Talk:Clear aligners: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Litigation: r |
→Manufacturers and bankrupt companies: new section |
||
| (46 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Dentistry|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Business|class=C}}}} |
|||
{{connected contributor|User1=CorporateM|U1-declared=yes}} |
{{connected contributor|User1=CorporateM|U1-declared=yes}} |
||
{{talk header}} |
|||
{{archives |auto=yes |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=30 |units=days}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| |
|||
{{WikiProject Dentistry|importance=Mid}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
||
|maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
||
|counter = 1 |
|counter = 1 |
||
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(180d) |
||
|archive = Talk: |
|archive = Talk:Clear aligners/Archive %(counter)d |
||
}} |
}} |
||
== Removal of copyvio - Invisalign section == |
|||
== Request edit == |
|||
I'd like to request: |
|||
* Replacing the "Cost" and "Medical uses" section with the "Comparison to wire braces" section located at [[User:CorporateM/Invisalign]] |
|||
* Replacing a sentence from the Lead with a summary of the medical literature (see specifics at [[User:CorporateM/Invisalign]]). |
|||
* A few other nick nacks I found in the academic sources (located at the same page). |
|||
I believe this should wrap it up and make the page ready for GAN. In case someone does pick up the Request Edit right away, I would like to ask that it wait at least a week to give DocJames a chance to make any edits to the drafted material. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 03:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::No per the [[WP:MEDMOS]] we use the heading medical uses typically. Cost goes lower in the article. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 07:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::I see that [[WP:MEDMOS]] includes medical uses as one of many "suggested headings", but I don't think it's the most appropriate header in this case. It would make sense for a plant, chemical or something else that may have other uses, but in this case it is a manufactured product with no other conceivable use besides a medical one, making it a bit of an awkard header. Almost all of the medical literature is about how it compares to other forms of braces and the general manual of style discourages small sections like the current Cost section. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 07:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::We use that heading in hundreds of articles that have no use other than medical. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 08:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I'm sure you're familiar with [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] and those articles may or may not have medical literature so focused on a specific topic. Also, the content currently under the Treatment Process header would make much more sense as the Medical Uses section than the way it is done now. I'm busy with other stuff right now, but I would suggest we use 3PO as a light-weight way to get a quick second opinion at some point. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 16:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Sure so we disagree. I am your second opinion as you are being paid for this work. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 18:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:I won't do it, at least not right now, as i'm busy and just happened to glance at this before logging off, but i will say that i believe the Medical Uses heading is silly and quite out of place. As {{U|CorporateM}} says, it is not appropriate, for at least a couple of reasons ~ it implies there are other uses, which there aren't, and the section content itself also talks about studies and comfort in addition to uses ~ and OTHERSTUFF is quite rightly invoked. {{U|Doc James}}, don't you think you're being rather dismissive and unhelpful? Cheers, '''[[User:LindsayH|Lindsay]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:LindsayH|Hello]]</sup> 17:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::one could use the argument that "it implies there are other uses" to disqualify 99% of the times the "medical uses" heading is used. IMO that heading orients the reader to the fact that yes this is a medical device or medication. |
|||
::But this just exemplifies what is wrong with paid editing. Paid editors often want minor changes and wish to redirect other community members towards what they are paid to "improve" They want to not follow guidelines so they can emphasize aspects of the topic that commercial interests want them to emphasis. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 22:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::Just plain "uses" would make more sense than "medical uses". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 15:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::Personally I think a "Uses" section is just as awkward as "Medical Uses". Invisalign has only one use and most of the medical literature is about how it compares to traditional braces. The original "Comparison of" header was fine and is a common section title when there is a lot of source material making comparisons. Anything about their efficacy, cost, aesthetics, etc. are in the context of compared to using other types of braces. I think this is true of most products that are an alternative to a more common approach. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 17:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Another possibility would be to rename the "Treatment process" section to something like "Medical application". Still awkward IMO (Treatment process is better), but more sensible than the way it is now. That's actually where it's use in medicine is described. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 21:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I'm not sure that devices or procedures that are normally done for cosmetic purposes are properly considered "medicine", even if it involves a person with a medical license. "Medical application" sounds too much like "Non-cosmetic uses" to be appropriate for any kind of orthodontic braces. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Happy with "Uses" [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 23:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
BTW if you see serious issues with content I am happy to help address them. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 22:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::{{ping|WhatamIdoing}} FYI - I noticed in your edit-summary you mentioned the section may need a re-write and I did take a crack at it [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CorporateM/Invisalign here]. I don't dabble much in medical articles, but based on the criteria Doc provided (review article, impact score above 1, less than five years old), there's literally only about 3 articles with a substantive amount of content about Invisalign that meet the criteria, so seemed pretty easy to just summarize 3 articles. I suspect Doc will have some opinions on it, but wanted to let you know it was there. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 01:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}}Because I have a COI, I am not allowed to edit in circumstances where there is no clear consensus, so I have started an RFC below in the hopes that a clear consensus will emerge. This should not be meant to indicate that this is a "big deal" or there is some heated argument a-foot, but I merely know of no better way to obtain a clearer consensus one way or another. I'll leave the Request Edit up, since most of the suggested edits in the Request Edit could be fulfilled without conflicting with the topic of the RFC. I'm also going to ping folks that previously participated in this discussion or the article to see if we can get some participants in the RFC that are familiar with the page: {{ping|WhatamIdoing}}, {{ping|Doc James}}, {{ping|LindsayH}}, {{ping|John Broughton}}, {{ping|TLSuda}} [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 08:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===Setting the titles aside, there is other content in the request=== |
|||
We have been asked to view [[User:CorporateM/Invisalign]] to consider the changes there. If agreed, these may be performed separately form any discussion on section naming. CM asked me to look at the RFC (below) and the RE (this major section) to see if I was able to comment below and act here. I have commented below, and I do not feel competent to act on the other changes requested. Might knowledgable folk discuss those in this section, please? [[User:Timtrent|<span style="color:#800">Fiddle</span>]] [[User talk:Timtrent|<span style="color:#070">Faddle</span>]] 07:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Section titles/article structure == |
|||
Which is the superior article-structure and section titles? |
|||
::(A) The original[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invisalign&oldid=617927554] format with "Treatment Process" and "Comparison to wire braces" sections |
|||
::(B) The current[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invisalign&oldid=673081971] format with the Comparison section split up into "Uses" or "Medical Uses" and "Cost" and "Treatment Process" renamed to "Application" |
|||
