Talk:Chronic liver disease

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aleternative science section makes no sense

Evidence does not support but homoeopathic medicine [chelidonium,cardus mar and bryonia alba] are useful and helpful in this condition herbal and antioxidant remedies.

The grammatical organization of this sentence makes no sense. It is not clear what the author wanted to say. The article cited in reference [5] says

Some herbal medicines seemed to have positive effects on aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, ultrasound, and computed tomography. We found no significant difference on adverse effects between herbal medicine and control groups. The findings are not conclusive due to the high risk of bias of the included trials and the limited number of trials testing individual herbal medicines. Accordingly, there is also high risk of random errors.

Which means some herbal treatments show positive effects but the error margin is very high, preventing any definitive conclusion.

I have modified the incriminated sentence while someone with more knowledge in medicine fixes it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.6.160.174 (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence of that section also seems strange. I checked the reference and it is a preprint by Nagah, Mohammed A, not a peer-reviewed article (yet). The author of the preprint also seems to be the person that added that sentence in the alternative medicine paragraph.

Regehep proved a great efficacy in curing the periportal fibrosis, competent regeneration of damaged liver cells and restoring the size, shape, outlines as well as echogenicity of the liver safely without serious side effects. It opens a new era for treatment of chronic liver diseases and providing hope for millions suffering from chronic liver disease.

I am removing that paragraph until someone with more medicine experience can fix it.

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS BULLSHIT SENTENCE???

With liver disease, you only get one chance at life and that balance can easily be overturned by a toxic herb

Hello, biased much?? Also the #1 PROVEN HERB to treat liver disease is MILK THISTLE which regenerates the liver. Look it up!

I have added some references to milk thistle under Alternative medicine; it is certainly regarded as first-line treatment by most herbalists and supplement experts, but there is some controversy over its effectiveness and safety.

Done D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lancet commission

... will need to get referenced doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62263-7 (45 pages or thereabouts). JFW | T@lk 22:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No references

This is a mess and needs references and organization to WP:MEDRS. Jrfw51 (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it some medical attention today. It still can benefit from some more help! Jrfw51 (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chronic liver disease. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100131040659/http://www.gastro.com/Gastro/liverdisease.aspx to http://www.gastro.com/Gastro/liverdisease.aspx

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) 23:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

URL current as of 30 Nov. 2017. Looks like a very useful site, with many links. Might be worth adding to an External Links section.

Done D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative medicine refs

I have added to the section Alternative medicine a reference to a commercial site, LifeExtension. Although I would not normally use a commercial site as a reliable reference, this page seems to me to have a NPOV, packs much detail into one article, and fits well with information I have compared from other sources. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I hope my additions give this section a more neutral POV; the previous version seemed rather biased and dismissive. While alternative medicine is often controversial, there are good, peer-reviewed papers on both sides, and WP should show balance with good refs for both standpoints. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]