Jump to content

Talk:Triazolam: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Atherva (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 29: Line 29:


I just feel the need to concur about the "cognitive hip fractures"... [[User:Atherva|Atherva]] ([[User talk:Atherva|talk]]) 08:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I just feel the need to concur about the "cognitive hip fractures"... [[User:Atherva|Atherva]] ([[User talk:Atherva|talk]]) 08:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The history section is now missing 90% of it's citations, if this is not corrected it must be removed as the accuracy of the information seems quite suspect. --[[Special:Contributions/75.17.193.253|75.17.193.253]] ([[User talk:75.17.193.253|talk]]) 17:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Dr. S

Revision as of 17:59, 14 October 2011

WikiProject iconPharmacology B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article 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.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I have moved the information about Triazolam being banned in the UK to the History section from the Pregnancy section where it had ended up by mistake. The fact that, after reviewing the available evidence, the Committee on the Safety of Medicines concluded that it should be withdrawn from the market is important to note here - even though the FDA has not come to the same decision.Pound 18:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, still a hazy issue. Good job until further examination or classification...if any. Jmlk17 05:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there even can be any found. Jmlk17 21:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed two sections that are unreferenced and appear to be extremely partisan:

"In the past, triazolam was commonly prescribed to individuals who frequently changed time zones, such as business people and politicians travelling overseas. However, this practice has been discouraged, because these individuals would on occasion wake up with total amnesia and have no knowledge of where they were, or why they were there. In rare cases, paranoia would ensue.

The safety of triazolam is questionable, because it has a fairly narrow therapeutic window. Also, evidence suggests long-term use (beyond 14 days) can cause hallucinations, amnesia, paranoia and aggressive behaviors.[citation needed] Also, like most other short acting benzodiazepines, it has a high potential for misuse, abuse and development of dependence."

Other than that, I've expanded the article a bit with DrugBank information.

Fuzzform 00:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit...I take Halcion/Triazolam on an as-needed basis, and have yet to experience any side effects other than slight memory issues the next day of the previous evening. Oh well, good work. Jmlk17 09:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the fact tag from the combining of medications section. All meds should warrant extra care when being used together, it would be common sense, beyond fact. Also, added the label to the amnesia area due to it being a slightly odd, yet still believable idea. Jmlk17 07:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under the section entitled "Side Effects," the last sentence reads, "A meta-analysis demonstrated that residual 'hangover' effects after nighttime administration of triazolam such as sleepiness, impaired psychomotor and cognitive hip fractures." Something is missing; impaired psychomotor what? Cognitive hip fractures? Hmmm... Dfruzzetti (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I just feel the need to concur about the "cognitive hip fractures"... Atherva (talk) 08:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The history section is now missing 90% of it's citations, if this is not corrected it must be removed as the accuracy of the information seems quite suspect. --75.17.193.253 (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Dr. S[reply]