This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 Ubiquinol.
|
Seems to be a very one sided article - consisting almost entirely of summaries of selected positive research papers. If I take this article at face value, Ubiquinol is practically a miracle substance. Given that Ubiquinol is widely sold as a "supplement", I believe the article displays unacceptable positive and commercial bias.
The body of the article does not attempt to survey knowledge of the substance - merely to report lots of "good" results. Each section is a summary of some research paper, always positive. Each summary is very detailed but gives little context or background and no contrary position.
While this is not my field, but in the absence of other replies, I'd be willing to prune the article right down. The article would be much improved by someone who knows something of human biochemistry hacking into it and providing context, background info/links from a neutral point of view. Drpixie ( talk) 01:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I am removing the very detailed (and clearly contrary to Wikipedia policy) descriptions of original research, but initially leaving each subsection. When this stuff becomes better understood, and more widely accepted, it MIGHT be appropriate to add a LITTLE detail :) Drpixie ( talk) 01:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
To whoever put all that detail on original research into the article, I appreciate the work that must have gone into it. However wikipedia is a general, public encyclopedia - it isn't the right place for detailed summaries of research papers. It you are genuinely surveying the work on ubiquitol, perhaps a Surveys paper would be more appropriate. It you are acting for a supplements purveyor, then this is not the place for commercials. Drpixie ( talk) 02:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Seems like the formula is wrong. The brackets at the 10x Isoprene part must contain the first carbon atom as its drawn in the Ubiquinol article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.157.187 ( talk) 12:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Lambian - please reconsider one of the changes made on the second line of the third edit (13:12, 13August2010). Previously it said: The natural Ubiquinol form of Coenzyme Q10.... It was changed by you to read: The natural form of ubiquinol.... However, this would then imply that that there are other unnatural forms of ubiquinol, and it can only be one particular molecule. If you agree, please return the beginning of that line to: The natural Ubiquinol form of Coenzyme Q10... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Committed molecules ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Another note on terminology, is there a general term that encompases all the different "Co-Q[n]" compounds? I think it might have been Co-Q10 that I read the body having the ability to synthesize from two of the lower-order "Co-Q's". It was either CoQ10, or the MK-7 form of Vitamin K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.232.121 ( talk) 19:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
That is way too much coverage for a study that hasn't even had time to get cold yet. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It becomes noteworthy when it is repeated, particularly by a second and third laboratory. You can let people look at the reference and make their own determinations without placing the information, which is based solely on the abstract, at that, into the article. JSR ( talk) 17:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Readers of the ubiquinol page - there have been an excess sniping of text here on the ubiquinol page. Perhaps the changes were done under the reasonable objective of removing biased text, however what occurred is wide swaths of text were removed, instead of engagement of each specific instance where suspected bias occurred. For instance, all text indicating the effects of ubiquinol on subjects in Class IV Congestive Heart Failure are completely removed. People would want to know whether or not ubiquinol has any effect on Ejection Fraction. Another examples is the paragraph on ubiquinol and statins. In these recent edits, all text related to statins is removed, doing a disservice to the large number of wiki readers that would be interested to learn about ubiquinol and statins. Scientists certainly think this topic is interesting, otherwise why do they keep researching this topic? Peer-reviewed Journals still think this topic is important, otherwise why even publish this data? These are but two examples of a dozen, or so, paragraphs that have been completely eradicated. I open this topic up for discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Committed molecules ( talk • contribs) 19:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The editor Committed molecules has twice inserted this content, which is primary research and so shouldn't be used especially (as WP:MEDRS says) for biomedical content. I have reverted the additions accordingly. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 05:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
(Add) Okay, so Committed molecules has edit-warred this content back in (adding it three times now) without even substantive discussion. I have issued a warning for edit-warring and will wait for input from other editors ... Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 06:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I haven't been through it with a fine-tooth comb yet, but at first glance this entire section seems to be built from primary sources, often with nothing-y summaries (the aftermath of some compromise between editors?) It's really poor. I propose everything based on primary sources is removed to bring the article into line with WP:MEDRS / WP:RS / WP:NOR, and am tagging the section. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 05:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I've previously removed lots of detail and tried to leave room for a constructive article, but there seems to be a desire out there, to list lots positive sounding statements supported only by primary references (some of low quality, none widely supported). It certainly looks like someone has a barrow to push, and that barrow is contrary to wiki policies re medicine. I support removing all that primary referenced material and references. Drpixie ( talk) 03:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm opening this discussion to hopefully make some changes to the characteristics section, with the aim of improving the citations. If any editors have any opinions on how this could be achieved then please comment here. Currently only one reference is used in the entire section, therefore I feel it needs improving. Committed molecules ( talk) 16:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
"Researchers invovled in a study subsequently performed detailed investigations with the ubiquinol form. An in vitro investigation utilizing a human monocyte cell line (THP-1) exposed to a stimulator of inflammation called lipopolysaccharide (LPS) showed ubiquinol inhibited the release of proinflammatory substances, specifically cytokine TNF-α pro-inflammatory chemokines RANTES (normal T-call expressed and secreted) and MIP1-α (macrophage inflammatory protein). The scientists observed ubiquinol to exert a stronger effect on these inflammation-mediators than ubiquinone."
