Talk:Waddell's signs

POV-check
I suppose maybe rewrite would be more appropriate. There are a lot of conflicting statements in this article, and a clear distinction needs to be drawn between malingering and pain magnification for this article to really work. This article does seem very problematic however because I can see someone who had his or her WC claim denied because of the presence of Waddell's signs reading this and assuming the physician had done something inappropriate. I guess it's just a problem with detail and explanation for me. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just did some work in addition to what's been done thus far, and I think it's getting a bit better. However, there's the big problem that the article mainly discusses criticisms of Waddell's signs, and puts forth a picture that, if accurate, would imply that only a quack would use Waddell's signs as part of a proper examination for low back pain. This cannot be farther from the truth; Waddell's signs are in widespread use. For example, both ACOEM guidelines on the low back (2nd edition original and revised) and Official Disability Guidelines describe the use of Waddell's signs as an option during a physical examination for chronic and acute low back pain. ACOEM unrevised is presumptively correct in the California worker's compensation, while ODG is (I believe) presumptively correct in the Texas worker's compensation arena. Both sets are nationally recognized throughout the US, and pretty frequently used.
 * All said, Waddell's signs are immensely controversial, and great care needs to be taken with respect to evaluating the actual mainstream nature of a particular source's conclusions (per WP:WEIGHT) before mentioning them in the article. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)