Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
WikiProject Pharmacology (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology 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.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 


New preg and lactation risks coming soon[edit]

It appears the FDA are getting rid of ABCDX and instead using prose. This might be good content to copy and paste into all our articles. I guess we will see. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

If that is "replace 'X' with fixed prose 'Abcde'" it can be automated in the drugbox (no article edits needed). -DePiep (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it is a good change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Or we can write like "Abcde (formerly X)" for a period of time. You can ping me if things are decided. -DePiep (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes I agree. I already write "Abcde" which means X. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there a formal table of changes available? Informal? -DePiep (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Doc James, I've clicked some links but I still don't get the setup (except that there are a few description classes, and mostly prose or desriptive text (ie no classes). Are there any examples? As it is now, I think we better add |PLLR= free text parameter to {{Drugbox}} next to old ABC classes, not interacting. -DePiep (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Copy and pasting[edit]

Hey All. We have just starting running edits from this project through the "copy and paste" detection bot found here [User:EranBot/Copyright]. There are some false positive and negatives. All results need human follow up. But it is decent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of a pharmacology article for deletion[edit]

Good evening. I'm just posting here to notify this project that I have nominated a Pharmacology article for deletion due to the fact that barring one sentence and an infobox, it's empty and has only been edited twice since 2011. If you have any input, would someone please be kind enough to expand Ethallobarbital to at least a stub if possible. Right now, it's not so much a stub, more like a Zygote :) If anyone has the opportunity to fill this in, please do! It's been empty since 2009 and utterly unreferenced, barring a PubMed citation. I'd rather it carry on than get shifted off. Thank you! CharlieTheCabbie|Yack to the driver 00:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Free 'RSC Gold' accounts[edit]

I am pleased to announce, as Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society of Chemistry, the donation of 100 "RSC Gold" accounts, for use by Wikipedia editors wishing to use RSC journal content to expand articles on chemistry-related topics (including, of course, pharmacology). Please visit Wikipedia:RSC Gold for details, to check your eligibility, and to request an account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsonthewing (talkcontribs) 14:01, 18 December 2014‎

Thanks Andy, that is amazing. Thanks also for involving this WikiProject. JFW | T@lk 22:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Notification -- many pharmacological navboxes have changed[edit]

TLDR

All medical, anatomy and many pharmacological navigation boxes have changed.

The small line of links at the bottom of the navbox has now changed to an "Index of..." with "Description", "Disease" and Treatment" subsections. This will affect almost all medical, anatomy and pharmacology navboxes. As an example, see here:

The links at the bottom ("Index of the peripheral nervous system...") are what have changed. A full list is at Template:Medicine navs.

Why this has changed

Previously all navboxes have had a line of links to other navboxes embedded within them. An example is here: [1]. Prior to today, that line that was a list of abbreviated terms that linked to relevant templates. This attracted a lot of negative feedback, and a length discussion was held on how to improve them. See here for the RfC: Template_talk:Medicine_navs#Roundtable_discussion_on_legibiltity_and_usability_of_medical_navs. We concluded that it would be better for the embedded navboxes to be expanded in full form. This is much easier for mobile use, links are clearer, and lay users who may not be familiar with the abbreviated forms can now use the templates with greater ease.

What we have changed

We expanded all the abbreviations. We tried very hard to get the right balance between readability for lay audiences, who are not familiar with medical terminology, and technical accuracy. We have tried to use standard terms for all the templates. Further explanation can be found by reading the discussions on Template_talk:Medicine_navs

Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Feedback[edit]

Please leave feedback here: Template_talk:Medicine_navs#Feedback_after_roundtable_changes

Automatic archiving[edit]

I've had occasion to post to this page a few times in the past year. Because of its size it takes quite a long time to load (meaning multiple minutes on some connections I have used) and because there are so many threads it is a little hard to keep track of. Would there be any objections to making this page automatically archived, say after 28 days? I would be bold and do this myself, but seeing as this is now 2015 and it hasn't already been done, I feel I should be certain and ask first Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah...we probably should do that. I'm okay with 28 days for the limit. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 07:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Substance dependence#Article split into Drug dependence and Drug addiction[edit]

This is a WP:PHARM High-importance & level-4 vital article article split.

