This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Transcendental Meditation research redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Other subpages
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 27 October 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Transcendental Meditation. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Note: A RfC regarding how to best summary the research regarding TM has occurred here. Please also review the archived discussions on this matter before bringing it up again. |
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
Independent systematic reviews have found that the research to date is insufficient to draw any conclusions as to the effects, if any, of TM in managing high blood pressure and anxiety. [1] [2] It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation practices in healthcare, as the quality of research has design limitations and a lack of methodological rigor. [2] [3] [4] Part of this difficulty is that studies have the potential for bias due to the connection of researchers to the TM organization, and enrollment of subjects with a favorable opinion of TM. [5] [6] [7]
Meta-analyses based on low-quality studies and small numbers of hypertensive participants showed that TM®, Qi Gong and Zen Buddhist meditation significantly reduced blood pressure [...] 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 journal}}
: More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
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
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)
As a result of the limited number of included studies, the small sample sizes and the high risk of bias
{{
cite journal}}
: 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)
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.
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 randomized controlled trials.
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
I'm more than a little puzzled by the deletion of the reference to the Gablinger book. What do you mean "not available"? It's available from Google Books, Amazon UK and several sites in Germany, including from the publisher. [1]. And for those, like me, not inclined to shell out the money to buy it, it's available from at least three libraries according to WorldCat - Yale, the British Library and the National Library of Israel. [2] I'm sure that inter-library exchange could be arranged with your nearest university library if someone wanted to read it. WP:RS and WP:V do not require that a source be available for free online, or even for pay online. Nor does it require that it be on the shelves of your local library. WP:SOURCEACCESS It is most definitely available. Fladrif ( talk) 17:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the following one-sentence section, with its reference. Doc James suggested in an edit note Mar 23 that the reference here, an integrative review, is not adequate. I am inclined to agree. I think it is important to look at three things in evaluating a ref for health information: 1) the quality of the publication; 2) the academic standing of the author; and 3) the importance of the information, ie, how large a claim or statement is being made. In this case, although the journal is actually pretty respectable--Geriatric Nursing comes from a major scientific publisher, and has an impact factor and it is in the same range as some other refs in this same article everyone seems satisfied with, such as Wien. Klin. Wochenschr--however, the claim being made is large--that TM improves cardio health and slows aging in an entire age-group. And the author's scientific qualifications are not strong. While Lindberg has several scientific publications listed on Google Scholar, most of her publications have been in the field of health administration. Until a stronger reference for it can be found, I think the article is better without this content. But if anyone objects, I am of course willing to restore the material and discuss it further. EMP ( talk 19:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Cardiovascular function in the elderly
A 2005 integrative review said that research shows that TM improves cardiovascular function in the elderly and slows the aging process. [1]
Here's the problem I have with this page's structure. The best available secondary sources emphasize that the published literature on meditation is of very poor scientific quality. In fact, the lack of scientific rigor in the meditation literature makes it essentially impossible to draw any scientifically grounded conclusions about the efficacy of meditation. Our article briefly (and, frankly, misleadingly) acknowledges this reality, and then goes on to spend about 200 kb recapitulating the results of all of these poor-quality studies. That structure violates WP:WEIGHT - by giving far more weight to individual, low-quality primary studies than to reliable secondary sources - and it violates WP:MEDRS by mining primary sources to "rebut" our reliable secondary sources. MastCell Talk 17:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm curious about how journal articles were selected for presentation here. The history section cites the 1970 Science paper by Robert Keith Wallace, a TM icon, which claimed that TM induced a unique "wakeful hypometabolic state". Strangely, though, our article fails to mention that at least two attempts by independent researchers to reproduce Wallace's results were strikingly unsuccessful.
Researchers at the University of Michigan found that TM had no effect on biochemical markers of stress and was biologically indistinguishable from simply resting ( PMID 775639). And researchers at the University of Washington found that TM meditators spent much of their time asleep, rather than in any sort of unique state of consciousness ( PMID 1108200). Both of these papers specifically mention Wallace's paper and their inability to confirm or reproduce his results. Both groups published their findings in Science, like Wallace.
