Template talk:Infobox drug

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

EMA licence link[edit]

EMA approval links no longer work (error 404) since EMA migrated to a new website. See for example Afamelanotide where EU licence link should lead here: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/scenesse. — kashmīrī TALK 14:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Kashmiri Looking at this. Problem: "Afamelanotide" is the INN, but that does not work any more in the new link .../human/EPAR/afamelanotide Red XN. Has EMA dropped the INN name as identifier?
Problem 2: otrher drug names (INN) dooesn't seem to work either. What is the translation principle (from Afamelanotide to scenesse ?)
Is there any documentation on the site for the new situation (especially, we want to skip the Search-page of course).
Testcases are at /testcases3. -DePiep (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
The problem is both with INN/proprietary names and with the EMA search engine URL (it is no longer located at the old URL).
The search template should be updated to use the following URL:
[A] https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/search/search/ema_group_types/ema_medicine?search_api_views_fulltext="%1"
It works both for INN and tradenames. — kashmīrī TALK 15:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Alternately, for INN only,
[B] https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/search/search/ema_group_types/ema_medicine/search_api_aggregation_ema_inn_common_name/"%1"
kashmīrī TALK 15:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Better. See testcases: I managed to end up at the search-results page indeed. However, this is the searchpage and not the EPAR page we want (I think). Takes another knowledge look & click for our reader, which is not good of course. If you know something for this (API? doc page?) I'd like to hear.
I will do some more tests (tomorrow). Note that {{Infobox drug}} uses the INN, but EMA has alternate INN names (eg salt or not; notation of isotopes is bad for automation wrt superscripts etc). Here and overview of INN names I had to manually check & change to use the EMA site in 2017... -DePiep (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
───────────────────────── Does not look well. I have added both [A] and [B] to the testcases.
Example Afamelanotide (INN), EPAR under /scenesse: A=1, B=1 result.
Example Warfarin (INN): A=404 results (trade names (all?), none /warfarin), B=0 results.
IOW, Searching by INN is not to be trusted (and still ends up at the search page listing, not the EPAR page itself). EMA has switched off search by INN, and/or publish EPAR by INN. I don't think we should have this link, it does not help the reader except for a "go search by yourself" external link. -DePiep (talk) 09:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
More: urls A and B do not differ between human and vetenarian. [1] gives 1348 EPARs in total for human. Also interesting information management (Dec 2018), IDMP (ISO), and a downloadable [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/download-medicine-data#european-public-assessment-reports-(epar)-section spreadsheet table (1350 human EPARs).The IT situation is very fluid. as of today. -DePiep (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I think we should do this:
Today, the licence data is fed with the INN not a trade name. However, EMA (seems to) have changed to trade name IDs (the EPAR is under a trade name, can be multiple trade names for one INN).
We first change to use URL [B], as that uses the INN we have.
Later on, we can research how to cover this better (one INN, multiple trade names = need transformation from inn to list of treade names...).
Todo: check [B] URL encoding requirements (spaces, punctuation).
-DePiep (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Adjusting a few things[edit]

I would say that

"| onset = " "| duration_of_action = "

Are clinical data. Well the ATC code would fit better under identifiers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Are they *not* pharmacikinetic data? It may be seductive to put alsmost everything under 'clinical', because almost everything is used in the clinics. Even names are in that section already. However, the infobox is not a documentation for clinics. Being an infobox, every data point should be at a more specific place when possible.
As for ATC: this is a classification, not an identifier. We could add a section 'classes'. -DePiep (talk) 05:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 April 2019: Add Australia's name on hover to the country name abbr for drug/pregnancy category[edit]

Change AU to AU

so that the country name is shown on hover and that the cursor change on hover is not misleading.

This matches the format already found for the US section country name abbr of the drug/pregnancy category template. MosquitoBird11 (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done Seppi333 (Insert ) 16:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 April 2019[edit]

Please copy/paste all code from {{Infobox drug/sandbox}} into {{Infobox drug}} (diff).

Change: add |DTXSID=, |DTXCID2= as identifer creating an external link to CompTox Chemistry Dashboard. By default, the first value is read from Wikidata DSSTOX substance identifier (P3117); this is overwriteable and suppressable.

Discussed: here at talk {{Chembox}}. Test: here for aspirine. DePiep (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Smallcaps in drug_name[edit]

Dexter and laevus have to be written in smallcaps by IUPAC rules. E.g. l-Norpseudoephedrine. If you use smallcaps in drug_name the whole title becomes smallcaps.

l-Norpseudoephedrine
Chemical and physical data
FormulaC9H13NO
Molar mass151.209 g·mol−1
| drug_name = {{sc|L}}-Norpseudoephedrine

Or:

| drug_name = {{sm|l}}-Norpseudoephedrine

Chembox is OK. Gyimhu (talk) 04:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

