@QuackGuru, you removed a section where I wrote: A 2016 meta-anyalysis concluded "There was moderate level evidence to support the immediate effectiveness of cervical spine manipulation in treating people with cervical radiculopathy." [1]
Citing "No it didn't" as your reason for removing it. My statement was a direct quote of the conclusion, would you please elaborate?Jmg873 (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
My mistake it was CFCF who removed it. My question stands.Jmg873 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Jmg873 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- What is interesting is the authors names. See Zhu L, Wei X, and Wang S. QuackGuru (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- What does that have to do with review's inclusion into this wiki?Jmg873 (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Asian authors have been known to right very favorably reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Three authors from China. Enough said. Publication bias and fraud are endemic in Chinese medical research (80% of results fabricated in one review), to the point that we'd only consider including a Chinese study if it appeared in an absolute top tier journal. Which this is not. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- The source seems good for inclusion to me. The source meets MEDRS requirements for high-quality medical sources (review and meta-analysis) and the journal is very high-quality for a rehabilitation journal, with indexing in Medline and an impact factor ~2.5. I am not aware of any policy that suggests Chinese authors make the source inherently unreliable. I have posted at the reliable sources noticeboard for other opinions.2001:56A:75B7:9B00:A5FC:56E7:D1A6:3966 (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sure it would seem good to anyone unaware of the problem fo fabrication of data and systemic bias towards SCAM in Chinese studies. It's almost as if that's why they do it... Guy (Help!) 21:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
