![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Withania somnifera article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Withania somnifera was a
good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the
good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it,
please do; it may then be
renominated. Review: January 7, 2006. ( Reviewed version). |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 January 2022 and 4 April 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Kavvyasharma (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Pret1790.
I'm not expert enough to edit the article directly, but would like to point out that Cureus (which seems to have an impact factor of 1.9) published a study reporting a decrease in reported levels of stress and in serum cortisol levels when subjects took 250mg or 600mg of ashwagandha daily vs. placebo: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6979308/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas42 ( talk • contribs) 02:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I would like to know exactly which sources are considered to be "quackery" associated with "Ayurvedic journals". This herb has been extensively researched, and it is a disservice to the community not to publish some of this research. While it is appropriate to include the limitations of this research, it is not appropriate to refuse to allow legitimate secondary sources and the conclusions of their authors.
It has been previously agreed on this thread that MSK is a reliable source, and yet there appears to be a continued issue with publishing the content of their analysis.
What evidence is there that the Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine [1] is not a reliable source? Wikipedia should be strictly about evidence, not who has the most degrees. Digeridoodle ( talk) 23:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
References
Using this metric, some of the existing sources which you have cited would not pass muster. "Indian Journal of Microbiology" scores only a 0.988 and yet it stands. I replaced that IJPM citation with a review published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine with an impact factor of 1.398 making it more reliable by these metrics than existing cited source materials. Yet you once again rolled it back and accused me of edit warring. This hardly constitutes a reasonable dialogue with equitable standards. Digeridoodle ( talk) 23:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The problem with that argument is that none of the existing citations meet your criteria, hence the clear bias. The JACM score is over 2-3x the score of other journals already cited in this article. In addition to the one I have already mentioned, the cited World Applied Sciences Journal has an equally abysmal score. This is a clear bias against a substantial body of research. Digeridoodle ( talk) 00:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
At minimum, the MSK analysis should be allowed along with the conclusions of its authors. Also this review exceeds the MEDRS standards and should be similarly allowed. [1] Digeridoodle ( talk) 00:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
This study seems to support the efficacy of ashwagandha for anxiety, though sample size is a tiny N=61 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3573577/ Can someone knowledgeable on the subject review and add if relevant? Tgalos90 ( talk) 20:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Would this article be of interest here? https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07391102.2020.1775704? Briancady413 ( talk) 20:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Here is a document from NCBI: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270108/
So "Dietary supplements containing ashwagandha are marketed in the U.S., but there is no evidence they have any effect" is completely invalid.
It now has an impact factor of 1.52 https://www.resurchify.com/impact/details/20000195020 Taseck1 ( talk) 11:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Effect of Withania somnifera on DMBA induced carcinogenesis
LeemolDavisGirijaKuttan Amalanagar Cancer Research Centre, Amalanagar, Thrissur, 680 553 Kerala, India Received 5 September 2000, Revised 4 December 2000, Accepted 12 December 2000, Available online 4 April 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7ED1:2E00:2C47:8658:AC3:E300 ( talk) 20:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Can we add these?
PMID | Journal | Impact Factor | Extract |
---|---|---|---|
PMID 31742775 | Phytotherapy Research | 3.092 | "W. somnifera extract improved performance on cognitive tasks, executive function, attention, and reaction time." |
PMID 31731424 | International Journal of Molecular Sciences | 4.183 | "WS was not only effective, but most importantly at these dosages WS was safe and well tolerated" |
Sthubbar ( talk) 03:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Requesting separate objective input on the following question: does Phytotherapy Research meet Wikipedia standards for reliability? It is a peer-reviewed journal with an impact factor of 6.338. By user Ashwinr, 8 October 2023.
