The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Meta-analyses are pretty much unsurpassed as MEDRS's, and the "gold standard" for meta-analysis is the kind using individual patient data (IPD). For research on acupuncture's efficacy, there is one such study, Vickers et. al. 2012. It was four large IPD meta-analyses in one and there is plenty there to discuss. It's cited once in the article and isn't in the lede. Other meta-analyses are cited multiple times and are in the lede. This is pretty obviously a WP:WEIGHT problem.
This being a controversial area of research, there were multiple criticisms directed at Vickers, and some of them were valid and are included in the article. However, most of them weren't MEDRS, and those that were were on the low end (e.g., letters to the editor), and to that extent, weigh modestly. One wouldn't guess this from the article, though. Ernst, for example, criticized Vickers in a comment to The Guardian , yet the article gives that about the same space as Vickers itself. It's possible that Vickers' critics haven't put their criticisms in stronger MEDRS's because their criticisms are weak. As it happens, Steven Novella, a fairly well-known alt-med critic, said that he'd prepared a full paper criticizing Vickers, but that it was rejected for publication.
So the article is all out of whack with respect to Vickers, which is to be expected when tigers are afoot, as they so often are in CAM topics. This needs fixing; thoughts? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 11:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
No comments again? All right, I'll work Vickers into the lede and try to make the 2nd para on efficacy less of a cut-and-pasted laundry list (which is what it, and much else, turned into while this page was effectively under the ownership of QuackGuru). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 07:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Could you stick to the topic and refrain from poking people? You might also bear in mind that tigers are much more in keeping with Wikipedia's WP:FRINGE approach—we know people feel better when someone claiming authority pays attention to them, and we know that practitioners use Wikipedia to promote their beliefs, but there is no knowledge regarding how the insertion of needles might be useful. Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I haven't been following edits and discussions lately - but Johnuniq come on - you cannot be paying much attention to the literature if you feel confident making such a sweeping statement. Even if you only accept Ernst's review of reviews as reliable research into efficacy (which would be ridiculous, since there is more to clinical and biological research than just RCT's), you still would see the potential "usefulness" and the need for more research.Herbxue (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: (a) Single mention of another editor ≠ poking. (b) True re tigers on WP, but still, they come in multiple stripes. (c) Agree with Herbxue re what is known about the field (and I don't think academic centers would use it if they didn't think it was useful).... but yes, let's stick to the topic. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 23:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
This section has been set to not archive for months, so in response to the above perhaps I should highlight the critical word in my earlier comment: there is no knowledge regarding how the insertion of needles might be useful. That makes the topic a bit of a head-scratcher from a scientific point of view. Johnuniq (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
You're referring to mechanism, I take it. We don't need proven mechanisms to reasonably consider efficacy, just plausible ones.  But please let's not stray too far from the question at hand, i.e. summarizing and weighting efficacy reviews... --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 22:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm surprised this article has no mention whatsoever of traditional Maya acupuncture (called pirish in most Mayan languages). It is still practiced today, and there should be some sources about it somewhere. Kaldari (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I had no idea this was a thing, will look around at sources and see if any are appropriate for mention in this article. Thanks for bringing it up.Herbxue (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)