This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rpp58.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I am all for separating calcium as dietary supplement, and perhaps more broadly, calcium in biology, from the calcium entry. This approach has has worked for other minerals which are also essential nutrients. The calcium debate over health benefits versus health risks versus no clinically relevant impact had its real start in the 1980s. After a decades-long flood tide of positive trials, reviews and editorials there was an ebb, reflected in articles concluding that calcium did not have a significant clinical impact, at least if not combined with vitamin D, and also that there were subtle and not so subtle risks linked to calcium supplementation: kidney stones, inappropriate calcification of soft tissue, cardiovascular complications. At the peak of positive opinion there were also efforts to pile on benefits such as lowering blood pressure (very modest for general pop, clearer for pregnancy) and lowering risk of colo-rectal cancer (most but not all meta-analyses agree). References to consider: David notMD ( talk) 11:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Weaver CM, Alexander DD, Boushey CJ, Dawson-Hughes B, Lappe JM, LeBoff MS, Liu S, Looker AC, Wallace TC, Wang DD. Calcium plus vitamin D supplementation and risk of fractures: an updated meta-analysis from the National Osteoporosis Foundation. Osteoporos Int. 2016 Jan;27(1):367-76. PMID 26510847
Hofmeyr GJ, Lawrie TA, Atallah AN, Duley L, Torloni MR. Calcium supplementation during pregnancy for preventing hypertensive disorders and related problems. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jun 24;(6):CD001059. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001059.pub4. Review. PMID 24960615.
Hi everyone,
Since the Bone Health section of this article seems to be missing some valuable information, I have been working on adding a few paragraphs to it, particularly in regards to whether calcium supplementation is necessary for bone health, the effect of calcium supplementation in various population subgroups, and public health policies regarding calcium. I have started drafting these edits in my user sandbox, which I am linking below. I look forward to hearing if you have any suggestions for me.
/info/en/?search=User:Rpp58/sandbox
Rpp58 ( talk) 17:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Agreed! It looks like you missed feedback that indicated the need to expand your research into higher quality articles like systematic reviews and meta-analyses. I also recommend reading
WP:MEDMOS if you are interested in pursuing Wikipedia editing to help guide you through the writing style recommended for editing medical articles. Let me know if you want to pursue editing and we can have a chat about the process!
Saguaromelee (
talk)
15:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a new Cochrane review out published January 2022. The current Cochrane source for the article was August 2021. However, I am under the impression that medical editors here do not like studies newer than, say, a year. This principle would call for removal of the current hypertension treatment claim unless we can find a source older and more worn-in with critical acclaim from professionals. However, nobody's going to do that, are they? The "systematic review is too new" reason to reject a source isn't used fairly, but only when personal belief on the part of the editor is a corrupting factor. MarshallKe ( talk) 15:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
A study investigating the effects of personal calcium supplementation on cardiovascular risk in the Women's Health Initiative Calcium/Vitamin D Supplementation Study (WHI CaD Study) found a modestly increased risk of cardiovascular events, particularly myocardial infarction in postmenopausal women. A broad recommendation of calcium and vitamin D supplements is therefore not warranted.[15] http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d2040
This looks to be a primary source, no doubt cherry-picked in the interest of false balance. Assuming we find the 2021 Cochrane review and the 2013 review to be acceptable sources, this is a clear case of WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:UNDUE, as this viewpoint comes from a much lower quality source. MarshallKe ( talk) 15:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
A 2013 literature review concluded that the benefits of calcium supplementation in some studies, such as on bone health, appear to outweigh any risk calcium supplementation may pose to the cardiovascular health.[16] https://doi.org/10.2146%2Fajhp120421