The prior discussion on this topic is in the string above. Before the date marked as "Original" the section use to be called "Advantages and Disadvantages", which is another option very similar to the Comparison section. Also please note my COI disclosure. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 07:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::*<b>Comment</b> As discussed above, "medical uses" is a common section title for plants, chemicals, etc., but this is a manufactured product with only one use, making the plurality of the section title awkward. Also, there are only three MEDRS-compliant articles in Pubmed that talk about Invisalign substantially and the biggest focus is how they compare to braces, not how they are used in medicine. Since Invisalign is an alternative to braces, it's only natural that comparing them to braces be a topic of substantial interest. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 08:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*Interesting. So this is a medical product applied by a dentist. [[User:CorporateM]] is being paid to "improve" the article in question. His version removes a couple of reviews from the lead of the article including this one [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16383056 from 2005] and this one [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24851387 from 2014] |
|||
*Lets look at a similar article on [[Dental_implant]]. It was written by one of our dentist editors [[User:Ian Furst]] and begins with a "medical uses" section. This is as recommended by [[WP:MEDMOS]]. MEDMOS specifically states that this ordering is recommended for "drugs, treatments, and devices" [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Drugs.2C_treatments.2C_and_devices]] [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 09:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::The "Medical Uses" section on the Dental implant article makes more sense than the one here. It starts with "The primary use of dental implants are to support dental prosthetics". The section is about how it's used in medicine. In comparison, in this case the same title is used for what is more like a Reception section. The comparison would be more accurate if the "Treatment process"/"Application" section was named "Medical uses" because that is more similar to the example section provided. It's unfortunate that editors feel abusing a COI disclosure is the most appropriate way to win an argument. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 16:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::The "uses" section here begins with "likely useful for tooth crowding of the front teeth that is of a moderate degree". This is what the device is used for thus I do not see what the issue is. This is also the layout of dozens of other similar articles. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 07:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::However, this is all "Comparison of" content: "...it is likely not as good as conventional braces. Additionally the teeth more often become misaligned again...Invisalign are probably more noticeable than lingual braces. They are, however, likely more comfortable." Being "more comfortable" is not a "medical use", it's a comparison, which is also a very common section name. It also creates a straggling Cost section that could be better integrated into a Comparison section. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 08:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Under medical uses we typically discuss comparative effectiveness yes. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 10:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
* So CorporateM [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wugapodes&oldid=674373063 asked] me to give my input on the RfC. The main issue I have with the structure is that the sections "Uses" and "Cost" are very short. If I were to do a GA review, that would give me pause, so something needs to be done about that. I'm not familiar with [[WP:MEDMOS]] and compliance with it isn't required for GA (or FA, I think, but I may be wrong), so I think serious consideration needs to be given to the combination of the two sections. And CorporateM and others have made a very strong point that invasalign was made with the express purpose of being a replacement for wire braces; that is how they are marketed, that is how people are familiar with them, so it is not unreasonable to have a section explicitly comparing them to wire braces. Since that is what "Uses" and "Cost" already do, why not combine them under that heading? Like [[WP:IAR]] says, if something, in this case [[WP:MEDMOS]], is preventing us from improving the article, we should really consider ignoring it in this case. So I think, right now, that a "comparison" section makes more sense from a layman's perspective. [[User:Wugapodes|Wugapodes]] ([[User talk:Wugapodes|talk]]) 18:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*I have no expertise in this area, so I must rely on [[WP:MEDMOS]]. I have no experience at all in medical articles. think what we might be discussing is the usage of the plural where there is only a singular deployment of the device. My view is thus that we go with MEDMOS but consider the singular in the section title. |
|||
:For the reader, either way works, and works well. [[User:Timtrent|<span style="color:#800">Fiddle</span>]] [[User talk:Timtrent|<span style="color:#070">Faddle</span>]] 07:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::*Thanks [[User:Timtrent]] agree single it should be. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 13:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ping|Timtrent}}{{ping|Doc James}} Isn't it redundant to have one section called "Use" and another called "Application"? If one section is about how it's "used" and another section is about how it's "applied", I think that's basically the same thing. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 17:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{Ping|CorporateM}} I am out of my depth here, so all I have is logic. "Use" is, or might be, how it is used, whereas "Application" is, or might be, how the device is applied in order to be used. It is a subtle distinction, I agree, like that between using and utilising a thing. [[User:Timtrent|<span style="color:#800">Fiddle</span>]] [[User talk:Timtrent|<span style="color:#070">Faddle</span>]] 21:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It is similar to how we have one section for "causes" and one for "mechanisms". We have sections for what something is used for and the evidence for that use "medical uses" and a section for how that something does its work or is carried out "Technique or application or mechanism". Please read [[WP:MEDMOS]] [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 05:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::{{ping|Doc James}} I'm not sure I understand why you feel [[WP:MEDMOS]] supports your point of view so strongly. "Medical uses" is just one of many "suggested" titles and I am not opposed to using that title for the section that is about how the product is used. Also, it says right at the top of [[WP:MEDSECTIONS]] that the suggested titles are "intended to help structure a new article or when an existing article requires a substantial rewrite. <i>Changing an established article simply to fit these guidelines might not be welcomed by other editors.</i>" I feel like the discussion (including Lindsay's comment above, though it wasn't technically added to this RFC), is leaning against the current structure and we should be able to hammer something out that makes more sense. Or at least, that's my pep talk at 4 a.m., when I'm not thinking clearly ;-) [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 08:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I have spent a fair bit of time arranging articles per our MOS and likely done this with a few thousand. I have had students tell me that having consistent formatting is useful. I know that it is useful as an editor. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 08:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::One thing that might work for everyone is "Orthodontic use" with a sub-section on "Reception". This is less sensible in my view. "Comparison to" is a more exact description, but it may appeal to your desire to have fairly standardized section names and would make enough sense not to be severely problematic IMO. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 15:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::"Dental use" would work. We need to keep the headings in easier to understand english. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 16:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::{{done}}. Does that work for everyone? It's not the way I would have done it. I thought orthodontics was pretty plain English and more specific than dental too. But I think it's at least sensible enough not to be worthwhile to spend energy arguing over it. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 17:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::I was saying changing the heading from "uses" to "dental uses" was fine. Sure we can add the application information as a subsection. Costs go lower in the article typically. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 04:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::::{{ping|Doc James}} I don't feel you are editing in a manner that is representative of the discussion. {{ping|Wugapodes}} agreed that a separate Cost section was awkward and would give him pause during a GA review. When your reasoning of citing MEDMOS was shot down, you simply came up with other reasons. {{ping|LindsayH}} above also indicated concerns that you were being "dismissive and unhelpful". I think discussion has been leaning against your preferred article-structure, but you continue to insist on it anyway. This is especially frustrating because I cannot edit-war with you, which would normally lead to escalation to the Edit-Warring board, who would decide who is editing within consensus. Maybe there isn't an overwhelmingly clear consensus (there almost never is), but don't you think you are digging in your heals a bit here and preventing the article from meeting GA standards? [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 15:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::::::Per "preventing the article from meeting GA standards". If the article does not follow [[WP:MEDMOS]] it does not meet GA standards. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 03:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*I can think of no case where there has ever been any scrutiny to the section titles of any health related articles, and consequently, anyone supported anything other than the standard [[WP:MEDMOS]] articles. People have offered alternative orders, and maybe sometimes those have been implemented, but so far as I know, never with the backing of consensus and especially not the consensus of WikiProject Medicine. I can think of several options for going forward in this case - |
