- #36
baywax
Gold Member
- 2,176
- 1
Moonbear said:Broader in what way? It's not even a study, but a review article, and doesn't address ADD or ADHD at all. Did you read the article? It's not supporting your claim at all, but rather suggesting some nutrient supplements can help alleviate symptoms, but do not eliminate the disorder.
For example, they say:
Regarding the above statement, reference 59 is another review article. Reference 60 is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, but only enrolled 40 patients (20 per group). Again, this is a very weak design for a clinical trial.
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/159/9/1596
And, conveniently, the ONLY OTHER clinical trial testing the same thing with a larger enrollment was left out of the references...the one that says there's NO effect:
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/158/12/2071
Reference 65 is an open-label clinical trial with only 12 patients enrolled! That's about as good as worthless. And, it wasn't even measuring schizophrenia symptoms, but merely serotonin binding to platelets.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15253886
There are also some glaring errors in this paper.
As an example, they state:
Except, when you look up the reference they cited, once you sort out that their citation in the reference list is for the erratum, not the original study and backtrack to the original study, you find out that the cited paper did NOT study OCD, but depression, and didn't find that St. John's wort was better than Paxil, but that it was equally effective (this is really no surprise...St. John's wort has been known for some time to have real pharmacological efficacy for depression with the only major concern regarding herbal supplements containing it being 1) that patients are self-medicating rather than getting a proper diagnosis before taking a pharmacological agent, and 2) that doses are not consistent in herbal supplements and not regulated to ensure consistency. The percent decrease in symptoms was from baseline, not relative to Paxil, so the above cited article grossly misleads the reader to think there is a greater effect than actually described (this is why it's important to read critically and not take one single author's word...dig up the articles they are citing and see if you come to the same conclusions or if they are being accurately cited).
More importantly, regarding the argument you're trying to make, that's not addressing a nutrient deficiency, but using an herbal supplement to provide a pharmacologically active compound.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/330/7490/503
and the erratum
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7494/759-a
In fact, each of their major conclusions is riddled with errors.
Tracking down reference 9, it is NOT a randomized, controlled trial, it is an EDITORIAL!
And what was reference 9 ACTUALLY commenting about? This:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17353937
Not a dang thing about depression there, they're talking about homocysteine levels.
And why were the homocysteine levels being compared in the meta-analysis (note that you have to dig back three levels of references from the one cited to even get to a randomized clinical trial...one is an editorial, the next a meta-analysis, and finally one will get to the actual clinical trials).
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/82/4/806
Wow, the more I check their references, the more shockingly incorrect I find each and every statement I follow up! If this is indicative of the usual articles within this journal, it cannot be very reputable.
Thanks moonbear... I had no idea... good checking.
Last edited by a moderator: