Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 4
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Warburg's Tincture
I added the WikiProject Pharmacology tag to the following article,
I have expanded and improved this article a lot more. Please can an article quality rating now be assigned by this project. Thanks--Roland Sparkes (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- You still appear to be making quite a few edits, I would suggest requesting classification once these major edits are complete. As a guide though, I would say this currently rates as a 'Start' class. Perspeculum (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, I made further improvements and edits to this article in past 24hrs to get it in better shape. I'm not sure I am able to improve it much more on my own. Please could I get an assessment rating in its current form. --Roland Sparkes (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
HELP REQUIRED. I strongly believe this article would benefit from the input of those Wikipedians of a pharmacological, medical or chemistry background. I do not come from any kind of science background. I am a historian. Because this article is strongly in the field of history of medicine, it covers both areas. Thanks--Roland Sparkes (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi! I'd give it a C by now although some people might say this is a bit optimistic. The major issues I see are:
- The article reads like this was still a pharmaceutically interesting drug. For example, the quote from the Museum of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society seems to say that there is no good replacement for Warburg's Tincture in present-day medicine, which is simply misleading. Don't get me wrong: It is certainly historically interesting and an article highly worth including since people want to read about how illnesses were treated in former times, but as a drug, it is obsolete. I see your difficulties as a historian to include such information, but at the moment I wouldn't know where to find sourceable information either. (PubMed returns no results.)
- Too many quotations. See Wikipedia:Quotations for suggestions.
- Some copyeditingwould be appropriate, but that can be done easily. Let's see if I find some time.
- Otherwise, I say it is well written and sourced. Cheers --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Template:Engineered antibodies
Could someone give an opinion whether
) 18:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Proprietary (i.e., brand) names?
Hi! Last time (and the only time) that this issue was discussed was in 2006, so I thought it'd be nice to have an updated consensus on this one. :) In articles for drugs like e.g. chloramphenicol, the list of brand names is seemingly infinite since it has been generic since very long ago. With brand names for this compound from every single country imaginable, I suppose the already very long list of brand names would inflate to unbelievable proportions. Also, in e.g. cefadroxil, I removed the generics due to this issue after having decided that Curisafe from pharco B international was non-notable since the pharmaceutical company itself did not have an article.
Thus, I'd like to know what you think about brand names in a generic world? Should we just list the (p)INN, restrict the brand names to only the initial/major (however that is defined!) brand names, or should every single brand name imaginable be listed?
Take a look at e.g. the Swedish list of brand names for
NB: I'm thinikng of
? 14:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)- See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)#Trade names. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointers. The discussion seems to have been long and somewhat back-and-forth, but I take it to read that a consensus has (somewhat) been reached for the inclusion of the initial and major brand names, while laundry lists of all the world's possible generic brand names are to be avoided or at least put away from plain sight, preferably (or possibly?) put in a separate article. Would this be a good summarization?
- Yes, I'd say that's about it. But there seems to be no way to keep newbies from adding and re-adding brand names (and we don't want to BITE them). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that the generic name should be used with the original brand name in parentheses. There will be a few cases in which the generic name differs in some countries, in which case it may be necessary to use two generic names. For example aspirin is generic in USA but a trade name in many countries.Nakatsuk 19:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakatsuk (talk • contribs)
- Yes, I'd say that's about it. But there seems to be no way to keep newbies from adding and re-adding brand names (and we don't want to
PiHKAL and TiHKAL Articles
There are a lot of obscure compounds from PiHKAL and TiHKAL that aren't even pharmacologically active that have been added to Wikipedia. I don't really see the point and I think they should be removed. If people want info on them they should refer to the books, not here. What about you guys? See these templates for listings:
{{PiHKAL}}
- Mwaagh, they have quite an interesting source, and albeit that there is not too much known about them, I think all are notable just because of the study. You're right, they will, probably, never get to FA status, but so will many of our >10.000 chemicals. Maybe some should just have a chembox? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- PiHKAL and TiHKAL are one of the only examples of structure-activity relationship studies that have been widely read and discussed by non-experts, and I'd think this would give them a degree of notability well beyond that of say inactive compoounds listed in some random patent. In this case I'd argue that the inactive compounds are almost as relevant as the active ones because of the trends that can be derived from comparing them all. Meodipt (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Midazolam
Midazolam is up for good article review, if anyone is interested in reviewing or improving the article. It is quite an important benzodiazepine for hospital use and emergency control of seizures.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Drugbox
An eye (and some words) on the latest sections of
source
andmabtype
parameters are online for testing at {{) 14:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)- The hiding mechanism for empty fields is online for testing at {{Template talk:Drugbox#Missing fields should be omitted. Comments welcome. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Categories for side effects?