|||
**Rearrange the article to match the section titles in [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Drugs.2C_treatments.2C_and_devices]] (least surprising way forward) |
|||
**Do something different only for this article (an extraordinary action - community support unlikely) |
|||
**Write an addendum to MEDMOS policy for why this is different - requires extraordinary insight and new ideas in a space where many new ideas have already been tested |
|||
:Wikipedia is mostly developed by routinized processes and when articles are most routine they give the least pause on review. There is no way to use a new format without perpetually inviting question. Personally if I had content which did not fit the usual section titles then I most likely would force it to fit. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 23:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|Bluerasberry}} To clarify, one version of the article-structure could be: |
|||
::::Dental use |
|||
::::Comparison to wire braces or Reception |
|||
::Whereas another could be: |
|||
::::Dental use |
|||
:::::Application |
|||
::::... |
|||
::::Cost |
|||
::I would think MEDMOS would be supportive of either. For example, one topic of discussion is whether a separate Cost section is needed for such a small article, rather than consolidating it into a Comparison section. Costs are mostly discussed in comparison to traditional braces options and it's the primary shortcoming of using Invisalign compared to another product. Really small sections are generally discouraged. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 02:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Not sure what "Reception" means or what you are proposing. Why are you recommending "Dental Use" with caps for both terms? This is definately not supported by [[WP:MOS]].[[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 04:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I would prefer "Comparison to wire braces"; such "Comparison to" sections are very common when there is a lot of source material that compares the product to alternatives, as is the case here. For years before I improved the article it use to be called "Advantages and disadvantages", which is also fine. The titlecaps was just a typo. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 05:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Much of the discussion of research / lack thereof is not a comparison to anything. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 06:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Lead == |
|||
{{ping|Doc James}} summarized the medical literature in the Lead thusly "As of 2005, it is unclear how well Invisalign work as they have not been well studied.[1] No further systematic reviews have been published between 2005 and 2014.[2]" This gives the article a "nobody knows if it works" tone that one would often find on alt-med articles. While it is technically well-sourced, this seems very far afield from an accurate, neutral representation of the total body of literature. |
|||
I suggest replacing it with something more like "Invisalign is probably effective for correcting mild to moderate overbites, underbites, crowding and spacing, but less effective than conventional braces for severe rotations, extrusions and closing extraction spaces. No recent, high-quality, random clinical trials have been published to verify how its effectiveness compares to conventional options"<ref name=Kun2014>{{cite journal|last1=Kuncio|first1=DA|title=Invisalign: current guidelines for effective treatment.|journal=The New York state dental journal|date=March 2014|volume=80|issue=2|pages=11–4|pmid=24851387}}</ref><ref name="Y Al. 2012">{{cite web | last=Y | first=Yu | last2=Al. | first2=Et | title=Interventions for managing relapse of the lower front teeth after orthodontic treatment. - PubMed | website=NCBI | date=November 9, 2012 | year=2012 | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24014170 | accessdate=August 10, 2015}}</ref><ref name="partone">{{cite journal|journal=Dental Update|date=April 2013|title=Invisible Orthodontics Part 1: Invisalign|first1=Ovals|last1=Malik|first2=Allbhe|last2=McMullin|first3=David|last3=Waring |pmid=23767109}}</ref> |
|||
It is very difficult to talk about what is "representative of the total body of literature" without an expert, so I'm going to see if we can get an expert from Wikiproject Dentistry to verify what the gist of the medical literature is. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 22:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist}} |
|||
:Greetings -- head of the dental project here. Although I am a periodontist and do not personally use Invisalign, I sense that the overwhelming anecdotal evidence from tens of thousands (if not more) of clinical case results provide an adequate basis for stating that Invisalign is, indeed, effective. Unlike medicine, where, at least to some degree, people's lives hang in the balance based on the accumulated results of clinical data, and RCTs are rightfully and necessarily considered as not only the best but the only true endorsement for treatments, therapies, etc., in dentistry, we are not quite as rigorous. Sure, we have our controlled trials and even our meta-analyses, but there's certainly something to say about cumulative life experience even if uncontrolled and unblinded. |
|||
:In summary, I don't think the qualifier "probably" is appropriate, and we can just go ahead with stating that it is, in fact, effective. But one ought to cite some form of even peer reviewed journal as to what it is effective for, and I cannot speak to this end, as a periodontist who knows nothing of how it is used. '''[[User:DRosenbach|<span style="color:#006400">DRosenbach</span>]]''' <sup>([[User_talk:DRosenbach|<span style="color:#006400">Talk</span>]] | [[Special:Contributions/DRosenbach|<span style="color:#006400">Contribs</span>]])</sup> 03:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::The sentence reads "it is unclear how '''well''' Invisalign work" which gives the indication that they work but it is not known how much. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 04:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ping|DRosenbach}} I took a fresh glance at the three review articles in PubMed that are less than five years old and all three seem to support something similar to the proposed article-text. However all three did also point out a need for additional randomized clinical trials to verify. I've revised the proposed text below, but added more doubtful language, rather than less. If you review the sources, I think you'll find this to be reasonable. I can also provide some specific excerpts from the sources if you like to show what I mean. |
|||
:::::<i>"Invisalign is probably effective for correcting mild to moderate overbites, underbites, crowding and spacing, but less effective than conventional braces for severe rotations, extrusions and closing extraction spaces. No recent, high-quality, randomized clinical trials have been published to verify how its effectiveness compares to conventional options"<ref name=Kun2014>{{cite journal|last1=Kuncio|first1=DA|title=Invisalign: current guidelines for effective treatment.|journal=The New York state dental journal|date=March 2014|volume=80|issue=2|pages=11–4|pmid=24851387}}</ref><ref name="Y Al. 2012">{{cite web | last=Y | first=Yu | last2=Al. | first2=Et | title=Interventions for managing relapse of the lower front teeth after orthodontic treatment. - PubMed | website=NCBI | date=November 9, 2012 | year=2012 | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24014170 | accessdate=August 10, 2015}}</ref><ref name="partone">{{cite journal|journal=Dental Update|date=April 2013|title=Invisible Orthodontics Part 1: Invisalign|first1=Ovals|last1=Malik|first2=Allbhe|last2=McMullin|first3=David|last3=Waring |pmid=23767109}}</ref> |
|||
{{reflist-talk}}</i> |
|||
:::The New York State Dental Journal leans more on the negative side, while the Dental Update piece leans more on the positive side, but both basically agree on the proposed text. The sources contain language like "compared to conventional braces"<ref name=Kun2014>{{cite journal|last1=Kuncio|first1=DA|title=Invisalign: current guidelines for effective treatment.|journal=The New York state dental journal|date=March 2014|volume=80|issue=2|pages=11–4|pmid=24851387}}</ref> and whether "one intervention was superior to another"[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2401417] or describes in what cases Invisalign can be "a valuable substitute for fixed appliances."<ref name="partone">{{cite journal|journal=Dental Update|date=April 2013|title=Invisible Orthodontics Part 1: Invisalign|first1=Ovals|last1=Malik|first2=Allbhe|last2=McMullin|first3=David|last3=Waring |pmid=23767109}}</ref> The sources don't raise questions as to whether it's effective, but how its effectiveness compares to conventional braces. |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
