Talk:Koren Specific Technique

Removal of sources

@QuackGuru:, @BullRangifer:, the current 4 sources listed are reliable and I found a fifth one [here, and the studies link shows that externals test showed the outcome was inconclusive, experimental and ineffective. My goal is to show this is notable quackery so people can get a better understanding of what they are paying for. I have also found another neutral source. However, I disagree with the sources removed and have restored for the purpose of writing from an WP:NPOV, I believe we must first explain what the subject is and then what the science community thinks of it. There is no issue with using primary sources, they can not be used for notability, but can be used for information. Most reliable secondary sources are very negative against this technique, so I don't see an issue with using primary sources for a bit of background.

If you disagree I have no issues with a revert, however I think it is better to allow both sides to state their views. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I sympathize with documenting notable matters, including quackery, but we still must use RS. globenewswire.com is a PR website (like prnewsire.com) which anyone can use. You or I could publish anything we wanted there, with no form of editorial oversight or controls, but would it be proper to use that here? No. Self-published press releases aren't RS. Independent RS are needed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• fwiw, i kind of like the use of insurance company evaluations for alt med topics. insurance companies have a strong financial interest in only paying for stuff that works (their money is on the line) and they often review interventions where there are few or no reviews in the biomedical literature nor statements by major health authorities. So in the absence of those two kinds of high quality sources, insurance company evaluations are, in my view, useful for independent discussion of the intervention. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Various names of the technique -- source

Currently, the article contains the sentence:

'"Koren has variously described it as an "analysis procotol," "healthcare protocol," and "healing protocol."'

But the source for "healing protocol" was Koren's website. Since the point of this sentence is to show the various claims that Koren has made, it seems appropriate to quote Koren. However, aggregating this into a sentence in the article could be considered original research. In an abundance of caution, I will remove the "healing protocol" quote from the sentence for now, unless others here think otherwise. Thanks. Chris vLS (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Misleading quote

At the moment, the article contains the following:

'Aetna describes the technique as follows: "The KST allegedly opens up a new horizon on the analysis and correction of health problems by accessing the binary information of the holographic body, which supposedly enables a trained practitioner to access information about a patient's physiology that otherwise would not be available."'

This is misleading. Aetna is not doing the describing here, they are quoting allegations of efficacy that they have found no support for. Here's the full quote, with emphasis on the excluded sentence.

The Koren Specific Technique (KST) appears to be a new system of analysis in chiropractic. With the KST method, the adjustment is generally made with an instrument called the "Arthrostim" although finger pressure can also be used. The KST allegedly opens up a new horizon on the analysis and correction of health problems by accessing the binary information of the holographic body, which supposedly enables a trained practitioner to access information about a patient's physiology that otherwise would not be available.http://www.headbacktohealth.com/Koren_Specific_Technique.html. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness of this approach.

Moreover, this quote is taken from a section that begins:

"Some diagnostic and therapeutic procedures are not considered medically necessary or essential to the treatment of an illness or injury and are not broadly accepted by the chiropractic profession."

