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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health 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.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 07:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Breast gigantism
Lucy346 (talk·contribs) added a mention of an obscure case report from 1981 about danazol being used in the treatment of breast gigantism secondary to D-penicillamine use. It was reinserted after I objected that this was a primary source that did not meet the criteria outlined in WP:MEDRS. Yes, of course primary sources are sometimes allowed but this is quite clearly a case where this is not applicable. The case report is not cited in Web of Science, and there are strongly persuasive reasons why it is of no relevance today - penicillamine is only used for a very small number of medical conditions (and it completely outmoded in rheumatoid arthritis), and I don't think many women would be prepared to take a drug clearly associated with liver tumours. JFW | T@lk 19:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am for disclosing any side effect of any medication. All side effects need to be documented. Its not in web of science, its cataloged in pub med, which is of high quality. I am for compromise in this case.Lucy346 (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave this edit out. Lucy346 (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having a PubMed citation is not in itself a reason to put a primary source forward for inclusion. I also don't think that every single side-effect ever reported should be mentioned in a general purpose encyclopedia article. It bears remembering that association does not prove causation, and many reports of "side effects" are methodologically very weak and end up being disproven. This, incidentally, is why for adverse or idiosyncratic reactions to drugs it is very important to use a recent secondary source. JFW | T@lk 10:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
