Talk:Insulin-like growth factor 1
Latest comment: 6 days ago by A455bcd9 in topic IGF-1 and CVD
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Insulin-like growth factor 1 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. (September 2010) |
IGF-1 and CVD
edit@Bendegúz Ács: why do we mention the association in the lead as it's not causal per this paper (already cited)? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- The lead is summary of the contents of the article (see MOS:LEAD). The sentence in question is a summary of the Health effects section, which states that low levels are associated with an increased risk of CVD. This content is based on this reference [1], which is fully WP:MEDRS-compliant. Now the paper you linked is just a primary study, so it should not have the same weight as this systematic review and meta-analysis, i.e. a fully WP:MEDRS-compliant source. See WP:MEDASSESS for more information on the distinction and how to use studies representing different quality of evidence. The Mendelian randomisation study does not contradict any claim regarding the health effects of low IGF-1 levels:
Bendegúz Ács (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Another shortcoming is that we could not investigate whether there is a U- or J-shaped relationship between IGF-1 levels and cardiometabolic diseases and insulin resistance, as suggested by a few observational studies
- Got it, thanks. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:MEDRS we shouldn't be linking to a single Mendelian randomisation study. If there was a review or multiple Mendelian randomisation analyses we can cite them, but we shouldn't cite just one study. There needs to be consistent evidence, there is no point in citing one study. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- So let's remove it? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:MEDRS we shouldn't be linking to a single Mendelian randomisation study. If there was a review or multiple Mendelian randomisation analyses we can cite them, but we shouldn't cite just one study. There needs to be consistent evidence, there is no point in citing one study. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)