DanaUllman (talk | contribs) →COPD: The journal, Chest, is a leading medical journal on this subject. |
Scientizzle (talk | contribs) →COPD: clarifying a previous statement |
||
Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
:::Sorry, that is what I mean, medically significant. One cannot assume that all patients are the same and fifty is no where near enough to distinguish from the chance of a skewed distribution in the randomised patient sample. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 22:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC) |
:::Sorry, that is what I mean, medically significant. One cannot assume that all patients are the same and fifty is no where near enough to distinguish from the chance of a skewed distribution in the randomised patient sample. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 22:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::I'm a reasonable man, and you've made some reasonable edits. Glad we can dance together. As for David's comment about medical significance, the average hospital stay in the homeopathic group was 4.20 days, and in the placebo group it was 7.68. This difference suggests medical significance. [[User:Danaullman|Dana]] [[Special:Contributions/Danaullman|Ullman]] <sup>[[User talk:Danaullman|Talk]]</sup> 22:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC) |
::::I'm a reasonable man, and you've made some reasonable edits. Glad we can dance together. As for David's comment about medical significance, the average hospital stay in the homeopathic group was 4.20 days, and in the placebo group it was 7.68. This difference suggests medical significance. [[User:Danaullman|Dana]] [[Special:Contributions/Danaullman|Ullman]] <sup>[[User talk:Danaullman|Talk]]</sup> 22:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::::Glad we could come to a reasonable compromise on the text. — [[User:Scientizzle|Scien]]''[[User talk:Scientizzle|tizzle]]'' 23:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::If all the patients were identical in the study, yes. Were they? A larger study will be the test. Fifty is too small to be sure. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 22:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC) |
:::::If all the patients were identical in the study, yes. Were they? A larger study will be the test. Fifty is too small to be sure. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 22:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
Page 938 of the article shows the two groups, and there were no statistically significant differences. Please note that the journal in which this study was published is the leading journal in respiratory medicine. [[User:Danaullman|Dana]] [[Special:Contributions/Danaullman|Ullman]] <sup>[[User talk:Danaullman|Talk]]</sup> 23:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC) |
Page 938 of the article shows the two groups, and there were no statistically significant differences. Please note that the journal in which this study was published is the leading journal in respiratory medicine. [[User:Danaullman|Dana]] [[Special:Contributions/Danaullman|Ullman]] <sup>[[User talk:Danaullman|Talk]]</sup> 23:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
::While it's starting to move beyond the realm of this talk page, allow me to clarify what I mean by "medically significant." A study can be statistically significant without being medically so if the conclusions that flow forth from the study are insufficient to warrant any change in clinical practice. This can be due to methodological flaws within the study, limited scope of corroborating evidence within the relevant literature, negligible real gain in cost-benefit analysis of treatment, small study sizes, and better-established practices being "entrenched" (for better or worse); usually some combination of these factors limits the clinical significance of any one study, instead helping to shape the current medical literature and informing future studies with larger samples and more careful controls. What this study does certainly provide is a foundation on which to test future hypotheses about potassium dichromate as a homeopathic remedy: it doesn't close the book, it simply ends the first chapter. — [[User:Scientizzle|Scien]]''[[User talk:Scientizzle|tizzle]]'' 23:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:25, 15 January 2008
![]() | Chemicals: Core Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||
|
electrolysis
What reaction will occur at anode in the electrolysis of potassium dichromate? What product will be formed?Superdvd 10:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Why?
Why is Potassium dichromate used as a preservative for artifacts when it is highly corrosive?
Glassware cleaning
Acidified potassium dichromate (with sulphuric acid) is used for cleaning glassware - and not just potassium dichromate
Someone's added poorly-spelled gibberish to the end. Anyone know what's useful there and what's not?
The above posts are unsigned.
- Acidified potassium dichromate was used for cleaning laboratory glassware but not any more, at least in the UK, because of health concerns. It has been replaced by detergents, such as "Decon 90". Biscuittin 11:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Length?
Erm, just wondering why this article is being tagged as too lengthy....If I don't get a response in a few days, I'll take off the tag, it looks horrendous. : ) Delta 01:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, those tags are ridiculous - they just appear on talk pages, perhaps with a tiny little icon hidden somewhere discrete in the article.