L-Norpseudoephedrine
Chemical and physical data
FormulaC9H13NO
Molar mass151.209 g·mol−1
Looks like a bug in the interaction with the {{sc}}/{{sm}} templates, which use <span> for formatting. Using <small>L</small> works fine. DMacks (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
{{Drugbox| drug_name = {{sm|l}}-Norpseudoephedrine}} expands into:
<table class="infobox" style="width:22em;border-spacing:2px;"><caption><span title="International nonproprietary name (INN): <templatestyles src="smallcaps/styles.css"/><span class="smallcaps">l</span>-Norpseudoephedrine"><templatestyles src="smallcaps/styles.css"/><span class="smallcaps">l</span>-Norpseudoephedrine</span></caption></table>
Apparently <templatestyles src=...> is added over whole title. INN seems irrelevant. -DePiep (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Looks like Module:Infobox does this, same effect in generic {{Infobox}} with |title=. {{Chembox}} does not use {{Infobox}}. -DePiep (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe it's getting confused by nested quotes of the same character?

<table class="infobox" style="width:22em;border-spacing:2px;"><caption><span title="International nonproprietary name (INN): <templatestyles src="smallcaps/styles.css"/><span class="smallcaps">l</span>-Norpseudoephedrine"><templatestyles src="smallcaps/styles.css"/><span class="smallcaps">l</span>-Norpseudoephedrine</span></caption></table>

In red is the |drug_name=, which is filled into the quoted title attribute of the green <span>. But the smallcaps formatting templates are inserting their a quoted strings (red src and class attributes). Are title attributes even allowed to have HTML/CSS, or are they only plaintext? When I hover over Gyimhu's first example, the tooltip contains an unprintable binary character; hovering over mine second example displays the raw HTML.
That all comes from a Drugbox helper template: {{Infobox drug/title|title={{sm|l}}-Norpseudoephedrine}} renders as l-Norpseudoephedrine. DMacks (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Looks like |INN=<blank> spoils it:
{{Infobox drug/title |title={{sm|l}}-Norpseudoephedrine|INN=foo}}l-Norpseudoephedrine
INN: foo Green tickY
-DePiep (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

GoodRx[edit]

What is GoodRx and why should we add it to the drugbox?

As for what GoodRx is, their support page probably explains it best:

As for why we should add it to the drugbox:
The retail cost of pharmaceuticals in the United States is often prohibitively expensive. It's not hyperbole to say that adding GoodRx links to the article drugboxes could potentially save someone's life (I'll substantiate that assertion using insulin (medication) as an example of how and why) merely by facilitating the use of a service that provides consumer drug price information as well as drug coupons that typically discount the retail cost of a prescription significantly; at the very least, adding these links will help US consumers who click the drugbox's price data link to avoid exorbitant drug costs. I realize that this is a lengthy post, but I clearly illustrate the benefit that this website can provide to consumers in the examples below


Insulin analogs
  • See this Google search for the string 'insulin cost United States death' and just pick any article (e.g., [2], [3] [4])
    In a nutshell, they all say the same thing: the rising prices of insulin analogs in the United States has made it prohibitively costly for some people to fill a prescription for one of those drugs. The clinical efficacy of insulin analogs for diabetes is completely irrelevant if people can't afford to buy them. The news articles from the google search and the examples I provided all say that insulin analogs (nearly all of which cost >$300 out of pocket per the news articles and from checking every link in GoodRx's insulins drug category page; NB: the prices listed next to the drugs on that page are "GoodRx fair prices", not the lowest price with their coupons) are prohibitively costly for diabetics without health insurance; some ration their insulin and/or don't fill prescriptions, and in some cases doing that has led to diabetic ketoacidosis and resulted in death, as stated in those sources. The majority of those articles specifically mention prices for various dosage forms of brand name or generic Humalog (insulin lispro), which is the cheapest short-acting insulin analog (NB: none of those articles mention GoodRx or online drug coupons). If you compare the prices for brand name Humalog/generic insulin lispro mentioned in the sources to the retail prices on GoodRx's generic Humalog page, you'll notice they're more-or-less the same as what's listed there, but GoodRx's Coupons for generic Humalog discount the retail price by ~60% for all three dosage forms (i.e., the kwikpen, carton, and vial). In other words, if someone with diabetes lacks insurance and can only afford to pay a certain $ amount out of pocket for generic Humalog each month due to financial constraints, using GoodRx Coupons will more than double their purchasing power of insulin lispro at that $ amount (i.e., with GoodRx coupons, a consumer with a limited/fixed budget can buy approximately 2.5 times as much insulin lispro for the same total cost as they could without those coupons). That increase in purchasing power could very well obviate the need for a person to ration insulin or forego their prescriptions, thereby mitigating the ketoacidosis risk.
    @Doc James: I imagine you added some of the content in Insulin lispro#Cost to that article since it looks like your style of writing. Compare GoodRx's Coupon price of $68.38 and estimated retail price of $165.00 for a vial (10 ml insulin lispro 100 units/ml) to the following sentence from Insulin lispro#Cost about the price of that drug product: In April of 2019, Eli Lilly and Company announced they would produce a version selling for $137.35 per vial, about half the current cost. I hope that it's now clear why it would be prudent to provide links to the GoodRx website from drug articles – particularly articles on expensive prescription drugs – as well as why simply listing GoodRx's price data on Wikipedia isn't useful; if it isn't clear though, it's because that ~60% discounted price requires that a person print out this coupon for a vial (10 ml insulin lispro 100 units/ml) and take it to a Walgreens pharmacy where that coupon for that price is valid. Seppi333 (Insert ) 02:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


