Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 40

Delete sentence, or part of it?
Just as the following sentence was recently removed in the lead of the TM Research article, I'm wondering if the same thing should be done in the Research section here ? Or at least the last part of the sentence about neuroscience?

The sentence: "TM research has played a role in the history of mind-body medicine[71][72]and helped create a new field of neuroscience."[73]

The last ref, re neuroscience is: Begley, Sharon (February 18, 2008). "His Magical Mystery Tour". Newsweek: 18. "Whatever you think of the 'White Album,' give the Maharishi credit for helping launch what's become a legitimate new field of neuroscience

Seems to me that a science writer for a popular magazine isn't qualified, in terms of MEDRS, to say whether Maharishi or TM research created a "new field of neuroscience."

We could, however, consider keeping the first part of the sentence, whose refs seem adequate. But then there's the question of whether the point that, "TM research has played a role in the history of mind-body medicine" is important enough to include in this section. The whole sentence is now in the History section of the TM Research article, last para EMP (talk 21:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Same point re: same sentence in Research section of TM technique article  EMP (talk 22:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * For this article: MEDRS seems is used in relation to health/ medical related issues and was created in part to protect readers from a tendency to come to Wikipedia to diagnose themselves. The best content for science articles also seems to be secondary sources, reviews of studies rather than individual studies that haven't under gone the test of a review/ meta study. I'm not sure this content falls into either of these situations and I'm not sure MEDRs applies. That said, I'm not attached to the content or its sources. They are just opinions. One way of dealing with that is to inline cite. Or, if others find the content non compliant, I'm fine with its removal.(olive (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC))
 * Good catch EMP. I think the neuro science sentence is OK as long as it is inline attributed to the source. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I wonder if the article benefits from any of this. The content doesn't really add information, just makes a couple of weakly substantiated  points. I'm thinking more of agreeing to delete it all, if EMP and Kbob agree. Those statements feel a bit like passing a tea bag through some hot water-very weak tea-rather than steeping the bag and making a nice strong cup of article. (olive (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC))
 * While I appreciate your concern and your logic (plus your quaint metaphor) I really think that this is legitimate text as long as its inline attributed. Its a summary point to the Newsweek article which consist mainly of  a discussion of the Maharishi's meditation and its affect on the science of the day and I don't think it should be removed.  As a compromise though, I would be OK moving it out of the lead of TMR as there is only one source and it is mainstream press (Newsweek) vs a scholarly source. I would even be OK with it being moved out of the TMR article and into the TMT or TMM article. But I can't see any grounds for deleting it completely. Would arrangement like this work for you, Olive? -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 17:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, if I may jump in here, I have another couple of points, based on further reading: 1) I had a look at MEDRS, and was a little surprised to see the following ". . . the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, and historical information in a medical article." 2) Thanks for the link to the article, K-Bob. I see that the comment about neuroscience is not just a off-the-cuff remark, but rather a conclusion to a reasoned article on, as you say, the effect of the TM orgn on trends in scientific research at that time. Perhaps we should add this point (IF we agree to keep the quote). We could perhaps word it something like this:


 * TM research has played a role in the history of mind-body medicine.(refs) Newsweek magazine science writer Sharon Begley says that the Maharishi's influence helped create a new field of neuroscience and stimulated scientific interest in the study of all types of meditation.(ref) EMP (talk 19:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * To include it anywhere I'd like to see it inline attributed, and I don't think, as I probably didn't make clear above that its a reliable source for research. It could be fine it seems to me as part of the section on the History of Research. I'm not excited about seeing it in the lead of a research article given its based on one source. And it would probably be fine in any of the other articles in line attributed.(olive (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC))


 * OK, but to clarify, here it's not in the lead of a research article, but in the first para of the Research subsection of this article. And to address your concern about it being a single source that is not so strong, we could use part of a quotation from the Legacy section of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi article so that it would read: "TM research has played a role in the history of mind-body medicine. Newsweek magazine science writer Sharon Begley says that the Maharishi's influence helped create a new field of neuroscience and stimulated scientific interest in the study of all types of meditation. Neuroscientists Ronald Jevning and James O’Halloran have said that “The proposal of the existence of a unique or fourth state of consciousness with a basis in physiology” by the Maharishi in 1968 . . . resulted in a myriad of scientific studies . . .”  Does that help? EMP (talk 23:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Kbob mentioned the TM research lead, I was replying to that. I want to make sure I'm not agreeing to putting this content in TMR lead. The source is probably strong enough for some kinds of content just not research which I hope I was clearly suggesting. There's a jump here in terms of information which I think is OR. The content under discussion points to the significance of the TM research while this, the existence of a unique or fourth state of consciousness with a basis in physiology” by the Maharishi in 1968. . . resulted in a myriad of scientific studies is not quite the same information. I think it might be fine to use both but they shouldn't be connected syntactically, necessarily. At any rate I'm fine with including a short sentence on this topic in any of the articles you and Kbob choose.(olive (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC))


 * I see what you mean about KBob and the TMR lead. I hadn't taken note of that, because I removed that sentence from the TMR lead several days ago. I assumed that it was no longer under discussion. (It is still in the TMR article, in the History section, tho, which I THINK everyone is OK with.) And yes, I see your point about combining those two sentences. Sort of like mixing two weaves. They don't really match. EMP (talk 01:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Couple of issues
This doesn't seem to appear in any of the sources used to ref it. As well the source link to Concord Monitor isn't working and a search doesn't bring up the article.

TM is practiced by people of many diverse religious affiliations, as well as atheists and agnostics.


 * "The TM technique does not require adherence to any belief system—there is no dogma or philosophy attached to it, and it does not demand any lifestyle changes other than the practice of it."
 * "The TM technique does not require adherence to any belief system—there is no dogma or philosophy attached to it, and it does not demand any lifestyle changes other than the practice of it."
 * "Its proponents say it is not a religion or a philosophy."
 * "It's used in prisons, large corporations and schools, and it is not considered a religion." Concord Monitor*

Both content and source are repetitive. We 're saying the same thing multiple times so given their issues I'd like to remove them. Any thoughts on that.(olive (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC))


 * Hi Olive, I have done a little formatting to your post above so the cites can be seen on the talk page. And good catch by the way, to flag this redundant text and citations. However, your post also inadvertently reminded me that of something I've been meaning to do for weeks. And that is to bring forward the new lead from the child article (TM movement) to replace the current text in the TM movement section of this article. Over the past several months the TM movement article has had significant development and the old lead did not adequately summarize the current expanded and reformatted version of the article. As a result the lead was also revised, in recent months through edits and discussion and made more comprehensive and at the same time more precise. Now that I've carried forward that new lead summary from the TM movement article. You concerns about the duplicate content and refs has been taken care of I think. Please look at the new version of that section and see what you think. Best, -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 19:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Which brings up an additional and important point: Olive and I have spent time cleaning up the refs in this article, but when material is brought from another article, then it may reintroduce some of the things that had been fixed. I guess we ought to have been working on the refs in the leads of the child articles as well. Or perhaps we should have begun there. In any case, thanks for your work on the lead of the TM movement article. And for moving that content here. TimidGuy (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess we have to coordinate or something because yes, we were close to finishing up the ref cleanup on this article, and now we'll have to redo at least the movement section.  It was necessary move to move content here, and thanks for taking that on.(olive (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC))

"Meditation" category removed
Edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcendental_Meditation&diff=538661626&oldid=538630938 by an IP editor removed the "meditation" category. David Spector (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I had replaced it so it is now in place,  but thanks for the notification.(olive (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC))

Repetition resulting from verbatim use of leads of child articles
We had consensus in the past that a good approach to this article (in order to keep to keep it from getting unwieldy) is to simply have each section repeat the lead of the child article. It has worked well to keep the article as a general overview of the topic. But it has also led to some unfortunate repetition. For example, this sentence in the Research section appears almost verbatim in the TM technique section: "The Transcendental Meditation technique is a specific form of mantra meditation[25] developed by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi." I guess what we should do is tweak these sections so that they are basically the same as the leads of the child articles, but are a bit streamlined to avoid repetition. TimidGuy (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes TG, I'd agree.(olive (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC))

Remove sentence from research section
By consensus we have sought to have the sections of this article follow closely the leads of the child articles. And by consensus the following sentence was removed from the lead of the Transcendental Meditation research article:

"TM research has played a role in the history of mind-body medicine[77][78] and helped create a new field of neuroscience.[79]"