"Conclusive evidence" is evidence which cannot be contradicted by other evidence. Given that scientific progress in empirical fields relies on falsifiability (read Karl Popper), there will NEVER be conclusive evidence on this topic... We must instead make an assessment on whether there is a preponderance of evidence in favour of a specific conclusion. I agree that many of the journals talked about on this page are 3rd rate, but we also have a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study posted on Medicine (IF = 2.1) which observed reductions in anxiety and cortisol. A meta-analysis found in CNS Drugs (IF = 4.2) also finds support for efficacy in regards to anxiety. Perhaps you do not think this is sufficient, but please do not wait for conclusive evidence because there will not be any.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6750292/ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%252Fs40263-013-0059-9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.252.166 ( talk) 02:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
This edit states the general conclusion both of Drugs.com and MedlinePlus that there is no high-quality clinical evidence that using ashwagandha provides any benefit. There's no need to massage the language that it "possibly may affect" or there is "limited" possible evidence for benefit. The bottom line for an encyclopedia is to clearly state the fact: there is no approved use of it as a drug, and there is no clinical proof it has value as a supplement. Zefr ( talk) 17:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Zefr is correct, only research with massive selection bias published by groups with financial ties to pharmaceutical companies (as is invariably the case with antidepressants) can be considered high quality evidence. 82.26.113.110 ( talk) 21:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Zefr is correct. Netanyahuserious ( talk) 10:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Toxicity is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Toxic effects of the herb Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera) Venkat TL ( talk) 08:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I actually wanted to add that Ashwagandha is also Grown and Supplied in the USA by submitting a link as a piece of evidence which you reverted, https://the-unwinder.com/news/best-source-of-ashwagandha/. Ricalston ( talk) 10:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Is it correct to describe a plant as evergreen shrub and also an annual? 92.40.172.239 ( talk) 19:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
For men, this is most definitely a benefit, and an indication that it could be used to treat low testosterone levels. It's interesting how when an effect is named as a side effect, it gets into Wikipedia very easily these days, as long as it's for an article on alternative medicine. MarshallKe ( talk) 17:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
For clarification for User:Zefr, the article *does* say "increased testosterone levels" is a side effect. My suggestion is perhaps to remove that part. MarshallKe ( talk) 20:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a lengthy history of this plant used therapeutically and even as food. The use is widespread such that the whole fresh root is sold in the markets where the plant locally occurs. Drsruli ( talk) 19:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
The plant is universally considered an adaptogen in the disciplines that recognize this term. It seems to me that this designation should occur somewhere on the page. Drsruli ( talk) 19:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
We have an entry on adaptogen. Herbalism exists. The concept of what is an adaptogen has existed, well-defined, for decades. The word is associated with ashwagandha inextricably. Additionally, science is not the only world in which a plant exists. There may be references from literature, music, completely fictitious. Not identifying ashwagandha with adaptogen is denial. It's a fact that ashwagandha is identified as an adaptogen. (Even if you are compelled to mention it as a fallacy, not documenting it is absurd.) (If Ashwagandha was historically identified with The Philosopher's Stone or The Holy Grail, then that would also warrant mention.) (Despite concerns of possibly granting plausibility to Alchemy.) Drsruli ( talk) 08:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
We DO "give mainspace attention to lunatic ideas". /info/en/?search=Modern_flat_Earth_beliefs Western Herbalism, and specifically the concept of adaptogens as a class, is no less deserving of space than Flat Earth. (Or Alchemy.) (Or religion.) It exists. It has a history. And Ashwagandha, among other specific items, is a part of it. You can do that, and still maintain your standards. The Vitamin C page has a whole section about Linus Pauling and Orthomolecular medicine. "In the scientifically discredited discipline of Western Herbalism, Ashwagandha root is classified as an adaptogen."
Additionally, this category of herbs has (some) legal significance. In the US, distributors may not generally make claims on the bottles of natural remedies. However, Ginseng, Eleuthero, Ashwagandha etc, CAN be labeled as Adaptogens (but not usually delineate the specific claims that this designation would imply). In the stores that sell these items, such as GNC, Vitamin Shoppe, there are sections for Adaptogens, labeled as such. In Europe, this is also established. https://cohenhealthcarelaw.com/2022/03/adaptogens-and-fda-ftc-compliance/
https://www.healthline.com/health/adaptogenic-herbs#takeaway
Additionally, in the case of certain Ashwagandha products, the claim can legally be made on the label: "clinically proven to reduce cortisol and perceived stress". The basis is this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6979308/ - Adaptogenic and Anxiolytic Effects of Ashwagandha Root Extract in Healthy Adults: A Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Clinical Study Drsruli ( talk) 08:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Polar Bear Enthusiast (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Polar Bear Enthusiast ( talk) 14:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Withania somnifera article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Withania somnifera was a
good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the
good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it,
please do; it may then be
renominated. Review: January 7, 2006. ( Reviewed version). |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 January 2022 and 4 April 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Kavvyasharma (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Pret1790.