Anyone have any ideas about how to usefully categorize Morning pseudoneutropenia? I'm firmly convinced that "Pharmacy" isn't the right answer... but what is? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's already in Category:Blood disorders. Does it really need anything else? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps not, but a Category:Iatrogenic conditions or Category:Adverse drug effects seems like it would also be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, nothing wrong with creating a category for adverse effects. The problem with the first one is that most general audience readers would not know what it means. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Category:Conditions caused by a physician? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, nothing wrong with creating a category for adverse effects. The problem with the first one is that most general audience readers would not know what it means. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps not, but a Category:Iatrogenic conditions or Category:Adverse drug effects seems like it would also be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
drug article guideline
Please take a look at
Azapropazone
- Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Unfortunately it was a violation of WP:BOLD, if you leave out technical details or make a few mistakes other editors will soon pick them up and fix them or if you get stuck you can ask for help from a project such as this for advice.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?23:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
GA reassessment of Vitamin C
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Vitamin C/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
cognitive enhancers
I just found these articles, they are currently basically the same as someone copy and pasted nootropic to make the CE article. It looks like there should be two separate articles but I'm not knowledgable enough in this area to sort out the mess. Could someone from here take a look and sort the articles out? Thanks Smartse (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- I deleted the redundant text, but both articles still nead heavy copyediting. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
GA reassessment of Heparin
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project' banner is on the article talk page. I have found some serious concerns which you can see at Talk:Heparin/GA1. It appears that large parts of the article are copyright violations. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Pyrazolodiazepine
GA review of Orlistat
I have started a GA review of Orlistat. Only a few minor points needed [1]
) 22:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)WikiProject Psychoactives
I've studied pharmacology for roughly two years but personally I'm solely interested only in psychoactive drugs. I think this is the case with many of the other people here as well. Psychoactive drugs are much different than other drugs as the science behind them crosses into other subjects like neurology and psychology and does not apply just to biology and chemistry. Therefore I propose we launch a new subproject -- WikiProject Psychoactives -- to encompass all psychoactive drugs and help to separate them from non-psychoactive substances. We already have psychoactive-stub, why not make it a party? el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 05:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- I might be interested in that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Are you aware of WP:PDD? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't, but I am now! Thanks! At the same time, these are not exactly the same thing, since what El3ctr0nika is talking about would include neuroleptics, for example. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- I was aware but as Tryptofish said it's not the same thing. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 01:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants has been relatively inactive for a while. Maybe you should consider renaming and expanding the scope of that already established project. It would be easier than starting from scratch, especially considering all of the articles within the scope of WP:PDD would be within the scope of a psychoactive drugs project. Something else to consider is converting the project to a task force of WP:PHARM, since I'd imagine that all of the articles in a psychoactive drugs project would also be encompassed by WP:PHARM. --Scott Alter02:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- I was aware but as Tryptofish said it's not the same thing. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 01:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't, but I am now! Thanks! At the same time, these are not exactly the same thing, since what El3ctr0nika is talking about would include neuroleptics, for example. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Are you aware of
Finasteride
I am having a discussion with another editor as to whether we should be discussing non-approved indications for the drug in the lead section. Please comment on the talk page. JFW | T@lk 17:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Unreferenced living people articles bot
The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 4/Unreferenced BLPs<<<
If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.
Thank you.
- Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 4/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.
- There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
- If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 00:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Mirtazapine
Anyone have any views on how to sort this section out?Mirtazapine#Indications I am tempted to do mass deleting but I don't know enough about the drug to know what are notable off-label uses and what is improper use of primary sources. It has been sitting in this state for months, maybe a year or more.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yikes! I'd go for a pretty extensive deleting. I'd suggest finding the FDA drug label online, and emphasizing the on-label uses, and maybe listing a few off-label ones that are related to the on-label uses and are supported by multiple peer-reviewed references. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yea I know, yikes indeed. Thanks for your reply Trypofish, I am starting to get brain fatigue at the moment and need to sleep soon but hopefully in the next day or two I will find a spare couple of hours to read over reviews and FDA drug labels. I was kind of hoping someone would have good knowledge of the drug and could delete instinctively. If not then I need to put on my literaturegeek hat, and start reading, ugh.:-(--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ah well, better you than me. Thanks for doing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, you need to have Wiki project med watch listed. It was not I but another who did the good work.Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Mirtazapine :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ah well, better you than me. Thanks for doing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yea I know, yikes indeed. Thanks for your reply Trypofish, I am starting to get brain fatigue at the moment and need to sleep soon but hopefully in the next day or two I will find a spare couple of hours to read over reviews and FDA drug labels. I was kind of hoping someone would have good knowledge of the drug and could delete instinctively. If not then I need to put on my literaturegeek hat, and start reading, ugh.:-(--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Selective glucocorticoid receptor agonist: GA nomination
I nominated
- Now a good article. I boldly rated it as high-importance. Anyone who is more familiar with importance rating, feel free to change this. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Is this accurate?
Pharmacopoeia#History, makes no mention of ancient Egypt. Ancient Egyptian medicine mentions it. This is way before Pliny the Elder's birth at 23CE.
- I mentioned this both in Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology & Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt.
Thanks, Marasama (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Added mention of Egypt, Edwin Smith Papyrus. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Messy and quasi-promotional articles
Any chance that someone has the time to look at these articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L-Arginine Malate? Some of them might need an individual deletion discussion (I've already started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synephrine hydrochloride (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dicreatine Malate (2nd nomination)), and all need heavy copyedit, and a good look at synonyms, formulae and stereochemistry. I'm off to bed now. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
GABAAergics Template
In "Volatiles/Gases" I see about a dozen of non-volatile compounds, e.g. hexapropymate (this is a carbamate), petrichloral, chloralose, bromides. --FK1954 (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Did some rearranging, mainly from "Volatiles" to "Others". Removed dithiothreitol and theanine – the former doesn't seem to be a hypnotic at all, the latter is more likely to be a direct agonist or a transporter ligand. I left some strange specimens for the time being: Ethanol is volatile, but usually taken orally. Methanol is toxic. Menthol?? Also, I'm not sure about the aldehydes. In one word: Some more checking would be much appreciated. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Request for comment: Link from Drugbox to IUPHAR database entry
- Support. --Arcadian (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- I support too. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Stuff you smear on
We seem to have several overlapping articles:
- Ointment
- Cream (pharmaceutical)
- Topical
- Lotion (also Cold cream)
Should these be merged? Are there widely agreed-upon differences between these that simply haven't impinged yet upon my consciousness? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Your header title really caught my attention! :-) Anyway, yes, there are differences among the formulations, in terms of their physical properties. For example, an ointment, properly defined, has a thick, oily consistency, whereas a cream is, well, creamy. These distinctions are explained at topical. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- If these articles are all short they would work well all merged into topical than redirected there. Then the slight differences could be easily contrasted. ) 00:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- I got started just now, but am out of time. Please feel free to build on the first steps, or to ping me if I forget to get back to this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Images of medications
It would be useful to have images of all medication from both sides. We often get people who are unconscious or confused and we have to identify what pills they have in their pockets.
) 00:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)- In my opinion, no one should use Wikipedia to be making life-or-death decisions. There are other sources, such as the PDR. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- While I have no objection to providing images that show both sides of a pill (and providing alt text with a description of any text on the pills), there are so many pills in the world that I think a comprehensive database would require an enormous amount of work and be well beyond Wikipedia's scope. That's probably a task for a major poison control center or drug regulation agency. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Advert?
