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)
Tense
Statements in the current tense should be based on current sources per wp:MEDDATE. This normally means less than five years old. Certainly 1999 and 2000 sources should be clearly in the past tense. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- @LeadSongDog: Nearly all the citations in the article are from before 2010, but you chose to add qualifiers only to statements critical of the therapy. This is obviously POV editing. Please revert your changes. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- IP you're editing very boldly for someone who admits to having little knowledge of the topic. The fact is criticisms of the therapy have reduced markedly over the last 15 years as the evidence for it's effectiveness has increased. You have stated this yourself after reading up on the topic 'As a response to this criticism, increasingly rigorous research was done which established the effectiveness of the therapy.' Not having qualifiers is actually POV editing, as it is implying that the criticisms and consensus on EMDR from 1999/2000 applies to 2015. But even those papers misrepresent how EMDR was viewed at that time. You're original edit summarized the consensus on EMDR today as
- 'EMDR is a controversial therapy within the psychological community, and its efficacy compared to other treatments and underlying mechanism continue to be the subject of debate.'
- That is just not how EMDR is viewed by psychologists generally in 2015. It's efficacy is now firmly established.
Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- ip, I suggest you read the recent review sources before casting aspersions on your fellow editors. LeadSongDog come howl! 01:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please read what I wrote above. Nearly all the citations in the article are from before 2010, but you chose to add qualifiers only to statements critical of the therapy. This is obviously POV editing. I stand by that statement. 73.223.96.73 (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- BTW I am the same as 67.188.230.128, my dynamic IP seems to have changed recently. 73.223.96.73 (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- The appropriate response to such perceived POV would be to provide current MEDRS sources asserting that a controversy continues, if they exist. I don't see any. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- IP, I did a rough count, 21 of the 60 or so so citations are from 2010 or later, so your statement 'nearly all the citations are from before 2010' is just not correct. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- The appropriate response to such perceived POV would be to provide current MEDRS sources asserting that a controversy continues, if they exist. I don't see any. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- BTW I am the same as 67.188.230.128, my dynamic IP seems to have changed recently. 73.223.96.73 (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please read what I wrote above. Nearly all the citations in the article are from before 2010, but you chose to add qualifiers only to statements critical of the therapy. This is obviously POV editing. I stand by that statement. 73.223.96.73 (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- ip, I suggest you read the recent review sources before casting aspersions on your fellow editors. LeadSongDog come howl! 01:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Proposed Addition to "Children" subheading
Hello! As an assignment for an Abnormal Psychology course, our professor challenged us to constructively edit a Wikipedia page that dealt with any aspect of abnormal psychology. I propose the addition below as the last sentence under the sub heading "children." If you feel I should make any changes or did something incorrectly please do not hesitate to let me know, since I am very new to this process. I am adding this information because it seemed like this specific section was missing information regarding efficiency of treatment. Moreover, I though that a 2014 peer-reviewed journal article would help make that section more current and add valuable information. What I would like to add and the reference are stated below:
As recent as 2014, a randomized controlled trial found that trauma focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT) and EMDR were both effective means of treating childhood trauma, although parent reports demonstrated that TF-CBT was better able to treat the depression and hyperactivity commonly associated with children who suffer traumas[1].
- ^ Diehle, Julia; Opmeer, Brent C.; Boer, Frits; Mannarino, Anthony P.; Lindauer, Ramon J. L. "Trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy or eye movement desensitization and reprocessing: what works in children with posttraumatic stress symptoms? A randomized controlled trial". European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry: 227-236. doi:10.1007/s00787-014-0572-5.
{{cite journal}}:|access-date=requires|url=(help)
Thank you in advance for all of your feedback!--Mdelaosa (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's a primary source and does not comply with WP:MEDRS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Addition to "Controversy Over Mechanisms & Effectiveness"
I would like to add this piece "Many studies, like the ones listed below, have shown that this therapy is more effective at treating anxiety then doing nothing at all[1]. However, it is unclear which characteristics of EMDR are actually contributing to alleviating symptoms." to the section concerning Controversy Over Mechanisms & Effectiveness. Currently the article states the findings of experiments that have shown the effectiveness between eye movement and no eye movement. But it does not state that overall EMDR is more effective than receiving no therapy. This is important because it supports the claims made in this section that some aspect of this therapy's procedures work, but it is unclear which those are.70.163.64.27 (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- ^ Arkowitz, Hal; Lilienfeld, Scott. "EDMR: Taking a Closer Look". ScientificAmerican.com. Scientific American. Retrieved 16 April 2015.
