Talk:Hydroxyzine

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeHydroxyzine was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 14, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

Half Life?

The summary panel lists a very long half life (20+ hours), while further down the article the half life is listed as about 3 hours. That seems to be cited, but which is correct?!? 76.17.113.99 (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

QT interval prolongation

should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.37.96.108 (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Illogical comparison

“The effect of hydroxyzine has also been tested on the ability of humans in the registration and storage of memory, and was used in comparison with relatively safe drugs, such as hydroxyzine, to illustrate the effects of benzodiazepines, which are thought to have adverse effects on the capacity of memory storage.”

This sentence makes a comparison to hydroxyzine using the drug in question as the comparable, I think it’s just a simple typo. 99.238.210.144 (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Major Issues

This reads like a piece from a drug label insert from the late 1970s. It seriously underestimates the incidence of major side effects from this drug. First of all, like many first-generation antihistamines, Hydroxyzine has significant anticholinergic effects. It is a potent delirogenic drug in the elderly, particularly in the elderly in cognitive decline (suffering from diagnosed, or in many cases undiagnosed, Alzheimer's disease.) It is not a safe drug for this reason, particularly in combination with opiates in an elderly patient, where the incidence of resulting delirium is very high. It is no longer given routinely in combination with opiates for this reason. The discussion of the drug's side effect prpfile (that confusional states only happen in overdoses or very high doses) is just plain inaccurate and misleading. Whoever wrote this drug review probably didn't have very much experience with it clinically, particularly in a more vulnerable elderly population. This article has a long way to go (using terminology from the 1970's like psychoneurosis?). 207.180.129.233 (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC) DFW Harvard Medical School[reply]

Readability

The start of this article isn't very readable. Even educated people will have trouble deciphering it. Perhaps that is deliberate, since this drug can be used to treat anxiety disorder, or it could just be badly written.

Also, could we add a list of medicines containing this drug? So people know this is the drug in say Vistaril, or Hydarax, or whatever. Carl Kenner 10:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two last sentences of the opening are repetitive and don't make sense around the "Therefore" -- but I don't know enough about the topic to attempt the edit.Kvcad (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Older comments

I think this article should explain why this chemical is considered psychoactive. If it is not, I think this article should say that also. 1) Unless it's a false claim it is relevant to the description of the chemical and it's effects. 2) Wikipedia article on L. Ron Hubbard asserts that this substance is psychoactive which is of interest to readers of that article. I came to this page to find out about that and if it's true. For that reason this article will be doing two important things if it describes this information. A) It will be giving information relevant to the part played by the chemical in a historical situation, and B) it will be fufilling the promise of link on another page of wikipedia itself.--Jabot the Scrob 05:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of psychiatric medications are chemically related to antihistamines, and Vistaril seems to be mostly used as an anti-anxiety drug. It does seem to be documented fact that the drug was present in LRH's system when he died, which was in the article at one time but was excised (I put it in and I disagree with whoever deemed it irrelevant, but I didn't revert). Drugs.com lists it as a CNS depressant and antihistamine, and it sounds like the antianxiety property is a side effect of its hypnotic properties. Haikupoet 05:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just be the voice of reason here; i've prescribed this drug few times, particularly for shelf-life reasons. It seems to me that adverse effects occur when other CNS depressants are already active, which can be even in residual amounts. Alcohol, or other CNS affecting agents, which are stronger than hydroxyzine (which is relatively weak in terms of dependancy issues and side-effects) would have more probability of causing halluci nations, but the effects i'm aware of are confusion and grogginess if it's taken in excess. For more information, read the article again (which has been SIGNIFICANTLY improved) as well as the Hydroxyzine/reference table! James.Spudeman 13:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know why so many websites say that this drug is not intended for long-term use. Not doctor has ever given me any reason why it shouldn't be prescribed long-term
The reason why it's not prescribed for long-term treatment, is because it's not a drug that was designed or manufactured for long term use. It's an anxiety-reducing drug that is used pretty much in the short term; long term is usually referring to the treatment of neurological disorders of anxiety, which aren't manifested from organic disease states. James.Spudeman 23:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken 25 mg every night for about ten years now and never had any adverse effects. Some doctors tell me it's a harmless drug and others refuse to prescribe it because they think it's too strong. It doesn't even make me drowsy. An allergy doctor gave it to me after years of trying to find the right meds that would keep my allergies at bay, especially at night. This drugs keeps me from waking up coughing, sneezing, and itching. Zyrtec and Allegra do not work at all for me. I take Clarinex during the day, but it does not last the full 24 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slanoue (talk • contribs) 03:04, 1 July 2006

