Talk:Lipoic acid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Lowering reference quality[edit]

User:Fortibus please explain why you added content based on a 5 year old source and 4 year old source, trying to write more positive content than the more recent alllows, in this diff. This is continuing the discussion we started at your Talk page here Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Some background for third parties... There was a scientific review of intravenous and oral administration of ALA in the treatment of diabetic neuropathy that Jytdog deleted and replaced with a lengthy scientific review of diabetic neuropathy in general. The review he posted had one section that listed the results of one meta-analysis done in 2004. This one meta analysis only looked at intravenous use of ALA.
My reviews were around 2011 and 2012 and looked at both oral and intravenous ALA. I put them back into the article. For doing this I was accused of an "edit war" because it is "invalid to try to over rule newer MEDRS sources with older ones." However this is not what I did.
First of all, I kept Jytdog's edit in the article, I never "over ruled" anything. I wanted to keep the review of oral ALA because he deleted it from the article and it is of interest to many people. Since my reviews are more recent than 2004 I would even argue that they are more up-to-date than his is. I'm happy to work through the issue in good faith. I believe both of our references have their place. His reference actually has additional information that can be put into the article, while my references look specifically at oral vs i.v. ALA (which his doesn't).
Finally, regarding the accusation that i'm "trying to write more positive content", please keep in mind that we've never met and don't know each other. Don't assume bad faith or act like you know my intentions. I'm not trying to do anything except provide accurate and informative content.
Fortibus (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The ref i brought for diabetic neuropathy is from 2015 - PMID 25553239 - and it says "ALA has been found to be well tolerated, however it must be delivered intravenously for symptom relief." I made no judgements about you - i described the edits. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
You're correct that your reference makes that statement, however it provides no source or supporting data to back it up. A review of the scientific literature should contain a collection of sources supporting it's conclusions. Read through the sources in that review and you will only find one meta-analysis from 2004 that concerns intravenous ALA use only.
A newer review does not necessarily mean a better review. The comment about "only intravenous" is unsupported in your review and is contradicted by my scientific reviews. To reflect the state of the matter most accurately I'm arguing that we should keep both reviews (as I did in my edit). I encourage you to search for any source within the document you referenced that looks at oral ALA use. I looked very closely but i'm open to the idea that I missed it.
Let me just add that WP:MEDRS does not say to use newer sources at all costs, in every situation. It's a rule of thumb that should be applied with common sense. It admits that "assessing reviews may be difficult" and to watch out for Recentism.
Fortibus (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
You clearly have not read and are engaged with [{WP:MEDRS]]. This is not an issue of RECENTISM; it is about using the highest quality sources we can. Please read and engage with MEDRS. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I have read MEDRS. And I think we're in agreement - this is an issue of quality sources. Why do you think your review is of a higher quality than mine? I am genuinely open to changing my mind, but as a said above, your reference only sources a meta-analysis from 2004 that doesn't look at oral ALA use. My references simply added the missing oral ALA piece.
This is the meta-analysis from your source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14984445. It clearly states in the "Aim" and "Methods" sections that its purpose was to only look at intravenous use. "To determine the efficacy and safety of 600 mg of alpha-lipoic acid given intravenously over 3 weeks in diabetic patients with symptomatic polyneuropathy."
I repeat, this is the only source that your review mentions. How am I to believe this is a high quality source with regard to oral ALA use?
Fortibus (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
How about this Jytdog? A 2016 systematic review that references the oral administration research. It's also newer than your review. Can we agree on this? https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.librarylink.uncc.edu/pubmed/26822889
Fortibus (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Your link is through uncc. look at it. Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I get access to full articles through there. See this link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=26822889 Fortibus (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)