Talk:Gliclazide

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 Gliclazide.

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

Generational status

Most articles I've read show it as being a second generation sulfonylurea. However, there is the one reference that shows it as a first generation. Can anybody offer any clarity on the generation of gliclazide? Perhaps there was a change in generation, or it has properties of both generations?- ellusion - (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second gen, see source given in 3 April 2017 Talk entry. Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other names

Sold as Diamicron and Glyade in Australia (and elsewhere?) 122.107.58.27 (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why no mention re: the sulfonylurea CV safety issue

…generally or specifically, especially as this is an apparent positive distinctive attribute of this particular second gen compound. For a starting point, see here. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Globalize / undue emphasis?

Should the sentence saying a medication is not sold in the United States be there? Firstly, that is a null report. Shouldn't an article say where it is sold, rather than where it isn't? Secondly, I suspect it isn't sold in some other countries, but only the United States is mentioned. If the drug has been explicitly banned by American regulators, that would be a reasonable comment. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: PHMD 2040 Service - Learning Spring 2023

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 January 2023 and 30 June 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JustinxLane (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by JustinxLane (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]