Talk:Rhodiola rosea

More references needed

Many of the key statements are not backed up with references, particularly under "uses of". For example, reference 1 links to a citation-lacking website (http://www.mdidea.com/products/herbextract/salidroside/data.html) as opposed to, say, PubMed papers. Sal7777777 (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Such products are very hard for producing authoritative wiki articles. They may also be subject to agenda-laden edits from one or opposing camps. I see the issue of adaptogens has been edited out, quite rightly due possibly to some misunderstanding of what they are: however both scientific balance and acknowledgement of traditional perceived effectiveness has its place. (The logic of this is: there is no proof that many substances have the effect claimed by traditional medicine, but neither is there proof that they do not.) The evidence on Rhodiola Rosea is contradictory and most studies were flawed, so cannot be relied on as proof of efficacy. One paper in teh medical press outlined a proposed study with sufficient safeguards and rigor, though probably it has not yet been done. Partly to increase the needed references and partly to demonstrate that teh science is tentative rather than condemnatory, I am adding a further reference with a small note. It is by the European Medicines Agency, so a reasinably authoritative source. WC500127861.pdf available at http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Herbal_-_HMPC_assessment_report/2012/05/WC500127861.pdf Kind regards, Parzivalamfortas 19:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzivalamfortas (talk • contribs)

claims in lede about FDA

The part about the FDA in the lede is backed by a reliable source. It is a pdf that you can find here by removing the space between the two o's in the following link: http://www.go ogle.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fda.gov%2Fdownloads%2FDrugs%2FGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation%2FEnforcementActivitiesbyFDA%2FCyberLetters%2Fucm059168.pdf&ei=SA5vUa2SN8PU0gHQ54DwBA&usg=AFQjCNHZlNlcYCgefoH6gsPZNfXkd5sS9Q&sig2=IzWOiwqVvkRK3QoVTBg-KA

The pdf is only accessible through the google domain. The google domain is blocked by wikipedia for technical reasons that are unrelated to this source. Please remember that WP:V requires that info be verifiable, not verified. In other words, there must be a source, but that source does not have to be cited in the article. If you would like to verify the info, I welcome you to look at that pdf. Thank you. Please do not delete the lede because it doesn't have a source because it can be found here.

I do not know how to make a different link to the source. If you know how, please let me know. Thanks.MidnightRequestLine (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, when I punched in the address, I was forwarded to a URL not hosted by google, so inclusion of this url should be fine. I question whether this is a sufficient WP:RS for the claim made in the article. I would feel more comfortable with something other than a primary source to verify this - perhaps a review of the event or some secondary source that discusses the account. Rkitko ^(talk) 02:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay - added it. Will be searching for better source. Thank you, MidnightRequestLine (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I feel the section about the FDA removal a bit deceptive and unclear. After reading the pdf it seems the only complaint was to a specific website about portraying the product (which included echinacea, rhodiola rosea and other botanicals) as "drugs". Can someone with more editing experience weigh in on this? - anon. 05/09/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.196.21 (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.livestrong.com/article/168785-what-is-rhodiola-good-for/ simply isn't a reliable source. Nor does it verify the information cited. What's it there for and why? --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing is not that cut and dry. It is being used for the sentence about how some people claim the plant treats anywhere from fatigue to cancer. Let me offer an analogy for why this is allowed. Say Donald Trump had a personal website in which he claimed that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This is obviously not a reliable source to say "Barack Obama is from Kenya." But, if we phrase it properly, we can use the source to say something like "Donald Trump has claimed that Barack Obama was born in Kenya." See the difference? Livestrong is popular and stable enough to use as a source for such a claim. We cannot use it to say "this plant treats cancer", but we can use it to say "some people have claimed that this plant treats cancer." MidnightRequestLine (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

FDA Warning Letters: There is a common misunderstanding as to what such a letter is about. Dietary supplement companies are not allowed to make treatment or prevention claims on labels or websites EVEN IF HUMAN TRIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE CLAIMS. This relates to the DSHEA law passed in 1994. A Warning Letter does NOT mean that the FDA rejects the science, only that companies are not allowed to make claims based on science (or make claims without any science). The action of making a claim means the FDA must treat the product as a drug, and when it does - Voila! it's an unapproved new drug. If the company amends its label and website to make no health claim it can continue to sell the product. David notMD (talk) 10:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Contradictions

This article is self-contradictory. The introduction says "it has never been conclusively shown to be effective in treating any medical condition" but later on says "there is scientific evidence only for depression as a benefit in humans". Perhaps "never been conclusively shown" is not entirely inconsistent with some "scientific evidence", but this vagueness needs to be clarified. Also there are apparent contradictory statements about which chemical are present, which are predominant, and which may be responsible for the pharmacology (if there is any). Deli nk (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a large amount of scholarly data supporting it's efficacy. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19168123 Guosim (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Studies on health conditions

I added some studies of rhodiola Meel11223 (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

All those studies are primary research in journals that do not publish rigorous clinical research, and do not meet WP:MEDRS. High-quality systematic reviews are needed for medical content; WP:MEDSCI. The content added and its sources are not usable. --Zefr (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The sources are in peer reviewed scientific journals and adhere to WP:MEDRS, and WP:MEDSCI. Looks like you have a NPOV problem, and a bias.

Meel11223: Your last edit disrupted and eliminated two references from respected sources that had long been in the article: Drugs.com and NIH. Drugs.com states "Clinical trials supporting therapeutic claims are of limited quality and quantity." Your sources are individual, limited-subject, preliminary, non-review studies published in non-clinical journals - they do not qualify as WP:MEDRS reviews, should not be used in the lede, and represent your statement of "promising" results, which is not a MEDRS statement for an encyclopedia and is easily refuted by the weak evidence in the sources. This is not an edit war, but rather is a matter of competent interpretation of sources, WP:CIR, which you are not doing. --Zefr (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Meel11223 added this statement and sources to the lede: "Studies on those symptoms, fatigue, stress, cognition, and other mood symptoms, have shown promising results."

References

• ref #1 is a pilot study on only 100 subjects. Under Shortcomings in the article, the authors acknowledged the exploratory, preliminary nature of the study, providing evidence that it was not conclusive, and so is not a MEDRS-quality review.
• ref #2 is another non-placebo pilot study using just 40 subjects who took R. rosea extract. Clearly, it is very preliminary and not MEDRS-quality.
• ref #3 is an alternative medicine source with a woeful impact factor and is not an encyclopedic source.
• ref #4 is another pilot study on just 20 subjects. Not a MEDRS source.
• ref #5 is a review of lab studies and two clinical trials. This source might be used in a Research section in the article, but the full article content is not available without a subscription, so cannot be fully assessed by the general Wikipedia user.

Conclusion: there is insufficient MEDRS support to discuss possible or "promising" effects of R. rosea extract in the lede, so I am removing it again. There is no WP:MEDSCI consensus to state possible or promising efficacy.

I have also removed from this talk page discussion the banners and edit warring notices used by Meel11223 -- they do not address improving the article per WP:TALK. --Zefr (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)