Wikipedia

Talk:Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine)

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Sgerbic in topic Researching an update to the article
Learn more about this page

Merger discussion edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

The PEFT article is obviously under much stress of its own as evidenced by a busy editor that has been deleting lots of content on the PEFT page all day. Merging it with something like this was a very capitolistic oppritunity to take advantage of while this artile is up for deletion but this article already has its own contraversy without piling more on top.

Novocure is chaging the former predominate view with clinical acceptence , that means many of the claims that "all medical machines are radonic bullocks" Those claims lose their validity. And since this article is all about that the deletion is limited to that. If you want the PEFT article deleted you need to do it yourself instead of attempting to merge it here after a day minor deleting all the bits and parts. I won't do it for you. Such an editing style is greatly troubling indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 01:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

You may express your views on this merge suggestion here on the Talk page, but please do not remove the {{merge from}} template until the discussion period has completed. You may not unilaterally remove a merge template placed in good faith like that while discussion is just getting under way. Zad68 02:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Opposse Oh forgive me, Having a merger tacked on with in the half hour of a article for deletion seems disingenuous to me.

Capitolistic.

Predatory.

This article already has controversy and discombobulation and citation issues aswell as the new game changer of the novocure.

Merging an article just in time for potential deletion is not ethical. Shame on any that would attempt to justify it. Questionable editing like that destorys a wikipedians faith in good faith.

Since when is it acceptable to merge an article with another article up for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs)

An outcome of "merge" is a perfectly normal AFD discussion outcome and there's nothing wrong with suggesting it. Zad68 02:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

What is more, this article deals with a number of electromagnetic modalities from a terrible negative point of view. It even spawned a sister article. The article about PEFT seems a bit probiased at first. But the editors have seriously toned it down and gotten rid of the copy and pasta in it. I do not think it shuold be risking deletion over a merge. It is not bad now and with a bit more touching up that article could be super. As long as we keep open minds and cynical hearts it can be awesome..

But no, thje complete overlap that some allude too.. no that opnly exist from them the individual. The two articles don't overlap.. both have been stripped. Both seem to have a bit of controversy around them.... The ethical moral right thing to do would be to handle each thing on its own . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs)

Support merge from this article into Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF) (the opposite direction of the merger proposed). There appears to be a complete topic overlap between these two articles, but it's the PEMF title that meets WP:TITLE critera and not the title this article has. The PEMF article is better-developed too. Zad68 02:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Proposal: Merge both PEFT and Tumor Treating Fields into this article Possibly Rename this article Eletromagnetic therapy. Both PEFT and TTF are problematic as titles as they are bound up in product-specific and company-specific backgrounds whereas electromagnetic therapy is a better umbrella term. The PEFT article is pro-biased and needs work, the TTF article manages a better summary and this article is not an inaccurate summary of existing, mainstream opinion on the topic at large (which is much wider than PETF & TTF). We should be careful and aware that the research papers on TTF have been under considerable scrutiny and criticism that any description of the treatment as anything other than under contention and the our job as editors is to reflect that contention and debate and make no claims in either direction. A good, full article will cover both the pseudoscientifc history and also cover the current debate and critique around potential research developments. However, in my opinion, I don't think we need to rename the article, as neither PEMFT nor TTF are mainstream, and evidence for both is far, far from solid and straightforward. The PEMFT article is particularly bad for WP:FRINGE. This being said, merging all three articles makes a lot of sense to me and allows for a space for a much more balanced and wiki-like coverage of these therapies.--Cooper42(Talk)(Contr) 22:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Keep PEMF as main article and merge electromagnetic to PEMF. Cyrinus (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

