Talk:MiraDry
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Advertisement[edit]
User:Dandv if you insist I will nominate this for deletion. This was an advertising brochure, not a Wikipedia article and it will go down in fire in an AfD, but if that is what we need to do, that is what we need to do. Your call of course. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Jytdog, I'm not sure I like your tone, or attitude. I would suggest re-reading WP:AGF.
- I agree the old article was spammy, which is why I have completely revamped it, and included a fully different set of reliable sources. I was planning to continue improving the article since there are more WP:RSs now (e.g. 1, 2) to establish notability, but I would like some sort of indication that my efforts won't be in vain. I am not affiliated with Miramar Labs and as you can see from my contributions, I've been a neutral Wikipedia editor for more than 10 years. -- Dandv 00:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am reacting to content. You can take that personally but that would be an error. But if you think Daily Mail is a reliable source I don't know what to tell you. See the many many threads at RSN where Daily Mail is shredded. It is not an RS for much of anything and it is absolutely not a WP:MEDRS source needed to make any kind of claim about if the device works or not. Nor is HuffPo. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- We require high quality secondary sources for medical content. This is not sufficient per WP:MEDRS [1]
- There are currently zero high quality secondary sources on the topic [2] and therefore it is likely too early for a page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- User:Jytdog, DailyMail, in my experience, has had surprisingly in-depth coverage of certain topics (amidst lower forms of tabloid material). Anyway, I don't count on these sources for establishing effectiveness, but notability. There are plenty of news sources covering miraDry, so I believe notability can be established.
- User:Doc James For effectiveness, I've linked to a study published in Dermatologic Surgery. However, Wikipedia doesn't only present effective treatments. We also have articles on homeopathy, and, in the realm of cosmetic surgery, Cryolipolysis for example, where the jury is still out on the evidence.
- I would like to continue improving this article based on better sources (for example this study, which I'm trying to find out the conclusions of). The Dispute resolution page suggests following normal protocol,
Please let me know how you would like to proceed. -- Dandv 02:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral.
- The difference with cryolipolysis and homeopathy is that their are high quality secondary sources that comment on them and say they are not very effective. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Dandy PMID 24927005 and PMID 22452511 are both primary sources; not MEDRS and you cannot use them to make claims about the device. Please do read WP:MEDRS and if you don't understand something, please ask. As I noted above, if you recreate the article, I will nominate it for deletion and I am sure it will be deleted. If you want to go through that song and dance you are of course free to. Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- The difference with cryolipolysis and homeopathy is that their are high quality secondary sources that comment on them and say they are not very effective. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am reacting to content. You can take that personally but that would be an error. But if you think Daily Mail is a reliable source I don't know what to tell you. See the many many threads at RSN where Daily Mail is shredded. It is not an RS for much of anything and it is absolutely not a WP:MEDRS source needed to make any kind of claim about if the device works or not. Nor is HuffPo. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Microwave-based treatments for axillary hyperhidrosis[edit]
User:Jytdog & User:Doc James, thanks for for the clarifications. I see that the study I had cited qualifies as a primary source, even though other researchers were involved besides the original Miramar Labs person (Kathy O'Shaughnessy, no longer with the company).
Will this clinical trial be an acceptable secondary source?
Would it make sense to create an article about the generic treatment of hyperhidrosis via microwave-induced thermolysis, and redirect the miraDry article to it? -- Dandv 02:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)