Talk:Psyllium

Latest comment: 17 days ago by Moribundum in topic Applying WP:SUCCINCT

Hugely problematic

edit

Psyllium is many things. This article has to specify if it is about the seeds, seed husks, or some other part of the plant. Nlight2 (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Review marked as unreliable

edit

@Zefr: This source was removed [1]

I found the paper on pubmed central, I thought it would be reliable. Judging the publication on its own merits - the statistical analysis seemed comprehensive, although I am not a statistician. Moribundum (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Gholami, Z; Paknahad, Z (October 2024). "The effect of psyllium consumption on blood pressure: Systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials". Food Science & Nutrition. 12 (10): 7075–7087. doi:10.1002/fsn3.3863. PMC 11521634. PMID 39479650.

Moribundum - the journal, Food Science and Nutrition, is not a clinical journal and is not indexed on MEDLINE, meaning it is unestablished and possibly predatory. It is not a good source for the possible effects of psyllium on blood pressure. Zefr (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Possibly predatory journal? Please look at the source, it seems fine. Moribundum (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
For content on clinical effects - as implied in your edit, a source that is not MEDLINE-indexed (see WP:MEDRS under the Predatory journals section) has insufficient evidence of history and quality to be accepted.
Also, as discussed in the paper's section 4.1, there are too many limitations and weaknesses to give confidence in the report. Zefr (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Discussion of limitations of a study is a normal feature.
It is concerning that you removed this source without reading it.
One other point - my edit that was unrelated to the above source was also deleted. Moribundum (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
With regards to MEDLINE, in the guideline it says the journal may not be reliable if it is not indexed in MEDLINE. [1] Therefore removal of a source because it is not MEDLINE indexed without assessment of either the source or the journal is not constructive editing. In addition, edits unrelated to this source were also deleted at the same time.
As far as I can see this journal is not new, it is over 10 years old. Most of the publications appear to be clinical in nature, related to human nutrition. As for being potentially predatory - the journal does not appear in this list which was linked from the guideline (Beall's List
of Potential Predatory Journals and Publishers). Moribundum (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
You could 1) find a reputable review that reports a clear effect on blood pressure, 2) wait for input on this discussion or ask other editors of this article to assess the quality of the Gholami source, or 3) post a topic at WT:RS where general editors can give feedback.
The main point of the section on hypertension is that supplemental psyllium for two months or longer produced a minor lowering of blood pressure (2 mmHg) in people with hypertension. That is what the article states now, and seems sufficiently described using the one source. Zefr (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't appreciate your suggestions about what I could do.
Kindly don't ignore the points I raised. Removing a source because the journal is not MEDLINE indexed without investigating the journal or reading the source - this action is not supported by this guideline that you cited as justification. It seems to me you only read the source later when you were challenged. This behavior is not constructive.
As far as the claim that the journal could be too new or predatory, as I already stated, I checked in the list that was linked in the guideline, and this journal is not present. Therefore, according to the standards of the guideline it is not a predatory journal. And being over 10 years old means it is not too new.
The source also added some details about mechanism of action of psyllium in the gut. It was a useful addition to the article. Also, it was a more recent meta analysis than the existing one in the article and therefore provided an additional, more recent source. Moribundum (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
No reply regarding unconstructive actions. You claim to be seeking consensus but it's not true. Moribundum (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please read the MEDLINE article. If a journal has a 10 year history of publishing, but is not MEDLINE-indexed (discussed above), that would be convincing evidence it has not earned a reputation for quality. This is the reason why MEDRS discourages use of sources that are not MEDLINE-indexed, and why that source is dubious for this article. Simple solution is to find a better review source. Zefr (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Applying WP:SUCCINCT

edit

This and the previous two edits were justified as explained in the edit summaries to reduce the verbose text discussing secondary information.

Please evaluate here to establish consensus among editors without edit warring, WP:WAR. Zefr (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Verbose because you said so. Secondary info because you said so. Predatory journal because you said so. Unestablished journal because you said so. Not clinical because you said so. You are arrogant and imperious and a very good example of why so many people leave wiki. Toxic editors, constantly removing work just to a get a rise from bullying people. Compensation for dissatisfaction with your position and place irl. Moribundum (talk) 05:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply