Talk:Artificial tears

Citation duplication

Ok, I dont know about quoting standards in the english wikipedia - but quoting seems a bit excessive in this article - every single sentence is quoted - and mostly with the same document... Should that really be visible to everyone (is it common practice have quotes visible only in the source?) 199.74.98.146 05:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Keratoconjunctivitis_sicca#Citation_duplication with regards to this. --AB 19:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced claim about dependency

I'm moving the following text from the article to here because there a source has not been provided to verify it.

There is a chance that habitual use of artificial tears, especially when they are not needed, may cause a dependency.^{[citation needed]} Like most dependencies, the body may learn that it no longer needs to produce the same quantity or quality of tears on its own, since they are supplied for it.^{[citation needed]}

--AB (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Mention of Lacrisert

This is a possible continuation of a discussion at Talk:Keratoconjunctivitis_sicca. --IO Device (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I will update the information on Lacrisert as advised and will go from there. Thanks. WillAb (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was clear that the keratoconjunctivitis sicca article is off-limits for mention of Lacrisert, yet you added Lacrisert to it. This is unproductive and a waste of time for everyone involved. Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits that you know all too well will be reverted anyway. As far as my opinion is concerned, the current mention of Lacrisert in this article is acceptable. --IO Device (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Noted, but no, it was not clear it was 100% off limits; I thought the content had to be reworked so that it was not too promotional (from going over the back and forth regarding the attempted efforts). I understand you feel Lacrisert is better off under artifical tears, and that's fine, but I still am not clear - if the FDA has approved its indication for treatment in patients with keratoconjunctivitis sicca, per the indication statement listed here: http://www.lacrisert.com/ why can't even 1 line of text be included on the keratoconjunctivitis sicca page? Is the decision more subjective on your part? I'm not understanding the rationale for not allowing information to be posted for a drug with an indication that clearly includes keratoconjunctivitis sicca. Thanks WillAb (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The substance in Lacrisert, i.e. hydroxypropyl cellulose, is the same as is in many artificial tear products. This is why it does not deserve a section of its own in the keratoconjunctivitis sicca article. The decision is not subjective. Others too will independently revert the edit if you make it again, as they have done in the past. Not a single existing artificial tear product deserves mention in the dry eye article. --IO Device (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)