[[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 05:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:I think the best thing to do would be to obtain the position of an orthodontist. This is all really way too specific for anyone else to comment on. Just like an orthodontist cannot speak to the nitty-gritty details of dental implants, a periodontist cannot speak to the nitty-gritty details of orthodontics. '''[[User:DRosenbach|<span style="color:#006400">DRosenbach</span>]]''' <sup>([[User_talk:DRosenbach|<span style="color:#006400">Talk</span>]] | [[Special:Contributions/DRosenbach|<span style="color:#006400">Contribs</span>]])</sup> 23:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::pardon me, but nobody gets to wield personal authority like that in WP. We can all read MEDRS sources and make judgements based on what they say.[[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 00:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::The best opinions are those of encyclopedia writers :-) And I believe we have a few around. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 06:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Lead copyediting == |
|||
I noticed {{ping|Sunrise}}'s edit-summary [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invisalign&type=revision&diff=676160267&oldid=675418359 here], so I went ahead and added some annotations in an attempt to highlight some of the things I was referring to in the Lead. The sources<ref name=Kun2014>{{cite journal|last1=Kuncio|first1=DA|title=Invisalign: current guidelines for effective treatment.|journal=The New York state dental journal|date=March 2014|volume=80|issue=2|pages=11–4|pmid=24851387}}</ref><ref name="Y Al. 2012">{{cite web | last=Y | first=Yu | last2=Al. | first2=Et | title=Interventions for managing relapse of the lower front teeth after orthodontic treatment. - PubMed | website=NCBI | date=November 9, 2012 | year=2012 | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24014170 | accessdate=August 10, 2015}}</ref><ref name="partone">{{cite journal|journal=Dental Update|date=April 2013|title=Invisible Orthodontics Part 1: Invisalign|first1=Ovals|last1=Malik|first2=Allbhe|last2=McMullin|first3=David|last3=Waring |pmid=23767109}}</ref> have plenty of content to say specifically what is meant by "some cases". We have much more recent sources than 2005 to verify not enough research has been done. The "weight" tag was really just referring to those two sentences having a very similar meaning and being a good candidate for combining and copyediting (I couldn't find any better tags). I hope this helps. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 04:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist}} |
|||
:I've started and will continue to do a little copy editing with out change in content meaning.([[User:Littleolive oil|Littleolive oil]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 16:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
==Strangeness== |
|||
[[User:CorporateM]] Okay so you state the 2005 systematic review needs to be updated.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invisalign&type=revision&diff=676165878&oldid=676160267] And than state the fact that no further systematic reviews have been done is undue weight? [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 16:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::In the post above this one I explained that I couldn't find a better tag to explain what I meant. I would appreciate it if you didn't remove my annotations as you did [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invisalign&type=revision&diff=676232923&oldid=676230070 here], without discussion. This makes it very difficult to discuss the article. {{ping|Littleolive oil}} has started doing some copyediting and the article looks better as a result. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 17:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::That is the most recent systematic review. Thus it does not need updating. Your tagging is disruptive. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 18:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::A [[systematic review]] is different than the other literature reviews that are more recent. Thus it is still notable. Are you able to provide a more recent systmatic review of this product? If you cannot do not tag the article again. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 18:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::We do have this systematic review from 2013 which is excellent but it is much narrowing in scope [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24014170] [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 19:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
The article is now protected, but Doc and I seem to be close to reaching agreement on some changes that could be submitted through an edit-request if needed. At the edit-warring board we discussed changing the following text: |
|||
:::"<i>as of 2005 it was unclear how well Invisalign worked because it had not been well studied.[2] Between 2005 and 2014 no further systematic reviews had been published.[1]</i>" |
|||
to something like: |
|||
:::"As of 2014, the last systematic review of Invisalign was in 2005.<ref name="Lag2005">{{cite journal|last1 = Lagravère|first1 = MO|last2 = Flores-Mir|first2 = C|title = The treatment effects of Invisalign orthodontic aligners: a systematic review.|journal = Journal of the American Dental Association (1939)|date = December 2005|volume = 136|issue = 12|pages = 1724–9|pmid = 16383056|doi = 10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0117}}</ref><ref name=Kun2014>{{cite journal|last1=Kuncio|first1=DA|title=Invisalign: current guidelines for effective treatment.|journal=The New York state dental journal|date=March 2014|volume=80|issue=2|pages=11–4|pmid=24851387}}</ref>" |
|||
Note that I kept the original 2005 citation in there to supplement the 2014 source that refers to it. |
|||
I also noticed we didn't discuss the text "it is unclear how well it works". I think Doc may be getting this from the original 2005 source? If you read current sources, they will say that (while more research is needed to verify), Invisalign is considered effective for mild to moderate cases. But back in 2005, Invisalign was controversial and the product was not well-developed yet. Current sources describe the 2005 source as "inconclusive" but I find this to be an odd description, because it definitively showed that conventional braces produced far superior results. However, the product has changed a lot over the last ten years, in materials, process, training, computer support, etc. |
|||
I think we can work this out in the article body. "Recent articles say that it is good for mild to moderate cases.... but no high-quality randomized clinical trials have been done. The last systematic review in 2005 was inconclusive." That sort of thing. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 22:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist}} |
|||
::How about "As of 2014, the last systematic review of Invisalign was in 2005.[4][1] This review concluded that it was unclear how well Invisalign works.[1]" [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 22:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
The issue we seem to have is you want to downplay the lack of evidence and up play expert opinion. We typically do it the other way around for medical topics. The evidence or lack thereof leads first. Than one can touch on expert opinion. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 22:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::Just to be clear, I was making a general comment about how both current consensus among dentists, and the more historical assessment, could be combined in the article body. Re-reading my comment, I think I understand why Doc misunderstood my comment "I think we can work this out in the article body" to mean that I meant <i>only</i> in the article-body, but my intention was not to make any specific suggestion for the Lead. Basically everything after "I think Doc may be getting this from the original 2005 source?" was just me rambling. The main point was that we didn't discuss those few words and then I went on a rant about the general topic. Sometimes my comments are more like random ramblings, because they tend to just flow from my fingertips. My apologies for any confusion. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 23:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Maybe something like "As of 2014 the evidence for invisalign is poor. Some opinion supports its use for certain dental problems such as front teeth crowding." [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 23:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Doc, I think the best way forward would be for both of us to wait a week or two to see if other editors choose to get involved. There is [[WP:NORUSH]] and a few editors like {{ping|Littleolive oil}} have shown an interest in editing the page. There are only three MEDRS sources<ref name=Kun2014>{{cite journal|last1=Kuncio|first1=DA|title=Invisalign: current guidelines for effective treatment.|journal=The New York state dental journal|date=March 2014|volume=80|issue=2|pages=11–4|pmid=24851387}}</ref><ref name="Y Al. 2012">{{cite web | last=Y | first=Yu | last2=Al. | first2=Et | title=Interventions for managing relapse of the lower front teeth after orthodontic treatment. - PubMed | website=NCBI | date=November 9, 2012 | year=2012 | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24014170 | accessdate=August 10, 2015}}</ref><ref name="partone">{{cite journal|journal=Dental Update|date=April 2013|url=https://www.dropbox.com/home?preview=Dent_Update_2013_40_203-215+%281%29.pdf|title=Invisible Orthodontics Part 1: Invisalign|first1=Ovals|last1=Malik|first2=Allbhe|last2=McMullin|first3=David|last3=Waring |pmid=23767109}}</ref> and as a basic dental device, the sources do not require a medical expert to understand. I had to look up what [[malocclusion]] meant (overbite/underbite). Nobody could participate in the discussion in a meaningful way without reading them and we need to give them time to do so (after the article is unlocked). Plus, I think we both have other stuff to do besides squabble here indefinitely ;-). So lets give some other editors a chance. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 23:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist}} |
