Jump to content

Talk:TM-Sidhi program: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Discussion: the research is suggestive but not conclusive; as is the case with most research; we should probably say that
out
Line 84: Line 84:


:::I was just looking at the appendices, and they don't report quality assessment scores for studies that aren't randomized controlled trials in the same manner as they do for the RCTs. So there's no place in the review where it specifically comments on the studies that had subjects who practiced the TM-Sidhi program. Further, the TM-Sidhi studies tend to be on physiological effects and aren't clinical studies. From what I can tell, their conclusion is specifically related to their assessment of the clinical research. I'm not sure what to do. But the studies themselves, and the research reviews cited, typically say something similar to what Ospina says: the results are suggestive but more research is needed before firm conclusions can be reached. Or something like that. Science is often very tentative about its conclusions, so we should be, too. It's only when one has a number of rigorous randomized studies that scientists feel comfortable in drawing conclusions. [[User:TimidGuy|TimidGuy]] ([[User talk:TimidGuy|talk]]) 10:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
:::I was just looking at the appendices, and they don't report quality assessment scores for studies that aren't randomized controlled trials in the same manner as they do for the RCTs. So there's no place in the review where it specifically comments on the studies that had subjects who practiced the TM-Sidhi program. Further, the TM-Sidhi studies tend to be on physiological effects and aren't clinical studies. From what I can tell, their conclusion is specifically related to their assessment of the clinical research. I'm not sure what to do. But the studies themselves, and the research reviews cited, typically say something similar to what Ospina says: the results are suggestive but more research is needed before firm conclusions can be reached. Or something like that. Science is often very tentative about its conclusions, so we should be, too. It's only when one has a number of rigorous randomized studies that scientists feel comfortable in drawing conclusions. [[User:TimidGuy|TimidGuy]] ([[User talk:TimidGuy|talk]]) 10:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
::::Let's take these sentences out then. --[[User:Bigweeboy|BwB]] ([[User talk:Bigweeboy|talk]]) 16:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:03, 25 July 2012

Removal of sourced content

An editor claiming to be Huw Dixon removed this:

Huw Dixon, Professor of Economics at York University, says: "I have been following research on the Maharishi Effect over the past 20 years. Its conclusions are so strong that it demands action from those responsible for government policy."[1]

The information is well sourced. I'd say leave it out for now, if that's his wish. I'm not sure what policy would bear on this. TimidGuy (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems strange that an "anon" editor, who has only made 3 edits on Wiki, can claim to be someone and just remove material. I am not too fussed if the material stays or goes, but what is the Wiki policies that apply here? --BwB (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead text

The lead refers extensively to research on the TM technique. Since this article is not about TM, and the research is not on the TM-Sidhi program, I feel it could be removed from the lead. In addition, all these points appear in several articles on TM and TM reesearch, with almost exactly the same text, so perhaps is redundant here. I welcome other editors' feedback before making any changes to the text.

Here is the text I am referring to:

"Skeptics have called TM or its associated theories and technologies a "pseudoscience".[4][5][6] Independent systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education.[7][8][9] It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation practices in healthcare as the quality of research has design limitations and a lack of methodological rigor.[7][10][11] Part of this difficulty is because studies have the potential for bias due to the connection of researchers to the TM organization, and enrollment of subjects with a favorable opinion of TM.[12][13][not in citation given]" --BwB (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - a similar discussion is happening at the TM research article talk page [1] --BwB (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptics have called TM or its associated theories and technologies a "pseudoscience".[2][3][4] Independent systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education.[5][6][7] It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation practices in healthcare as the quality of research has design limitations and a lack of methodological rigor.[5][8][9] Part of this difficulty is because studies have the potential for bias due to the connection of researchers to the TM organization, and enrollment of subjects with a favorable opinion of TM.[10][11][failed verification]

