Talk:Shielding lotion

reference

• very important to follow Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) as only reviews and meta-analysis (in terms of journals) are MEDRS compliant
• and medical textbooks
• and position statements (NHS,NIH,WHO,CDC,HHS)

should you or any editor follow the above examples there should be no problem, thank you --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa, your statement that "only reviews and meta-analysis (in terms of journals) are MEDRS compliant" is false, and you know it. Reputable textbooks and reference works are equally acceptable. The main point is not to have "only reviews and meta-analyses", but to have sources that are appropriate to the specific type of claim being made. This usually means textbooks and reference works for descriptive material, meta-analyses for treatment efficacy, newspaper articles for drug sales—and sometimes even primary sources for some details. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing I had put textbooks up there as well as position statements, ? --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

And immediately before that, you write "only reviews and meta-analysis (in terms of journals) are MEDRS compliant". So there are two problems here: you have made a false statement that "only reviews and meta-analysis (in terms of journals) are MEDRS compliant", when you actually meant to say "only reviews and meta-analysis (in terms of journals) and medical textbooks and position statements are MEDRS compliant", and your intended statement is also wrong. There are many, many types of sources that are MEDRS-compliant for some purposes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I have added the two "ands" (though it seems obvious...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing

I wonder if The National Skin Care Institute is legit [1] They seem quite cozy with a product called Gloves in a Bottle. Gandydancer (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree..[[2] this does not seem like an acceptable reference--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gandydancer:, @Ozzie10aaaa: I hadn't looked at the entire website, so I wasn't aware of this. I removed the link and will find an alternative link that is more accepted. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Gandydancer, for taking the time to look into that.

As the statement in question is basic and non-controversial, I'm not too worried about it. But it would be ideal to find something that was more reputable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Ref #1 (Williams, DCCN) is not a MEDRS. The article is written conversationally, and the footnote indicates that the author is a technical writer who works for a marketing firm. It reads like an advertisement, and my impression is that it's not peer-reviewed. soupvector (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Ref #1 was published in a well known medical journal, Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, which is completely consistent with MEDRS. That you feel the "article is written conversationally" isn't a valid reason for dismissal. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Similar article

I see that we have a similar article, Barrier cream, that is poorly sourced. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

These are the same topics and I have merged. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Doc James, I was considering this question, and am inclined to concur that they are similar; but there does seem to be some difference in the mechanisms by which the two are purported to work; so perhaps not identical. Shielding lotion bonding with the outer layer of skin and Barrier cream forming a physical barrier between the skin & the environment. This may be sufficiently different. Thoughts? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Most of the refs in the article were about barrier cream. For example the term is in the title of 4, 10, 11, and 15.[3] Shielding lotion is just in the first one. This ref [4] however is not listed as a review by pubmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Doc James, Many thanks for your response, and for the time taken in the analysis of the sources; appreciate it; and, on that basis, concur. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The lack of sourcing for the claim that the product forms a bond was problematic. The new section re marketing is very interesting. Gandydancer (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Gandydancer Doc James The article Shielding lotion should not have been redirected to Barrier cream, at least not without a thorough discussion of the matter. There are major problems with this merger because a barrier cream is not necessarily a shielding lotion and saying "A barrier cream, also known as shielding lotion" is inaccurate. Many barrier creams simply coat the skin with a protectant. A shielding lotion is a type of barrier cream, because the result forms a protective layer, but this protective layer occurs as a result of a molecular bond with the dead skin cells and not an additional chemical layer. The article should remain in its own right, or at the very least have it's own section within the article Barrier cream.

Another example where this occurs is in the article Moisturizer, which could actually be merged with Lotion and vice versa. The problem is that while all lotions are moisturizers, not all moisturizers are lotions. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Adjusted the wording in the lead of that article. Further discussion should really take place their. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)