Talk:Iberogast

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the article

I'm sorry there's no one here to thank. Anyone connected to Wikipedia already knows, intellectually, that it touches millions of lives. Let me make this a little more concrete. I was really laid low by dyspepsia last year: hurting, scared, debilitated. My GI specialist told me science didn't understand dyspepsia and he had no remedies to offer. I found this article while looking for my own answers, and I've just written the manufacturer to thank them for all the comfort it's given me over the past year. Note that this didn't even turn up on MEDLINE, as far as I know. So, all I am trying to say is that if you contribute knowledge to Wikipedia, you never know who it may help, or how much. Thank you. Chairease (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Misleading reference use

The reference used in this article refers to a study into its (Iberogasts) ability to reduce the severity of induced mucositis in rat intestine. The study clearly states at the end of the abstract that "it conferred no significant protection". This product is often refered to as "clinically proven" in its own advertising. Does this study represent the evidence for such assertions? The reference is used here to support the statement that this product has been part of clinical studies. However, as the following statement in the article indicates that this product is effective, the use of this specific reference is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NBrereton (talk • contribs) 10:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Nothing notable about this article

As a professional herbalist, I see nothing notable about this. Whereas it may well be a useful combination of remedies for a large number of sufferers (and I have had IBS myself), most herbalists could come up with a prescription which was more effective for a specific individual after a consultation with them. This is just a combination with intellectual property rights imposed on it for some reason. Nineteenthly (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Counts Disagree

The article opens saying nine herbs but there are only eight in the list. FWIW. ;Bear (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

About this article

I removed the link to a website that sold it. They didn't invent it. They just decided to register a domain name which was the name of a popular drug, to get some sales that way. This medication has been out for decades, and is thus out of patent. There are ample news stories about it. Google news archive search [1] has 110 results to sort through, many of them in German. A government website list various test done on it. [2] This isn't a "fringe theory" in any possible way. Why is it tagged for that and why are people from that Wikiproject coming over here removing much of the content? I think an ingredient's list would be useful to understanding what it is. Dream Focus 13:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

We base article content on what reliable sources say, not what we think is useful WP:OR. You appear to misunderstand what consistutes a fringe theory on wikipedia, please check WP:FRINGE. The same government website will also list many tests done on homeopathy, homeopathy is also considered fringe on wikipedia. Homeopathy gives 4503 search engine results back on pubmed while iberogast returns just 47. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Nature (journal) is the first thing that comes up in a Google news search[3], but you have to pay to read the entire article. The Wikipedia article for them says "Nature, first published on 4 November 1869, is ranked the world's most cited interdisciplinary scientific journal by the Science Edition of the 2010 Journal Citation Reports." So it gets coverage. And homeopathy isn't a drug but a concept involving a large number of things. There is no fringe theory involved in an actual substance where accepted scientific studies have shown it actually works, it not fringe at all, but instead accepted by the mainstream medical community. Dream Focus 15:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No. It's not Nature. The source you found is:

The American Journal of Gastroenterology 102, 1276–1283 (1 June 2007) | doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01142.x

Here's another source that can be used: [[4]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This seems a fine source if it passes WP:MEDRS. The sample sizes appear small (196 took iberogast). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That is Nature. Nature.com redirects there, and the article says "in 1997, Nature created its own website, www.nature.com," and www.nature.com is listed as the official website in that article. Anything on their website they approve to be there, so its a reliable source. Dream Focus 15:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be many reliable sources (see PubMed). Boghog (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't base content on primary information in papers as per WP:MEDRS, hence we need to be careful on how the sources are used. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Of the 47 iberogast papers indexed by PubMed, 10 are review articles and consequently are secondary sources. Furthermore, according to PubMed, two (PMID 16926095 and PMID 12618546) of the three currently cited papers in this Wikipedia article are review articles and hence are secondary sources. The third (PMID 15606389) while not classified by PubMed as a review, is a meta-analysis and therefore is by definition secondary. Boghog (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

For two of the three citation currently in this Wikipedia article:

• PMID 12618546 – "For the estimation of the clinical effectiveness a systematic review was performed (data research: January 1970 to September 2002)." These are human clinical studies and a review of more than one study.
• PMID 15606389 – A meta-analysis of six randomized-controlled human clinical trials.

Hence both of the above citations conform to WP:MEDRS. Boghog (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should be using the non-trademarked name for Iberogast? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that an INN would be preferable, but apparently no INN is available for Iberogast (see WHO INN search). Boghog (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)