Talk:Insulin-like growth factor 1
Latest comment: 5 August 2024 by A455bcd9 in topic IGF-1 and CVD
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Insulin-like growth factor 1 Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Template:WikiProject banner shell Script error: No such module "Unsubst".
IGF-1 and CVD
@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:
- Template:Quote Bendegúz Ács (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)