stamped it. Notably, at least 4 of the 7 peer reviewers said that the authors shouldn't use double blinding as a standard of assessment. Even Canter & Ernst say "It's not feasible to blind participants" and didn't require that studies be double blinded when assigning Jadad scores. TimidGuy ( talk) 10:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Pg 65 Table 11. Methodological quality of RCTs of Mantra meditation
Randomization; n (%) All
Double blinding; n (%) 2 (1.2)
Appropriate randomization; n (%) 15 (13.3)
Inappropriate randomization; n (%) 3 (2.7)
Description withdrawals; n (%) 50 (45.0)
Total Jadad score (max 5); Median (IQR) 1 (1, 2)
Number of high quality RCTs (Jadad scores ≥3); n (%) 13 (11.6)
Appropriate concealment of allocation; n (%) 3 (2.7)
Funding reported; n (%) 49 (44.1)
Here's what it says:
Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education.
This is a false statement. AFRQ found that TM reduced blood pressure compared to progressive muscle relaxation based on their meta-anlaysis of two high-quality studies. TimidGuy ( talk) 10:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
(Undent) I have attempted to get outside input to resolve these disputes. I have violated nothing. The statements source are very clear and has some support from the community at large. If you disagree please attempt to get community consensus for changes. This consensus however must include more people than just those who practice TM. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The key point is that these outside contributions should be used as a way to enrich our discussion for the application of the policy, not to replace such a discussion. Some comments in the Rfc only repeated the main position of one side. These tools should not be used as a vote system. Simple support statements are not useful, not to me anyway. Other outside contributions were attempting to reconsider the job of secondary sources. Here is an example:
Personally I do have serious issues with any health related meta-analysis which does not exclude (or at least controls for) studies without a decent control condition or any other control for the placebo effect; which is often shown to be huge.
The outside contributions should not be used as expert opinions to critic complex aspects in the content of secondary sources, especially not to evaluate their weight. They can be used to help us understand them. In some special cases, we might refer to the content of a source as an evidence that it is not reliable, but the quality assessment criteria used in a meta-analysis is much too complicated and subtle to be used in this way. I expanded on this point here User_talk:Edith_Sirius_Lee/About_Rfc_NoticeBoard. Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 19:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- The outside contributions should not be used as expert opinions to critic complex aspects in the content of secondary sources, especially not to evaluate their weight. They can be used to help us understand them.
(unindent) I think I made clear that I do not plan to dismiss the outside contributions. I found a simple way to express my points: except perhaps in special cases, these outside contributions cannot be used to violate Wikipedia policy. So, I would not dismiss any of them as such. I only dismiss them when presented to violate a Wikipedia policy. For example, the outside contribution above (the first quote in this section) would lead to a violation of WP:RS and WP:SOURCE if we were to use it to give less weight (in comparison to AHRQ) to the peer-reviewed journal that published the Anderson review. Nowhere in the policy it is said that the expert opinions of editors about the content that is published in a source can be used to evaluate its reliability. Instead, the policy is that we must consider the peer-review process of this source, how systematic it is, etc. It also says that we can look at how the material in the source is cited by other sources. In our case, it means that we can look at how the papers published in the peer reviewed journal are cited in other sources (i.e. other peer-reviewed publications.) The more often these papers are contradicted in other sources, the less reliable is the peer-reviewed journal. I suspect that the papers published in this peer reviewed journal are less often contradicted than the reports prepared for the AHRQ. I did not check that, but until we check that, they both have equal weight. The outside contribution above is irrelevant as far as giving a higher or lower weight to the AHRQ. For the purpose of evaluating the reliability of the sources, it must be dismissed. Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 01:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- We must keep in mind that a consensus need not incorporate everyone's opinion and some editors may end up unhappy no matter what.
The main styles of arguments that I have seen used to violate policy are:
ESL's arguments utterly ignore WP:MEDRS which specifically contemplates assessing sources, and assigning them weight, reliability and emphasis based on the listed factors in the policy. The fact that the UK study was TM-Movement funded is a relevant consideration under that policy, and it is thus entitled to less weight and reliability. The fact, which hasn't been raised, that the "face" of the study, Anderson, is a retired professor emeritus, a internist whose research was previously confined almost exclusively to diet (big proponent of the oat-bran fad in his day), which is an odd qualification to be leading a meta-analysis of meditation and hypertension, is relevant. The fact that the study found that there were only three studies of TM that it regarded to be of high quality is relevant. The fact that the weight to be assigned to the various studies has been extensively discussed previously on this and other boards, and that the current text is the result of a consensus of previously uninvolved editors who do not conveniently fall in your categories of "pro" and "Con" as to what are the highest and best sources to use in this article to conform to WP:MEDRS is relevant. Relying on the actual findings of a study and not merely on its abstract is relevant. Not only are these considerations relevant, they are required under WP:MEDRS, and tendatiously arguing that they are violations of policy serves neither the purpose of these talk pages nor the end you are trying to achieve. Do not re-argue the same points over and over, particularly points that have been addressed over the course of months and even years by dozens of editors on multiple boards. Fladrif ( talk) 18:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.
