Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Proposed addition to the " Other applications" section.
Hey everyone, I'm new to Wikipedia and as an undergrad project for my Abnormal Psych course, my professor has assigned me to add some small piece of information with a citation to a Wiki page involving a treatment for a disorder. I would like to propose the addition of this sentence to the Other Applications section on this page:
EMDR is currently being researched as a possible treatment for other co-morbid disorders such as: attachment disorder, grief, night terrors,and substance abuse disorders.[1]
References
- ^ McGuire, Tracy; Lee, Christopher; Drummond, Peter (September 1, 2014). "Potential of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy in the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder". Psychology Research and Behavior Management. 7: 273-283. Retrieved 6 December 2014.
I hope that I have met all requirements to post on this page, if I havent please let me know and ill be more then happy to make any adjustments. Also please point any and all of my mistakes as I said earlier I am new to this. Thank you. IntellectualThought (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think a better source is needed so we don't violate WP:MEDRS, WP:DUE, and WP:FUTURE. While the reference does indeed verify most of what you're proposing, it does so as a brief, final paragraph identifying future directions for research. --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- The source provided is a peer-reviewed RS and verifies that this is the direction of the future, I am puzzled at what a "better" source would be. A brief, final paragraph is verification, what is missing? Montanabw(talk) 20:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- The relevant para in that source is the very last one, which says "EMDR is also in the early stages of being identified as a type of treatment for attachment disorders, grief, nightmares, other anxiety disorders, and substance disorders. Research to date is limited, but the results available indicate that comorbid disorders may also respond to EMDR. It is important to explore the potential of EMDR to provide clinicians with a treatment model that can traverse many symptom presentations in an efficient manner." -- PMC 4189702 There's a significant delta from "in the early stages of being identified" to "is currently being researched as a possible treatment". For a drug intervention, it would be the difference between in-vitro studies and phase III clinical studies. It's a long road that Ronz' proposed text glosses over. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Just wondering if there is a way to put something accurate in there about directions for future research. The original poster sounds like someone with a school project, It's nice to help if we can. Montanabw(talk) 07:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- We'd need a reliable source about directions for future research, which isn't a paper that doesn't discuss the topic at all except for a brief sentence at the very end. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Just wondering if there is a way to put something accurate in there about directions for future research. The original poster sounds like someone with a school project, It's nice to help if we can. Montanabw(talk) 07:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- The relevant para in that source is the very last one, which says "EMDR is also in the early stages of being identified as a type of treatment for attachment disorders, grief, nightmares, other anxiety disorders, and substance disorders. Research to date is limited, but the results available indicate that comorbid disorders may also respond to EMDR. It is important to explore the potential of EMDR to provide clinicians with a treatment model that can traverse many symptom presentations in an efficient manner." -- PMC 4189702 There's a significant delta from "in the early stages of being identified" to "is currently being researched as a possible treatment". For a drug intervention, it would be the difference between in-vitro studies and phase III clinical studies. It's a long road that Ronz' proposed text glosses over. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- The source provided is a peer-reviewed RS and verifies that this is the direction of the future, I am puzzled at what a "better" source would be. A brief, final paragraph is verification, what is missing? Montanabw(talk) 20:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- A peer-reviewed journal noting future directions is a perfectly reliable source acceptable for a general statement; I will agree that LeadSongDog is probably right that one cannot exceed what is said, but the reality is that this is the direction research is looking at. Incomplete not to note it. Seriously, Name what a better source would be? Montanabw(talk) 04:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- No. Given that this is an encyclopedia and this is a MEDRS topic, I doubt any such sources exist that would meet our policies. (I hope I can assume that everyone here knows it is expected that any research paper will include at least a brief mention of possible areas of future research.) Hypothetically, someone might review the research on a topic looking specifically for promising areas of future research, then summarizing their findings. (I'd expect that such papers are written as part of the process of calling for research, but if I've ever seen such a thing I've forgotten about it.) However, we're not going to confuse a simple statement of possible future directions as a statement about what areas are actually promising as a whole. Granted, statements coming from a review are better than from primary research. Still, if editors can find GA MEDRS articles that include