- I do, however, think that parts of this article are excessively verbose. The section on ethanol titration is unnecessarily detailed − the exact method is not required, since Wikipedia is not a how-to manual.
- I'm going to attempt a clean up.
- Ben 16:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've made it even more brief. It needs context - is it used industrially, etc? If not, we might as well do away with the section because it can be adapted to many contexts, and it is no longer significant. --Rifleman 82 02:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Homeopathic use
Why should homeopathic use be deleted? [1] Whig 01:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It is notable as an ingredient of HeadOn and this text was already present under the Hazards section before I moved it into its own section and fleshed it out. [2] According to the HeadOn article it is a headache remedy and not only for migraines. When used in homeopathic medicine, potassium dichromate is also called kalium bichromicum.[3]
Can this text be reinserted without objection? Whig 08:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- First off, is this actually used outside of HeadOn, as a homeopathic treatment, in any significant amount? Secondly, this is probably the least notable thing about this chemical that we'd be mentioning: if it goes in, it should go in at the end of the article, not before important chemical uses. Adam Cuerden talk 09:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Kali bich is most certainly a very important remedy in homeopathy and its use should be included. It is in very frequent use for sinusitis, catarrh and hayfever especially were there is much thick sticky mucus or sputum difficult to dislodge or hard, tightly adherent crusts in the nasal passages difficult and painful to remove. These are its strongest features. See:[4] cheers Peter morrell 12:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I've put it back more or less as it was but below other uses. We could also add something along the lines of the uses Peter lists. As far as this being a "non-notable use" there are probably more people who come into awareness or contact with it as homeopathic medicine than the chemical in its raw state. Whig 19:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Cleaning glassware
I've removed this chunk, because this procedure uses chromic acid, not dichromate: --Rifleman 82 08:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
K2Cr2O7 is used as an oxidizing agent in many chemical applications, and is often used for cleaning laboratory glassware of organic contaminants, usually in a solution with concentrated sulfuric acid. This solution must not be used to clean the glass tubes used in NMR spectroscopy, as residual contamination of the glass by the paramagnetic Chromium disrupts the NMR procedure.
- Google books gives many hits for "potassium dichromate" cleaning glassware. I think either of them could be used, since the effective active ingredient is the same, Cr(VI). Do you know of any reason why potassium dichromate should not be used? I'm not an experimentalist, so I don't know firsthand. --Itub 17:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Homeopathy section
This is surely wholly trivial. I completely fail to see the relevance. Only here to push the usual POV, IMO. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 20:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The only person POV pushing is you and cuerden. It is a major remedy in homeopathy period. If you knew anything about the subject you would know this. Peter morrell 21:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- It may be a major remedy in homeopathy. Is that relevant? Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely it is relevant; it is an actual use of potassium dichromate in the real world. A short paragraph on that does no harm whatever in this article EXCEPT to someone obsessed with deleting all mention of homeopathy in this WP, which he has all but admitted to in the past. Peter morrell 21:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I guess one sentence, perhaps two, wouldn't hurt. Curiously however, the paragraph as written and deleted made it look as though the homeopathic use of this chemical was responsible and wise - it was completely uncritical, except by very vague implication. My point is that the paragraph should have made the point that this is an actual misuse of potassium dichromate in the real world - not that you would agree, but scientific consensus does. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I look forward to seeing it restored by you in an edited NPOV form, then. Peter morrell 21:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's not the use of very much potassium dichromate, though, is it? Adam Cuerden talk 22:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Merged into the safety section with a rename and rewrite. Since the homeopathic use depends on the effects produced by large doses this seemed the best section. Tim Vickers 22:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think that's an inappropriate section. It's pretty clear that potassium dichromate remedies don't work because of any properties of potassium dichromate. It's contained in vanishingly small doses. It would be dishonest to imply that homeopathic sugar pills might give one cancer. Perhaps it's less dishonest than those who peddle these remedies, but it still doesn't belong in the safety section. Cool Hand Luke 05:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Safety and biological effects" is not a good section IMO. Whatever you may think of it, this is a use! Merging "biological effects" with "safety" and putting a use there does not fit the chemical style guidelines well IMO. Also, be careful with the overuse of words such as "claim", which