I can speak only from personal experience with hydroxyzine, and in doing so I'd say it's psychoactive because it (in me anyway) caused intense nightmares. Also, like most other medicines of this type, if you take enough of it, it becomes a dissociative, like diphenhydramine and dextromethorphan. The effect of hydroxyzine intoxication is not unlike being drunk, really, only you feel heavier and you aren't capable of thinking straight, so there's no "drunken ephiphany" moments that characterize drunkenness at times. Oh, and I have chronic rhinitis, and ironically this stuff didn't help me with that at all. Avalyn 11:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've also never had any side effects from this drug, except maybe drowsiness the next day. It hasn't had hypnotic effects by it, like I get sometimes from Zolpidem (which is addictive, unlike Hydroxyzine). (Entheta 20:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Hydroxyzine is one of my favorite drugs. I use it at night when called out during emergencies and I have to get up in the morning at 7 AM. It completely stops dreaming and makes cat naps more effective even if they only last 10 minutes. I suspect that those of you who have difficulty with this drug may have some obstruction to breathing that causes the bad dreams you report. Fungal infections of the sinuses are far more common than literature reports, and most of us have problems with monilial infections. The suppression of dreams also occurs with another hydroxyzine derivative, phenelzine. Instead of completly turning off dreams, it just shuts down the volume. Because phenelzine causes a mild secretion of dopamine, it also causes a very mild euphoria that makes such dreams more pleasant. For this purpose one 15 mg. tablet at bedtime will suffice. Like hydroxyzine, phenelzine passes the blood-brain barrier in 10 minues. For reasons I have not given, one tablet of phenelzine will stop a migraine headache. → Thomas Lee Taylor 16:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)MagusPhysician 11/2/06.[reply]

Why is this drug perscribed? Atarx,Vistaril (Hydroxyzine hydrochloride) Atarx is an antihistimine used to relieve the symptoms of common anxiety and tension and, in combination with other medications to treat anxiety that result from physical illness...

Most Important fact about this medication Atarax is not intended for long time use (no more than 4 months)...

Special warnings about this medication Atarax increases the effects of drugs that depress the activity of the central nervous system...

