Talk:Calcium supplement

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rpp58.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A Great Start

I am all for separating calcium as dietary supplement, and perhaps more broadly, calcium in biology, from the calcium entry. This approach has has worked for other minerals which are also essential nutrients. The calcium debate over health benefits versus health risks versus no clinically relevant impact had its real start in the 1980s. After a decades-long flood tide of positive trials, reviews and editorials there was an ebb, reflected in articles concluding that calcium did not have a significant clinical impact, at least if not combined with vitamin D, and also that there were subtle and not so subtle risks linked to calcium supplementation: kidney stones, inappropriate calcification of soft tissue, cardiovascular complications. At the peak of positive opinion there were also efforts to pile on benefits such as lowering blood pressure (very modest for general pop, clearer for pregnancy) and lowering risk of colo-rectal cancer (most but not all meta-analyses agree). References to consider:David notMD (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Weaver CM, Alexander DD, Boushey CJ, Dawson-Hughes B, Lappe JM, LeBoff MS, Liu S, Looker AC, Wallace TC, Wang DD. Calcium plus vitamin D supplementation and risk of fractures: an updated meta-analysis from the National Osteoporosis Foundation. Osteoporos Int. 2016 Jan;27(1):367-76. PMID 26510847

Hofmeyr GJ, Lawrie TA, Atallah AN, Duley L, Torloni MR. Calcium supplementation during pregnancy for preventing hypertensive disorders and related problems. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jun 24;(6):CD001059. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001059.pub4. Review. PMID 24960615.

Proposed Bone Health Edits

Hi everyone,

Since the Bone Health section of this article seems to be missing some valuable information, I have been working on adding a few paragraphs to it, particularly in regards to whether calcium supplementation is necessary for bone health, the effect of calcium supplementation in various population subgroups, and public health policies regarding calcium. I have started drafting these edits in my user sandbox, which I am linking below. I look forward to hearing if you have any suggestions for me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rpp58/sandbox

Rpp58 (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

While your offer to have discussion here first and the sandbox work are laudable, your sandbox draft looks more like a term paper (WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTJOURNAL, #6-7) than it does an encyclopedia entry, which requires high-quality systematic reviews or a meta-analysis of completed randomized controlled trials. This is explained in WP:MEDASSESS, a guideline for medical content. Your draft also has outdated refs, WP:MEDDATE (within 5 years is best). Here's a tutorial regarding choice of medical sources. I don't feel any of your content is usable at this stage. Good luck. --Zefr (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed! It looks like you missed feedback that indicated the need to expand your research into higher quality articles like systematic reviews and meta-analyses. I also recommend reading WP:MEDMOS if you are interested in pursuing Wikipedia editing to help guide you through the writing style recommended for editing medical articles. Let me know if you want to pursue editing and we can have a chat about the process! Saguaromelee (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rpp58, I did a quick scan of your paragraphs. I agree with the above comments. I think you should go through your refs and content again and remove all primary and other non- WP:MEDRS acceptable content/citations. Secondly, the manual of style (WP:MEDMOS as per above comment) will help you understand how WP articles are structured. Are you doing this as part of a course? We greatly appreciate your efforts to help improve the evidence base of Wikipedia articles. I also think it is great that you are posting on the talk page first, this helps us work together to improve the article. Welcome to medical editing! David notMD, do you have anything to add? David noMD is doing a great job improving many of these pages. I am also happy to help once you have done some revisions to your sandbox JenOttawa (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Cardiovascular impact section poor sourcing

Cardiovascular section "needs update"

There is a new Cochrane review out published January 2022. The current Cochrane source for the article was August 2021. However, I am under the impression that medical editors here do not like studies newer than, say, a year. This principle would call for removal of the current hypertension treatment claim unless we can find a source older and more worn-in with critical acclaim from professionals. However, nobody's going to do that, are they? The "systematic review is too new" reason to reject a source isn't used fairly, but only when personal belief on the part of the editor is a corrupting factor. MarshallKe (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Women's Health Initiative study undue

A study investigating the effects of personal calcium supplementation on cardiovascular risk in the Women's Health Initiative Calcium/Vitamin D Supplementation Study (WHI CaD Study) found a modestly increased risk of cardiovascular events, particularly myocardial infarction in postmenopausal women. A broad recommendation of calcium and vitamin D supplements is therefore not warranted.[15] http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d2040

This looks to be a primary source, no doubt cherry-picked in the interest of false balance. Assuming we find the 2021 Cochrane review and the 2013 review to be acceptable sources, this is a clear case of WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:UNDUE, as this viewpoint comes from a much lower quality source. MarshallKe (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

2013 literature review too old

A 2013 literature review concluded that the benefits of calcium supplementation in some studies, such as on bone health, appear to outweigh any risk calcium supplementation may pose to the cardiovascular health.[16] https://doi.org/10.2146%2Fajhp120421

I have seen editors use "review is too old" as a reason not to include information, and this 9 year old one certainly fits the bill. Taken along with the previous two sections I've added to this talk page, applying the strictest of source standards from medical editors that I have encountered in my editing before, I conclude that the entire Cardiovascular Impact section is poorly sourced and should be entirely deleted. Of course, this is ludicrous, isn't it? MarshallKe (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a load of incoherent waffle to make a WP:POINT, but I can't even work out what that's meant to be. Advice: if you want to propose a change say what it is without all the meta-bullshit fighting your imaginary WP:BATTLEs. Alexbrn (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Debating edits, policies, and application of policies is a legitimate activity and neither POINT nor BATTLE apply. This is just your poor attempt to distract people from my valid point rather than addressing it directly. I suspect you are unable to address it directly. MarshallKe (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Your stories about "editors" sprinkled with wanky little asides like "However, nobody's going to do that, are they?" are not "legitimate activity". Any more of this and you'll be finding yourself at ANI. If you want to change content, focus on that without the bullshit. Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Alex, you have been threatening to take me to ANI ever since Shiatsu. You should have plenty of material to work with. I'm getting blue balls here. MarshallKe (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)