Talk:Electrotherapy

message: This article is deplorably inadequate.  It needs a thorough discussion of the nature of electrical energy, and of the history of electrotherapy, in view of the report at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10735134 that says electrotherapy has no physiological effectiveness.  The most recent citations for it come from an eleven year old dictionary for engineers.  External links, with one exception, are all over 25 years old.  The exception is a 17 year old re-edition of a book going back to the mid-1980s.  
Nothing is said about the difference between mono-phasic and bi-phasic voltage waveforms, that is, between electrochemistry and mere voltage transmission, and how this impacts upon the nature of the electrical energy delivered therapeutically.  Nothing is said about polarity and how this relates to therapy.  Nothing is said.  As it stands this article is worthless, and needs to be supplemented with both historical narrative and discussion of physics so that the reader, upon finishing it, will know enough to judge whether his/her money should be invested in an electrotherapeutic product or treatment, rather than be gaffed and landed by some smooth-talking charlatan with a medical degree who does not understand the difference between AC and DC.  As it stands this article contains no information that will allow any of this.  However, it is beautifully in keeping with the high standards of Wikipedia articles that stress form over content, and favor archaic speculation that is well referenced.
Gregory O'Kelly (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have failed to provide neutral point  of view, and you don't cite any references throughout much of what you say.  Some of it sounds like personal speculation or original research.  Your use of Kleiber's law looks highly unscientific to me - you seem to believe that the energy potential of chemical compounds used within cells is equivalent to the energy potential of moving electrons - but regardless of the truth of anything, this just plain isn't an encyclopedic article, and doesn't belong here.  69.49.44.11 03:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  don´T discuss about the effectiveness of electrotherapy, just give us references of those more than 1000 publications on that issue. And we should also discuss the issue why electrotherapy is used lesser  and lesser  whereas the pharmacological treatment is incresing.Robi123 21:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this page on about? 

message: This article does not belong in Wikipedia or any encylopedia. The article employs the language and presentation of fringe science or, worse, that of cranks. Multiple statements or assertation are made which are not supported by reputable sources. A strong distinction must be made between the mystical use of electricity in therapy and and proven scientific use as in applications such as heart pacemaker, defibrillator and similar. The mystical use of electricity in therapy is at best empirical based upon beleif, and at its worst dangerous.
I suggest that this article be deleted and welcome the input of others (no nut cases please).Geoffrey Wickham 03:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the biochemistry background to point fingers at specific errors, but this sounds like (pseudoscientific) original research.  If this article were *about* a fringe practice of electrotherapy, what the beliefs were and how they were applied, it would be different.  But it has all of this represented as 'fact' and conflated with the discussion of actual muscle contraction devices.  I agree that it needs severe editing or deletion.  69.49.44.11 03:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a natural tendency to presume a skeptical bias in these situations.  However, I do not think this is the case here.  The bias is instead towards properly referenced and sourced claims. (When last I checked) this article is missing some important facts related to electrotherapy, but the decision was made by another user that it's easier to start from scratch and only add properly cited information than to put up requests for references on each unreferenced fact or section, cross our fingers, and hope the references come about.  Based on the prior condition of the article in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidlines, I personally think it was a good move.  A reasonable person could most certainly argue against this move, but then, that discussion may be found below. -Verdatum (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You (the anonymous IP) are free to add back any material which can be attributed to a reliable source, but I'd suggest leaving the assumptions of bad faith and such at home. The article as previously written consisted of material that was unverified anonymous opinion (at best) or rambling, incoherent falsehoods (at worst), so I actually see removing it as a step away from ignorance and toward the goal of creating a respectable reference work. But that's just me. MastCell Talk 23:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing information about TENS and such, as one of the talkers writes below existed in one variation, and which I seem to recall was in some of the page's history that I briefly read the other day, is where some over-deletion seems to have occurred. It appears the baby was thrown away with the dirty bathwater. Of course any of us can edit, delete, and add or re-add: however, adding followed by others deleting is akin to running in an endless rat's wheel, IOW, much activity that goes nowhere, and the person who thoughtfully adds information inherently does more work than those who point, select, then delete.  As this article is now, and IMO, it has regressed past a point of encyclopedic-level content, and is more akin to dictionary-level content. This may be good for textbook sales, though. 71.128.192.243 (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I find this comment largely incoherent. In any case, again, feel free to add anything attributable to a reliable source. In the old version, there actually was no baby in the bathwater. MastCell Talk 03:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Should this article be deleted ?

