Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Fact-checking

User:ChemSpiderMan (aka Antony Williams) has very kindly taken on an absolutely mammoth task - he is checking every single drugbox (and chembox)for accuracy. He is MANUALLY checking every IUPAC name and structure, as well as generating an InChI and InChiKey for each one. Last I heard he'd spent over 36 hours of hard slog on this! His plan is then to link to Wikipedia from each relevant substance entry on his ChemSpider website. Obviously this is great news for us all round, but we need to get fixing the errors.

-- Somebody buy ChemSpiderMan a beer! that's awesome! Aj1976 (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

He has sent me a couple of PDF files listing probable errors (mostly in the IUPAC names). He is using ACD/Name to generate IUPAC names, which scored very highly in this recent study (I was amazed to see how often even ChemDraw is wrong!). I don't feel right making decisions about drugboxes when I'm not a member of this project, and I also have limited time right now, so I'd like to ask for help from people here. If anyone has time to help me work on these, email me and I will send you the PDF; I am trying to put some basic info onto Wikipedia and I will also try to post the PDFs on my college's website tomorrow. I'd like to hold an IRC meeting on the [IRC channel wikichem channel next week to discuss some of this - obviously you guys are very welcome. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a rough list on wiki, see User:Walkerma/Sandbox, where you can leave comments. The original PDF is available here. Some of these invite a decision by this project. I will update this page as he sends me more. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, am immensely grateful that someone has taken this on. I'll be adding a few comments to your sandbox page; I hope that's OK. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to any direct feedback or questions about the process I am taking with the curation project. I am taking a short hiatus but have progressed quite well. I have some other deadlines then will return to the project. Walkerma has the latest file and will post on his Sandbox when he gets a chance I'm sure.--ChemSpiderMan (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Would like to recruit editors to the "temazepam" article

Hey friends,

I recently came across the temazepam article and found it to be bloated, poorly cited, and generally messy. I did an initial overhaul, and two other users helped tweak it some, but the individual responsible for the bulk of the content was not pleased about this, reverted to the old version, and began a discussion. Another user reverted back to the trimmed-down (but still in need of work) version, but the aforementioned author reverted it back to his again.

We are in a rather civil conversation -- I'm making the argument for my modifications and further modifications from others, and he's making the argument for his work. I'd like to build a consensus, but right now there's only two people in the conversation. Should anyone with solid expertise in benzodiazepine medications be interested in contributing, I'd love to hear your input. Even if you're not a BZ expert, the article is in desperate need of style improvement. Please have a look at the discussion page first (it is starting to get a just a little wordy, but still easily readable in about 5 or 10 minutes -- and a very interesting read, I assure you), then check out the edit history for both versions. Let's see if we can't all improve it together!

Thanks, RJSampson (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi RJ,

The temazepam article is not a bad article (cenrtainly superior to all other benzodiazepine articles - save perhaps nitrazepam, which I basically built up from almost nothing), you and I will be able to improve it by ourselves as there is not a whole lot that needs to be done.

GoodSon (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability on treatment trials

I know discussion on whether or not to include details of drugs being developed, and reporting in articles on trials currently in progress, gets obliquely discussed from time to time, and the issue came up again at WT:MED#Alzheimer.27s_disease and subsequent widening of this at WT:MED#.22Notability.22_for_experimental_medical_treatments. Please join there to discuss and see if we can come up with some guidence rules of thumb on this (inclusion and fair weight) (formal firm policy clearly impossible as each case needs be considered on its own merits). David Ruben ^Talk 04:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC discussion on using Wikipedia chemistry pages to provide chemical data

We at WP:CHEMS are organising an IRC meeting on Tuesday to discuss data harvesting from our pages - and the drugboxes are a major potential source of chemical information. If you're interested in joining us, please see the details here and sign up. Thanks! Walkerma (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month

The Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month has been resurrected in 2008! The previous collaboration, Receptor antagonist, is now a current Good article nominee, and the new collaboration is Melatonin. Theobromine continues to be a nominee (I've extended its deadline); any user is welcome to nominate other pharmacology articles for Collaboration of the Month! Dr. Cash (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

DrugBank overhaul

Fuzzform has let me know that DrugBank now includes links to Wikipedia articles on all its entries. The database has had a major overhaul (version 2.0, see PMID 18048412), and entries now contain quite a bit more information; search capabilities are also sexier more advanced. This should provide an extra push for our improvement efforts. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Cultural POV

Your cannabis article makes plenty of sense, assuming that the reader's perspective is dominated by the American taboo of the drug. I found it nearly useless for objective research.

While searching for the pharmacological properties of cannabis administration, the most relevant article I could locate was titled "Health issues and effects of cannabis." It introduced itself by summarizing the position of cannabis in American political debate and cited research relevant to the American political controversy (yes, I am aware that other nations hold similar taboos).

For the scope of the entire project, I propose that it maintain a strong separation of pharmacology (research resource) and political debate (cultural curiosity). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.109.183 (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What kind of "objective research" were you looking for specifically? You are of course completely correct that objective and neutral information should be provided, if available, on specific outcome measures in human health. This may refer to fMRI/PET/SPECT studies of the human brain, specific measures of outcomes such as appetite, body weight, etc etc, or mental health outcomes such as psychosis or employment issues. I agree that the political regulation of cannabis possession, use and sale is a completely different issue that - while hopefully informed by health research - is quite unrelated.

Please post specific questions on the article's talk page, rather than making vague accusations of bias, and inform us on this page when you have done so. JFW | T@lk 22:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

At the time I was looking for pharmacology at the time. Maybe I made an unfair assumption about the authors' POV. What I'm trying to say, when dealing with a drug illict in own's home country it is easily to fall into the trap of intertwining culture issues with the substance's effect on the body, mechanism of action, etc. In regards to that paticular article, even the title seems weasel-worded. I have posted on this project page, because I believe this phenomenon can reoccur whenever one writes an article he feels is targeted at his own country. Imagine if a Saudi Arabian group of writers authored the entire alcoholic beverage article ;).

Anyway, I don't mean to specifically accuse people of malicious bias, but I am saying that it's nearly unavoidable to objectively write about substances stigmatized in our cultural regions. 24.67.109.183 (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is not easy to write an article on a subject that many people have cherished opinions about. How about being BOLD and trying to improve things yourself. If the concern is about pharmacology, you can always request our assistance with specific problems. JFW | T@lk 21:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Belated notice

Treatment of multiple sclerosis on the Main Page today. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for an expert view on Resveratrol

Howdy from the Wine Project! I was wonder if some folks from the Pharmacology project would be willing to lend an expert eye to the Resveratrol article. While it is an important wine-related topic, it is a bit too technical for me to evaluate whether the recent furry of changes in the last few weeks should be cause for concern or not. It seems that a few editors (whose contribution history seems to be mostly confined to this one article) are sparing over competing agendas. I noticed that the Pharmacology Project has also posted their banner on the Resveratrol talk page, so I figured this was as good to seek an expert view or help in sorting things out. :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

List of missing topics

Greetings. I wonder if anyone could have a look at my list of missing topics related to drugs and pharmacology. Thank you. - Skysmith (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup of copy&paste of product literature into articles

Carlo Banez (talk · contribs) whilst making some very useful edits, also transfered large parts of product labels wholesale and directly into many drug articles. This is probably a copyvio (data on FDA site might be freely copiable, but at very least would have need acknowledgement of source) and more certainly as per WP:MEDMOS WP:NOT a collection of technical sheets nor generaly giving specific dosage instructions. Finally inserting "Contraindication" section in all articles which mere duplicates the standard to "known hypersensitivity" is not helpful etc.

I've reverted those edits which were direct copy&pastes (about half of all the edits, as I said many edits most helpful) from today and yesterday, but there are a further 200 odd edits which need checking through. Could others help out on this please :-) David Ruben ^Talk 19:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Epinephrine vs Adrenaline (again)

With no clear consensus (IMHO) in past discussions to use Adrenaline over Epinephrine and with WP:MEDMOS giving clear guideline to stick with INN, the article recently got moved. I have reverted back, to what IMHO the WP:MED & WP:PHARM projects would generally consider as a useful approach set out in our WP:MEDMOS guidelines. As previously, Google results being cited, but if this is to be the case, then paracetamol would be Tylenol and penicillin would be whatever is the No 1 US brand (Google reflecting the US-predominant internet) and we would have no use of any generic names, let alone INN terms.

Anyway could WP:PHARM members comment at Talk:Epinephrine David Ruben ^Talk 12:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Bioavailabiity vs oral bioavailability

Contained in the drug box it states bioavailability. Surely it would be more accurate to rename it to oral bioavailability, as that is what it is usually implying. I understand that this is mainly because the bioavailability of a drug given by I.V. is 100%, but what if the drug is given transdermally, rectally, by the eye etc. Alternate routes of administration are chosen largely because they offer different levels of bioavailability. Surely it would worth putting it in a drug box and if a drug isn't delivered by some of the routes the user could delete the different types of bioavilability as needed? Medos ^Talk 16:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Haloperidol

Can someone please have a look at haloperidol and talk:haloperidol? There is an editor (using a variety of IP addresses) that has been consistently adding what appears to be non-NPOV material to the article and its talk page. He's been reverted by a number of people, and I have removed some content from the talk page that I thought was not consistent with Wikipedia's talk page policies - WP:TALK and WP:SOAP. He has been pushing hard and his attitude borders on incivility. I'm certainly open to being wrong, but it really seems inappropriate to me. So I would like others to give a second or third opinion. I don't want to get into a revert war or violate WP:3RR, so if others agree, can you please help out? Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Opioid vs. Opiate

Hello, I would like to ask you to take a look on the opioid article. There seems to be a problem (for me, at last) in whether semisynthetic derivatives (like hydromorphone, hydrocodone, oxycodone, diamorphine, etorphine, buprenorphine etc.) can be classified as opiates, which are, in my opinion, only native opium alkaloids (morphine, codeine, thebaine, oripavine); I learned in my lectures, that opiates are only those opioids which can be isolated directly from opium, while other opioids are...semisynthetic or synthetic opioids, can't be called opiates. I know it's perhaps just a pitty wordplay, but I think, and would appreciate, if a consensus about these naming, or a kind of "convention" within WP could be achieved. Thank you in advance.--Spiperon (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not wordplay at all. You're completely correct. People misuse these terms all the time, as if they were interchangeable. Fuzzform (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at MEDMOS

Note that there is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Drug_names_in_non-main_articles in regards to drug names that may be of interest to the wikiproject. WLU (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Warfarin

On warfarin, an editor is demanding a citation for interactions between alcohol and warfarin. Every "yellow booklet" mentions that excessive alcohol intake interferes with the INR, yet this editor has insisted (referring to uncited evidence) that problems only occur if someone with a previously high alcohol intake suddenly cuts down. I have asked the editor to provide sources himself rather than ramming {{fact}} on the page, but I was wondering if anyone else had some good sources for this. JFW | T@lk 08:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I did a basic readup on warfarin/alcohol interactions on MIMS Online (Australian medicine database)- the information they have reports that alcohol can both increase and decrease the results of a PT/INR test- I'll have a look into it at uni over the coming week, if you like? Adolon au (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month

In an effort to revitalize the Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month program, Melatonin will be the current collaboration until the end of February (another week or so). The article is looking good so far, but there's still a few areas that need to be tightened up (a {{cleanup}} tag in the antioxidant section and a {{POV-Section}} tag in the safety of supplementation section. I think with a bit more editing, the article can be at least brought up to Good article standards, possible featured.

