Talk:Glucosamine: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:04, 26 July 2016

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Chemicals Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Update needed

The "Evaluation for health effects" section is badly outdated, per wp:MEDDATE. It was tagged to identify this, and with a suggested source PMID for an update. Other recent wp:MEDRS sources are PMID 22461188 (PMC 3456914), PMID 22521757, and PMID 22632689. Please do not remove the tag until this problem is addressed. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies on that then. I noticed the referenced PMID had already been integrated into the body of the section so thought it was an oversight that the tag was still there. Did not know there were other PMIDs associated. Liberato (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glucosamine improves joint mobility for 1 in 5 patients with osteoarthritis

On the off chance that anyone around here is interested:

http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7427/0.10

POEM

Glucosamine improves joint mobility for 1 in 5 patients with osteoarthritis

BMJ 2003; 327 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7427.0-i (Published 4 December 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:0.10

Question Is either glucosamine or chondroitin effective in decreasing symptoms of osteoarthritis?

Synopsis The authors of this meta-analysis searched for all randomised, placebo controlled, clinical trials of either glucosamine or chondroitin for hip or knee arthritis. They did a thorough search of several databases and citation lists of retrieved articles and contacted pharmaceutical companies. They winnowed the 500 initially identified studies to 15 that met their inclusion criteria. These studies enrolled 1775 patients. Both drugs produced a pronounced effect on symptoms as identified by a visual analogue scale (effect size 0.49; 95% confidence interval 0.31 to 0.67) and the Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index, a commonly used measure of pain and physical functioning (0.3; 0.11 to 0.49). Joint mobility also improved markedly (0.59; 0.25 to 0.92) with one person responding for every five patients treated (number needed to treat = 4.9). Adverse effect rates were similar for the drugs and placebo.

Bottom line Glucosamine and chondroitin produce a significant and similar effect on symptoms of osteoarthritis, will improve joint mobility for 1 in 5 patients, and also may slow narrowing of joint spaces. Onset of action is several weeks.

Level of evidence 1a (see www.infopoems.com/resources/levels.html); systematic reviews (with homogeneity) of randomised controlled trials.

Richy F, Bruyere O, Ethgen O, et al. Structural and symptomatic efficacy of glucosamine and chondroitin in knee osteoarthritis. A comprehensive meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med 2003;163: 1514-2

↵* Patient-Oriented Evidence that Matters. See editorial (BMJ 2002;325: 983 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.56.234 (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved content to Clinical trials on glucosamine and chondroitin

Hello! I just moved the content about osteoarthritis research to Clinical trials on glucosamine and chondroitin. Please go to the talk page of that article for an explanation of why I did this. In short, the information was confusing, beyond the scope of what Wikipedia health articles should cover, and being independently developed in multiple places on Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love it!!!! Nice to way to solve the thicket of multiple and often conflicting articles covering the same topic. Great. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

US Bias

From the medical uses section: "Oral glucosamine is a dietary supplement and is not a pharmaceutical drug. It is illegal in the US to market any dietary supplement as a treatment for any disease or condition.[4]" I understand why this information was included, but why is it included in the first paragraph of the body in isolation from glucosamine's legal/medicinal status in the rest of the English language diaspora? I fear yet more US bias on "English" language wikipedia. 139.218.177.138 (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this page sounds like a hit piece

Sorry, this page sounds like a hit piece on glucosamine. There's ample medical evidence that it helps relieve arthritis pains and injuries, and it does not convey this. Instead it sounds like a disclaimer. I call this a hit piece. This is one of the worst pages if come to on wikipedia in years, so biased. Somebody's been paid to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.151.139.15 (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely unfounded to claim that this article is the result of someone being paid to write it. In its current state, it has developed over the course of years through the contributions of many editors who voluntarily add to Wikipedia's medical content. (Please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith.) If you would like to suggest specific changes to the article's content, please feel free to do so here. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 20:29, 26 July 2016 edit SineBot (talk \| contribs) Bots 2,555,624 edits m Signing comment by 85.151.139.15 - "→Sorry this page sounds like a hit piece: new section" ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:04, 26 July 2016 edit undo Edgar181 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 196,325 edits WP:AGF Next edit →
Line 64:		Line 64:

	Sorry, this page sounds like a hit piece on glucosamine. There's ample medical evidence that it helps relieve arthritis pains and injuries, and it does not convey this. Instead it sounds like a disclaimer. I call this a hit piece. This is one of the worst pages if come to on wikipedia in years, so biased. Somebody's been paid to do this. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.151.139.15\|85.151.139.15]] ([[User talk:85.151.139.15\|talk]]) 20:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		Sorry, this page sounds like a hit piece on glucosamine. There's ample medical evidence that it helps relieve arthritis pains and injuries, and it does not convey this. Instead it sounds like a disclaimer. I call this a hit piece. This is one of the worst pages if come to on wikipedia in years, so biased. Somebody's been paid to do this. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.151.139.15\|85.151.139.15]] ([[User talk:85.151.139.15\|talk]]) 20:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:It is completely unfounded to claim that this article is the result of someone being paid to write it. In its current state, it has developed over the course of years through the contributions of many editors who voluntarily add to Wikipedia's medical content. (Please see [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]].) If you would like to suggest specific changes to the article's content, please feel free to do so here. -- [[User:Edgar181\|Ed]] ([[User talk:Edgar181\|Edgar181]]) 21:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)