Talk:Electrotrichogenesis

Comments
This looks like hair spam. --Wtshymanski 04:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No doubt. By the end of the paragraph, I was expecting to see a 1-800 number next to a "Call now for your free consultation!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.164.163 (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oversized external links
The list of ELs is growing too far out of proportion with the article. Also, none are labelled for content. I think some cleaning is in order. Wikiphile1603 (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Attempt to remove PROD
Problems:
 * not subject of any review articles
 * written like an advert

Interim Fix:
 * Remove mention of Current Technology Corporation. Medical techniques are rarely patented and if they are only offered by this group, it's likely the science behind them hasn't quite 'matured'.

Check:
 * Google news archives: 115 articles, 114 or so of them PR news wires. So nothing there.


 * PubMed search for 'electrotrichogenesis':


 * -Pulsed electrostatic fields (ETG) to reduce hair loss in women undergoing chemotherapy for breast carcinoma: a pilot study. Benjamin B, Ziginskas D, Harman J, Meakin T. Psychooncology. 2002 May-Jun;11(3):244-8.PMID: 12112485


 * -Electrotrichogenesis: further evidence of efficacy and safety on extended use. Maddin WS, Amara I, Sollecito WA. Int J Dermatol. 1992 Dec;31(12):878-80.PMID: 1478771


 * -The biological effects of a pulsed electrostatic field with specific reference to hair. Electrotrichogenesis. Maddin WS, Bell PW, James JH. Int J Dermatol. 1990 Jul-Aug;29(6):446-50.PMID: 2397975

So something there, but 1990, 1992, and 2002 is not encouraging. I think the PROD can be removed for now, but more cleanup to determine the scope of this technology, its status in the medical community, and the connection between CTC and electrotrichinosis as studied above should happen. Ocaasi (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Returned prod as I still see no review articles. The 96% success? What it says is no further hair loss or hair gain. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:PROD is pretty clear that prods should not be restored. If Occasi thinks his removal was a mistake and wants to restore it, he could do that. I guess my position is: if someone inputs this into Wikipedia when they see it somewhere, should they get a result? I think yes, but I'm generally an inclusionist. There's several articles on the subject. WP:NOTE requires secondary sources; it does not require medical reviews. At this point, this has to go to AfD for the delete decision. II  | (t - c) 06:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes thank you my mistake. I meant to AFD rather than PROD. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Have found a review that supports this
"This is a hair-dryer-type of device that claims to be a noninvasive stimulation of hair follicles to grow by positive influence of an electrostatic field. ETG is thought to inhibit further hair loss and stimulate or promote actual hair regrowth, with use of ongoing 12-minute painless treatment sessions.[49 and 50] The device has been developed by Current Technologies, Vancouver, BC, Canada." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice find. Thanks for digging around.  Are the citations from that review (49 and 50) different from the three already referenced in PubMed? Ocaasi (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a 1990 Dallas News Article which identifies the company. Archived ($). Ocaasi (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's an interview with the founder of the company: http://www.twst.com/ceos/ZAR601.htm Ocaasi (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

How about a merge
This topic with only three small studies IMO should be merged into Management of baldness. Comments? -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not much of a mergist, so to speak. If someone looks up electrotrichogenesis, I don't see why we can't present them with a short, sourced paragraph here.  It's not there yet, but it can be worked on still. Ocaasi (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I removed the promotional nature or undue medical claims. I don't have a problem with it being a neutral stub for a while.  What do you think? Ocaasi (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)