Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Artemether/lumefantrine

Could someone with a less strained relationship to Novartis than me have a look at Artemether/lumefantrine? It looks rather like an advert to me, but if I'd start pruning everything I dislike in this article, there won't be much left. Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

My addition of "watch for removal of adverse effects"

I added a note in How you can help about being vigilant on removal or mitigation of adverse effects in drug articles. I consider it a fact that drug company representatives delete or mitigate information from Wikipedia entries that make their drugs look unsafe, both from studies (PMID 19017825) and personal experience (very likelyhere), and I find it rather sad that I need to go to external sources to find reliable information on adverse effects. Preferably, I'd see further measures, such as a separate edit-protected box of side effects in every drug article, but some extra vigilance is better than nothing. Mikael Häggström (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think such sections are often unsourced and of very dubious quality. I think removal of unsourced nonsense should be applauded. Removal of sourced content can be addressed with the usual content policies.JFW | T@lk 23:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it should read be suspicious about deletions or mitigations of referenced adverse effectsspecifically. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Linking large navboxes as navpages

Topic above: #Too many templates

Most of the bottom navboxes should be linked by title, rather than transcluded as bottom boxes. In article "Ketamine" the bottom navboxes have been using 77% of the post-expand limit, as most of the allowed 2 megabytes of formatted text. Another large template,{{Citation/core}} has used almost 20% of the limit (from {Cite_web}, {Cite_news}, etc.). The sidebar {Drugbox} is not a problem, because {drugbox} uses only 2% of the 2 mb limit. However, because the navboxes have been the largest resource drain, I linked 10 of them as navpages, instead, in a bottom table of titles:

Related navpages: {{Depressants}} {{Hallucinogens}} {{General anesthetics}} {{Analgesics}} {{Antidepressants}} {{Neurotoxins}} {{Cholinergics}} {{Dopaminergics}} {{Opioids}} {{Glutamatergics}}

Remember, even though the bottom navboxes have been huge, some other templates need to be modified to not hog resources, as well. Outside this WikiProject, the Template:Citation/core should be changed to be 5x-10x times smaller. Plus, {Citation needed} or {Page needed} should be simplified to not use an "expensive parser function" - they are both an unbelievable 4x (not just double or triple, but 4 times) the size of a complex {Convert} calculation which determines numeric precision, deduces the output unit, calculates 13-digit accuracy, and rounds results to match plus wikilinks, with typesetting. Yes, {Citation needed} and {Page needed} together are 8x times the size of using {Convert} with its most complex settings. Details about those other templates are just FYI about issues to be resolved on their talk-pages. Continue using {{Cite web}}, {{Cite journal}}, etc. while they are being improved. Plus, {Drugbox} is fine as using only 2% of resources. The main focus here is to avoid stacking 4-or-11 navboxes at the end of each article, and use a table of "Related navpages" instead. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:27, revised 14:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

European Bioinformatics Institute

An IP has posted over at the MCB project help page about linking to the database of the European Bioinformatics Institute in the drugbox of pharacology related articles. The example they've used contains information that isn't already in the paracetemol article's infobox and it looks as if this would be pretty easy to implement with a bot since they use sensible standardised links. I'm not sure whether it's best to discuss it here or there so take your pick, I'll be watching both. SmartSE (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The drugbox already supports this via the ChEMBL and ChEBI parameters, which were added by Dirk Beetstra. I suppose he intends to add the parameters by bot. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks. I was going to let Dirk know about this thread anyway as I knew it was relevant to his bot's work, but was going to wait 'til he's back from his holiday. SmartSE (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Pff .. people are talking about me ;-). Indeed, I have contact with Louisa. She will send me a full verified list of all they have, and I will somewhere in the future start to add them bot/script-wise (may indeed use CheMoBot for that ..). I think it is a useful parameter, it may lead to useful further info (as in the example given), and therefore took the freedom to add the parameters both to the chembox and drugbox. If someone is interested in having the list as well, I can ask Louisa to forward them to you - just drop either of us an email I would say (an interesting part of the list is those compounds which are interesting for Wikipedia, but which we do not have covered here yet ...). --Dirk Beetstra ^TC 17:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Metallopharmaceuticals