(undent) The intro actually describes the state of the science regarding health effect well now. We just need to bring the rest of the article into balance. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The connecting phrase "Part of this difficulty ... " in the Intro does not have consensus. It creates an overall POV connecting two sentences. Where is this overall POV sourced? Just need the source with the exact page, for now. Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 02:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
During the few months I was a participating editor here, I pointed out that there is no such research paper as "Ospina Bond." I don't know why editors keep referring to this meta-analysis as "Ospina Bond;" there is no style convention I'm aware of under which "Ospina Bond" would be used to refer to a study with many authors, of which Ospina is the first author and Bond is the second author. The only time the second author is normally referred to in a citation is when there are only two authors, and then it would be "Ospina & Bond" not "Ospina Bond." I see that my earlier comments about this have been completely ignored and that this nonstandard form has again crept into the article; I've corrected it in two places. As to how the conclusions of the review are represented in the article, I haven't the energy to participate in the 97th reiteration of that discussion. But however you represent it, please at least don't refer to it as "Ospina Bond." Thank you. Woonpton ( talk) 14:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
We have the consensus from the RfC above with outside input. Some editors here seem to think that they can not consider the outside input as supposedly it was uninformed and instead of asking for further input are just edit warring to make the page they way the wish it too be. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
We have been having an ongoing disagreement over how to best summarize the scientific literature on TM. I have proposed the following to replace "Scientific studies published in peer review journals have examined the effects of the technique. A 2007 review of Transcendental Meditation reported that the definitive health effects of meditation cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence examined was of poor quality. A 2006 Cochrane review found that TM was equivalent to relaxation therapy for the treatment of anxiety." Others may also make proposals. Recent discussion have taken place: RS Noticeboard, ArbCom case, and on the TM talk page.
Addendum added by involved editor: All commenting editors please make sure to read the research section in the article to make sure proposed leads summarize that section per WP:LEAD( olive ( talk) 14:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC))
Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education. [3] [4] [5] [6] It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation as the quality of research has a lack of methodological rigor. [7] [4] [5] Part of this difficulty is due to the fact that many studies appear to have been conducted by devotees or researchers at universities tied to the Maharishi and on subjects with a favorable opinions of TM. [8] [9]
Anderson08
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The Humanistic Psychologist 2003
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
As a result of the limited number of included studies, the small sample sizes and the high risk of bias, we are unable to draw any conclusions regarding the effectiveness of meditation therapy for ADHD.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Scientific research on meditation practices does not appear to have a common theoretical perspective and is characterized by poor methodological quality. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence.
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
All the randomized clinical trials of TM for the control of blood pressure published to date have important methodological weaknesses and are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization.
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
All 4 positive trials recruited subjects from among people favourably predisposed towards TM, and used passive control procedures... The association observed between positive outcome, subject selection procedure and control procedure suggests that the large positive effects reported in 4 trials result from an expectation effect. The claim that TM has a specific and cumulative effect on cognitive function is not supported by the evidence from randomised controlled trials.
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Sources appear to be of the sort promoted by MEDRS and the summary neutral. I support the change, as it is much clearer than the original text and provides an accurate summary. Yobol ( talk) 13:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
bizarre dialogue about twisting other editors' words |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I would appreciate it if you would stop mischaracterizing my words - this is the second time in only one thread on one talk page you have done this about what I have said now. It is clear from those diffs that I misunderstood the topic of the discussion in that section outside the RfC (i.e. excluding the study from the lead vs. article) and I appropriately corrected my stance after I realized my mistake. No where did I voice any change in my stance on the lead, which is the topic of discussion in this RfC. I will also add that no where have I said my opinion is "fixed"; quite the contrary, I was reading this talk page to see if there was anything that would make me adjust my opinion on the subject. Clearly, there has not, and I continue to support the lead as proposed in this RfC as a significant improvement of the lead that was present at the time the RfC was introduced (and, frankly, the current lead).