Could someone have a look at Berocca? I'd rather have this deleted altogether, or at least have it severely pruned. Any other views? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Therapeutic index
I request comments from people with more experience in this subject than me
- I'm on my way over there. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. I'd still appreciate a few more thoughts on the matter before I put in a request to an administrator. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 01:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Peak (pharmacology)
Should this really be an article? It seems like it's really just a definition, and a full encyclopedia article will really be nothing more than a stub? WTF? (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are right. It would be entirely reasonable to take it to AfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Alternatively it could be merged with talk) 19:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- That might be better, in fact. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Cmax seems like all it will be is a definition as well, which might be more suited to something like wiktionary, but not an encyclopedia. WTF? (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- On third thought, that's true. I'm beginning to realize that there are a whole mess of pages like these that should probably all be merged to pharmacokinetics. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think there is enough material on talk) 20:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think there is enough material on
- On third thought, that's true. I'm beginning to realize that there are a whole mess of pages like these that should probably all be merged to pharmacokinetics. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Alternatively it could be merged with
- If no one objects, I plan to merge Peak (pharmacology) into pharmacokinetics by Monday, June 7. I'll leave Cmax where it is for now. WTF? (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- I was bold and already merged talk) 17:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- I was bold and already merged
- I wish you didn't do that. Personally, I'd rather Peak and Cmax just all be merged into pharmacokinetics. We're not really providing definitions here, that's not what an encyclopedia is for. I think Cmax should now be merged. WTF? (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- As I stated above, I think there is enough material on talk) 18:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- As I stated above, I think there is enough material on
- I seriously would not waste your time on it. Anything relevant you can find would go much, much further being added to the ) 23:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think you meant to refer to talk) 04:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- I share WikiTango's skepticism that there is really enough material to justify a standalone page, but I agree with Boghog that there are no fork issues about this. Overall, I'm willing to wait and see what sources Boghog can come up with to justify expanding the page beyond a definition, and if it satisfies WP:NOTABILITY, that will be fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- I share WikiTango's skepticism that there is really enough material to justify a standalone page, but I agree with Boghog that there are no fork issues about this. Overall, I'm willing to wait and see what sources Boghog can come up with to justify expanding the page beyond a definition, and if it satisfies
- I think you meant to refer to
Can't search for ATC codes
Coming back to an old discussion (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 3#Can't search for ATC codes), I'd like to create redirects from 5th level ATC codes to drug pages, as well as from 3rd and 4th level codes to the corresponding sections in the ATC lists (ATC code A01 etc.). The bot could also add {{anchor}}s to section headers in the lists, to avoid breaking if a header changes. Would this bot task be supported here? Any comments or suggestions? Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just for your information: The bot has run a trial. Results can be seen at Special:Contributions/PotatoBot and Category:Redirects from ATC codes. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Sourcing pharma trial results posters
Is there official policy concerning the use of pharmaceutical trial results posters as primary sources? Here is one such poster; it's a PDF. In this case, the file is hosted on the pharma company's Web site; it was presented at a scholarly conference after passing peer review. Also, what should we call such documents? Abstracts? Promotional material? Please advise. MatthewBurton (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- The most relevant guideline is WP:MEDRS#Other_sources, which recommends caution.
- Conference peer review ranges from non-existent to reasonably acceptable; I don't know what standard posters were held to in this particular conference.
- The usual concern with posters is WP:Recentism, especially if this is supposed to de-bunk a better supported claim ("All the reliable sources say X, but this shiny poster says Y!"). With a poster presentation in 2008, though, I don't know whether that's relevant. It does make me wonder whether this data has since been presented in a properly published journal article... and if not, it would be interesting to know why not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that posters presented at conferences go through "peer review" in the same sense that journal articles are peer reviewed. The abstracts do most likely go through some sort of review prior to the conference, but the data and conclusions generally do not go through any review whatsoever. Since it's posted on a corporate website, I'm sure the corporation reviewed it themselves, though as we all know, sometimes corporations can be deceiving,. . .
- However, the data is probably ok, but caution should still be exercised. Nevertheless, I've seen posters being included as sources in peer-reviewed publications, so I wouldn't think there's any reason for Wikipedia to automatically ban them, either. If someone does have a problem with the data used in it, they can bring it up on the talk page or by contacting the authors directly.
- This very same issue had already been discussed here (see Proposed text updates to prulifloxacin page) when Kdrichards attempted to use these same promotional materials in the same manner as MatthewBurton (talk) is now attempting to do within the same article. It is to be noted that MatthewBurton (talk) stated that he is also being paid by the sponsor’s advertising agency to make these edits; just as Kdrichards had.
- Within these previous discussions I believe that the consensus reached was that the use of this material was inappropriate. Which I had communicated to MatthewBurton (talk) who appears to be appealing this prior decision. He is objecting to my removing these promotional materials from the article and replacing them with published neutral third party articles that make reference to the promotional material, rather than the promotional material itself. Which I would consider to be an acceptable and reasonable compromise. MatthewBurton (talk) disagrees.
