Talk:Ginseng

Wiki Education assignment: Traditional Chinese Medicine

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2022 and 12 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sf23olso (article contribs). Peer reviewers: SienaTCM, Sienasaint13, Cam Coe27, Em09gatt, Mr13maye.

— Assignment last updated by Cam Coe27 (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

TCM is quackery which is not used as supposed evidence of medicinal efficacy for ginseng. Read WP:MEDRS and choose reputable reviews if changes in content are warranted. Zefr (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing

User:Zefr, can you please review whether the article Ginseng is adequately sourced? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

As with any consumed herbs or food ingredients, the literature supporting health effects is dubious and low-quality, exemplified by this PubMed search, which displays sources in MDPI (predatory) and untrustworthy altmed journals. To keep the information readily understandable for non-science users, I would rely on Drugs.com and MedlinePlus here and/or here, i.e., it is not effective for anything. Zefr (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I read this article and it didn't contain any health claims at all, but I thought you have a different pair of eyes and could notice something that I missed. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Over the years, there have been many attempts to insert health claims. The section on traditional medicine states well the absence of clear efficacy, and the section on FDA warning letters specifies the regulatory position on US supplement companies which are still marketing ginseng products falsely claimed as therapies. Zefr (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I removed any unsourced mentions about "therapeutic" properties, can you please review this diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ginseng&diff=1209426548&oldid=1209289836 to let me know whether it addresses your concern and the article content is now OK for you. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Zefr is this Meta-review trustworthy enough to add to the article please? https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/ijmm.2017.2857?text=fulltext Xobbitua (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

No, 90% of the review is about laboratory research, and the section on clinical studies shows only preliminary research in people. By WP:MEDASSESS for quality of evidence, that publication is low in the pyramid for source quality. Zefr (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)