I'm not expert enough to edit the article directly, but would like to point out that Cureus (which seems to have an impact factor of 1.9) published a study reporting a decrease in reported levels of stress and in serum cortisol levels when subjects took 250mg or 600mg of ashwagandha daily vs. placebo: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6979308/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas42 ( talk • contribs) 02:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I would like to know exactly which sources are considered to be "quackery" associated with "Ayurvedic journals". This herb has been extensively researched, and it is a disservice to the community not to publish some of this research. While it is appropriate to include the limitations of this research, it is not appropriate to refuse to allow legitimate secondary sources and the conclusions of their authors.
It has been previously agreed on this thread that MSK is a reliable source, and yet there appears to be a continued issue with publishing the content of their analysis.
What evidence is there that the Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine [1] is not a reliable source? Wikipedia should be strictly about evidence, not who has the most degrees. Digeridoodle ( talk) 23:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
References
Using this metric, some of the existing sources which you have cited would not pass muster. "Indian Journal of Microbiology" scores only a 0.988 and yet it stands. I replaced that IJPM citation with a review published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine with an impact factor of 1.398 making it more reliable by these metrics than existing cited source materials. Yet you once again rolled it back and accused me of edit warring. This hardly constitutes a reasonable dialogue with equitable standards. Digeridoodle ( talk) 23:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The problem with that argument is that none of the existing citations meet your criteria, hence the clear bias. The JACM score is over 2-3x the score of other journals already cited in this article. In addition to the one I have already mentioned, the cited World Applied Sciences Journal has an equally abysmal score. This is a clear bias against a substantial body of research. Digeridoodle ( talk) 00:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
At minimum, the MSK analysis should be allowed along with the conclusions of its authors. Also this review exceeds the MEDRS standards and should be similarly allowed. [1] Digeridoodle ( talk) 00:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
This study seems to support the efficacy of ashwagandha for anxiety, though sample size is a tiny N=61 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3573577/ Can someone knowledgeable on the subject review and add if relevant? Tgalos90 ( talk) 20:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Would this article be of interest here? https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07391102.2020.1775704? Briancady413 ( talk) 20:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Here is a document from NCBI: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270108/
So "Dietary supplements containing ashwagandha are marketed in the U.S., but there is no evidence they have any effect" is completely invalid.
It now has an impact factor of 1.52 https://www.resurchify.com/impact/details/20000195020 Taseck1 ( talk) 11:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Effect of Withania somnifera on DMBA induced carcinogenesis
LeemolDavisGirijaKuttan Amalanagar Cancer Research Centre, Amalanagar, Thrissur, 680 553 Kerala, India Received 5 September 2000, Revised 4 December 2000, Accepted 12 December 2000, Available online 4 April 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7ED1:2E00:2C47:8658:AC3:E300 ( talk) 20:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Can we add these?
PMID | Journal | Impact Factor | Extract |
---|---|---|---|
PMID 31742775 | Phytotherapy Research | 3.092 | "W. somnifera extract improved performance on cognitive tasks, executive function, attention, and reaction time." |
PMID 31731424 | International Journal of Molecular Sciences | 4.183 | "WS was not only effective, but most importantly at these dosages WS was safe and well tolerated" |
Sthubbar ( talk) 03:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Requesting separate objective input on the following question: does Phytotherapy Research meet Wikipedia standards for reliability? It is a peer-reviewed journal with an impact factor of 6.338. By user Ashwinr, 8 October 2023.
