Jump to content

Talk:Andrographis paniculata

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge of Andrographis article

[edit]

Per suggestion on 20 January 2007 by Hämbörger, I've merged the Andrographis article into this one. Someone with the appropriate knowledge needs to check the scientific classification of this plant. As it stands the article contains two different classifications.

--Smalljim 20:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

renaming in "Kalmegh"?

[edit]

http://www.andrographispaniculata.com/ use Kalmegh, German wiki page too. French also use it as "thé Kalmegh"... maybe Kalmegh could be the wiki page name, what are the english-speaking-natives opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GRAND OUTCAST (talk • contribs) 14:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


It is not called 'Chirota' or 'Chrayta'. 'Chirota' is a different plant (Swertia chirayita Family: Gentianaceae).

[edit]

Please see the following links made make necessary edit( http://www.herbs2000.com/herbs/herbs_chiretta.htm , http://www.flowersofindia.net/catalog/slides/Chirayita.html , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swertia )Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). . Thank you.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Andrographis paniculata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Andrographis paniculata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antiviral Impact of Andographis Pan.

[edit]

This article describes the activity of the ethanol extract of A. paniculata as antiviral and immunostimulator to SRV.

The immunostimulant activity of (A. paniculata) extract was determined by its ability to induce lymphocytes cell proliferation using 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. Our result indicated that the A. paniculata ethanol extract inhibited the SRV virus titer similar to the positive control Lamivudine, and it was not toxic to the A459 cell line. Furthermore, low concentration (1 µg/mL) of A. paniculata extract could stimulated lymphocyte cell proliferation about 38% compared to the control lymphocyte cell without any treatment.

--Lmstearn (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on article summary

[edit]

@Alexbrn: Please explain your revert. Here is a quote from the meta analysis:

A. Paniculata appears beneficial and safe for relieving ARTI symptoms and shortening time to symptom resolution. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously owing to poor study quality and heterogeneity. Well-designed trials evaluating the effectiveness and potential to reduce antibiotic use of A. Paniculata are warranted.