Yobol (
talk) 01:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
|
TM is among the most widely researched meditation techniques. [1] [2] [3] Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. [4] Some studies have found specific physiological effects, [5] [6] and clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being. [7] [8]
Dakwar09
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Wien Klin Wochenschr.
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Apologies for my delay , I was away for some time. I am ready to complete correcting Will's sentence in the Transcendental Meditation movement section of this article. I would like it to read: "two entities, the Maharishi School of Vedic Sciences-Minnesota (as a successor to the World Plan Executive Council)[252] in 1997 and the Maharishi Spiritual Center in 2001, were denied property tax exemptions as the educational activities of the organizations did not did not reach the ‘purely public charity’ threshold in one case, and did not involve the entire real estate in the other." This is fairly succint, clear, and resolves the issue. -- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 04:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I will let you guys analyse the situation. I think that BwB and Will Beback know more about the context than me. I just want to mention general points. First, we are trying here to write statements in the voice of Wikipedia, which normally only happens when there is a consensus that the statements have no implicit point of views attached to them. Second, the context is very important. If the context is the controversy "for profit" Vs "charitable", then we should not limit the statements to some wordings that suggests or implies the different point of views. Instead, we should present all point of views clearly and explicitly in the voice of reliable notable sources, not Wikipedia. If these sources do not exist, then this controversy need not be presented in Wikipedia. If the context is different, then we should not use some statements in that context as a template to bring this controversy. We should use the simplest statements that present what sources say, without even thinking about this controversy. I know it is tricky, but we need to find the statement that has the largest prominence in the most reliable sources. Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 18:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Article talk pages are not really the place to wax philosophical on such questions. They are for discussing improvement in the article. That being said, I fundamentally disagree with the policy propositions that you are advancing. But, policy page discussions, and not here, are the places for such discussions. I'd suggest that you find the appropriate policy page discussion(s), and take it there. Fladrif ( talk) 01:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
In this edit [7] and editor removed references that was supporting a statement. It is unclear if the editor read the source. In the 2010 Cochrane it spends many pages discussing the limitation of the best studies available that address the question at hand and concludes: "As a result of the limited number of included studies, the small sample sizes and the high risk of bias" and "Risk of bias in included studies: Systematic biases directly affected the validity of the included studies. See also the ’Risk of bias’ graph (Figure 1) and ’Risk of bias’ summary (Figure 2)." Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
mantra meditation (comprising the Transcendental Meditation ® technique (TM®), Relaxation Response (RR) and Clinically Standardized Meditation (CSM)), mindfulness meditation (comprising Vipassana, Zen Buddhist meditation, Mindfulnessbased StressReduction (MBSR) andMindfulness-basedCognitive Therapy (MBCT)), yoga, Tai Chi and Qi Gong" If you read the paper you will see mention of a couple studies specifically dealing with TM. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
(undent) They looked at all the studies and thus are able to conclude what the evidence does and does not show. And then comment on the quality of evidence. If there is no evidence they can thus say the quality of evidence is poor or lacking. Here are so more quotes. So evidence does not show that TM has a benefit in ADHD because there is little to no evidence.:
Some reports exist which detail the usefulness of meditation for
childrenwith ADHD.Grosswald (reported inMicucci 2005) conducted a study in April 2004 at Chelsea School in Silver Spring, Maryland, a private school for children with learning disabilities. The study compared ten students with ADHD before and after they learned and practiced Transcendental Meditation for ten minutes twice daily for three months. Participants reported being calmer, less distracted, less stressed and better able to control their anger and frustration. However, there was no control/comparison
group in this study.
French 1975
French AP, Schmid AC, Ingalls E. Transcendental meditation, altered reality testing, and behavioural change: a case report.
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 1975;161(1):55–8.
Lazarus 1976
Lazarus AA. Psychiatric problems precipitated by transcendental
meditation. Psychological Reports 1976;39(2):601–2.
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
All the randomized clinical trials of TM for the control of blood pressure published to date have important methodological weaknesses and are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization.
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
All 4 positive trials recruited subjects from among people favourably predisposed towards TM, and used passive control procedures... The association observed between positive outcome, subject selection procedure and control procedure suggests that the large positive effects reported in 4 trials result from an expectation effect. The claim that TM has a specific and cumulative effect on cognitive function is not supported by the evidence from randomised controlled trials.