Reference: Schemelzer, C, et al. In vitro effects of the reduced form of Coenzyme Q10 on secretion levels of TNF-alpha and chemokines in response to LPS in the human monocytic cell line THP-1. J Clin Biochem Nutr. 2009, 44: 62-66
I am open to User:Drpixie's advise of carefully crafting this statement if some one objects. -- Committed molecules ( talk) 09:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
"Regard it as primary"? It is definitively primary, no ifs and no buts. Being peer-reviewed has nothing to do with that. Do not use primary sources for biomedical information: that is the "prime directive" of WP:MEDRS and is only broken in ultra-rare circumstances (which do not apply here). Alexbrn ( talk) 07:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I have started this new section in the article. I took some time to research sources that were not only published by reputable publishers but also secondary sources based on a wide range of primary research and expert review. This content is different from previous but I still hope there will not be unnecessary objections now. If there's an issue, please discuss it here first instead of WP:OWN removal form article. I will like to avoid editwar.-- Committed molecules ( talk) 10:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I have started dispute [13]. Comment there. -- Committed molecules ( talk) 08:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
"As of 2014 the evidence of whether Coenzyme Q10 supplementation benefits people with statin-related myopathy is inconclusive" is in correct because expert review is not saying this you are saying this. Expert review says it might help. Your suggestion is WP:SYNTH. If you want to say it is inconclusive bring a reference that negates my reference! My dispute is not on Coenzyme page. I searched this reference to insert this here. Do not say it is helpful but if research is saying it might be useful, say it might be useful. Do not censor or remove only because I am asking to add it. Ok so mediator said he needs discussion between User:Jytdog and Ronz. Just clarifying too that I am not advocating use but inserting possible use mentioned in research that it is possible use. -- Committed molecules ( talk) 09:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello User:Jytdog,
Sorry for replying late. I was in search of more sources and a better start. Let us move forward - I am suggesting new statement with new source (new authors), no real commercial value but scientifically relevant and of academic value. I have vetted the source much. See below suggestion:
CoQ10 has been linked to lower systolic blood pressure levels and since ubiquinol supplementation has the ability to deliver higher levels of CoQ10 to the heart, there is a rationale for using ubiquinol as a treatment of hypertension despite not being recognized as standard care.
-- Source: Cohen MM. Ubiquinol (reduced coenzyme Q10). A novel yet ubiquitous nutrient for heart disease. J Adv Nutr Hum Metab 2015; 2: e647. doi: 10.14800/janhm.627 [14]
This is Ubiquinol specific, WP:Reliable Source, WP:Verifiable and WP:Due. I will appreciate your comments. In all fairness, I also invite User:Ronz and User:Alexbrn to review before I add my suggestion to article.
Looking forward to constructive replies. -- Committed molecules ( talk) 15:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Jytdog I am not sure how you reached that conclusion. Can you explain how it promotes the substance? It appears you do not have issue with the source. Would you like to suggest a different phrasing of the content? -- Committed molecules ( talk) 16:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the newness of the journal. I had not noticed that and I withdraw my suggestion on those grounds. I think we should wait until the journal has had time to better establish itself and get indexed by MEDLINE and others and recieve impact ratings. Incidently, I dug a little more into the Beall list and the journal was not named specifically. The publisher was listed but with no indication on what grounds it was included. On the appeals page, Beall himself commented saying he "[does] not think this publisher meets the criteria for being a predatory publisher. To me, it looks like an honest new publisher." Apparently, he has not yet had time to update his list. -- Committed molecules ( talk) 21:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I was prescribed co q 10 by my doctor because I am taking a statin. But I see no mention of any value of taking ubiquinone as a supplement. Is this an omission in this article? Why no mention? 98.2.238.89 ( talk) 14:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
As 'Yellowtail' ('Content in Foods' section) can refer to a number of different species, shouldn't it be more specific? Richard Comaish ( talk) 23:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 Ubiquinol.
|
Seems to be a very one sided article - consisting almost entirely of summaries of selected positive research papers. If I take this article at face value, Ubiquinol is practically a miracle substance. Given that Ubiquinol is widely sold as a "supplement", I believe the article displays unacceptable positive and commercial bias.
The body of the article does not attempt to survey knowledge of the substance - merely to report lots of "good" results. Each section is a summary of some research paper, always positive. Each summary is very detailed but gives little context or background and no contrary position.
While this is not my field, but in the absence of other replies, I'd be willing to prune the article right down. The article would be much improved by someone who knows something of human biochemistry hacking into it and providing context, background info/links from a neutral point of view. Drpixie ( talk) 01:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I am removing the very detailed (and clearly contrary to Wikipedia policy) descriptions of original research, but initially leaving each subsection. When this stuff becomes better understood, and more widely accepted, it MIGHT be appropriate to add a LITTLE detail :) Drpixie ( talk) 01:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
To whoever put all that detail on original research into the article, I appreciate the work that must have gone into it. However wikipedia is a general, public encyclopedia - it isn't the right place for detailed summaries of research papers. It you are genuinely surveying the work on ubiquitol, perhaps a Surveys paper would be more appropriate. It you are acting for a supplements purveyor, then this is not the place for commercials. Drpixie ( talk) 02:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Seems like the formula is wrong. The brackets at the 10x Isoprene part must contain the first carbon atom as its drawn in the Ubiquinol article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.157.187 ( talk) 12:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Lambian - please reconsider one of the changes made on the second line of the third edit (13:12, 13August2010). Previously it said: The natural Ubiquinol form of Coenzyme Q10.... It was changed by you to read: The natural form of ubiquinol.... However, this would then imply that that there are other unnatural forms of ubiquinol, and it can only be one particular molecule. If you agree, please return the beginning of that line to: The natural Ubiquinol form of Coenzyme Q10... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Committed molecules ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Another note on terminology, is there a general term that encompases all the different "Co-Q[n]" compounds? I think it might have been Co-Q10 that I read the body having the ability to synthesize from two of the lower-order "Co-Q's". It was either CoQ10, or the MK-7 form of Vitamin K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.232.121 ( talk) 19:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
That is way too much coverage for a study that hasn't even had time to get cold yet. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It becomes noteworthy when it is repeated, particularly by a second and third laboratory. You can let people look at the reference and make their own determinations without placing the information, which is based solely on the abstract, at that, into the article. JSR ( talk) 17:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Readers of the ubiquinol page - there have been an excess sniping of text here on the ubiquinol page. Perhaps the changes were done under the reasonable objective of removing biased text, however what occurred is wide swaths of text were removed, instead of engagement of each specific instance where suspected bias occurred. For instance, all text indicating the effects of ubiquinol on subjects in Class IV Congestive Heart Failure are completely removed. People would want to know whether or not ubiquinol has any effect on Ejection Fraction. Another examples is the paragraph on ubiquinol and statins. In these recent edits, all text related to statins is removed, doing a disservice to the large number of wiki readers that would be interested to learn about ubiquinol and statins. Scientists certainly think this topic is interesting, otherwise why do they keep researching this topic? Peer-reviewed Journals still think this topic is important, otherwise why even publish this data? These are but two examples of a dozen, or so, paragraphs that have been completely eradicated. I open this topic up for discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Committed molecules ( talk • contribs) 19:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The editor Committed molecules has twice inserted this content, which is primary research and so shouldn't be used especially (as WP:MEDRS says) for biomedical content. I have reverted the additions accordingly. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 05:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
(Add) Okay, so Committed molecules has edit-warred this content back in (adding it three times now) without even substantive discussion. I have issued a warning for edit-warring and will wait for input from other editors ... Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 06:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I haven't been through it with a fine-tooth comb yet, but at first glance this entire section seems to be built from primary sources, often with nothing-y summaries (the aftermath of some compromise between editors?) It's really poor. I propose everything based on primary sources is removed to bring the article into line with WP:MEDRS / WP:RS / WP:NOR, and am tagging the section. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 05:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I've previously removed lots of detail and tried to leave room for a constructive article, but there seems to be a desire out there, to list lots positive sounding statements supported only by primary references (some of low quality, none widely supported). It certainly looks like someone has a barrow to push, and that barrow is contrary to wiki policies re medicine. I support removing all that primary referenced material and references. Drpixie ( talk) 03:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm opening this discussion to hopefully make some changes to the characteristics section, with the aim of improving the citations. If any editors have any opinions on how this could be achieved then please comment here. Currently only one reference is used in the entire section, therefore I feel it needs improving. Committed molecules ( talk) 16:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
"Researchers invovled in a study subsequently performed detailed investigations with the ubiquinol form. An in vitro investigation utilizing a human monocyte cell line (THP-1) exposed to a stimulator of inflammation called lipopolysaccharide (LPS) showed ubiquinol inhibited the release of proinflammatory substances, specifically cytokine TNF-α pro-inflammatory chemokines RANTES (normal T-call expressed and secreted) and MIP1-α (macrophage inflammatory protein). The scientists observed ubiquinol to exert a stronger effect on these inflammation-mediators than ubiquinone."
