Talk:Fluphenazine

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Fluphenazine.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Pharmacology Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This 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.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fluphenazine is more potent than Haloperidol?

"It belongs to the piperazine class of phenothiazines and is extremely potent; more potent than haloperidol and around fifty to seventy times the potency of chlorpromazine."

While fluphenazine certainly is a highly potent neuroleptic, I don't think it's more potent than haloperidol. Most sources I have state, that the neuroleptic potency of fluphenazine dihydrochloride administred orally or intramusculary is somewhere between 30 and 40 (maximum 50) chlorpromazine-equivalents; haloperidol is stated to have CPZeq. of 50 in all sources I have to my disposition; thus, fluphenazine is slightly less, or maximaly equaly potent, compared to haloperidol; in one publication, intramuscular fluphenazine decanoate is stated to have a potency of about 115 - 130 CPZeq's, but then again, haloperidol decanoate i.m. is stated to have potency of 110 - 125 CPZeq.--84.163.86.56 00:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising images

Thoughts out there about these old Prolixin ads? I'm in favor of keeping the images, as they provide some visual context for the era when these drugs were marketed, in the same way that the Coca-Cola page has advertisements in the article. Andrew73 13:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. These are both non-free images so we shouldn't be using them without a good reason (see WP:NFC#Policy for more). If they are supposed to illustrate the product's promotion and advertising, why does the article make no mention of this? Neither of the images even has a caption. And why two unfree images? Cheers, --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I've added captions to show that they are advertisements. There are no free equivalents, and I think they do serve an encyclopedic role. If they are okay on the Coca-Cola page, they should similarly be okay here. Andrew73 12:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prodrugs?

The article lists brand names for various ester forms. Does this mean that fluphenazine is not given directly, but rather as esters that are metabolized to fluphenazine? Or are fluphenazine decanoate, etc. salts, not esters? Either way, the article should explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.164.21 (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC) those are different salt forms of the drug[reply]