This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This article, currently titled Clinical trials on glucosamine and chondroitin, was created by cutting and pasting information from the articles on Chondroitin sulfate and glucosamine.
The information in this article about the clinical research is WP:UNDUE for inclusion into those articles per WP:MEDMOS, the medical manual of style, which says that articles about treatments should include certain information and exclude other information. The amount of information which is merited in those articles is the best available consensus statements about the outcomes of many years of the research. Until this article was created, those articles contained a history of the treatment research covering the use of glucosamine and chondroitin.
Further complicating the matter is that the information in this article is replicated in the articles on glucosamine, chondroitin, and osteoarthritis. This page should have all the information about the trials, and those pages should omit that information and instead link to this page as a centralized resource.
I would like to also note that Wikipedia does not have good policies or precedent on deciding what to do with records of clinical research. In articles like German acupuncture trials, there has been much debate about the extent to which Wikipedia should report disputed health recommendations which at some times and in some places have been covered in reliable sources and seem to meet general criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. While I am creating this article, I am not evaluating, supporting, or dismissing any of the content in it. The only reason I am moving it here is because at first look, it seems to be well-sourced information and because it definitely ought not be forked and independently developed in multiple articles on Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Is there something special about this article that allows it to reference primary sources instead of being restricted to refer to secondary sourced, i.e. reviews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sthubbar ( talk • contribs) 00:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
This was mentioned quite a bit on the Osteoarthritis talk page and completely ignored here. There is significant evidence that the Sulfate and HCL preparations of glucosamine are different with sulfate showing effect and HCL not. It is completely possible that sulfate by itself is the active agent, and there are no studies that compare glucosamine sulfate to sulfate by itself. This would clearly explain the conflicting evidence and invalidate any meta-analysis or review that ignores this different. It would be the same as doing a meta-analysis of CO2 and CO and saying that there is conflicting evidence.
In my opinion this article needs a complete rewrite highlighting this, especially in light of the most recent Long-term Evaluation of Glucosamine Sulfate results. Sthubbar ( talk) 01:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
These statements
is completely unreferenced and could just as easily say "there is no unequivocal evidence showing it is equal to placebo" or "there is no unequivocal evidence showing it is harmful". unlike what it has been replaced with, a balanced presentation with each statement having multiple references.
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
The best current evidence suggests that the effect of these supplements, alone or in combination, on OA pain, function, and radiographic change is marginal at best.
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |author-separator=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
NICE
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sthubbar ( talk • contribs) 03:11, 12 July 2014
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This article, currently titled Clinical trials on glucosamine and chondroitin, was created by cutting and pasting information from the articles on Chondroitin sulfate and glucosamine.
The information in this article about the clinical research is WP:UNDUE for inclusion into those articles per WP:MEDMOS, the medical manual of style, which says that articles about treatments should include certain information and exclude other information. The amount of information which is merited in those articles is the best available consensus statements about the outcomes of many years of the research. Until this article was created, those articles contained a history of the treatment research covering the use of glucosamine and chondroitin.
Further complicating the matter is that the information in this article is replicated in the articles on glucosamine, chondroitin, and osteoarthritis. This page should have all the information about the trials, and those pages should omit that information and instead link to this page as a centralized resource.
I would like to also note that Wikipedia does not have good policies or precedent on deciding what to do with records of clinical research. In articles like German acupuncture trials, there has been much debate about the extent to which Wikipedia should report disputed health recommendations which at some times and in some places have been covered in reliable sources and seem to meet general criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. While I am creating this article, I am not evaluating, supporting, or dismissing any of the content in it. The only reason I am moving it here is because at first look, it seems to be well-sourced information and because it definitely ought not be forked and independently developed in multiple articles on Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Is there something special about this article that allows it to reference primary sources instead of being restricted to refer to secondary sourced, i.e. reviews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sthubbar ( talk • contribs) 00:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
This was mentioned quite a bit on the Osteoarthritis talk page and completely ignored here. There is significant evidence that the Sulfate and HCL preparations of glucosamine are different with sulfate showing effect and HCL not. It is completely possible that sulfate by itself is the active agent, and there are no studies that compare glucosamine sulfate to sulfate by itself. This would clearly explain the conflicting evidence and invalidate any meta-analysis or review that ignores this different. It would be the same as doing a meta-analysis of CO2 and CO and saying that there is conflicting evidence.
In my opinion this article needs a complete rewrite highlighting this, especially in light of the most recent Long-term Evaluation of Glucosamine Sulfate results. Sthubbar ( talk) 01:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
These statements
is completely unreferenced and could just as easily say "there is no unequivocal evidence showing it is equal to placebo" or "there is no unequivocal evidence showing it is harmful". unlike what it has been replaced with, a balanced presentation with each statement having multiple references.
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
The best current evidence suggests that the effect of these supplements, alone or in combination, on OA pain, function, and radiographic change is marginal at best.
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |author-separator=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
NICE
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sthubbar ( talk • contribs) 03:11, 12 July 2014