I'll select a new collaboration in March (nominate here; so far, Theobromine is in the lead). Dr. Cash (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a listings of brand names ?

What do project members feel about current version of Levocetirizine with its "Names per country" section taking up almost as much space as the details on the drug itself ?

On basis of WP:NOT (this is not a directory listings) and WP:MEDMOS#Drugs noting for the leader that only "The initial brand name and manufacturer follows..." with nowhere in the suggested-article sections-list making room to try and systematically list out every brand in every country - which is the role of an international pharmacopoeia, and of course WP:NOT#DIRECTORY... I propose to delete the "Names per country" section entirely. Before being WP:BOLD I note this would step on the toes of several editors who have worked to add such information, so any prior views from the project (not that we are a Cabal). David Ruben ^Talk 01:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Even worse in this article (than say equivalent at Loratadine#Names_per_country) is that info then duplicated in Levocetirizine#History & formulations section which describes some of the variety of country-specific branding too. David Ruben ^Talk 01:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS does discourage brand name lists implicitly: "The lead should highlight the name of the drug as per normal guidelines. The BAN or USAN variant may also be mentioned, with the word in bold. The initial brand name and manufacturer follows, in parentheses." The consensus appear to be that they are ugly and unnecessary. When I tried to make this discouragement explicit, my proposal was rejected as a rule creep (I quote here because I cannot do the dif in archives):

I wonder if there would be a consensus to change "The BAN or USAN variant may also be mentioned, with the word in bold. The initial brand name and manufacturer follows, in parentheses." to ""The BAN or USAN variant may also be mentioned, with the word in bold. The initial brand name and manufacturer follows, in parentheses. Unless notable and widely used other brand names should not be mentioned." In many drug articles the lists of brand names are huge and ugly, and sometimes are even larger than the rest of the article. Paul Gene (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That'll lead to possibly ugly fights over what a notable or widely used brand name is, but it at least provides more guidance than the extant version. I'd say there's merit to that. WLU (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC) (BTW: there should be a comma after "widely used".) Seem like instruction creep. Sometimes there's more than one "initial brand" (among English-speaking countries) but additional brands of generic versions are, in general, not notable. On the few occasions when the current restriction is unsatisfactory, WP:IAR applies. Colin°Talk —Preceding comment was added at 20:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Makes sense, since people do not generally read instructions. But what is the purpose of this particular discussion, then? And referring to the instructions creep is the instructions creep in itself. instruction creep is not even a guideline but an obscure assay. Paul Gene (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Paul, I wasn't citing WP:CREEP as a formal guideline, but I do think it is a good one. I agree with the principle of your suggested addition, but want to consider carefully whether it is strictly necessary. The more you write, the more people will disagree with and the less they will actually read or take notice of. If you still think the addition is a good one, then I've not got any formal reason to object. Colin°Talk 22:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Paul Gene (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The variants on Levocetirizine arise as the manufacturer attempts to achieve a similar pronunciation but following language-specific spelling rules. English Wikipedia does not generally concern itself with non-English words so why should foreign-language brand names appear at all? The list/section is no longer required if restricted to English-language countries and non-generic brands. Stick Xyzal in the lead per MEDMOS and forget the others. Colin°^Talk 14:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• A list of brand names in the article can look clunky, and doesn't add very much information. But the lists are important. perhaps the list can exist separately, linked from the article? This would also help international users when searching for the drug by brand -not generic- name. One problem with this is that sometimes it's easy to copy-vio a list of brand names. There aren't many ways to say "UK - Dixipeg US - Dittypeg" so cutting and pasting lists is tempting. Dan Beale-Cocks 11:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Benzocaine multiple brand products

I've just added merge tags to multiple products used for aphthous ulcers which have Benzocaine as their sole active ingredient. Unless good reasons can be agreed for any single product being notable in its own right, then under WP:MEDMOS#Drugs I think they should redirect to the main benzocaine article. Discussion at Talk:Benzocaine#Mergers. David Ruben ^Talk 15:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Fortisip

Is this product really a pharmaceutical? Does it belong in this project at all?

The article also reads like an advertisement and contains no references to 3rd party sources. I feel that it should be either (a) deleted or (b) rewritten to wiki content standards, avoiding opinion (e.g. it is said to be "palatable" - to whom?) --TraceyR (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Even Ensure doesn't have a dedicated article, and you can't walk into a drugstore (at least where I live) without running into a refrigerator full of Ensure cartons. That said, WP:HOLE is absolutely not policy or anything :) If this is a notable product, then it should be rewritten in a more encyclopedic tone. In its present state, one could even make a case for CSD G11. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the Pharmacology template and added the Wikiproject Food & Drink template. "Nutritional supplements" are not "Pharmaceuticals", and not even regulated as drugs, either. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot to mention that :) Drugs ≠ supplements ≠ therapeutic foods. Still, enteral nutrition is a therapeutic intervention? Should this be under the scope of any project? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would think that enteral nutrition might fall under the medicine wikiproject, since it's involved in treatment. That doesn't classify as a drug, either, and it's definitely not the same thing as an intravenously administered medication. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, of course. Even medical foods aren't regulated as drugs AFAIK. I guess only TPN solutions/products would fall under the scope of WP:PHARM (if any became notable enough to warrant an article). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that Deplin is classified as a medical food by the FDA, and it is RX only. Deplin is used as additive therapy for SSRI-resistant depression. will//defective words, defective thoughts (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Fortisip, ensure, ensure plus, etc probably don't count as pharmaceuticals. But the reasonings given above are a bit odd. In the UK Ensure Plus is "used under medical supervision", is prescribed by doctors, and is used by "patients". Of course, non of that makes it a pharmaceutical, most of that would apply to some wound dressings. So I'd be interested to know what the project thinks does and doesn't count here. Dan Beale-Cocks 11:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Drugbox problem

There seems to be a problem with {{drugbox}}. In drugboxes in which the width of images is specified, the image is incorrectly displayed. I think this is a result of changes made elsewhere - discussion is at Wikipedia talk:ClickFix. Can anyone figure out how to fix it? -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

See, for example, this history of Propofol. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. I've made {{drugbox}} use {{px}} as suggested. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! You're quick. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not working - its fine if width defined, but if parameter undefined (ie "width = ") then no image is displayed at all. David Ruben ^Talk 23:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reported the problem at Wikipedia:ClickFix/Broken, too. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have already investigated the "empty width parameter" issue with the {{drugbox}} template and responded how to fix that at Template talk:Px. And no, this isn't the fault of {{px}}, but David Ruben asked about it there. But I can't fix it for you since that template is locked.

--David Göthberg (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't seen that other discussion. Thanks for taking the time to figure out a fix. I've temporarily changed the protection level of the template so that the fix can be made. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done – And the test cases at Template talk:Px looks fine so seems to be working. --David Göthberg (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick heads up, on introducing the px fix for alternative default values, I realised the {{drugbox}} had lost the option to specify width2 for the second image - can't image this often used, but let me know if you encounter any problems David Ruben ^Talk 04:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"Abuse" vs. "Recreational use"?

For some time, there has been debate over which term to use when naming sections of articles. Notably, there are minor edit conflicts occurring on the diphenhydramine and dimenhydrinate articles. I've added some comments to the talk page of the latter, but I realized that this is wider issue that needs to be addressed.

Personally, I don't see the two terms as interchangeable. One can abuse a drug without using it recreationally, and (conversely/controversially) one can also use a drug recreationally without abusing it (though not often is the latter possible). One can also simultaneously be abusing a drug and using it recreationally. There is an overlap between the two terms, but they're not synonymous.

The issue is essentially about POV. Typically, those in favor of using the term "abuse" see (illicit) drug use as a moral failure, whereas those who prefer "recreational use" either use illicit drugs themselves, or see drug use/dependence as an illness. I tend to prefer the latter term, since I see drug dependence as a biological/medical issue, rather than a moral issue.

There is also the related term "misuse", which is less severe than abuse. E.g., someone takes 2g of APAP rather than 500-1000mg - something they're doing out of ignorance (perhaps thinking that it will be more effective), rather than deliberate abuse or a desire for recreational effects. APAP of course has no recreational value. Which leads me to my next point...

Some drugs have no accepted medical use, and are used exclusively for recreational purposes (e.g. LSD). Does this mean that all use of such drugs qualifies as abuse? If this is the case, it means that "abuse" is a relative term which is based on whatever legal system one is living under. For example, in the UK heroin is used in hospitals, whereas in the US it is completely illegal. So, suppose an American is visiting the UK, gets injured, goes to a British hospital, and receives heroin as an analgesic. Does this mean that they are abusing heroin? According to the US government (or any other government), all illicit drug use is necessarily abuse. What it comes down to, in this particular case, is the use of semantically loaded language. How do you discourage drug use? Call it "drug abuse" instead. Leading to my next point...

When doctors want to know if their patient is using drugs, what does he/she ask? Surely not "Are you a drug abuser?". They ask "Do you use drugs recreationally?". Why do you suppose they do this (rhetorical question)? So they don't insult the patient, which might cause him/her to avoid visiting the doctor. The point here is that "drug abuse" is inherently insulting language for anyone that uses drugs to achieve euphoria (i.e., uses them recreationally). Let me end this string of comments with a few open-ended questions.

What is the relationship between drugs and dysphoria/euphoria? Why is reduction of dysphoria seen as good, whereas induction of euphoria is seen as bad (i.e. a side effect)? Are the two mutually exclusive?

Finally... What should the naming standard for drug articles be? Abuse? Misuse? Recreational use? All three? Separate sections for each? I'd appreciate any and all input in this matter.

Fuzzform (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess it depends on your own morals here,... But as a general rule, anytime that you use a drug without the supervision of a physician or medical professional, or, in the case of OTC drugs, if you use it in a way other than the instructions on the box provide, you are abusing the drug. For something like LSD, which no physician in their right mind would every prescribe (much less the FDA would even approve), and for which there is no clinical use,... use of it still falls under "abuse". Use of it is clearly "abusing" your body (actually your mind). It seems to me like those in favor of the term "recreational use" are really in denial of some serious issues,... But that's just my opinion. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly here on this point it is essential to point out a gaping hole in that statement as LSD is known to be helpful in psychotherapy and doctors did prescribe it before it was banned and the legislature despite an open letter with thousands of signatures on it asking for a medical use exemption in the case of psychotherapy was made, the lawmakers refused and the ensuing actions and the way it warped public perception of the drug basically called a halt to licenses for research on the drug being granted.

