Talk:Hangover

Korean remedy

User:174.103.115.142 and User:74.135.90.179:

Content you added here and here and here, is not reliably sourced per WP:MEDRS. If, after you read MEDRS, you don't understand it, please ask. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog. I still do not understand. I take from MEDRS that reputable secondary sources should be used, and not primary sources. I see the mistake that I made in the first two edits by citing primary sources, but my third and final revision consisted only of reputable secondary sources that were reviews of existing research. For example, the first came from Planta Medica, a leading peer-reviewed international journal in the field of natural products, and was a review of available literature on Hovenia dulcis's use in many different fashions. Could you explain what I am missing to make this "reliably sourced?" I have many different primary and secondary sources confirming the edit I made, I just need some help on which ones to use and how to cite them in a compliant manner. Thanks! 174.103.115.142 (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

So here is the last edit

One promising treatment for a hangover is a plant extract known as Hovenia dulcis (Japanese Raisin Tree Fruit Extract). In Korea, this extract is widely sold and distributed as a hangover remedy to be taken after one's last drink of the night to prevent a hangover. In the United States, a company called Life Support uses this same ingredient as a hangover cure and instructs users to consume the beverage as the last drink of the night to prevent a hangover. A review on Hovenia dulcis published in 2010 noted that this extract presents a strong candidate for use in the treatment of alcohol hangover, primarily due to its alcohol detoxification properties. The review notes that "the increased level of alcohol-induced liver ALDH activity by treatment with H. dulcis extracts suggests that H. dulcis can effectively relieve the alcohol hangover through enhancing the catabolism of ethanol." A second review published in Drug and Alcohol Review in 2005 noted that "it has now been proved that the extract of H. dulcis, or its complex formulae, hasten detoxification of alcohol," as well as noting that "the extracts of H. dulcis were also more effective in enhancing ALDH activity than ADH activity, [which] is one of the possible explanations of how H. dulcis could relieve hangover effectively, by decreasing acetaldehyde concentration quickly in the liver and blood." In fact, the review notes that "Hovenia dulcis . . . [has] been used for centuries in China to relieve intoxication and hangover from excessive drinking."

References

The beginning of that is 100% unsourced promotional violation of policy as it was the first 2 times, and to be frank I stopped reading. I will have a look at the secondary sources in a while. Read that link in the meantime, please. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog. Thanks for the feedback. I disagree, however, with your characterization of the beginning of the entry. To take it sentence by sentence:

"One promising treatment for a hangover is a plant extract known as Hovenia dulcis (Japanese Raisin Tree Fruit Extract)" - This is widely accepted and acknowledged in both of the secondary sources in this entry. Ie, "Hovenia dulcis . . . [has] been used for centuries in China to relieve intoxication and hangover from excessive drinking."

"In Korea, this extract is widely sold and distributed as a hangover remedy to be taken after one's last drink of the night to prevent a hangover." - If you would like a citation for this, I could look into the multitude of products in Korea that utilize H. dulcis in their hangover prevention drinks. This sentence serves to educate readers, who read the 'management' section of the page in an effort to learn potential remedies for a hangover, on the market in Korea for hangover drinks that utilize H. dulcis. For instance, you can review https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/inside-koreas-booming-anti-hangover-industry, which shows that Korea's anti-hangover industry has increased 10-fold in 15 years. The article also notes that the market leader is Condition, which accounts for over half of all anti-hangover sales. Condition uses Hovenia dulcis in their drink as the functional ingredient to prevent a hangover (http://english.cj.net/brand/list_food/condition.asp). This provides the reader with an understanding that this is "eastern medicine" that is widely used to treat a hangover.

