Talk:Lumbalgia

Edits to the treatment section

I edited the treatment section. WP has a substantially expanded section since the fork. I used that as the basis.

• there were no references
• treatments without supporting empiric evidence were presented indistinguishably from useful treatments.

So...

• I added many references, especially using the Cochrane Collaboration.
• I divided the non-surgical treatments into two sections, treatments with and those without supporting evidence.

Persisting problems:

• I do not like surgery being in its own section apart from the dichotomy above.
• there are some sentences I would like to remove because there is no supporting evidence cited and is an opinion only, for example "Generally, some form of consistent stretching and exercise is believed to be an essential component of most back treatment programs". However, I have not removed these.
• The section still does not read well as it is hard to work with the original text.

Comments/suggestions/edits welcome. Robert Badgett 02:23, 16 November 2006 (CST)

How to indicate an approved article?

This article demonstrates the difficulty to approve an article in its whole. Regarding the treatment section, I think I have the evidence pretty well linked although the writing could be improved. However, other sections, such as Cause and Diagnosis are in terrible shape. Nobody is likely to have the time to correct this type of article in its entirety; so a method is needed to indicate which sections the reader should be wary of. In addition, an article approved at one time may be out-of-date quickly when new research emerges. How is lack of currency detected other than by passage of an arbitrary length of time? Topics vary in how intensely they are researched and how fast they become outdated. Robert Badgett 02:53, 16 November 2006 (CST)