This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Hello everybody, I got some feedback on my post about antioxidants as add-on treatment for schizophrenia (it was a table summarising evidence from a Cochrane review on the topic). In my opinion it did fit well into the "Drug candidate" section of the article and it complies with the pages high quality standard (Systematic review), but I was not aware of the fact that some people might disagree, sorry for this. Below you find the table, maybe we can discuss this: Lena08041993 (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Add-on antioxidants for schizophrenia versus placebo
Although 22 trials provide some limited evidence, the data are limited with short duration follow-up and mostly not relevant to clinicians or consumers. There is a need for larger trials with longer periods of follow-up and outcomes meaningful for people with schizophrenia.
On average, people receiving add-on antioxidants for schizophrenia scored lower (better) than people treated with placebo on this scale. There was a clear difference between the groups. This finding is based on data of low quality.
The average general functioning across a longer period of follow up was a little higher in the antioxidant group. The difference was not clear difference between the groups. This finding is based on data of high quality.
Add-on antioxidants for schizophrenia probably causes little or no decrease to the chance of experiencing the treatment outcome, but the difference between the two treatments is not clear. Data supporting this finding are based on moderate quality evidence.
Add-on antioxidants for schizophrenia may slightly decrease to the chance of experiencing an adverse effect but there is no clear difference between people given the add-on antioxidants for schizophrenia and those receiving add-on placebo. These findings are based on data of low quality.
Issues with the edit, in no order of importance: 1) it was entered in the section, "Drug candidates", but Gingko biloba (stated by the authors as one of the most promising agents) is neither a drug nor a proven antioxidant; 2) vitamins A and E are dietary antioxidants and are not typically discussed as "drugs"; 3) the antioxidant theory as a factor in schizophrenia has no systematic review or meta-analysis of high-quality clinical research to support it - the literature shows a lot of speculation, but this is primary research not meeting WP:MEDRS quality; 4) the authors stated, "However, overall, the trials suffered from a lack of real-world outcomes, such as clinical response, rates of relapse, quality of life, functioning, safety and satisfaction or acceptability of treatment", indicating overall a weak base of research and therefore a weak source; a review of the full article here, shows that for each of the agents studied, only 1-4 trials with small subject numbers and multiple study concerns were analyzed; 6) there is no justification to include a table for such vague or negative results that do not provide encyclopedic clarity. --Zefr (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Agree, in an article like acupuncture where we have zealots we are forced to report on waste of time reviews like this, on things that have almost no chance of doing anything. There is no need to bother with this here. If we do summarize it there is no reason to give it much weight, as it is a yawner. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)