See this thread. I am therefore removing it from this article. A similar sentence appears in the body of the TM research, so know that this sourced information isn't being removed from WP altogether. I am also slightly revising the syntax of the first paragraph so that it emulates the better flow of the same paragraph in the TM research article. TimidGuy (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * For the same reason, should this sentence not also be removed from Transcendental Meditation technique article, Researcher section? EMP (talk 18:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Fundamental Principle of TM
I've included a quote that neatly summarizes the fundamental principle of TM, written by Harold H. Bloomfield, M.D. Here is the complete reference, quote in the source that I cited: Harold H. Bloomfield, M.D. Michael Peter Cain, Dennis T. Jaffe, TM, Discovering Inner Energy and Overcoming Stress, New York, Delacorte, 1975. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matipop (talk • contribs) 00:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your contribution. We should probably move your addition to the Transcendental Meditation technique article. It's too detailed for this broad overview article. TimidGuy (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Open threads at TM project page
Hi folks, I've started several threads on the TM project page hoping to get some input about how to arrange and manage the project. If you have any time, I 'd appreciate comments from others on here on the project talk page. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithbob (talk • contribs) 20:37, 20 March 2013‎ (UTC)

Research section
Have restored the last research section based on the last RfC. I do not see a new RfC supporting these new changes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please point to the RfC you mention above, and please point to the policy or guideline that says a RfC is required to make changes based on RS in an article. You have removed RS content with out discussion. While you have the right to contest content, you have unilaterally undone months of discussed content additions and changes. The editing on these pages has been open to anyone. Please join the discussion rather than undo months of work by other editors.(olive (talk) 05:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC))


 * I've reverted the massive change you made with out discussion. If you have concerns with the content please bring it here for discussion rather than make a unilateral change of this size. (olive (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC))
 * The RfC is right here . I do not see consensus for the changes. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks.There was no consensus in that RfC.(olive (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC))

I oppose this version. Firstly. "Transcendence: Healing and Transformation through Transcendental Meditation" is not a reliable source for giving the level of mainstream research. Secondly, I have doubts with the reliability of "Mosby's Complementary & Alternative Medicine". Thirdly,the Cochrane review (the gold standard) isn't mentioned prominently in a way that reflects it's total dominance in terms of weight. Braunwald's Heart Disease: A Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine is being used in a way that I can't find any support of the text in the latest edition. It specifically says: "A systematic review of six RCTs of transcendental meditation failed to generate convincing evidence that meditation is an effective treatment of hypertension". Can someone please explain where the quote in the article is coming from. Finally Depression and Anxiety is not a core medical journal, nor is Psychological Bulletin. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've asked for more input from wikiproject medicine regulars as they are most familiar with MEDRS. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Did you check the impact factors of Depression and Anxiety and Psychological Bulletin? Mosby's is on the Brandon/Hill list that MEDRS recommends. See the 2007 edition of Braunwald's page 1157. Shoot me an email, and I can send you a screen capture of the page. TimidGuy (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask for it's impact factor, I asked for it to be MEDRS compliant. The text was also written in a way to heavily imply these studies were related to cardiovascular disease. The study you added has 2 citations is about anxiety, and also groups TM along with others. The other,  is also about meditation generally, 5 citations. Cochrane review, 87 citations. Mosby is not on, since it's not a journal, so I don't see why you would be using it for claiming a review. Google books says the text is from the alt med book "integrative cardiology": , so I'm a little surprised you say you can give me a screenshot. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * IRWolfie is correct; the current edition of Braunwald's Heart Disease is the 9th edition, released in 2012. In that book, the only reference I can find to Transcendental Meditation is in Chapter 51: "A systematic review of six RCTs of transcendental meditation failed to generate convincing evidence that meditation is an effective treatment of hypertension." If we're using Braunwald's textbook to source a positive statement about TM, then we need to change that right away. I don't know which edition of Braunwald TimidGuy is referring to; as best I can tell, no edition was released in 2007 (the 8th edition was released in 2008). In any case, we need to be using the current edition, not a previous edition from 2007 or whenever. I haven't looked at the other sources yet, but based on this first check, I'm pretty concerned that we're misrepresenting our sources here. As an aside, Braunwald's Heart Disease goes on to state, at the conclusion of Chapter 51: "The CAM research community has a most unfortunate tendency to draw misleading conclusions from investigations into CAM." MastCell Talk 22:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Ah, now I get what IRWolfie is saying. TimidGuy, can you clarify whether the text in question, which you've represented as coming from Braunwald's Heart Disease, is in fact from Integrative Cardiology? MastCell Talk 22:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, MastCell, for asking. The text is from the 8th edition of Braunwald's Heart Disease, page 1157. Amazon gives the date as 2007, but I checked the title page just now and it gives a copyright date of 2008, so that is likely correct. This was the current edition when I originally added it. The chapter is by John Vogel, a past president of the American Heart Association. He cites a 2006 independent RCT conducted at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. The first author is Maura Paul-Labrador, and the principal investigator is Noel Bairey Merz, one of the nation's leading cardiologists. The study found an improvement in insulin resistance components of the metabolic syndrome and cardiac autonomic nervous system tone. TimidGuy (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you please check your book. The exact same text is in Integrative cardiology. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No surprise there, since Vogel took it almost verbatim from the study. TimidGuy (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Also no surprise for the second reason that Vogel, one of the authors of Integrative Cardiology, is also one of the authors of the chapter in the 8th edition of Braunwald’s in which those same words appear. He is recycling the words. You can see what this edition has to say about TM and metabolic syndrome on Amazon.com. Do a search for Transcendental Meditation in the book. It’s on the lower right of the page: EMP (talk 04:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I just searched for transcendental meditation in the 9th edition of Braunwald Heart Disease (my e-copy is paywalled unfortunately). The only thing that came up was in Chapter 51 ("Complementary and Alternative Approaches to Management of Patients with Heart Disease", by Edzard Ernst): "A systematic review of six RCTs of transcendental meditation failed to generate convincing evidence that meditation is an effective treatment of hypertension", referenced to a 2004 article . The previous statement to which you refer, regardless of whether it was accurate at the time or not, now should not be used per the principle that we ought to only use the most recent editions of books to account for any changes the editors would have made to correct for errors. If you would like our article to reference the 2006 source (and I would ask why, when meta-analyses and systematic reviews are available), then I would ask in the future that you point to either a free text version of the article or the PubMed link please. For others who would like to review the 2006 article to which TimidGuy refers, is it. NW ( Talk ) 01:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The disputed edit removed references to four different meta-analyses. One of these meta-analyses included the Paul-Labrador study. TimidGuy (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify what your point is? We have two Cochrane reviews to summarize. This is good per WP:MEDRS. The latest Braunwald's Heart Disease: A Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine complements the Cochrane reviews, but it's not necessary to use it. That is all we require. You have not justified your use of low cited articles in non-MEDRS journals. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, happy to clarify. I was answering NW's question, which was why use Paul-Labrador (a primary source) when meta-analyses are available. I pointed out that four different meta-analyses were also being referenced in the deleted material, one of which included the blood pressure finding in the Paul-Labrador study. TimidGuy (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see the significance of the Paul-Labrador study or whether it appeared in the meta-analyses or not. We defer to the most reliable meta-analyses; Cochrane reviews fitting the bill. The others are in non-MEDRS journals. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Cochrane 2006 isn't a meta-analysis. Cochrane 2010 does include meta-analyses, but no TM studies are included in the meta-analyses. You may want to take a look at them. TimidGuy (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You know I meant systematic reviews which often include meta-analyses; they aren't going to combine the small number of eligible studies (4 and 2). Both accepted TM in their inclusion criteria. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. Cochrane 2010 didn't accept a TM study in its inclusion criteria. And Cochrane 2006 only found one TM study that was on clinically diagnosed anxiety disorder. That means that between the two reviews a single TM study was analyzed. TimidGuy (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think what you mean is no TM study matched the criteria? If the studies are of poor quality it's not that surprising that most don't meet the selection criteria for the most rigorous journal for clinical efficacy. As such, the only correct and proper thing is to report that there is no evidence of efficacy. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. Cochrane 2006 gives a list of studies excluded, and neither is on TM. This is because their inclusion criterion was very narrow: individuals who had been clinically diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. They also excluded any study that wan't an RCT, but all TM studies on anxiety other than Raskin 1980 have been on trait anxiety, not anxiety disorders. So it's not true that TM studies were excluded from Cochrane 2006 due to poor quality. Same thing for Cochrane 2010 on ADHD. There is simply no research on TM and ADHD other than the small pilot study they note in their introduction. So the reason TM research was excluded in that case from their analyses was that it hasn't been done yet. As with Cochrane 2006, they don't list any TM studies among their excluded studies. (As a side note in response to your previous point, it is indeed often the case that meta-analyses combine as few as two studies. Examples are Ospina's TM/health education and TM/PMR meta-analyses and the meta-analyses in Cochrane 2010.) TimidGuy (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that trait anxiety is meaningfully different than anxiety disorder in this context. It sounds like Anxiety disorder is just a word for a diagnosed case of having strong trait anxiety? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The WP article on Anxiety has a clear explanation of the distinction right in the lead. TimidGuy (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

