Talk:Ceftobiprole

Pharmacology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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

Stereo in structure

Please check the stereo at the pyrrolidine ring —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChemSpiderMan (talk • contribs) 03:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The stereochemistry in the image in this article matches the stereochemistry in the structure at the pubchem link. Do you think there is an error? -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-inferior"?

From the article:

It has been shown to be statistically non-inferior to the combination of vancomycin and ceftazidime...

I understand the term is used in the context of clinical trials,[1] but "non-inferior" certainly sounds awkward. Especially when you can just as easily say "equivalent or superior". --David Iberri (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that non-inferior sounds weird but in statistics there's a distinct difference between non-inferior and superior. It would be incorrect to say the drug is superior to vanco/ceftazidine, but I think saying they are equivalent would be appropriate. Hojoseph99 (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zeftera (ceftobiprole medocaril) is discontinued in Canada

Regarding: "Ceftobiprole has been approved for use in Canada and Switzerland, and is under review by regulatory authorities in the United States, the European Union, Australia, Russia and South Africa."

Perhaps it should be mentioned that Janssen-Ortho has discontinued sales in Canada in response to recent regulatory recommendations in the United States and European Union to not approve ZEFTERA for this indication due to concerns regarding the conduct of clinical trials.

See Health Canada website for more information: http://hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/medeff/advisories-avis/prof/_2010/zeftera_nth-aah-eng.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undefinedobject (talk • contribs) 22:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

The left-hand-side of the structure is incorrect as drawn. A large number of cephems have heteroaryloxime moieties. This is not the same as the (incorrect) nitroso alkene tautomer that has been drawn. Somebody please correct this. Also, please just draw the protons at C6 and C7. And remove the wedge between C6 and the b-lactam nitrogen. It's just ugly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.179.178 (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ceftobiprole. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080506023243/http://www.whocc.no/atcddd/new_atc_ddd.html#ATCDDD_FINAL to http://www.whocc.no/atcddd/new_atc_ddd.html#ATCDDD_FINAL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]