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
What 700 studies are being referred to here? This is the only mention of them in the lead, so it's a non-sequitor. Do C&E mention "700 studies"? Will Beback talk 05:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The reason this is misleading is that the figure of 700 includes everything, such as dissertations, conference abstracts, pilot studies included in the early editions of Collected Papers. It's a matter of fact that many of this list of 700 weren't peer reviewed. But that doesn't in any way reflect on the hundreds of peer reviewed studies. Most of the studies published in the last 25 years have been peer reviewed. It really skews things to cherry pick this point and let it define the body of research. This shouldn't be in the lead. It doesn't matter how many pilot studies or conference presentations there were; what matters is the peer-reviewed research. And there's plenty of that. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- According to Canter and Ernst, all of the studies on TM and blood pressure are potentially biased as they were conducted by researchers connected to the TM organization, and on subjects with favorable opinions of TM.
Perhaps I'm dense, but it wold appear to me that the scope of the review covers studies on the effects of TM on blood pressure, and the conclusion is that the studies are insufficient to make any conclusion about those effects. Does anyone think the review had a different scope? Will Beback talk 03:28, 8 August 2010 (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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 40 |
I appreciate Doc's efforts to rearrange the lead so we have four paragraphs. I've attempted to do more in that direction. I'll continue tomorrow.( olive ( talk) 03:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC))
We have this line starting the section on Research quality:
Various research reviews have identified some studies as being well-designed, rigorous, or high quality. [1] [2]
The first ref looks at a limited amount of research. The second ref is not completed and older. They contradicts the AHRQ review which covered all of the research. Therefore the AHRQ's conclusions should come first per WP:DUE. Attempted to change this but was reverted.
Here is more info for the second ref "An Analysis of Recent Meditation Research and Suggestions for Future Directions Shauna L. Shapiro and Roger Walsh 86 url= http://www.brittonlab.com/publications/Shapiro,%20Walsh,%20Britton%2003.pdf "It is not indexed in pubmed. The paper does not actual say the research is rigorous but "The results of past research are qualified by their limitations in methodology. We suggest the following criteria to insure future rigorous designs:" So it says the research is infact not rigorous.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I feel that this will provide a context for a discussion on the quality of the research. Many readers might naively think that this standard consist only of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) or know even less about it. Of course, it's more than RCT. The need for RCTs was known much before, even in the 1980's. This best practice requires that the controlled conditions are as close as possible to the evaluated conditions, much closer than in RCT only. For example, the subjects should not be able to find out in which of the two conditions they are. The person who makes the measurements also should not know in which of the two conditions a subject is. This is double blinded RCT. The best practice requires even more than that. Anyway, we would have to take this directly from a reliable source. I think the reviews themselves explain it. We might not need other sources. Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 03:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Besides the fact it is not published in Cochrane or AHRQ and that it conflicts with their conclusions, what is wrong with http://www.tmcentrum.cz/image/metaanalysis_anderson.pdf . The authors work for independent organizations. The journal was American Journal of Hypertension. Here is the summary of the results from the paper:
Nine randomized, controlled trials met eligibility criteria. Study-quality scores ranged from low (score, 7) to high (16) with three studies of high quality (15 or 16) and three of acceptable quality (11 or 12). The random-effects meta-analysis model for systolic and diastolic blood pressure, respectively, indicated that Transcendental Meditation, compared to control, was associated with the following changes: −4.7 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI), −7.4 to −1.9 mm Hg) and −3.2 mm Hg (95% CI, −5.4 to −1.3 mm Hg). Subgroup analyses of hypertensive groups and high-quality studies showed similar reductions.
It is interesting to note that 7 out of the 9 eligible studies controlled for Health Education. Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 22:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
(undent) If the community supports one version over another with the only people disagreeing with the changes being a group with ties either financially or personal to the topic at hand than yes we will go with the version supported by the wider community. One does not need consensus of all editors involved. Reading some of the comments here I think this might be a situation in which a consensus may not be possible. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
For mantra meditation 141 RCTs and CCTs were found during a systematic review. This is much less than the questionable claims of the TM literature. TM is a subgroup of mantra meditation so the numbers for TM might be slightly less. 111 of these were RCTs. PMID: 19123875 Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
That's just a summary of the appendices in their 2007 review. Which covered the period through September 2005, excluded studies not done on adults, and missed 90 relevant studies on TM. And of course we have Canter & Ernst's independent tally of over 700 studies. TimidGuy ( talk) 10:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I am proposing that for now we use the following as a summary and focus on the research section itself.
In the 1950s, the Transcendental Meditation movement (TMM) had presented itself as a religious organization. By 1970, the organization had shifted its focus on scientific research. Today, TM is reported to be among the most widely researched meditation techniques. However, a 2006 Cochrane review on the effectiveness of meditation for anxiety disorders found that only two studies were eligible for analysis. It further noted that in one of the two studies TM was equivalent to relaxation therapy, but said that no conclusion can be drawn. A 2007 review reported that meta-analyses show transcendental meditation and other techniques significantly reduce blood pressure, but following its own meta-analysis concluded that the definitive health effects of meditation cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence examined was of poor quality.