tend to be POV-loaded, as discussed in WP:WTA. You don't need to repeat the criticism of homeopathy every time it is mentioned in passing on Wikipedia--there's a lot of room for that in the main article. --Itub 08:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, yes we do need to mention the criticism where we're talking about homeopathic uses - otherwise, it amounts to saying that this was a correct and scientifically-based use, like all the talk surrounding it. Adam Cuerden talk 14:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Safety and biological effects" is not a good section IMO. Whatever you may think of it, this is a use! Merging "biological effects" with "safety" and putting a use there does not fit the chemical style guidelines well IMO. Also, be careful with the overuse of words such as "claim", which tend to be POV-loaded, as discussed in WP:WTA. You don't need to repeat the criticism of homeopathy every time it is mentioned in passing on Wikipedia--there's a lot of room for that in the main article. --Itub 08:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- You can just say "potassium dichromate is used for homeopathy" and let the readers think for themselves. Inserting a discussion of the validity of homeopathy into this article is like inserting a discussion about the validity of prayer therapy into the article about candles. :-) Note: I don't think this article needs a section about the homeopathic use, just a sentence or two under uses. --Itub 14:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, what can we say? In homeopathy, poassium dichromate is claimed (ref to lancet article here for claim) to be useful for headaches? Adam Cuerden talk 14:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- You can just say "potassium dichromate is used for homeopathy" and let the readers think for themselves. Inserting a discussion of the validity of homeopathy into this article is like inserting a discussion about the validity of prayer therapy into the article about candles. :-) Note: I don't think this article needs a section about the homeopathic use, just a sentence or two under uses. --Itub 14:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
What are you POV quibbling about now? Tim has already edited this back in. It does not need a whole section, a sentence or two will suffice. In fact Kali bich has a broad spectrum of uses within homeopathy (check the link) primarily for glutinous mucus conditions of nose and respiratory passages but including headaches. The ref to headaches is merely a proprietory use of it in the US NOT a strictly homeopathic formulation per se. Peter morrell 14:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Am I correct to say this has been resolved? Why not remove the request on the admin board?--FR Soliloquy 06:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I just noticed that the following has been added. "(in many cases to the point where it is extremely unlikely that there is even one ion left in the final remedy)". Doesn't this belabor the point a bit? I had added a link to the appropriate section in homeopathy with makes the point adequately. This section should be informative and to the point. David D. (Talk) 23:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've reverted it a bit - the English was starting to get awfully mangled, and you got things like "however"s referring to points that were now being made three sentences prior, and other such things. Adam Cuerden talk 02:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Adam, you didn't revert my edits "a bit". You reverted all my changes. The reason I changed it is that the whole thing read like a typical anti-homeopathic editorial. Words like "purported" should not be in this article, just report the uses of sodium dichromate by homeopaths and the facts, there is no good reason to judge homeopathy. Here is the version I had written:
- "Homeopaths use potassium dichromate as an anti-pain remedy to suppress symptoms of irritation and inflammation and is more familiar as kalium bichromicum.[1] Typical of homeopathic remedies it is used in minute, or undetectable quantities, although meta-analysis of homeopathic treatments shows that these low concentrations are unlikely to do any better than a placebo treatment.[2] One notable homeopathic product containing potassium dichromate is the headache treatment HeadOn, which contains the compound diluted to one part per million."
- You say it is ".....awfully mangled, and you got things like "however"s referring to points.......". First, where are these "however's" you mention? Second, please improve the version above not just reverting to a flawed version. David D. (Talk) 05:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Adam, you didn't revert my edits "a bit". You reverted all my changes. The reason I changed it is that the whole thing read like a typical anti-homeopathic editorial. Words like "purported" should not be in this article, just report the uses of sodium dichromate by homeopaths and the facts, there is no good reason to judge homeopathy. Here is the version I had written:
- I've reverted it a bit - the English was starting to get awfully mangled, and you got things like "however"s referring to points that were now being made three sentences prior, and other such things. Adam Cuerden talk 02:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Alleviate might be better wording than suppresses. It's potassium not sodium dichromate BTW. And BTW 1 ppm is NOT an 'undetectable amount'...thanks Peter morrell 06:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, these are good points, when I rewrote the section a lot of the baggage from the previous version got brought over. Basically the previous version was more of a critique of homeopathy rather than a description of the use of sodium dichromate. How about the following?