- This is the pertinent text upon which I had based my opinion that the use of these promotional materials presented at a conference, material that is based upon the results of clinical trials that has yet to be peer reviewed or published, was inappropriate:
- Fvasconcellos (t·c) stated that: “…studies (whether they are published articles or poster sessions) should be cited directly instead of the manufacturer's web page. “
- WhatamIdoing (talk) stated that: “…I'd also like to see high-quality journal articles cited instead of (or in addition to) the manufacturer's websites….”
- The Sceptical Chymist (talk) stated that: “…Krichards, the proposed text is based entirely on press-releases. This is inappropriate since multiple peer-reviewed sources on prulifloxacin exist. If placed in the main space, the text is likely to be challenged and removed. For the standards of sourcing in medical articles please see WP:MEDRS….”
- In response to these comments Kdrichards stated: “…Thanks, all. I'm happy to go back and provide more specific citations. Updates to come soon. KDR …” (no such updates were ever made)
- It is also the policy of the leading medical journals NOT to publish articles dealing with the results of clinical trials if the results had not been previously published. Here we are dealing with promotional material regarding studies to which no results have been published to date. Additionally a portion of the contents of this material is clearly contradicted within filings made with the United States Security and Exchange Commission by the sponsor of the study, which would render its use as a reliable source to be frivolous.
- Additionally I can find no evidence that this material had ever been peer reviewed, contrary to the statements being made here by MatthewBurton (talk).
- The authors of the promotional material in question are:
- H.L. DuPont who works for the University of Texas–Houston School of Public Health and Medical School where he received from various donors, and clinical trials concerning the use of antibiotics in acute diarrhea, $500,000/year. Within his Curriculum Vitae he makes no mention of any association with the drug’s sponsor. He has written about a dozen articles over the years concerning the fluoroquinolones and their use to control diarrhea.
- Z.D. Jiang was the Co-Investigator in both trials and works for St. Luke’s Episcopal Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas;
- OPT-099-001 DuPont (PI) 02/15/2006 – 10/31/2006
- Advanced Biologics $2,149,388
- “A Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized Study To Compare The Safety
- And Efficacy of Prulifloxacin Versus Placebo In The Treatment of
- Acute Bacterial Gastroenteritis In Adult Travelers; Protocol OPT-099-
- 001;Phase 3”
- OPT-099-002 DuPont (PI) 10/01/2006 – 02/28/2007 10%
- Advanced Biologics $296,400
- “A Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized Study To Compare The Safety
- And Efficacy Of Prulifloxacin Versus Placebo In The Treatment Of
- Acute Gastroenteritis In Adult Travelers, Protocol OPT-099-002;
- Phase 3”
- R.B. Walsh works for Optimer, the drug’s sponsor.
- If those who have commented on the request to include company sponsered promotional material as a valid reference now believe its use to be acceptable, having been made aware of the factual circumstances concerning its orgins, I will not object any further. But it is my position that in this specific case this continues to be inappropriate for two reasons. The first being the fact that multiple peer-reviewed sources on prulifloxacin exists, and secondly there are other valid third party references that could be (and have been) subsituted without harm. Davidtfull (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is a very frequent practice to first present results in the form a a poster and/or talk at a meeting and then follow-up with a publication in a peer-review journal. Most journals will allow publication after a poster presentation since a poster presentation represents a preliminary disclosure of the results that lacks the detail of a full paper. Before adding a poster citation to a Wikipedia article, one should of course check to see if the same material has been published in a journal and if found use the citation to the journal article instead. If not, I think including a citation is permissible, especially if the poster is a very recent one since there may have not been enough time for the full paper to have published. talk) 05:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is a very frequent practice to first present results in the form a a poster and/or talk at a meeting and then follow-up with a publication in a peer-review journal. Most journals will allow publication after a poster presentation since a poster presentation represents a preliminary disclosure of the results that lacks the detail of a full paper. Before adding a poster citation to a Wikipedia article, one should of course check to see if the same material has been published in a journal and if found use the citation to the journal article instead. If not, I think including a citation is permissible, especially if the poster is a very recent one since there may have not been enough time for the full paper to have published.
- The studies being discussed were completed two years ago and the results have not been published to date. Nor have the results been disclosed on the FDA clinical trial website as required. The only place that the prelimanry results of these two trials are to be found is on the sponsor's website. They have not been published anywhere else to my knowledge. Nor has there been any explanation given as to why the results have not been published.Davidtfull (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Cancer info on Wikipedia
This Washington Post article might be of some interest to editors over here. The short version: "Good news: Wikipedia's cancer information is generally accurate. Bad news: It's hard to read." WTF? (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated for deletion an article, tetrasil, that may be of interest to members of this project. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetrasil to contribute to the discussion. ChemNerd (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Stovaine (amylocaine) and Novocaine (procaine)
Hello. I set the following message two months ago on Talk:Procaine. Without any reaction by any contributor, as far as I can see, I copy it here. Regards. Thierry (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is not true that Procaine was “first injectable man-made local anesthetic”: Stovaine was discovered first, in 1903, by fr:Ernest Fourneau. Would you have a look on French article fr:amylocaïne ? And please, would you see French book : Christine Debue-Barazer, « Les implications scientifiques et industrielles du succès de la Stovaïne. Ernest Fourneau (1872-1949) et la chimie des médicaments en France », in Gesnerus 64, 2007 (It seems to me that there is an English version of this text in the same issue of the revue).
- I lament I am not able, as you can see, to write in an easy enough English to change the article to this way, and I have to let it done by an English contributor. Regards. --Thierry (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- You can refer to : Marie-Thérèse Cousin, L'anesthésie réanimation en France. Des origines à 1965, préface de Maurice Cara, L'Harmattan, Coll. "Sciences et société", 2005 p. 313 :
- "Deux nouveaux anesthésiques locaux relancèrent l'anesthésie localisée que la toxicité de la cocaïne avait menacé de faire disparaître. 1°) Le chlorhydrate d'amyléine (amine dérivée de la cocaïne) ou Stovaïne synthétisé en 1903 par Ernest Fourneau (1872-1949), pharmacologue de l'Institut Pasteur. Les essais cliniques furent confiés à Reclus et pour la rachianesthésie, dès commercialisation de la Stovaïne, à Tuffier, qui publia ses 80 premiers cas en 1905. La Stovaïne fut bientôt détrônée par la procaïne (Novocaïne, encore baptisée Syncaïne, Scurocaïne, Allocaïne) synthétisée en 1905 par l'Allemand Alfred Einhorn."
- And you can also refer, on site of [E.S.P.C.I] , to François Tillequin, François-Hugues Porée, De la plante au médicament, Faculté de Pharmacie - Paris V, 22 Janvier 2007 :
- "C’est au pharmacien français Ernest Fourneau (1872-1949) que revient le mérite de la conception et de la synthèse en 1903 du premier anesthésique local non psychotrope, la stovaïne, qui sera commercialisée par Poulenc Frères dès 1904. La voie était ouverte pour le développement des anesthésiques locaux et un second dérivé, la procaïne (novocaïne®), préparée par Alfred Einhorn en 1905, connaît également un succès commercial immédiat."
- --Thierry (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Will do. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Discussion continues at Talk:Procaine. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Crizotinib
The new-ish Wikipedian ScienceRulz2012 (talk · contribs) has created the article Crizotinib, and asked for my help in developing it.
I think it is within the remit of this project group, so I added the project on the talk page, with an initial assessment of start class/low priority.[3]
I would be very grateful if anyone could look at the article, possibly change the assessment, and make comments on the talk page. Best, Chzz ► 16:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Request for help regarding Loratadine article
I'd like to request an expert to take a look at this article. I'm not convinced the text regarding the controversy surrounding it's efficacy is detailed enough, or that the text matches what the source says. There are some comments on the talk page about this, and I have added the experts needed template. If this is not your domain, could you please send a note to whoever it is? Thank you. Forkhandles (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Done – Thanks for the notification! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Fluoxetine and US/world brand names
Hi, all. In Australia, fluoxetine is sold under the generic name of Lovan, but the name Lovan is not anywhere in the article. I note that the manual of style recommends listing 'all applicable brand names'.
However, I have been told by aficionados of this project that this is not the policy in practise. I have tried to add brand names in the past and been told not to do this.