Two widely prescribed generic antibiotics (levofloxacin & azithromycin)

This is a study of prescription drug economics/cost-minimization conducted by USC that used GoodRx data+coupons; I've quoted all of the relevant content from this source on GoodRx below.[1] It's not the only pubmed-indexed article that used GoodRx data for research purposes (e.g., PMID 28895827, 30796990), but it's the only one I've come across that analyzed the utility of GoodRx for prescription drug cost minimization in the United States. It's worth reading the excerpts below IMO.

Reflist with excerpts from the study on prescription drug cost minimization

References

  1. ^ Arora S, Sood N, Terp S, Joyce G (July 2017). "The price may not be right: the value of comparison shopping for prescription drugs". The American Journal of Managed Care. 23 (7): 410–415. PMID 28817779.
    Abstract
    OBJECTIVES: To measure variations in drug prices across and within zip codes that may reveal simple strategies to improve patients' access to prescribed medications.
    STUDY DESIGN: We compared drug prices at different types of pharmacies across and within local markets. In-store prices were compared with a Web-based service providing discount coupons for prescription medications. Prices were collected for 2 generic antibiotics because most patients have limited experience with them and are less likely to know the price ranges for them.
    METHODS: Drug prices were obtained via telephone from 528 pharmacies in Los Angeles (LA) County, California, from July to August 2014. Online prices were collected from GoodRx, a popular Web-based service that aggregates available discounts and directly negotiates with retail outlets.
    RESULTS: Drug prices found at independent pharmacies and by using discount coupons available online were lower on average than at grocery, big-box, or chain drug stores for 2 widely prescribed antibiotics. The lowest-price prescription was offered at a grocery, big-box, or chain drug store in 6% of zip codes within the LA County area. Drug prices varied dramatically within a zip code, however, and were less expensive in lower-income areas. The average price difference within a zip code was $52 for levofloxacin and $17 for azithromycin.
    CONCLUSIONS: Price shopping for medications within a small geographic area can yield considerable cost savings for the uninsured and consumers in high-deductible health plans with high negotiated prices. Clinicians and patient advocates have an incentive to convey this information to patients to improve adherence to prescribed medicines and lower the financial burden of purchasing prescription drugs.


    Given the growth in internet use and online purchases of prescription drugs, we simultaneously collected prices for the 2 medications obtained at the same set of pharmacies from GoodRx, a popular Web-based service that aggregates available discounts and directly negotiates with retail outlets to provide consumers with coupons for discounted drug prices. Patients can enter a medication name and zip code and the website will list prices at most pharmacies operating in or near that zip code. To test the acceptance of the GoodRx coupons, we physically presented them at 5% of the pharmacies to ensure their prices would be honored. The study protocol was reviewed by the University of Southern California’s institutional review board prior to initiation. We examined the distribution of discounted drug prices by pharmacy type, as well as the extent of price variation in high- versus low-income areas, and then explored how prices varied across pharmacies in the same zip code. Given that most individuals purchase medications near home, examining prices within a zip code is an implicit measure of the potential cost savings from price shopping. ...

    Table 1 shows the variation in drug prices by pharmacy type, categorized as chain, independent, grocery store, big-box, and online (GoodRx). This captures variation in prices both across and within zip codes and reflects the discounted price. The average price of generic levofloxacin purchased with a GoodRx coupon or at an independent pharmacy was less than half the price versus a grocery or big-box store and less than one-fourth of the discounted price obtained over the phone at chain drug stores. Although prices were highest at chain drug stores, there was far less variation in price at this type of location (interquartile ratio [IQR], 1.05) compared with the other retail outlets (IQRs, ~2.0).

    Prices varied less for azithromycin than levofloxacin, but relative prices followed a similar pattern. The lowest average prices were found via GoodRx ($20) and at independent pharmacies ($23); chain drug stores charged the most ($37). There was little variation in price for chain drug stores (IQR, 1.05), particularly in comparison with independent pharmacies (IQR, 2.47) and grocery stores (IQR, 4.30). Asking for a discount had the largest effect at chain drug stores in the case of levofloxacin (lowering the average price by $11, or 10%) and at grocery stores in the case of azithromycin (by $8, or about 25%). ...

    Table 4 highlights general approaches for obtaining the lowest priced medication in an area. In more than half of the 71 unique zip codes in the study sample, independent pharmacies had the lowest price for levofloxacin (53%), followed by GoodRx (44%). In only 2 of 71 zip codes did a chain or big-box store have the lowest price for levofloxacin. We observed the same pattern when we restricted the analysis to the 39 zip codes with a big-box store. For both levofloxacin and azithromycin, the lowest price prescription was offered at a grocery, big-box, or chain drug store in just 6% of zip codes. ...

