[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:BGR-34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Removed text

[edit]

CC-BY-SA declaration; text below was removed from the article by me; I've left it here in case its removal breaks any references, which may also be used by future editors. Baffle gab1978 23:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ayurveda is a system of medicine with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent[1] and practices derived from it form a type of alternative medicine.[2][3] Whilst some researchers consider it to be pseudoscientific[4], others consider it a protoscience or trans-science system instead.[5][6]

References

  1. ^ Meulenbeld, Gerrit Jan (1999). "Introduction". A History of Indian Medical Literature. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. ISBN 978-9069801247.
  2. ^ Smith, Frederick M.; Wujastyk, Dagmar (2008). "Introduction". In Smith, Frederick M.; Wujastyk, Dagmar (eds.). Modern and Global Ayurveda: Pluralism and Paradigms. New York, NY: SUNY Press. pp. 1–28. ISBN 9780791478165. OCLC 244771011. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  3. ^ "A Closer Look at Ayurvedic Medicine". Focus on Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 12 (4). Fall 2005 – Winter 2006. Archived from the original on 2006-12-09.
  4. ^ Semple D, Smyth R (2013). Chapter 1: Psychomythology (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-19-969388-7. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  5. ^ Quack, Johannes (2011). Disenchanting India: Organized Rationalism and Criticism of Religion in India. Oxford University Press. pp. 213, 3. ISBN 9780199812608.
  6. ^ Manohar, P. Ram (2009). "The blending of science and spirituality in the Ayurvedic healing tradition". In Paranjape, Makarand R. (ed.). Science, Spirituality and the Modernization of India. Anthem Press. pp. 172–3. ISBN 9781843317760.

Baffle gab1978 23:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transcribed from discussion on WT:MED re: relevance of WP:MEDRS

[edit]

The BGR-34 article is currently a Biology and Medicine Good Article Nominee. It concerns an Ayurvedic drug which appears to have received quite a bit attention in the lay press (largely in India) but very little in peer-reviewed medical journals. Accordingly, the long list of references is largely to articles in the lay press. I'm just wondering what the stance is on WP:MEDRS for this sort of article. I haven't been much involved in pharma articles so far, and even less so in articles on alternative therapies and wondered if this still applied. These kinds of sources seem to be very thin on the ground for this drug based on a quick PubMed search despite the drug appearing to be a notable subject and well worth including in the encyclopaedia. Secondly, what do others think of the neutrality? The article is quite critical of the drug which is probably justified, but I wondered if others felt that it was too slanted in this direction.

I was tempted to have a go at doing a Good Article review for this one, but wanted some opinions on sourcing and neutrality beforehand.