The best hope now is with MDMA again under psychotherapy treatments the current studies so far have been showing promise and it is being revealed that not only does it help speed up the psychotherapy treatments by helping the patient to open up to the therapist allowing the real issues to be dealt with but frequently the outcomes of the therapy can last longer or be more effective than the placebo groups. The most likely reason that such a trial was approved is that it's therapeutic benefits emerged after the ban and people saw this as a new thing, trials therefore got support there are in fact several going on around the world. Also it is only "abusing your body and mind" if you consider pleasure seeking behavior abusive, this of course would involve calling any action preformed to seek pleasure abuse including treating oneself to desert.

Also by your definition the articles on Alcohol, Tobacco, Nicotine would need to be corrected to refer to all use of these drugs as abuse as the only currently approved use for alcohol is as a recreational drug, same for tobacco, nicotine has an accepted medical use only for the treatment of Nicotine dependency which is caused (under the above definition) by abuse of the drug. MttJocy (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

With regards to recreational use versus abuse it is clear that recreational use is more appropriate except in cases where significant harm to the user or people around them is being caused by their use of the drug which crosses the line from use to abuse.

It is generally accepted medically that using the term abuse for non harmful or mildly harmful uses is a loaded term that fails to accept the reality of the fact that the way a drug is used and the consequences of that are not so black and white as simply weather or not it is medical use or not, in reality it is actually considered that a number of "recreational users" are actually self medicating especially for mental health type conditions that the drug use provides them relief for relief from stress, anxiety etc.

Therefore it is clear that such loaded terms would violate wikipedia policy on NPOV by introducing linguistic bias, recreational use however is less loaded and does not carry an automatic emotional weighting to it, although no doubt some readers will still choose to assign a negative value to this term at least it describes what the situation really is and leaves the reader to make up their own mind of weather or not it is abuse without leading them into that mindset.

Personally it seams that there is more than enough sources out there which still use loaded terms like abuse when discussing drug use in order to further their political agendas wikipedia has a chance to be an encyclopedia like it should be and provide balanced no loaded information on recreational drugs, their positives and negatives and then let readers form their own conclusions on how abusive or not recreational drug use is.

Unless someone is able to give me some justification for stating that someone in full awareness of the risk who takes actions to minimse that that risk while using in order to derive pleasure, relief of physical or mental pain, to help them relax, or provide them with the alertness needed to do long and complex tasks or similar is no less abusive than consuming vast quantities of a substance without taking any action to research the drug or minimse it's risks then it seams to be unjustified use of a loaded term to place both of these into the same category of abuse, I hope that this sheds some light on the topic for everyone. MttJocy (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Chlordiazepoxide

I think an admin needs to look at this talk page. It seems to have died down now but there has been some serious POV pushing going on. Massive junks of chlordiazepoxide and clonazepam were being deleted with little valid justification. Anyway just to let you know. Medos ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Nootropics

The article on Nootropics (aka "smart drugs", "smart nutrients", "cognitive enhancers", or "brain enhancers") needs some very serious attention. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Treatment of multiple sclerosis

There is a dispute brewing on this featured article that could do with some editors with the kind of knowledge you guys have! --Slp1 (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

More voices would still be very gratefully received on this article's talkpage.--Slp1 (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

CAS validation of CAS numbers: An update

As you know, over at WP:CHEMS we have been trying to get the core data from Chemboxes and Drugboxes organised and validated. You can see the list that includes the articles with drugboxes (and chemboxes) here. CAS agreed last month to collaborate with us, and in the coming weeks they will be validating our complete set of CAS numbers for us (they currently have a test dataset of 150 articles). We are currently discussing how we will organise the data, and ensure that the validated data doesn't get corrupted. If you're interested in being part of that discussion (probably on IRC), please let me know, because it will obviously affect CAS numbers in drugboxes too. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering the mild opposition in the past, I think that is a massive breakthrough! My compliments, Martin.

Wouldn't it be amazing if we could have a chembox that automatically populated itself on entry of the CAS number? A bit like Dave Iberri's citation tool for PubMed and ISBN? JFW | T@lk 07:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll certainly suggest this, I think it's reasonable and a definite possibility, I'd say. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

soap boxing on talk pages?

Many medicine articles have problems with the talk pages being used for soap boxing. Most of the anti-depressants, (either individually, eg venlafaxine) or as a family (eg ssri) will have talk pages that are made difficult to use for improving the article. Does this project have a nice, friendly, template that says "this is to discuss way to improve the article, not to discuss the subject of the article, and off topic discussions will be removed"? It might be nice to have a standard template. Dan Beale-Cocks 11:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a general one at Template:Off topic warning. I'm not sure how a project-specific one would be different anyway. --Galaxiaad (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paramax

Could I request some expert opinion on this reopened AfD? A substub on this drug combination was created and listed at AfD. I have moved the article to Paracetamol/metoclopramide hydrochloride per the naming convention in your style sheet, expanded it and added a reference in an attempt to save it, but it is currently heading for deletion. It seems to me that there is no reason why a combination drug should not have an entry, and also that the combination differs from the separate actions of the drugs because metoclopramide is suggested to affect paracetamol's absorption. However, I know nothing of this therapeutic area and so might be missing something. Thanks for your expert opinions, Espresso Addict (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I always understood metoclopramide acts as a motility agent and also vomiting-preventer both of which help ensure better absorption of any painkiller then given (i.e. not a specific interaction for paracetamol), but I'll have a look at the article and its AfD (but we do have similar product of Migraleve) :-) David Ruben ^Talk 19:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, David. Your expert eye is much appreciated. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Flunixin meglumine

I switched flunixin meglumine to the combination drugbox since there are two components. But now I'm rethinking it because meglumine is not an active ingredient (I think). So I'd like to ask here it is fine the way it is now, or if the article should be moved to the title flunixin and changed to a normal drugbox. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Flunixin is the INN; I'm pretty sure the meglumine is just a salt form, like "random drug hydrochloride" or "xyz sodium". By the way, if anyone's up to expanding the article, here are plenty of sources here. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, if no one objects, I will move it to flunixin. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Two images in drugbox

Can anyone figure out why the drugboxes in Quinupristin/dalfopristin and Imipenem/cilastatin will only display one of the images? Did I do something wrong? -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As {{Drugbox}} documentation notes "Generally combination articles will not need display the molecular images of its constituents (the relevant specific articles would have the images)." and these 2 articles should use the 1b) Combination products style of the template use (i.e. set "type = combo" and use component1, class1, component2 & class2 parameters). However nothing in these points or the template should prevent double image display (after all 2 images are still shown in Paracetamol)... hmmm I can't immediately see why this bug is occuring... I shall ponder, unless anyone cares to beat me to it :-) David Ruben ^Talk 01:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've removed the images, per drugbox documentation. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Janet Wolfe and Wolfe Laboratories

Articles that you may be interested in, Janet Wolfe, and Wolfe Laboratories have been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolfe Laboratories. Thank you. Paulbrock (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Drug Policy

I would like to announce the formation of WikiProject Drug Policy. This WikiProject will seek to organize the existing article set better and coordinate efforts to bring drug policy-related articles to featured status. All are welcome to join. Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hemostatic agent article and Antihemorrhagics

Hemostatic agent was originally created to focus on topical antihemorrhagic products like QuikClot. It is now starting to focus on other antihemorrhagics as well. Since there is no article on antihemorrhagics, I am currently proposing that this article focus on the ATC code B02 drugs in addition to the topical products. Any input you have would be welcomed at Talk:Hemostatic agent#Focus of article. --Scott Alter 22:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Aspirin GA

Aspirin is a current Good article nominee. I have reviewed it against the criteria, and made several comments regarding the article. It is currently on hold, so if editors could go over there and address the concerns, it could be hopefully promoted. Dr. Cash (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Anabolic steroid

On the Main Page today. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Benzamil

The article is up for deletion and needs not only the WikiProject Chemicals but also the help from WikiProject Pharmacology!!--Stone (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Aspirin

Aspirin has been listed for GAC, but the request is on hold because of some disagreements. With a little push this vital article could well achieve GA. JFW | T@lk 20:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

NEW ARTICLE: Small molecule

{{Unanswered}}

I wrote a page on small molecule to fix some articles which give the impression that every ligand is a protein and end up getting confused in the middle. three points:

• If someone knows about any pages that suffer from this affliction please link them.
• Oddly I cannot find a reference for the word small molecule, which I would have sweared it is in the simplest of textbooks (hence why those pages make confusion between small molecules and protein? and hence why I just made the page yesterday).
• And most imporatntly does anyone want to adopt this messy page?

Cheers --Squidonius (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've started up some talk page discussion...Small molecule drug seems like a likely subarticle is the overall article is just about everything under 1000 daltons or so (wikt:small molecule drug). — Scientizzle 21:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How to address antibiotic activity

Resistance to an antibiotic changes rapidly, and differs from region to region (even among hospitals within a region). Because of this, different regions (and even individual hospitals) publish antibiotic guides for their particular population. Activity sections don't seem to do this problematic fact justice. Cipro, for example, hasn't been recommended as a treatment for N gonorrhea since 2007 in the US (even as early as 2005 for MSM), but we still state that Cipro is active against N gonorrhea. Depending on where you are, this is either generally true, occasionally true, or generally false. Should we go full-throttle and try to be the Sanford guide, keeping up to date with our bug-drug activity? Should we shy away from making species-specific pronouncements? Do something in between? Antelan^talk 22:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not my area of expertise, but I would suggest if possible acknowledging what you have written that sensitivity varies from country to country and even regions within a country.

