Talk:Amen Clinics

Removed notability box

I removed the Notability notice. While I personally am very skeptical of Dr. Amen, and the Amen Clinic, I think the fact that googling "Amen Clinic" returns 19,500 results, is sufficient evidence of notability. --Pordaria (talk) 05:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Should testimonial be removed?

The former NFL player's testimonial belongs in a press release, not this article. I propose removing it. Glaucus (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

More need to be said about the treatments Dr. Amen & his clinics prescribe.

Assuming references can be found, the article needs to discuss what treatments Dr. Amen & his clinics prescribe. Probably many of the treatments are medically sound (I've seen one of his PBS specials, and there he suggested weight loss, physical & mental exercise, stress reduction, and other things that are medically sound). Though the SPECT scans may not useful diagnostics, are any of the prescribed therapies questionable or harmful? Etc. Lentower (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing

I can't find a source for this sentence: "The American Psychiatric Association have criticized the clinical appropriateness of Amen's use of brain scans, stating, "the clinical utility of neuroimaging techniques for planning of individualized treatment has not yet been shown." Could anyone help me find a source supporting the sentence? Should it remain unsourced in the article? News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 14:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

found it first go using google and added ref to google books. what was your method of searching? Bhny (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bhny. I was using Google search for web links, didn't try looking for books though. Appreciate it. Do you know the criteria for adding medical journal entries to articles like this? I found three talking about SPECT scans. News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 01:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

For biomedical material, WP:MEDRS applies. 03:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's the journal entries I found:

* http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-244X/13/208

* http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149839

* http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23709407

I think they're okay for WP:MEDRS. News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 01:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The first and last are primary studies, and can't be used here. The middle one has Amen as lead author and is in a dubious journal: it might do as a source for Amen's beliefs, but little more than that. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Alexbrn. I'll add the middle article as a source. News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 12:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This book review from the American Journal of Psychiatry might be helpful. There was also this letter written by other psychiatrists and this letter by Amen in regards to the review and this reply to his letter. SmartSE (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I also noticed this recent paper which contains the quote that you mentioned at the top of the thread. It also states that this view is still current. If anyone is looking to expand the article this paper also contains more commentary on Amen's techniques. It's pretty damning e.g. "These examples of the Amen Clinics practices violate the standard of care". SmartSE (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Source

I found this journal article for review:

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24275845 News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 01:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

QW & SBM

Removing the Quackwatch and Science-Based Medicine paragraph from the page. Source material seems npov imo. APA discussion and Amen's own finding show that the practices have not proven to be reliable. Willing to discuss also. Thanks. Jppcap (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, they are required for neutrality. Alexbrn (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Misquote

I noticed a misquote in the article and tried to fix it. Feel free to adjust. I also couldn't find the source study for the 157 patients and couldn't confirm whether it was published in 2010 or not.

Before my revision:

Amen Clinics claims that SPECT scans enable doctors to tailor treatment to individual patients' brains. A retrospective study released by Amen in 2010 showed that "regional cerebral blood flow, as measured by SPECT, predicted stimulant response in 29 of 157 patients."

vs the complete parasgraph from the reference:

Dr. Amen's own publications do not support the use of SPECT imaging in assisting with the diagnosis or treatment of psychiatric disorders. His study of patients with completed suicide includes only 12 subjects (4). His retrospective study of 157 patients showed that regional cerebral blood flow, as measured by SPECT, predicted stimulant response in only 29 of these subjects. While of theoretical interest, these findings do not support the use of SPECT in clinical practice. Dr. Amen's recent book (5) also offers only anecdotal examples of imaging being useful in the treatment or diagnosis of psychiatric disorders.
— Bryon Adinoff and Michael Devous

ScienceFlyer (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)