Talk:Hypnotherapy

Lead in

The lead for this article is ridiculously negative, given that hypnotherapy is widely accepted for certain conditions such as IBS. This clearly needs to be rephrased to something with a more neutral point of view to avoid misleading readers Publius Obsequium (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The lead is based on the article, and the not well supported and lack of evidence indicating any level of efficacy are based especially on the Efficacy section. That section in turn is based on the best possible sources, Cochrane meta-analyses.

That beats "widely accepted" by a very long margin. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I just checked most claims on the lead and they are NOT true to the articles.

"The efficacy of hypnotherapy is not well supported by scientific" Sends to the first reference, where its conclusion is " Medical hypnosis is a safe and effective complementary technique for use in medical procedures and in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. Waking suggestions can be a component of effective doctor–patient communication in routine clinical situations."

" due to the lack of evidence indicating any level of efficacy" Is referred to an article that specifically talks about smoking recession (it does not mention the lack of evidence overall, but for smoking specifically): "There is insufficient evidence to determine whether hypnotherapy is more effective for smoking cessation than other forms of behavioural support or unassisted quitting. If a benefit is present, current evidence suggests the benefit is small at most. "

" it is regarded as a type of alternative medicine by reputable medical organisations such as the National Health Service" sends to the reference that lists hypnotherapy as a "Complementary or alternative therapies are used within the NHS."

The lead section is incredibly untrue to the sources and should be entirely revised. Skalidrisalba (talk) 10:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The lede is based on our article, if there are faulty sources in the lede, remove the sources. As the text should be supported in the body. Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

No, the claims are distorted versions of what's contained in the articles as in the examples I mentioned.

"The efficacy of hypnotherapy is not well supported by scientific"

It's literally the opposite of what's said in the first reference...

The lead violates the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Skalidrisalba (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Read [[wp:lede] the lede is a summery of THIS article, not any other. Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

And this article clearly now show there is in fact evidence for efficacy based on systematic review of studies Publius Obsequium (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I added a systematic review in the efficacy section that clearly refutes the idea hypnotherapy is not efficacious and is not evidence based. We should change the lead in in light of this new evidence Publius Obsequium (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Dodgy Frontiers journal? Not citable. Bon courage (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Frontiers is not “dodgy” Publius Obsequium (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not the worst, but Frontiers in Psychology is questionable - especially for thr WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims you want to use it for. Find a respectable MEDLINE-indexed journal on the same topic and there might be something to consider. Bon courage (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

How about the American Psychological Association? There are meta-reviews showing comparable effectiveness with CBT therapy, and studies showing its effectiveness for anxiety and depression. Saying "the efficacy is not supported" is ridiculous. If there is disagreement, then it should be changed to something like "it has not traditionally been accepted in standard medical practices, however there is emerging evidence for its effectiveness comparable to other talking therapies in treating a range of conditions"

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2024/04/science-of-hypnosis Amphibio (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Advocacy

This edit-warred change[1] is WP:ADVOCACY & WP:PROFRINGE, particularly saying

Because hypnotherapy’s methods and applications are poorly understood, more conventional approaches are generally preferred

The sources point to many other reasons why hypothery is not used generally i.e. that it doesn't work very well or at all. Note I have raised a query at WP:FT/N. Bon courage (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think the revision I wrote is advocacy since it presents the issue in a balanced view (evidence for certain things, lack for others, and that generally, more conventional approaches are preferred).

If you want, as a compromise, we could say "Hypnotherapy’s methods and applications are poorly understood and more conventional approaches are generally preferred".

And we could also later say "Overall, evidence for its efficacy is lacking, although some evidence show its efficacy for some conditions".

In any case, the lead needs to be revised because it violated the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The claims are distorted versions of the reference articles, as I mentioned in the "lead in" section of this talk. Skalidrisalba (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

There were several problems with the lede, including old sources and a de-sync with the body. I have fixed. I don't think we want to imply the only reason people are using hypnotherapy is because it is "misunderstood"; that would be an exceptional claim. I think we can say it shows effectiveness for some conditions but not others. Bon courage (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It's better, thanks. Skalidrisalba (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)