|||
== Systematic review not summarised == |
|||
Given the arguing over the lead, it is a bit strange that the systematic review is only cited there. The lead should be summarising the body of the text and it's difficult for me to judge whether the current wording is representative when the opinions of the systematic review aren't included in elsewhere. I will try to look at the reivew later on, but summarising it in the body should be the first priority rather than the lead. [[User:Smartse|SmartSE]] ([[User talk:Smartse|talk]]) 12:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::Agree. Was initially in the body and the lead as added here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invisalign&type=revision&diff=642100533&oldid=632157788]. |
|||
::It was removed from the body in this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invisalign&type=revision&diff=673076562&oldid=663209217] in July. Likely should be returned. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 13:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::I agree. Also, more information can be added to the Dental Use section in general about quite a few topics. I was surprised [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24014170 this source] was used to say that there was "no evidence" that Invisalign works. What the source actually says is that "there was no evidence from RCTs to show that one intervention was superior to another." In other words, they are all equally effective for managing relapse of the lower front teeth. It also mentions that Invisalign is more noticeable than lingual options, but not that it is less noticeable than conventional braces (the whole point of the product). |
|||
:::Regarding the lack of high-quality research, I think a couple/few sentences could be devoted to it in the body. The New York Dental Journal says "A look at the published research on the Invisalign technique reveals mixed results. The last systematic review was in 2005, and it yielded inconclusive results - another published review is overdue. Invisalign has been proven to resolve..." The Dental update piece says "Clinical studies with Invisalign therapy have begun to quantify treatment efficacy, but to date no randomized clinical trials have been undertaken." |
|||
:::The section needs some general expansion and other work. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 16:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::How does no evidence equal "In other words, they are all equally effective for managing relapse of the lower front teeth." [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 21:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::*It doesn't, though it doesn't mean that the product doesn't work either. We'd have to be careful. With something like this I'd rewrite the sentence to be "A 2013 study found no evidence that Invasalign was superior to other interventions" or something similar. — [[User:Crisco 1492|Chris Woodrich]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 05:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Yes, [[User:Crisco 1492|Chris Woodrich]] worded it better. There is no evidence that any treatment is better/worse than any other. That same sources says "Based on case reports, this technique appears effective in treating mild malocclusions and is more visually appealing than conventional brackets" [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 06:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::What it says is "A 2013 Cochrane review found no high-quality evidence with respect to the management of the recurrence of lower front teeth misalignment following prior treatment"[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24014170] which is what we have right now. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 15:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::*Although that is perfectly acceptable journal language, considering this is both a piece of medical technology ''and'' a consumer product, per [[MOS:JARGON]] I hope that we can simplify the language without making it inaccurate. The question to "does it work or not" should have an easier to parse answer, since that's what most members of the general public are probably looking for. — [[User:Crisco 1492|Chris Woodrich]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 02:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::There is no high quality evidence that it works. There is some low quality and thus tentative evidence that it is useful for a few dental issues. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 05:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
==Rewrite== |
|||
CorporateM, could you list here the issues that were removed from the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invisalign&oldid=601586562 previous version] (March 2014, before the rewrite). It would be good to have an overview regarding what was added and removed, and to what extent position changes have affected the impression readers get. For example, the class-action suit over the quota requirement (ten prescriptions a year) seems a major issue, [http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/14/27276.htm] but is no longer prominent. [[User:SlimVirgin|Sarah]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 20:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::It does have some significance. This is currently covered in the History section and <s>judging by the text I must not have been able to find out how it resolved.</s> In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invisalign&oldid=601586562 the original] the majority of the Lead was focused on lawsuits and some of it was obviously written by someone involved or with a strong view. However, the current article probably swung too far in the opposite direction and could use more text on this. |
|||
::As far as other changes, the original didn't have a History section or anything about the manufacturer, Align Technology. Per [[WP:ORGVANITY]], Align Technology is primarily known for producing Invisalign, so I think it makes sense to combine the two subjects, rather than a separate article on the company. Nothing from the original [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invisalign&oldid=601586562#Advantages_and_disadvantages Advantages and Disadvantages] section was kept. It was filled with original synthesis where editors read one study about braces and another study on Invisalign and combined the two sources to create their own conclusions. I don't think the treatment section was changed significantly in tone, just in sources, completeness, etc.. Finally, the original Cost section was filled with OR and a primary source, which was replaced with sourced information. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 22:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::Sarah, if you can give me a minute, I can look up sources on that class-action lawsuit for you and/or do anything else to help make sure it gets more coverage. It was way over-the-top undue and not NPOV originally, but I didn't notice that I marginalized it to such a great extent. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 23:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::CM, did you find that material? It's not so much the lawsuit that matters, as the issue of dentists being required to prescribe a certain number a year. [[User:SlimVirgin|Sarah]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 21:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::Sorry, one more thing, I was looking at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invisalign&oldid=601586562#Advantages_and_disadvantages the original Advantages/Disadvantages] section. A lot of it is junk sources (company website, some vendor), others are SYNTH and others are primary sources from a MEDRS perspective, but it does have a great summary of the 2005 report we've been discussing: "In a systematic review of the literature, published in the Journal of the American Dental Association in 2005,[17] Drs. Manual Lagravere and Carlos Flores-Mir were unable to draw strong conclusions about the effectiveness of the Invisalign system. They pointed to the need for randomized clinical trials.[17]" |
|||
::::This section was removed in its entirety, because so much of it is junk. But [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invisalign&oldid=601586562#Scientific_studies the Scientific Studies] section, while not being properly sourced, is pretty similar to what a properly-sourced section would look like. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 23:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}} Noting here how the article changed: |
|||