Insert your 2¢ if you have any. If anyone objects, propose an alternative; I'm going to follow through with some action to address the problem within a month since I won't let that travesty of an article remain as is. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 13:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Estrogenics, Glucocorticoidics, Progestogenics, Mineralocorticoidics?[edit]

The name of {{Glucocorticoids}} was recently changed to {{Glucocorticoidics}} in this edit The the usual term for glucocorticoids is glucocorticoids:

This includes:

There appears little to no precedent for the term "glucocorticoidics":

Also I noticed that we have related navboxes that are named {{Estrogenics}}, {{Mineralocorticoidics}} and {{Progestogenics}} whose names also strikes me odd, especially given the following MeSH terms:

Based on the results of Google searches, there is a bit more support for the terms estrogenics, glucocorticoidics, mineralocorticoidics, and progestogenics but these terms are still not widely used. Wikipedia is meant for a wide audience. Hence I propose that the templates adopt the MeSH names that are shorter, simpler, more widely used, and are still fully accurate.

Is there support for the renaming of these navboxes? Boghog (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably not and they should be moved back. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I strongly support the name "...-ics" for these navboxes in their current condition. It covers a broarder spectrum of items (modulators, enzyme inhibitors, etc.), which otherwise would be quite narrow. I treat it as a matter of logic derivation. For me it's inaccurate to subsume enzyme inhibitors under the title progestogencis, estrogenics, etc. --Hm20 (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
{{Glucocorticoidics}} is not a word (Glucocorticoidics PubMed search No results). Using it for the name of a navbox amounts to original research. Furthermore the scope of these navboxes is far too broad and the size has become unwieldy. They should be split up into ligands, enzyme inhibitors, etc. Boghog (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Insert "glucocorticoidic" into google scholar. You will find peer reviewed papers that use this term. There is nothing wrong with it. I just don't care about pubmed hits. In the present case there is no basis for regarding pubmed as a acceptance criterion. It's not the job of pubmed to represent a full comprehensive glossery. As a single example: Noppe et al use this word/non-word on page nine in Analytica Chimica Acta, 2008, PMID 18298962. To point it out once, Medgirl, you made a good job.
Concerning the appearance, would it be the style of the dopaminergics navbox that you have in mind?
A recurring issue is addressing. Shall the navbox serve the professional and well experienced reader/user or the average layman? In my opinion it should serve both. I think of two boxes in one with a double show/hide function for each subbox. One essential version (like the current template:Progestogens and antiprogestogens) containing prescription drugs and the like, and a comprehensive version, containing also research agents, etc. --Hm20 (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The Google Scholar "glucocorticoidic" search returned 18 hits. A large majority of those hits are false positives (e.g., "Glucocorticoid; IC50"). There are only two or three true positives and these are no doubt typos. Compare that with the 599,000 results returned by Google Scholar "glucocorticoid". "Glucocorticoidic" is not a word and has no place in Wikipedia. Furthermore, a sprawling navbox that is difficult to read because of its enormous size serves neither the general reader nor the specialist. Boghog (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Supported. All these “*ics” are bizarre and never used in the scientific community. Just my 2 cents. Alfie↑↓© 00:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Tons of search engine hits can't have the power to impress me. Glucocorticoidic is without any doubt a valid word and used in at least a few scientific papers as an adjective – no typo. I admit, there is apparently no reference that use it as a noun. Since I am not a nit-picker I won't instist any longer on this issue. I have no special interest in steroids, but I appreciate well organized navboxes. The pairwise contrapositioned terms are not synonymous, so one can't simply change the corresponding box title, it's mistaking apples for oranges.
@ Alfie: Do dopaminergics, serotoninergics and opioidergics belong to "all these bizzare *ics"? --Hm20 (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hm20: Glucocorticoidic is without any doubt a valid word Right. 599,000 to ~3 search results and I would still argue that these few sporadic examples are probably typos. I also note that the authors of number of these highly atypical examples are non-native English speakers. At best, "glucocorticoidic" represent a tiny, tiny minority view and therefore is WP:UNDUE and not permitted in Wikipedia. Furthermore, terminology that is used in one field ("dopaminergic" in neurotransmitters) may not be transferable to another field ("glucocorticoid" in nuclear receptors). Employing this analogy amounts to original research. Boghog (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hm20:, @Medgirl131: Below are listed the 5 sources that mention "glucocorticoidic". The remainder of the 13 Google Scholar "glucocorticoidic" search are all false positives (results of adjacency, "glucocorticoid" + "ic"). Of the 5 true hits, sources #1-#3 are reliable English language sources, but are written by authors whose first language is not English. Source #4 is originally written in Hungarian. I cannot find any translation other than what has been supplied by Google Scholar so perhaps the translation was done by Google Translate. Source #5 is a reliable English language source whose Australian authors first language is clearly English. However these particular authors are geneticists, not endocrinologists. In summary there is not one single reliable source that uses "glucocorticoidic" that is authored by a native English speaking author who is an authority in the relevant field (i.e., endocrinology). Per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. Also per WP:COMMONNAME, search engine results are a valid way of establishing the most common usage. "Glucocorticoidic" is almost never used (essentially zero Google Scholar hits) whereas "Glucocorticoid" is highly used (greater than half a million Google Scholar hits). In short, "glucocorticoidic" is not a word. Boghog (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