Lead on McDuff!--BwB (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Naish, John (March 13, 2004). "Give Peace A Chance". The Times. London (UK).
  2. ^ "James Randi Educational Foundation — An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural".
  3. ^ Sagan, Carl (1997). The demon-haunted world: science as a candle in the dark. New York: Ballantine Books. p. 16. ISBN 0-345-40946-9.
  4. ^
  5. ^ a b Krisanaprakornkit, T.; Krisanaprakornkit, W.; Piyavhatkul, N.; Laopaiboon, M. (2006). Krisanaprakornkit, Thawatchai (ed.). "Meditation therapy for anxiety disorders". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1): CD004998. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004998.pub2. PMID 16437509. The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety
  6. ^ Ospina, MB.; Bond, K.; Karkhaneh, M.; Tjosvold, L.; Vandermeer, B.; Liang, Y.; Bialy, L.; Hooton, N.; Buscemi, N. (2007). "Meditation practices for health: state of the research" (PDF). Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) (155): 4. PMID 17764203. A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients {{cite journal}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  7. ^ Krisanaprakornkit, T.; Ngamjarus, C.; Witoonchart, C.; Piyavhatkul, N. (2010). Krisanaprakornkit, Thawatchai (ed.). "Meditation therapies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)". Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 6 (6): CD006507. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006507.pub2. PMID 20556767. As a result of the limited number of included studies, the small sample sizes and the high risk of bias, we are unable to draw any conclusions regarding the effectiveness of meditation therapy for ADHD.
  8. ^ Ospina MB, Bond K, Karkhaneh M; et al. (2007). "Meditation practices for health: state of the research". Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) (155): 1–263. PMID 17764203. Scientific research on meditation practices does not appear to have a common theoretical perspective and is characterized by poor methodological quality. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  9. ^ Krisanaprakornkit T, Ngamjarus C, Witoonchart C, Piyavhatkul N (2010). Krisanaprakornkit, Thawatchai (ed.). "Meditation therapies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)". Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 6 (6): CD006507. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006507.pub2. PMID 20556767. As a result of the limited number of included studies, the small sample sizes and the high risk of bias{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  10. ^ Canter PH, Ernst E (2004). "Insufficient evidence to conclude whether or not Transcendental Meditation decreases blood pressure: results of a systematic review of randomized clinical trials". Journal of Hypertension. 22 (11): 2049–54. doi:10.1097/00004872-200411000-00002. PMID 15480084. All the randomized clinical trials of TM for the control of blood pressure published to date have important methodological weaknesses and are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  11. ^ Canter PH, Ernst E (2003). "The cumulative effects of Transcendental Meditation on cognitive function--a systematic review of randomised controlled trials". Wien. Klin. Wochenschr. 115 (21–22): 758–66. doi:10.1007/BF03040500. PMID 14743579. All 4 positive trials recruited subjects from among people favourably predisposed towards TM, and used passive control procedures …The association observed between positive outcome, subject selection procedure and control procedure suggests that the large positive effects reported in 4 trials result from an expectation effect. The claim that TM has a specific and cumulative effect on cognitive function is not supported by the evidence from randomized controlled trials. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Discussion

I'd suggest a sentence by sentence analysis. I agree this entire paragraph is inaccurate and needs to be fixed.(olive (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I think the very first sentence, which uses the terms "TM or its associated theories and technologies" could be part of an article about the TM-Sidhi program, as long as the sources support it. But the remainder of that section is about TM and nothing else. As such it does not belong in the TM-Sidhi article at all, in my opinion, and would be more appropriately placed in an article on TM. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with you in that the first sentence is probably OK, although I think it lacks information with substance. The Maharishi Effect and its research is controversial as the article indicates, and we'd do better to summarize that controversy in the lead. So yes, I'd move the content that refers to the TM technique to that article unless better material on the same information is already in the TM tech article. I am concerned that content was added to create a slant which is doubly peculiar given that the ME is controversial and a summary of the controversy could and should be added to the article(olive (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
I'd still like to look at each sentence and its sources if that seems OK to others.(olive (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]