If ciprofloxacin or any of the other quinolones are not recommended for N gonorrhea in the US then this should definitely be noted in the article. If the article is giving misleading or incorrect information then it needs to be updated and changed. I think there is no need to go full throttle, but general information of important english speaking countries such as uk, canada, usa and australia are relevant. I wouldn't go too deep into the regional sensitivities other than perhaps mentioning that sensitivity can vary in regions within a country. You may like to post over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine for their views.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Resistance patterns are very locally determined. In the UK, some areas have nice E. coli, and other areas have multi-resistant E. coli. It probably depends on previous prescribing habits and migration of various groups of people. In the US, antibiotics have been so heavily overprescribed for a very long time that multi-resistant organisms are a fact of life. JFW | T@lk 05:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

iGuard

On varenicline, 72.82.227.16 (talk · contribs) (probably Akele67 (talk · contribs) logged out) wants to use iGuard as a source for its side effect profile. This seems to be user-generated data that is not "peer reviewed" (despite claims in an edit summary that it is). Does anyone have experience with this system, and how reliable would it be as a source? JFW | T@lk 05:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources would be better. iGuard looks like a very seriously tertiary source, and isn't even citing where it gets its data from very clearly. There are other sources that are better. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Does the "cohort" consist of people leaving their experiences of a certain drug on the website? If so, I can't even imagine how methodologically flimsy that is. I agree with Dr. Cash that more reliable data (e.g. from studies that are not ongoing) is almost certainly a click away. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Like what? This site? ;-) Dr. Cash (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Mind you, a lot of our articles (especially tryptamines) are sourced to the vaults, as you've probably noticed :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I am a pharmacoepidemiologist that uses iGuard to source side-effect data. Basically what they run is a multi-drug prospective registry (active surveillance) across thousands of members, which is reviewed by drug safety and epi professionals. Unlike passive surveillance (e.g. please report when there is a problem... how meaningful is 854 reports for Lipitor?), active surveillance involves actively capturing outcomes from prospective population and therefore can have a denominator (85 reports out of 850 patients). Not sure how this could be considered a tertiary resource, since I use it for capturing primary outcomes data from a closed population. I think this is valuable to the general public as long as it is well described. Yohimbine (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Two very serious problems with Iguard. The participants are the patients subscribed to the service, so it is not randomized. Its workings are not public, unlike any surveillance scheme run by a government agency. So it is both methodologically flimsy and not peer-reviewed. The parent company for Iguard, Quintiles runs marketing campaigns and trials for big pharma. It is conceivable that a pressure can be applied so that certain side effects are glossed over or overemphasized. It is not a reliable source by any stretch of imagination. Paul Gene (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

So a registry (to which patients must opt in, and from which data is frequently not published) run by a pharma company is a better resource? Come on folks. If we're going to use a randomized controlled trial standard for all the information on medications on this site, we'd better start rewriting a lot of wikis. I agree there is always the pressure that pharma can place on results from a private organization, and I do have my concerns regarding iGuard's ownership, but its sure better than any data a drug company selectively may publish itself. Bottom line, whether it is iGuard or a better source (suggestions please!) I think real world incidence rates of side effects should be published where possible rather than a laundry list... laundry lists may not be flimsy, they're just not useful to anyone. Yohimbine (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. I wrote "surveillance scheme run by a government agency". Such schemes exist, for example, in UK, Spain and US, where the physicians report the cases directly to the government. The data published in side effects sections of prescribing information, although originating from the companies, is scrutinized by several FDA experts. The FDA then often requests clarifications, clinical narrative, analyses data, etc. You do not want to be the one to lie to the FDA. Upon the approval, the whole process is made public by posting on the FDA website, where anyone can read it. Paul Gene (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't like being lectured, Yohimbine ("come on folks"). Rather than downplaying registries, could you address our methodological concerns with regards to iGuard? Specifically, could you provide us with a good source that assuages our fears that the entire resource is simply user-generated content? JFW | T@lk 06:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In what way is iGuard fully "prospective"? What is to stop patients registering to complain about side-effects of drugs they are (or were) already on? How does it ensure that all registrants bother to keep it up-to-date? What if the registrant stops using the drug or just stops using the site? What if the registrant dies? I can't see how this can accurately capture the side-effect profile of a drug to the same quality levels that active monitoring by a trained researcher can. There's no control group either. I can, however, see some merit to a "pharmacoepidemiologist" in that it may flag up some unexpected side-effects that would be worth investigating.

I agree that WP articles with laundry lists of side-effects are useless and possibly dangerous (could stop someone taking an important medication because they worry about a rare effect). Words like "common" and "rare" aren't particularly helpful and can be influenced by severity. But without comparison to a control group, saying "5% had flatulence" could be meaningless for a drug that treats GI problems, for example. Colin°^Talk 09:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This whole side-effect thing needs a careful think. Even in well-designed trials, most side-effects are non-specific and poorly understood. I think we need to focus on the common side-effects that are at least partially understood and might influence clinical decision-making (e.g. not giving cefalosporins to people who have previously had anaphylactic reactions to penicillin). Just long lists of "when I took this drug I felt lousy" are not likely to be encyclopedic, or factually correct for that matter. JFW | T@lk 10:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a very difficult aspect to write about and the sources are often poor in this regard too. I think the "might influence clinical decision-making" test is too strong. There are plenty diseases bad enough to make patients put up with awful side effects, or where there is simply no option but to take unpleasant medication. Some side effects won't influence the initial choice (because the doctor can't predict who gets them) but will be a significant cause of therapy failure. And other effects must simply be watched for and treated in themselves, without stopping or changing the therapy. These might all be encyclopaedic. And rare side effects become important if thousands or millions of people take the drug (e.g., the Pill). It is hard to come up with rules for all drug articles. Colin°^Talk 11:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Colin, I wasn't for a moment suggesting that we should cast this in stone. Rather, I thought it might be better to generally avoid listing enormous laundry lists of side-effects, and my tests serve only to whittle down those lists. Judgement is required, not rules. JFW | T@lk 21:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Bananadine

Resolved

A lot in the chemicals in bananas section appears to be incorrect. I'd appreciate some comments. Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved. Thanks to User:Paul gene Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sertraline

Great news! Sertraline has been featured on the main page as Today's Featured Article! It's also interesting to note that, with Sertraline being featured, at least half of the articles from this wikiproject that have been featured on the main page, have been featured in the last six months! That should say a lot regarding the recent progress of the Pharmacology project! Congrats to all! Dr. Cash (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Admins: finger on the revert button for the usual "hey I can edit this - hello mum" kind of vandalism. JFW | T@lk 13:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Pharmacology stubs subtypes

Please see this proposal for an initial two subtypes that I've proposed, with the likelihood of more to follow. I'd especially like to hear some input from this project as to what other such would be desirable... Alai (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what proposal? That link goes nowhere. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

NS error. Fixed (one hopes). Alai (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you're welcome to make additional stubs if you really want, so I really don't think I can justify opposing this, but rather than wasting time finding new ways to categorize stubs, wouldn't it be a better investment in time to work at converting those stubs into actual articles? Dr. Cash (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Weak oppose, could end up with a huge hierachy tree of sub-stubs (eg Stub NSAIDs leading to Stub COX-II etc etc). Editors would then spend time trying yto work out which sub-stud to use, whereas everyone in this project can easily remember to use {{pharma-stub}}, and a quick look at the category page will show the overall pharmacology stub backlog number of articles. David Ruben ^Talk 19:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

List of requested articles

Can I find one of these anywhere? It's a pain having to think of drugs, check if they've already got articles etc. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 15:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested articles/list of missing pharmacology, Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Medicine#Pharmacology, and User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Pharmacy. Dig in :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

New Collaboration

Warfarin is now the current Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week/Month/Fortnight! Let's try and improve the article up to GA or FA status. There are also two new nominations for the next collaboration: Barbiturate and Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor. Go to WP:RxCOTW and support these nominations (or nominate a new article). Dr. Cash (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Reproductive medicine task force

A "Reproductive medicine" task force has been proposed. It would be hosted by WikiProject Medicine, but would also have as parent projects WikiProject Sexology and sexuality and WikiProject Pharmacology. Comments are welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces#Reproductive medicine. Lyrl^Talk _C 21:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This task force has been created. The task force's page is here and all interested editors are welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Fact checking as regards supposed alkaloid 7-acetoxymitragynine

The editor who created article 7-acetoxymitragynine has stated that said 'alkaloid' can be synthesized from 7-Hydroxymitragynine ?! I have limited knowledge in this field although ScienceDirect has nothing regarding this. Editor states it is a semi-synthetic alkaloid?! Thanks, Nk.sheridan   Talk 22:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sedative v. Hypnotic

Two articles which someone last month proposed merging. I have no expertise. If I read that a substance has a hypnotic effect vs. sedative effect, I feel that these are not the same. Authoritative clarifying would be good, as these are important introductory articles, IMO. Thank you. --Hordaland (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that if there is no consensus to merge those two pages that there should then be a seperate page created for an article called "Sedative-hypnotics", which includes barbiturates, benzodiazepines and alcohol. Sedative-hypnotic drug classification was created by the W.H.O. to replace the previous confusing classifications of minor tranquillisers and sleeping pills, because doctors got mixed up thinking sleeping pills were completely different from minor tranquillisers. It is a drug classification for drugs which have both sedative (tranquillising) as well as hypnotic (sleep inducing) properties. Most drugs classed as sedative hypnotics work via a GABAergic mechanism of action.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 691 of the articles assigned to this project, or 19.3%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a great idea. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Next Collaboration of the Month

Barbiturate has been selected as the next Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month for July. Please help work towards helping the article meet the good or featured article criteria. Also, please go to WP:RxCOTM to nominate or vote for the August collaboration of the month! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I just spent a few hours trying to improve the barbiturate page. I can't get it up to a good article or featured article alone but at least it is now referenced, a bit more tidy and the flags/tags can be removed or are removed. If anyone wants to work on it a bit more then let me know.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Psychoactive drug - chart controversy

Since the psychoactive drug article is rated top importance to this project, I want to call attention to a dispute that is ongoing there and solicit input from the community. The dispute centers around a chart (Venn diagram) created by User:Thoric, which is a graphical representation of the subjective and behavioral effects of various psychoactive substances. This classification is very interesting and seemingly quite popular amongst wikipedia users, but some editors object to it as original research while others object to the classification itself. If you have anything to add to the discussion, please do. Steve Carlson^Talk 01:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh no! Not this shiat, again,... ;-) Dr. Cash (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It was reinserted against previously formed consensus. I have removed it until there is newly formed consensus to displace the previous consensus. JFW | T@lk 07:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

CheMoBot

Hi all, since some time we (Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals) have been working on verifying data on chemical compounds (which are to a large exstend stored in {{chembox new}} and {{drugbox}} and some other infoboxes). Data includes e.g. CAS-numbers, etc., and some chemical data.

Lately I have been writing a 'bot' on IRC (User:CheMoBot) which is capable of following changes to data in these infoboxes, and to report them on-IRC. I have now asked for permission for the bot to edit in project space, in order to set up a copy of the infobox data, which is then to be verified properly. This data is then used by the bot to compare changes in mainspace articles with (or even, repair or update etc.).