From what I read, it appears that I am correct. Based on my own OR: anxiety disorder sounds like what a well designed study would look at since it is more clearly defined. So I see no issue with not including non-disorder trait anxiety (dubious clinical relevance anyway). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Analysis of extensive edits by Doc James
Doc James’ extensive edits to this article in the last couple of days have eliminated a great deal of information that is critical to a balanced and accurate understanding of TM research. He has deleted over a dozen refs that are MEDRS-compliant and are more up-to-date and relevant than the older set of references that he has moved, along with inaccurate content, to the first sentence of the Research section. This creates an inaccurate and lopsided picture of TM research. I would like to review why this is so. This post must be a little long, owing to the many references affected, and the complexity of a couple of issues. I will break it into two parts: 1) A review of the valuable references that have been deleted; 2) An explanation of why the old references, brought again to the forefront by Doc J, while worthy of inclusion in the article, should definitely not dominate the section and replace the newer references. EMP (talk 22:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Part 1: Valuable refs deleted
(Re: above post, "Analysis of extensive edits by DJ")

a) From the sentence, “Research reviews of the effects of the Transcendental Meditation technique have yielded results ranging from inconclusive to clinically significant,” Doc has deleted five relevant, current, and high quality refs as defined by MEDRS [all are either medical textbooks (from reputed publishers), systematic reviews, or meta-analyses]:
 * i)	The 2011 medical text, Primer on the Autonomic Nervous System, Biaggioni, Robertson et al. This is a standard medical text, reporting relevant information on TM re: hypertension and psychology.


 * ii)	The 2012 Chen et al systematic review on anxiety, in a strong journal (listed as a core psychology journal, good impact factor) . (Note: No implication had been made in the text that the refs refer to cardiovascular disease. The text said only “Research reviews on the effects of the Transcendental Meditation technique have ranged from inconclusive to clinically significant.”) Significant results from three TM studies are reported.


 * iii)	The 2009 Devries et al medical textbook, Integrative Cardiology, published by Oxford Univ Press . Devries has a long list of publications in top journals, including the AHA journal, Circulation. This ref reports clinically significant results related to the subject.


 * iv)	The 2012 Sedlemeier, et al, meta-analysis on TM and factors relating to mental health . This appeared in a core psychology journal with a high ranking (impact factor: 14) and reports several significant results. Note 1: This study considers the issue of publication bias, and in a statistical analysis utilizing funnel plots noted some indications of an upward bias in TM research, indicating the possibility that some studies with small effects and small sample sizes had been withheld from publication. However, they also reported that a fail-safe analysis found it is unlikely that these unpublished studies would have nullified the results found in the meta-analysis. Note 2: In the introduction, Sedlemeier makes some critical comments about TM research, but found 36 TM studies meeting their quality standards for inclusion, from which they reported significant effect sizes regarding trait anxiety and several other categories.


 * v)	The 2008 medical text, Braunwald’s Heart Disease, 8th edition, referencing a 2006 RCT by Paul-Labrador, et al, on TM and blood pressure that was published in the AMA’s Archives of Internal Medicine. The valid point has been made that there is now a 9th edition of Braunwald’s, with a chapter on alt med by a different author (E Ernst) who does not mention this same study, but rather his own 2004 systematic review (the Canter and Ernst 2004 syst review on hypertension). However, the Paul-Labrador RCT has been cited in many research reviews, including this one by Epel, et al, which appeared in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: (p.46). I suggest substituting this latter ref for the 8th edition of Braunwald’s. Paul-Labrador is also included in a systematic review by Nolan. See: (p. 390).

b) Content and ref deleted: “there have been 340 peer-reviewed studies on TM.” : Yes, this is a popular book, but the author, NE Rosenthal, is a respected medical researcher, and the publisher well-established. No reason why a simple (and relevant) fact like this cannot be referenced to an author with this kind of standing, in this venue.

c) Content and ref deleted: “TM is one of the most widely researched meditation techniques”: One of the two deleted refs for this is unquestionably reliable: a review article in the Annals of the NY Academy of Sciences See: The second ref is also compliant: Mosby’s is an textbook of alternative medicine that, as mentioned by another ed., is listed in the Brandon-Hill list recommended in MEDRS.

d) Content and ref deleted: a sentence on the several areas of active TM research, including cardiovascular research and the financial support for it from the NIH. This is ref’d to an established newspaper. MEDRS allows for this kind of ref in reporting social/political information relating to research: “The high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, and historical information in a medical article.” EMP (talk 22:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a lot to tackle at once. Addressing only a few points: for A.v, you don't get to remove a ref solely because you don't like what the current edition has to say. Braunwald's is a pretty good source - definitely much weighter than Integrative Cardiology - and it was staunchly defended when the old edition with its much more positive assessment was quoted. Now that the new edition takes a less glowing approach, you can't suddenly decide to swap out the textbook and replace it with a more positive reference. That looks really cynical and manipulative, although I'm sure that's not your intent. As to point b), let's be careful to distinguish between 340 peer-reviewed studies and 340 peer-reviewed publications. A single study can generate multiple publications. And, of course, as the AHRQ noted with regard to meditation research, multiple publication is a problem: "We identified and excluded from the review a considerable number of multiple publications (n = 108). In some instances, the same study was published in two separate journal articles without full cross reference, a practice of redundant publication that has been considered scientific misconduct." By emphasizing the quantity of studies conducted on TM over their quality, we're falling into the trap described in the AHRQ review: "Some investigators have claimed that there are many empirical studies that have shown that meditation practices are effective at treating stress-related states, including reducing heart rate, breathing, and blood pressure. In addition, previous literature reviews have noted the seemingly large number of research papers that purport to show the therapeutic benefit of meditation practices. This review has shown that there are startlingly few scientific studies that could be statistically combined to provide evidence on the physiological and neuropsychological effects of meditation practices." MastCell Talk 23:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Just a short comment to note that Ernst's 2004 systematic review referenced in Braunwald's is already being cited in this article and in the TM research article. (Unfortunately, that early review doesn't include several of the later rigorous RCTs, including the independent study published by the AMA and one published by the AHA.) We could add the Braunwald's citation to the original citation. TimidGuy (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Excellent distinction regarding 340 peer-reviewed publications. If one looks at the list it includes research reviews and comments as well as studies. In any case, the point is that there's a large body of research on TM, and many sources make this point, including AHRQ. Since this point is often noted in the literature, I don't see any problem in making that same point in a general introductory sentence about the research. But probably with less specificity. TimidGuy (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Good points, TG.
 * @Mastcell: Point well taken about the latest (2011) edition of the Braunwald’s medical textbook. I was in a bit of a hurry to wrap up my post, and should have been clearer. I have no problem with using that latest version of the textbook, but of course to reference the first part of that sentence which describes the studies that did not find conclusive results for TM. I was only suggesting that for the second part of the sentence, which refers to the significant results found for TM, that a current research review referencing that widely cited 2006 RCT could be cited instead of the 2008 edition of Braunwald’s, if there is an objection to using that earlier version of the textbook. EMP (talk 17:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you wish to indirectly cite a single RCT. Is that a correct summary? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No. I would directly cite the research review mentioned. EMP (talk 05:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Part 2: Doc J's lead sentence to section not well supported by refs
(Re: above post, "Analysis of extensive edits by DJ")

2) The lead sentence to the Research section, written and brought back by Doc J, is no longer adequately supported by the references provided. This lead sentence reads, “Independent systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation and health education,” and has four references. Let’s take them one by one:

a)	a 2006 Cochrane review of research on meditation and anxiety : very narrow in scope. At first glance this might seem promising, but in fact, due to the authors’ decision to consider only research on persons with formally diagnosed anxiety disorder, they only included two studies, and only one 1980 study on TM, (with 30 subjects and just nine TM practitioners). Because of this, the review excluded 75 studies on TM and trait anxiety. A 2012 systematic review (Chen, mentioned above)[], and a 2012 meta-analysis (Sedlmeier, also mentioned earlier) both found significant results regarding TM and anxiety. Sedlmeier identified seven studies on TM and trait anxiety that they found of acceptable quality for inclusion in their meta-analysis (see Sedlmeier, Table 3).