Simply put, Wikipedia should not coin new terminology. Wikipedia is descriptive, not inventive. Even if you can make a coherent argument that the invented words are better than the ones scientists currently use, using those words does not fall within the scope of Wikipedia's purpose. I support Boghog's suggested moves. ChemNerd (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi from a new editor[edit]

Hi All. I'm a pharmacist and pharmacy prof from the University of Waterloo. I'm learning how to edit Wikipedia (steep learning curve!). My plan is to start by working on antibiotics and to see where it goes from there. My biggest interests are in patient health literacy and antibiotic stewardship. I'm wide open to suggestions and feedback as I learn.(first lesson: sign in before doing an edit :) Kagpharm (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Warm welcome Kagpharm! Antibiotics could certainly use some improvement. When editing medical related articles, please be aware of WP:MEDRS. It is important to support any medical claims with reliable secondary sources (i.e., review articles). On the Talk:Antibiotics page, you will find a box called "Ideal sources" with links to antibiotic specific links to MEDRS compliant sources. If you have any specific questions, please don't hesitate to ask on my talk page. Happy editing! Boghog (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you familiar with simple: Wikipedia? It's written in Simple English, which has a very restricted vocabulary. If you're interested in patient health literacy, then learning how to write to their standards—while still providing full information—might be a valuable exercise. WPMED leverages it for their translation task force (WP:MEDTTF), because it's easier to translate from Simple English into other languages than to start with complex English. Good work done on critical articles can really go world-wide if you're working on something that interests that group. (Also, the Simple English Wikipedia is generally friendly to classes of student editors, if that's an eventual goal for you.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Biosimilars[edit]

Should biosimilars get their own page? I just noticed the new article Remsima, the brand name of a biosimilar to infliximab. For small molecule pharmaceuticals, it makes sense to have only one article titled at the INN and then redirect all brand names/generic products to that article, since they all contain the same API. However, biosimilars do not necessarily have an identical API (that's why they are biosimilars). So should Remsima be merged with infliximab, or left as a standalone article? And if it remains standalone, would it be acceptable to have a separate article for Remicade? -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Afatinib Wikipedia Article[edit]

I have suggested the following post to the Talk:Afatinib Page but have not received a response. Therefore, I will post it here. Thank you for your attention.

I would like to propose a further update to the current article for afatinib. Information on recently published scientific data (Yang et. al. Lancet Oncology 2015) ), relevant to the approved indication for afatinib as a treatment for non-small cell lung cancer is missing from the “Medical uses” section of the current article. Below I have drafted some suggested wording about this data for inclusion in the article, for your consideration. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this suggestion and, as always, am grateful for any feedback and advice. In addition we propose an update to ongoing clinical research, which investigates afatinib in head and neck squamous carcinoma as well as other ErbB driven tumors.