It contains only Cochrane and AHRQ, but it is temporary. We will make sure that WP:LEAD is respected, but first let us make sure that we agree on the research section. Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 18:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
"Best quality sources" is a judgement call and not agreed upon here. As well, the lead and how it is written is a technical writing concern. It must summarize what is in the article. Then, it must do so to comply with WP:NPOV, without bias. Discussion of the sources needs to take place, but per what is added to the article. Although WP:IAR, we might as a group decide to do something unusual in the lead, good writing style anywhere dictates a lead or intro to a paper or article summarize clearly what is to come in the article, and is an aspect of writing style and not a negotiable point of we want a good article. So yes, the lead needs work., and the research aspect of it is not acceptable at this point.( olive ( talk) 13:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC))
I wonder if what we are saying about TM being taught in some public and charter schools in recent years is really accurate. A superficial review of the sources seems to indicate that TM is being offered as an option - one of many - during "Quiet Time", but I get the impression that TM is actually being taught outside the schools, and outside of regular school time, and that a big deal is made out of the fact that the puja ceremony - which is the center of much of the controversy - at which the student is given his or her mantra, is never conducted on school property or during school time. Have I missed something in the sources saying that TM is actually being taught in these schools, or do we need to tweak the text a bit to say that it is being practiced in public and charter schools, rather than taught? Fladrif ( talk) 21:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
What happened in the arbitration case that was going last spring? How do you find about about the decision? Things seem to be the same around here. It would be helpful for occasional editors like me, who gave up some time ago, to see what happened and whether it makes sense to ever work on this article. Judyjoejoe ( talk) 14:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
We have heard over and over that the AHRQ is not peer reviewed. This is a claim that is pushed by the TM movement in an effort to discredit this major scientific report. It is however wrong as on page 25 of the report it states:
Peer Review Process
During the course of the study, the UAEPC created a list of 18 potential peer reviewers and sent it to the AHRQ TOO and NCCAM representatives for approval. In May and June 2006, the individuals on the list were approached by the UAEPC and asked if they would act as peer reviewers for this evidence report. Seven experts agreed to act as peer reviewers (Appendix A)* and were sent a copy of the draft report and guidelines for review (Appendix D6).* Reviewers had one month in which to provide critical feedback. Replies were requested in a word processing document, though comments were also accepted by email and telephone. The reviewers’ comments were placed in a table and common criticisms were identified by the authors. All comments and authors’ replies were submitted to the AHRQ for assessment and
approval. As appropriate, the draft report was amended based on reviewer comments and a final report was produced.
[3] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
(undent)Huh? The journal this was published in is the journal of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHRQ) [Title%20Abbreviation] Were are you getting the claim of another journal from? This is an independent organization. They have not republished it in a separate journal. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
This study is based on a comprehensive evidence-based report available online at www.ahrq.gov: Ospina MB, Bond TK, Karkhaneh M, et al. Meditation practices for health: State of the research. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2007;155:1–263.
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)This study was a systematic and comprehensive review of clinical trials indexed in the scientific literature that have evaluated the effects of meditation techniques.
It had 7 reviewers. Usually the peer reviewers have the opportunity to evaluate whether the study authors appropriately implemented their suggestions. That step didn't happen with AHRQ. Instead, there was an internal review. It was a woman with a master's degree in public health, no training in the sort of analysis used in this review, and no experience with clinical research. In every case where the study authors didn't implement the suggested change, she didn't ask for further revision. She basically rubber stamped it. Notably, at least 4 of the 7 peer reviewers said that the authors shouldn't use double blinding as a standard of assessment. Even Canter & Ernst say "It's not feasible to blind participants" and didn't require that studies be double blinded when assigning Jadad scores. TimidGuy ( talk) 10:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Pg 65 Table 11. Methodological quality of RCTs of Mantra meditation
Randomization; n (%) All
Double blinding; n (%) 2 (1.2)
Appropriate randomization; n (%) 15 (13.3)
Inappropriate randomization; n (%) 3 (2.7)
Description withdrawals; n (%) 50 (45.0)
Total Jadad score (max 5); Median (IQR) 1 (1, 2)
Number of high quality RCTs (Jadad scores ≥3); n (%) 13 (11.6)
Appropriate concealment of allocation; n (%) 3 (2.7)
Funding reported; n (%) 49 (44.1)
Here's what it says:
Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education.