As this project is the keeper of {{drugbox}}, I would like to hear some input from this group as well. The bot request for approval is Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CheMoBot. On IRC (if there are members here who are active on IRC) the bot resides in #wikichem (the chemistry wikipedia channel). Hope to hear more. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I would find it particularly useful if there was a way the bot could support some of the drugbox data with easily-accessible references (e.g. Martindale). Presently, data in the drugboxes is completely unsourced and therefore subject to the usual provisos about unsourced content (especially hard numbers!) JFW | T@lk 05:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am planning to start this bot in 3-4 phases. First phase will be getting a database of verified data somewhere (preferably on-wiki) and to log changes (comparing against the verified data); second phase will be that I want 'manual' repair (IRC-commanded) of mainpages from the verified data, third phase will be automated 'protection' of the main-space pages, and a possible fourth phase would be including user-warning.

Are there any members here who are willing to be the main 'representative' for the database of verified data in the drugboxes (that database then will be here somewhere under this wikiproject; e.g. subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Index), and someone who will regularly join the IRC channel #wikichem for monitoring the bot (or is there an own channel somewhere?)? Thanks already. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Cinnarizine

This comment was left at WT:CHEM, but may be more relevant here:

The article on cinnarizine states that it is not available in North America. It is however listed as having Rx and OTC versions on Canadian mail-order sites, and the OTC is shipped from India in blister packaging with the brand name Stugeron on the package. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rxdoxx (talk • contribs) 01:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

-- Ed (Edgar181) 13:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no record of cinnarizine as an approved drug product in Drugs@FDA or HealthCanada(try searching ATC "N07CA02"). Of course, that doesn't mean it can't be purchased from North America, and saying it is not available in North America is technically incorrect because it is sold in Mexico :) Fvasconcellos* (t·c) 23:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Pharmacy and Pharmacology

I've made a few updates and enhancements to the pharmacy and pharmacology portal, rearranging a few things and highlighting some of the activities of this project. If anyone has any suggestions for the portal, please leave them here. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Two new medically-related websites launching this year

Slashdot has an interesting article right now on two new wikipedia-like sites that are offering up medically-related content. One is Google's Knol, which allows verified experts the opportunity to publish independent articles on a variety of topics. It's not exactly limited to medical topics, though they do have a reasonably good amount of them currently. It's not exactly as collaborative as Wikipedia, however, as one expert writes an article on their own, and this is published, but others can't edit it -- they have to write their own article. But a lot of the content looks reasonably good, with high quality text, and reliable. So I suppose that these articles could be used as sources or links from wikipedia articles.

The other site is Medipedia. Medipedia is an online medical encyclopedia sponsored by Harvard, Stanford, UCB, and Michigan, using the same wikimedia software that wikipedia uses, and edited by registered experts and not anonymously. The site is not really live yet, and states that it will launch by the end of the year. But they are looking for contributors; to contribute, you must have a M.D. or Ph.D. in a medically-related field. Dr. Cash (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Litigation

After the aprotinin debâcle, it was to be predicted that someone would start a class action. MonheitLaw (talk · contribs) added information on an ongoing class action suit. I have removed this for COI reasons, but I am wondering what kind of test of notability we could apply for drug litigation? Surely, not every drug article needs content on where the ongoing class actions are running! JFW | T@lk 16:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Pharm article at TfD

• Template:Psychoactive drugs is being discussed at TfD. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Antibiotic classes

The above article was recently split out from Antibiotic by Epastore (talk · contribs) (a good move if you ask me). Would anyone object to its being moved to List of antibiotics? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Move. More than just antibiotic classes being discussed there. JFW | T@lk 14:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Potential new Alzheimer's Disease drug

There some press coverage here and here (and probably elsewhere, too) on a new drug called Rember, for treatment of Alzheimer's Disease. It targets the Tau protein in neurons and initial trials indicate that it halts progression of the disease in some cases. More research is planned. The main chemical in Rember (apparently, not the only one) is Methylene blue, used as a blue dye in laboratory experiments, and available by prescription since the 1930s for chronic bladder infections. It appears, though, that a different form of the drug is used in the Alzheimer's study. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The methylene blue article does not have information on this new drug, since it's not exactly the same thing. There's some discussion on this at Talk:Methylene blue. There is a new article, Rember, which has information on the drug. Sadly, though, it was first created several months ago, so it's not eligible for WP:DYK. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Does this article belong within the project?

Contaminated currency, an article about how US dollars, British pounds sterling and euros all contain heavy drug contamination. If you folk feel it belongs, let me know (or add us up). - Hexhand (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a wiki drug addiction project or does that come under pharmacology?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Kinda what I am asking. While the article deals with drug use, it specifically notes that the contamination of the banknotes occurs at a microscopic level, with the crystals becoming trapped within the fibers of the paper money. That's what made me think of this wikiproject. - Hexhand (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't deal with the pharmacology of a drug but then again it is about a drug. It doesn't come under substance use disorders. I am stumped as to whether it should be categorised in pharmacology project or not. What about this category? --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

August Collaboration

The Collaboration of the Month for August ought to be popular with editors . . . Viagra! :-) As much traffic as it gets, the article ought to be AT LEAST GA status; hopefully FA. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hoax in propranolol article?

This has been in the "History and development" section of the propranolol article since January. How did no one (myself included) pick up on this? Now would be a good time to check if key articles like this one are on our Watchlists. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

New pharmacology stubs

I'm creating a few new pharmacology stubs (Semagacestat, Lurasidone, more to come if I find the time). Should I add a WP Pharmacology template on the talk pages or just a stub template on the article pages? Cheers --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please add {{WikiProject Pharmacology}} to the talk page, and please provide an assessment of the article's importance as well if you can. Welcome to the project, and keep up the good work! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome and your incouragement! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussions about ChemSpider and Linkouts

I've been working on the curation of the chemical structure collection on Wikipedia for a number of months now (likely most of you are aware of the effort but if not see here Wikipedia curation. I am now working through another 500 entries for the database and in the process of doing so am cross-validating the structures on Wikipedia with those that will find their way into the SDF file.

There has been a discussion about integrating to ChemSpider via outlinks (similar to PubChem, Drugbank and eMolecules) and it has garnered support from WP:CHEMS Outlink Discussion. ChemSpider is different from other outlinks since it offers access to detailed reaction analysis, to analytical data and forms an integrated hub to over 150 data sources. In the process of reviewing the data it is easy for me to add a ChemSpider link. This is already going on for ChemBoxes and I could do the same for DrugBoxes while curating. I would prefer to do this with the support of WP:PHARM if possible.--ChemSpiderMan (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Chemspider IDs

I was also interested in adding some Chemspider IDs. There are several predicted properties that are pharmacologically relevant, such as number of rule-of-five violations, polar surface area, logP/logD, etc. I think adding this to the infobox would give users access to more information. Any thoughts? Casforty (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with predicted properties is the selection of the algorithm. There are over a dozen logP algorithms and different ways to calculate PSA, logD etc. The rule of 5 violations also depend on logP. --ChemSpiderMan (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Granted, but that will be be a problem with any predicted property of a molecule, we won't know how accurate the prediction is unless we do the actual experiment. So if one posts a predicted property (be it logP, IR spectra, etc.), I think the main problem would be that some people who are not familar with prediction would assume that the answer is 'right' without knowing the caveats of property prediction. Should this preclude us from making predicted properties available? For the most part I think people would take any of the predicted properties with a grain of salt, and not interpret them as absolute fact. 198.180.131.16 (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you therefore think that predicted values should be listed on Wikipedia? For reference I DO like predicted properties. As the host of ChemSpider I have had to defend their value. We have predicted values for over 20 million molecules. I had posted previously about how accurate does a prediction need to be. SO, I am all for predicted properties. That said I am not sure that they belong on an encyclopedic article. --ChemSpiderMan (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In view of this opinion from the site's host, agreement needs to reached whether predicted values are useful in a general encyclopaedia. In particular whilst might be useful for various organic chemical topics, is it useful for the general reader of general drug articles for inclusion within {{Drugbox}} ? Casforty (talk · contribs) has populated large number of drug articles already with a ChemSpiderID parameter even before agreement reached on this - this needs discussing and a conclusion first folks :-) David Ruben ^Talk 01:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Noted, I will refrain from adding any more until a consensus is reached Casforty (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally support the addition of ChemSpider not because of the predicted properties—which are included in PubChem—, but because, so far, ChemSpider appears to be highly curated (and transparently so). PubChem has some serious if relatively infrequent reliability issues, which are well known to the WP chemistry/pharm community, and MeSH (to which CAS numbers in the Drugbox link) appears to lack information on many compounds. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should be side tracked by the predicted properties issue. I think the effect of linking to ChemSpider would be to marry a well curated database (ChemSpider) with monographs (WP). To elaborate, the database contain various intrinsic properties (MW, isotopic composition, structure, stereo), experimentally-determined properties (bp/mp/appearance), experimentally-determined spectra (1H/13C NMR, IR, etc., e.g. [1]), apart from predicted data. Monographs: our articles discussing the synth, applications, chemistry, etc. of various compounds, drug-, drug-like, or otherwise. Seems like everything to gain and not much to lose, except for another entry in the drugbox and perhaps concerns of table creep. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If I understood correctly, ChemSpiderMan said that he thinks that predicted values may not belong in an encyclopedic article. I think that's reasonable given the multitude of predictions for each property. But that's very different IMO from linking to a database that includes predicted values (among other things). I think the link is useful and justified. It is just a single link as opposed to a legion of predicted values. --Itub (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to add my voice to those that find value in linking Wikipedia articles to ChemSpider. I find this database to be reliable and information-rich in comparison to the other dabases we link to already. I support adding a link from drugboxes and chemboxes. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks everyone - that seems clarification that people would find this helpful and, in particular, thanks for addressing ChemSpiderMan own reservation. I've added to {{drugbox}}, eg see Verapamil. David Ruben ^Talk 13:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apricitabine

Apricitabine is up for deletion. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Verified data for User:CheMoBot

I'll re-poke this discussion (there are older threads around, and similar threads above). The BRFA (bot request) found the solution using revids of pages for the 'storage' of verified data in infoboxes the best method for User:CheMoBot. For that we now have 2 index pages, one for the {{chembox new}}, and one for {{drugbox}}:

• {{chembox new}} -> Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Index
• {{drugbox}} -> Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Index

Both contain a few sample entries, but now the big task is coming: verifying the pages and getting them into the indices. What needs to be done for that:

• Find a page which is not yet in the index
• Check all fields on that page, especially the ones named in '<boxname>_fields' (the watched fields) in User:CheMoBot/Settings, i.e.:
  • for {{chembox new}}: C|H|N|O|P|Cl|Br|I|B|IUPACName|CASNo|EINECS|PubChem|SMILES|InChI|RTECS|MeSHName|ChEBI|KEGG|Formula|MolarMass|Density|MeltingPt|MeltingPtC|MeltingPtK|MeltingPtF|BoilingPt|BoilingPtC|BoilingPtK|BoilingPtF
  • for {{drugbox}}: molecular_weight|CAS_number|DrugBank|ATC_prefix|ATC_suffix|ATC_supplemental
  • (other fields can be added if wanted, it should have the fields for which hardly an argument is possible)
• Remove all data which can not be verified (especially in the 'watched' fields); add <!-- NA --> in fields which simply do not exist (e.g. the refractive index of a non-transparent material).
• Find the revid containing the checked version (see instructions on the Index page).
• Add a line to the index (Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Index or Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Index) in the format described.
• (move on to the next page ..).

