Talk:Statin
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Statin.
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Statin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|||
| Article policies
|
||
| Archives: 1, 2, 3 | |||
| Mevalonate inhibition was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 07 June 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Statin. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
| Text and/or other creative content from this version of Mevalonate inhibition was copied or moved into Statin with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Mevalonate inhibition. |
| This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contents
Statin drug use, post menopausal women, diabetes increase[edit]
Unsure why this edit was removed the adverse reactions to statin drug use. This was a large scale study including over a hundred thousand post-menopausal womenTaps2386 (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC) Culver, Annie L., et al. "Statin use and risk of diabetes mellitus in postmenopausal women in the Women's Health Initiative." Archives of internal medicine 172.2 (2012): 144-152.
- @Taps2386: Because it's still a primary study and the conclusions are of little value compared to the results from these: pmid:20167359 and pmid:21693744 meta-analyses. I suppose a case can be made that it is relevant to a particular population and it doesn't contradict the secondary sources, so I haven't reverted it again. If you're not sure about how evidence quality is judged on Wikipedia, please read WP:MEDRS. --RexxS (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. The study is newer than the previous meta-analyses and higher population base. I will look into the judgement on evidence quality and thank you for the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taps2386 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed the study is newer; but that is marginal in this case (2012 vs 2011 and 2010), and the secondary sources used are not out-dated. We would only use a newer secondary source to amend the conclusions of a currently used secondary source, per WP:MEDPRI. If there is little time difference between secondaries that disagreed, we would normally attribute and report both conclusions per WP:YESPOV.
Statin Damage[edit]
what about Duane Graveline: Statin Damage Crisis (2010)? i guess an addied controversy section would be beneficial to the article. 80.98.79.37 (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC).
- See: Husten, Larry (24 July 2017). "Nissen Calls Statin Denialism A Deadly Internet-Driven Cult". CardioBrief. -- Jytdog (talk) 05:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: What about this article in Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology? The title is "How statistical deception created the appearance that statins are safe and effective in primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease" and the abstract says:
We have provided a critical assessment of research on the reduction of cholesterol levels by statin treatment to reduce cardiovascular disease. Our opinion is that although statins are effective at reducing cholesterol levels, they have failed to substantially improve cardiovascular outcomes. We have described the deceptive approach statin advocates have deployed to create the appearance that cholesterol reduction results in an impressive reduction in cardiovascular disease outcomes through their use of a statistical tool called relative risk reduction (RRR), a method which amplifies the trivial beneficial effects of statins. We have also described how the directors of the clinical trials have succeeded in minimizing the significance of the numerous adverse effects of statin treatment.
- Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ravnskov cannot be considered unbiased in this debate. JFW | T@lk 17:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Jfdwolff, I'm unfamiliar with the particular author you're referencing (though I see they're involved in the above proposed article). Can you elaborate a bit on why Ravnskov's perspective cannot be viewed as unbiased in this debate? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Ravnskov cannot be considered unbiased in this debate. JFW | T@lk 17:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Effectiveness, relative risk, etc[edit]
User:Paddybutler in these edits:
- diff 19:22, 1 November 2018
- diff 12:47, 3 November 2018
- diff 14:07, 7 November 2018 (from an IP)
- diff 14:11, 8 November 2018
You have added unsourced content that is WP:OR and content that is based on sources that are not OK per WP:MEDRS. I left you some welcome messages at your talk page (User talk:Paddybutler) describing how we edit about health in Wikipedia. Please be sure to use high quality sources per WP:MEDRS and be sure to summarize what they say. High quality sources drive Wikipedia content. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Primary source removal[edit]
The publication of a report entitled "Cholesterol confusion and statin controversy" by Robert DuBroff (a research cardiologist, University Of New Mexico) and Michel de Lorgeril (a medical researcher at the French Centre National de Recherche Scientifique specialized in cardiology and nutrition – and a member of the European Society of Cardiology) presented to the World Congress of Cardiology merely suggested that an association with cholesterol levels does not necessarily indicate a cause of Coronary Heart Disease, but may be also simply a coincidence or an incidental consequence.[1]
References
- ^ DuBroff R, de Lorgeril M (July 2015). "Cholesterol confusion and statin controversy". World Journal of Cardiology. 7 (7): 404–9. doi:10.4330/wjc.v7.i7.404. PMC 4513492. PMID 26225201.
@Jytdog: I'm curious why this section was removed. Per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, it doesn't appear that using primary sources is a problem, by itself. Was there another issue you had with this content? WestWorld42018 (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- See WP:MEDRS. Additionally the World Journal of Cardiology is a) not MEDLINE indexed and b) published by a predatory publisher, Baishideng Publishing Group. Not acceptable in Wikipedia. The content is also unacceptable - we don't puff up authors that way. Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. WestWorld42018 (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- See WP:MEDRS. Additionally the World Journal of Cardiology is a) not MEDLINE indexed and b) published by a predatory publisher, Baishideng Publishing Group. Not acceptable in Wikipedia. The content is also unacceptable - we don't puff up authors that way. Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)