b)	The 2007 AHRQ-funded systematic review by Ospina et al : This reference not only does not support the sentence that it is purported to (“Independent systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation and health education”), it contradicts it. This review found TM to be more efficacious in reducing hypertension than relaxation (but found no difference compared to health ed). I quote from a 2013 research review, referring to this AHRQ study: “In a meta-analysis of the effects of meditation on adults diagnosed with hypertension, transcendental meditation,  . . . was more effective than progressive muscle relaxation in producing a clinically significant reduction in blood pressure (Ospina, 2007).”  (See also p. 121 of the AHRQ report [].)

c)	The 2004 Canter and Ernst systematic review on TM and hypertension : more recent reviews present a different picture . This nine-year old review concluded that, “There is at present insufficient good-quality evidence to conclude whether or not TM has a cumulative positive effect on blood pressure.” More up-to-date reviews have found otherwise. A 2008 meta-analysis by Anderson published in the American Journal of Hypertension, for example, found a significant results regarding hypertension in TM subjects. Note: some editors have suggested that because Anderson disclosed (openly, in the published study) that the research was partially funded by Howard Settle, a TM practitioner, that this high-quality study should be disregarded. However, MEDRS states that “Editors should not perform a detailed academic peer review. Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions.”. The results of this meta-analysis are referred to and cited by a 2011 research review in the Journal of Clinical Hypertension and several other review articles or medical textbooks (see Kiefer (2009) p. 552, Kok (2013) p. 31 , Nahas (2008) p. 1532 , Antonucci (2010)(medical textbook) p. 169 , Biaggioni and Robertson (2011) (medical textbook noted in 1 (i) above) p. 298 , Walsh (2011), p. 8. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to overrule the decisions of these MEDRS-compliant publications.

d)	The 2003 Canter and Ernst systematic review of TM and cognitive function : again, more recent reviews present a different picture. This 10-year old study concluded no “specific or cumulative” effects from TM on cognitive function, but more recent reviews report otherwise. For example, the same 2007 AHRQ study that is earlier referenced contradicts this conclusion, noting that TM produced improvement in verbal creativity (Ospina, p. 187). And the 2012 systematic review by Sedlmeier, published in a very strong journal (Impact Factor: 14.4), found significant results in TM subjects re: learning, memory, and self-realization. A 2007 psychotherapy textbook also found significant results.

I would appeal to the fairness of the editors on this page, including Doc James, to allow the restoration of the valuable content and refs recently struck from the article--which I should add made their point while acknowledging and including the content and refs that have now been placed at the forefront by Doc in his edits. The newer content and refs, for the reasons explained, also deserve proper acknowledgement as per WP:NPOV and MEDRS. EMP (talk 22:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * While we could try a RfC and ask the community at large which version they feel more accurately reflects the best available evidence. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you are trying to ignore the Cochrane reviews (one of the gold standard sources) based on your own original opinion of their selection criteria (a decision to consider only research on persons diagnosed anxiety disorder sounds sensible to me but it's irrelevant). The Cochrane reviews etc conclude one thing, you claim the opposite using non-core medical journals. Was it really necessary to make new three sections saying the same thing? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I am not trying to ignore the Cochrane review. As I said In the last line of the first para of my post above, the refs moved by Doc J to a position of total dominance in the section are “worthy of inclusion in the article.” And in the last para of my post  I noted that even when I added some new RS’s this past year,  I retained the older refs, including Cochrane.
 * Please also note that in my post above, I only referred to one Cochrane review, the one on anxiety. Yes, I am suggesting that its inclusion criteria were narrow, but, again, no, I am not suggesting that it be excluded or ignored. (In fact, I once complimented Doc for bringing this good quality ref to these pages.) However, as explained above in detail, I am suggesting that we also consider more recent research that is also MEDRS compliant. This Cochrane review only considered research on formally diagnosed anxiety disorder, a small subset of the total population suffering from anxiety. I am suggesting that other research, including reviews published subsequent to this Cochrane review, should also be considered. You imply that “non-core medical journals” are not MEDRS compliant. This is incorrect. A ref, especially in the field of anxiety, a psychological condition, need not appear in a core medical journal in order to be MEDRS compliant. The review that Doc deleted and which I am asking to be restored is a gold standard publication also—a formal meta-analysis published in one of the top journals of psychology (IF: 14). EMP (talk 20:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The last Cochrane review is only two years old. Find me a source that compares Psychological Bulletin to be in the same tier as the Cochrane database in terms of clinical efficacy and I might give this opinion some weight; I don't think it is true. Then you need to explain why you want to use a review with only three citations. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I added the reference to the "scientific statement" by the American Heart Association in the journal Hypertension. Sparaig2 (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses since 2005
Forthcoming reviews:
 * Cocrhane 2013, systematic review and meta-analysis, ? studies
 * AHRQ 2013, systematic review and meta-analysis, 8 studies in draft version (meta-analyses are across types of meditation)

Current reviews:
 * Brook 2013 AHA report
 * Sedlmeier 2012 22582738, systematic review and meta-analysis, 36 studies
 * Chen 2012 22700446, systematic review and meta-analysis, 3 studies
 * Anderson 2011 21773016, systematic review, 1 study
 * Cochrane 2010 20556767, systematic review and meta-analysis, 0 studies
 * Black 2009 19706568, systematic review, 4 studies (this pediatric review examines studies outside the scope of AHRQ and Cochrane due to the age of subjects)
 * Anderson 2008 18311126, systematic review and meta-analysis, 9 studies
 * Nolan 2008 18677161, systematic review and meta-analysis, 1 study (meta-analysis is across types of meditation)
 * Rainforth 2007 18350109, systematic review and meta-analysis, 6 studies (leading authors are affiliated with Maharishi U)
 * AHRQ 2007 17764203, systematic review and meta-analysis, 15 studies (now archived as no longer current)
 * Paradies 2006 16599387, systematic review, 6 studies
 * Cochrane 2006 16437509, systematic review, 1 study

I still need to count up the number of studies in some of the reviews. I'll also add links to the abstracts, or to the pdf if available. TimidGuy (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * We can take off Varvogli and Mahagita—I do not see them in the articles at this time. I believe V was taken out because the journal published in was not considered compliant. And of course, the first two, Cochrane 2013 and AHRQ 2013 are not out yet. EMP (talk 18:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I see that Mahagita does report significant and noteworthy results for TM research and as such it would seem worthy of inclusion. However, this paper appears to be a narrative review. One other small point: Sedlmeier (2012) appears to be a meta-analysis only (not also a systematic review). EMP (talk 17:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Mahagita lists the databases searched and the search terms used, such that his methodology is repeatable. I thought that would qualify it as a systematic review, though I don't see that he appraises quality. Sedlmeier also describes his systematic and repeatable process of selection, but also assesses quality. And he describes the criteria by which he excluded a large number of studies. Plus, his meta-analyses represent a rigorous synthesis of the data. I can't think of any reason that Sedlmeier wouldn't be characterized as a systematic review. TimidGuy (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've removed Mahagita from this list because it doesn't appraise quality, and we'll treat it as a narrative review. If anyone would like me to email you some of these that you may not have access to, please shoot me an email. TimidGuy (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I was interested in Rainforth 2007, because I believe that there are no published papers that compare TM to other forms of meditation (such as Mindfulness and Vipashyana) in any meaningful way. However, the abstract does not mention TM at all, only relaxation techniques (TM is not primarily a relaxation technique, but a technique that expands consciousness and reduces stored stresses). It looks like Rainforth 2007 is a metastudy that, if it includes TM at all, lumps it in with other meditation techniques. Therefore, I don't see it as a relevant source for TM articles. Perhaps someone with institutional access to the actual paper can describe how it evaluates TM for HRV and establish it as relevant. David Spector (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

