Talk:Irvingia gabonensis

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

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 african mango. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink |project talk page]] -- TinucherianBot (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

swiss0112358

I would recommend to rename the article Dika. I wanted to post my entry under Dika, but since Dika redirects here I made it here. The whole article is about Irvingia gabonensis only the listed species in the taxobox are not, that is why I would recommend to call it Dika.

Swiss0112358 (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Feedback to tha article

marcotting is "air layering" --> Marcotting --Mannalem (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

pharmacological uses...what happened to this section?

I recently added an edit under pharmacological uses for African Mango as follows: A recent study revealed that antioxidant activity of the fermented Mango leaves generally increased with increasing fermented extract concentration as did the fermented extracts' polyphenol and flavonoid contents.[5] The antioxidant properties of fermented mango leaf extracts suggest the fermented extracts may be useful in developing health food and fermentation-based beauty products. But now I see that the entire section has been deleted. Shall I add my edit under uses? Ashweig134 (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No, the information is preliminary per WP:PRIMARY and does not warrant inclusion in the article. See WP:MEDRS and WP:NOTJOURNAL. --Zefr (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Review of clinical studies

I moved this discussion out of the article to here for 3 main reasons to better discuss among editors whether this section has merit: a) the overall research quality reviewed in the publication by Onakpoya et al. is conspicuously poor; b) the conclusions reached, whether showing efficacy for weight loss or not, are equivocal and doubtful about providing anything factually clear for readers of the article; and c) the journal in which the Onakoya paper was published is not a WP:MEDRS-quality source, and the suggestion that actual weight loss occurred (a "medical" statement) does not seem credible based on the weaknesses of the studies reviewed. Accordingly, including the section on clinical research hinting at evidence of weight loss efficacy gives WP:UNDUE significance to the publication and statements it includes, whether effective for weight control or not.

Following is the removed section and this is the Onakpoya source cited:

A review of clinical research on consuming dika for weight management identified three randomized clinical trials, all of which reported significant positive effect, however all three had irregularities in testing methods and reporting. The review concluded, "The results from available RCTs suggest that I. gabonensis supplementation causes significant reductions in body weight and waist circumference. However, the reporting of the methodology of the RCTs is poor and all the trials are of short duration. Until good quality trials demonstrating its efficacy are available, I. gabonensis cannot be recommended as a weight loss aid."

Let's review it here and invite other editors for opinions on WP:MEDRS quality. --Zefr (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The "African mango" is promoted by many (rogue?) sellers of food supplements and people refer to Wikipedia for a balanced view. Hence, it is not good to ignore this subject. We can discuss it here but please put the section you removed back to the article. If you personally don't like something you should not delete other people's work. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this fruit, its seeds or extracts have been hyped in the consumer market while no research to date has proved a convincing effect. As we are writing an encyclopedia article on a medically-related subject, not a review of literature, our sources for content have to follow WP:MEDRS. The Onakpoya article is not a meta-analysis (see statistical description which was not performed by Onakpoya) but rather is a brief review of poorly designed primary studies, then published in a journal (J of Dietetic Supplements) that is not a bona fide MEDRS source.

Note in your quote above the opposing statements: 1) I. gabonensis supplementation causes significant reductions in body weight and 2) "Until good quality trials demonstrating its efficacy are available, ...". This second statement means the studies were so poorly constructed to disallow a conclusion. In simpler words, the studies were useless.

Since all the available literature has been derived from WP:PRIMARY experiments and no well-designed human clinical trials have been done, there is no MEDRS-supported statement to make about efficacy on body weight or weight loss.

Draft compromise under a subtitle, "Supplements": Although I. gabonensis has been marketed as an aid for weight management, there is little clinical evidence it has any benefit. Using this as a source. --Zefr (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree to compromise but suggest more explicit wording: "Although food supplements from dika under the name "African mango" have been marketed as an aid for weight management, the clinical trials done to date have not unequivocally confirmed its benefit. Currently there is no scientific evidence for recommending I. gabonensis as a weight loss aid." Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Done, with minor copyediting and thanks for your kind interaction. --Zefr (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Re-evaluation

This text and reference below were removed from the article for the following reasons: a) a study that concludes the RCTs had "irregularities in testing methods and reporting" means the studies were poorly done and their results are spurious and unreliable, i.e., not worth including in an encyclopedia as if they were factual; b) the journal in which the study was reported is a low-quality journal and not a WP:MEDRS quality source per this WP guideline. The Journal of Dietary Supplements has an impact factor of 1.05 (indicative of poor quality), far too low to be used as a medical source. --Zefr (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Disputed edit removed: A review of clinical research on consuming dika for weight management identified three randomized clinical trials, all of which reported significant positive effect, however all three had irregularities in testing methods and reporting. The review concluded, "The results from available RCTs suggest that I. gabonensis supplementation causes significant reductions in body weight and waist circumference. However, the reporting of the methodology of the RCTs is poor and all the trials are of short duration. Until good quality trials demonstrating its efficacy are available, I. gabonensis cannot be recommended as a weight loss aid.[1]

(1) Please give a reference on the threshold impact factor that makes a scientific journal credible. (2) A more accurate citation of the earlier dated source suggested by Zefr makes African mango look more credible as a dietary supplement. Well, so be it. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

These are high impact factor journals, with around 7 being the lowest acceptable quality for clinically valid sources. With an impact factor of 1, J Diet Suppl is a weak non-medical journal by any standards, and is far from acceptable as a MEDRS source. --Zefr (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no impact factor threshold in WP:MEDRS. And please stop deliberately distort conclusions from sources. 05:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergei Gutnikov (talk • contribs)

To add to article

To add to this article: a photo of the fruits. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - unfortunately, there are no pictures of fruits in Wikimedia Commons. Zefr (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)