"In the United States, a company called Life Support uses this same ingredient as a hangover cure and instructs users to consume the beverage as the last drink of the night to prevent a hangover." - This has a citation to the company's website, documenting the validity of the assertion. In regards to your suggestion that this is a "promotional violation of policy," this statement does not promote the company in any way, but merely notes a fact that the company sells a drink with Hovenia dulcis in it, purporting that the company claims it is a hangover cure. The statement neither confirms nor denies the efficacy of the product, but instead provides factual information about the existence of the product. Merely stating that a product exists for a stated purpose relevant to both the page title and surrounding material does not constitute promotion in my mind. I would love to hear your thoughts on this, however. I view it as similar to the "Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as aspirin have been proposed. . ." wherein aspirin is a particular brand that contains a component (NSAID) that is being discussed. 174.103.115.142 (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

WP is built from independent reliable sources. This is unsourced and promotional: "One promising treatment for a hangover is a plant extract known as Hovenia dulcis (Japanese Raisin Tree Fruit Extract)". This is unsourced and promotional: " In Korea, this extract is widely sold and distributed as a hangover remedy to be taken after one's last drink of the night to prevent a hangover." This is 100% advertising sourced to the company's website: "In the United States, a company called Life Support uses this same ingredient as a hangover cure and instructs users to consume the beverage as the last drink of the night to prevent a hangover." I will look at the rest, as I said. Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle.

The 2005 source is too old per WP:MEDDATE

I have read PMID 20379955 now and all it says that it has a long history of use in Korean and Japanese traditional medicine; there are no clinical studies so we cannot say anything about if it works or not.

I will add some content about this herb, based on PMID 20379955.Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

In regards to your comment about the 2010 review that "there are no clinical studes so we cannot say anything about if it works or not," citation requirements that you noted under MEDRS do not require that the review include clinical studies to be included or referenced. Therefore, the conclusion and interpretations of the review should be noted, perhaps with a notation to the reader that the statements, though based on multiple independent studies, are not based on clinical trials. In fact, if you look into regulatory compliance law, clinical trials are rarely completed on items that are dietary supplements or functional foods as defined by 21 CFR 111 (FDA Compliance), as clinical trials are often reserved for drugs. In regards to the 2005 source being too old, WP:MEDDATE notes that "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published." In this regard, very few reviews are published in regards to hangovers. This "guideline" on the date of a review serves to prevent information that is outdated and that has been updated in a new review from being published. In this case, the review in 2005 does not contain any information that has been updated or changed, and as such should not be excluded based on WP:MEDDATE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.103.115.142 (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The only MEDRS souce you have brought and the most recent i found is that 2010 paper. All it says is that it used in traditional medicine; it says nothing about efficicy or safety. In WP writing about health, if there is not actual evidence from clinical trials that something is safe and effective, it is indeed "unproven." Jytdog (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you are confusing "unproven" with "untested and discredited." The "Unsupported Remedies" section states that it is a list of "untested or discredited treatments." Hovenia dulcis 1) has been tested and shown to be effective and 2) in no way, shape or form has been been "discredited." Thus, if you, who apparently is the expert on hangover research (though I am ACTUALLY a PhD alcohol researcher), really dont think that there is evidence that "proves" it works as a hangover cure, I am okay with maintaining (until further researched is published) that it is "unproven." In this case, it would be "Potentially Beneficial," as opposed to "untested and discredited." 174.103.115.142 (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I wasn't aware you could get a PhD in hangovers...thats sounds pretty cool. When you add the name of a product, it is promotion. If you exaggerate the capability of a herb, from data published in a review from sketchy journal with a tiny impact factor, thats a POV bias. You don't really need a whole nice looking paragraph for the herb, if there is a MEDRS source, one little "Herb X is traditionally used in country x, however there is no data to support its use" should suffice.Petergstrom (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I took out the content for now, til we settle this. Also, IP 174, "aspirin" is not a brand name in the US. That was what we call a WP:POINTY edit. Don't do that. Jytdog (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

IP, you said "1) has been tested and shown to be effective". Please provide a MEDRS source that says this with regard to humans. thx Also please note that the leader to the list says: " Other untested or discredited treatments include:". As far as I can see this is indeed "untested". Happy to see evidence otherwise. Jytdog (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with Jytdog on just taking it out for now 64.150.190.32 (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)