    Finally, we used a single website to represent discounts available online. Nonetheless, GoodRx is the largest price aggregator and coupon tool used by thousands of doctors and millions of patients every month. Further, 100% of GoodRx coupons were honored when physically presented at the pharmacy during this study.
    CONCLUSIONS
    Slowing the growth of healthcare costs underscores nearly every health policy initiative in the United States and is the motivation for public and private efforts to increase price transparency in healthcare markets. Price transparency initiatives face considerable obstacles, however; most prominently, how to reliably measure and convey information about quality and price for thousands of complex medical services produced by a wide array of providers and organizations. The task is less daunting for prescription drugs because quality is fixed.

    The extent of price variation found in this study suggests that consumers could readily benefit from greater price transparency. If this information were widely available to consumers, large variations in drug prices across pharmacies would likely be reduced.


So just to summarize: GoodRx provides a valuable prescription drug price comparison tool and coupons that often steeply discount the exorbitant retail prices of prescription drugs in the US. It helps uninsured individuals and families as well as those with high deductible plans to afford medications they'd otherwise be unable to purchase with no strings attached. And, in exceptionally rare circumstances, using GoodRx can increase the purchasing power of an individual with a limited budget enough to be able to afford sufficient quantities of a medication so as to prevent potentially lethal complications that result from treatment/management non-compliance. This is US-centric content and it is just another external link in the drugbox, but personally I think the potential benefits that this offers to our readers and the number of readers who can benefit from including this link (relative to all the other random crap we link to in the drugbox – see #Clinical data and Identifiers below) merits its inclusion. Seppi333 (Insert ) 02:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Following up on Talk:Epinephrine (medication)#Cost information in the United States, what do others think of placing a GoodRx link in the drugbox template? We could use a left-hand side field as "US consumer prices" and the RHS could just link directly to the corresponding GoodRx webpage(s) listed on Wikidata for an article (that'd require creating an identifier property for GoodRx). I'd be willing to add the corresponding identifiers to all of the Wikidata entries on prescription drugs listed on the GoodRx website with a bot if there's consensus to do add it to the drugbox. Seppi333 (Insert ) 18:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