- "Due its irritant properties (ref for this?), homeopaths use potassium dichromate as an anti-pain remedy to alleviate symptoms of irritation and inflammation, although it is more familiar as kalium bichromicum.[3] Typical of homeopathic remedies it is used in minute quantities and one notable product is the headache treatment HeadOn, which contains the compound diluted to one part per million."
- Here I have even removed the meta analysis quote. Why is it necessary to be critiquing homeopathy every time the word is mentioned? The link to the homeopathy section on dilutions contains those critiques and is the appropriate place for such information. This article is about sodium dichromate and its uses not homeopathy itself. It could do with a sentence on why it is used as a pain remedy. Previously there was a mention of its symptoms but a reference might be good too. David D. (Talk) 07:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Your revised para is now fine; please implement it; its irritant properties are listed in the next paragraph on safety, so no need to ref that unless you want an actual cite for that specific point. Peter morrell 07:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Here [5] is a generic cite for its irritant properties. Peter morrell 07:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
COPD
Friends, yesterday I added a NPOV reference and link to a study that was published in CHEST (a highly respected medical journal) and that was conducted at the University of Vienna Hospital. This study tested homeopathic doses of potassium dichromate (THE subject of this article) vs. placebo. The clinical results were substantially significant. An anonymous editor took out this reference, and for unknown reasons, called it POV. Although this edit seems to be this person's "first" edit, it is more likely one of the many antagonists to homeopathy who is vandalizing this article anonymously. My NPOV reference should be kept, though if others have a better way to describe it (or improve grammar), I'm open. Dana Ullman Talk 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- The reference is a primary source about one small study that has a few obvious flaws. (I have to question if the results can be explained simply by the approaching-significant difference in the overall health of the two groups: the placebo group was worse in COPD level, FEV1 and BMI, p between 0.152 and 0.178 for each, while every other measure was matched well with the verum group.) This paper, cited seven times elsewhere according to Google Scholar--and only once that wasn't a paper or commentary by the same authors or a criticism of this paper, and that single example is something in Russian that I cannot access--has not been replicated and so stands as only a single observation and the only published study to date regarding homeopathy and COPD. Additionally, PubMed searches for "Kalium bichromicum" and "'potassium dichromate' homeopathy" gives three relevant hits (1 on sinusitis and 2 involving the same study on otitis media, plus the aforementioned criticism of this study by David Colquhoun). In total, nothing much can be reliably said about this study, nor the state of potassium dichromate as conventionally-studied homeopathic remedy. To follow WP:UNDUE & WP:FRINGE, I think there's an argument that presenting a single study on a topic that has received no other scientific attention is potentially over-representing this chemical as a plausible disease treatment option rather than the known carcinogen that causes dermatitis and worse. As such, I'll change the current wording of the appropriate section from
Due its irritant properties,[2] potassium dichromate is used as a purported anti-pain remedy in homeopathy, where it is also called Kalium bichromicum.[3] However, in these remedies the substance is used in specially prepared non-toxic doses, with repeated dilution and succession leaving either only traces of the chemical, or even beyond the limt of there being any of the chemical remaining. Because this preparation is believed to be useful in treating people who suffer from extremely tenacious mucus in the bronchials, researchers at the University of Vienna Hospital tested it in the treatment of a small number of people suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This double-blind trial gave half of the COPD patients a placebo and the other half were given the 30C potency of Kali bichromicum (potassium dichromate). This small pilot study found evidence for a beneficial effect from the homeopathic group as compared with those given a placebo.[4] One notable homeopathic product containing potassium dichromate is the headache treatment HeadOn, which contains the compound diluted to one part per million.
- to something like this:
— Scientizzle 21:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Due its irritant properties,[2] potassium dichromate is used as a purported anti-pain remedy in homeopathy, where it is also called Kalium bichromicum.[3] A small study at the University of Vienna Hospital explored the effects of homeopathic potassium dichromate on the tracheal mucous secretions of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), reporting decreased tracheal secretions compared with those given a placebo.[4] One notable homeopathic product containing potassium dichromate is the headache treatment HeadOn, which contains the compound diluted to one part per million.
