Talk:Pharmacological cardiotoxicity

Review

Some of the phrases are hard to read. In particular, some of them are long, and shorter periods are preferable. Furthermore, some typos (grammar, misspells, capital letter misuse) were present. Some links were redirect links, even if the direct one was available. Finally, I would ask the author if it is possible to add an example of the antiarrhythmic drug, as done for the anticancer one in the very first section. Overall, the content of the article was fine. Isabella Poles (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribute 94MC94 (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Observations and suggestions for improvements

The following observations and suggestions for improvements were collected, following an expert review of the article within the Science, Technology, Society and Wikipedia course at the Politecnico di Milano, in July 2023.

Probably a better title for this wikipedia voice could be Drug induced cardiotoxicity (DICT). The term pharmacological is too general and not correct for this application. In the section "Creation of a population of cellular action potentials", in the biomarkers list APD90 is repeated twice, the second i guess it should be APD50. In the definiton of TdPRS a parenthesis is missing on the denominator. Moreover in this section the equations should be better explained. For example it is not clear what EFTPC means.

--Aandurro (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: WikiMed Fall 2024

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 October 2024 and 22 November 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Theyangthang (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Theyangthang (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workplan: WikiMed

My plan for this article is to create two sections for both anticancer and antiarrhymatics, each describing pathophysiology, clinical elements, and treatment. To do so, I would like to create an anticancer section, as well as edit the antiarrhymatic information already present in the article to fit the same format. Following this, I also plan to rearrange information already present in the article to better fit this new format. Theyangthang (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

My General Comments:

I like the way that you organized the information much better than the way it was. Additionally you’ve added a lot of good information in the Anticancer cardiotoxicity, which doesn’t appear to have existed before you started. There are some spelling, spacing, and grammar issues throughout, and I think that it would be valuable to try using hemingway or one of the other readability checkers to help identify areas that could be rephrased to be clearer. You clearly put a lot of work and research into the page and its in much better shape now than when you started with it.

My Comments Section by Section:

Introduction
1. Minor grammar, spelling and spacing issues.
2. The way that it’s currently written it makes it seem like you can only get cardiotoxicity from these two drug classes, but based on the definition you give there are more drugs that seem like they would be considered cardiotoxic
3. “The mechanism of is thought to account for iron-dependent generation of reactive oxygen species, leading to oxidative damage to the cardiomyocytes.” I don’t understand this sentence
4. Consider simplifying language and using a larger number of shorter sentences.
Anticancer Cardiotoxicity
1. Given that this is an encyclopedia, I think that mentioning more of the anticancer drugs that can cause cardiotoxicity would be appropriate with specific sections for each of the different classes rather than picking the two most common types of drugs used in cancer treatment that cause cardiotoxicity and then basing each of the other sections on the particulars of those two on assumption.
2. Pathophysiology
  1. You should explain the mechanism that you introduce in this section in more detail.
3. Clinical Manifestation and Epidemiology
  1. You contradict yourself by saying that the mechanism for HER2 antibodies is “known”, but then saying it is “hypothesized” that these receptors are cardioprotective. Overly detailed on the exposure point, I think that if you wanted to keep the numbers you could make say it in a way which would explain “dose dependent on total exposure” to someone who might struggle with that phrase.
4. Treatments
  1. Could use citation on the dexrazoxane sentence.
Antiarrhythmic Cardiotoxicity
1. Introduction
  1. Title is currently misspelled as “antiarrhymatic” instead of “antiarrhythmic”
  2. Seems like more detail than needed currently about what designates the different types of antiarrhythmics, could be left to the hyperlink. Could use more information on why the classes might be relevant to them being cardiotoxic.
2. Pathophysiology
  1. Needs citations
3. Clinical Manifestation and Epidemiology
  1. Could use some detail
4. Treatment
  1. I think this could use detail.

ChristopherHuebner (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]