Talk:Feverfew: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 07:28, 25 December 2024

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{WikiProject Plants|class=|importance=}}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|
+{{WikiProject Plants}}
+}}
-I removed the disambig designation because this article just did not seem to match the [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation|definition]], especially this section:
-Do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page, if there is no risk of confusion. Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", would they expect to view any of the articles listed on the disambiguation page? Disambiguation pages are not search indices -- do not add links that merely contain part of the page title where there is no significant risk of confusion. [[User:Triddle|Triddle]] 16:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-== Erroneous Information ==
-Feverfew is one plant which has been placed in several different genera according to the whims of the taxonomists.  I am revising the article to fit the facts. -- [[User:WormRunner|WormRunner]] | [[User talk:WormRunner|Talk]] 15:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
-Just an enquiry - I'm sorry I'm not really on familiar ground here.  I've have seen a reference on the internet suggesting that BEES don't like FEVERFEW and that planting pots of feverfew (since it's inclined to prolific growth, pots limit its abundance) may help control bees.  If you have any factual information in this area, readers may enjoy the benefits. thanks.
-----
-About the efficacy of Feverfew in migraines and human anti-cancer trails.  There are indeed studies that show Feverfew is effective vs. placebo in treating migraines (1,2,3).  There also has been a trial of Feverfew's anticancer properties in humans(4).
-) Diener HC, Pfaffenrath V, Schnitker J, Friede M, Henneicke-von Zepelin HH. Efficacy and safety of 6.25 mg t.i.d. feverfew CO2-extract (MIG-99) in migraine prevention -- a randomized, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled study. Cephalalgia. 2005;25(11):1031-41.
-) De Weerdt CJ, Bootsma HPR, Hendriks H. Herbal Medicines in migraine prevention. Randomized double-blind placebo controlled crossover trial of a feverfew preparation. Phytomedicine. 1996;3:225–230.
-)Johnson ES, Kadam NP, Hylands DM, Hylands PJ. Efficacy of feverfew as prophylactic treatment of migraine. Br Med J. 1985;291:569–573.
-) Curry EA 3rd, Murry DJ, Yoder C, et al., Phase I dose escalation trial of feverfew with standardized doses of parthenolide in patients with cancer. Invest New Drugs. 2004;22(3):299-305.
-I can go ahead and update the article to include the above studies.  Let me know what you guys think. [[User:Vajko|Vajko]] ([[User talk:Vajko|talk]]) 07:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
-:The most recent authoritative reviews (which analyze most of the above trials, plus a number that you didn't mention) have concluded that there's no convincing evidence of effectiveness. I don't think we should pick out the positive trials and cite them in isolation. It seems that when ''all'' available high-quality evidence is reviewed (including both positive ''and'' negative trials), experts have concluded that there's no convincing effect. So that's what we should convey. It's a bit misleading to cite the positive studies in isolation.<p>Regarding your specific sources, I am unable to find the De Weerdt paper on [[PubMed]]/[[MEDLINE]], but I believe it was a ''negative'' trial (the authors reported no discernible effect of feverfew on headaches). That's how it's presented in the [[Cochrane Library]] review. Could you clarify whether you believe the De Weerdt study claims effectiveness? '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 18:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
-== feverfew interaction with high blood pressure medication ==
-Did anyone have a reaction from feverfew and medications like Benicar and Bystolic?  Both meds for HBP.  <span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/96.245.185.228|96.245.185.228]] ([[User talk:96.245.185.228|talk]]) 22:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-== Incorrect link ==
-Searching for "Bhumiamalaki" incorrectly redirects to Feverfew.
-Bhumiamalaki is a traditional Sanskrit (Hindu?) name for Phyllanthus niruri syn. Phyllanthus amarus.  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Pavel-ahp|Pavel-ahp]] ([[User talk:Pavel-ahp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pavel-ahp|contribs]]) 20:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-== Odd... ==
-This is rather odd. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3210009/?tool=pubmed This paper] (recently added by an IP editor) is billed as a "systematic review". But it doesn't appear to actually ''be'' a [[systematic review]]. In a systematic review, the authors start by specifying their search strategy, and then ''systematically'' search for papers on a topic. A good systematic review will be very clear on how the papers in question were selected, what criteria were used to evaluate the strength of studies, and how the papers were weighted in the author's summary of the topic. This article appears to do none of the above, unless I'm missing something. It seems rather obviously to be a narrative, rather than systematic, review, so I'm a bit puzzled as to why the authors chose to title it "systematic". Anyhow... '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 19:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
-:For info, I've argued on [[WP talk:HISTRS]] that historical overviews in pharmocological papers are problematic, because the authors aren't qualified to comment on social practices across time and space. <blockquote>The ancient Greeks called the herb “Parthenium,” supposedly because it was used medicinally to save the life of someone who had fallen from the Parthenon during its construction in the 5th century BC. The first-century Greek physician Dioscorides used feverfew as an antipyretic. Feverfew also was known as “medieval aspirin” or the “aspirin” of the 18th century.[5,8]
-The plant has been used to treat arthritis, asthma, constipation, dermatitis, earache, fever, headache, inflammatory conditions, insect bites, labor, menstrual disorders, potential miscarriage, psoriasis, spasms, stomach ache, swelling, tinnitus, toothache, vertigo, and worms. Feverfew also has been used as an abortifacient, as an insecticide, and for treating coughs and colds. Traditionally, the herb has been used as an antipyretic, from which its common name is derived.[5–10]
-In Central and South America, the plant has been used to treat a variety of disorders. The Kallaway Indians of the Andes mountains value its use for treating colic, kidney pain, morning sickness, and stomach ache. Costa Ricans use a decoction of the herb to aid digestion, as a cardiotonic, an emmenagogue, and as an enema for worms. In Mexico, it is used as an antispasmodic and as a tonic to regulate menstruation. In Venezuela, it is used for treating earaches.[5]
-The leaves are ingested fresh or dried, with a typical daily dose of 2–3 leaves. The bitterness is often sweetened before ingestion. Feverfew also has been planted around houses to purify the air because of its strong, lasting odor, and a tincture of its blossoms is used as an insect repellant and balm for bites.[2] It has been used as an antidote for overindulgence in opium.[1]</blockquote>[[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 20:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)