Hi Scientizzle & David D...just a couple of comments: Rather than saying "small study" (because that is relative in each disease), I'm changing it to "a study of 50 patients" (also, nowhere does it state that this was a "pilot study"). As for the control and treatment groups, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups. Colquhoun's published critique of this paper didn't mention this as a problem. As for the results, they are not simply significant; they were substantial, and not just the tracheal secretions but also the rate of extubation and (importantly) the length of the hospital stay. Because this study was published in such a prestigious journal, this information is important. Let's avoid making the subject of homeopathy the issue in THIS article. Dana Ullman Talk 21:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Dana, a few points..."a study of 50 patients" is perfectly reasonableversus the subjective "small", though "25 patients given ___ performed better than placebo group" better frames the issue for the lay person, I think. the control & treatment groups didn't have a stat/sig. difference, but, as I pointed out, as a reviewer I would have had a major issue with the almost significant differences between the groups (and the real possibility that there is an associated trend of poorer health). I agree that Chest is a perfectly good journal.[6] Whether this study was "technically" a pilot, there's probably no way of knowing, but the fact that it's the first and only study, and used a small number of patients for two days each, it sure sounds like one. (That, of course, is my own WP:OR.) Finally, this isn't really about homeopathy for me, it's more about a single study standing alone in an empty field: there's no other literature on the subject, so I am uncomfortable having it discussed in an encyclopedia; I would be similarly uncomfortable about any other treatment for any other disease that had a similar paucity of medical literature. It's questionably giving undue weight to the view that this compound is in any way useful as a therepeutic, particularly since 895 PubMed articles on potassium dichromate are overwhelmingly about its dangers as a toxic irritant. — Scientizzle 22:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can you ever have a significant result with only 50 patients in the trial? By the way this article did say "pilot study" at one point. This section of the article should not be about the efficacy of potassium dichromate as a drug but just about the usage. David D. (Talk) 22:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Statistically significant--yes. Medically significant--no. I think it would be more proper to forgo the reporting of the p values and the peacock words of "substantially" to state as simply as possible: there was one small study that showed a signifcant difference in a single use of this compound as a treatment. — Scientizzle 22:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, that is what I mean, medically significant. One cannot assume that all patients are the same and fifty is no where near enough to distinguish from the chance of a skewed distribution in the randomised patient sample. David D. (Talk) 22:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm a reasonable man, and you've made some reasonable edits. Glad we can dance together. As for David's comment about medical significance, the average hospital stay in the homeopathic group was 4.20 days, and in the placebo group it was 7.68. This difference suggests medical significance. Dana Ullman Talk 22:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, that is what I mean, medically significant. One cannot assume that all patients are the same and fifty is no where near enough to distinguish from the chance of a skewed distribution in the randomised patient sample. David D. (Talk) 22:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Statistically significant--yes. Medically significant--no. I think it would be more proper to forgo the reporting of the p values and the peacock words of "substantially" to state as simply as possible: there was one small study that showed a signifcant difference in a single use of this compound as a treatment. — Scientizzle 22:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Page 938 of the article shows the two groups, and there were no statistically significant differences. Please note that the journal in which this study was published is the leading journal in respiratory medicine. Dana Ullman Talk 23:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- While it's starting to move beyond the realm of this talk page, allow me to clarify what I mean by "medically significant." A study can be statistically significant without being medically so if the conclusions that flow forth from the study are insufficient to warrant any change in clinical practice. This can be due to methodological flaws within the study, limited scope of corroborating evidence within the relevant literature, negligible real gain in cost-benefit analysis of treatment, small study sizes, and better-established practices being "entrenched" (for better or worse); usually some combination of these factors limits the clinical significance of any one study, instead helping to shape the current medical literature and informing future studies with larger samples and more careful controls. What this study does certainly provide is a foundation on which to test future hypotheses about potassium dichromate as a homeopathic remedy: it doesn't close the book, it simply ends the first chapter. — Scientizzle 23:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- ^ KALIUM BICHROMICUM hosted by http://homeoint.org
- ^ Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L; et al. (2005). "Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy". Lancet. 366 (9487): 726–732. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2. PMID 16125589.
{{cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=
(help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Kalium bichromicum hosted by http://homeoint.org