such information, it would be worth discussing them and examining what types of references they use. --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree to the extent that you are assuming that there is a need to go beyond the source. There isn't; the proposed wording above may be overbroad, but a narrower version would be fine, I think.. If a source that otherwise passes MEDRS for other purposes in this article states the direction for future research, then it is also a RS for a statement here as to the recommended direction of future research. Nothing more. Montanabw(talk) 04:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- While such papers (and even specialist journals on Directions in xxxx) do exist, the papers are almost always primary sources. In any case, there is wp:NODEADLINE for Wikipedia articles. When and if the work gets done, published, and covered in reviews it will be incorporated quite soon enough. 131.137.245.207 (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- "If a source that otherwise passes MEDRS for other purposes..." I'm saying that this simply is not the case. They are reliable for the research that has been done, that's all. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, what IS a reliable source for stating directions for future research? If not a peer-reviewed journal's recommendations, then what? You won't take a news journal either, it seems, (though WP:PRIMARY is not a prohibition). Seriously, I am puzzled that "future directions" seems to be verboten here. Montanabw(talk) 07:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fundamental MEDRS, DUE, and FUTURE violations are rather verboten that is. I already discussed this and offered an approach to resolve the dispute: Find a GA MEDRS article that has something similar and discuss it. --Ronz (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ronz, you are repeating yourself. It is my view that if an article that otherwise passes MEDRS also says "future directions for research are - or should be - X" that seems to me to be perfectly acceptable for a statement in this article. Likewise a "new directions in X" news article in a peer-reviewed journal also passes muster. Yet you keep saying nononononono... so I'm asking you: Show me an example (another article, perhaps) of a "future directions in research" comment that meets your standard, because I think you are simply being pigheaded here. Montanabw(talk) 06:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I repeated the concerns that aren't being addressed. Responses based upon insults are not the way to advance the dispute. --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ronz, you are repeating yourself. It is my view that if an article that otherwise passes MEDRS also says "future directions for research are - or should be - X" that seems to me to be perfectly acceptable for a statement in this article. Likewise a "new directions in X" news article in a peer-reviewed journal also passes muster. Yet you keep saying nononononono... so I'm asking you: Show me an example (another article, perhaps) of a "future directions in research" comment that meets your standard, because I think you are simply being pigheaded here. Montanabw(talk) 06:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fundamental MEDRS, DUE, and FUTURE violations are rather verboten that is. I already discussed this and offered an approach to resolve the dispute: Find a GA MEDRS article that has something similar and discuss it. --Ronz (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, what IS a reliable source for stating directions for future research? If not a peer-reviewed journal's recommendations, then what? You won't take a news journal either, it seems, (though WP:PRIMARY is not a prohibition). Seriously, I am puzzled that "future directions" seems to be verboten here. Montanabw(talk) 07:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree to the extent that you are assuming that there is a need to go beyond the source. There isn't; the proposed wording above may be overbroad, but a narrower version would be fine, I think.. If a source that otherwise passes MEDRS for other purposes in this article states the direction for future research, then it is also a RS for a statement here as to the recommended direction of future research. Nothing more. Montanabw(talk) 04:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- No. Given that this is an encyclopedia and this is a MEDRS topic, I doubt any such sources exist that would meet our policies. (I hope I can assume that everyone here knows it is expected that any research paper will include at least a brief mention of possible areas of future research.) Hypothetically, someone might review the research on a topic looking specifically for promising areas of future research, then summarizing their findings. (I'd expect that such papers are written as part of the process of calling for research, but if I've ever seen such a thing I've forgotten about it.) However, we're not going to confuse a simple statement of possible future directions as a statement about what areas are actually promising as a whole. Granted, statements coming from a review are better than from primary research. Still, if editors can find GA MEDRS articles that include such information, it would be worth discussing them and examining what types of references they use. --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- A peer-reviewed journal noting future directions is a perfectly reliable source acceptable for a general statement; I will agree that LeadSongDog is probably right that one cannot exceed what is said, but the reality is that this is the direction research is looking at. Incomplete not to note it. Seriously, Name what a better source would be? Montanabw(talk) 04:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)