|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Merge with chondroitin
- 2 Incorrect conclusion
- 3 Incorrect structure
- 4 Regulatory section seems to have been swapped with content in the pharmacology section
- 5 Medical Uses
- 6 Needs clean-up
- 7 Incorrect chemical structure
- 8 Structural function: important in *which* tissues?
- 9 Confusion about Research Results
- 10 Moved content to Clinical trials on glucosamine and chondroitin
Merge with chondroitin
I propose these two pages should be merged. Chondroitin sulfate is not really a form of chondroitin; they usually refer to the same entity. Chondroitin sulfate is a sulfated polysaccharide -- i.e. the sulfate is covalently attached -- and not a sulfate salt. Chondroitin has been used to refer to a low- or un-sulfated form of chondroitin sulfate, but this may be just a precursor molecule, and furthermore the distinction is not made by all. Prithason 07:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed - have you merged them yet? Also, what other sources of Chondroitin exist besides various forms of animal cartilage, I have been taking it for many years and there are other sources as well (please more research) --Mrtobacco 23:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
In the Clinical trials section it says
"In patients with moderate to severe pain (WOMAC pain scores 301 – 400), the percent of patients with swelling and/or effusion tended to decrease from 30.0% at baseline to 14.9% (p=0.3, n=67) at the end of follow-up."
The probability, p=0.3, means that there is NO significant difference despite the treatment. Such an effect would occur by chance if the treatment had no effect once in every three studies. This result does not suggest that chondroitin supplements decrease pain. I suggest this line is removed. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
In the figures concerning chondroitin sulfate structure, the alternate diagram displays a different bonding pattern between NAG and glucoronic acid than the structure presented above. I suggest to correct this mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Regulatory section seems to have been swapped with content in the pharmacology section
I'll move the regulatory info to the appropriate section, but I'm not sure what the definition and difference between pharmacology and the pharmacokinetics sections are, so I'll leave the job of cleaning up the rest of the regulatory section to someone else to correct for now. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think you may have been misled by the headings. The Regulatory section is a subsection of Function that explains chondroitin's regulatory functions in the body, meaning that the content that was moved does actually belong in the pharmacology section. I'll move it back and add a clarifying comment to the regulatory section. Jstrater (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Under medical uses: "in Europe and some other countries." Europe isn't a country. I didn't change it to "some countries inside and outside of Europe" or something of the sort because I don't have access to the source and don't know what the facts are, aside from the fact that Europe isn't a country so the statement "in Europe and some other countries" is meaningless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DirkOrinson (talk • contribs) 14:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The paper on the analysis of chondroitin materials does not belong in the pharmacology section. It seems out of place. I already updated a few sentences in the regulatory section, which should be a special section as well. I would suggest to introduce a few comments or links on possible side effects or drug interactions. They are possible esp. in combination with NSAID's and other drugs interfering with blood clotting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect chemical structure
Structural function: important in *which* tissues?
From the article: "Chondroitin sulfate is a major component of extracellular matrix, and is important in maintaining the structural integrity of the tissue."
To which tissue(s) does this statement refer? 'Extracellular matrix' is a general term that applies to connective tissues in general; e.g. the extracellular matrices of bone, cartilage, adipose and blood are all different materials with different chemical compositions and physical structures. For more information, see connective tissue.
Without specifying the relevant tissue, this statement is useless. It would be like saying "hormone X acts on receptor, and is important for the proper function of the organ" without specifying which organ or organs it acts on, or which receptors.
This statement needs to indicate which tissue or tissues rely on chondroitin sulfate as a major compenent of their extracellular matrices. For example, "Chondroitin sulfate is a major component of the extracellular matrices of <tissue x> and <tissue y> and, as such, is important in maintaining the structural integrity of those tissues."
Vikingurinn (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Also the same problem occurs in the first line of the next section ( Function/Regulatory): "Chondroitin sulfate readily interacts with proteins in the extracellular matrix due to its negative charges." Admittedly, these statements could be revised by simply replacing "extracellular matrix" with "the extracellular matrices of certain tissues", but there really ought to be some tissues mentioned explicitly.
Vikingurinn (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Confusion about Research Results
The results are confusing to a lay person, and perhaps to others.
How about a discussion about why the results of studies seem to differ and what should we make of that. Does it have to do with the entity that funded the study? Is the supplement helpful in some respects but not in others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Moved content to Clinical trials on glucosamine and chondroitin
Hello! I just moved the content about osteoarthritis research to Clinical trials on glucosamine and chondroitin. Please go to the talk page of that article for an explanation of why I did this. In short, the information was confusing, beyond the scope of what Wikipedia health articles should cover, and being independently developed in multiple places on Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)