This is a false statement. AFRQ found that TM reduced blood pressure compared to progressive muscle relaxation based on their meta-anlaysis of two high-quality studies. TimidGuy ( talk) 10:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
(Undent) I have attempted to get outside input to resolve these disputes. I have violated nothing. The statements source are very clear and has some support from the community at large. If you disagree please attempt to get community consensus for changes. This consensus however must include more people than just those who practice TM. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The key point is that these outside contributions should be used as a way to enrich our discussion for the application of the policy, not to replace such a discussion. Some comments in the Rfc only repeated the main position of one side. These tools should not be used as a vote system. Simple support statements are not useful, not to me anyway. Other outside contributions were attempting to reconsider the job of secondary sources. Here is an example:
Personally I do have serious issues with any health related meta-analysis which does not exclude (or at least controls for) studies without a decent control condition or any other control for the placebo effect; which is often shown to be huge.
The outside contributions should not be used as expert opinions to critic complex aspects in the content of secondary sources, especially not to evaluate their weight. They can be used to help us understand them. In some special cases, we might refer to the content of a source as an evidence that it is not reliable, but the quality assessment criteria used in a meta-analysis is much too complicated and subtle to be used in this way. I expanded on this point here User_talk:Edith_Sirius_Lee/About_Rfc_NoticeBoard. Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 19:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- The outside contributions should not be used as expert opinions to critic complex aspects in the content of secondary sources, especially not to evaluate their weight. They can be used to help us understand them.
(unindent) I think I made clear that I do not plan to dismiss the outside contributions. I found a simple way to express my points: except perhaps in special cases, these outside contributions cannot be used to violate Wikipedia policy. So, I would not dismiss any of them as such. I only dismiss them when presented to violate a Wikipedia policy. For example, the outside contribution above (the first quote in this section) would lead to a violation of WP:RS and WP:SOURCE if we were to use it to give less weight (in comparison to AHRQ) to the peer-reviewed journal that published the Anderson review. Nowhere in the policy it is said that the expert opinions of editors about the content that is published in a source can be used to evaluate its reliability. Instead, the policy is that we must consider the peer-review process of this source, how systematic it is, etc. It also says that we can look at how the material in the source is cited by other sources. In our case, it means that we can look at how the papers published in the peer reviewed journal are cited in other sources (i.e. other peer-reviewed publications.) The more often these papers are contradicted in other sources, the less reliable is the peer-reviewed journal. I suspect that the papers published in this peer reviewed journal are less often contradicted than the reports prepared for the AHRQ. I did not check that, but until we check that, they both have equal weight. The outside contribution above is irrelevant as far as giving a higher or lower weight to the AHRQ. For the purpose of evaluating the reliability of the sources, it must be dismissed. Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 01:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- We must keep in mind that a consensus need not incorporate everyone's opinion and some editors may end up unhappy no matter what.
The main styles of arguments that I have seen used to violate policy are:
ESL's arguments utterly ignore WP:MEDRS which specifically contemplates assessing sources, and assigning them weight, reliability and emphasis based on the listed factors in the policy. The fact that the UK study was TM-Movement funded is a relevant consideration under that policy, and it is thus entitled to less weight and reliability. The fact, which hasn't been raised, that the "face" of the study, Anderson, is a retired professor emeritus, a internist whose research was previously confined almost exclusively to diet (big proponent of the oat-bran fad in his day), which is an odd qualification to be leading a meta-analysis of meditation and hypertension, is relevant. The fact that the study found that there were only three studies of TM that it regarded to be of high quality is relevant. The fact that the weight to be assigned to the various studies has been extensively discussed previously on this and other boards, and that the current text is the result of a consensus of previously uninvolved editors who do not conveniently fall in your categories of "pro" and "Con" as to what are the highest and best sources to use in this article to conform to WP:MEDRS is relevant. Relying on the actual findings of a study and not merely on its abstract is relevant. Not only are these considerations relevant, they are required under WP:MEDRS, and tendatiously arguing that they are violations of policy serves neither the purpose of these talk pages nor the end you are trying to achieve. Do not re-argue the same points over and over, particularly points that have been addressed over the course of months and even years by dozens of editors on multiple boards. Fladrif ( talk) 18:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.
