Duplicate |
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Roxy the dog/Archive 8) (bot |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
{{archive box|auto=yes|search=no}} |
{{archive box|auto=yes|search=no}} |
||
== Thanks for the user declaration box! == |
|||
Hey, I'm taking the lunatic charlatans user box - hope you don't mind! I think it's fantastic. |
|||
V/R [[User:BasicsOnly|BasicsOnly]] ([[User talk:BasicsOnly|talk]]) 17:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:You are welcome, but nothing on wikipedia belongs to anybody. I think it's fantastic too! -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' <small>the effin dog </small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 17:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== [[McKenzie method]] 1 == |
|||
Hello, I'm really trying to update this page, as it's an area I specialize in but I have no conflict of interest as this is all voluntary work and I'm not employed by the McKenzie Institute, but I've been working on this project under the approval of them. I saw a previous talk page about updating this posted by someone else and I have numerous actual scholarly articles to add to this page to help try and update the information and improve much of the provided literature, several of which is incorrect. |
|||
First the statement on the initial part of the article: “Research has found that the McKenzie method has, at most, limited benefit for helping alleviate acute back pain. It is of no benefit for chronic back pain.” is number one, not referenced, and two, inaccurate. That statement, which was not referenced, appears to be referring to the first sentence under “Effectiveness” section which states: “According to a meta-analysis of clinical trials in 2006, treatment using the McKenzie method is somewhat effective for acute low back pain, but the evidence suggests that it is not effective for chronic low-back pain”. There have been numerous issues brought up about this research article already, reference number 8 by Machado et al 2006, which was also discussed by another wiki username Blueeye1967 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:McKenzie_method - Section “Efficacy seems overstated in a subtle way). |
|||
The article’s actual conclusion however was much different then what was stated on the Wikipedia article (see below): |
|||
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16641766 |
|||
Machado et al 2006 - “Conclusion: There is some evidence that the McKenzie method is more effective than passive therapy for acute LBP; however, the magnitude of the difference suggests the absence of clinically worthwhile effects. There is limited evidence for the use of McKenzie method in chronic LBP. The effectiveness of classification-based McKenzie is yet to be established.” |
|||
Again, this report being inaccurate is one of the many reasons for the initiative to update this information. If you read on to our updated Effectiveness” section, there have been several recent studies done which have found much different conclusions (see below): |
|||
From our attempted update/edit: |
|||
A 2012 systematic review looking at directional preference showed mixed results, with some evidence found supporting the effectiveness of directional preference when applied to participants with a directional preference upon a repeated end range movement assessment, particularly at short-term and intermediate-term follow-ups.[43] |
|||
More recently, another systematic review[44] found that there was moderate to high quality evidence that MDT is not superior to other rehabilitation interventions for acute low back pain but is superior for chronic low back in reducing pain and disability. These findings conflict with another review.[45] However, the authors[44] reported limitations with intention to treat analyses not met in all the studies, some studies only looking at specific MDT subgroups, and no studies were included which compared MDT to other classification approaches.[44] Also, several of the studies[46][47][48[[49] included clinicians with minimal levels of training (not certified) even though they reported, “trained therapists are more reliable in classifying patients than are therapists who are not certified”.[44] |
|||
Finally, one additional systematic review[50] looked at the difference between pain and disability in patients with low back pain managed with the “core principles” of MDT versus treatment using “some or none” of the MDT principles. They found that trials following the “core principles” of MDT had greater treatment effects versus the other trials which did not follow the principles as closely.[50] They concluded that better outcomes utilizing the MDT system could be accomplished by following the core principles of MDT[50] such as matching the treatment to the specific classification. This appears to re-enforce some of the shortcomings of some the previously mentioned reviews.[44][45] |
|||