The bot now only compares the data/change of data with the box in the older revid of the page, and logs these changes. It is not a huge problem if there are some wrong values in there, but the majority should be right. If a page gives too many problems, ignore it and move on. The bot 'ignores' pages which have not a verified revid in the index, as well as fields which don't have a value in the infobox in the 'verified' revid.

The indexes can be edited by anyone, and if a newer version of a page contains more verified data, then the index should be updated (it also means we need to keep an eye on it, as 'vandalism' on these pages will also have effects on the working of the bot ..

I really would like to get some help here, getting verified revids of the pages would improve the reliability of the encyclopedia, and when there is enough verified data (and we are confident that there are not too many mistakes), we may even consider using the bot to protect the verified data! Poke me (here, on my talkpage, or on IRC) when you have questions. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I would ask that people ONLY USE VALIDATED DATA FROM THE CENTRAL RDF FILE that WP:CHEMS were collaborating on. These have been checked by at least two people, against independent sources including CAS. We need first to upload the revids from ChemSpiderMan's "first 500" - how should we organize that? Walkerma (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: As per this week's WP:CHEMS IRC, I have created a page Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Chembox validation where we can coordinate the work of uploading the validated data. Dmacks can hopefully upload the list of articles. The data include CAS no. (from CAS), as well as structure, IUPAC name, InChI, InChIKey, ChemSpiderID, molecular formula and molar mass. The process is described there, it's pretty straightforward. We will start with the "first 500" SDF file, which I can send to those involved in the work. Hopefully Dmacks can upload a list of those articles on-wiki, but the actual validated data exist off-wiki - please contact me if you want to help. Thanks! Walkerma (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Pharmacology

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 20:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Your choice

User:John Moss recently tagged Eucalyptus oil with both WPMED and WPPHARM banners, on the grounds that the extract is mentioned somewhere or another in BP and is present (as an inactive ingredient) in cough drops. European Pharmacopeia identifies it as an ingredient in a homeopathic preparation.[2] I've removed the WPMED banner (and added the AltMed banner), but wanted to let you make your own choices. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC) (who is not watching this page)

Well, many pharmaceutical preparations contain eucalyptus oil, and it is certainly a "medicinal product", though I'm not sure it should fall under this project's scope.

Eucalyptus oil as an ingredient in homeopathic preparations makes no sense. In herbal or phytotherapeutic products, yes, but not in homeopathic remedies—are you sure the source says eucalyptus oil and not just plain old Eucalyptus globulus? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hemofarm Group

This leading Serbian pharmaceutical company article is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hemofarm Group. Other input is welcome. -- Banjeboi 22:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Galenika

This leading Serbian pharmaceutical company article is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galenika (company). Other input is welcome. -- Banjeboi 23:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Photos of drugs

Dear drug lovers

I'm helping User:Crohnie, who has already uploaded some great clinical photos, to upload some pictures of drugs. We're working on some photos of fentanyl patches and lollipops, for which no photos seem to exist yet on Wikipedia/Commons.

Once this is done, the question will arise: will it be useful to take images of other, perhaps more every-day drugs, e.g. Pentasa (or anything else that just looks like a little white pill)? Note that it is quite troublesome for this user to create these images, and I appreciate the work that's being put into it. So is it really worth all the trouble for some of the more simple pills?

I'm curious to here the position of some of the editors here. More importantly: are images of drugs something that some of you are putting energy in yourselves? Do you have a dedicate pharmacist here who would be willing to create a drug image catalogue?

Let me know what you think about this effort.

cheers from the doctor's mess, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure every drug needs a picture. I'm sure many, many pills are similar in shape, colour and size. It'd be a better idea to work on lesser known drugs. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, good pictures would include packages and not just pills for that exact reason; there are some excellent examples out there, and I'll put up a small gallery of good examples below. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I don't mind taking pictures at all, Steven is being very helpful to me to know how to and what is needed. I'll let Steven take care of the nitty gritty of things and let him tell me what is wanted and if I can do it, fine, no problem with me helping out. He has been wonderful taking the time to help me get photos that are helpful to the project. So thanks Steven. Oh, not all pills are little white pills :). There are different shapes and colors but the biggest problem with some pictures is not having the original bottles available. Ayways I just thought I would give a little input here. I do enjoy helping if I am able to. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a little gallery with examples. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 
  Fentanyl lollipops (Actiq)
• 
  Thanks CrohnieGal!
• 
  A few other good examples.
• 
  My personal favourite.
• 
  Nice collection.
• 
  From the DEA.
• 
  Russian aciclovir.

←Perhaps it's best to do this as a case-by-case basis, then? If a particularly interesting medication could use a picture, then we can try and provide one. I don't see much advantage in every medication having it's picture here. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could start using {{Reqphoto}} and categorize it to WP:PHARM? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sure, that could work :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 06:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, seems like a good idea. Photos can certainly add encyclopedic value (when they're well-done, of course :), particularly because it's hard to go beyond structures when looking for images for a drug article. I agree that pills/tablets should always be photographed with the drug packaging, otherwise it's, well, just a photo of some pills, with no context and little EV. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Yes, Steven, I'm still swamped with work :P Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Mirtazapine 30mg tablets

Just the pills for the minute to replace a low quality picture on the Mirtazapine page. I'll get a packaging and possibly packet shot too when I get my next batch. Can also do the same for 20mg Fluoxetine if required. Lanfear's Bane | t 20:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

New monoclonal antibody articles

I request that these monoclonal antibody pages which should be created (which there either in INN lists or USAN decisions, if sufficient Google hits).

1. Cixutumumab (
   • wp
   • g
   • b
   )
2. Conatumumab (
   • wp
   • g
   • b
   )
3. Ixutumumab (
   • wp
   • g
   • b
   ) (under consideration)
4. Robatumumab (
   • wp
   • g
   • b
   ) (under consideration)
5. Foravirumab (
   • wp
   • g
   • b
   )
6. Rafivirumab (
   • wp
   • g
   • b
   )
7. Ramucirumab (
   • wp
   • g
   • b
   )
8. Tenatumomab (
   • wp
   • g
   • b
   )
9. Afutuzumab (
   • wp
   • g
   • b
   )
10. Citatuzumab bogatox (
    • wp
    • g
    • b
    )
11. Farletuzumab (
    • wp
    • g
    • b
    )
12. Milatuzumab (
    • wp
    • g
    • b
    )
13. Tigatuzumab (
    • wp
    • g
    • b
    )
14. Veltuzumab (
    • wp
    • g
    • b
    )
15. Vedolizumab (
    • wp
    • g
    • b
    )
16. Alacizumab pegol (
    • wp
    • g
    • b
    )
17. Stolanezumab (
    • wp
    • g
    • b
    ) (under consideration)
18. Tanezumab (
    • wp
    • g
    • b
    )

After you create these monoclonal antibody pages, put the name on the check list after they're verified. Thanks, --210.50.14.165 (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Not all these monoclonal antibodies may be sufficiently notable to have their own Wikipedia articles. Generally, there is a rule that we do not make articles on pharmaceuticals in animal testing or phase I/II clinical testing. Simply too many drugs never leave the laboratory, and the same applies to monoclonal antibodies. Obviously there are exceptions (see our old friend CD28-superMAB, which thankfully never survived phase I), but these prove the rule. JFW | T@lk 19:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Would I create them myself if I have an account? --211.26.246.102 (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you create an account, then you can start pages (after a few days). But JFW's point is important: If it's not notable, then you will create the article, and someone else will just delete it. You need good, reliable, independent, third-party sources that show that the mAb is getting some notice (outside of, say, the company's efforts to attract investors). Usually, that threshold isn't met until a potential therapeutic is on its way to regulatory approval (or else is the subject of major news media attention, usually as a result of some scandal).

An intermediate approach is to add a paragraph or two about a mAb to a pre-existing article on the company that is developing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Just reinforcing what JFW and WhatamIdoing said—the notability of drugs is currently assessed on a case-by-case basis. We have a lot of articles on drugs that are probably non-notable, but that doesn't necessarily mean more of them should be created ;) I'd also like to thank you for your contributions so far and note that anyone is indeed welcome to edit that checklist, even though it's in my userspace. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Tinzaparin

Can someone check if the given CAS number is OK? According to this, the CAS number is the one of heparin sodium salt. --Leyo 17:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

WHO Drug Information oddly gives no CAS number. Perhaps someone can check Chemical Abstracts? One more reason to move forward with chembox and drugbox data validation... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Chemical Abstracts lists tinzaparin as one of the synonyms for CAS# 9005-49-6. CAS# 9041-08-1 is for tinzaparin sodium. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Parafon Forte

Can some one please add a drugbox to Parafon Forte. ALSO, IT NEEDS MAJOR CLEANUP!!!Cssiitcic (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Bicalutamide

Hi guys, do we have any endocrinologists around here that could have a look at this page? Someone has added a long and detailed section describing the nasty side effects of androgen antagonists, which is factually accurate but serves to make the page rather unbalanced as there is little corresponding description of the positive effects or reasons why bicalutamide would be prescribed (e.g. treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia or prostate cancer). This is not really my area of expertise but perhaps someone round here could try make this article a bit more balanced? Meodipt (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe our only endocrinologist is Alteripse (talk · contribs), but he hasn't been around in quite a while. Alison (talk · contribs) is pretty knowledgeable about endocrine pharmacology, and used to work on some related pages (particularly on GnRH agonists/antagonists), but she's been very busy with some other attributions now :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

We need to look at finasteride at the same time. JFW | T@lk 07:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Dermatology in need of pharmacologic expertise

First, let me thank you all for the work you have been doing on the pharmacology articles on wikipedia. Routinely I am reading well written and documented pharm articles, and I very impressed with them.

Recently, I started the WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force, and have been working to create a better organization to the articles. After extended discussions on the Wikiproject Medicine page, a proposed categorization scheme was developed for all dermatologic articles, which included a "Cutaneous pharmacology" division.

However, after considering this "Cutaneous pharmacology" category, I am (1) realizing that the title is likely too narrow (for example, would it be appropriate to include sunscreen under this category? Is that "pharmacology"?), and (2) uncertain what the subcategories of this category should be.

Right now, there are four existing categories that I think should be merged under "Cutaneous pharmacology" (or whatever the category should be called), and they are: Category:Dermatological preparations, Category:Keratolytics, Category:Skin care, and Category:Sunscreening agents; however, I am just not sure how best to name this category and how to subdivide it.

