Talk:Echinacea

Tantalizing Ngram history

Echinacea was very popular for 10 years around 1910, per https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=echinacea&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=0&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cechinacea%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cechinacea%3B%2Cc1 --StudentDeskUser (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Significant cultivation areas and wide use

E. purpurea and also E. angustifolia are still extensively cultivated in the US and Europe for their purported medicinal effects, to a greater extend than in 1910. In the 19th century German and American studies determined an anti-hyaluronidase activity of ech. extracts, which was somewhat significant of a discovery at the time with now archaic seeming methods (lit.ref. later on). E. angustifolia/pallida was initially described for medical use but E. purpurea is now more often used in herbal remedies because roots and aerial parts can be utilized. Actually meta-studies for echinacea don't even look so bad. In many of them some effect is noted. They clearly contain biologically-active substances that might have implications for human health, or at least feed an industry worth 100's of millions of USD every year, with no significant side effects. It is often given to children, assuming there are less side effects than in OTC-drug products. (Osterluzei (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC))

Common Cold Evidence

The article states "There is no conclusive evidence showing that echinacea products treat or prevent the common cold". However one of the cite references [14], for the Mayo clinic says that there is, "Good scientific evidence for this use". The update to date URL for this is http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/echinacea/evidence/hrb-20059246 (the previous reference link now goes to a page about safety, rather then effectiveness). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.189.75.94 (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Reading the Mayo page, it seems to be in alignment with what we say. The "good evidence" does not show echinacea is of clear benefit. Alexbrn (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is the Lancet article [11] that says it reduces risk of getting a cold and shortens the duration a "study of low quality" (as implied by the article text)? Worldbeater2002 (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Not even sure why we're citing these old articles; have trimmed. Alexbrn (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

This section was really small and seemed very conclusive on a topic that afaict is not truly settled. I came here because I saw a box of herbal tea claiming that Echinacea is "widely studied" and suggesting that it promotes healthy immune response. In the spirit of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I edited because the two sentence paragraph I saw seemed biased to me. Specifically the first sentenced felt like a stronger statement against its efficacy than was warranted by its source so I adjusted the wording. I then added another source that seemed to support the tea label I saw as I felt that point of view deserved space in this article if it is indeed merited by science. I hope that it is not simply reverted but rather improved to be more informative. Anthaearth (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Bon courage I see your point about my edits too closely describing the articles they cited. It seems to me that this subject deserves more than two sentences. There are too points I feel are worth discussing in the interest of making this paragraph more informative:

1. The sentence "Echinacea is of no benefit as a treatment for the common cold" misrepresents its source.

2. The third source I added seems to support a popular claim that Echinacea stimulates the immune system. There are other such sources.

See WP:MEDRS; primary sources in WP:MDPI journals is at the opposite end of the quality spectrum when it comes to knowledge, which is what Wikipedia wants to reflect. Bon courage (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

This article needs improvement

There needs to be at minimum a mention of the reason why it's important to humans and its widespread usage as a result. The History subsection is buried at the bottom of the article in direct contrast with Wikipedia standards. It would also be "nice" to have at least 1 cited mention of the positive and high quality studies on immune-stimulating affects, which, yes, are real and not based on bias or bad study practice. I realize there has been excessive abuse in this article over the years but it doesn't mean we need to be repressing knowledge and losing quality as a result of moderating.

Here are some articles, for example, that get missed in so-called "meta analyses": Plant (Echinacea purpurea) Enhances Systemic Immune Response During a Common Cold Enhancement of Innate and Adaptive Immune Functions by Multiple Echinacea Species Mbman8 (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Those references are the beginning stages of lab research and are insufficient evidence to change the article's presentation that echinacea has no proven immune effects. The articles you cite are "missed" from reviews and meta-analyses because they are isolated, primary findings, not confirmed through the process of evidence building, including in humans. Review WP:MEDREV for further background. --Zefr (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

First sentence

Originally the first sentence said

"Echinacea /ˌɛkɪˈneɪʃiə/[1] is a genus, or group of herbaceous flowering plants in the daisy family."

IMO we should keep the first sentence simple. I would propose

"Echinacea is a flowering plants in the daisy family without a persistent woody stem above ground."

We can leave out group and genus. Discussion of how it is a genus can go lower in the lead. That the daisy family is technically known as "Asteraceae" should also go lower IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

“Genus” is the term used to define all plants at this level in the hierarchy of plants (first established by Linnaeus). It is used for Rosa, Narcissus, Dahlia, Tulipa, etc. (check these out in Wikipedia). Not just in scientific literature but in ALL encyclopedias, dictionaries, gardening books, the word “genus” is used to define them. It’s a basic, fundamental term, like “species” and “family”. Everybody who’s interested in plants and animals uses it and knows it well. It must appear at the beginning of any definition. If I don’t change it back, somebody else will. Darorcilmir (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

EMA assessment on common cold

The EMA says there are sufficient studies that show positive effects on the common cold [1], p. 71. Perhaps it should be mentioned in the article. Chaptagai (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a more succinct EU position statement on Echinacea and the common cold (p 3-4), although it makes the same general conclusion of moderate benefit "for the short-term prevention and treatment of common cold" as currrent reference 13, PMID 25784510. The EU monograph specifies the use of expressed juice or dried expressed juice, whereas reference 13 states "Ethanolic extracts from echinacea appeared to provide superior effects over pressed juices." In my view, this justifies clarification in the article, so I will proceed with an edit to add the EU monograph. --Zefr (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

On Escape to the Country on March 15 2019, a herbalist was on saying that echinacea is good for the immune system. Vorbee (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

In the Research section, the following sentence is confusing: "Well-controlled clinical trials are limited and low in quality." How could "Well-controlled clinical trials" be "low in quality"? That is probably not what we mean, but it is what the sentence says.

In addition, the phrase "Well-controlled clinical trials are limited" is not a model of clarity. What attribute(s) is limited?

• the number of clinical trials?
• the number or percentage of "well-controlled" ones

• their sample sizes?
• the quality of their methodology: sufficiently random subject population? un-blind? single blind? double blind design quality? skill or knowledge of the investigators? biases?

• etc.

And, of course, we would need reliable sources for these evaluations.—Finell 20:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Scepticism

An edit added this article to the Skepticism project but I don't think it's appropriate. Whilst folk-lore is briefly mentioned, the article simply talks about evidence based facts. There is no skepticism. If you include this within {{WikiProject Skepticism}} then you have to include virtually every article about science facts. OrewaTel (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It's there because of the false claims. Bon courage (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)