It is mentioned in the opening paragraph that fluoxetine is sold under the name Sarafem (in the US), but this is only for one indication -PMS. I think that if this project is going to be helpful, it ought to list all the brand names, and brand names from countries other than the United States. Lay people can very easily get confused about what their medications are. (And the pharm companies encourage this, I reckon, in order to differentiate premium brands). So what's the official word on brand names? - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)/Archive5#Trade names for a start. Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide, where the "all applicable brand names" comes from, is unfortunately out of date in some parts. I'm not very happy with omitting brand names either, but the fact is that well-known drugs like fluoxetine can have literally hundreds of brand names if you count the non-US ones, and such lists wouldn't be to helpful for our readers, too. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I understand there may be hundreds of brand names. I still feel that the article is incomplete without it. The brand names may be notable on their own - for example, there may be litigation against one brand name in one country. Also, I think that the choice of names is currently a bit US-centric. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- The current policy is to add the initial brand name(s) to the lead, so I think the choice is not a matter of US-centricity – Prozac supposedly was the first registered brand. If there is a notable litigation against one brand name, there should be a section or paragraph about it, mentioning the concerned name of course.
- Having said that, I certainly won't revert you if you add further names; I'd just assume you are using COMMON sense. But please don't add them to the lead section: even starting a list of three or four names tends to yield outcomes such asthis (and I've seen worse), which renders the lead almost unreadable besides being dead ugly. Even Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide, outdated as it might be, recommends adding them to a section further down (e. g. a section Brand names near the end of the article). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- My first instinct (and I'm not a member, contributor or knowledgeable person about drugs) would be to use redirects but that only helps at a certain level. Has a List of brand names of Prozacpage ever been suggested? A bit of overkill perhaps (particularly given the thousands to millions of pharmaceuticals and brand names), but still useful, informative and probably comprehensive, particularly if done in table format:
- My first instinct (and I'm not a member, contributor or knowledgeable person about drugs) would be to use
- I understand there may be hundreds of brand names. I still feel that the article is incomplete without it. The brand names may be notable on their own - for example, there may be litigation against one brand name in one country. Also, I think that the choice of names is currently a bit US-centric. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Brand name | Country |
---|---|
Lovan | Australia[1] |
- It could easily be sourced, and as a list it's not cluttering up the main page while still being both useful and informative. complex14:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- It could easily be sourced, and as a list it's not cluttering up the main page while still being both useful and informative.
- Redirects for the main brand names are recommended, but redirecting from a name that isn't mentioned in the lead section of the target article only confuses the readers. Dabs like Lovan are fine but only feasible if the word has different meanings as well.
- As for the list: It would have to be List of fluoxetine brand names to judge from the existing List of ibuprofen brand names andList of paracetamol brand names. Come to think of it, redirecting brand names to such a list (or to a section Trade names in the drug article) might make things clearer for readers than just redirecting to the top of the main article. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Another option would be using the drug infobox. Perhaps have an autohidden section at the bottom that expands to a list of alt. names in different countries. complex15:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Another option would be using the drug infobox. Perhaps have an autohidden section at the bottom that expands to a list of alt. names in different countries.
Style guide update
For your information: I've updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide. Any additional contributions and corrections welcome, of course. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Pharma stubs
I've started creating subtypes of {{
Just for the record, I know I'm talking to myself. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Just for the record, this talk is on my watchlist, and I do read all of your comments here, but I just don't have anything to add. :-)--Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- And two days before July 4! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- w00t w00t! talk) 19:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Just for the record, I may come back eventually, you know :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, guys, let's have a party :-) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Drug-free, of course! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, guys, let's have a party :-) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Just for the record, I may come back eventually, you know :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- w00t w00t!
- And two days before July 4! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
That's how the new stub templates look like. Feel free to tweak the text and change the images.
- {{Gastrointestinal-drug-stub}}
- {{Blood-drug-stub}}
- {{Cardiovascular-drug-stub}}
- {{Dermatologic-drug-stub}}
- {{Genito-urinary-drug-stub}}
- {{Systemic-hormonal-drug-stub}}
- {{Antiinfective-drug-stub}}
- {{Antineoplastic-drug-stub}}
- {{Musculoskeletal-drug-stub}}
- {{Nervous-system-drug-stub}}
- {{Respiratory-system-drug-stub}}