I wouldn't move it until we have determined that it does or doesn't belong in the article. We have a copy here to refer to.(olive (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

By the way, it would seem that the paragraph in question is already in the TM tech article [2] I think it is entirely superfluous here, but let me know what you think--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that any assertions about research in the article should relate to research specifically on the TM-Sidhi program. The two cited reviews by Canter and Ernst do not examine any studies that include practice of the TM-Sidhi program. The two Cochrane reviews by Krisanaprakornkit do not examine any studies in which subjects practice the TM-Sidhi program. Ospina's quality assessment does include a handful of studies on the TM-Sidhi program (fewer than 10 out of the 230 TM/TM-Sidhi studies examined), but the meta-analyses do not include subjects practicing the TM-Sidhi program. TimidGuy (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Timid's analysis seems accurate. It seems like Ospina could be used if it specifically cites research on the TM-Sidhi program. If it is somehow "blended" with TM research, then I feel it would be hard to draw conclusions that could be used in the TM-Sidhi article. --BwB (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:::::Yes, I think that is a good idea. Should we move the content to the talk page while it s being examined or would you rather leave it for the moment?--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Sorry that was a mistake, did not mean to post, Olive has already responded. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence should be deleted because none of the sources examines studies on subjects practicing the TM-Sidhi program: "Independent systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education." Neither of the Cochrane reviews by Krisanaprakornkit includes studies on the TM-Sidhi program. And none of the meta-analyses by Ospina includes studies in which the subjects practiced the TM-Sidhi program.

The following sentence gives three citations, but two of the three are unrelated to the TM-Sidhi program: "It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation practices in healthcare as the quality of research has design limitations and a lack of methodological rigor." Neither the 2003 nor 2004 review by Canter and Ernst look at any studies that included subjects on the TM-Sidhi program. The examination of the quality of 230 studies on TM and the TM-Sidhii program by Ospina does include a handful (fewer than 10) of studies in which the subjects were practicing the TM-Sidhi program. However, the text of the article doesn't mention the results of the quality assessment of these studies on the TM-Sidhi program. One would need to look at the relevant appendix to see how these particular studies rated.

The following sentence should be deleted because, as noted above, the reviews by Canter and Ernst do not include studies in which the subjects were practicing the TM-Sidhi program: "Part of this difficulty is because studies have the potential for bias due to the connection of researchers to the TM organization, and enrollment of subjects with a favorable opinion of TM."

Regarding the quality of the research on the physiological effects of the TM-Sidhi program, I think that it's likely we'll find that Ospina's general conclusion applies: "Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence." Both the lead and the body of the article should have some statement to this effect. TimidGuy (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough analysis. Based on what you are presenting, it seems clear the sentences you analyzed do not belong in this text. Furthermore, they already exist in the TMT article. Therefore I think it is appropriate to remove them. I do have a question: I am not opposed to using the conclusion from Ospina you quoted, but won't that risk being misleading as well? It does say meditation practices, but does not specifically mention TM-Sidhi, do you think it might be confusing? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just looking at the appendices, and they don't report quality assessment scores for studies that aren't randomized controlled trials in the same manner as they do for the RCTs. So there's no place in the review where it specifically comments on the studies that had subjects who practiced the TM-Sidhi program. Further, the TM-Sidhi studies tend to be on physiological effects and aren't clinical studies. From what I can tell, their conclusion is specifically related to their assessment of the clinical research. I'm not sure what to do. But the studies themselves, and the research reviews cited, typically say something similar to what Ospina says: the results are suggestive but more research is needed before firm conclusions can be reached. Or something like that. Science is often very tentative about its conclusions, so we should be, too. It's only when one has a number of rigorous randomized studies that scientists feel comfortable in drawing conclusions. TimidGuy (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take these sentences out then. --BwB (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:TM-Sidhi_program&oldid=504129990"