Talk:Lumbalgia

Article Checklist for "Lumbalgia"

Workgroup category or categories	Health Sciences Workgroup, Healing Arts Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status	Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article?	Yes
Basic cleanup done?	Yes
Checklist last edited by	Petréa Mitchell 13:10, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.

---

Edits to the treatment section

I edited the treatment section. WP has a substantially expanded section since the fork (see their 11/11/2006 version [1]). 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 In addition, an article approved at one time may be out-of-date quickly when new research emerges.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 Topics vary in how intensely they are researched and how fast they become outdated.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)

Shouldn't this be "lower back pain"?

Just a question from a layman. Petréa Mitchell 13:10, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

• I was thinking the same thing. "lower back pain" is something I've heard before, "low back pain" sounds awkward. Carl Jantzen 10:50, 19 July 2007 (CDT)
  • I wuz gonna chip in and say that I too had never (to my knowledge) heard or read of "low back pain" but first did a google and discovered that there are 1,360,000 hits for low back and 1,117,000 for lower back, so *someone* must be using the term. Geez, I learn something every day! Hayford Peirce 12:00, 19 July 2007 (CDT)
    • Good point. I guess its under "low back pain" on Wikipedia as well. We might as well leave it unless a doctor comes by and tells us the proper term. Carl Jantzen 12:52, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Actually both are lay terms. Lumbalgia is the medical term. Let's go ahead and put them in up front and even a redirect! --Matt Innis (Talk) 13:28, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Okay, I added them and the redirects. Thanks for the help. What else would you like to see? --Matt Innis (Talk) 14:13, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Hmmm, shouldn't the article be Moved to Lumbalgia, and then have both "Low back pain" and "Lower back pain" redirected to that? Like the controversy about Nazi and National Socialist Party etc.? Since Lumbalgia is the actual name of the condition.... Hayford Peirce 15:02, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

I agree, thought about it, but didn't do it.... but now that you gave me a little push, consider it done. --Matt Innis (Talk) 15:12, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

lots of changes

Okay, I have made some significant changes to this article. I plan to work on the diagnosis section over the next few days, and then we need some pictures or charts, or anything as we clean it up. Robert, I went through the treatment section and moved the references to the end of the paragraphs; I think it reads better, but let me know what you think. I also took out most of the CC quotes mostly because, unlike wikipedia, we are allowed to narrate our expertise. If there are statements that seem biased, we could attribute, but I think we all agree that cochrane is a satisfactory way to look at the treatments options at this point. If someone disagrees, please feel free to revert. --Matt Innis (Talk) 20:32, 19 July 2007 (CDT)