(undent) The intro actually describes the state of the science regarding health effect well now. We just need to bring the rest of the article into balance. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The connecting phrase "Part of this difficulty ... " in the Intro does not have consensus. It creates an overall POV connecting two sentences. Where is this overall POV sourced? Just need the source with the exact page, for now. Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 02:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
During the few months I was a participating editor here, I pointed out that there is no such research paper as "Ospina Bond." I don't know why editors keep referring to this meta-analysis as "Ospina Bond;" there is no style convention I'm aware of under which "Ospina Bond" would be used to refer to a study with many authors, of which Ospina is the first author and Bond is the second author. The only time the second author is normally referred to in a citation is when there are only two authors, and then it would be "Ospina & Bond" not "Ospina Bond." I see that my earlier comments about this have been completely ignored and that this nonstandard form has again crept into the article; I've corrected it in two places. As to how the conclusions of the review are represented in the article, I haven't the energy to participate in the 97th reiteration of that discussion. But however you represent it, please at least don't refer to it as "Ospina Bond." Thank you. Woonpton ( talk) 14:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
We have the consensus from the RfC above with outside input. Some editors here seem to think that they can not consider the outside input as supposedly it was uninformed and instead of asking for further input are just edit warring to make the page they way the wish it too be. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
We have been having an ongoing disagreement over how to best summarize the scientific literature on TM. I have proposed the following to replace "Scientific studies published in peer review journals have examined the effects of the technique. A 2007 review of Transcendental Meditation reported that the definitive health effects of meditation cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence examined was of poor quality. A 2006 Cochrane review found that TM was equivalent to relaxation therapy for the treatment of anxiety." Others may also make proposals. Recent discussion have taken place: RS Noticeboard, ArbCom case, and on the TM talk page.
Addendum added by involved editor: All commenting editors please make sure to read the research section in the article to make sure proposed leads summarize that section per WP:LEAD( olive ( talk) 14:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC))
Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education. [3] [4] [5] [6] It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation as the quality of research has a lack of methodological rigor. [7] [4] [5] Part of this difficulty is due to the fact that many studies appear to have been conducted by devotees or researchers at universities tied to the Maharishi and on subjects with a favorable opinions of TM. [8] [9]
Anderson08
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The Humanistic Psychologist 2003
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
As a result of the limited number of included studies, the small sample sizes and the high risk of bias, we are unable to draw any conclusions regarding the effectiveness of meditation therapy for ADHD.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Scientific research on meditation practices does not appear to have a common theoretical perspective and is characterized by poor methodological quality. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence.
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
All the randomized clinical trials of TM for the control of blood pressure published to date have important methodological weaknesses and are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization.
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
All 4 positive trials recruited subjects from among people favourably predisposed towards TM, and used passive control procedures... The association observed between positive outcome, subject selection procedure and control procedure suggests that the large positive effects reported in 4 trials result from an expectation effect. The claim that TM has a specific and cumulative effect on cognitive function is not supported by the evidence from randomised controlled trials.
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Sources appear to be of the sort promoted by MEDRS and the summary neutral. I support the change, as it is much clearer than the original text and provides an accurate summary. Yobol ( talk) 13:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
bizarre dialogue about twisting other editors' words |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I would appreciate it if you would stop mischaracterizing my words - this is the second time in only one thread on one talk page you have done this about what I have said now. It is clear from those diffs that I misunderstood the topic of the discussion in that section outside the RfC (i.e. excluding the study from the lead vs. article) and I appropriately corrected my stance after I realized my mistake. No where did I voice any change in my stance on the lead, which is the topic of discussion in this RfC. I will also add that no where have I said my opinion is "fixed"; quite the contrary, I was reading this talk page to see if there was anything that would make me adjust my opinion on the subject. Clearly, there has not, and I continue to support the lead as proposed in this RfC as a significant improvement of the lead that was present at the time the RfC was introduced (and, frankly, the current lead).
Yobol (
talk) 01:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
|
TM is among the most widely researched meditation techniques. [1] [2] [3] Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. [4] Some studies have found specific physiological effects, [5] [6] and clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being. [7] [8]
Dakwar09
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Wien Klin Wochenschr.