*CorporateM posted on 9 January 2014 that he had been hired by a PR firm to work on the article. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AInvisalign&type=revision&diff=589975816&oldid=589974630] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invisalign&oldid=589583255 This] was the article on that date. |
|||
*CM began a rewrite, which was moved into the article in two edits: by Anthonyhcole on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invisalign&type=revision&diff=601748840&oldid=601586562 29 March 2014] (requested [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthonyhcole&oldid=601682321#Invisalign here]), and by TLSuda on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invisalign&type=revision&diff=617927554&oldid=616544728 22 July 2014] (requested [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TLSuda/Archive_8&oldid=644587585#Invisalign here]). CM made some direct edits in January and August 2015. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invisalign&type=revision&diff=642124427&oldid=642100533][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invisalign&type=revision&diff=642124895&oldid=642124427][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invisalign&type=revision&diff=642198022&oldid=642124895][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invisalign&type=revision&diff=642198022&oldid=642124895][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invisalign&type=revision&diff=675158295&oldid=675158246][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invisalign&type=revision&diff=676165567&oldid=676160267][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invisalign&type=revision&diff=676165749&oldid=676165593][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invisalign&type=revision&diff=676165878&oldid=676165749][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invisalign&type=revision&diff=676242166&oldid=676241803][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invisalign&type=revision&diff=676246026&oldid=676245190] [[User:SlimVirgin|Sarah]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 21:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Citation 3 == |
|||
Hi All. Slimvirgin was able to find a link to the full-text of citation 3 [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD008734.pub2/full here]. |
|||
She said the source indicated the "lower front teeth relapse is a major issue" and "there is no high-quality evidence to show what is effective." I see it has a sub-section on Invisalign, but from my perspective the tone of the source was very different than she depicted. |
|||
Now that we have a link to the full text, it would be great to get more eyes on this source. Thanks. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 03:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:I think "no high-quality evidence about efficacy [for lower front teeth relapse]" is a reasonable conclusion from the following quote: ''"The primary benefit of the Invisalign system is the superior aesthetic during treatment compared to metal brackets. Other advantages of the system include: the ability to remove aligners to eat, brush and floss, the superior comfort, and ease of use (Invisalign 2006). Based on case reports, this technique appears effective in treating mild malocclusions and is more visually appealing than conventional brackets."'' The advantages are described as related to aesthetics or convenience, and the implication is that there isn't any evidence on effectiveness beyond case reports. To address your comment on tone, it could certainly be used to source the other information as well, though my impression was that the issue being disputed was the effectiveness claims. [[User:Sunrise|''<b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b>'']] <i style="font-size:11px">([[User talk:Sunrise|talk]])</i> 04:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::At least from my perspective, I am not specifically focused on effectiveness claims. The aesthetics item for example is something I raised before and is basically the whole idea behind Invisalign, but is not currently mentioned. That was the purpose of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisalign#/media/File:Woman_wearing_Invisalign.jpg this image] that is now in the Cost section for some reason. Your depiction of effectiveness though is aligned with my understanding of it. Considering there are only a few sources, one way to proceed might be to discuss one source at-a-time and incorporate all relevant content from each. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 05:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::There is also [http://www.cda-adc.ca/jcda/vol-73/issue-3/263.pdf this article] in the ''Journal of the Canadian Dental Association'', 2007. I don't know whether that's too old. [[User:SlimVirgin|Sarah]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 06:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::[[WP:MEDDATE]] says to "Look for reviews published in the last five years or so". There are three Review articles in PubMed that are under five years old, so that's why I keep harping on three sources. If you're looking to make sure any limitations are included though, the New York Dental Journal is the most critical of the three and is from 2014. It also discusses the limitations and may be able to support very similar article-content using a more up-to-date source. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 06:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Please use quote parameter == |
|||
I would request editors attention be drawn to the {{para|quote}} parameter that can be used with citation templates (see [[Help:Citation_Style_1#Quote]]). Using quote you can directly quote the sentence or sentences that support a statement. This can save others a lot of time verifying that the sources actually support the statement. Currently the article uses no quote parameters at all. [[User:Jason Quinn|Jason Quinn]] ([[User talk:Jason Quinn|talk]]) 10:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::Agree it is a good idea. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 16:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Provider status lawsuit == |
|||
Hi All. Currently the article states the following under the History section: |
|||
::"<i>In 2009, Align Technology began to require that doctors prescribing Invisalign complete at least ten cases per year and ten hours of training in order to maintain their Invisalign provider status. In January 2010, 20,000 doctors had their certification suspended for not meeting the requirements, but a class action lawsuit regarding providers that paid for training under the original rules resulted in some certifications being re-instated.<ref>{{citation |last=Rasmussen |first=March |date=March 2011 |title=Invisalign Agrees to Settlement in Class Action Lawsuit |publisher=American Dental Association |url=http://editiondigital.net/article/Invisalign_Agrees_To_Settlement_In_Class_Action_Lawsuit/675122/64825/article.html |accessdate=March 25, 2014}}</ref></i> |
|||
The original article before my involvement had the following in the Lead: |
|||
::"<i>Align Technology is also defending a [[class action]] suit on behalf of dentists and orthodontists who were suddenly dropped as approved Invisalign providers because they failed to meet a never-before-mentioned quota requirement. After prescribing doctors paid thousands of dollars each for Invisalign training, Align Technology unilaterally implemented a requirement that every provider start at least 10 new cases a year. The doctors are seeking a refund of the training cost because the training has no utility except in the prescription of Invisalign products.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/14/27276.htm |title=Courthouse News Service |publisher=Courthousenews.com |date=2010-05-14 |accessdate=2013-09-15}}</ref></i>" |
|||
{{ping|Slimvirgin}} has expressed concern that this wasn't an improvement and/or that the lawsuit has been unreasonably marginalized and asked me to provide any additional sources that could be used to add more information. I searched Google, my library's online database and the in-depth sources I have like a 3-page entry in <i>The International Directory of Company Histories</i> and a book called "<i>The Invisalign System</i>". Besides blurbs, press releases, and trivial sources, I did dig up [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-28473477.html this piece] in a niche publication that explains more prominently that there was also a cash settlement involved in addition to the change in rules. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 23:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist}} |
|||
:Thank you for the sources, though I can't see the highbeam one. If the company still requires dentists to prescribe ten a year to maintain their status as providers, that shouldn't be in history, so the question is whether it is still a requirement. [[User:SlimVirgin|Sarah]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 00:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
==Per [[WP:MEDMOS]]== |
|||
I have moved the article to the generic term as per [[WP:MEDMOS]] and merged in the other brandname for this product. |
|||
Also updated with the 2014 systematic review. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 05:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:Wondering if there was consensus for this move. I have only copyedited in a few places so have no strong feeling one way or the other, but others had been working consistently on the ''Invisalign'' article and may feel differently.([[User:Littleolive oil|Littleolive oil]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 14:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