I was perscribed Vistaril while in the hospital. The doctor was attempting to use Vistaril to increase the mild sedative effects of an anti-anxiety medication I was taking to tx. the insomnia I have been experiancing for years. This anti-anxiety medication is intended to tx. anxiety and panic attacks, not to tx. insomnia. For 9 months I was taking 50-100mgs of Vistaril at bedtime and the effects were minimal in regards to tx. the insomnia but enough to help me sleep for 4hrs and then I would wake-up. All of the side effects of extreme drowziness, confusion, dizziness, etc. went away after the first month. What I did experiance is the stimulant medication I was take during the 9th month was beginning to deminish in effectiveness and duration between doses. I thought I was becoming tolerant to the doses so I had to increase the medication doses and take it more often. It was a very unusual onset of tolerance, within 4 days I had to increase the stimulant medication. I knew that something was not right about this sudden occurrence of tolerance to a medication which I have been able to consistently maintain the same doses without any change in the duration or effectiveness. It took me two weeks until I decided to look up the medication interaction between the stimulant and other medications(During my research I never discovered any information about Vistaril effecting other medications except those that also depress the CNS). What I did discover is antihistimines will decrease and/or alter stimulants; because, it depresses the activity of the CNS. The longer you take Vistaril the more of it is stored in the liver and released with ever increasing effectiveness. It did not have a substantial impact in regards to tx. the insomnia but it did certainly mess me up with the consistent benefit I was receiving from the stimulant medication. After stoping the Vistaril the characteristics I once experianced from the stimulant medication has indeed been altered; It is less effective, does not last as long and I have been experiancing other adverse side effects which were not present prior to taking Vistaril. I have researched a half dozen other similar antidepressants and Vistaril is the only antihistimine which is specifically intended to depress the activity of the CNS and increase the effects of other CNS depressant medications. This is why you are not supposed to take it for long periods of time. The longer you are on Vistaril the more effective it is in depressing the CNS and decreasing and/or altering other medications. More importantly, the CNS is contionously in a state of being depressed and deregulating the activity of the CNS which might have irreversible effects over long periods of time. user:Mark D. BidemaDecember 3, 2006 (UTC); Ref. "The PDR Pocket Guide To Perscription Drugs", 1996 Medical Economics Co.,Inc.

GA removed

I removed the GA tag since this article has not formally gone through the GAC process that all articles must go through to reach GA. Editors who contribute significantly to articles cannot determine GA status themselves. Good work on the article, but please nominate it properly to be reviewed by another editor. Let me know if you have any questions. --Nehrams2020 17:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neuropsychosis?

...used in the treatment of neurological disorders, such as neuropsychosis and other forms of anxiety or tension states.

Is "neuropsychosis" supposed to be "psychoneurosis" (i.e. neurosis)? --Galaxiaad 09:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(JCraw and James.Spudeman replied on my userpage that they're the same; "neuropsychosis" is just an older word no longer used)
OK, thank you! --Galaxiaad 22:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, both terms are very out-dated. I would suggest they be removed from the article. In modern psychology and psychiatry, they are referred to as anxiety disorders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.179.4.250 (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to those wishing to add L Ron Hubbard and "in popular fiction" information to this article

First and foremostly, i refuse to add this information on moral grounds; i found him a morally reprehensible man, and one of the worst human beings to ever live, with general atrocities to humanity that make me feel physically ill. Regardless, my live and let live attitude prevails, and i have no problems with people adding information related to him or other cultural references, with the following proviso; ANY UNREFERENCED INFORMATION WILL BE REMOVED; this will not become an article with a huge list of cultural references with minutial information, such as "X celebrity took hydroxyzine once". James.Spudeman 18:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This information does need to be in the L Ron Hubbard article however, due to his staunch opposition to drugs such as these, it is highly relevant to that article. It is however irrelevant to this article. Unfortunately scientologists will always delete anything that doesn't make L Ron Hubbard out to be a saint, so people here should visit that article from time to time to add the fact that he was on this drug. But it is out of place on this page. Carl Kenner 10:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Review

This article holds some useful information, but has major problems in terms of structure, focus and relevance. I've detailed my assessment on each of the good article criteria below.

1. Well written: The first concern I have about this article is its structure. There are two main headings, "Prescription and use" and "clinical description." I'm not sure what they mean - the first seems to contain a mixture of indications and basic research of dubious or unexplianed relevance to the drug's use in humans. The subhead "treatment of learned helplessness" begins by suggesting that hydroxyzine "shown slight possibilities for use in other species, such as dogs." It then goes on to describe, in detail, experiments on learned helplessness in mice, but fails to explain what the significance of these experiments is. If I remember correctly, LH is typically used as a model for depression, yet depression is not mentioned in this section, and I have no idea how this relates to 'use in dogs.'