Suggest wording: Afatinib was investigated as first-line therapy in two pivotal, Phase III trials, LUX-Lung 3 and 6. Both studies were large, randomized trials comparing afatinib to standard of care chemotherapy, LUX-Lung 3 in a Caucasian and Asian population, LUX-Lung 6 in a solely Asian population. Both trials met their respective primary endpoint, progression-free survival (PFS). Data presented at the recent American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting 2014 from the LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6 trials, and now published in Lancet Oncology demonstrated for both studies independently a significant overall survival benefit (secondary endpoint) for NSCLC patients with the most common type of EGFR mutation, Del19, compared to standard chemotherapy. A combined exploratory analysis of the LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6 trials demonstrated a prolongation of overall survival (secondary endpoint) in lung cancer patients whose tumours harbour common EGFR mutations (Del19/L858R), compared with standard chemotherapy.

Sagschneider (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDRS, secondary sources (i.e., review or meta-analyses) are required to backup medical claims. PMID: 25589191 is a primary source. I suggest that you rely on these instead. Boghog (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear Wiki Project Pharmacology,
Thank you for your valuable insight and commentary about the sourcing for this suggested edit to the afatinib Wikipedia article. Although we appreciate the WP:MEDRS guidelines recommend secondary sources as back up to medical claims, we would also like to provide the newest evidence at the highest level (primary peer-reviewed journal). Would it be possible to update based on the peer-reviewed article in addition to the secondary sources below?
Afatinib versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy for EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma (LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6): analysis of overall survival data from two randomised, phase 3 trials.

Lancet Oncol. 2015 Feb;16(2):141-51. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)71173-8. Epub 2015 Jan 12.

Targeted therapies: LUX-Lung trials-not all mutations are created equal. Hutchinson L. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015 Mar;12(3):127. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.9. Epub 2015 Jan 27. No abstract available.

Common EGFR-mutated subgroups (Del19/L858R) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: chasing better outcomes with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. Reguart N, Remon J. Future Oncol. 2015 Jan 28:1-13. [Epub ahead of print] Sagschneider (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The article is a bit of a stub and could definitely use updating. I'll put it on my list, but if someone else gets to it first they shouldn't hesitate to do so. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 15:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

New editors with a few questions[edit]

Hello Everyone,

My colleagues, user:J. A. Leavitt and user:C.G.Pharmacy, and I are pharmacy students at the University of Waterloo completing independent research projects on editing Wikipedia. Our goal is to improve the readability of antibiotic articles that are backed by reputable sources. We are working alongside pharmacy professor user:Kagpharm (Pharm D), a pharmacy school librarian (PHD candidate) and user:Doc James. As a team, we would like to revise the Cefalexin page so that it can be used as a standard for updating other Wikipedia pages. We hope to continue to edit other Wikipedia pages as well and welcome any feedback regarding our edits. We want to contribute to making Wikipedia accessible, understandable, and accurate for all Wikipedia readers.

We are currently editing sections of the article and were wondering what Wikipedia’s trusted resources are for pregnancy and lactation information, as well as, for drug interactions? Any feedback or suggestions are most welcome.

Thank you, Carly-pharm (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Carly-pharm. When someone has good sources of information, the usual practice is to include them immediately into a relevant Wikipedia article. Consider checking the references already cited in any article which interests you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Nintedanib edit reflecting IPF indication[edit]

I posted this edit on the Nintedanib article Talk page, but have not received any response. Please see included suggestion below. Thank you.

Lismmq (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes looks like a pharma rep. Loves to emphase brand names and little registration trade mark signs. Have made a few updates to the article in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia Pharmacology Community,
As the two brand names and indications for nintedanib are now included in the entry; I wonder if some further clarification is needed so the difference is clear to the broader readership. Vargatef® is the approved brand name for non-small cell lung cancer while Ofev® is the approved brand name for IPF. The dosage regimen and the way Vargatef® and Ofev® are prescribed differ, particularly with regard to use alongside other active treatments. To ensure there is no confusion in the way nintedanib is prescribed for NSCLC compared to IPF, I suggest the entry be split by indication as is already the case in the Medical uses section. In addition, it may be of interest to add that Vargatef® received marketing authorisation from the European Commission in November 2014 and Ofev® in January 2015. Thank you for your help. Lismmq (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedia Pharmacology Community, just a quick reminder to the post/comment above. Please let me know if any additional material is needed. Thank you for your attention. Lismmq (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@Lismmq: This is a reasonable distinction to make and the clarification on the brand names has been added to the article in the medical uses section, so that readers don't have to read to the end to discover this distinction. Thanks. Looks like the mechanism of action section needs an update. For future reference, we don't use the trademark symbols in articles and try to avoid over-emphasis on brand names. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Codeine – opiate or opioid?[edit]

Some confusion here, editors changing things back and forth:

-- -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Amphetamine at WP:TFA[edit]

I've nominated the amphetamine article with this blurb for TFA; I'd appreciate any input for/against the nomination or comments about the blurb at the nomination page.