First impression: better not. GoodRx is not encyclopedic, is it? It's like a marketing tool. -DePiep (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Drug articles currently contain price information and most reputable sources (even including a number of PubMed-indexed publications) that report US consumer price information cite GoodRx’s drug prices. Anyway, since individual drug products from different pharmacies are perfect substitutes, the only factor that matters in marketing drug products (by a pharmacy, not a pharmaceutical company) is price. So, that website is more of a cost-minimization tool for consumers than a marketing tool for pharmacies. Seppi333 (Insert ) 02:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
How is it encyclopedic to provide the cost links? WP:LINKFARM comes to mind. What's next? Second car prices? Also, the information is US specific. ~So far, I object to including this. -DePiep (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@DePiep: Amphetamine is an atypical example since most drugs don't have 6 approved formulations. Even so, I could just add the top 2 or 3 most prescribed formulations and list the brand names instead of lengthier generic names (NB: if a formulation has a generic, price data for either the brand name version or generic version can be displayed by selecting brand/generic in the dropdown list at the top left of the corresponding webpage, so it isn't misleading to list the brand name instead of the generic name); . That data is included on each of their drug product webpages.
Re the US-centric data: we already have 3 US-specific fields in the current drugbox (see the 2nd drugbox example below for amphetamine). If desired, we could change the LHS to "Consumer prices" and modify the RHS to prepend US: to permit the inclusion of price data for other countries/regions that are currently supported by the drugbox.
Would doing it that way be more amenable to you? Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. I am not convinced that it is encyclopedical, let alone belong in an infobox. Bringing up the argument "saves lives" sort of proves that. (Below is a subthread on splicing the el's from the infobox). -DePiep (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Doc James: Could you offer your input? Seppi333 (Insert ) 06:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
What does "RHS" stand for? I am okay with GoodRx. We also have this website which I primarily use for US prices.[5]
User:Seppi333 do you have an example of what you propose? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
l-Norpseudoephedrine
Chemical and physical data
FormulaC9H13NO
Molar mass151.209 g·mol−1
@Doc James: Using the drugbox to the right for reference, the left-hand side (LHS) fields are "Formula" and "Molar mass" and the corresponding right-hand side (RHS) fields are C9H13NO and 151.209 g·mol−1.
Since a given drug article may have several drug products associated with it, I'd code it so that it pulls the GoodRx pagenames (which is the name of the drug product) and corresponding urls from WikiData and displays each entry in a list using this syntax: [GoodRx_url Pagename_of_Drug_product]; e.g., Amphetamine Salt Combo, Amphetamine Salt Combo XR, Mydayis, Adzenys XR-ODT, Dyanavel XR, Amphetamine Sulfate, Dexedrine Spansule, Zenzedi, Lisdexamfetamine. Those products and links are the same ones from this table: Amphetamine#Pharmaceutical products. Seppi333 (Insert ) 07:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Generally speaking, I don't think most drugs will have that many links; e.g., the amphetamine article would only have the first 6 above listed in its drugbox. I need to request access to GoodRx's database to obtain the pagenames, urls, and hopefully the corresponding INN for each drug product to be able to program a bot to add these though (lacking the INN would make this task a pain in the ass). Seppi333 (Insert ) 07:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Amphetamine
Racemic amphetamine 2.svg
Clinical data
Consumer price dataUS: Adderall, Adderall XR, Evekeo
Pregnancy
category
  • US: C (Risk not ruled out)
Legal status
Legal status
I'll code a template sandbox example in a bit. Seppi333 (Insert ) 07:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@Doc James: Example shown to the right. Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
It would be nice to have the actual numbers within Wikipedia not just the links. People should not have to go elsewhere.
Am working on a clean up of Wikidata's medication information. We are going to work on making sure all entires have the proper INN (in multiple languages), followed by adding the medicaid pricing information for wholesale. We could also than look at adding GoodRx data. We could than whichever number we want from Wikidata. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure how wholesale price information would be useful to any of our readers. The intent behind my proposal is to link to current consumer drug price and pharmacy information externally, not list historical consumer price data internally; we can't provide the current price data on Wikipedia since consumer drug prices in the US change frequently and it doesn't seem feasible to regularly automatically update drug prices from the GoodRx database: assuming we were able to pull drug price data from GoodRx's database whenever we wanted, we'd have to edit a couple thousand wikidata items every time we import new price data from their database. Our readers who are interested in current price data would have to go to their website regardless of whether we list GoodRx price data on WP since we don't provide the necessary drug coupons for buying a medication at those prices and we wouldn't list the corresponding pharmacy to which the GoodRx price we list pertains.
Like I said before, I'm willing to write a bot script in python to import the urls and pagenames from GoodRx to the appropriate wikidata items if there's consensus to add the external links. Seppi333 (Insert ) 04:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The wholesale and retail price vary little from each other. I am okay with either. I however do not want just a link, I want the actual number. Yes we may need to update it once a year, but people should not have to go elsewhere. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose support I advocate for human readable information in the infobox, and for machine readable information and external link collections to be at the bottom in an authority control box. We have discussed drug infoboxes a lot in the past. I do not like the present boxes with the collection of links which take up valuable space and human attention at the top of the article but which either or both convey no useful information and advertise an external collection. I would support the addition of GoodRx and similar database links at the bottom of the article but oppose it being added to the collection in the highly visible infobox at the top. Additionally I advocate for the other links being removed from the top and for the infobox to be entirely intended to convey topic-specific information to humans. My opposition is not about GoodRx and is only about adding more coded information and brand advertising. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Bravo. This is a good description of the concept of WP:INFOBOX, and the deviation {{Infobox drug}} has accumulated. Too often the infobox is seen (by highly regarded editors in this) as a data sheet for consumers & doctors, not an encyclopedic summary of a medicine. Earlier on, I suggested we could move a set of data to the External links section, probably in a template but definitely not an infobox. Similar issue plays in {{Chembox}}. -DePiep (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)]
Different people have different opinions on the layout and content of infoboxes, as it's not standardized. MOS:INFOBOX doesn't preclude the inclusion of ELs in infoboxes after all. Other editors think infoboxes detract from articles. Removing all the ELs from the infobox isn't the "right way" to present summary/supplemental data to our readers; it's merely one way of doing it. As for the EL template, we are 100% going to use a scaled down version of the drugbox. When I said – "The first is that I imagine a lot of readers will have no clue what happened to every drugbox on Wikipedia if we suddenly cut them in half without providing some kind of indication of what we did with the other half of the drugbox data (it's not like they're going to know we've moved it to an EL section and I doubt most of them will scroll all the way to the bottom of the article to try to find what we did with it). The second is that all of those links are still very much pertitent to the Drugbox even after being split out, so there should be a means of navigating to them quickly within the Drugbox (this is analogous to the "Supplementary data page" link in the chembox)." – I meant it at face value. We're going to cut the drugbox in two and keep the appearance identical; and, that's why that there's going to be a link from the drugbox at the top of the page to the External data half at the bottom. Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Amphetamine
Racemic amphetamine 2.svg
Clinical data
Consumer price dataUS: Adderall, Adderall XR, Evekeo
AHFS/Drugs.comamphetamine
License data
Pregnancy
category
  • US: C (Risk not ruled out)
ATC code
Legal status
Legal status

@Bluerasberry and DePiep: I've added a lengthy explanation about what GoodRx is, the services it provides, the motivation for adding this link to the drugbox, and clearly illustrated the utility of GoodRx to consumers with 2 examples. I strongly suggest reading all of it; but, at the very least, just read the quoted excerpts from the journal citation.