I have used the term 'metallopharmaceutical' in an article and have been asked to provide a wiki-link to a suitable article. I am having trouble finding one. Can anyone point me to an article that provides general information on metallopharmaceuticals? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It did not appear that there was any appropriate article to link to so I created a metallopharmaceutical stub. Boghog(talk) 10:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added some general books on the subject under a heading of 'other reading'... there is a wealth of material that could be added to an article like this. EdChem (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Good work with your GA Rhodocene! Would you like me to vectorise the pixel graphics on that page? --ἀνυπόδητος(talk) 12:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Rhodocene is actually a feature article candidate at this moment (see links from its talk page) and I haveposted a request for those graphics to be fixed. I don't mind who does it, I just don't want the work duplicated. So, if you'd like to update them, please let Edgar181 know once it has been done, or alternatively leave it and Edgar has said he'll get to them on Monday. I appreciate the offer. EdChem (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC) PS: If you look at my talk page, there are a few other images that I have uploaded that could be replaced with vectorised forms.  :)

Notified Edgar. Let's see how far I get today... ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Tell me if you want any tweaks or changes. And good luck with your FA nomination. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

TFD

Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#List_of_drug_links_templates

If I understand things correctly, these templates (e.g., {{List of drugs A Links}}) were transcluded into a header template (e.g.,{{List of drugs A}}), which in turn is transcluded into the actual list page (e.g., List of drugs: A-Ab) (which is linked at List of drugs: A, which in turn is linked at List of drugs, if you want to go through the whole sequence).

The templates up for deletion have been subst'd into the header templates, and thus are redundant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you did understand correctly. The same goes for Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:List of drugs-Bottom andWikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:List of drugs-Separator. Sorry for not mentioning my TFDs here.--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Secondary pass effect?

Is this a joke, or do I need to update my pharmacology? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I think it is. "Secondary-pass effect" gives no relevant google results. I reverted that edit. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Could be meaning enterohepatic cycling - see Enterohepatic circulation, not sure though. 00:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Make disambiguation pages for combination drugs?

There are many combination drugs, such as polytrim (being a combination of trimethoprim and polymyxin) that are too notable to be red-linked. Yet, it's usually redundant to have a separate article for the combination, as equivalent information can be found simply by reading about the articles of those active ingredients. Therefore, I think they should be redirected. Technically, however, I see no better option than to have those pages as disambiguation pages (to avoid having them in article mainspace), with a format such as:

Polytrim is a drug combination of the following two active substances: trimethoprim polymyxin

They could always be turned into stubs later if appropriate. Any other ideas? Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. Drug cocktails come up frequently and it's helpful to know what the constituent drugs are. However, as you mentioned it would be redundant to have an article the combination itself (unless that particular combination is notable in and of itself (seeHydrocodone/paracetamol). Is there anything in WP:D that would prohibit this? If not, I think we should make a list of drug cocktails and disambiguate them. I'd love to help. DubiousIrony ^yell 21:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea but it will lead to some problems where a drug combination is so widely used, that it should have its own page, so that side effects, interactions of the two can be detailed together. Of course if the combination page does not already exist then making the disambig page as suggested is certainly a good starting point, and better than no page or redirects to one page.

We also want to take that we do not end up in situations where pages with Brand names like Kaletra redirect to one page likeLopinavir, which seems very incorrect. Maybe these disambig pages can have a little more detail, maybe even include the brand names that are related to the combination.Cheers Lethaniol 01:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Another alternative is to mention such combined effects in both articles on the active ingredients. Yet, indeed, I see no problem with these disambig pages starting to grow in detail and eventually become stubs or even proper articles. Actually, I suspect that many combinations that actually are notable enough to deserve an own page still don't have one, because people (including myself) are not sure about how to start that one. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Stub format instead

On first thought, I had the opinion that such combination drug entries should not really be expanded because of the risk that it would be redundant, but, actually, as Lethaniol pointed out, there are probably many interactions (such as synergy) that may deserve specific notice. Also, when glancing at WP:D, a disambig-style seems less appropriate than wp:stub-style. Therefore, I made an example of how such a stub could look like below, but it's up to anyone to edit it at will. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Polytrim is a drug combination of the following two active substances: trimethoprim polymyxin

Yes, stubs are better – these are not technically disambiguations. By the way, the history of a drug combination is also a point that might be mentioned on such a page.

A question: Per WP:MOSMED, drug articles sould be under a header of the type "INN1/INN2", eg. Trimethoprim/polymyxin, withPolytrim redirecting there. I'd also stick to the ATC based stub templates. What about something like this:

Trimethoprim/polymyxin (INNs, trade name Polytrim) is an antiinfectivecombination drug. It is used for the treatment of, um, some kind of bacteria I guess. {{Navbox if appropriate}} Category:Combination drugs (and others if applicable)

Mikael has asked whether my bot could create such stubs. The answer is yes, depending on a database I could use. Merck/DrugBank would be a start, but I'm not yet sure they provide enough information. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at the DrugCard File at the bottom of DrugBank downloads, and I think there's enough information in there to start with. There are some combinations in that list with more than 10 active ingredients, appearing to be more or less nutrition supplements, but if the ones with two to three active ingredients could be sorted out some way, it would, IMPOV, provide enough to make stubs as above. If the bot also could guess what kinds of usages they have, for example antiinfective, it would be great, but classifying them as drugs would still be enough. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that'll do nicely. I only hope that DrugBank is as reliable as I had thought... the bot is currently adding trade names from this source, and I constantly stumble over odd "trade names" like Ephedra vulgaris,Koffein (German for "caffeine") and ACID. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, DrugBank is not 100% reliable, but it's probably the best we have. I think even odd "trade names" are better redirected if they don't have an article already (which for example Ephedra vulgaris has). I don't think a redirect from(S)-2-AMINO-3-(3-HYDROXY-ISOXAZOL-4-YL)PROPIONIC ACID does any harm either, but as a general rule, "trade names" with more than, say, 30 characters can probably be left out if possible, because few people would ever type them in the search box. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the stub pages idea and layout. Allows users to expand if they want, but allows us to organise and setup redirects in an efficient and logical manner. Cheers Lethaniol 12:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at this part of the style guide Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide#Sectioning = I would suggest for drug combinations that the aim should be to expand these stub articles to have the following sections if possible (i.e. notable and we can find something to say).

Drugbox (should have for all) Lead Section (drug combo + trade names) History Indications/Available forms Contraindications/Side Effects/Interactions - link to main drug pages, and only have information if additional to the two drugs separately Overdose (only where notable for that combination, otherwise link to drug pages)

The aim of course would be to direct users to main drug pages for the majority of information and only give core information specific to that combo, and with room for any notable information that comes about from combo.

This process would include expanding some stubs, but also some drug combo pages might need information removed or merged with parent drug pages.

Cheers Lethaniol 12:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I'd like to add that the drugbox should contain the ATC code where one exists.

Anyone want to start working? Category:Combination drugs and its children contain a number of articles that would need moving, adding of drugboxes, etc. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree too. I made a short entry about that at the bottom of the Sections section on this main page. Feel free to complement it.Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Created example

I have experimentally created Hydrocodone/ibuprofen. I'd like to encourage people here to create similar stubs for the purpose of fixing redlinks and wrong redirects from User:PotatoBot/Lists/Trade names log (e.g. Kaletra: redirects to Lopinavir instead ofLopinavir/ritonavir) – they are so few that doing it by bot would be more work than doing it manually.

It's another thing to create stubs from DrugBank's "Brand name mixtures" sections. I don't think I'll have time to code this in the immediate future, but hopefully will come back to it when there is a bit less to do on-Wiki and off-Wiki. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Cheers Lethaniol 21:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I like it too. And having PotatoBot creating stubs doesn't seem to be of any hurry, as there are already more than enough of non-combination drugs to keep it busy for a while. Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point :-) ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Moving Existing Combination Brand Pages

What do we do with brand name pages for combination drugs that already exist. E.g. Trizivir and Epzicom. Can these just be moved following Wikipedia:Moving a page to the new combination drug page and redirect left, or does official discussion need to take place? Cheers Lethaniol 00:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to move them; WP:MOSMED says they should be unter headers like Abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine (slashes to separate INNs, no spaces, lower case). Ideally, you could add {{R from trade name}} to the redirect the move creates. As you probably know,Category:Combination drugs is a good starting point for finding such pages. Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, and if you are really bored, you could fix the entries in navboxes so that they appear bold instead of linked on the respective pages... ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with above. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Equianalgesic

I have attempted to improve the article on equianalgesic charts. I am a new editor, this is my first attempt to write an article from (almost) scratch. Here is the [1] and here are my comments on the article's talk page. I'm looking for constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement. Feel free to leave a comment on the article's talk page, here or on my talk page directly. Both of the book sources are available on Google books for limited preview: medicine secrets, Opioid Conversion Calculations: A Guide for Effective Dosing. Thanks in advance! DubiousIrony ^yell 21:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

methamphetamine rename request

An editor would like methamphetamine renamed to "meth". Comments and viewpoints would be welcome.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No is the obvious answer, I do not know the INN (International Nonproprietary Name) for Methamphetamine off the top of my head (and found it very difficult to check on WHO website), but whatever it is, should be the name for the page - any notable alternatives can have redirects or disambigs if needed. Cheers Lethaniol 18:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You might want to say that there, rather than here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

DrugBank link on DrugBox

While setting up Atovaquone/proguanil and trying to get chemical reg info set up in DrugBox - found that the link to DrugBox website is not working - I tried Atovaquone and Paracetamol. Is this just me, or is broken for others too? Cheers Lethaniol 23:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Appears to be working now. Very odd. Cheers Lethaniol 19:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Estranes

Category:Estranes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the category's entry on the Category for Deletion page. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Estradiols

Category:Estradiols has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the category's entry on the Category for Deletion page. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible use of unreliable source

I noticed 24.127.116.219 (talk · contribs) adding links to articles at this site http://pharmaxchange.info/press/about/ which probably isn't an RS. There are a fair few other instances where it has been used as a reference and they all seem to have come from the same IP. I'll AGF, but it could be a case of reference spamming. Should they be removed? SmartSE (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked at some of those, and it's a somewhat borderline case, but I'd come down on the side of replacing those links in most cases. I give the editor some credit for, at least, adding them as inline cites instead of external links at the end of the page. Some of the sub-pages of that website are reasonable approximations of what one would find in a fairly good textbook (for example, the adrenergics-cholinergics link), while others are just short reviews that have not been peer-reviewed (for example, the cell cycle link). The lack of peer-review makes me lean towards getting rid of most of them. On the plus side, pretty much all the links include their own lists of references to sources that are peer-reviewed. Thus, it would make sense in most cases to simply replace the present link with a cite-journal of a cited reference.--Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Respected sir/madam I am the user mentioned above and have added the links thinking that they would be useful references for articles. Most of the pages have good references on the website. I am new to editing wikipedia and would like your guidance. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by24.127.116.219 (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please understand that no one is accusing you of doing anything intentionally wrong, and please accept my warm welcome to Wikipedia! By way of guidance, a good place to start would be to read WP:RS, and then WP:MEDRS. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

February

It's a new month, so it's time to select the next WP:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Month#Nominations_for_the_next_MCOTM. Current nominations include two that related to WP:PHARM: Serotonin and Placebo. If you would be willing to help improve one of these, please sign your name in support of it. You can also nominate other articles that you think would be appropriate and you're willing to help out with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Finasteride

I would be grateful if project members could have a look at recent additions to finasteride and decide whether these are appropriately sourced.JFW | T@lk 22:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The dispute continues. Additional input would be much appreciated.--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I have looked over these and agree that they require further review in terms of appropriation.--User:Fuxton (talk) 4:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomenclature of monoclonal antibodies

Nomenclature of monoclonal antibodies has been on GAN for over two months. Maybe somebody from the project interested would be willing to review it.--Garrondo (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd do it only I am the nominator :-( ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't follow up to Anypodetos' reply on his talkpage when I offered to review it. Will review it later on tonight.JFW | T@lk 20:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Two tough questions from JFW:

• Antibodies from hamsters (theoretically -e-) and primates (-i-) have never been assigned INNs. Do any sources explain why they were anticipated, and why none were assigned?