Thanks Face-smile.svg Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 20:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations, Seppi :-) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 22:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Digestives[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Digestives has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Bromelain (pharmacology) for DYK[edit]

See Template:Did you know nominations/Bromelain (pharmacology). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear WikiProject Pharmacology[edit]

I am posting here to request the development of a new Wikipedia page for the COPD treatment tiotropium + olodaterol fixed-dose combination (FDC).

Tiotropium + olodaterol FDC is a new treatment developed by Boehringer Ingelheim. Phase III data has shown that tiotropium + olodaterol FDC provides even further lung function, symptom and quality of life benefits to patients than tiotropium or olodaterol alone.1

Tiotropium + olodaterol FDC has been submitted for Marketing Authorisation in Europe and the US and if approved, could offer an important additional treatment option for the estimated 65 million patients worldwide who live with COPD.2 _

Please note, all information submitted for this page would be factually-based and relate largely to the significant amount of trial data available for this treatment.


Would the Wikipedia Pharmacology community consider the creation of this new Page for this new FDC treatment option of COPD? If so, please let us know if you would need additional, unbiased and scholarly material for the creation of this new article.

We look forward to your reply.

Kind regards Christoph_Hallmann

1. Buhl R, Derom E, Ferguson G et al. Once-daily tiotropium and olodaterol fixed-dose combination via the Respimat® improves outcomes vs mono-components in COPD in two 1-year studies. ERS 2014 abstract No. OP1895. 2. World Health Organization. Chronic Respiratory Diseases. Burden of COPD. Christoph Hallmann (talk) 08:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Any high quality secondary sources? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Drugbox legal status options[edit]

In {{Drugbox}}, we can add the legal status for some countries (AU, UK, US, ...). There are pre-set options, which nicely link to for example: CA: Schedule I. Documentation is completed now, and changes are a bit more easy. If you're interested, please take a look and drop improvements (better links? better texts? sources OK?).

Documentation is at {{Infobox drug/legal status}}, talk is at Infobox drug, legal status. -DePiep (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Can these changes be made for the Pharmacology section of the Chembox as well? Sizeofint (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I plan to use the very same option set (same subtemplate) in {{Chembox}}. Needs a stable subtemplate (currently there are some 380 Pharmaco's in {Chembox}). btw, pregnancy category is to follow. -DePiep (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. See up to date documentation at {{Infobox drug/legal status}} and {{Infobox drug/pregnancy category}}. -DePiep (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Tetramethylhexadecenyl succinyl cysteine[edit]

I make it a point to stay away from anything related to MEDRS, but you guys might want to take a look at this article. Apparently developed by an account called "Mesports" which has a matching website that seems to sell or otherwise market this stuff. It looks like there's some refspam promotion and/or use of non-reliable sources also. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

US: PLLR per 30 June 2015[edit]

June 30, pregnancy category labeling in the US changes (no more letter codes A-B-C). New rules PLLR could be an article.

As I am working with {{Drugbox}} (esp. pregnancy category documentation), I'd like to learn what will happen. I have not seen a single example (medicine label). What to expect? How to handle? -DePiep (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Was mentioned here earlier by Doc James. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology#New_preg_and_lactation_risks_coming_soon -DePiep (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

"Rx-only" worldwide[edit]

{{Drugbox}} has the option to enter |legal_status=Rx only. Then the infobox drug says:

"Legal status: (Prescription only)".

(See full documentation and 500 articles doing so). There are also country specific options like |legal_CA=Rx only. These are OK.

