User:Choi.a/sandbox

Evaluating CONTENT

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Yes, everything in the article is relevant to the article topic. At no points of the reading was I distracted necessarily; however, it was more difficult to pay attention towards the very end of this reading because the information seems to wind on and on. Towards the end, especially under the "Efficacy" heading, it becomes a bit difficult to follow along with the information due to not optimal organization.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Having considered anything published 2013 and prior as not the most credible in terms of recent and active research, it was confirmed that the information found in the reference listed at the bottom of the article were a mix of recent and not very. There are a number of sources whose information is considered out dated; this should be avoided because much research can be conducted in the span of a few years. To avoid misinformation or lack of the latest updates in information, it's best to avoid out dated material.
 * What else could be improved?
 * This article could definitely be improved with more credible sources as a whole, as well as some more headings. Some potential ideas for headings include: "professional opinions", "study results", and "future directions".

Evaluating TONE

 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The tone of this article is neutral, there are no glaring claims or biases towards a particular position. According to the "Talk" portion of this article, however, it is apparent that non-neutral and biased work was an issue for this article in the past.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are no viewpoints that are clearly overrepresented/underrepresented. This article as a whole is generally underrepresented in its viewpoints, as it isn't very extensive in its knowledge (breadth and depth). It is likely that some viewpoints are underrepresented, including those of other healthcare professionals regarding this new practice.

Evaluating SOURCES

 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Yes, the links work. The sources do support the article's claims.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Each fact in this article is not referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference; however, a good number of them are. To become more credible and research-based article, it's essential to add more appropriate and reliable references to the list. The information comes from sources like medical journals, physical therapy journals, government sites, the U.S. FDA website, etc. The sources listed underneath the article as references can be considered neutral sources and should be without bias, as they are credible and informational sources.

Checking the TALK PAGE
Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Conversations look like advice as to what to avoid when talking about this topic, as well as expansion upon edits that are being made. A common theme, however, for this page seems to be an admonition to avoid non-neutral editing and a lack of sourcing/referencing.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated as a Start-class, which is considered to be a low rating and not extremely credible article. This article is of interest to WikiProject Medicine, WikiProject Alternative medicine, WikiProject Chiropractic, and WikiProject Skepticism.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? (this topic hasn't been talked about in class, so cannot answer this question)

Bibliography for Dry Needling
Boyles, R., Burrows, E., Fowler, R., Ramsey, D. (2016). Effectiveness of trigger point dry needling for multiple body regions: A systematic review. Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, 23(5), 752-766. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/2042618615y.0000000014

Brogan, M., Ma, Y., Zhou, K. (2015). Dry needling versus acupuncture: the ongoing debate. Acupunct Med, 33, 485-490. Retrieved from https://aim.bmj.com/content/33/6/485

Butts, R., Dunning, J., Flannagan, S., Mourad, F., Perreault, T. (2014). Dry needling: A literature review with implications for clinical practice guidelines. Implications for Clinical Practice, 252-265. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/108331913X13844245102034

Description of Dry Needling in Clinical Practice: An Educational Resource Paper. (2013,   February). American Physical Therapy Association. Retrieved from http://www.apta.org/StateIssues/DryNeedling/ClinicalPracticeResourcePaper/

Domingo, A., Mayoral, O., Monterde, S., Santafé, M. (2013). Neuromuscular damage and repair after dry needling in mice. Evidence-Based Complementary & Alternative Medicine (ECAM), 2013, 1–10. Retrieved from https://doi.org/2013/260806

Fernandez, C., Mejuto, M., Ortega, R., Salom, J., Truyols, S. (2014). Short-term changes in neck pain, widespread pressure pain sensitivity, and cervical range of motion after the application of trigger point dry needling in patients with acute mechanical neck pain: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 44, 252-260. Retrieved from https://www.jospt.org/doi/full/10.2519/jospt.2014.5108

Gilmartin, S. (2018). Dry needling: A critical commentary of its effectiveness and safety profile. Physiotherapy Practice & Research, 39(2), 155-159. doi:10.3233/PPR-180118

Norris, C. (2015). Dry Needling. SportEX Dynamics, (44), 24-30. Retrieved from https://link.ezproxy.neu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=117367700&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Sandbox 2 for "Dry Needling" article edits
Link: User:Choi.a/New sandbox