message: This article contains so much pseudoscientific gobblegook that I initially considered proposing it as an Afd; but noting that many statements comprised scientific fact (albeit in many places as a means of support for a pseudoscience statement) I elected to change the heading tag from "expand" to WP:NPOV, to add  to questionable and unverified statements, and add WP:Patent nonsense to nonsensical statements.
As "Electrotherapy" is a part of science based medical therapy, the subject deserves an Article; however this article as it stands is not appropriate.
Others contributors might consider whether the Article should be subject to an Afd. Your views are invited; my views as a medical professional must, of course, be seen as lacking NPOV.QRS 04:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit of 25 Sept 2007

message: I found this article worthwhile, and took it with a grain of salt, because it explains the different stimulation methods such as TENS and IFC. It doesn't really matter if some think it's a "quack" science (I might agree), because it's still a useful resource. The disputed tag at the top helped me understand that the content may not be accurate due to the disputed nature of it. I found this useful to me, and it fits well in an 'encyclopedia' format for wikipedia.
cipher_nemo (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worthwhile 

message: I have made some fairly heavy revisions to bits of the article, mainly to remove statements which were flagged as unsourced in September and still are, but also to start stripping out some of the tendentious statements which are still there. If I have deleted something important, feel free to add it back with an appropriate source. There's much work still to be done, so bring your pruning saw and join in.
I must confess that reading the article I couldn't help thinking that reverting to one of the mid-2006 versions might give us a better place to start from than this - let me know what you think. Tom Harris (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the boldness a little further, though you did inspire me. The article is a complete mess of utterly unsourced original research. I basically stubbed it, with the idea that we could gradually add back information as we find appropriate sources. When an article is that long and unwieldy, it can't be coaxed into becoming encyclopedic and it's often better to start from scratch with sourced content. The old material is still available in the page history if there's anythign usable. MastCell Talk 19:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold on there.  While I fully support this idea, there appear to be a couple deleted portions that were cited within the article, or cited improperly through an inline link.  I can't take the time to review these just now, but to do this properly, perhaps those portions should be readded to the article and then be reviewed individually? -Verdatum (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I do see one source cited in the material I removed. It's this paper (), which points up a report from the Dutch Health Council indicating that there is no evidence that electrotherapy is effective as a form of physical therapy. The article then went on at length to rebut or explain away this finding by recourse to electromagnetic theory. Otherwise I don't see any other refs (the pre-stubbing revision is here). We should work the PubMed reference back in, certainly, but in a more encyclopedic context. MastCell Talk 20:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I would recommend reviewing a couple of Wikipedia fundamentals to find the answers to your concerns. Material needs to be directly attributed to a reliable source or it may be removed. Editors are not to use Wikipedia to advance novel syntheses or publish their original research or hypotheses. And please try to comment on content, rather than contributors. It may also be worth taking a look at what Wikipedia is not. If you are intersted in making this a better article by understanding and working within Wikipedia's goals and policies, then let's do it. It's easy. Let's start by listing a handful of reliable sources here on the talk page that deal with electrotherapy, then we'll decide how to summarize them in the article if you interested. However, if you just want to bloviate and blow off steam, then please save your breath and take it elsewhere. MastCell Talk 06:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision 

message: Initially this page was about electrotherapy and its dismal history of ineffectiveness going back over two centuries.  Historical material dealing with physics and the history of electrical medicine was provided to enumerate and account   for the successes and failures of electrotherapy, based upon understanding of the nature of electrical energy as it is treated in the physical sciences.  This material expanded upon deviations in biological accounts of the electricity of the body from understanding of electricity as a physical phenomenon by physical scientists.  This material has now been entirely expurgated by self-appointed editors who know little or nothing about either the history of electrotherapy or the phenomenon of electricity.  Their justification has been that citations were not presented that authoritatively buttressed the material, and their response was to hoist entries whose citations not only did not buttress the remaining paucity of knowledge, but which were over 20 years old in every case. One of these self-appointed but naive editors (MastCell) called for mainstream citations on the subject of electrotherapy.  If you look at the approved references cited you will see that only two were published in the last 25 years, and these two are both over 20 years old.  Furthermore, none of the citations provided has anything to say about the nature of electrical energy and the contrast between monophasic and biphasic currents.  Instead we are told of "Tesla currents" despite that Nikola Tesla never worked with clinical electrotherapy, and died before the electronic nature of the phenomenon and its relevance to chemical bonding was understood.  The editors are so caught up enforcing formalism that knowledge and content is not a consideration, and understanding of the subject itself is irrelevant.  Enjoy!  Gregory O'Kelly (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The material was entirely unsourced and therefore unverifiable. Wikipedia attempts to present verifiable information; since anyone can edit anonymously, no one can vouch for your expertise or correctness. Sources are a must. If you're interested, help me find some. If not, then vent and move on. MastCell Talk 04:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully support MastCell's justification.  As it says in Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If you'd like to create an article about Electrotherapy that contains material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, without attributing it to a reliable, published source (paraphrasing "This page in a nutshell" from WP:V), then that's fantastic, go right ahead.  Just please put it on your own website and don't bother Wikipedia with it.  If you don't like this so called "Triumph of Form Over Content" feel free to argue the policy of WP:V on it's talk page.  If you still don't like it, feel free to not use Wikipedia. -Verdatum (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia - the Triumph of Form Over Content 

message: This discussion page has been seriously edited by, among others, User:Gregory O'Kelly, It removed valuable discussion content.  This content needs to be restored.  If the talk page is deemed too long, it should be shortened using WP:ARCHIVE.  Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines before making similar major edits to the talk page. -Verdatum (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to restore the deleted material. Much or all could probably be archived. MastCell Talk 19:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page revert needed 