But. I think thethere can not be a worldwide regulation "Rx only". So I propose to declare this input invalid, do not show in article, and make the maintenance task to edit the article into being more specific or sourced. -DePiep (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the legal status are very English-speaking country specific.
Some drugs are regulated by UN (worldwide)
Christian75 (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes. For this question, I do not mind these "legal UK" data (it's not wrong). And UN, EU are there too, OK. But an infobox simply saying " only" worldwide to me seems wrong and can not be sourced. -DePiep (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with DePiep worldwide cant be sourced for this--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
It has a parameter for UN - good. But it skips a lot of countrys with hugh population like China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia, Japan, Germany, France (just to name a few which have a population greater than UK). It also have legal parameters for (other) small countrys (compared to e.g. Germany) alike New Zealand, Australia and Canada. Christian75 (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Christian, country-specific input is not the issue here. -07:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
It was a comment to "here are also country specific options like |legal_CA=Rx only. These are OK." Christian75 (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
My first thought on this is, who wants to make sure that this info is up to date for 206 countries and 500 articles? That's 103k news searches and a Herculian task. Samsara 10:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
yep, it is--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Well... I've got some sympathy for this. On the other hand, can anyone name any country in which, say, oxycodone or vancomycin or thalidomide is legally available over the counter to anyone who wants it? If—using our best judgment and all available sources—the statement is accurate, then it's not WP:LIKELY to be challenged and therefore requires no citation. I'd be sad to see drugbox crammed full of lists of individual countries when the actual answer is "prescription-only everywhere with no (known) exceptions". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, just enter that text and it'll be fine (the parameter accepts any text). Your "everywhere" is a good specifier. My problem is that the boilerplate text, as shown in my opening post, is not that clear. -DePiep (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Could show for this input only (and categorize for maintenance):
"Legal status: (Prescription only)"[where?]
-DePiep (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • In the past a drug company came to WikiProject Medicine and the Wikimedia Foundation asking about investing in importing a database about unwarranted variation in standards of care. Among the data which they wished to import was information about the availability of different drugs in different places. Ultimately, their investment was not negotiated to any end because Wikipedia has trouble with commercial partnerships, but I think that health care organizations still would like to support the integration of this information into Wikipedia. Samsara, you say it is a massive task, plus multiply it for 200 languages, but if we had this information in Wikidata databases then it could be propagated out.
I would favor keeping some form of this entry in, even if only as a placeholder indicating that information is incomplete and that in some cases, it mattered enough that someone wished to include the information.
I have the idea that if Wikidata were a viable way to propagate database entries into Wikipedias, this is an area where discussion with health information organizations would get support in return. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind someone or wikidata adding the legal status for 200 countries, provided that the country name is specified. That text (any text of any length) can be added through |legal_status= and will show unedited. My beef is: as quoted, the default option has no such country specification. That is unacceptable. -DePiep (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
(Keep from archiving edit). -DePiep (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

My impression is that it will be very, very difficult to make and keep this accurate. In which case my proclivity would be to leave it out. The average person in Zambia, Ukraine, or Vietnam is going to have a much better idea where to get good information on the local regulations for drugs than the average English Wikipedia editor. Why claim to know more than we do? Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 21:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Rx by template[edit]

I have created this template {{Rx}}:

{{Rx}}

-DePiep (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Triple antibiotic ointment[edit]

Your attention is called to the discussion at Talk:Polysporin, in which one view is to merge with Neosporin, another is to leave the two articles separate, and a third is to merge the two under the generic name in the header above, which now redirects to Polysporin. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Radium[edit]

Should Radium-223-Chloride be an article about Radium-223 or Radium-223-Chloride ? Should this be an isotope article, or a pharmacological chemical article? See talk:Radium-223-Chloride for the discussion -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Dabigatran Article[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Community,

I posted the following suggestion on the Dabigatran Talk Page, but it has unfortunately not received any attention. Please see below. Thank you for your assistance.

In order to supplement the completeness of this Wikipedia article, I was wondering whether readers would appreciate a more complete list of regulatory approvals for dabigatran to be added in the “History” section. Currently, the “History” section does not reflect the approvals listed in the “Medical Uses” section. I could imagine that the article would benefit if the two sections were aligned. If you would like further information or dates, I would be happy to provide them here.

Tvrdonova (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Cafinitrina[edit]

Probably needs to be deleted since it has no sources, but would otherwise need to be renamed Nitroglycerin/caffeine or vice versa. Anyone think this kind of niche combination drug article is worth keeping? Seppi333 (Insert ) 05:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)