My edit drew directly from that and corrected part of it. If you disagree, please explain your reasoning (which was not included in your edit message); otherwise, I will restore my edit. -- Phyzome (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saying in Wikipedia's voice that this sources "concluded that it was likely safe and beneficial" is not a true reflection of it, overstating the case. Alexbrn (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Concluded that it was likely safe and beneficial" is factual, relevant, and neutral reporting of the meta-analysis, using almost the exact language from the paper. Again, if you disagree with this description of the analysis, please explain why. Or, if you feel that the analysis is itself unreliable, perhaps it should be dropped from the article entirely (again, with explanation.) -- Phyzome (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we're going about this all wrong—WP:ROWN is very clear consensus that reverts should be reserved for vandalism and the like. I'm going to revert back again, and I'm going to ask you to continue this discussion here so that we can arrive at a mutually agreeable page. I'll be traveling on Aug 5 and 6 so I may not be able to respond immediately, but I'll be available in general. -- Phyzome (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:ONUS, and also WP:EW. Alexbrn (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to defend my edit if you're willing to discuss it. But at this point you have still to make any comment focusing on the content. I'm going to report this edit war and ask for mediation. -- Phyzome (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on the editor wanting to make a change to justify it, but as I said you are overstating the case. I have raised a query at WT:MED which with luck will attract more wise eyes. Edit-warring is not a good idea. Alexbrn (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for raising it there, but we still need to address the edit war that we've both participated in. As per standard policy of favoring discussion over reverts, please restore the text pending the outcome of the dispute resolution. There's no emergency here, and it would be a good-faith move. And again, I welcome substantive discussion here on this talk page. -- Phyzome (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Phyzome, but I think Alexbrn is right here. It feels to me as though your preferred revision gives undue emphasis to part of the study while underplaying the "big shrug" that is the actual outcome. If you can find a consensus for your change, by all means, make it, but consider me (another) no for the moment. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote above includes a pretty obvious disclaimer about the quality of the studies reviewed, and reading the source, it makes the same point elsewhere, as well. I think drawing any conclusion other than "inconclusive" from this source is stretching the bounds of WP:OR.
Also, a quick look at the page history suggests that the section below is not going to turn out well for the filer. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that whole 'Uses' section needs a prune, do we need an arbitrary selection of trials in the last few years, based on primary sources? Cherry-picking the trials and putting them into a list is at serious risk of misrepresenting the scientific consensus. Propose we remove the 3 lines about trials entirely ("A 2012 review[...]poor quality.") JeffUK (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this, and think it should be removed. There's just a real lack of certainty so far as I can see. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I'm talking about the 3 reviews, not just the one in this discussion. For reference, Google Scholar has over 15000 results for `"Andrographis paniculata"+review` arbitrarily picking 3 of those for inclusion seems to be giving them undue weight if nothing else. JeffUK (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my response was definitely ambiguous, but by "it" I meant "the Uses section." I agree that not only should the study directly at issue be removed but the others as well. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to make this change, it was reverted with no real explanation... JeffUK (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reviews cited are clearly relevant to its use in alternative medicine. The ability of alternative medicines to interfere with other drugs is important, partly because patients often don’t think they need to let their doctor know they’re taking them, and the review about respiratory infections is particularly relevant in the context of the following paragraph about it being touted as a treatment for a respiratory infection. And your claims that reviews have nothing to do with alternative medicine, and that “if there is an established scientific consensus, it's no longer Alternative Medicine by definition” are nonsense. There’s a well established scientific consensus on homeopathy, for example, and that remains firmly within “alternative medicine”. As for “little to do with ‘Uses’”, again, whether something works for a particular purpose is entirely relevant to its use for that purpose. Brunton (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, taking that into account, I've refactored that section to make it clear. 1. why we care about an inconclusive review (i.e. in the context of the use for treating Covid), and 2. that the extracts from the other two reviews are specifically the safety concerns raised by those reviews, rather than a comprehensive summary of the findings of those reviews. JeffUK (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Creat_-_herbal_treatment_for_RTIs for a good discussion on this issue -- TL;DR, it looks like the review itself unfortunately may be ambiguous. There's also some discussion of Wikipedia's role in protecting people from misunderstanding things, and whether or not that is actual policy. -- Phyzome (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation above is from the abstract, not the review itself. We should be relying on the actual conclusion of the review, and that is “the evidence is inconclusive”. Brunton (talk) 07:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, subsequent to that, having 'There was an inconclusive review' in the article at all seems pointless, and not related at all to 'Alternative Medicine' or 'Usage'. JeffUK (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The conclusion section of the discussed study says that it may relieve symptoms and reduce time of the symptoms resolution but the rest is inconclusive.[1] That's it. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's basically what I updated the description to say, as mentioned below and in accordance with the discussion on the MEDRS page. -- Phyzome (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Phyzome: I disagree. I propose to replace the following highlighted word from the current revision by explicit statement that we are talking about ARTI symptoms specifically:
[...] indicated possible support for its efficacy and safety, but cautioned that the trials reviewed were of poor quality and thus not conclusive [...][08:35, September 4, 2021]
AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, I see what you mean -- it's a little vague right now on what efficacy means. For example, they didn't study prevention at all, just duration and severity. I'm not entirely sure how to reword this without making it unwieldy. Because their findings around efficacy are stronger than their findings around safety, it might be worth separating those two in the description. Perhaps replace indicated [...] conclusive. with indicated that it shortened duration and reduced severity of cough and sore throat to some degree. Safety findings were less conclusive, although reported adverse effects were generally mild. However, the paper cautioned that the trials reviewed were of poor quality and that further research is required. I don't know if this would satisfy everyone, though. -- Phyzome (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just make it shorter. That's it. Best. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving the description of the review out of the COVID section to the Traditional Use section, since it was conducted in 2017 and therefore none of the reviewed studies involved COVID-19. (I'll also make this clear in the edit.) However, "inconclusive" is still a misleadingly incomplete description (again, see the excellent discussion on the WP MED page) and needs to be presented in the same manner as it was in the review's Conclusions section if we're going to mention the review at all. I think the edit should capture a pretty wide range of input from that discussion. Let me know what you think. -- Phyzome (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Xiao-Yang Hu, Ruo-Han Wu, Martin Logue, Clara Blondel, Lily Yuen Wan Lai, Beth Stuart, Andrew Flower, Yu-Tong Fei, Michael Moore, Jonathan Shepherd, Jian-Ping Liu, George Lewith (2017). "Andrographis paniculata (Chuān Xīn Lián) for symptomatic relief of acute respiratory tract infections in adults and children: A systematic review and meta-analysis". PLOS ONE. 12 (8): e0181780. Bibcode:2017PLoSO..1281780H. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0181780. PMC 5544222. PMID 28783743.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrographis_paniculata&oldid=1198718306"