Talk:Bearberry

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Glycoside#Simple phenolic glycosides|phenolic glycoside]] The anchor (#Simple phenolic glycosides) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

References??

Would be nice to have at least a few references on this article. Ratagonia (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Research

There really is no question about its biological activity. There has been lots of research about that. The key research that is lacking is randomized, clinical human studies, that are very expensive. --Bejnar (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kemper as a source

Kemper, Kathi J. "Uva ursi (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi)" The Longwood Herbal Task Force and The Center for Holistic Pediatric Education and Research, is not a primary source. It is a survey article (that is a secondary source) that collects data from a variety of primary sources. Now whether it is a reliable source, is a different question. Just because someone is a doctor does not mean that their statements on medical issues are reliable, but it is a step up from statements by non-medical professionals. What is her institutional support? The Center for Holistic Pediatric Education and Research at Children's Hospital Boston and The Longwood Herbal Task Force (LHTF). "The LHTF was organized in the fall of 1998 by faculty, staff and students from Children’s Hospital, the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences and the Dana Farber Cancer Institute to learn more about and teach other clinicians about herbs and dietary supplements." Pretty impressive institutional support, not Mayo Clinic, but good and solid. --Bejnar (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not peer-reviewed in a rigorous journal means it is not worth citing, and remains unqualified WP:PRIMARY. There have been no follow up studies of any scientific substance over the past two decades.--Zefr (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think I was citing Kemper for? Namely the lack of such studies. Do you have a better source? --Bejnar (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment "remains unqualified WP:PRIMARY". Could you explicate please? --Bejnar (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Explained here[1] --Zefr (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That just says what a review article is, namely a survey article, which Kemper is. --Bejnar (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, since the article was not published in a rigorous peer-reviewed journal and the Wikipedia definition is sufficiently clear that opinions are not acceptable reviews. Also I do not see holistic medicine highlighted at the CHB site -- and would not expect it at an accredited academic clinical center -- so this is an over-statement of its significance. Further, the UTI implications (and numerous other potential "clinical" benefits mentioned) of the Kemper article are speculation at best, and are mostly unfounded conjecture not worthy of mentioning in the article. Lastly, the recommended "doses" in the Kemper article are not scientifically demonstrated and are a safety risk to anyone who may read and interpret them as safe. I've made my case strongly enough and do not intend to add anything more to this discussion. --Zefr (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I disagree that "Wikipedia definition is sufficiently clear that opinions are not acceptable reviews" if by that you are saying that review articles must be published in peer reviewed journals. I read that section of the guideline as saying that opinions in Wikipedia articles must be cited to secondary sources such as review articles. --Bejnar (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Look at the proposition for which Kemper was cited, namely that there have been no randomized, controlled clinical studies. It was not cited for any of the things that you are talking about. Do you have a better citation for that proposition? --Bejnar (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Folk use

There is no question about the fact that it is used as a folk remedy. Until 1936, the U.S. Pharmacopia listed bearberry for the treatment of urinary tract infections. See for example the 1883 edition here, or the 1921 edition here. How efficacious it is as a remedy is in dispute. So folk medicinal use is not "supposed". Results in humans may be considered "supposed" since most of that evidence is, as they say, anecdotal. --Bejnar (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does it taste like?

What do Bearberries taste like? What are they comparable to? I don't suspect I will ever try one but I do wonder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojoanna32 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More detail

I think overall, it would be a good idea to have a little more detail on this article would it not?Plantsrgreat (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Species uva-ursi missing from species section

I don't know the reason, but for some reason the common bearberry is missing from the species section of the article. 176.88.76.252 (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]