"Conclusive evidence" is evidence which cannot be contradicted by other evidence. Given that scientific progress in empirical fields relies on falsifiability (read Karl Popper), there will NEVER be conclusive evidence on this topic... We must instead make an assessment on whether there is a preponderance of evidence in favour of a specific conclusion. I agree that many of the journals talked about on this page are 3rd rate, but we also have a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study posted on Medicine (IF = 2.1) which observed reductions in anxiety and cortisol. A meta-analysis found in CNS Drugs (IF = 4.2) also finds support for efficacy in regards to anxiety. Perhaps you do not think this is sufficient, but please do not wait for conclusive evidence because there will not be any.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6750292/ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%252Fs40263-013-0059-9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.252.166 ( talk) 02:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
This edit states the general conclusion both of Drugs.com and MedlinePlus that there is no high-quality clinical evidence that using ashwagandha provides any benefit. There's no need to massage the language that it "possibly may affect" or there is "limited" possible evidence for benefit. The bottom line for an encyclopedia is to clearly state the fact: there is no approved use of it as a drug, and there is no clinical proof it has value as a supplement. Zefr ( talk) 17:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Zefr is correct, only research with massive selection bias published by groups with financial ties to pharmaceutical companies (as is invariably the case with antidepressants) can be considered high quality evidence. 82.26.113.110 ( talk) 21:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Zefr is correct. Netanyahuserious ( talk) 10:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Toxicity is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Toxic effects of the herb Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera) Venkat TL ( talk) 08:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I actually wanted to add that Ashwagandha is also Grown and Supplied in the USA by submitting a link as a piece of evidence which you reverted, https://the-unwinder.com/news/best-source-of-ashwagandha/. Ricalston ( talk) 10:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Is it correct to describe a plant as evergreen shrub and also an annual? 92.40.172.239 ( talk) 19:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
For men, this is most definitely a benefit, and an indication that it could be used to treat low testosterone levels. It's interesting how when an effect is named as a side effect, it gets into Wikipedia very easily these days, as long as it's for an article on alternative medicine. MarshallKe ( talk) 17:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
For clarification for User:Zefr, the article *does* say "increased testosterone levels" is a side effect. My suggestion is perhaps to remove that part. MarshallKe ( talk) 20:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a lengthy history of this plant used therapeutically and even as food. The use is widespread such that the whole fresh root is sold in the markets where the plant locally occurs. Drsruli ( talk) 19:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
The plant is universally considered an adaptogen in the disciplines that recognize this term. It seems to me that this designation should occur somewhere on the page. Drsruli ( talk) 19:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
We have an entry on adaptogen. Herbalism exists. The concept of what is an adaptogen has existed, well-defined, for decades. The word is associated with ashwagandha inextricably. Additionally, science is not the only world in which a plant exists. There may be references from literature, music, completely fictitious. Not identifying ashwagandha with adaptogen is denial. It's a fact that ashwagandha is identified as an adaptogen. (Even if you are compelled to mention it as a fallacy, not documenting it is absurd.) (If Ashwagandha was historically identified with The Philosopher's Stone or The Holy Grail, then that would also warrant mention.) (Despite concerns of possibly granting plausibility to Alchemy.) Drsruli ( talk) 08:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
We DO "give mainspace attention to lunatic ideas". /info/en/?search=Modern_flat_Earth_beliefs Western Herbalism, and specifically the concept of adaptogens as a class, is no less deserving of space than Flat Earth. (Or Alchemy.) (Or religion.) It exists. It has a history. And Ashwagandha, among other specific items, is a part of it. You can do that, and still maintain your standards. The Vitamin C page has a whole section about Linus Pauling and Orthomolecular medicine. "In the scientifically discredited discipline of Western Herbalism, Ashwagandha root is classified as an adaptogen."
Additionally, this category of herbs has (some) legal significance. In the US, distributors may not generally make claims on the bottles of natural remedies. However, Ginseng, Eleuthero, Ashwagandha etc, CAN be labeled as Adaptogens (but not usually delineate the specific claims that this designation would imply). In the stores that sell these items, such as GNC, Vitamin Shoppe, there are sections for Adaptogens, labeled as such. In Europe, this is also established. https://cohenhealthcarelaw.com/2022/03/adaptogens-and-fda-ftc-compliance/
https://www.healthline.com/health/adaptogenic-herbs#takeaway
Additionally, in the case of certain Ashwagandha products, the claim can legally be made on the label: "clinically proven to reduce cortisol and perceived stress". The basis is this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6979308/ - Adaptogenic and Anxiolytic Effects of Ashwagandha Root Extract in Healthy Adults: A Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Clinical Study Drsruli ( talk) 08:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Polar Bear Enthusiast (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Polar Bear Enthusiast ( talk) 14:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)