 * Not sure why the number of studies in a systematic review is significant? The whole purpose of a systematic review is to look at all available trials that pertain to a specific question and meet certain quality criteria. If one uses lower cut offs of quality one is able to include more trials which potentially makes the conclusions less not more accurate. A better question is which of these systematic reviews are done by researchers and organizations independent of TM. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. TG can you list which of the above reviews are independent of TM organizations? TG, you also haven't included the DOI or journal name, which is important for MEDRS/WEIGHT considerations. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd like to review these but I need PMIDs for each study mentioned. Agree with others that the number of studies included in the final analysis is irrelevant.  It often happens that there can be hundreds of potential primary sources to review but once the study scope and quality cutoff criteria are applied the actual number of eligible studies drops to single digits, and that's exactly as desired.   13:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding, I also agree with the others here that this Talk page discussion has lost its focus, what exact article content change are we discussing at this point?   13:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Patience, please. Planning to add links or PMIDs or whatever, as I said above. My time is limited. Regarding number of studies, reviews typically have non-quality-related inclusion criteria, and if only a single small study meets those criteria (e.g., Cocrhane 2006), I feel it's important to be transparent about that so we don't overgeneralize the results. TimidGuy (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Anxiety disorder is very general, and is an umbrella term. If it is not a disorder it is not a medical issue. The Cochrane 2009 review uses this as its selection criteria, which makes sense. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to re-emphasize a point made by James above, the number of trials included in a systematic review or meta-analysis is not a marker of its quality. More rigorous systematic reviews often exclude a number of low-quality trials (which seem fairly numerous in this field). If anything, higher-quality systematic reviews may include fewer trials for that reason. I understand that high-quality systematic reviews generally ask very specific questions, and we should be clear about that, but not at the expense of "downgrading" the highest-quality evidence. MastCell Talk 19:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't intend to say or imply that there's a correlation between the number of studies and quality. I wasn't intending to downgrade; rather I was saying we shouldn't misuse them by overgeneralizing. But my fault for getting into the "what" when I myself had suggested we first do the "which." How about if we leave the numbers in for later reference? TimidGuy (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Professional and academic books
I think it's fine to start with the systematic reviews and meta-analyses, but in terms of weight, I think that these represent, at best, only half of the picture here. MEDRS also gives highest priority (i.e., same level as meta-analyses and systematic reviews) to “professional and academic books written by experts in a field and from a respected publisher”; see 2nd para here. In addition, MEDRS places narrative reviews fairly high in its hierarchy of evidence quality.

Here I’ll just list the books and leave the narrative reviews for another time. To make it easier to get the gist of each one, I give links to the cites in the article, most of which have a summary quotation. Note: If the source finds inconclusive results, I mention that below; otherwise significant results are reported in each one. (I may add one or two more, but this list is pretty complete.)

April 18: World cat counts added. (If there is more than one edition, I give the number of libraries stocking any edition.)--EMP (talk 18:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Italo Biaggioni, ed. (2011). Primer on the Autonomic Nervous System. Academic Press --627


 * Peter Libby, et al, eds (2011). Braunwald's Heart Disease: A Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine, Saunders Elsevier --617


 * Michelle B Riba, et al, eds (2012). Psychiatry and heart disease : the mind, brain, and heart, Wiley-Blackwell --88


 * Stephen Devries, ed. (2011). Integrative Cardiology. Oxford University Press --261


 * Vicki Kotsirilos (2011). A Guide to Evidence-Based Integrative and Complementary Medicine. Elsevier. --121


 * Philip David Zelazo (2007). The Cambridge handbook of consciousness. Cambridge University Press. --540


 * Ellen A. Dornelas, ed. (2012). Stress Proof the Heart: Behavioral Interventions for Cardiac Patients. Springer. --246


 * Shane Lopez (2009). Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology. Oxford University Press. --561


 * Roger Walsh ed. (2007). Corsini, Raymond. Current Psychotherapies (8th ed.). Brooks/Cole. --1404
 * Peter Tyrer (2008). Cambridge Textbook of Effective Treatments in Psychiatry. Cambridge University Press. --153


 * William O'Donohue (2008). Evidence-Based Adjunctive Treatments. Academic Press. --234


 * Ronald Carlstedt (2009). Handbook of Integrative Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry, and Behavioral Medicine: Perspectives, Practices, and Research. Springer. --98


 * Luciano L'Abate (2010). Low-Cost Approaches to Promote Physical and Mental Health: Theory, Research, and Practice. Springer. --370


 * Gerard Bodeker (2007). Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Policy and Public Health Perspectives. Imperial College Press. --572


 * Lyn Freeman (2009) Mosby's Complementary & Alternative Medicine: A Research-Based Approach. Mosby Elsevier --918


 * John Vogel, Mitchell Krucoff, ed. (2007). Integrative Cardiology: Complementary and Alternative Medicine for the Heart. McGraw-Hill. --91

Last:

--EMP (talk 22:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Deane H. Shapiro (1984). Meditation: Classic and Contemporary Perspectives. Aldine Publishing Company. (historical discussion re: TM research)--546


 * I still don't get it. Why are you listing these books? Are you proposing to perform a review of your own? We can't do a proper review on wikipedia; that would be original research. Why would we use any of these sources if we have cochrane reviews? Cochrane reviews are the gold standard; the most authorative. Start with the most authoritative sources and work from that (we already have the Cochrane reviews so we are pretty much done). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Per MastCell's suggestion above. TimidGuy (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * On what basis were these works identified as the best available? MastCell Talk 19:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Great question. The books used in the TM research article conform to the points for books outlined in MEDRS. These guidelines mention “medical textbooks” as authoritative, and also describe, in the opening section, “professional and academic books written by experts in a field and from a respected publisher” as “ideal sources” . In the later subsection on books it reiterates the importance of the standing of the publisher and also mentions, 2) target audience (best: postgraduates and professionals; less authoritative: undergrads), and 3) timeliness: less than five years old is best. I believe all of the texts that I have included in the list above (which includes approx 90% the books in the TM research article) qualify according to these criteria. Re: the publishers, for example, half on the list are published either by Springer or Elsevier (mentioned specifically in MEDRS ), and the others are mostly leading scientific publishers. Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier. Mosby’s Complementary and Alternative Medicine, in addition to being published in cooperation with Elsevier, is listed in the Brandon/Hill list of core sources, which includes books as well as journals . Re: date: all are within the past 5-6 years, except the last one which is included only for its historical content. Re: audience: I have not included one text on the list (Harrington ) because the audience would seem to be undergrad. This source is used in the article only as a supplementary ref, alongside a more authoritative one. Other than that, the audience for these books appears to be either professional or postgrad. Does this help answer your question? And on a related subject--the list of research reviews above--would it be helpful if someone pulled together summaries of what each one says? EMP (talk 22:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Stress Proof the Heart" is a medical textbook? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, technically yes. But is it appropriate to treat Stress Proof the Heart the same way we treat a recognized gold-standard textbook like Braunwald's Cardiology? The former doesn't appear to have garnered any reviews, mentions, etc. in the mainstream scholarly literature. I'm not sure how this list of textbooks was compiled, nor do I think it makes sense to treat all of these textbooks as equal when the relevant expert community clearly does not. MastCell Talk 01:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Eager to know what tool/s you use to find reviews, mentions, etc. in the mainstream scholarly literature. Thanks! Also, how do we weight medical books in relationship to systematic reviews/meta-analyses? See discussion of this in MEDRS Talk archive. TimidGuy (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not directly relevant, but the authors of the section are psychologists, and so is the editor, isn't that a bit out of their expertise? The section of the book about meditation is uncited, the sections of the book which are cited appear to be authors self citing. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Are we looking at the same book? In the 2012 edition of Stress Proof the Heart: Behavioral Interventions for Cardiac Patients (as far as I know the only edition), Chapter 11 on meditation and CVD contains dozens of citations, many of them to systematic or narrative reviews . The points on TM research are cited to reviews. I do not see any self-citation on the part of the authors of this chapter. By the way, if we took self-citation is a criterion for exclusion, then we would remove Braunwald's (2011), since the only source Ernst cites for TM is his own 2004 research review . EMP (talk 18:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You have confused having references with being cited. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * To answer TimidGuy's question, it's fairly straightforward to identify the best-quality and most widely used textbooks for purposes of WP:WEIGHT. I usually look for textbooks that have been widely reviewed (a number of high-profile medical journals routinely review textbooks), and I try to get a sense of how widely a textbook is carried in medical libraries (personally, I usually do this by asking the medical librarian at my institution, but it can be done online or a editor with relevant real-life expertise in library science (e.g. User:DGG) could be consulted. I've requested a copy of Stress Proof The Heart, which my institution's medical library doesn't carry; it's apparently rather hard to come by (in contrast, Braunwald's is on the shelf). Do those seem like reasonable ways to look for and appraise the weight of medical textbooks? MastCell Talk 21:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, MastCell. This seems reasonable. We can use WorldCat to get an idea how many libraries hold a particular medical book. What tool would I use to find reviews of medical books? Or for simplicity should we rely on WorldCat for our measure? TimidGuy (talk) 10:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * World cat counts added to book list. (If there is more than one edition, I give the number of libraries stocking any edition.)--EMP (talk 18:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Reviews for textbook added April 16

 * Psychiatry and heart disease : the mind, brain, and heart--Michelle B Riba et al, eds. Wiley-Blackwell (2012)

