Talk:Yizhi capsule

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sources

As you can see the refered studies are from reliable sources (PubMed & Cochrane). Often a Cochrane review debates the effectiveness of a substance, however this may reflect the fact that the studies included are small or of not good quality. A Cochrane review is not conclusive. A new Cochrane metanalysis may lead to a different conclusion. A great example is with huperzine A. The last Cochrane review on its conclusion debates its benefits on Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, in fact there is a lack of large scale good quility studies (RCTs) to show that it really works. Many in vitro and in vivo (animal) studies have demonstrated its effectiveness, however we wait large scale human studies of better quality to ascertain this on human688dim (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Cochrane review is the only source that meets the criteria in WP:MEDRS -- the others are primary research studies, which we don't ordinarily use. Many other editors would simply have removed the other statements, but I didn't want to do that. I insist that the results of the Cochrane review need to stay in this article. If you would like to add more information from that review, though, please go ahead. Looie496 (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Cochrane review/ meta-analysis is essential for this article. My point was that a negative conclusion on a Cochrane review may just reflect that the randomized controlled studies (RCTs) included were not of good quality (e.g. had statistical flaws, small sample etc) so it is not possible to lead to a safe conclusion. For example huperzine A, that even wiki includes on AChE -Inhibitors used for Alzheimer's disease (AD), is debated from a recent Cochrane review, however if we read carefully the review we may concludethat there is a lack of large scale good quality RCTs that would support with a reliable way its effectiveness. 688dim (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I assumed that you were arguing for a change in the article. I gather now that you're not. Looie496 (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]