::There is consensus to move brand names to the generic terms yes. There are a number of discussions such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Panadol]. |
|||
::Other examples include [[Cryolipolysis]] which is under the generic name not one of the brandnames [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 15:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::I meant consensus on this specific article. Might be concerning to have an article lifted out from under you when working on it. A notice might have been a good idea in hindsight, which is of course always 20/20 ([[User:Littleolive oil|Littleolive oil]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 17:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
::::Happy to start a RfC on this issue if people wish. Saw it as a fairly non controversial move. But yes others might see it otherwise I agree. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · |
|||
[[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 19:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
I doubt its a big deal to either undo the edit or to leave it as was per the editors working on the article. Is it? I copyedited and left so I would be fine either way.([[User:Littleolive oil|Littleolive oil]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 19:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
:It makes sense to use the generic name and deal with them in one article, particularly as one person developed two of the brands. [[User:SlimVirgin|Sarah]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 19:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Sources == |
|||
The lead ends with "By 2012, there had been two million Invisalign patients and most dentists and orthodontists in North America had been trained on the Invisalign system." This isn't sourced. Elsewhere in the article the partial sentence "which grew to two million by 2012" is sourced to "Align Technology, Inc. SWOT Analysis. (2013). 1-8" (which is used 11 times). |
|||
We need an independent source for this, or at least a more accessible one. There are 204,846 dentists in the US, according to [http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/total-dentists/ this], so if most dentists and orthodontists in North America are providers, and if they're all required to prescribe Invisalign 10 times a year (or they were until recently), there would be more than two million patients. Perhaps a distinction is being drawn between dentists trained and dentists who are providers (or perhaps I've misunderstood something), but we need a better source regardless. [[User:SlimVirgin|Sarah]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 02:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:I've replaced this with the 2014 article from the ''New York State Dental Journal'', which cites the company: "As of 2014, according to the company, 2.4 million patients around the world had been treated with Invisalign and 80,000 dentists had been trained how to use it." If the company offers more recent figures, we can update. [[User:SlimVirgin|Sarah]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 17:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*This source – Align Technology, Inc. SWOT Analysis. (2013). 1-8. – is used 11 times, with no indication of how to find it or whether it's a primary source (I assume it is), so I'm going to remove anything sourced to it. Leaving this note in case there are objections. [[User:SlimVirgin|Sarah]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 20:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*There are also news sources being used to support medical information, so I'll be removing those too, in case anyone wonders why. [[User:SlimVirgin|Sarah]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 23:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== SmileCareClub - Missing provider? == |
|||
SmileCareClub - see https://smilecareclub.com/about. Anyone up for adding it? --[[User:Elvey|Elvey]]<sup>([[User talk:Elvey|t]]•[[Special:Contribs/Elvey|c]])</sup> 17:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
I summarize: SmileCareClub Invisible Aligner Therapy is FDA-approved* and intended to be a more efficient alternative to the competition in the invisible aligner market, for less than half the price. Jordan Katzman and Alex Fenkell cofounded the company. Someone willing to work this into the article? |
|||
*From their FAQ: "We are FDA-Approved as a Repackager/Relabeler. This means that we rebrand and repackage the FDA-approved invisible aligners from our partnering orthodontic lab. Our registration number is 3009498016." |
|||
--[[User:Elvey|Elvey]]<sup>([[User talk:Elvey|t]]•[[Special:Contribs/Elvey|c]])</sup> 17:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:I went ahead and added some pricing, and instead of joining the conversation here, Alex edit warred, reverting me. Lame. --[[User:Elvey|Elvey]]<sup>([[User talk:Elvey|t]]•[[Special:Contribs/Elvey|c]])</sup> 18:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::I removed the pricing information [[wp:noprices| "Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time."]]--[[User:Adamfinmo|Adam in MO]]<small> [[User talk:Adamfinmo|Talk]]</small> 10:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Promotions == |
|||
@[[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] + @[[User:Unbraceyourself|Unbraceyourself]]: The ClearCaps material in [[Special:Diff/690438452|this edit]] is far too promotional and will be removed (it's been reverted four times by three editors now). However, I see why Unbraceyourself believes that it's ok to drop adverts here because that has skilfully been done for another product. I don't have time to clean it up at the moment, but if it hasn't been fixed in a day or two I might remove the [[:File:Woman wearing Invisalign.jpg]] spam magnet and any other undue text I can see, while doing the same for the new material. Thoughts? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 10:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:Agree, there's way too much corporate noise in this article. It could do with a good trim. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 11:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::I made some bold edits to remove the two company infoboxes which appear as if they were remnants from earlier attempts to make separate articles—they add no encyclopedic value here. I kept the image ''Woman wearing Invisalign'' but would be happy to see it go—it is far too decorative for an illustrative purpose, and I cannot see any reliable source identifying what it portrays. What is needed is an image with a source that can verify that what is displayed is typical for the device. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 06:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Woman wearing Invisalign, 2008 (cropped).jpg|right|220px]] |
|||
:::Hi John and Alex, I think readers will appreciate an image of someone wearing an aligner. A closer crop ''(right)'' would be more useful, so they can see the aligner. It could be cropped even more to focus on the mouth. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 14:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::Forgot to ping: {{u|Alexbrn}}, {{u|Johnuniq}}. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 14:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::@[[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]]: Thanks, I put that in the article for a trial. I think it looks better. For a comparison, see the [[Special:PermanentLink/690569923#Manufacturers|previous version]] and the [[Clear aligners#Manufacturers|current version]]. I also changed the caption since there is no good source concerning what the image shows, and there is no need for this article to pick a particular brand. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 03:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Hi {{u|Johnuniq|John}}, that does look better, and making the caption generic is a good idea given the lack of an RS. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 04:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Good stuff, [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]]. Right after I urged Alexbrn to "Respect WP:DONTREVERT", he DISrespected it, with a revert that even removed information sourced to the New York Times, and the Times reference [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clear_aligners&diff=prev&oldid=691641222 BAM!] This shortcuts an attempt to provide some balance using the well at 'the grey lady' as an independent reliable source. I think the concern about spam magnets is adequately addressed by the in-line comment John recently added; there are only a handful of companies in this space, besides. What of my Cost section edits can we keep? --[[User:Elvey|Elvey]]<sup>([[User talk:Elvey|t]]•[[Special:Contribs/Elvey|c]])</sup> 08:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:Lots of poorly-sourced pricing information (spammy) and a single line "The New York Times" on its own, without even a full stop. What ''were'' you thinking? BTW, you don't get [[WP:OWN|to insist]] that your edits can't be touched, especially ones like this! [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 08:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::Idiotic, ignorant comment not based in policy or reality. I certainly didn't insist my edits can't be touched. AGAIN: '''READ''' and Respect [[WP:DONTREVERT]]. See your mistake? You don't get [[WP:OWN|to insist]] that you can edit war with impunity. If you don't shape up, I will find it difficult to interact with you further.