Talk:Antioxidant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Antioxidant is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 22, 2007.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 19, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
March 9, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Antioxidants for schizophrenia[edit]

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[1]
Summary
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.[1]
Good source. I think it can be summarized as "Evidence is insufficient as of 2016 to determine if antioxidants have an effect on schizophrenia".[1] Not convinced this needs a whole table.

References

  1. ^ a b Magalhães, P; Dean, O; Andreazza, A (2016). "Antioxidant treatments for schizophrenia". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 1: CD008919.pub2. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008919.pub2. 
--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
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)