Talk:Electroanalgesia

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force.

Article Assessment for WikiProject Medicine

Hello. I am a member of WikiProject Medicine, a Wikipedia wide project that maintains and improves articles that fall under the scope of medicine. Since your article has fallen under our scope, I have placed the correct template(s) on this talk page for verification. Upon reviewed of the article, I'd like to make a few points, as shown below:

Assess article with class and importance factors
Added to neurology task force for more specialized improvement

I'm glad this article could fall within our scope, and I hope to see it grow large! Many thanks! Renaissancee (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H-wave

Please don't remove the McDowell references from the H-wave section of this article. The US manufacturer of H-wave devices has been marketing them as different than those marketed in the UK and Europe, though I've never seen any research to back that up. The main place it crops up is in attempts to claim McDowell's research doesn't apply to their H-wave units. Please revert this on sight- I have read extensively on this and there are no reliable sources to call McDowell's research inapplicable to US H-wave machines. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On review, it seems that some nationally-recognized guidelines state that the H-wave units used in McDowell's study (which found no significant difference from TENS) "may be different" from the ones sold in the US. Of course, this research is still included and still seems to factor into these nationally-recognized guidelines. There is the additional problem, of course, that the section of HWT is almost entirely applied to the US; there is little information on overseas use of HWT. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both insurance sources recommend against the use of H-Wave for healing, edema, pain etc. The Regent document concludes: Based on the lack of published long-term objective outcomes from well-designed, well-executed randomized controlled clinical trials, conclusions cannot be reached concerning the effectiveness of H-wave stimulation as a treatment of pain or any other condition. In addition, the FDA has specifically excluded several proposed indications for this device, and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines recommend against the use of H-wave stimulation for the treatment of acute and chronic pain. Therefore, H-wave stimulation is considered investigational for all indications.

Thus to be coherent, we either replace the references with a citation needed, or we change the sentence they are supposed to support with a new sentence that say H-Wave is not recommended for healing etc.. Which alternative do you think is right Mendaliv? Or what else do you propose?--Gciriani (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose leaving it as is. The references state that H-wave has been used for those indications; the article makes no comment about efficacy. At worst, we may state that those insurance companies' guidelines have described those uses as E&I. If you disagree I suggest taking this to WT:MEDRS. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transcranial electrostimulation

It cannot be used on people with orthopedic or radiological potentially serious spinal conditions; involvement in litigation,

Is this a typo? If not, is TCES contraindicated for lawyers, or only for their clients? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.22.86 (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of possibilities. One is the study creator specifically excluded work comp patients (this is extremely common for a variety of reasons), and whoever wrote that sentence misunderstood the reference. More likely is the reference states that these are relative contraindications, rather than absolute ones—that is, factors that indicate a lower likelihood of positive outcome, or greater incident of adverse events. The reason litigation would be on that list is simply that individuals already involved in litigation (such as for a work comp or liability claim) are much less likely to improve with virtually any treatment, and are much more likely to suffer adverse effects from virtually any treatment. Whoever read the reference may have misunderstood what it said. But I get your meaning—it doesn't quite make sense without specialized knowledge, and makes it sound like involvement in litigation would directly cause harm, which is pretty ridiculous. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]