Therefore, I am writing to ask if any of you would be willing to help create a categorization scheme for dermatology related drugs/preperations/etc? I am not asking you to actually do the tedious work of implementing and categorizing all the articles (unless you want to), I merely need help creating a good categorization scheme that somehow entails all these vastly different items (i.e. anitmicrobials to steroids (Oral vs systemic) to PUVA (Psoralen + UVA treatment) to sunscreen, etc).

Will someone be willing to help create this categorization scheme? Also, if there are any pharmacologists interested in derm, we would love for you to join our task force as well.

Regardless, thanks for your consideration! kilbad (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be useful to look at the World Health Organization's system for classifying dermatological pharmaceuticals, as listed at ATC code D. --Arcadian (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! So something like this...?:

Dermatologic pharmacology

Antifungals for dermatological use

Emollients and protectives

Preparations for treatment of wounds and ulcers

Antipruritics

Antipsoriatics

Antibiotics and chemotherapeutics for dermatological use

Dermatologic corticosteroid preparations

Dermatologic antiseptics and disinfectants

Medicated dressings

Anti-acne preparations

Other dermatological preparations

And then perhaps I can put a discussion on the main "Dermatologic pharmacology" category page that these are derived from the ATC codes? kilbad (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• I just did this instead to save on redundancy, any feedback? Category:Dermatologic pharmacology

OTC drug

Over-the-counter drug needs a makeover. See WPMED. --Una Smith (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Guaifenesin

Guaifenesin has been much improved, but pharmacological details are lacking. Please help to improve this article. Thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Very little is known of the pharmacology of guaifenesin AFAIK. The mechanism of action is unclear at best and it is usually considered to be ineffective as an expectorant (PMID 18253996 notwithstanding). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Fluoxetine Hydrochloride

Fluoxetine Hydrochloride, 20mg

As promised. Not inserted into article. Mirtazapine still to come. Lanfear's Bane | t 12:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! Before I add it to the article, where is this from (U.S./UK/Canada etc.), if you don't mind saying? Thanks again, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

UK. Brand changes quite a lot so I can get different packets if needed but I think that would be a bit overkill. Mirtazapine I didn't get a branded box, I'll upload when I get one. On a side note the picture is a bit too bright, I was hoping to catch the braille on the box too, in case it was useful for anything else, but it has kind of disappeared. Lanfear's Bane | t 21:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I can just barely make out the braille, only by zooming in to max resolution. That would be good to have. Retake the photo near a window? Try lighting the same scene more from the side, so the braille bumps cast tiny shadows? And would you mind uploading to Wikimedia Commons instead of Wikipedia? On Commons it is much easier for people to find and use photos. Thanks! --Una Smith (talk) 03:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Commons. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Approved

User:CheMoBot has been approved this morning, and from now on it is saving logs 'below' Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Log (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Log/2008-11-11). I am a bit tweaking with it now. The logs are a bit long at the moment, but it is easy to hide parts by adapting the Logline template (User:CheMoBot/Logline), I think everything with a 'level' of 0 can be hidden in the logs.

I will be busy tweaking this all in the next days, please let me know if there are things which should be different. @Admin-template-programmers, it would be nice if I could get some help with User:CheMoBot/Logline, fancy that up a bit. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This is excellent, Dirk! It will definitely help us catch vandalism, patrol new pages... I'll create a link to this on the main project page. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It is where we want to get later, revert changes made to 'checked' values. New pages only come up later, it does not immediately detect those at the moment (though I could write a routine that does that). Have phun with the logs. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have hidden the 'level=0' messages now (which hides some of this morning which actually got a wrong level assigned) through a change in the template. This hides all edits which are not changing values in the box and are not adding an external link (but the data is still there in the edit mode on the page). Please keep an eye on the hidden ones, if there are ones mistakenly hidden that may be due to a mistake in the bot. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

University project?

It appears we have a university project underway—see Angiotensin Receptor Blockers: Drug discovery and development, 5-HT3 receptor antagonist:drug discovery and development, and Cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors: drug discovery and development. Anyone care to welcome these new users? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Development of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors may also be part of the same project. --Arcadian (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well they seem to be doing a pretty good job of it! Looks like the University of Iceland is the institution responsible judging by the IP addresses involved, hopefully they stay on and make more similar pages once these ones are finished. Meodipt (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I certainly hope they'll stay on. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 10:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one - Cannabinoid Receptor 1 Antagonists: Drug Discovery and Development - these are really quite good review articles, I guess we will now have to make similar reviews for all the major drug classes of note...Meodipt (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Or upgrade the "Drug Discovery and Development" section in existing articles of the various classes of drugs. Should they be separate articles? No one will search for "_____: Drug Discovery and Development", but will search for the drug class itself. Anyway, here are 2 more: Triptans: Drug Discovery and Development (to merge with Triptan?) and Neurokinin 1 Receptor Antagonists: Drug Discovery and Development (to merge with NK1 receptor antagonist?). I don't know enough to edit these articles, but there seems to be much overlap with existing articles. I thought I should report this redundancy here. --PFHLai (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think these can be merged into their respective main articles if the R&D articles are so extensive, it would be complete undue weight. I'd suggest moving most of these articles however, to "Development of DRUG_XYZ". Discovery is part of development, and Wikipedia seems to prefer the use of "of" rather than ":" in titles. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose a merge on the grounds that these pages are specifically focused on the discovery and development of these drugs, and would be too long to just be merged in as a single section of the main article page. However I would support renaming them all consistently to something like "Discovery and development of _____" Meodipt (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The new COX2 article seems to be the only one that fits the description by Steven Fruitsmaak and Meodipt. The rest, R&D starts in section 3 or 4. They look more like overall reviews of each class of drugs to me, instead of just R&D. In some cases, the "main article" is just a stub, and we won't lose anything if we simply move the new article over.

BTW, it's indeed a school project, and one of the students/authors wrote on the ARB talk page that "merge is not a bad idea". I don't suggest changing anything till they're done with the course and receive their grades from their instructor. And if we do move any pages, I wonder if the edit histories should be preserved. These wonderful new articles have multiple authors and were copy-&-pasted out of a user subpage. This doesn't seem right to me. --PFHLai (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am in favor of a rename without the ": Drug discovery and development" simply because these articles are so good and cover a complete history of the subject.Miserlou (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The CB1 article got moved and re-named as Discovery and development of Cannaboid Receptor 1 Antagonists by User: Politizer. Shall I move and re-name the rest of them as

• "Discovery and development of _____", or simply
• "Development of _____", as in the DPP4 article (moved by Steven Fruitsmaak)?

Let's fix the naming issue first. The content issue (merging) is not as glaring a problem, and the edit history problem can be fixed later if necessary. --PFHLai (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I am “responsible” for this “University Project“. I teach a course in Medicinal Chemistry and it is now the third year that I have given the students a project to write a Wikipedia Page on Medicinal Chemistry topic (Now we have narrowed it down to Wikipedia Page about the discovery and development of a certain class of drugs). The idea is to give the students some experience in publishing their work where it will be evaluated by a whole community rather than just one teacher. The students must be responsible, and set their own standard high, as their work will remain in the public domain. Another reason for this project is that most of my students are now training to be health care professionals. They must now adjust to a world where health care professionals do not monopolize knowledge anymore as patients and customers have quick and easy access to high quality information through the internet sources such as Wikipedia. Another aim of this project is therefore to let them learn about this new medium. The projects are considerable challenge for the students. They must select a suitable Medicinal Chemistry topic, locate all the most relevant references and write about the topic in English, which is a foreign language to them. This year’s projects were: Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: Drug discovery and development, Cannabinoid Receptor 1 Antagonists: Drug Discovery and Development, Neurokinin 1 Receptor Antagonists: Drug Discovery and Development, 5-HT3 receptor antagonist:drug discovery and development, Angiotensin Receptor Blockers: Drug discovery and development, Cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors: drug discovery and development, Triptans: Drug Discovery and Development. I am very grateful for all suggestions regarding merger and changes in title. If anyone has the time it would be interesting to have your evaluation according to the criteria set fir Wikipedia: i.e. if individual pages are well written and factually accurate and verifiable. If they addresses the main aspects of the topic and stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail and if they are sufficiently and correctly illustrated. I am also certainly willing to share my experience with anyone interested in starting a similar “University Project“.--MarMas (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I would support moving the articles to "Discovery and development of ____________________". After we've agreed on titles, we can move on to discussing any possible content merging and, of course, assessing the articles. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I was noticing that the categories on these new articles are a bit random - some are listed under the drug category, some under pharmacology, and one or two don't have any category at all. Would it be a good idea to list these under Category:Drug discovery, and remove the more general Pharmacology category where necessary? Also, I notice that a couple of the articles have not been assessed yet - could someone more knowledgable take a look? All look to be at least B-Class to me, and I'd guess that at least some could be reviewed to be A or GA. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Article categorization

Does this project have any guidelines as to how to appropriately categorize drugs or drug-containing categories? It seems like all drug-containing categories are thrown in Category:Drugs by type. What exactly does "type" mean? Is it the system the drugs act on (as in Category:Gastrointestinal system drugs), the medical condition they are used to treat (as in Category:Anti-diabetic drugs), the effects of the drug (as in Category:Sedatives), or is it the chemical properties of the drug (as in Category:Bisphosphonates)? Rather than having the ambiguous Category:Drugs by type, how about having separate "Drugs by" categories for each of these four types? This should make the drug categories easier to navigate. Also, should drug articles be placed in categories for each of these 4 ways of classifying drugs (or at least in sub-categories of each)? --Scott Alter 01:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not a fan of Category:Drugs by type, and prefer the categorization system used in Commons, which is based on the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System and therefore begins with Category:Drugs by target organ system. According to the ATC, any of the above four "types" of category becomes a subtype of the system-based scheme, hence anatomical>therapeutic>chemical: Anti-diabetic drugs (indication-based category) act on the alimentary and metabolic system; sedatives (effect-based category) act on the nervous system; bisphosphonates (chemical structure-based category) act on the musculoskeletal system etc. It's a good system, especially because drug classification can be quite subjective, and it is currently implemented on Wikipedia through the drug navigational templates; perhaps it's time our category scheme follows it as well? It would be quite easy to "port" the category system from Commons. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 10:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I just created the category structure Category:Drugs by target organ system; however, I have not yet begun to recategorize the categories in Category:Drugs by type. I am still unsure how to treat certain existing categories. Many drugs work on one system, but have effects on another system. For example, statins work on the liver (GI system), but have a goal of reducing atherosclerosis (cardiovascular system). So would Category:Statins belong in Category:Gastrointestinal system drugs or Category:Cardiovascular system drugs? We may need to define "target organ system" as the system of the disease being treated. Also, some categories, like Category:Antiobesity drugs may not fit this categorization - Category:Anorectics work on the brain, while other drugs work on the gut. Maybe there should be Category:Drugs by target disease, too. Or should all chemical-based categories be in a category for the disease they treat? (Articles would be put in a category based on chemical properties, the chemical category would be in a disease category, which would be in an organ system category.) --Scott Alter 02:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest following the ATC categorization as closely as possible; all antiobesity drugs, for instance, are placed in ATC code A08, and are therefore considered alimentary (i.e. gastrointestinal) system drugs. All cholesterol-lowering drugs, regardless of mechanism of action, are in ATC code C10 and would therefore be in Category:Cardiovascular system drugs. "Drugs by target disease" would be akin to the "T" in ATC, although the parent category(ies) should in fact be the organ system categories. If we followed the system all the way down, the category tree of Category:Statins, for instance, would be Category:Drugs by target organ system → Category:Cardiovascular system drugs → Category:Lipid modifying agents (which would replace Category:Hypolipidemic agents) → Category:Statins. Basically, this is already the system we use in navboxes. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