@DePiep: I've modified the LHS and RHS to prepend "US:" on the RHS for consistency with the other fields. I'm completely open to suggestions/feedback on this and would also be fine with limiting the number of external links to 2 for the RHS if limiting it to 3 is still a problem for you; that said, I'd be pretty appalled if, after reading what I wrote in the collapse tab above, you still felt opposed to adding a GoodRx field to the drugbox solely because it includes retail price data and drug coupons.
@Bluerasberry: See the drugbox to the right for the "Clinical data" fields that I'm referring to immediately below, including the proposed GoodRx field. I agree with you that the identifiers should probably be moved but I strongly disagree about the clinical data links. It is not even remotely possible for us to include the price information and GoodRx coupons for drugs on Wikipedia that're listed on the GoodRx website; the only way to make that content available is to externally link to it. While GoodRx does get around 10 million visits to its site per month, not many people actually know about GoodRx; if you read the news articles I linked about insulin, you might've already realized that. I'm hoping you consider the benefit to WP readers in the US from linking to a website that offers significant cost savings on prescription drugs to outweigh the cost of a slightly less visually appealing drugbox as a result of 1 new infobox field. Seppi333 (Insert ) 02:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  1. We currently have 7 Clinical data fields (the 2 ATC parameters below count as 1 field) that link to an external source and list only the drug name, a code, or the name of the corresponding website with a hyperlink on the right-hand side. While the websites that are linked serve different purposes, these links are all displayed the same way as the field that I've proposed adding for GoodRx. With exception for the ATC code and DailyMed ID (which uses the National Drug Code for a drug as the input), none of these fields are coded.
    All of the fields in this section and all of the corresponding websites supplied as an external link in this section should be human readable; with exception for the ATC code link to the WHO page, all of those websites are human readable. As for the GoodRx website, that's obviously human readable; it wouldn't be a price comparison website if it weren't. As mentioned below, it also provides clinical data in the "Drug Info" tab (example).

    Given the utility that the clinical data external links provides the drugbox (in terms of clinically-relevant information about the drug as opposed to about the compound), none of these should be moved out of the drugbox. I imagine a significant fraction of readers of a drug article would be interested in the website content from one or more of these links since they all contain clinically-relevant drug information.

  2. We also have 12 Identifiers fields that link to an external source and generally display a hyperlinked website-specific identifier for the corresponding webpage on the right-hand side. While these fields all just link to another website like the clinical data links do, the type of content they contain is entirely different from the content the clinical data websites contain (even the ATC code WHO link includes dosing info). Besides price information, GoodRx also contains clinical data on dosage forms, strengths, and brand vs generic formulation for an active ingredient as well as other clinical data in the "Drug Info" tab (example) on common side effects, indications, interactions and precautions, etc.; hence, the proposed GoodRx field is also entirely different from the identifier links. All of these fields are coded.
    While I personally find some of these database links useful and handy to have in the drugbox for my own use, I recognize that the content is probably only useful/relevant to <1% of the readers of a drug article. Given the wide range in types of external links included here and the general lack of utility to the average reader, I agree that moving this out of the drugbox and into an article footer template for external links might be a good idea. Seppi333 (Insert ) 02:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Clinical data and identifiers parameters
<!-- Clinical data -->
| Drugs.com         = 
| MedlinePlus       = 
| licence_CA        = <!-- Health Canada may use generic or brand name (generic name preferred) -->
| licence_EU        = <!-- EMA uses INN (or special INN_EMA) -->
| DailyMedID        = <!-- DailyMed may use generic or brand name (generic name preferred) -->
| licence_US        = <!-- FDA may use generic or brand name (generic name preferred) -->
| ATC_prefix        = <!-- 'none' if uncategorised -->
| ATC_suffix        = 
<!--Identifiers-->
| CAS_number        = 
| PubChem           = 
| PubChemSubstance  = 
| IUPHAR_ligand     = 
| DrugBank          = 
| ChemSpiderID      = 
| UNII              = 
| KEGG              = 
| ChEBI             = 
| ChEMBL            = 
| NIAID_ChemDB      = 
| PDB_ligand        = 
@Seppi333: I have failed to make myself understood. I am not contesting the quality of the information or its inclusion. I only object to its placement at the top of the article rather than at the bottom. None of the above information is of any use to an end consumer. I advocate that everything in an infobox, with the exception of 1 external link to an official website if applicable, should be to inform a human immediately upon reading without any additional clicks. I oppose placement in the top primary infobox and will support placement anywhere outside of and below the primary infobox at the top. I am already in agreement with your argument for the value of this content.
If you fear the bureaucratic process of moving these links out from the top to elsewhere, then I would support you including GoodRx or anything else at the top now as a temporary measure, so long as you agree and assert that all this content is inappropriately placed, problematic, and needs to be moved as soon as possible.
If you have other ideas I am ready to find a way to support your idea to share access to this information, which is a good idea. Blue Rasberry (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I am also supportive of moving a bunch of technical stuff to the end of the article. We have finished doing this for disease related articles on EN WP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
(part of the talk here ended up in section #Prototype below)
(ec) Re Seppi: Good, except for the link to EL-box in the infobox. OF course, every EL related to the infobox and v.v.: that connection is the article title. (But maybe temporally useful because of the change).
To improve the process & thinking: I oppose adding GoodRx to the infobox. (Doesn't this split need a separate thread?). -DePiep (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I am adamantly opposed to splitting the drugbox without adding that wikilink. Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
That's the point: add this new external link in in the el section, not in the infobox. Are you suggesting we must add it to the infobox before ou would consider moving links down the article? Sounds like you are bartering with non-existant goods. What leverage does this threat have? -DePiep (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Not before. That would be odd. Ignoring the consensus issue, who else would be coding a bot script to do this if it weren’t me? This isn’t a simple edit to the drugbox we’re talking about. Seppi333 (Insert ) 03:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Edit: if you meant the GoodRx link instead of the EL box wikilink, then yes, I did mean before. I intend to write the import script before I write the one to split the drugbox. Seppi333 (Insert ) 03:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