Again the attempt at all the updates/edits is to provide consumers/patients, health-care providers (doctors, therapists, chiropractors, etc.), researchers, and any others the most updated and accurate information about the McKenzie Method. We also attempted to present the information in an un-biased way to discuss the literature that was out there, specifically focusing on the systematic reviews, which did include reviews which discussed findings that were both positive and negative to the Method. No physical therapy system is perfect, and being honest about findings is important so that we can learn from them as well, but also be honest and discuss why there may be limitations to certain studies. To do an exhaustive review of the literature would be too much for the readers. We would appreciate allowing our edit back up the way it was and of course we can make some further changes to as needed. Hopefully this information was helpful and I apologize for the length of it. If there were specific suggestions that you have, or if there is a more specific way we are supposed to go about doing this then let me know. Thank you. |
|||
References (from the edit we hope to put): |
|||
8. MacHado, Luciana Andrade Carneiro; De Souza, Marcelo von Sperling; Ferreira, Paulo Henrique; Ferreira, Manuela Loureiro (2006). "The McKenzie Method for Low Back Pain". Spine. 31 (9): E254–62. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000214884.18502.93. PMID 16641766. |
|||
43. Surkitt LD., Ford JJ., Hahne AJ., Pizzari T., McMeeken JM. (2012).Efficacy of directional preference management for low back pain: a systematic review. Phys Ther. 2012 May; 92(5):652-65. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20100251.. |
|||
44. Lam OT., Strenger DM., Chan-Fee M., Pham PT., Preuss RA., Robbins SM. (2018). “Effectiveness of the McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy for Treating Low Back Pain: Literature Review With Meta-analysis.” J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. Jun;48(6):476-490. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2018.7562. |
|||
45. ^ Machado, LA., De Souza M., Ferreira PH., Ferreira ML. (2006). The McKenzie method for low back pain: a systematic review of the literature with a meta-analysis approach. Spine 2006; 31(9): E254-E262. [PubMed]. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000214884.18502.93. PMID 16641766. |
|||
46. Garcia AN., Costa LC., da Silva TM., Gondo FL., Cyrillo FN., Costa RA., Costa LO. (2013) Ef¬fectiveness of back school versus McKenzie exercises in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther. 2013;93:729-747. https://doi.org/10.2522/ ptj.20120414 |
|||
47. Garcia AN., Costa LC., Hancock MJ., Souza FS., Gomes GVFO., Almeida MO., Costa LOP. (2018) McKen¬zie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy was slightly more effective than placebo for pain, but not for disability, in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: a randomised pla¬cebo controlled trial with short and longer term follow-up. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52:594-600. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-097327 |
|||
48. Moncelon S., Otero J. (2015) The McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy in chronic low back pain with directional preference. Kinésithér Rev. 2015;15:31-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. kine.2014.11.086 |
|||
49. Murtezani A., Govori V., Meka VS., Ibraimi Z., Rrecaj S., Gashi S. (2015) A comparison of McKenzie therapy with electrophysical agents for the treatment of work re¬lated low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2015; 28:247-253. https://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-140511 |
|||
50. Halliday MH., Garcia AN., Amorim AB., Machado GC., Hayden JA., Pappas E., Ferreira PH., Hancock MJ. (2019). Treatment Effect Sizes of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy for Pain and Disability in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. Apr;49(4):219-229. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2019.8734. |
|||
:User has posted at the article Talk page. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' <small>the elfin dog </small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 01:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Invitation to RedWarn == |
== Invitation to RedWarn == |
||
Hello, Roxy the dog! I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta test my new tool, RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience. |
Hello, Roxy the dog! I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta test my new tool, RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience. |
Revision as of 05:27, 28 June 2020
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Invitation to RedWarn
Hello, Roxy the dog! I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta test my new tool, RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.
- Easy to use - Unlike other tools, RedWarn uses easy to interpret icons and simple summaries for common actions, reducing both learning and reading times.
- Supports rollback and rollback-like functionality - Unlike Twinkle, RedWarn supports both rollback and rollback-like functionality for users will rollback permissions. This decreases waiting times during rollbacks.