I don't see any alternative but to delete this quote. Please comment if I'm mistaken. Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I just want to clarify that I'm not accusing anyone of being intentionally misleading here. There have been a lot of edits. It's entirely possible that this made more sense in context when it was originally added and later changes left it unbalanced. Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The proper solution is not to delete, but to include the whole thing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Chrisvls, I would summarise this part only: "the adjustment is generally made with an instrument called the "Arthrostim" although finger pressure can also be used." QuackGuru (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru, that section is a word-for-word copy of the description of the technique at the headbacktohealth source[1]. I don't think that quoting Aetna quoting the practitioners' claims makes sense, when the purpose of the Aetna document is to state that Aetna is unconvinced of those claims. I think, User:BullRangifer, that the same rationale applies to including the whole paragraph. Also, if we include the Aetna language, why not the full quote from the other two sources that say the same thing? Better, I think, to summarize what all three say, which is what the sentence in the lede does. . . does that make sense? Cheers Chris vLS (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm just now noticing this thread a few hours after I made/re-made very similar revisions to ones that were specifically mentioned here. I can't tell which happened first b/c some time stamps are my local time and others are random time zones and I always have trouble figuring out which is which. Anyway, my apologies if this conversation happened first and I overlooked it. I'm guilty of making those edits after only skimming this talkpage, the AFD, and the article's edit history. I still stand by my edits though, but I wanted to acknowledge my mistake. I think quoting Aetna's description of KST, dubious tone and all, is appropriate and required for this article to have some semblance of NPOV. And I think it's a perfect example of why WP:SECONDARY sources are often preferable to primary sources. A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources... rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them... Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. Insurance companies hire clinicians to make these kinds of decisions about coverage, usually MDs, not always, but even if it's not a doctor, the person will have a license and experience in a relevant field. For example, sometimes they use licensed clinical social workers to make decisions about mental health claims. Even then, there's always a medical director at the top of the chain of command to oversee major decisions (e.g. publications about said policies). Plus all 3 of the insurance companies we're citing (and I assume there are more, but I haven't checked) wrote very detailed explanations and cited sources as to how they determined which techniques warranted coverage. At least one of them went through each technique and wrote a mini meta-analysis of the existing research on each procedure. There's a lot of liability in denying medically necessary coverage. Insurance companies aren't just shooting from the hip when make these policies (whether or not they always follow their own policies in practice is an entirely different discussion). PermStrump(talk) 19:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The current wording is good. Each source was summarised. QuackGuru (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS issue on insurance sources

I see that the sentence below is now tagged as a WP:MEDRS issue. I can see the point, but rather than get into an edit exchange, would like to discuss here. The sentence is:

Because of lack of evidence of efficacy, KST is considered experimental by insurers who cover other chiropractic techniques.

I think this can be resolved through simple re-wording. The fact on offer here is that insurers consider it experimental because, in their assessment, there is a lack of evidence of efficacy and/or safety. Citing the insurers saying this is, I think, sufficient to prove that insurers say this. It would not be the subject of a ProMed article. It's a claim about insurer behavior.

But given the (my) inartful drafting, I can see how the first clause is tagged. So, I think a better sentence would be:

KST is considered experimental by some insurers that, while they cover other chiropractic techniques, have concluded there is insufficient evidence of KST's efficacy and/or safety.

So, it's still not Shakespeare, but I believe it gets the claims in the sentence to match the sourcing. Thoughts? Chris vLS (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

References

What about this...

KST is not always covered by insurers that cover other chiropractic techniques, because some companies have decided there is insufficient evidence supporting KST's efficacy and/or safety.

I was trying to make the wording a little more direct without changing the "essence." It's hard to weave in the word "experimental" without making it clunky. I'm not sure that adds anything to the meaning of the sentence anyway. I think it makes sense to attribute this statement to the insurance companies anyway, but FWIW, MEDRS is not required when you're citing an otherwise reliable source that addresses the lack of evidence for a WP:FRINGE topic since a lot of times there won't be any sources that meet MEDRS standards. MEDRS would only be required to support a statement about the existence of evidence of efficacy/safety a fringe topic. I can't remember which policy talks about it, but maybe someone else will. PermStrump(talk) 10:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"According to Aetna's policy..." fixed the issue. QuackGuru (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Violation of consensus

The unreliable sources were previously deleted, but the sources were restored against consensus.

• Chiropractic, Secrest Family (2013-07-14). "Scottsdale Chiropractor Focuses on Chiropractic for TMJ Patients". GlobeNewswire News Room. Retrieved 2015-06-30. Unreliable source previously removed per talk.

• "Natural Health Awareness Event This Saturday". Pagosa Daily Post. 2015-03-12. Retrieved 2015-06-30. Unreliable source previously removed.

• LeCain W. Smith (12 August 2014). Our Inner Ocean. Archway Publishing. pp. 111–. ISBN 978-1-4525-1868-8. The source is a MEDRS violation[2] and was previously removed.

• Davis, Heather D.C.; Byrley, Amy D.C. (2012-07-19). "Correction of Subluxation and Alleviation of Asthma Symptoms in a Pediatric Patient: A Case Study" (PDF). McCoy Press. Retrieved 2015-06-30. The study was previously removed.

• "KST: Koren Specific Technique". Sunrise Health Institute. Retrieved 2015-06-30. A practitioner's website was previously removed.

QuackGuru (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)