The structure of the subheads under the second main heading, "Metabolism and pharmacokinetics," "contraindications," and "adverse reactions" are more logical, although each of theses sections still contains a few non-sequitors, e.g. contrasting 'reports of hallucinogenic properties' with 'clinical data trials' which 'have described its overall calming effect on the formatio reticularis.' I have an undergraduate degree in neuroscience, and I have no idea what this is supposed to mean - I can't imagine what someone without a background in neuroscience would make of many of these details.

Overall, I would advise the authors to shorten the article and reorganise its sections using the headings from other GA - rated pharmaceutical articles, such as metformin. I have noticed that a similar structure was used for this article when it was originally nominated, but it has since been changed.

2. Factual accuracy and verifiability: There are many in-line references, but oddly, the footnotes do not link directly to the online sources. I would combine the three subheadings under "references" into a single footnotes section embedded in the text. Also, as stated above, I question whether some of these sources are properly understood by the author.

3. Broad in its coverage: In its current form, the article fails to clearly and succinctly describe the mechanism of action and uses of this drug. Instead, it spends way too much time on basic research of questionable relevance.

4. NPOV: I found no NPOV issues with this article.

5. Stability: This may be the root problem with this article - for reasons I am not familiar with, it appears to be a controversial topic, and has been significantly altered since being GA nominated by ErKURITA on 7 March 2007. Many of my concerns are specific to changes made since then, and I would seriously reccommend reverting to the following version, which predates much of the gibberish: Revision as of 06:25, 10 March 2007 by Alison.

6. Images: The article contains appropriate images for the topic.

I feel obligated to review this article in its current form, and by those criteria, it fails. However, it could potentially be GA quality if it were reverted to a previous form (with a few of the minor issues addressed) & remained stable in that form

  1. Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). Rustavo 23:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adverse effects

Moved from article by Fvasconcellos 13:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As well as Vomiting being another of the adverse reactions to this medication. Being the only medicine given this day the child was given the dosage on the bottle perscribed by a physician. Within 24 hours said child was sick and vomiting. After he vomited he was screaming and crying as though he were in severe pain. The child finally calmed down after about 2 hours of this and fell asleep.64.72.85.62 10:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

should I use this to come off oxycontin?

I am trying to get off oxycontin that I have been on for severe arthritis pain. My doctor perscribed this and clonidine to help with the withdrawls. I am trying to gather information about these before going off cold turkey so if anyone has any experience with this or anything else that may help the withdrawn symptoms please reply. Diannamo (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Clonidine will help loads, so will hydroxyzine, but it will not make it effort less, I suggest you switch first to codeine, alongside with Clonidine and Hydroxizine to make the switch easier, then slowly wean yourself of the codeine, and only use Clonidine or Hydroxizine to help with the last few days leaving codeine. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed a sentence

"However, in doses of 50-100mg,it produces a weak to maderate tranquilizing effect, similar to a 15mg of Oxycodone."

Complete bull. Hydroxyzine doesn't act on u-opioid receptors, and the vast majority of anecdotal subjective information (pretty much the only avaliable information on how recreational drugs feel) indicates that hydroxyzine is not "fun" and does not feel like an opiate or even a GABA agonist (benzodiazepine, barbituate, ethanol, meprobamate, carisoprodol, etc) type downer. One person's subjective experience with a drug, especially if it's very out of line with the widespread consensus, does not belong in an encyclopedia article (IMO). 72.84.19.19 (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Analgesic cocktails

Is this article an appropriate place for describing a cocktail of this drug, paracetamol, codeine, antiinflamatories, caffeine, diphenhydramine and caffeine as a common theraputic intervention, all without any supporting references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.49.58 (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The prescription and use section seems to be personal opinion, almost totaly unreferenced, and quite remarkable.... I can imagine few doctors prescribing ibuprofen, acetaminophem, ephedrine, hydroxyzine, diphenhydramine and eye of news all in one hit as the article suggests.