- Making life easier on the battlefield - Ever been in the middle of a vandalism war or campaign, frantically reloading the history page to see a new edit? No more! Enabling RedWarn's "Alert on Change" feature will automatically send you to the latest edit when a new edit occurs - and if you're working on something else, RedWarn will send you a notification while the tab is still open in the background. No time wasted.
- Rollback previews - If you're ever worried about the changes a rollback will make, especially in the case of reverting good faith edits, you can click the rollback preview button to preview the difference a rollback will make, with the version that will be restored on the right, and the latest revision on the left.
- Always the latest revision - RedWarn will automatically redirect you to the latest revision if the rollback is no longer for the latest revision - no more frustrating errors.
- Fast - RedWarn can automatically select a warning level, and, on vandalism and content removal rollbacks, automatically select a warning template.
- Built on your feedback - RedWarn is receiving frequent feature additions and changes based on your feedback. If there's something you don't like, or would like to see, just say!
- and many more features ...but I don't want to fill your userpage.
RedWarn is currently in use by over 35 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. If you're interested, please see see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features which I haven't listed here. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 talk! 19:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hello User:Ed6767. I looked at the Redwarn page you linked above, and it doesn't display properly on my PC. I question the competence of anybody who lets a page they are responsible for appear like that, so I'll probably not bother. Thanks though. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Roxy the dog, bummer! Usually, the images scale to fit to the page - thanks for pointing out that issue, I'll see if I can rework the Wikitext to make it appear correctly. Have a good day! Ed6767 talk! 15:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- User:Ed6767 Also want you to know that the "over 35" link isn't helpful at all. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Roxy the dog, that was an early version of the template. I've updated a newer version with a more specific link. Thanks again, Ed6767 talk! 15:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- User:Ed6767 Also want you to know that the "over 35" link isn't helpful at all. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Roxy the dog, bummer! Usually, the images scale to fit to the page - thanks for pointing out that issue, I'll see if I can rework the Wikitext to make it appear correctly. Have a good day! Ed6767 talk! 15:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Talkpage
Why did you delete my post on talkpageBaratiiman (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Baratiiman Because I thought that the post didn't conform to our talkpage policy WP:NOTFORUM. However, it has been reinstated by DeaconVorbis, and he has replied. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Talk Page of "Simulation Hypothesis"
Hello, Roxy. I've been trying to improve the article on the Simulation Hypothesis exactly as prescribed by Wikipedia, namely, on the Talk Page with enumeration of proposed improvements. There is no question that I'm in compliance with WP:COI and other policies.
Yet you left a warning on my talk page and have ignored my responses to you there. Your warning was as follows:
"This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Talk:Simulation hypothesis, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)"
I don't quite know what "personal attacks" you mean. (If you choose to be more specific, please include the exact persons toward whom the "attacks" were directed.) I also note that nothing has been done about venomous personal insults against me by "Nigerian chess player" and others by "Gary", who was recently blocked for trolling but then inexplicably unblocked.
In any case, now that I know of your concern with "personal attacks" and violations of WP:TPO and other talk page guidelines, I assume you've warned "Nigerian chess player" and "Gary" to stop their abuse on the Talk Page of the Wikipedia article on the Simulation Hypothesis. (As you made a non-administrative comment there before your warning, I assume you're aware of this abuse. Yet the abuse continued after your warning to me.)
If you are not a legitimate channel for reporting such violations, kindly direct me to the proper page. Thank you. Chris Langan (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Scientific Assurance of Vaccine Safety
You reverted my edit to Vaccine hesitancy, is that correct? If so, why? You wrote "Better before, hand waving unnecessary" but that is not a specific argument. Why do you say the article was "better before" and call my explanation "hand waving"? How about some facts and logic before you revert someone's good faith edit? Incidentally I am very pro vaccination but I think that one sentence does a bad job of setting out the pro-vaccine argument. Dratman (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed. Your edit added qualifications to the sentence that are not needed, and watered down the well sourced point. We dont need to handwave about it. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 22:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
McKenzie method 2
See User talk:JzG#McKenzie method. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)