Reviews at -- EMP (talk 19:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that what you've linked to are not at all the kinds of reviews we're looking for, those are advertising blurbs, we're looking for independent reviews in well-respected published journals. Also I checked out WorldCat to see what the circulation level is for this book as compared to popular medical textbooks, here's what I found (listed as Title - number of copies listed as available on WorldCat):
 * Psychiatry (William Alanson White Psychiatric Foundation) - 949
 * Rudolph's Pediatrics - 589
 * Cardiology (Julian) - 362
 * Surgery (Jarrell) - 239
 * Psychiatry and heart disease : the mind, brain, and heart - 88 copies
 * Hope that's helpful.   20:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding those reviews; they sound promising. I agree with Zad68 that we should look at the actual reviews in toto rather than the blurbs excerpted by the publisher, but it's a good start. So let's talk about Psychiatry and Heart Disease. Here's what I read in that textbook:
 * Curiously, our article on Transcendental Meditation research ignores that pithy overview, instead choosing to quote a later sentence:
 * Is there some reason that the latter quote (describing the results of a single trial) was chosen in preference to the former quote (which summarizes the current state of TM research and thus seems more generally useful)? MastCell Talk 20:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems like when we come to the step in our analysis where we summarize what each source says, we could summarize both points: While TM research tends to be out of date, with few trials in clinical populations, a 2006 study published in Archives of Internal Medicine found beneficial changes in blood pressure, insulin resistance and heart rate variability. Then we can consider this statement in the context of all the others, and summarize en toto.. There are a number of research reviews that cover this particular study, including a systematic review/meta-analysis on heart rate variability.
 * Is there some reason that the latter quote (describing the results of a single trial) was chosen in preference to the former quote (which summarizes the current state of TM research and thus seems more generally useful)? MastCell Talk 20:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems like when we come to the step in our analysis where we summarize what each source says, we could summarize both points: While TM research tends to be out of date, with few trials in clinical populations, a 2006 study published in Archives of Internal Medicine found beneficial changes in blood pressure, insulin resistance and heart rate variability. Then we can consider this statement in the context of all the others, and summarize en toto.. There are a number of research reviews that cover this particular study, including a systematic review/meta-analysis on heart rate variability.


 * For the sake of expedience, is it necessary to find reviews for every medical book that's sourced? When it comes to weighting medical books published by major academic presses, would it be sufficient simply to use Worldcat (taking into account a recently published book would be in fewer libraries than one that has gone through many editions)? Or maybe we could turn to reviews if there's some disagreement on weighting a particular source? TimidGuy (talk) 09:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * @Zad: Thanks, that is indeed helpful to know what ballpark figures to look for. The couple books in our list above that I checked on Worldcat were in this range. I guess the next step is to add Worldcat numbers for each book. TimidGuy (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * @MastCell: Thanks, good catch. I had simply missed that earlier quote which expressed the author’s general views on TM research. I see this as another step forward in laying out all the significant sources on the table and taking a good look at what each one says, ignoring no major points. Good idea to then summarize each one. I think TG has accurately summarized this source above.


 * I agree that if we use reviews, full reviews are more useful. That way, we can see if the reviewer has any reservations. Problem is, full reviews of these kinds of books aren’t so easily accessible. However, PubMedCentral does carry a full review of Stress Proof the Heart: Behavioral Interventions for Cardiac Patients: . But as a general rule, I agree that there must be a simpler way to fine-tune our estimate of the weight of a given book (given a respected publisher and authors), such as a WorldCat count. EMP (talk 18:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * World cat counts added to book list. (If there is more than one edition, I give the number of libraries stocking any edition.) EMP (talk 18:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Concerns about the use of sources

 * I have very serious concerns about the use of sources in this article. Having looked carefully at a few sources, I've found them used in a way that is, at best, questionable and sometimes outright misleading. Psychiatry and Heart Disease was selectively quoted. Braunwald's Cardiology was actually a citation to an outdated edition which just happened to be much more positive about TM than the current edition. (When this was pointed out, an editor suggested citing the outdated edition anyway, which leaves me sort of speechless). The AHA statement is similarly selectively quoted in a way which contradicts the authors' actual conclusions. I'm going to formally request outside input at the Medicine WikiProject regarding the way we present the purported health benefits of TM. Based on the above spot-checks, the article would benefit from a detailed source-by-source audit, and would also benefit from additional outside input, particularly from editors without direct connections to the TM movement. MastCell Talk 21:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * And lets post a request at RS Notice Board as well. I'm trying to take a break but keep getting drawn in. (olive (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC))


 * I posted here(olive (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC))


 * I regard both suggestions to get outside input as constructive. EMP (talk 05:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * @MastCell: I would point out that when we were made aware that a newer edition of Braunwald’s Cardiology had come out, I was the editor who added this book to the article: . As to the validity of keeping an older text as a ref alongside the newer version: yes, at first glance doesn’t make sense. But in this case, it is not obvious, for the reasons noted in greater detail above: 1) The author of the comparable chapter in the earlier edition has greater expertise in cardiovascular research; 2) this author surprisingly draws on research that is more recent and more widely cited. I do not see anything in WP:MEDRS or WP:RS indicating that an earlier edition of a textbook is necessarily obsolete. It does prefer sources have been published within five years, and this is a 2008 book. Could not a textbook be considered a kind of research review? MEDRS states: “do not automatically give more weight to the review that happens to have been published more recently, as this is recentism.” However, I will not restore this reference unless there is consensus that this should be done. EMP (talk 05:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I, too, have very serious concerns about the use of sources in this article. Having carefully looked at the use of the Canter/Ernst reviews, the use of Ospina, and the use of the Cochrane reviews, I've come to the conclusion that an editor has deliberately inserted a number of falsehoods and misrepresentations in the article. I listed some of these instances in a comment in the thread above. I really hope neutral editors show up who will be willing to look at all the sources, not just those favorable to TM. I am also seriously concerned about the peremptory deletion of a number of research reviews, including systematic reviews/meta-analyses such as Sedlmeier 2012. (By the way, I acted quickly and added the conclusion to the AHA report based on the concern raised. But my own concerns that were raised above were completely ignored.) TimidGuy (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It is self evident that an older book is obsolete if a newer edition contradicts it. You are trying to analyze a textbook while not being a medical doctor and making claims based on your original research, that's generally a bad idea. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a multitude of reasons why a new edition of a book might leave out something from a prior version and yet still other reasons why it might be useful to include the older version as a reference and that editing decision has nothing to do with original research. Also making random guesses about an editor's real life occupation is wrong and has no place in a talk page discussion. As the Essjay debacle has amply demonstrated, anyone can claim to be a PhD or MD on Wikipedia and we take those claims or lack thereof at face value and move forward in discussions based on their content, not personal information.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 19:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We are not going to use an outdated edition of a medical textbook, absent some really compelling justification. And so far, the only justification I'm hearing is that a subset of editors find the old edition "better" than the current edition, which isn't exactly compelling. MastCell Talk 17:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am assuming that all editors are here in a good faith and participating in an open minded discussion. What I've seen so far in this thread is Olive and EMP supporting Mastcell's proposal that neutral, ininvolved editors have a look at the sources in the article. TimidGuy echoed the need for an independent review of a number of sources that he feels are currently misrepresented in the article.
 * EMP gave an explanation for why he used the older edition of the textbook and cited WP:MEDRS. To which no one, so far, has responded. EMP also indicated he respected the current discussion and the opinions of other editors and said he: "will not restore this reference unless there is consensus."  I then commented that there could be "reasons why it might be useful to include the older version as a reference" indicating that the discussion should continue. Mastcell then commented "we are not going to use an outdated edition of a medical textbook"  which sounded like a mandate but was probably not intended to come out that way.  My main point is that it is a mis-characterization to say there is a "subset" of editors who have said "the old edition is better than the current edition" and to be clear, I am neutral on this issue. The only thing I would oppose would be attempts to shut down discussion. Meanwhile I thank everyone for maintaining good faith and keeping the lines of communication open as we work together to improve the article. Best, -- — Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 17:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Allow me to reiterate, as directly and civilly as I'm able, that it would require an extraordinarily compelling justification to cite an outdated edition of a textbook, and thus far I have not heard such a justification. There is no support in WP:MEDRS for using outdated editions of textbooks, so I'm not sure how to respond to someone who thinks there is. I value open, direct, and civil discourse, but as an adjunct to rather than a substitute for adherence to this site's sourcing standards. MastCell Talk 17:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No one has suggested that civil discourse is a substitute for adherence to reliable sourcing standards so I don't know where that's coming from. There are many open threads here with detailed discussion of the sources which attest to that fact. So in essence and summary I think we both agree that all are here in good faith for a civil discussion of ways to improve the article including an in depth, objective analysis of the usage of sources to support neutrally worded content which is the foundation of this project. With that in mind, let's continue. Thanks for your reply, Best, --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 13:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If case no-one has noticed, the chapter on alternate medicine found in the latest edition of _Braunwald’s Cardiology_ is written by Edzard Ernst and cites Edzard Ernst in the context of TM. I just asked him, in public, if he would cite the AHA scientific statement today, rather than the 9 year old review that he wrote. I hadn't noticed that he was the author in both cases when I asked, or I might have been a bit more careful in my wording. :-/ Sparaig2 (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can have a brief moratorium on trying to convince authors to re-write their textbook chapters for the purposes of this article? It's a bit unseemly. MastCell Talk 00:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been doing non-compensated advocacy for TM for nearly 40 years (in case you had any doubts about my bias on the topic). it probably is unseemly, but I've established interesting personal relationships (not necessarily positive -see my exchanges with Andrew Skolnick both in wikipedia and usenet) over the years by doing so. It an OCD hobby of mine. Sparaig2 (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Scientific misconduct
Ospina does not accuse TM researchers of scientific misconduct. I have removed that from the article, as well as removing the inaccurate assertion regarding the number of duplicate publications. Here's what Ospina says in introducing her list in Appencix F:

"From 911 included articles, 108 were identified as multiple publications, that is, cases in which the same study was published more than once, available in another format, or part of data from an original report was republished. The multiple publications were not considered to be unique studies and any information that they provided was included with the data reported in the main study. The report that was published first was regarded as the main study."