Also notifying the main contributor to the article. @Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks, PeaBrainC (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your willingness to do the GAR.
IMHO, MEDRS is applicable only if I wish to make a claim that the drug works or cures some disease or the like. That there is no MEDRS related to the drug is one of the core locus of criticism (and the article).
As to the negative slant, anything otherwise falls in FALSE BALANCE territory, IMO. Every report on the drug, that came out after the initial buzz, has been uniformly critical of it and the process invested in it. I also have two more sources (atleast one of which is more scathing than any I have read) but are sitting behind lofty paywalls:(∯WBGconverse 11:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PeaBrainC, I have raised the same queries (about MEDRS) over FTN days back but got no response.
If there is no response in the next 72 hrs over either thread; I think we ought to proceed to the GAR. ∯WBGconverse 07:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear you didn't get much response. I hope to get round to the review in time but it won't be for a couple of weeks at least due to real life commitments. There's time to wait for an opinion from editors with more experience than me. Here's hoping someone responds on this board! PeaBrainC (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A significant part of this article isn't Wikipedia:Biomedical information, but some of it is. If "ideal" sources aren't available, then you will have to use the best sources that you can find.
Also, the sentence with 13 refs at the end, in addition to 10 more refs in the middle, probably needs a little more thought. Pick the best sources, and skip the rest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
agree w/ WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input WhatamIdoing and Ozzie10aaaa. @Winged Blades of Godric: - things have got busy in the real world so I'm not going to be able to do the review any time soon. I will copy this discussion to the article's talkpage to inform anyone who gets round to doing the review any sooner. PeaBrainC (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:BGR-34/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 20:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Reading now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack, thank you:-) ∯WBGconverse 05:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The drug has been heavily criticized as a sham treatment.[2] – The source does not explicitly condemn it as a sham treatment or placebo, it just states that scientific evidence was not adequately provided.
     Doing... Good point and will need to think on this; need to re-read all the sources.
    Probably, we need to re-frame that, w/o using the word. ∯WBGconverse 13:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Removed word. ∯WBGconverse 16:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure that all information from the lead also appears in the body. This way, you do not necessarily need references in the lead.
     Not doneIt (near-entirely) appears in body and I remember at least 2 FA with abundant citations in lead. ∯WBGconverse 15:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That is fine, at least for an GA. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ; Berberis aristata (daruharidra), Tinospora cordifolia (giloy), Pterocarpus marsupium (vijaysar), Gymnema sylvestre (gudmar), Rubia cordifolia (manjeestha) and Fenugreek (methi) – I suggest to use a colon (:). Also, scientific names need to be in italics, while common names are not written in italics.
     Done; concur in entirety.
  • References often lack publisher, author or other information, and formatting is not uniform (e.g., "CSIR launches ayurvedic anti-diabetic drug BGR-34". @businessline.). Also, there are some errors highlighted.
     Doing... Those citation data were automatically pulled by Citoid engine, almost always.
    So damn boring.
  • was uploaded months to Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI) months later – something off here.
     Done; struck the first months.Stray word insertion.
  • Claims of high clinical efficacy in multiple clinical and animal trials were reported by CSIR. – Do you mean claims were made by CSIR? If they only reported them, who made the claims?
     Done; they (CSIR) made the claims :-)
  • and it was near-unanimously described as inefficient. – this general statement contradicts an earlier statement that news outlets first favoured the drug.
     Not done; once detailed investigations by media-units were over, (post the initial phase, which I deem as a plain rebroadcast of press-releases), the myth was busted from all quarters and favorable coverage trickled to zero. See WP:FALSEBALANCE.
    Still, "near-unanimously" is a very strong wording, which is not supported by the cited source. I would read from the source that it was criticised by many, but that "it was near-unanimously described as inefficient" is not covered by the source as far as I can see. What about using "widely" instead, which seems less absolute? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur to an extent.  Done. Note that the Ken piece mentions:-Mainstream media, without a peep into its conspicuous claims, kept it in circulation by publishing reports of how BGR-34 is a breakthrough drug.......But other scientists and doctors are asking questions, and they can’t find any answers......A non-trivial feat if the mechanism of action, safety, efficacy and evidence of clinical management of diabetes is proven and peer reviewed. Except, it is not.......There are inconsistencies galore......
  • A Lancet paper described. Also with other cited papers: We usually give the authors, not the journals. In this case, it makes sense to name the journals, but think about to also name the first author (+ "and colleagues")
     Not done The Lancet is regarded as the gold standard for publication in medicinal fields and it is criticism published by such a respected piece, that matters. The emphasis will be lost by much, if we remove that. Also, the authors are hardly any notable and it does not aid in the reader's understanding of the topic. If a reader wants to retrieve bibliographic data; the citation has all that stuff.
    That is fine. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diabetes needs to be in lower case
     Done for one case; barring the upper cases(s) stemming from quoted stuff.
  • commercialize-able – I think this word is not possible, can you reformulate?
     Done; that will be commercializable.
  • Harsh Vardhan, Minister for Science & Technology has claimed of the drug being well received by people – "has claimed that the drug is well received by people"?
    Meh. Feel free to change, at your discretion.
    It's fine as is, this was maybe not a good suggestion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • blood glucose level – levels
     Done for one case; barring the plurals stemming from quoted stuff.
  • and noted that the ministry was not any involved in the affairs. – do we need the "any"?
     Done; concur.
  • There still is a "citation needed" tag.
     Not done Don't spot any.
    I'm sorry, I menat "clarification needed". Please make sure that all maintainance tags are resolved. If you disagree with one tag, I think it is fine to remove. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
     Done
  • This is my first go; I have the general impression that the article does not fully delivers a neutral point of view; in parts it reads like an opinion piece. Maybe some language adjustment/more careful wording is all that is needed. I will think about it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks for the feedback. I feel this to be complete NPOV stuff but am very willing to listen to criticisms:-) ∯WBGconverse 15:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question is - can there be a Good Article about a bad product, and would there be a perception that a GA reflects favorably on the quality of science for the product? Also, I agree with the opinion expressed in the preceding section, that this article is extremely over-referenced, belaboring minor factual statements with a long string of references that do not cumulatively add to the support of the statements. Less is more!!! David notMD (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It can be a Good Article if it meets the criteria and is neutrally written, no question about it. I don't necessarily agree that this is over-referenced; sometimes you need multiple references to demonstrate a consensus. I don't really see the point of "more is less" in this case; additional references don't hurt. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you are the reviewer I will not remove any more references (but in my opinion the last section is way over-referenced). I intend to take a careful look at the results of the clinical trial. David notMD (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Confirming that there is one published, placebo-controlled trial, published in two journals (and presented at at least two conferences). There is statistical analysis, but weak - given design of four months duration with monthly testing, analysis of variance would have been the correct test. Instead, the authors did a student's t-test on beginning and ending data. In the U.S., one clinical trial would not be considered sufficient evidence to market a dietary supplement with strong claims (this would not be a 'drug' in the U.S.), but legally, a company would be allowed to bring such a product to market with claims that use what is referred to as Structure:Function wording. Example: "Helps maintain normal blood glucose levels." I am not familiar with legalities in India. David notMD (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wot Jens sez. I don't see any minimal over-referencing apart from a line in the last subsection with about 23 refs. Will tend to that and cull to about 12:-) ∯WBGconverse 18:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressing the sole remaining issue of this GAR:--
    Jens has noted