Reference: Schemelzer, C, et al. In vitro effects of the reduced form of Coenzyme Q10 on secretion levels of TNF-alpha and chemokines in response to LPS in the human monocytic cell line THP-1. J Clin Biochem Nutr. 2009, 44: 62-66
I am open to User:Drpixie's advise of carefully crafting this statement if some one objects. -- Committed molecules ( talk) 09:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
"Regard it as primary"? It is definitively primary, no ifs and no buts. Being peer-reviewed has nothing to do with that. Do not use primary sources for biomedical information: that is the "prime directive" of WP:MEDRS and is only broken in ultra-rare circumstances (which do not apply here). Alexbrn ( talk) 07:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I have started this new section in the article. I took some time to research sources that were not only published by reputable publishers but also secondary sources based on a wide range of primary research and expert review. This content is different from previous but I still hope there will not be unnecessary objections now. If there's an issue, please discuss it here first instead of WP:OWN removal form article. I will like to avoid editwar.-- Committed molecules ( talk) 10:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I have started dispute [13]. Comment there. -- Committed molecules ( talk) 08:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
"As of 2014 the evidence of whether Coenzyme Q10 supplementation benefits people with statin-related myopathy is inconclusive" is in correct because expert review is not saying this you are saying this. Expert review says it might help. Your suggestion is WP:SYNTH. If you want to say it is inconclusive bring a reference that negates my reference! My dispute is not on Coenzyme page. I searched this reference to insert this here. Do not say it is helpful but if research is saying it might be useful, say it might be useful. Do not censor or remove only because I am asking to add it. Ok so mediator said he needs discussion between User:Jytdog and Ronz. Just clarifying too that I am not advocating use but inserting possible use mentioned in research that it is possible use. -- Committed molecules ( talk) 09:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello User:Jytdog,
Sorry for replying late. I was in search of more sources and a better start. Let us move forward - I am suggesting new statement with new source (new authors), no real commercial value but scientifically relevant and of academic value. I have vetted the source much. See below suggestion:
CoQ10 has been linked to lower systolic blood pressure levels and since ubiquinol supplementation has the ability to deliver higher levels of CoQ10 to the heart, there is a rationale for using ubiquinol as a treatment of hypertension despite not being recognized as standard care.
-- Source: Cohen MM. Ubiquinol (reduced coenzyme Q10). A novel yet ubiquitous nutrient for heart disease. J Adv Nutr Hum Metab 2015; 2: e647. doi: 10.14800/janhm.627 [14]
This is Ubiquinol specific, WP:Reliable Source, WP:Verifiable and WP:Due. I will appreciate your comments. In all fairness, I also invite User:Ronz and User:Alexbrn to review before I add my suggestion to article.
Looking forward to constructive replies. -- Committed molecules ( talk) 15:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Jytdog I am not sure how you reached that conclusion. Can you explain how it promotes the substance? It appears you do not have issue with the source. Would you like to suggest a different phrasing of the content? -- Committed molecules ( talk) 16:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the newness of the journal. I had not noticed that and I withdraw my suggestion on those grounds. I think we should wait until the journal has had time to better establish itself and get indexed by MEDLINE and others and recieve impact ratings. Incidently, I dug a little more into the Beall list and the journal was not named specifically. The publisher was listed but with no indication on what grounds it was included. On the appeals page, Beall himself commented saying he "[does] not think this publisher meets the criteria for being a predatory publisher. To me, it looks like an honest new publisher." Apparently, he has not yet had time to update his list. -- Committed molecules ( talk) 21:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I was prescribed co q 10 by my doctor because I am taking a statin. But I see no mention of any value of taking ubiquinone as a supplement. Is this an omission in this article? Why no mention? 98.2.238.89 ( talk) 14:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
As 'Yellowtail' ('Content in Foods' section) can refer to a number of different species, shouldn't it be more specific? Richard Comaish ( talk) 23:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)