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Apologies for my delay , I was away for some time. I am ready to complete correcting Will's sentence in the Transcendental Meditation movement section of this article. I would like it to read: "two entities, the Maharishi School of Vedic Sciences-Minnesota (as a successor to the World Plan Executive Council)[252] in 1997 and the Maharishi Spiritual Center in 2001, were denied property tax exemptions as the educational activities of the organizations did not did not reach the ‘purely public charity’ threshold in one case, and did not involve the entire real estate in the other." This is fairly succint, clear, and resolves the issue. -- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 04:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I will let you guys analyse the situation. I think that BwB and Will Beback know more about the context than me. I just want to mention general points. First, we are trying here to write statements in the voice of Wikipedia, which normally only happens when there is a consensus that the statements have no implicit point of views attached to them. Second, the context is very important. If the context is the controversy "for profit" Vs "charitable", then we should not limit the statements to some wordings that suggests or implies the different point of views. Instead, we should present all point of views clearly and explicitly in the voice of reliable notable sources, not Wikipedia. If these sources do not exist, then this controversy need not be presented in Wikipedia. If the context is different, then we should not use some statements in that context as a template to bring this controversy. We should use the simplest statements that present what sources say, without even thinking about this controversy. I know it is tricky, but we need to find the statement that has the largest prominence in the most reliable sources. Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 18:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Article talk pages are not really the place to wax philosophical on such questions. They are for discussing improvement in the article. That being said, I fundamentally disagree with the policy propositions that you are advancing. But, policy page discussions, and not here, are the places for such discussions. I'd suggest that you find the appropriate policy page discussion(s), and take it there. Fladrif ( talk) 01:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
In this edit [7] and editor removed references that was supporting a statement. It is unclear if the editor read the source. In the 2010 Cochrane it spends many pages discussing the limitation of the best studies available that address the question at hand and concludes: "As a result of the limited number of included studies, the small sample sizes and the high risk of bias" and "Risk of bias in included studies: Systematic biases directly affected the validity of the included studies. See also the ’Risk of bias’ graph (Figure 1) and ’Risk of bias’ summary (Figure 2)." Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
mantra meditation (comprising the Transcendental Meditation ® technique (TM®), Relaxation Response (RR) and Clinically Standardized Meditation (CSM)), mindfulness meditation (comprising Vipassana, Zen Buddhist meditation, Mindfulnessbased StressReduction (MBSR) andMindfulness-basedCognitive Therapy (MBCT)), yoga, Tai Chi and Qi Gong" If you read the paper you will see mention of a couple studies specifically dealing with TM. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
(undent) They looked at all the studies and thus are able to conclude what the evidence does and does not show. And then comment on the quality of evidence. If there is no evidence they can thus say the quality of evidence is poor or lacking. Here are so more quotes. So evidence does not show that TM has a benefit in ADHD because there is little to no evidence.:
Some reports exist which detail the usefulness of meditation for
childrenwith ADHD.Grosswald (reported inMicucci 2005) conducted a study in April 2004 at Chelsea School in Silver Spring, Maryland, a private school for children with learning disabilities. The study compared ten students with ADHD before and after they learned and practiced Transcendental Meditation for ten minutes twice daily for three months. Participants reported being calmer, less distracted, less stressed and better able to control their anger and frustration. However, there was no control/comparison
group in this study.
French 1975
French AP, Schmid AC, Ingalls E. Transcendental meditation, altered reality testing, and behavioural change: a case report.
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 1975;161(1):55–8.
Lazarus 1976
Lazarus AA. Psychiatric problems precipitated by transcendental
meditation. Psychological Reports 1976;39(2):601–2.
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
All the randomized clinical trials of TM for the control of blood pressure published to date have important methodological weaknesses and are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization.
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
All 4 positive trials recruited subjects from among people favourably predisposed towards TM, and used passive control procedures... The association observed between positive outcome, subject selection procedure and control procedure suggests that the large positive effects reported in 4 trials result from an expectation effect. The claim that TM has a specific and cumulative effect on cognitive function is not supported by the evidence from randomised controlled trials.
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
What 700 studies are being referred to here? This is the only mention of them in the lead, so it's a non-sequitor. Do C&E mention "700 studies"? Will Beback talk 05:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The reason this is misleading is that the figure of 700 includes everything, such as dissertations, conference abstracts, pilot studies included in the early editions of Collected Papers. It's a matter of fact that many of this list of 700 weren't peer reviewed. But that doesn't in any way reflect on the hundreds of peer reviewed studies. Most of the studies published in the last 25 years have been peer reviewed. It really skews things to cherry pick this point and let it define the body of research. This shouldn't be in the lead. It doesn't matter how many pilot studies or conference presentations there were; what matters is the peer-reviewed research. And there's plenty of that. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- According to Canter and Ernst, all of the studies on TM and blood pressure are potentially biased as they were conducted by researchers connected to the TM organization, and on subjects with favorable opinions of TM.
Perhaps I'm dense, but it wold appear to me that the scope of the review covers studies on the effects of TM on blood pressure, and the conclusion is that the studies are insufficient to make any conclusion about those effects. Does anyone think the review had a different scope? Will Beback talk 03:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)