A cursory glance at the list shows that those TM publications listed are due to the fact that the TM organization has collected into a series of anthologies all of the papers originally published in scientific journals. Collecting papers into an anthology is not scientific misconduct. It's common. See, for example, the classic book on meditation by Shapiro and Walsh, which was mostly a collection of previously published studies. TimidGuy (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, that's sort of a half-truth. The Ospina review does not directly accuse any specific researcher of scientific misconduct, which would be a serious charge with likely legal ramifications. However, the review does state, regarding meditation research: "We identified and excluded from the review a considerable number of multiple publications (n = 108). In some instances, the same study was published in two separate journal articles without full cross reference, a practice of redundant publication that has been considered scientific misconduct." MastCell Talk 18:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like the text was supported, so I see no reason not to restore it. IRWolfie- (talk)
 * What's the rush Wolfie? Two people who are actually familiar with the research are having a discussion. Please let them proceed.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please understand that this list of 108 includes all meditations. If you're going to accuse TM researchers of doing this, you'll have to look at the list to see whether there are indeed instances of TM studies that were published as two separate journal articles. I'm not aware of any. TimidGuy (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I did that edit based on MastCell's original comment on the talkpage a few threads up (and my quick reading of the source), and reading the source more closely now it may not be quite appropriate as I wrote it, as it may suggest that the 108 is a subset of the 340 which is not true (accidental synthesis on my part). However, even though it is on meditation broadly, I think it would still be appropriate to mention it in the article, as the article goes emphasizes that TM is the most studied type of meditation. If the article is going to talk about how heavily-studied TM is relative to the rest of meditation, it could include this caveat about the meditation research in general. II  | (t - c) 19:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! The problem is, many many sources, including research reviews, emphasize the large amount of research on TM. It shouldn't be a problem to say that. Ospina herself notes the large number of TM studies. You can look at any science index and see that there are hundreds of studies. Try PubMed. The studies that are duplicates in the volumes called Collected Papers aren't typically indexed. So the search results you see are generally bona fide unique studies. TimidGuy (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing review
Based on the general agreement above that this article's sourcing could use a review, I started to do one. I used the same script I developed to do my GA reviews to pull this article's sources and put it in the table below, and started adding my comments. (There are a few more entries here than the 85 listed in the article because a few of the ref names (e.g. "Britannica online/TM" is one) are redefined.)

I got through the first dozen or so, and it's clear we've got some work to do. If I picked up this article as a GA nominee I'd ask for the lead to be fixed, there are quite a few sources used only in the lead, which is a problem per WP:LEAD. Also the quality of the sources I've looked at so far is extremely variable.

In this table:
 * Source lists the source as cited in the article
 * Seems WP:RS? means, "Does this source appear to meet WP:RS for reliable sourcing?"
 * Use OK? means, is the source used appropriately in the article? For the review, a few selected sources will be spot-checked to ensure they aren't plagiarized and support the article content.   indicates the source was not spot-checked.
 * Notes will summarize problems found and what needs to be done to fix them

I plan on finishing this table over the next day or two, hope people find it useful. 04:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated some more...  20:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a note here that I do not plan on doing any more reviewing of the sourcing for this article as I'd like to focus on other areas at this time. Anyone who might find the table provided useful is welcome to edit it with sourcing notes, hope you find it useful. 20:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Zad for your good start and useful efforts. I have added a column to the chart for my notes in response to yours. In addition I have corrected many of the issues that you have ID'd. I'll add more comments as time allows. Please feel free to rejoin the project later on if you are able. Best, --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 15:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Request made
I have asked Zad68 to extend his generosity by including in his list the RS’s deleted under protest last month, which also may be found in the intro section to the ‘mother’ TM research article. EMP (talk 17:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

In this table:
 * Source lists the source as cited in the article before it was removed along with the text it supported
 * Seems WP:RS? means, "Does this source appear to meet WP:RS for reliable sourcing?"
 * Use OK? means, was the source used appropriately in the article?
 * Notes on the assessment by each editor

AHA statement
I think we need to be careful in how we present the recent scientific statement from the American Heart Association. The conclusion clearly states:

The conclusion makes clear that TM falls into the category of interventions for which there is "insufficient or inconclusive evidence at the present time". Some of the recent edits fail to convey this conclusion accurately to the reader. I'm concerned that we're seeing a trend in which sources are selectively quoted in order to reflect positively on TM (for example, see one thread up), and as time permits would suggest that each source be verified against the claims made for it. In the meantime, I'd invite comment on how we present the AHA source. MastCell Talk 20:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But it explicitly states "The overall evidence supports that TM modestly lowers BP." The conclusion doesn't say anything about TM. We should go with what the report says, not some inference that an editor makes. Regarding the class of evidence, table 1 gives the authors of the report several options for characterizing class IIB evidence. The authors of the report chose the first option. So should we. Here's what it says: "The writing group conferred to TM a Class IIB, Level of Evidence B recommendation in regard to BP-lowering efficacy. TM may be considered in clinical practice to lower BP." I don't see how it could be any more clear. Zad's edit went beyond what the authors say. They don't say the evidence is unclear. They say it supports that TM modestly lowers blood pressure. And speaking of the need to be careful, many of the negative sources in that section are misrepresented. Cochrane 2010 doesn't say anything about TM researchers being biased. Cochrane 2006 doesn't say TM research is "poor." And Ospina doesn't characterize all TM research as poor. If your read the AHA report, you'll see that the two highest-quality RCTs in the cardio section of Ospina are on TM. Ospina rated both as high quality. And if you read the AHA report, you'll see that Ospina's methodology has been criticized. Per NPOV, why wouldn't we also mention that? The point about selection of subjects with a favorable opinion toward TM only characterizes four of the RCTs in Canter & Ernst 2003. Yet that statement is generalized to all the research on TM. None of the NIH-funded studies, for example, recruited subjects favorable to TM. Further, the research section in this article cites Ospina to support the statement that TM doesn't have a health benefit beyond relaxation. Yet if you look at the AHA review, you'll see that Ospina found just the opposite. Please, if you're honest and sincere, and if you're eager to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia and adhere to Wikipedia policies, look closely at these issues I've raised. In my mind, these misrepresentations are egregious, and quoting exactly what a source says about TM research and the classification of evidence cannot possibly be a misrepresentation. TimidGuy (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This has come up several times now - specific wording from the middle of an article is highlighted in a way that contradicts the article's conclusions. The conclusions represent the authors' "bottom line" and need to be conveyed to the reader. Here, the conclusions here are not in any way equivocal - TM is among the techniques for which there is "insufficient or inconclusive evidence". This suggests that while there is some evidence suggesting that TM may modestly lower BP, that evidence is not sufficient to recommend TM at this time. Separately, I got concerned when I spot-checked a source (Psychiatry and Heart Disease) one thread up, and found that editors had skipped over the authors' summary statement in favor of selectively quoting a positive excerpt. This is on top of discovering that an old edition of Braunwald's was being cited, rather than the current edition (which views TM less favorably). I hope you understand that it creates a great deal of work for editors to have to obtain these textbooks and review them to ensure that they are being accurately represented, but that effort seems to be necessary given the way sources are being used here. MastCell Talk 00:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * @MastCell (re: both your comments in this section): 1) It is not at all clear that “TM is among the techniques for which there is "insufficient or inconclusive evidence." I would point out that the AHA authors give TM the same level of evidence quality and effect size (Class IIB, Level of Evidence B) as biofeedback, and a better evidence rating than isometric handgrip (which got Level of Evidence C). Its clear, if anything, that TM goes in the same category of interventions as these two. 2) The material TG quotes is from the authors' “Summary and Clinical Recommendations” and is the conclusion of their detailed section on Meditation Techniques. It deserves to be given due weight as the author’s specific recommendation regarding meditation—-more so their 79-word conclusion to the entire, 20,000-word report, in which they are very tight for space. EMP (talk 00:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have stricken the blatant personal attack per WP:TALK ("removing harmful posts, including personal attacks") which was given without provocation and has no place in this civil discussion about content. User: Fladrif is currently being considered for an indef block at AN/I for exactly this kind of chronic unacceptable behavior. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 19:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and deleted it entirely; a personal attack by a banned user. Dreadstar  ☥   18:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * @MastCell, Re: Braunwalds: Examining both the 8th (2008) and 9th (2011) editions, I think that it makes sense to also use the 8th edition, in which the author of the chapter on complementary therapies, the respected cardiologist (and former pres of the AHA), John Vogel references a highly cited 2006 randomized controlled trial  in his discussion of TM research. In the later edition, the author of the comparable chapter, Edzard Ernst, only references his own 2004 systematic review, which is much less cited (39 vs 106). Nor does Ernst include the three meta-analyses on TM and hypertension (all in 2007-2008) that the 2013 AHA review (being discussed in this section) saw fit to report. Being three years older does not make the 8th ed. obsolete. To be clear, I’m not suggesting we exclude the 9th edition. I am suggesting that the 8th is also worthy of citation. EMP (talk 02:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No. There is no way on Earth that we're going to cite an outdated edition of a medical textbook simply because you find its wording more congenial. The fact that you'd even propose such an idea - which flies in the face of this site's guidelines and policies - raises serious concerns in my mind. MastCell Talk 21:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

