Template:Did you know nominations/Further research is needed


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Further research is needed

 * ... that medical review authors who think that a treatment was useless were just as likely to recommend researching it further?
 * ALT1: ... that nine out of ten medical reviews of useless treatments said that further research is needed, just as often as reviews of useful treatments?
 * Comment: This picture is less than optimal, as it shows fictional data, not real data. See Talk:Further research is needed. The talk page also contains discussion of alternate hooks. It is difficult to fit into the hook the information that the reviews in question are a specific sample of Cochrane reviews.
 * Comment: This picture is less than optimal, as it shows fictional data, not real data. See Talk:Further research is needed. The talk page also contains discussion of alternate hooks. It is difficult to fit into the hook the information that the reviews in question are a specific sample of Cochrane reviews.

Created by HLHJ (talk) and RexxS (talk). Nominated by HLHJ (talk) at 14:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. The image is fine in the article but I don't think it is suitable for the DYK image slot. No QPQ review is needed here, so it is just a question of how best to word the hook. I looked at the article's talk page and ALT2 is the one I favour. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * ALT2 ... that further research was recommended by over 90% of a sample of medical reviewers, even when they concluded that the treatment was useless?"


 * Thank you, Cwmhiraeth. I don't like the image either, especially when small. I may be able to get a better blobbogram. The Piltdown image in the article doesn't seem good, either. Maybe we shouldn't look for an image.
 * We'd need one tiny change to ALT2; the sample was of reviews and not reviewers.
 * ALT3 ... that further research was recommended by over 90% of a sample of medical reviews, even when they concluded that the treatment was useless?"
 * I'd favour something that emphasised that the uselessness had no effect of the frequency of the recommendation, for instance:
 * ALT4 ... that further research was recommended in over 90% of a sample of medical reviews, regardless of whether they concluded that the treatment was useless?"
 * HLHJ (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks. Approving ALT4. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, but the article needs to be linked in at least one other Wikipedia article so it doesn't get an orphan tag. I also find ALT4 a little confusing. And why are there italics? Could you write instead:
 * ALT4a: ... that further research was recommended in 93% of a sample of medical reviews, even though some concluded that the treatment was useless? Yoninah (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Yoninah, I will de-orphan it forthwith.


 * Obviously the hook still needs some work if it's incomprehensible. The point of the emphasis is to point out that ~93% of articles of useful treatments recommended further research, and ~93% of articles of useless treatments recommended further research. The article says it as "Authors who thought that a treatment was useless were just as likely to recommend researching it further" (my emphasis).


 * I thought this was pretty weird and counterintuitive, so I was trying hard to work it into the hook. The idea that most reviews recommend more research, and some reviews find that some treatments are useless, is unsurprising to me, especially considering the school of thought that says that every treatment in use should be monitored.


 * I'd be grateful to anyone who can think of a clearer way to say this. The article talk contains a bunch more abandoned hooks, and I'll have a think myself. HLHJ (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * How about:
 * ALT5: ... that in a sample of medical reviews, useless treatments were just as likely to be recommended for further research as were useful treatments? --Usernameunique (talk) 05:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with that. It does not shoehorn the >90% figure in, but it gets the main point across., any opinions? Trying for an active voice:
 * ALT6: ... that medical reviews were just as likely to recommend further research of useless treatments as of useful treatments, in one study sample?
 * ALT7: ... that medical reviews of useless and useful medical treatments were equally (>90%) likely to recommend further research?
 * ALT8: ... that concluding that a medical treatment is useless did not lower the >90% probability that a medical review would say that further research was needed?
 * ALT9: ... that further research into useful medical treatments is recommended >90% of the time, and further research into useless medical treatments is recommended >90% of the time, in a sample of medical reviews?
 * ALT10: ... that the usefulness (or uselessness) of a medical treatment had no effect on the (>90%) probability that a medical review of it concludes that further research is needed?
 * HLHJ (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think 's ALT5 is the most succinct. We're not trying to summarize the article here, just hook readers into reading it. Yoninah (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you like to give this a tick so that it can be promoted? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Sure. ALT5 hook ref verified and cited inline. ALT5 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thant's great, thank you all. Sorry for going AWOL here. HLHJ (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)