I think it needs to be entirely rewritten, or removed

121.209.49.58 (talk) 06:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Jonathan[reply]

Tardive Dyskinesia

I am unable to locate the referenced publications which state the studies to find that Hydroxyzine can cause Tardive Dyskinesia. The links at the bottom of the article either go to a "Paid service" requiring money (possibly whoever referenced it is getting a referral fee off it) and another link to a blank article on pub med. I have attempted to track down the referenced names but was unable to find these people. There is as of yet no solid evidence that I can find that it causes TD. Please point me in the right direction if I am mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.153.143 (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Versus benzos

This article suggests that hydroxyzine is just as effective as benzodiazepines for GAD. Somehow I highly doubt this; can we get more sources than one study?

66.219.8.229 (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are benzos even mentioned-and referenced in a 25 year old study with 10 patients?-why the constant thread of benzo-bashing in Wikipedia? Like all meds, benzos have their benefits and risks: end of story....but why are they mentioned on an article on a antihistamine? Eek. Dehughes (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find comparison to benzodiazepines - perhaps the most widely anxiolytics - a useful "benchmark comparison". Also, reference [17] is misquoted: "there is insufficient evidence to recommend it as a treatment for generalised anxiety disorder due to bias in the reviewed studies." The actual article abstract reads "high risk of bias", so the summary phrase "due to potential bias" would be much more correct. (JHayas) 174.29.91.189 (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dosage

Does anyone know the standard doses, toxic dose, and half life? Trent (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the tea leaves...

This article invokes a bizarre usage of {{citation needed}}, placed after content which cites references. The intention is quite opaque to me. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hydroXYZine

Hydroxyzine has XYZ in order. It's the only word in the Scrabble dictionaries that contains -XYZ- in order. However, I don't think it is appropriate to say it is the only word in the English language with this combination, because it can be arrived at by adding (hydr)oxy- to any chemical name starting with Z. There are not many of those, but they do exist, e.g. hydroxyzeaxanthin. I added a bit to the first paragraph about this. Now, it has nothing to do with the chemical, but it seems like a good DYK candidate. "Did you know... that the name of the drug hydroxyzine contains the last three letters of the Latin alphabet, in alphabetical order?" Roches (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Roches: DYK is only for featuring new or recently expanded articles. This article would have to undergo rapid massive improvements to be eligible. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 15:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hydroxyzine. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 07:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hydroxyzine. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 11:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

treatment for generalized anxiety disorder

I am removing the below phrase from the Medical Uses section of this article for several reasons. 

however there is insufficient evidence to recommend it as a treatment for generalised anxiety disorder due to the high risk of bias in the reviewed studies.

1. The same paragraph states that hydroxyzine IS prescribed to treat generalized anxiety disorder, and there are several other sources in the same article that favorably compare the efficacy of hydroxyzine in treating GAD to that of anxiolytics such as benzodiazepines. Simply googling "hydroxyzine" returns a plethora of reliable sources stating that it is used to treat anxiety, from the FDA to PubMed Health to WebMD to Medscape.

2. Additionally, this seems to be more an issue with the linked study itself. The text of the abstract on which I assume this phrase was based is "Even though more effective than placebo, due to the high risk of bias of the included studies, the small number of studies and the overall small sample size, it is not possible to recommend hydroxyzine as a reliable first‐line treatment in GAD." This seems to be referencing problems with the data available to the author.

3. Furthermore, the text I am removing seems to be a bit too WP:CLOP for my tastes.

4. Plain bad grammar, two "however"s in one sentence...

5. If someone wants to pick a bone about whether the text removed really meant that hydroxyzine is prescribed primarily for SYMPTOMATIC relief and not long-term treatment, then that needs to be fleshed out a bit more and properly sourced. Maybe someone with more subject matter expertise can weigh in.

If someone wants to put the text back then I'm happy to discuss. Until then, I've got 5 reasons to remove and I'm going to do so. Ikjbagl (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hydroxyzine is chiral - Any information on stereoisomers?

