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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany 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.
Per WP:PHARMMOS we usually don't give dosing information due to the fact it can be construed as personal medical advice. I think we should remove dosing information completely due to a number of reasons:
1. It can, as I previously mentioned, be construed as personal medical advice. And quite honestly, what other value could it serve?
2. It can be seen as giving undue weight to certain products, due to the fact it's impossible to generalise dosing to every product due to the high degree of variability in the chemical composition of products.
3. Because as I previously mentioned there's a high degree of variability in available products.
We've worked together on a lot of articles and I have tremendous respect for your judgement. But its hard for me to understand your restoration of "anti-inflammatory" as a property of this herb. Yes, the references you added are secondary, and they do state that, but if you read the article the evidence they quote all seems to be in vitro, which you of all people understand is a far cry from supporting a medical claim.
Could you elaborate on your reasoning here? Many thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
We do not use in vitro data or animal studies to make any medical claims per WP:MEDRS, specifically WP:MEDANIMAL; however, this applies directly to the source in question. If a review or professional med/pharm web/book source indicates that something holds for animals or in vitro, article text must reflect this as such. If the webpage or review indicates that this is for humans or merely implies this as is often the case (e.g., claims made without indicating a species in any paper with "Human" in the mesh terms but no other animal species or "animals" listed there), then we don't go through and examine the primary sources they cited; the statement made in the secondary source is all that matters (even if it's completely wrong), not the cited primary source. This is reflected in the cautionary note at the bottom paragraph of WP:MEDASSESS.
If we excluded animal and in vitro evidence from all reviews in writing medical articles, we wouldn't have much, if any, cell signaling content in probably most of our articles. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue with you too much about this, we've done too many good things together. But I'd say that we do include animal and in vitro data when it has been cited in a review, but we make it very clear that it is in vitro or animal data only. The word "anti-inflammatory" implies medical use in people to my mind. Certainly I do not think the average reader will finish that paragraph and come away with the message "it inhibits certain enzymes involved in the inflammatory cascade in vitro but god knows if the active principle is orally available or has any effect at all in people".
I realize that the review said "anti-inflammatory", but I think we have a responsibility to our readers in spite of whatever poor choice of language or ignorance is expressed by a reviewer. And I shudder to think what the EBM people here would say if we tried to call sitagliptin an anti-inflammatory based on a review that cited in vitro enzyme inhibition data.
I've said my piece, please take it into consideration. I won't pursue this further. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)