Talk:Anti-inflammatory

No MEDRS?

Section Dietary patterns was deleted last year with comment "no WP:MEDRS sources". I am curious how following sources are not relevant?

Philip C. Calder (2014), "Nutrition and Inflammatory Processes", in Catharine Ross; Benjamin Caballero; Robert J. Cousins; Katherine L. Tucker; Thomas R. Ziegler (eds.), Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease (11 ed.), Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Aleksandrova, Krasimira; Koelman, Liselot; Rodrigues, Caue Egea (2021-06-01). "Dietary patterns and biomarkers of oxidative stress and inflammation: A systematic review of observational and intervention studies". Redox Biology. 42: 101869. doi:10.1016/j.redox.2021.101869. ISSN 2213-2317. PMC 8113044. PMID 33541846. Zemleroika11 (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The Calder source is out of date by more than 5 years, WP:MEDDATE. The Redox Biology review stated that interventional studies included were only low-to-moderate quality with several limitations, whereas observational studies are not of sufficient evidence quality for claiming a causality relationship; see WP:MEDASSESS (left pyramid).

The uncertain association of various inflammation biomarkers with dietary components produces doubt that a diet-inflammation relationship can be stated for the article. Zefr (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

"The Calder source is out of date"

It can be replaced with use of this

Yu X, Pu H, Voss M. Overview of anti-inflammatory diets and their promising effects on non-communicable diseases. British Journal of Nutrition. 2024;132(7):898-918. doi:10.1017/S0007114524001405

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition/article/overview-of-antiinflammatory-diets-and-their-promising-effects-on-noncommunicable-diseases/AA3166846841DCC1B219C063F52E2A7F

"The uncertain association of various inflammation biomarkers with dietary components produces doubt that a diet-inflammation relationship can be stated for the article."

Anti-inflammatory diet wording is widely used in reliable sources therefore deserves to be reflected in wikipedia. We cannot test or discuss it scientifically within the framework of the article's discussion

"The Redox Biology review stated that interventional studies included were only low-to-moderate quality with several limitations, whereas observational studies are not of sufficient evidence quality"

The Redox Biology review is Systematic Review itself in reliable source, so it is on top of left pyramid. Zemleroika11 (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The evidence on this specific topic of anti-inflammation and dietary patterns is mostly limited to cross-sectional cohort studies. If there was a consistent effect it would be worth citing, however, most of the reviews have noted that the cross-sectional analyses have only reported a limited association between a dietary patterns and lower inflammatory markers. For example this review found that only 22 of 145 cross-sectional analyses [1] found an association, "Evidence of an association between dietary patterns and inflammatory markers longitudinally is limited, with the majority reporting no association". There is only limited evidence on this topic. It would be worth waiting until we have more conclusive evidence. As far as I know there is no large-scale intervention trial data on this topic. I say leave mention of diet from the article until we have better references showing a consistent effect. Veg Historian (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

This review did not focus on anti-inflammatory diets, but on dietary patterns in general. Zemleroika11 (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

What is your definition of an anti-inflammatory diet? There is no agreed definition but most studies looking at this topic use the Dietary inflammatory index. The review you cited yourself was citing data on the DASH and Mediterranean diet and was strongly supportive of the dietary inflammatory index. The systematic review I cited also looked at Mediterranean dietary patterns but also used the dietary inflammatory index and several others. Veg Historian (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

"most studies looking at this topic use the Dietary inflammatory index."

Yes, but study you link to (Hart et el) review many studies which used not Dietary inflammatory index, but Healthy Eating Index or some "healthy, unhealthy, mixed" dietary patterns. Zemleroika11 (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The Hart et al [2] review did use several types of dietary inflammatory index - "Diet scores assessing the inflammatory potential of the diet were assessed in 9 studies that included 34 analyses. These scores included the DII (population-based dietary inflammatory index) by Shivappa et al. in 18 analyses, the Empirical Dietary Inflammatory Index by Tabung in 12 analyses and the Adapted Dietary Inflammatory Index (ADII) by van Woudenbergh in 4 analyses. Higher scores of these three indices indicate a more inflammatory diet".

The Redox review you cited looked at dietary patterns - including paleolithic diet, fast food, Mediterranean and DASH diets. The Redox review also used the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) [3]. Have you actually read these reviews? If you oppose use of the HEI or studies on dietary patterns why cite the Redox review? You cited a review on dietary patterns that cites data from HEI but you criticize another for using it? If you are going to raise a problem with the methodology of a review, at least be consistent with what you are claiming. Veg Historian (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

It was not my contribution with link to Redox review, personally I think Yu et al article is better here, as it focuses at anti-inflammatory diets. But I'm not a fan of the minimalist approach to Wikipedia, so i don't mind citing other reviews mentioning the connection between inflammation and dietary patterns in general.

By the way, I see much more weaker sources in NSAID section. Zemleroika11 (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Both sources are full of conjecture based mainly on low-quality primary studies with a cause-and-effect relationship far from being established.

The Redox Biology source is weak due to the absence of well-designed, interventional RCTs, mostly due to low subject numbers, short study durations (weeks, months), and an inconsistent mix of underlying diseases in the subjects, shown in Table 2, "RCT". No clinical practice guideline (top of left MEDASSESS pyramid) could rely on either of these sources.

As with all dietary studies putatively addressing anti-disease mechanisms, clinical trial and biomarker variables are nearly impossible to control, confounding any rigor in interpreting cause-and-effect mechanisms. Zefr (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with that, BTW while we are at this, you might want to take a look at the Dietary inflammatory index Wikipedia article. Reference 4 there is clearly unreliable because it is a primary study. That article probably needs updating. Veg Historian (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that you are over-raising the requirements for sources. Are the sources secondary, in reputable journals or textbooks? Then they are suitable by MEDRS. The requirement for "not older than 5 years" is desirable, but not mandatory. Especially if a more recent review is not available.

The rest is already a scientific discussion, which cannot be conducted by editors here. Or refer to the rule that requires referring not just to reviews, but to reviews of well-designed, interventional RCTs. Zemleroika11 (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)