  • Oppose merge. It's hard to see how the articles could be merged, with the proposed target in its current form, anyway. This form of research is not just "pseudoscience." Quite by accident, I've been working today on cleaning up Isabelle M. Germano. She's a notable American neurosurgeon who has helped to develop this experimental form of electric field therapy, now being tested at Mount Sinai. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose merge of TTF into this article. It's an FDA-approved therapy being used by mainstream practitioners, and studied by conventional medical science. I don't see how it could belong in an "alternative medicine" article. RustavoTalk/Contribs 21:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Researching an update to the article edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Some of the research and sources cited here are getting a little long in the tooth. I'm going to see what I can come up with to bring this page up to speed. Questions, comments, concerns, helpful resources, and general relevant thoughts can be directed here or to my talk page. Cheers Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Taking the rewrite live. I've rearranged the content, cleaned up the lede and the language. Added substantially more sourcing and content showing the ineffective nature of alternative uses. I'm very sure that others will let me know what's inappropriate to the page or what should be different. Ideally this edit draws attention and further edits for even more improvement. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Boy this page has gone through some changes. Lots of back and forth, but nice improvements. I really like the idea of having more photographs related to this, so much more interesting to SEE.Sgerbic (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

refs edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

refs in proposed new version:

  1. Stollznow, K. (29 March 2011). "Hard (Pseudo) Science: The Second Coming of the VIBE Machine". Skeptical Inquirer. Retrieved 16 May 2018.
  2. Mielczarek, E. V.; Araujo, D. C. (June 2011). "Power Lines and Cancer, Distant Healing and Health Care: Magnetism Misrepresented and Misunderstood". Skeptical Inquirer. 35 (3). Retrieved 16 May 2018.
  3. Vavken, P.; Arrich, F.; Schuhfried, O.; Dorotka, R. (May 2009). "Effectiveness of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy in the management of osteoarthritis of the knee: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials". Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. 41 (6): 406–411. doi:10.2340/16501977-0374. Retrieved 16 May 2018.
  4. Hannemann, P. F. W.; Mommers, E. H. H.; schots, J. P. M.; Brink, P. R. G.; Poeze, M. (August 2014). "The effects of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound and pulsed electromagnetic fields bone growth stimulation in acute fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials". Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery. 134 (8): 1093–1106. Retrieved 16 May 2018.
  5. Lim, R.; Lee, S. W. H.; Tan, P. Y.; Liong, M. L.; Yuen, K. H. (22 September 2014). "Efficacy of electromagnetic therapy for urinary incontinence: A systematic review". Neurourolgoy and Urodynamics. 34 (8): 713–722. doi:10.1002/nau.22672. Retrieved 16 May 2018.
  6. Hug, K.; Röösli, M. (21 September 2011). "Therapeutic effects of whole‐body devices applying pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF): A systematic literature review". Bio Electro Magnetics. 33 (2): 95–105. doi:10.1002/bem.20703. Retrieved 16 May 2018.
  7. Assiotis, A.; Sachinis, N. P.; Chalidis, B. E. (2012). "Pulsed electromagnetic fields for the treatment of tibial delayed unions and nonunions. A prospective clinical study and review of the literature". Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 7 (24). Retrieved 16 May 2018.
  8. Bouter LM (March 2000). "Insufficient scientific evidence for efficacy of widely used electrotherapy, laser therapy, and ultrasound treatment in physiotherapy". Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd (in Dutch and Flemish). 144 (11): 502–5. PMID 10735134.
  9. Cullum N, Nelson EA, Flemming K, Sheldon T (2001). "Systematic reviews of wound care management: (5) beds; (6) compression; (7) laser therapy, therapeutic ultrasound, electrotherapy and electromagnetic therapy". Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England). 5 (9): 1–221. doi:10.3310/hta5090. PMID 11368833.
  10. Kroeling P, Gross A, Graham N, Burnie SJ, Szeto G, Goldsmith CH, Haines T, Forget M (2013). "Electrotherapy for neck pain". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (8): CD004251. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004251.pub5. PMID 23979926.
  11. "Management of neck pain and associated disorders: A clinical practice guideline from the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration". European Spine Journal : Official Publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society. 25 (7): 2000–22. 2016. doi:10.1007/s00586-016-4467-7. PMID 26984876. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
  12. Smart KM, Wand BM, O'Connell NE (2016). "Physiotherapy for pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) types I and II". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2: CD010853. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010853.pub2. PMID 26905470.
  13. Bronfort G, Nilsson N, Haas M, Evans R, Goldsmith CH, Assendelft WJ, Bouter LM (2004). "Non-invasive physical treatments for chronic/recurrent headache". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (3): CD001878. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001878.pub2. PMID 15266458.
  14. Sim J, Adams N (1999). "Physical and other non-pharmacological interventions for fibromyalgia". Bailliere's Best Practice & Research. Clinical Rheumatology. 13 (3): 507–23. doi:10.1053/berh.1999.0041. PMID 10562382.
  15. Sarzi-Puttini P, Cimmino MA, Scarpa R, Caporali R, Parazzini F, Zaninelli A, Atzeni F, Canesi B (2005). "Osteoarthritis: an overview of the disease and its treatment strategies". Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism. 35 (1 Suppl 1): 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.semarthrit.2005.01.013. PMID 16084227.
  16. Hurley MV, Bearne LM (2008). "Non-exercise physical therapies for musculoskeletal conditions". Best Practice & Research. Clinical Rheumatology. 22 (3): 419–33. doi:10.1016/j.berh.2008.01.001. PMID 18519097.
  17. Mostafa, J.; Ali, Y.; Zohre, R.; Samaneh, R. (March 2015). "Electromagnetic Fields and Ultrasound Waves in Wound Treatment: A Comparative Review of Therapeutic Outcomes" (PDF). BIOSCIENCES BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH ASIA. 12 (1): 185–195. doi:10.13005/bbra/1622. Retrieved 16 May 2018.
  18. Aziz, Z; Cullum, N (2 July 2015). "Electromagnetic therapy for treating venous leg ulcers". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (7): CD002933. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002933.pub6. PMID 26134172.
  19. The American Cancer Society. "Electromagnetic Therapy: What is the evidence?". Archived from the original on 2008-02-04. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  20. Khaleghi A, Eslampanah Sendi MS, Chavez-Santiago R, Mesiti F, Balasingham I (November 2012). "Exposure of the human brain to an electromagnetic plane wave in the 100–1000 MHz frequency range for potential treatment of neurodegenerative diseases". IET Microwaves, Antennas & Propagation. 6 (14): 1565–1572. doi:10.1049/iet-map.2012.0436.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  21. Moore Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego Medical Center. "Complementary and Alternative Therapies For Cancer Patients".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  22. Begué-Simon AM, Drolet RA (December 1993). "Clinical assessment of the RHUMART system based on the use of Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields with low frequency". Int J Rehabil Res. 16 (4): 323–7. doi:10.1097/00004356-199312000-00011. PMID 8175238.
  23. Rosch, P. & Marko S. Markov. "Bioelectromagnetic Medicine". Informa Health Care, 2004. ISBN 0-8247-4700-3, ISBN 978-0-8247-4700-8. Republished by Google books. Accessed 8 June 2009.
  24. Gordon, GA (2007). "Designed electromagnetic pulsed therapy: Clinical applications". Journal of Cellular Physiology. 212 (3): 579–82. doi:10.1002/jcp.21025. PMID 17577213.
  25. Luben, RA (1991). "Effects of low-energy electromagnetic fields (pulsed and DC) on membrane signal transduction processes in biological systems". Health physics. 61 (1): 15–28. doi:10.1097/00004032-199107000-00002. PMID 2061045.
  26. Basford, Jeffrey R. (2001). "A historical perspective of the popular use of electric and magnetic therapy". Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 82 (9): 1261–1269. doi:10.1053/apmr.2001.25905.
  27. Aziz, Z; Bell-Syer, SE (3 September 2015). "Electromagnetic therapy for treating pressure ulcers". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (9): CD002930. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002930.pub6. PMID 26334539.

