Talk:Actovegin

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Actovegin.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

"less than 5 kDa by molecular weight" ?[edit]

This is quoted from the article Actovegin.

"According to Gulevsky, et al., Actovegin "is highly purified hemodialysate extracted from vealer blood by ultrafiltration." There are less than 5 kDa by molecular weight of organic substances in Actovegin.

1) What does it mean to say "There are less than 5 kDa by molecular weight of organic substances in Actovegin."?

2) Does that sentence contradict this one which is in the next paragraph? "Actovegin has large amounts of superoxide dismutase enzymes" Superoxide dismutase enzymes sound to me to be organic substances.

(I asked about this at: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#"less than 5 kDa by molecular weight" but it is probably better discussed at this page.)

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

scientific only argument?[edit]

when a canadian doctor used it in the USA it made headlines, and it is worth mentioning in the article. when the legal situation is different in other countries like canada and sweden and makes headlines it is not worth mentioning. that sounds a little strange, especially if the information is removed with the hint "scientific references only" if the topic is a legal one. @Acyclic, can you please explain your reasoning a little bit more? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot going on here. Firstly, under no circumstances is its legality relevant for inclusion in the first paragraph of the article. If it is to be mentioned at all, it belongs in a dedicated section on legality. Each sentence must have an individual reference, although references can be reused. It is currently absolutely not clear which reference supports which sentence. One of the references is not even in English. Also, the alleged assertion by WADA is a biochemical claim which most definitely needs a MEDRS reference. --Acyclic (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

to make the discussion more accessible for people not so good with abbreviations, MEDRS is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), there is also an an essay about it. what would you see in the first paragraph? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 05:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]