- While that's an interesting article, it does not comply with WP:MEDRS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- It depends on what statements the source would be used to support. WP:MEDPOP indicates that "The high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article." 73.223.96.73 (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Once again, that's an old source, from 2007. Do you have anything current to cite, or not? LeadSongDog come howl! 22:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
My edits
I changed the structure of the article to be readable to an uninvolved person like me. When I started reading it, I could not tell heads from tails. You tag it as an "advert", but it was the sloppiest advert I've ever seen :-). I did not change a single phrase, just moved things around, for readability. I also moved list of arganization from intro, per wikipedia guidelines: an intro is a summary, for God's sake. In tomorrow more orgs endorse it, so what? shall we put all 200 of them into intro? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
For your convenience, here are my edit summaries:
- (cur | prev) 15:28, 14 May 2015 Staszek Lem (talk | contribs) . . (28,184 bytes) (-2) . . (Move description section higher) (undo)
- (cur | prev) 15:25, 14 May 2015 Staszek Lem (talk | contribs) . . (28,186 bytes) (+163) . . (List of endorsing orgs moved from into into a separate section, leaving only brief summary, as supposed to be in intro) (undo)
- (cur | prev) 15:20, 14 May 2015 Staszek Lem (talk | contribs) . . (28,023 bytes) (-2) . . (→Controversy) (undo)
- (cur | prev) 15:19, 14 May 2015 Staszek Lem (talk | contribs) . . (28,025 bytes) (+1) . . (moved "History" to top; it gives a quick idea WTH is this.) (undo)
Staszek Lem (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's no big deal, I just thought for an article currently in dispute, changes (even in shifting text) should be discussed first. I thought the recommended cycle was edit, revert then discuss not edit,revert, revert the reversion and then discuss. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Quite a few articles are in dispute all the time. This does not mean that they are frozen from normal editing. You are referring to WP:BRD. Be careful with its usage and don't apply it when you don't have real objections to discuss. Mechanical application of BRD is a gateway to severe impeding of work: a malicious person can run around clicking "revert" at a whim (so do "page owners"). My edit summaries are pretty clear. The only thing you expressed a slight objection I self-reverted. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- I did also mention that rearranging changes emphasis, specifically you've rearranged an important paragraph in the lead that is the subject of a current rfc. I think that should have been discussed first. If it wasn't for that I wouldn't have bothered reverting. In retrospect I should have just reverted that paragraph and the detagging. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- We typically lay out articles per WP:MEDMOS thus moved history section lower. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- In this case please add concise description of the essence of the therapy at the top, per inverted triangle rule of reporting. This is encyclopedia for everybody, not just for doctors, who already know it all. I don't want to waste my time to read thru Phase I, Phase II, etc. which say nothing useful. How I can understand "Medical uses" section if I don't know yet what the hell is used medically? If the layout of this article follows MEDMOS, then IMO MEDMOS has issues in this respect. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- P.S. This is about all what I can say about the article. What I did was simply out of my habit to edit what I read. I don't think I will edit anything else here, since I am not qualified as to the essence. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- In this case please add concise description of the essence of the therapy at the top, per inverted triangle rule of reporting. This is encyclopedia for everybody, not just for doctors, who already know it all. I don't want to waste my time to read thru Phase I, Phase II, etc. which say nothing useful. How I can understand "Medical uses" section if I don't know yet what the hell is used medically? If the layout of this article follows MEDMOS, then IMO MEDMOS has issues in this respect. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- We typically lay out articles per WP:MEDMOS thus moved history section lower. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- I did also mention that rearranging changes emphasis, specifically you've rearranged an important paragraph in the lead that is the subject of a current rfc. I think that should have been discussed first. If it wasn't for that I wouldn't have bothered reverting. In retrospect I should have just reverted that paragraph and the detagging. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Advert tag
Please explain the advert tag. The tag is a politely written text, but it is intended to be slapped onto blatant advertising. Currently the article does not contain hype language, nor undue promotion of nonnotable businesses. If you think that an opposing view is not sufficiently presented, you must use some of WP:NPOV tags. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree. The article is generally well written and it seems EMDR has become an established intervention. I don't see any sections written as an advertisement. I removed the tag until someone can be more specific about to what ~sentences the advertisment claim refers. PizzaMan (♨♨) 09:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)