    Without high quality trials, the efficacy of the drug remains unproven.[3][4] – This statement is not covered by the two sources. The problem is that it relates to the presence. This trial was published after the two sources were. So you would need a source stating that this trial did not prove efficacy and was not high standard, or reformulate in some way.

    I thank David for invoking my attention to the fact that this newly published trial is not a new trial. The bunch of researchers (or charlatans, as you prefer) had conducted a CTrial way back in 2016, which they did not publish for long. As there was a lot of hullabaloo post the initial charm as to the complete dearth of any data, they chose to upload the same to CTRI database and subsequently published the same over EJPMR, a journal deemed to be predatory per both Beall's and Cabells' list. It did not take long for the media to pinpoint EJPMR as a shitty journal. So, they chose an OMICS conference, the most shittiest of all predatory publishers out over there, which had the dubious distinction of being summarily awarded a 50 million USD fine, courtesy a FTC suit for mass-fraud. Finally, they latched on to IJTCM for publishing the same stuff. And, Elsevier AND China has an extraordinarily high rate of ........... Days back, it was assigning peer review of one of it's journal to some quasi-governmental institute having numerous crank-heads and raised a storm in social-media.
    A very recently published book:- Sinha, P.; Shaikh, S.; Sidharth, A. (2019-04-17). India Misinformed: The True Story. Harper Collins. ISBN 9789353028381. also devotes pages to the BGR-34 case but makes the same observations and does not mention about the new publication over IJTCM. ∯WBGconverse 18:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What is not known is whether the authors tried for a quality journal, were rejected, and then went with journals (twice for the same study) that either have no or only cursory peer review. My own concerns are no so much the choice of journal, but that the authors published incomplete reporting on their data, and with suspect statistical analysis choices. David notMD (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:MEDRS a clinical trial would not be considered a valid reference, but as the article is about the weakness of evidence for BGR-34, it becomes evidence.David notMD (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric:, @David notMD: Where do we stand? Do you two agree on the current version on the article? I have two additional concerns about the more recent additions. If you could address them, we should be good to go.

  • The AIMIL website does not list the amounts per serving of each plant-derived ingredient. – as the source is only the AIMIL website, I would see this statement on the fringe of WP:OR. This also somehow implies that this website is the primary reference for the properties of the medication; this would also need a source to be on the safe side. Is this sentence really necessary?
  • The use of the word "unethically" is also hard on the border, and imho too much. If this attribute hasn't been attached to the thing by a reliable source (in which case this source needs to be cited), it is a unsourced judgement and as such should be removed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "unethically." That was my condemnation for publishing same study in two journals. The other sentence (also mine) can also be removed. David notMD (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the sentence and the ref to AIMIL website. I am not familiar with label regulations in India. In the U.S., labels must list all ingredients, but are not required to provide the amounts of each ingredient. David notMD (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Similar drugs - others sub-section

[edit]

In my opinion, the entire Others subsection should be deleted before this completes the GA review. While it shines a valid critical spotlight on the India regulatory agencies which have been involved in producing and approving products of unproven efficacy, the content has nothing to do with BGR-34. The immediately preceding subsection on other anti-diabetes drugs of questionable value is sufficient to show that BGR-34 does not have a unique history. David notMD (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. The subsection aids in the readers' understanding of the broader issue of India's lackadaisical regulation and oft-dubious drug approvals in these areas. Also, many newspaper/journal articles et al have mentioned these other cases whilst commenting on BGR-34. ∯WBGconverse 17:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will not delete the section, but hold by my opinion. David notMD (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IRT some sources

[edit]

The following sources are correctly placed in the claims section, although they seem dubious for uncritically making them. The way the text contextualizes them is a good effort but I'm still unsure we'd need them if other sources can be used. The two claims are about side effects as well as it being an effective DPP-4 inhibitor. The dubious sources that appear to be promotional, possibly press releases:

The current Alt News source could be used to cover the side effects claim instead, but I'm not sure yet which to use about DDP-4. Considering this article has the GA tag and that those sources passed through the process, I thought I'd post here instead of boldly removing them. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 07:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BGR-34&oldid=1206281240"