Template talk:Diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject iconPharmacology Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template 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
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconMedicine Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Grouping

The grouping of this template is somewhat strange. "Iodine" is a chemical category, while "Cardiovascular" is a therapeutic category. I'd suggest creating two main groups "Diagnostic" and "Therapeutic" in accordance with ATC code V09 and ATC code V10, and subgroups corresponding to the third-level ATC codes. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

I may be missing something but I am struggling to understand the layout of this template, or at least the way it is being used. There are separate indication "categories" and the radionuclides ("including tracers") section - to me the indications should include the various relevant radiopharmaceuticals, while the radionuclides should be just for radionuclides, without actual pharmaceuticals. As it is there is duplication between the two, and the radionuclides section is an unformatted and inconsistent list, which I don't find very easy to parse. I am happy to edit the radionuclides section for more consistency, but want to check if this is how it's intended to be used first or more fundamental change is required. Thanks, Beevil (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good observation. Looks like the top, straightforward list is following ATC code V09 except for the bottom ones. Then, these V09 subdivisions do not mention radionuclides the way this template does. Is there a redundancy or incompletenesss somewhere?
If you want to, {{Diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals/sandbox}} is available. And is there something similar to say about {{Therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals}} (V10)? -DePiep (talk) 11:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @DePiep:, I've edited {{Diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals/sandbox}} along the lines of what I meant, interested if this makes sense to you and others. There is still duplication however, and potentially other issues, so maybe room for further improvement. Agree that it applies to {{Therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals}} as well. Beevil (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beevil, I happen to see this old talk & /sandbox (diff). Looks like nothing happened with it... You think we should pick it up and pursue your proposal? (BTW, bottom of this template has recently changed, to keep). DePiep (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep Thanks. I still think it's applicable. Personally I don't think the "Isotopes used:" section is necessary, if the template is changed as in the sandbox. The "Radionuclides" rows should cover all these "isotopes used". If the point is to have them named in full (carbon-11 rather than 11C for example) then that's fine and can be incorporated in the "Radionuclides" rows. Beevil (talk) 13:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Qquick 1st resaponse (not !votes): slight preference for full-named; check deuterium: isotope used but not radioactive (could be V10), as presented now, in underbar, angle of approach differs: "the isotopes" vs. "the medical issue"; split and possible repetition in PET and SPECT maybe good. (But why can the "medicines"/applicationnames for those two be removed?) DePiep (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
check done: both /sandbox and live template have same set of bare isotopes (20). DePiep (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Beevil, I've taken an other look. I think that we should not remove the PET- and SPECT from current live version. I'm not into med, but I think the names in use in those two should be shown (if exist, otherwise list the used isotope spelled like 123Xx allright: completeness counts). Straight isotope names be listed at bottom, all exactly once and well-linked.
Concluding, imo: (1) for a med person, these lists should be complete, and professional/marketed terms should be present & linked (do not require reader-research to find them). Then (2), a list of all isotopes in use should be present, as is in the below-bar now. (I was surprised to discover how many/few there are). Also (3), the "See also V10" link helps to being complete.
Thoughts: Looks fine as long as <100 items. For the V10 navbox we should apply the same. We could collapse the PET, SPECT sections (see script list {{Navbox Unicode}}). I understand SPECT has no marketed names. Maybe the overlap in SPECT and Isotopes-listed could be improved. Isotope-people could propose to add which radioactivity is applied (gamma rays, mass, ?). Check for conforming WP:NAVBOX. DePiep (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Completeness crosscheck

Radiopharmaceutical has these sections:

These need to be cross-checked with the V09 and V10 navboxes (bottom line: "isotopes used")

Keep in mind that non-radioactive isotopes are used too. (C-14, deuterium).

DePiep (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Template_talk:Diagnostic_radiopharmaceuticals"