Prototype for Template:External links list Drug[edit]

@Bluerasberry: I'd be fine with moving all the fields in the drugbox that list an external link – including DailyMedID, Drugs.com, MedlinePlus, licence_CA/EU/US, ATC code, GoodRx, every identifier except the IUPAC name, and the 3D model image – into a new EL template for drug articles and then using a bot to remove all those parameters from the drugbox while simultaneously placing that new template in the "External links" section of every drug article. One further condition is that we'd need to include a link to the external links section (e.g., something like [[#External links|External data]] or [[#External data|External data]] provided that I add {{Anchor|External data}} to the heading of the new template) at the bottom of the Drugbox for two reasons. The first is that I imagine a lot of readers will have no clue what happened to every drugbox on Wikipedia if we suddenly cut them in half without providing some kind of indication of what we did with the other half of the drugbox data (it's not like they're going to know we've moved it to an EL section and I doubt most of them will scroll all the way to the bottom of the article to try to find what we did with it). The second is that all of those links are still very much pertitent to the Drugbox even after being split out, so there should be a means of navigating to them quickly within the Drugbox (this is analogous to the "Supplementary data page" link in the chembox).
Using the authority control template for displaying that content is a bad idea IMO. Too much garbage gets lumped into it and I've deleted it from several drug articles for that reason. Also, when there's a lot of data mapped into that template, it looks like Template:Authority control#Examples; those "examples" are almost unreadable.
Anyway, if you're alright with the approach I've described above, it should be proposed at WT:PHARM for further input. Seppi333 (Insert ) 18:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Doc James: does that approach sound fine to you? If so, are you fine with adding the GoodRx field to the Drugbox for now? Seppi333 (Insert ) 18:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
We need to add the actual number. I am working to do that but it will take a few months. The license I think is good in the infobox at the top rather than the bottom. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@Doc James: As I mentioned above, adding price data from GoodRx isn't useful IMO. If you want to do that with another data source, that sounds fine; however, this proposal pertains to adding an EL to the drugbox (and subsequently, the external data box) for the reasons I've explained above. I'd appreciate it if you commented on that. Seppi333 (Insert ) 04:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
So I support adding price data and the link as a reference. I do not support just adding it as an EL to the infobox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Doc James: I'm about to ask GoodRx to give me access to their database or send me a dataset containing the relevant data I need. Will see if it's possible to obtain that as well. As for price, is it the current lowest GoodRx Coupon price you're interested in using? Seppi333 (Insert ) 10:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I just realized that since some brands contain multiple dosage forms (e.g., insulin lispro - vial/kwikpen/carton, as described above), it'll be a tough ask to give me as much data as I'm looking for if they send me a dataset. If I can get access to their database, I can get the data you're looking for, but if not, an external link will have to suffice. Seppi333 (Insert ) 11:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Edit:I could potentially update this once every 1-3 months and list the lowest price associated with each brand name in the Dbox/EL section if that would be more amenable to you. I'd need to see if they'd be alright with providing me with price data on a regular basis though. Seppi333 (Insert ) 04:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes that would be perfect and what we are working on using the gov database. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Seppi333: Yes I support adding to the Drugbox now as a pilot and short term solution to delivering information in the context of a need for a later reform. If you could somehow do a prototype of what it would look like to move some information to the bottom in a sample article then I would appreciate that, but do not consider this as an obligation if this is a distraction and it is not urgent. It is enough for me just that you explained your thoughts. I agree with you just adding the box for this to get sorted in a broader way with the pharmacy board and others later. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: See right. I don't see any reason to change the way it's presented. I will, however, fix the default width to 300px to match the size of an infobox which is compliant with MOS:IMGSIZE. Template:Drugbox external links is the name I'd use for the new template, if implemented. Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
That external links box is awesome and exactly the kind of thing which I want elsewhere in the article and not at the top. Thanks for prototyping it as an demo for discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I've notified WP:PHARM editors by creating a thread about GoodRx and splitting the drugbox links out into the EL section at WT:PHARM#Template talk:Drugbox#GoodRx. Seppi333 (Insert ) 05:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Suggestion: GoodRx should not be under "Clinical data". Add new header "Marketing info", "Consumer info"?. -DePiep (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd be fine with "Clinical data" or "Consumer info". As I explained above, there is ample clinical data on GoodRx for every drug in its database; one simply needs to click the "Drug Info" or "Side Effects" tabs on the corresponding webpage. Seppi333 (Insert ) 06:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Name should be "Consumer price (US)" to clarify. Rather than "Consumer price data" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Doc James: "US:" is prepended to the input on the right of that field, but I can change the text on the left side to reflect your version if you wish. Would you prefer it your way or is the current version fine? Seppi333 (Insert ) 10:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
If we move to a number like "US$ 14" than having "US: US$14" might be a little confusing. But I guess either is reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In the end result, we should not use meta {{Infobox}}. Also, better not reuse the infobox styling (bg colors). -DePiep (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    In the end result, we should not use meta {{Infobox}}. And why is that, exactly? I made it clear earlier that I still consider all of these external links to be part of the drugbox even after splitting them out, hence the use of an infobox with an identical appearance; we're simply moving them to the EL section since it's just as appropriate to place them there as it is in Drugbox template itself. Seppi333 (Insert ) 06:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Per MOS:INFOBOX. For example, the infobox is a summary of the article, is placed in top, is treated differently (by html, on mobile, etc). Better be guided by Wikipedia:External links. -DePiep (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Formatting should be fit for the EL section: For example, the EL's better be a bulleted list (which can also have subheaders like unbold & unindented). IMO, it could be a multi-column list to be organised as refs list is organised; leave it to the browser etc. (not hardcoded by the template). -DePiep (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
If an article already has a list of external links, I'd prefer not to bloat it even more by adding this content on the left-side of the page. E.g., Amphetamine#External links. Seppi333 (Insert ) 07:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
What you call "bloat" is actually: changing (breakiung) the MOS format for the EL section. Simple: it is an EL list, so present it as an EL list. -DePiep (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Name suggestion: pls skip the oldfashioned informal 'drugbox' wording. Maybe: External links list Drugs. (we want to reuse the principle!) -DePiep (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    @DePiep: I don't see why it matters, but if you want to move the template and leave behind the redirect, go ahead and move it. Seppi333 (Insert ) 07:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Moved to {{External links list Drug}}. Changed section title + add anchor. Preferred: systematical name, while more descriptive and less informal. Prevent confusion with existing {{External links}}. If this plan works out well, we could reuse the concept for other templates (like {{Chembox}}). -DePiep (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Just because a template uses {{Infobox}} to style its contents does not make it an infobox. E.g., {{Glossary infobox}} is a back-end template for {{Addiction glossary}} and {{Transcription factor glossary}}, yet neither of those should be used in place of an actual infobox for an article. Edit: that back-end template was created following this discussion: Template_talk:Addiction_glossary#"Glossary skeleton" template. Seppi333 (Insert ) 06:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
That's right by itself. But it is an infobox when stating class=infobox (as {{Infobox}} does}}). class defines loads of behaviour, layout, formatting, presentation (responsive even). Our intentions do not count in a browser. We do not want those effects, that would be bad coding and bad information handling. -DePiep (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Template coding[edit]

