Talk:Lumbalgia: Difference between revisions
imported>Petréa Mitchell (Article checklist; question) |
imported>Carl Jantzen (→Shouldn't this be "lower back pain"?: This should be called "lower back pain") |
||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
==Shouldn't this be "lower back pain"?== | ==Shouldn't this be "lower back pain"?== | ||
Just a question from a layman. [[User:Petréa Mitchell|Petréa Mitchell]] 13:10, 20 May 2007 (CDT) | Just a question from a layman. [[User:Petréa Mitchell|Petréa Mitchell]] 13:10, 20 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
* I was thinking the same thing. "lower back pain" is something I've heard before, "low back pain" sounds awkward. [[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 10:50, 19 July 2007 (CDT) |
Revision as of 09:50, 19 July 2007
Workgroup category or categories | Health Sciences Workgroup [Categories OK] |
Article status | Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete |
Underlinked article? | Yes |
Basic cleanup done? | Yes |
Checklist last edited by | Petréa Mitchell 13:10, 20 May 2007 (CDT) |
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.
Edits to the treatment section
I edited the treatment section. WP has a substantially expanded section since the fork (see their 11/11/2006 version [1]). I used that as the basis.
- there were no references
- treatments without supporting empiric evidence were presented indistinguishably from useful treatments.
So...
- I added many references, especially using the Cochrane Collaboration.
- I divided the non-surgical treatments into two sections, treatments with and those without supporting evidence.
Persisting problems:
- I do not like surgery being in its own section apart from the dichotomy above.
- there are some sentences I would like to remove because there is no supporting evidence cited and is an opinion only, for example "Generally, some form of consistent stretching and exercise is believed to be an essential component of most back treatment programs". However, I have not removed these.
- The section still does not read well as it is hard to work with the original text.
Comments/suggestions/edits welcome. Robert Badgett 02:23, 16 November 2006 (CST)
How to indicate an approved article?
This article demonstrates the difficulty to approve an article in its whole. Regarding the treatment section, I think I have the evidence pretty well linked although the writing could be improved. However, other sections, such as Cause and Diagnosis are in terrible shape. Nobody is likely to have the time to correct this type of article in its entirety; so a method is needed to indicate which sections the reader should be wary of. In addition, an article approved at one time may be out-of-date quickly when new research emerges. How is lack of currency detected other than by passage of an arbitrary length of time? Topics vary in how intensely they are researched and how fast they become outdated. Robert Badgett 02:53, 16 November 2006 (CST)
Shouldn't this be "lower back pain"?
Just a question from a layman. Petréa Mitchell 13:10, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
- I was thinking the same thing. "lower back pain" is something I've heard before, "low back pain" sounds awkward. Carl Jantzen 10:50, 19 July 2007 (CDT)
- Health Sciences Category Check
- General Category Check
- Category Check
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Health Sciences Advanced Articles
- Health Sciences Nonstub Articles
- Health Sciences Internal Articles
- Developed Articles
- Health Sciences Developed Articles
- Developing Articles
- Health Sciences Developing Articles
- Stub Articles
- Health Sciences Stub Articles
- External Articles
- Health Sciences External Articles
- Health Sciences Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Health Sciences Cleanup
- General Cleanup
- Cleanup