Talk:Salsalate

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Salsalate article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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 Salsalate.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Moved non-free link

From article body: The research article is in the journal Diabetes Care, available online (not free) here: [1].Awotter (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salsalate may help control blood sugar levels in Type 2 diabetes

Please read the article by Jacob Goldstein in the Jan 20, 2009 Wall Street Journal, page A12, in reference to the research underway at the Harvard-affiliated Joslin Diabetes Center. In early studies the drug significantly lowered spikes in blood sugar. Results warranted a larger NIH supported trial, which is now underway.---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.96.97 (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tau Acetylation and Salsalate

At least four different users have tried to include mention of the recent journal article out of UCSF that received widespread coverage in popular media. ([2][3][4][5]. TylerDurden8823 (talk · contribs) has removed mention each time, citing WP:MEDRS. While appreciating the need to use careful wording devoid of any medical speculation, our repeated scrubbing of a scientific study which was widely reported in reliable sources is based on one Wikipedian's personal evaluation of the science, which smacks of well-intentioned WP:OR. Darmokand (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is removing the addition of a primary mouse study (even from a well-respected journal like Nature) paper meeting WP:OR criteria exactly? To quote a section of WP:MEDRS (more specifically found here (WP:MEDPRI): "...Wikipedia is not a venue for open research." and "Findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as original, primary research is reported, before the scientific community has analyzed and commented on the results. Therefore, such sources should generally be entirely omitted (see recentism). Determining weight of studies generally requires reliable secondary sources (not press releases or newspaper articles based on such sources). If conclusions are worth mentioning (such as large RCTs with surprising results), they should be described appropriately as from a single study:

"A large, NIH-funded study published in 2010 found that selenium and Vitamin E supplements increased risk of prostate cancer; they were previously thought to prevent prostate cancer." (citing PMID 20924966)

Given time a review will be published, and the primary sources should preferably be exchanged for the review. Using secondary sources then allows facts to be stated with greater reliability:

"Supplemental Vitamin E and selenium increase the risk of prostate cancer." (citing PMID 23552052)

If no reviews on the subject are published in a reasonable amount of time, then the content and primary source should be removed." TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

per WP MEDRS and reference in question, TylerDurden8823 is correct--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - removal of primary research is appropriate, as scientific consensus is not yet established. — soupvector (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]