I have seen editors use "review is too old" as a reason not to include information, and this 9 year old one certainly fits the bill. Taken along with the previous two sections I've added to this talk page, applying the strictest of source standards from medical editors that I have encountered in my editing before, I conclude that the entire Cardiovascular Impact section is poorly sourced and should be entirely deleted. Of course, this is ludicrous, isn't it? MarshallKe ( talk) 15:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rpp58.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I am all for separating calcium as dietary supplement, and perhaps more broadly, calcium in biology, from the calcium entry. This approach has has worked for other minerals which are also essential nutrients. The calcium debate over health benefits versus health risks versus no clinically relevant impact had its real start in the 1980s. After a decades-long flood tide of positive trials, reviews and editorials there was an ebb, reflected in articles concluding that calcium did not have a significant clinical impact, at least if not combined with vitamin D, and also that there were subtle and not so subtle risks linked to calcium supplementation: kidney stones, inappropriate calcification of soft tissue, cardiovascular complications. At the peak of positive opinion there were also efforts to pile on benefits such as lowering blood pressure (very modest for general pop, clearer for pregnancy) and lowering risk of colo-rectal cancer (most but not all meta-analyses agree). References to consider: David notMD ( talk) 11:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Weaver CM, Alexander DD, Boushey CJ, Dawson-Hughes B, Lappe JM, LeBoff MS, Liu S, Looker AC, Wallace TC, Wang DD. Calcium plus vitamin D supplementation and risk of fractures: an updated meta-analysis from the National Osteoporosis Foundation. Osteoporos Int. 2016 Jan;27(1):367-76. PMID 26510847
Hofmeyr GJ, Lawrie TA, Atallah AN, Duley L, Torloni MR. Calcium supplementation during pregnancy for preventing hypertensive disorders and related problems. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jun 24;(6):CD001059. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001059.pub4. Review. PMID 24960615.
Hi everyone,
Since the Bone Health section of this article seems to be missing some valuable information, I have been working on adding a few paragraphs to it, particularly in regards to whether calcium supplementation is necessary for bone health, the effect of calcium supplementation in various population subgroups, and public health policies regarding calcium. I have started drafting these edits in my user sandbox, which I am linking below. I look forward to hearing if you have any suggestions for me.
/info/en/?search=User:Rpp58/sandbox
Rpp58 ( talk) 17:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Agreed! It looks like you missed feedback that indicated the need to expand your research into higher quality articles like systematic reviews and meta-analyses. I also recommend reading
WP:MEDMOS if you are interested in pursuing Wikipedia editing to help guide you through the writing style recommended for editing medical articles. Let me know if you want to pursue editing and we can have a chat about the process!
Saguaromelee (
talk)
15:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a new Cochrane review out published January 2022. The current Cochrane source for the article was August 2021. However, I am under the impression that medical editors here do not like studies newer than, say, a year. This principle would call for removal of the current hypertension treatment claim unless we can find a source older and more worn-in with critical acclaim from professionals. However, nobody's going to do that, are they? The "systematic review is too new" reason to reject a source isn't used fairly, but only when personal belief on the part of the editor is a corrupting factor. MarshallKe ( talk) 15:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
A study investigating the effects of personal calcium supplementation on cardiovascular risk in the Women's Health Initiative Calcium/Vitamin D Supplementation Study (WHI CaD Study) found a modestly increased risk of cardiovascular events, particularly myocardial infarction in postmenopausal women. A broad recommendation of calcium and vitamin D supplements is therefore not warranted.[15] http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d2040
This looks to be a primary source, no doubt cherry-picked in the interest of false balance. Assuming we find the 2021 Cochrane review and the 2013 review to be acceptable sources, this is a clear case of WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:UNDUE, as this viewpoint comes from a much lower quality source. MarshallKe ( talk) 15:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
A 2013 literature review concluded that the benefits of calcium supplementation in some studies, such as on bone health, appear to outweigh any risk calcium supplementation may pose to the cardiovascular health.[16] https://doi.org/10.2146%2Fajhp120421
I have seen editors use "review is too old" as a reason not to include information, and this 9 year old one certainly fits the bill. Taken along with the previous two sections I've added to this talk page, applying the strictest of source standards from medical editors that I have encountered in my editing before, I conclude that the entire Cardiovascular Impact section is poorly sourced and should be entirely deleted. Of course, this is ludicrous, isn't it? MarshallKe ( talk) 15:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)