External data
Clinical data
Consumer price dataUS: Adderall, Adderall XR, Evekeo
AHFS/Drugs.comamphetamine
MedlinePlusa616004
License data
ATC code
Identifiers
CAS Number
PubChem CID
IUPHAR/BPS
DrugBank
ChemSpider
UNII
KEGG
ChEBI
ChEMBL
NIAID ChemDB
PDB ligand
Chemical and physical data
3D model (JSmol)
  • So far, the prototype uses {{Infobox}} to get it going. That's fine of course. However, since the new list is not an MOS:INFOBOX, I strongly propose to prevent any Infobox suggestion (by formatting, class=infobox, responsive behaviour). I therefor created:
1. Module:External links list as a full code copy of Module:Infobox, and
2. {{External links list}} to employ that module.
After this, I removed from the new module all straight "infobox" referencing. Other functions etc. were kept.
With this, current (Seppi333's) prototype looks like {{External links list Drug/sandbox}}.
I propose:
a. Accept the change principle, away from {{Infobox}},
b. Improve (edit) the new module to tailor it for this list.
It allows us to refine the list to more usable settings without being tied to Infobox formattings. I think the formatting should follow WP:EL section styling.
-DePiep (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • To research: maybe existing {{External links}} (Module:External links) could solve this new thing altogether. I have not looked into it. It reads Wikidata values; if it allows overwriting locally (as we want to do now, I assume), we could arrive at target very soon! -DePiep (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@DePiep: As long as you match the layout/formatting and overall appearance of the example template on the right as closely as possible, I don't really care what markup is used to generate the end result. I also don't care if it's wider (to reduce the height when the LHS or RHS text takes up multiple lines) or not right-aligned, but if right-alignment is not default, having the option to set |align=right would be desirable. Seppi333 (Insert ) 10:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I disagree that this new EL list should look-and-feel like an infobox. No, basically it should be a bulleted list, in the EL section. -DePiep (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)