First, thank you for addressing this issue, as I have been struggling to develop a good category scheme for dermatology-related pharmacology. I also am not a fan of categories by drug "type" and like the idea of categorizing drugs by target organ system, and in cases where drugs act on multiple systems, cross categorization would be possible. Additionally, I think the ATC basically provides a great outline for what subcategories could be. However, with that being said, I think there will be many many questions on how to categorize pharmacology that is not explicitly listed in the ATC, like, for example, combination drugs with Trade names. Also, what are the naming conventions going to be for these categories, and how closely should they mirror the ATC scheme. Already, Category:Drugs by target organ system deviates from the ATC in its naming, with, for example, Category:Integumentary system drugs being used instead of "Dermatologicals." All this to say, before we start categorizing this pharamcology, which is going to be a big undertaking, I think there needs to be a lot more input and discussion so that guidelines and consensus can be reached, and an elegant solution arrived to. kilbad (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Many combination drugs are listed in the ATC. I do agree that we should discuss this further. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, we absolutely need more pharmacologists involved in this discussion. kilbad (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) OK, kilbad has proposed an overhaul of our current categorization scheme, and I think it's a great idea. I suggest we move Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Categorization to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/WP:DRUGS Classification (since the current classification tree was created before WP:DRUGS was merged into WikiProject Pharmacology) and start discussing our new scheme at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Categorization. If no one objects, I'll move the page in two days. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

ATC can be mind-numbingly complicated as it combines (as the name suggests) the target body system, therapeutic indication and chemical content of each drug. Not only are combination therapies occasionally problematic, but even single ingredient drugs can have more than one ATC code. For example, aspirin is classified as A01AD05 (WHO) (stomatological preparations), B01AC06 (WHO) (antithrombotic agents), and N02BA01 (WHO) (analgesics). If consensus agrees to use ATC, I hope we would use at least the first (anatomical) and second (therapeutic) levels Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 18:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Clauson study

WikiProject Pharmacology members may already have heard about the study, but here it is anyway: Kevin Clauson and his collegues compared Wikipedia drug information against Medscape Drug Reference:

Kevin A Clauson, Hyla H Polen, Maged N Kamel, Joan H Dzenowagis. "Scope, Completeness, and Accuracy of Drug Information in Wikipedia". The Annals of Pharmacotherapy. doi:10.1345/aph.1L474.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

It has also caught the attention of mainstream media:

Anne Harding (2008-11-25). "Wikipedia often omits important drug information". Reuters.

— fnielsen (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That's very interesting—I'll get a copy of the full text. I'd like to see more about their results, although I'm not entirely convinced of the appropriateness of comparing Wikipedia to a drug reference; per WP:MEDMOS, our articles on drugs are explicitly not meant to mirror drug formularies, and inclusion of dosage information (in which Wikipedia fared worst in the study) is explicitly discouraged. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Fvasconcellos. A good way to use the Clauson study (and quickly make it obsolete) is to locate errors in Wikipedia articles mentioned in the study and correct them. Per Wikipedia:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Errors in the New International Encyclopedia that have been corrected in Wikipedia, someone could start Wikipedia:Errors in Medscape that have been corrected in Wikipedia. -- Suntag ☼ 17:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The article does not note which Wikipedia articles were used in the sample; it only mentions a few in passing, although it would be very easy to work on those. We could probably contact the lead author and ask for the sample, but, after reading the study, I'd rather do so to let him know how inappropriate it is to compare a Wikipedia article to a drug monograph. We're going for something akin to a lay-readable review article here, not prescribing information. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The German WP uses a disclaimer on health related pages. Just so you know. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

English Wikipedia posts a disclaimer at the bottom of every page in the string "Privacy policy * About Wikipedia * Disclaimers." -- Suntag ☼ 17:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

So does de. I just thought a disclaimer box would make it more obvious that people shouldn't try to cure themselves with the knowledge they obtained from WP (or Google or Medscape or the yellow press). They do. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a sketch on this to Medscape. --Una Smith (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The sketch was added here. Surprisingly, the study concluded "No factual errors were found in Wikipedia, whereas 4 answers in Medscape conflicted with the answer key"[3] -- Suntag ☼ 17:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

As I posted at WP Med, the latest anti Wikipedia thrust is "Wikipedia often omits important drug information", "Drug Information Often Left Out On Wikipedia", etc. In Drug Information Often Left Out On Wikipedia says "If people went and used this as a sole or authoritative source without contacting a health professional...those are the types of negative impacts that can occur." So this non expert on statistics and human habits in informing themselves is making unsupported assertions about Wikipedia based on a few articles he reviewed. Great. Good job, doc. The news article does mention some Wikipedia articles that could benefit from a review, however. -- Suntag ☼ 16:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't dismiss this as a simple "anti-Wikipedia thrust". I happen to agree that Wikipedia should not be anyone's sole source of information on medical topics. However, since we've become the one-stop shop for information on Everything™ (and probably will be for a long time to come), we should make Everything™ as authoritative and reliable as possible. That's pretty much the reason I work on medical topics in the first place :) The key issue with this study, IMHO, was the very poor choice of comparator. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, a better study design would have limited the comparison to those elements within the scope of both MDR and Wikipedia, rather than using the scope of MDR. Using the scope of Wikipedia, conversely, MDR might have been found more lacking in content. --Una Smith (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Suntag, which Wikipedia articles? --Una Smith (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Drug_Information_in_Wikipedia -- Cherubino (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ambien CR

Some major problems with the Ambien CR page. I favour merging it with the main ambien/zolpidem page. As much of it seems to be copied and pasted as well as a number of other serious issues I feel it is best to raise awareness here so that we can get a speedy decision of whether to merge it with zolpidem or delete it outright. I favour keeping basic info from the article but merging it into a section on ambien CR in the main zolpidem article and deleting the page and changing it to a redirect to the zolpidem page. Please see the following links. Ambien CR and Talk:Ambien CR#Merger proposal and Talk:Zolpidem#Merger proposal. Thanks.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The entire article was a C&P job. The entire article. There was no salvageable non-infringing content, so I've deleted it. Any content on Ambien CR will have to be added to Zolpidem from scratch. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Good job.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article

doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050217. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Another interesting article which talks very favourably about wikipedia [4].--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

ATC code pages

I have started including group names and navigation templates in the lead sections of the ATC level 2 pages (see e. g. ATC code A01). Any objections or alternative suggestions?

Also, the ATC code pages should have a uniform layout. The third-level groups are sometimes headers (as in ATC code A01), sometimes not (as in ATC code A02). The first layout is clearer, in my opinion; but it produces rather long TOCs. The first layout also seems to be the more common, so it would be less work changing in this direction. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

KUNITZ STI protease inhibitors

Hello. We have had a article requested with the above title at WP:AFC. I have little idea whether it should be created or not and am looking for advice. There's not much to it yet; it seems to be a loosely rewritten version of http://compbio.epm.br/kunitz/. If anyone would care to take a look and venture an opinion, it can be found at Articles for creation/Submissions/KUNITZ STI protease inhibitors. Thanks, Martin 21:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You may want to ask over at WP:MCB. The subject of this request concerns "natural" protease inhibitors, that is, a class of proteins, not the protease inhibitors used to treat HIV. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no idea what it's about, as you can probably tell ;) Martin 01:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

IUPAC name changes

P-kun80 appears to be systematically changing the IUPAC names of large numbers of drugs, with no reference given for the change (eg saquinavir diff: [5]). The edit summaries state "corrected IUPAC name" or "corrected IUPAC name (according to stereochemistry of the given image)". Could someone with chemical knowledge please take a look and see whether these make sense? I'm worried that the IUPAC name ought to be identical to whatever's given on the package insert. Thanks for your help, Espresso Addict (talk) 08:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that most of the IUPAC names on chemicial/pharmaceutical articles come from PubChem or from ChemDraw's "Autonom" feature. 79.121.106.220 (talk · contribs), presumably the same as P-kun80, said on my talk page that he is using ChemBioDraw v11. Some of the changes P-kun80 is making are certainly an improvement - such as adding stereochemical assigments. I appreciate the effort he is making to fix these. But different programs for automatically generating IUPAC names give different results, and I really don't know if one is better than any other. IUPAC names aren't absolute - they are based on "recommendations" (that can change over time). At the very least, we should make sure that the structure and IUPAC name can be derived from each other. P-kun80's changes are definitely consistent with that. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The IUPAC names given on package inserts are quite often inaccurate. No chemical naming tool generates "perfect" (notice the scare quotes—there is no perfect) systematic names 100% of the time; a 2006 study found that ACD/Name is the most accurate and reliable software package, and I believe it is used by quite a few Wikipedians (I use the somewhat limited freeware version), but I've checked a few of these recent changes and they check out OK. My only concern is that these new names may conflict with our data validation efforts. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As Edgar181 have said, ChemBioDraw v11; cross-checked with MarvinSketch's similar feature. But if I should not do this, then someone should tell me how to find those pages which completely lack IUPAC names (and at the same time, describe a substance.) By the way, yes, that IP is mine.P-kun80 (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Microdosing

Greetings to all, Reading the Microdosing page, I would be really interested to hear if anyone has any experience of using this technique and what you thought of it. Any views would be greatly appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisastockdale (talk • contribs) 00:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Clean up requested pharmacology list - removing non notable requests.

Proposing to do it here Need to get second/third opinion. Now we have hundreds of requests of non notable proposed drug names and chemicals or misspelled diseases. And each day dozens article removed from Wikipedia because of non notability. Look at articles for deletion. So what I thinking is to remove non notable chemicals from requested articles list to save time and efforts(and requests for AfD take ppl time to discuss/vote etc., not mentioning actual creation of the arrticle itself).

Please comment on talk page of requested list. Thank you. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 12:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)