@Zad: Re: your sentence, just added to the article. Good for the most part, but the following phrase in bold is incorrect:

The whole sentence from the AHA report is

They are only saying that they are unable to recommend how TM should be practiced. If they meant that there is a paucity of data for TM as an adjunctive treatment for high BP, they would not have said shortly after this (note bolded words),

And immediately after:

But I have no problem with your second sentence,

-- EMP (talk 02:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly new to this topic.

The Heart Association has not critically analysed the methods or findings of any of the three meta-analyses it reviewed, Ospina 2007, Rainforth 2007 and Anderson 2008 or the two RCTs by Rainforth & Schneider, but has simply reported what they have reported. The authors say that the evidence supports that TM modestly lowers BP (p.6), it may be considered in clinical practice to lower BP (p.6), but there is insufficient or inconclusive evidence to recommend the use of "the other techniques" (p.20, which unequivocally includes TM).

Regarding the last point, in their conclusions, the authors mention aerobic and/or dynamic resistance exercise, biofeedback techniques, isometric handgrip, and device-guided breathing methods, and then in the very next sentence say "There is insufficient or inconclusive evidence at the present time to recommend the use of the other techniques reviewed in this scientific statement for the purposes of treating overt hypertension or prehypertension." Logic and English include TM in "the other techniques". I realise that some of the body of the review can be construed as possibly meaning they recommend TM, that is not my reading. In fact, I think they have been very clear and careful in their language, such as using "TM may be considered in clinical practice to lower BP" while not actively recommending it. Allowing people to consider TM is distinct from recommending TM. Their recommendations are clearly spelled out in the conclusions section.

I believe this article should include something along these lines: "The AHA concluded the present evidence is too inconclusive or insufficient to recommend TM for the treatment of overt hypertension or prehypertension." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that would be an interpretation of the conclusion. It's better to simply summarize the report's conclusion, as I have done. TimidGuy (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not persuaded, yet.


 * Can you explain something to me? What are the different methods of TM they refer to, and do all/any of the rcts describe which TM method they employ? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There's only one method of practicing Transcendental Meditation. I have no idea what this sentence in their summary means: "As a result of the paucity of data, we are unable to recommend a specific method of practice when TM is used for the treatment of high BP." Yes, the RCTs typically describe the method of practice. Usually something very close to this description from Schneider's most recent study that the AHA report mentions: "The TM technique is described as a simple, natural, effortless procedure that is practiced 20 minutes twice a day while sitting comfortably with eyes closed.40,44,45 During the practice, it is reported that ordinary thinking processes settle down, and a distinctive wakeful hypometabolic state characterized by neural coherence and physiological rest is gained.46-48." We could perhaps email one of the coauthors and ask what the sentence means. In any case, I think it's accurately represented in the article. TimidGuy (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree it is an accurate paraphrase, but I'm not comfortable leaving a statement in the article that you, with your understanding of the topic, can't make sense of. I've emailed the first (and cc'd the second) author asking if he would be willing to offer a clarification. For now, will you agree to the removal of that sentence? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure. Thanks for emailing them. TimidGuy (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have heard back from the lead author and he seems to confirm your reading. I'll write back asking for a little more clarification and whether I can post his response(s) here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Rainforth 2007 says of Ospina 2007but the cited source of this criticism (ref #25) is a dead link. Can someone point me to an online version of that document, please? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Anybody? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Great to hear that you heard back from Brook. Thanks for contacting him. The MUM website received a complete overhaul in the last 7 months. I can check to see about getting that page restored. It contained the text of peer reviews of Ospina by Harald Walach and Ken Walton. TimidGuy (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The page can be found here. TimidGuy (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I just had a conversation with the lead author of the AHA statement, Robert D Brooks concerning this issue. While he emphasizes that the following is only his personal opinion and that any formal statement would have to come in response to something in the Letters to the Editor, he said to me:


 * " I would ask that you simply say that in discussion with me we confirm that the LOE is B and COR is IIB, the lack of mention in the conclusions does not change this conclusion." -(personal communication with Robert D Brooks, lead author of the AHA scientific statement on alternate treatments for hypertension)

What formal response to a Letter to the Editor would be required to note that the brief conclusion section of the AHA scientific statement is not meant to trump or contradict or otherwise be taken to be more important than anything said in any of the Summary and Clinical Recommendations sections?Sparaig2 (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there is some confusion here, because the conclusions don't "trump" or "contradict" the body of the article. They say the same thing in slightly different terms. TM received a IIb recommendation (as reiterated by Dr. Brook in your email), meaning that additional studies are needed, and that while TM "may be considered", its "usefulness/effectiveness is unknown or not well-established". The conclusion lumps TM under treatments for which "there is insufficient or inconclusive evidence at the present time to recommend." These statements are not contradictory; they're actually two ways of saying similar things. In terms of which wording we choose, I would favor the quoting the conclusion for the reasons I've set forth elsewhere: basically, we already have a serious problem with selective quoting of sources, so the best approach is to be consistent. MastCell Talk 22:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * All the therapies mentioned by name* immediately before* the phrase "there is insufficient or inconclusive evidence at the present time to recommend," received the same "LOE is B and COR is IIB" in their respective Summary and Clinical Conclusions sections as TM did in the section on meditation, so to lump TM in with "other techniques," rather than those explicitly named with an LOE is B and COR is IIB, is indefensible. The Summary and Clinical Recommendations sections are the true meat of the paper, not the 2-3 sentence "conclusions" section at the end. Again, I ask: what formal response in the Letters to the Editor page would ever possibly get you to change your stance on this matter?Sparaig2 (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, your reading of the conclusion is incorrect. Device-guided breathing received a IIA, not a IIB. As to why the authors considered isometric handgrip and biofeedback (both IIB) more promising than TM, you'd have to ask them. But they did reach that conclusion - you can't erase or undo it by simply calling it "indefensible". As to what would convince me, a clear published statement from the panel as a whole amending their conclusions would suffice, whether as a letter to the editor or as a formal correction. That would seem to be an bare minimum if we're planning to ignore or rewrite the conclusions of a published reliable source. MastCell Talk 22:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for neglecting this page. I've just written to the lead author asking how he feels about me reproducing our correspondence here (My email to him, his to me). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Stating "A 2013 report by the American Heart Association on alternative approaches to lowering blood pressure stated that the "overall evidence supports that TM modestly lowers BP" and that it was safe to try it for that purpose. In its summary of research on meditation and clinical recommendation, the report stated, "TM may be considered in clinical practice to lower BP."" repeats the same twice.
 * "overall evidence supports that TM modestly lowers BP"
 * "TM may be considered in clinical practice to lower BP."
 * While leaving out another point that " it is unclear if its effects are different than other meditation methods" Thus changed text in question. The review also states that the quality of evidence is not great which should be included aswell. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)