The hydroxyzine molecule is chiral at the tertiary carbon between the two benzene rings of the TCA backbone (I think of it that way, the two benzene rings and there is also an H substituent and an aliphatic 6-membered ring).

Does anyone have any information on the R- and S- isomers of hydroxyzine? Is the pharmaceutical version enantiopure or racemic? Thanks. 170.223.207.38 (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove information baked by primary sources only

Would you mind if I remove information baked by primary sources only in the medical uses section? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be specific on which ones? If at all possible the primary source should simply be replaced with an acceptable source such that factual, relevant information is preserved while improving the sourcing. Removing the information simply because the source is not up to par (as long as it can be verified by other acceptable sources) is detrimental to the article. Kimen8 (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hydroxyzine has been used experimentally for the treatment of COVID-19. While other antihistamines have also been used for symptom reduction, hydroxyzine has a degree of direct antiviral effect.
We need secondary sources such as meta-analysis. Primary sources like research studies are not OK for wikipedia. Can you please find secondary sources such as meta-analysis? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree that existing primary sources are not adequate. My point was simply that before you just strike it, to try to find an acceptable source for the claim. If you can't find one, then I support the removal. I am going to guess that there aren't going to be good sources for that specific claim, though. Kimen8 (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just spotted them, but I think that the burden of finding secondary sources are on the edit who added those lines. I figured out that a general rule on Wikipedia is that when an editor found such claims not supported by secondary sources, that editor is not obliged to do any search, and that editor may simply delete them. If the initial editor who added these claims later finds secondary sources, that editor restores the text, otherwise it kept deleted. Is my understanding correct? @Bon courage: what do you think on that? Is my understanding correct that who found it may simply delete it? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are correct on a technical level and I too generally operate that way. My original comment was made before I knew what the claim was; if it was integral information to the body of the article, I would try to find a source before I struck content. In this case, though, I would indeed follow WP:PROVEIT. The specific claim you quoted above seems like it'll be tough to find a good source for, and even then, it's probably going to involve a bit of synthesis. I support the removal of this claim, to be clear. Kimen8 (talk) Kimen8 (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just put a template inline "{primary source}" or so? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should just be removed. I'm guessing that the only reason this is in here is either that it was considered/tested to see if it was helpful, or that the editor did some synthesis to go from 'anti-inflammatory effect' to 'helps against COVID19'. Plenty of compounds have been tested, yet that alone doesn't say anything about effectiveness. Kimen8 (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Best practice is probably WP:BMI#What to do if you want a more appropriate source. Bon courage (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There were many hopes that some compounds had anti-inflammatory or other beneficial properties, such as those against COVID-2019, but we are in 2023 and there is more knowlege now. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please review my submission of Ketotifen for GA? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the discussion on December 18, I added, on December 19, inline templates that denote primary sources.[1]
Still, we did not find reliable sources, so on December 30 I deleted the claims not backed up properly or relevantly.[2]
I will watch for future studies on Hydroxyzine and COVID-19, and should there appear proper sources in the future, I will put the information back. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-barbiturate Tranquilizer

2601:243:1300:C7D:70C3:891F:A558:4D1E, you removed the part calling it a non-barbiturate tranquilizer (specifically removing the word "tranquilizer"). Why did you do so? It is frequently referred to as such. Is it that you think the term is outdated? The papers I added as sources are near when it was invented and introduced (aka, some 50 years old) so as to show that it has been referred to as this for some time now. Its chemical classification and action wouldn't have changed since then, but the implication of the word "tranquilizer" very well may have. I don't see any issue with the word though: it does what it a tranquilizer does, and unless you want to use some restrictive definition of tranquilizer that perhaps only includes gabaergic drugs or typical antipsychotics, I think hydroxyzine fits the definition. Kimen8 (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Hydroxyzine"