Is there some reason that we mention Wallace's study but not the subsequent failure of independent researchers to confirm his results? MastCell Talk 04:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I checked out the only source which mentioned cancer, unless I missed something. It said that meditation (not specifically TM) could be helpful in improving cancer patients' moods but was not effective in curing cancer itself. It didn't say that anyone ever claimed it could or if it was even tried for that. Based on that I removed the "see also" link to List of ineffective cancer treatments. BayShrimp ( talk) 16:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Transcendental Meditation research redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Other subpages
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 27 October 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Transcendental Meditation. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Note: A RfC regarding how to best summary the research regarding TM has occurred here. Please also review the archived discussions on this matter before bringing it up again. |
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
Independent systematic reviews have found that the research to date is insufficient to draw any conclusions as to the effects, if any, of TM in managing high blood pressure and anxiety. [1] [2] It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation practices in healthcare, as the quality of research has design limitations and a lack of methodological rigor. [2] [3] [4] Part of this difficulty is that studies have the potential for bias due to the connection of researchers to the TM organization, and enrollment of subjects with a favorable opinion of TM. [5] [6] [7]
Meta-analyses based on low-quality studies and small numbers of hypertensive participants showed that TM®, Qi Gong and Zen Buddhist meditation significantly reduced blood pressure [...] 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 journal}}
: More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
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
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)
As a result of the limited number of included studies, the small sample sizes and the high risk of bias
{{
cite journal}}
: 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)
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.
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 randomized controlled trials.
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
I'm more than a little puzzled by the deletion of the reference to the Gablinger book. What do you mean "not available"? It's available from Google Books, Amazon UK and several sites in Germany, including from the publisher. [1]. And for those, like me, not inclined to shell out the money to buy it, it's available from at least three libraries according to WorldCat - Yale, the British Library and the National Library of Israel. [2] I'm sure that inter-library exchange could be arranged with your nearest university library if someone wanted to read it. WP:RS and WP:V do not require that a source be available for free online, or even for pay online. Nor does it require that it be on the shelves of your local library. WP:SOURCEACCESS It is most definitely available. Fladrif ( talk) 17:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the following one-sentence section, with its reference. Doc James suggested in an edit note Mar 23 that the reference here, an integrative review, is not adequate. I am inclined to agree. I think it is important to look at three things in evaluating a ref for health information: 1) the quality of the publication; 2) the academic standing of the author; and 3) the importance of the information, ie, how large a claim or statement is being made. In this case, although the journal is actually pretty respectable--Geriatric Nursing comes from a major scientific publisher, and has an impact factor and it is in the same range as some other refs in this same article everyone seems satisfied with, such as Wien. Klin. Wochenschr--however, the claim being made is large--that TM improves cardio health and slows aging in an entire age-group. And the author's scientific qualifications are not strong. While Lindberg has several scientific publications listed on Google Scholar, most of her publications have been in the field of health administration. Until a stronger reference for it can be found, I think the article is better without this content. But if anyone objects, I am of course willing to restore the material and discuss it further. EMP ( talk 19:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Cardiovascular function in the elderly
A 2005 integrative review said that research shows that TM improves cardiovascular function in the elderly and slows the aging process. [1]
Here's the problem I have with this page's structure. The best available secondary sources emphasize that the published literature on meditation is of very poor scientific quality. In fact, the lack of scientific rigor in the meditation literature makes it essentially impossible to draw any scientifically grounded conclusions about the efficacy of meditation. Our article briefly (and, frankly, misleadingly) acknowledges this reality, and then goes on to spend about 200 kb recapitulating the results of all of these poor-quality studies. That structure violates WP:WEIGHT - by giving far more weight to individual, low-quality primary studies than to reliable secondary sources - and it violates WP:MEDRS by mining primary sources to "rebut" our reliable secondary sources. MastCell Talk 17:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm curious about how journal articles were selected for presentation here. The history section cites the 1970 Science paper by Robert Keith Wallace, a TM icon, which claimed that TM induced a unique "wakeful hypometabolic state". Strangely, though, our article fails to mention that at least two attempts by independent researchers to reproduce Wallace's results were strikingly unsuccessful.
Researchers at the University of Michigan found that TM had no effect on biochemical markers of stress and was biologically indistinguishable from simply resting ( PMID 775639). And researchers at the University of Washington found that TM meditators spent much of their time asleep, rather than in any sort of unique state of consciousness ( PMID 1108200). Both of these papers specifically mention Wallace's paper and their inability to confirm or reproduce his results. Both groups published their findings in Science, like Wallace.
Is there some reason that we mention Wallace's study but not the subsequent failure of independent researchers to confirm his results? MastCell Talk 04:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I checked out the only source which mentioned cancer, unless I missed something. It said that meditation (not specifically TM) could be helpful in improving cancer patients' moods but was not effective in curing cancer itself. It didn't say that anyone ever claimed it could or if it was even tried for that. Based on that I removed the "see also" link to List of ineffective cancer treatments. BayShrimp ( talk) 16:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)