message: An incomplete use of possible sources for the article:
* : Dutch review, 2000
*  and  - small, more recent studies of electrotherapy for neuropathic pain
*  - 2006 review of electrotherapy as an adjunct after spinal fusion
*  - 2007 paper on biological hypotheses for the above
I would suggest we consider being more specific in the intro. "Electrotherapy" means different things to different people. The use of electrical current for cardioversion, a common medical practice, is sometimes referred to as "electrotherapy". Similarly, the use of implantable devices like deep brain stimulators, as well as functional electric stimulation as a therapy after stroke are sometimes referred to by this term. It appears there is also a more nebulous category of alternative medical treatments so described. Thoughts? MastCell Talk 23:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about what other WP articles there are on electrical treatments, but potentially, the term electrotherapy is as broad 'any medical treatment involving the application of electrical current to the body' (my own words).  An explanation of the various definitions of the term, and an expansion of the scope of the article may certainly be appropriate.  Naturally, if a specific therapy has it's own article, then this article does not need to describe it in detail, instead simply giving a summary and a wikilink to the main article. -Verdatum (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: It seems the previous historical material was removed for being uncited, but now the article mostly omits mention of anything except Guillaume Duchenne. It'd be useful if someone familiar with the history could write up a cited overview of the 19th and early-20th century phase where electro-therapy was extremely popular. --Delirium (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oudin coil looks like it has relevant content - Invented 1893 and used clinically around 1900. - Rod57 (talk) 02:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  could use a lot more historical material 

message: As far as I can tell from reading the electrotherapy and defibrillator articles,
"electrotherapy" is defined in such a way that it includes heart defibrillation (as well as many other useful and useless treatments).
Alas, all mention of the heart defibrillator -- and a few other treatments that seem to me to fall under the umbrella definition of "electrotherapy" -- have recently been deleted from this article.
Was that an accidental deletion that should be reverted?
Or do those treatments somehow not qualify as true electrotherapy, and so the definition in this article needs to be updated to exclude the heart defibrillator?
--68.0.124.33 (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  heart defibrillator 

message: Since Electromagnetic therapy article no longer exists, then there's nothing to merge with. (There's only a disambiguation page there.) --Dyuku (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite understand what's going on with this merger proposal. Someone put it in only last month? So I'll wait for comments here before removing it. --Dyuku (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing the merger suggestion? 

message: I would like to know what form of "Medical electricity" was on offer in Penzance, Cornwall around 1820. Robert Dunkin's Trade card is on display at Penlee House, Penzance: DUNKIN & JAMES/ SADDLE AND HARNESS/ Manufacturers/ PENZANCE/ PHILOSOPHICAL INSTRUMENTS/ Made and Repaired/ THERMOMETERS, BAROMETERS,THEODOLITES, ANGLOMETERS, SHIPS COMPASSES &C/ ENGRAVED COPPERPLATE PRINTING/ MEDICAL ELECTRICITY &C . 
The Museum dates the Trade Card at "1820s".Vernon White . . . Talk  23:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: ?1820

message: This should be merged with Interferential Therapy and renamed Interferential Electrotherapy. 
This is a widely used and very effective procedure used by chiropractors, sports physicians and therapists.
And boy does it work. I had a frozen shoulder for months, 3 sessions and it is like new. 
--APDEF (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean the merged in section should be titled "Interferential Electrotherapy", or that after merging, this electrotherapy article should be moved to Interferential electrotherapy? -Verdatum (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Interferential Electrotherapy

message: I just looked up electronic bone growth stimulator because my orthopaedic surgeon says after he replaces discs in my spine with bone grafts I'm going to wear an electronic bone growth stimulator two hours a day. There is a redirect from "Electronic bone growth stimulator" to this article, but absolutely no discussion of electronic bone growth stimulators in the article. It looks like all "the good stuff" is back here on the Talk page instead of up front in the article, where it belongs. It looks like the article needs an author to discuss the authorities, instead of someone trying to impose his/ her point of view on unsuspecting readers who expect "just the facts."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.136.7 (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Redirect from Electronic bone growth stimulator 

message: This section  3.3 Muscle stimulation concludes with  I tagged the sentence with <clarify> because the phrase  is confusing—at least to me. As a more straightforward replacement I suggest  —or—  I raise this question because 'direct current' is confusing when used to characterize 'monophasic [sic] waveform'; (the normal alternating current (AC) supplied to residences is single phase, which could also be read as mono phase)). In general, electrical distribution is single phase AC, two phase AC. or three phase AC (with two phase being very rare). Even if 'monophasic' has entered medical vocabularies, it should be Wikified for clarity if not replaced. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, him) 03:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The term phase in the medical field has nothing to do with electrical phase.  It refers to something that is episodic, like a recurring disease or doses of a drug.  In this case, it refers to the number of pulses of shock administered (apparently biphasic is better than monophasic in defibrilators).  On direct current, the term means flowing in one direction, not that the current is steady.  This is exactly the same as its usage in electrical engineering.  A half-wave rectifier has a DC output, but it is anything but constant with time. SpinningSpark 16:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify the confusing phrase ''monophasic waveform, direct current.''