refs in former version:

  1. Basford, Jeffrey R. (2001). "A historical perspective of the popular use of electric and magnetic therapy". Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 82 (9): 1261–1269. doi:10.1053/apmr.2001.25905.
  2. Luben, RA (1991). "Effects of low-energy electromagnetic fields (pulsed and DC) on membrane signal transduction processes in biological systems". Health physics. 61 (1): 15–28. doi:10.1097/00004032-199107000-00002. PMID 2061045.
  3. Gordon, GA (2007). "Designed electromagnetic pulsed therapy: Clinical applications". Journal of Cellular Physiology. 212 (3): 579–82. doi:10.1002/jcp.21025. PMID 17577213.
  4. Rosch, P. & Marko S. Markov. "Bioelectromagnetic Medicine". Informa Health Care, 2004. ISBN 0-8247-4700-3, ISBN 978-0-8247-4700-8. Republished by Google books. Accessed 8 June 2009.
  5. Begué-Simon AM, Drolet RA (December 1993). "Clinical assessment of the RHUMART system based on the use of Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields with low frequency". Int J Rehabil Res. 16 (4): 323–7. doi:10.1097/00004356-199312000-00011. PMID 8175238.
  6. Khaleghi A, Eslampanah Sendi MS, Chavez-Santiago R, Mesiti F, Balasingham I (November 2012). "Exposure of the human brain to an electromagnetic plane wave in the 100–1000 MHz frequency range for potential treatment of neurodegenerative diseases". IET Microwaves, Antennas & Propagation. 6 (14): 1565–1572. doi:10.1049/iet-map.2012.0436.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  7. Moore Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego Medical Center. "Complementary and Alternative Therapies For Cancer Patients".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. The American Cancer Society. "Electromagnetic Therapy: What is the evidence?". Archived from the original on 2008-02-04. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  9. Aziz, Z; Bell-Syer, SE (3 September 2015). "Electromagnetic therapy for treating pressure ulcers". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (9): CD002930. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002930.pub6. PMID 26334539.
  10. Aziz, Z; Cullum, N (2 July 2015). "Electromagnetic therapy for treating venous leg ulcers". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (7): CD002933. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002933.pub6. PMID 26134172.

Just posting for now, will comment below. Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)Reply


what is new, and what is kept, and what was removed edit

refs that were in old version, that are still in new version
refs new in new version

-- Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Discussion edit

reused refs
  • A) is fine
  • B) is meh; ACS took down a lot of their stuff on alt med and published it in a book instead. We should be citing the book. Also this 10 year old ref was (and is in the new version) being used to make statments about today, which is not OK.
  • C) is not MEDRS and should be removed
  • D) is not MEDRS and is spam and should be removed
  • E) is not MEDRS and is spam and should be removed
  • F) is too old per MEDRS and should be removed. also is woo
  • G) is too old and is by an author affiliated with an institution pushing woo. Might be useful for history.
  • H) is 17 years old and should be removed
  • I) is like G) but a bit better in terms of the journal and author but older. so good for history, not medicine.
  • J) is fine
new refs
  • 1) and 2) are skeptic-y and OK per PARITY. We usually go with Gorski or Novella but this is OK.
  • 3) through 6) are relatively recent (not so recent) reviews in OK journals. OK
  • 7) is a clinical trial + review, needs to be used with care
  • 8) 18 years old and in another language. Not good.
  • 9) good source but again 17 years old...
  • 10) through 12) are OK
  • 13) and 14) and 15) and 16) good but is 14 years old and 19 (!) years old and 13 years old and 10 years old respectively.
  • 16) is a predatory journal and should not be used at all.

-- Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Additional Information Required on the Page edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

These are some of the topics that still need to be added to the page if anyone is keen to help out

1. History of EMT devices

https://www.archives-pmr.org/article/S0003-9993(01)22503-9/fulltext
https://web.archive.org/web/20080204225953/http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Electromagnetic_Therapy.asp

6. Be good to have another major reference source other than the American Cancer Council 2011 Archive page

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/pulsed-electromagnetic-field-snake-oil/

7. Updated information on EMT devices on the market in 2018 as the devices listed were still available in 2011

Email sent to Australian Cancer Council requesting information on current alternative therapies using EMT 01:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
https://www.csicop.org/si/show/power_lines_and_cancer_distant_healing_and_health_care_magnetism_misreprese

Nestek (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've proposed that we merge this into Radionics (see discussion on its talk page). The second and third bullets are not things we do. Sure the template can go here. Pictures are always great. The ACS reference is the book; the archived page is just for convenience, but yes more high quality sources are welcome. There are generally few high quality sources for quackery like this. Science-Based Medicine often has things, and indeed here is one. There may be others at SBM. Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
A merger of these 2 pages would make sense as Radionics is really focused on a sub section of the electromagnetic spectrum - radio waves where as Electromagnetic therapy covers the entire spectrum - be interesting watch I have not been involved in a merger before Nestek (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Completed adding the template and have removed points 2&3 from the list. Managed to find only 1 suitable photo Nestek (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electromagnetic_therapy_(alternative_medicine)&oldid=1195531149"