--[[User:Elvey|Elvey]]<sup>([[User talk:Elvey|t]]•[[Special:Contribs/Elvey|c]])</sup> 08:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::You're quoting somebody's essay; [[WP:OWN]] is policy. I will revert crappy edits as it improves (or at least doesn't worsen) Wikipedia. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 09:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::First things first. You're lying; I didn't insist my edits can't be touched. Stop saying I did. Please explain what's wrong with each of the sources you removed, one by one. I think the pricing on CrystalBraces is adequately sourced. Have you read the source article in full? --[[User:Elvey|Elvey]]<sup>([[User talk:Elvey|t]]•[[Special:Contribs/Elvey|c]])</sup> 09:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC) Hello? [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]]? --[[User:Elvey|Elvey]]<sup>([[User talk:Elvey|t]]•[[Special:Contribs/Elvey|c]])</sup> 10:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Articles do not record prices unless there is some encyclopedic purpose—see [[WP:NOTCATALOG]]#5. Elvey's [[Special:Diff/691640975|first edit]] introduced a lot of product details including pricing which approaches a how-to guide or price-comparison service for consumers. When reverted, Elvey's [[Special:Diff/691654725|second edit]] was to tag-bomb the article. Tags are not intended for retribution. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 09:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I think the pricing on CrystalBraces is adequately sourced '''and''' the source makes clear the encyclopedic purpose is met. Have you read the source article in full, [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]]? It's ''MOSTLY ABOUT'' PRICING. The tags were all appropriate and not retribution at all. AGF. I don't claim my edit was perfect. I claim the total revert did not respect [[WP:DONTREVERT]]. Which, like [[WP:PRICES]] is an essay. [[WP:NOTCATALOG]]#5 isn't even a working link. And because [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone#History_and_availability iPhone pricing details]!!! Must you insist that no collaboration whatsoever is possible?--[[User:Elvey|Elvey]]<sup>([[User talk:Elvey|t]]•[[Special:Contribs/Elvey|c]])</sup> 10:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::In what way is the link [[WP:NOTCATALOG]]#5 not working? Clicking it (if scripting is enabled in the browser, as is required for all shortcuts) goes to [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory]] where item #5 says "{{tq|An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is a source and a justified reason for the mention}}" and more. WP:NOTCATALOG is policy. The [http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/01/a-trip-to-the-mail-box-not-the-orthodontist/ source] is from blogs.nytimes.com which is from a great media outlet but is still a blog. The essence of the source is that people want a cheap way to straighten their teeth without the cost/hassle of a proper dental examination, and various options are available, some of which may damage teeth. The same thing could be said about a lot of products/procedures—it's unlikely that any Wikipedia article discusses the options and costs of getting a car serviced, for example.<p>May I suggest that making an edit without adding any tags, then adding three tags three hours after being reverted might look like irritation is being expressed, aka retribution. It's probably best to skip adding tags under conditions like that. I don't care if the article is tagged, but for the record such tags must be justified on this talk page, and [[Template:POV#When to remove]] says the POV tag may be removed because there no justification has been given, and the same principle applies to the other tags. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 10:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::As the tag-bomber hasn't attempted to explain the reasoning behind the tags, I have removed them. If you care enough to tag the article then please justify the tags on the talk page. --[[User:Adamfinmo|Adam in MO]]<small> [[User talk:Adamfinmo|Talk]]</small> 12:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== SmileCareClub, ClearCaps and CrystalBraces & tags == |
|||
All references to SmileCareClub and CrystalBraces, as well as any (references to sources of info on) the pros and cons of such systems have been excised from the article. This stuff should be covered. Hence the POV and related tags.--[[User:Elvey|Elvey]]<sup>([[User talk:Elvey|t]]•[[Special:Contribs/Elvey|c]])</sup> 19:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:Doubtful, in the absence of adequate depth of sourcing. And don't tag the article to hold it hostage until you get your way. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 19:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::What's doubtful? I see you've re-removed the tags. Both systems do include a dental examination, IIRC. <sarcasm>But let's keep that and everything else about them, including their existence, secret. </> --[[User:Elvey|Elvey]]<sup>([[User talk:Elvey|t]]•[[Special:Contribs/Elvey|c]])</sup> 19:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::The need for inclusion of that stuff is doubtful. We [[WP:5P|should be]] digesting and relaying accepted knowledge: that which has been digested in the best sources, not scraping around for incidentals. Your sarcasm is another unhelpful contribution. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 19:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Manufacturers and bankrupt companies == |
|||
::::We should be NEUTRAL. I give up.--[[User:Elvey|Elvey]]<sup>([[User talk:Elvey|t]]•[[Special:Contribs/Elvey|c]])</sup> 19:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Neutrality means accurately representing what the reliable sources say. Sometimes there really aren't two sides to a story. I think we have a clear community consensus on the tags. One editor for them and three against. It wouldn't be good for the editor who reintroduces them. --[[User:Adamfinmo|Adam in MO]]<small> [[User talk:Adamfinmo|Talk]]</small> 02:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::If an heretofore uninvolved user reintroduced, you would make good on your threat how and why, [[User:Adamfinmo|Adam in MO]]?--[[User:Elvey|Elvey]]<sup>([[User talk:Elvey|t]]•[[Special:Contribs/Elvey|c]])</sup> 01:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Some manufacturers include [[3M]] Clarity; and Spark by [[Ormco]]. |
|||
[[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]], |
|||
I believe that we routinely include all the brand names under which a given drug is sold in the article on the drug. (Right? Appropriate?) |
|||
Wouldn't it be appropriate to include all the brand names under which a given medical device is sold in the article on the medical device too? |
|||
--[[User:Elvey|Elvey]]<sup>([[User talk:Elvey|t]]•[[Special:Contribs/Elvey|c]])</sup> 02:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC) |
|||
SmileDirectClub initially bought their aligners from Invisalign, then started making their own, before going bust. |
|||
== Litigation == |
|||
Wondersmile went bust. [[User:Cagliost|cagliost]] ([[User talk:Cagliost|talk]]) 11:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
There isn't even any mention of their names despite the litigation among them. You can't seriously claim there isn't adequate sourcing available documenting that litigation. Right?--[[User:Elvey|Elvey]]<sup>([[User talk:Elvey|t]]•[[Special:Contribs/Elvey|c]])</sup> 19:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:Sources? [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 19:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:: The lawsuits themselves are sources, FS. Plus: RS mentioning SmileCareClub and CrystalBraces were given - in edits that were reverted. For ClearCaps '''in edits that you reverted'''. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clear_aligners&diff=690436986&oldid=690436892 example diff]) Don't dissemble. For litigation specifically, http://investor.aligntech.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=938030 (RS for this purpose WRT SmileCareClub) and/or http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/marketwire/1233247.htm and/or http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/10/24/align-technology-inc-all-smiles-over-q3-results.aspx - and the latter notes that "some of Align's key patents expire in 2017"--[[User:Elvey|Elvey]]<sup>([[User talk:Elvey|t]]•[[Special:Contribs/Elvey|c]])</sup> 01:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::: Primary sources then? Come back if/when there are secondaries to help establish due weight... [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 06:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::Wow, that's the height of dishonesty. I gave multiple secondary sources as well, and yet you claim that there are no secondaries to help establish due weight. How ostrich-like. How is that not an NPOV violation? Three of you insist the article not name any of these brands of clear aligners, despite plenty of coverage in reliable sources (Including all the ones you've collectively excised from the article). --[[User:Elvey|Elvey]]<sup>([[User talk:Elvey|t]]•[[Special:Contribs/Elvey|c]])</sup> 16:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 11:03, 7 February 2024
 | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Clear aligners article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Removal of copyvio - Invisalign section
Manufacturers and bankrupt companies
Some manufacturers include 3M Clarity; and Spark by Ormco.
SmileDirectClub initially bought their aligners from Invisalign, then started making their own, before going bust.
Wondersmile went bust. cagliost (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)