My guess is at Talk:Nomenclature of monoclonal antibodies/GA1, but does anyone know how to source that? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This question has little to do with meeting WP:WIAGA, but the unacquainted reader will wonder why the various bodies went to such lengths to anticipate formal nomenclature for a group of drugs that never quite materialised!JFW | T@lk 22:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ipratropium

There is a discussion at Talk:Ipratropium about whether this should be the bromide form or not.64.229.101.183 (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This is related to the question whether other cationic drugs (Tiotropium,Ipratropium/salbutamol) should be moved. See discussion there. --ἀνυπόδητος(talk) 16:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to reiterate here ... we typically name pharmaceutical drug pages based on the INN of the active species, rather than a salt form. But ambiguity arises for drugs where the active species is a cation and therefore can't exist except as a salt. In these cases the INN includes the salt in the name (always, or sometimes, I'm not sure). So do we stick with INNs including the salt, or name articles based just on the active species. And what should we do if there are multiple salt forms available for an active species that is ionic? -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The general convention has been for many years not to mention the salt.JFW | T@lk 16:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you happen to recall if this has been discussed/decided upon previously? If there is consensus, perhaps it should be mentioned in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Style_guide. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Straight from the source:

An INN is usually designated for the active part of the molecule only, to avoid the multiplication of entries in cases where several salts, esters, etc. are actually used. In such cases, the user of the INN has to create a modified INN (INNM) himself ; mepyramine maleate (a salt of mepyramine with maleic acid) is an example of an INNM. When the creation of an INNM would require the use of a long or inconvenient name for the radical part of the INNM, the INN programme will select a short name for such a radical (for example, mesilate for methanesulfonate).

http://www.who.int/entity/medicines/services/inn/innguidance/en/index.html

However, WHO guidance distinguishes quaternary compounds.

VII. INNMs for quaternary substances

23. In accordance with item 5 of the "General principles" the INN for a quaternary substance will consist of two words, the cation and anion (the base) being named as separate components.

International Nonproprietary Names Modified

(emphasis mine)

In short, the true INN for quaternary compounds (including ipratropium) includes the counterion. For non-quaternary compounds, the INN reflects only the active moiety. We should definitely align our style guide with this convention, which I have actually been following inadvertently for years.Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Where did you use that convention? I can't find a quaternary drug article titles (ehm) that include the counter ion. If we do include it, we should use the titles Tiotropium bromide,Ipratropium bromide/salbutamol and Butylscopolaminium bromide (?, that's the German INN) as well. Are there any others? And are you sure the titles need to be that complicated?--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Erm... I'm sure there are several.... I can't remember any off the top of my head, though :| I do know Ed has made several moves in the past that follow this convention: see our neuromuscular blocker articles, for instance. It may be a bit pedantic on my part, but I don't really see this as making the titles too complicated; just as the full implementation of a guideline we have long used.Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I finally have to agree. Unless there are any additional comments over the next few days, I'll move the pages and clarify this in our style guide. Cheers,ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Butylscopolamine still needs to be moved; anyone know its INN?--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

BOT

Have a bot error in templates of drugs...See contribs CheMoBot.186.196.59.127 (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you specify on this, eg., point to a page where CheMoBot has made an error? Thanks,ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

brand names: chlorhexidine

I am not a member of this project (nor do I wish to be), but I would like project input on theChlorhexidine article. I looked it up because I'm using it in a prescription mouthwash, and I noticed that there was an Advertisement tag on the article. Looking into the history, I saw that Acdx had placed the tag on 8 October 2010, and had twice reverted removals of it with requests to explain before removing.

I looked at the article, removed the tag, and explained my reasoning (Talk). In further discussion, I found and cited a number of examples of "good articles" from this project's list that cite brand names. I've read the discussions on this page about brand names, and it seems to me that the Chlorhexidine article is well within such guidelines as I have seen here and inferred from the "good articles". But I'm no expert or project member. Would some member of the project please look at that article and that part of the Discussion page, and contribute a knowledgeable opinion? --Thnidu(talk) 01:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Homeopathy

May I suggest that you remove the project banner from Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as this is plainly nothing to do with pharmacology. I've yet to encounter a pharmacologist who greets dilutions of 1: 10⁴⁰⁰ with anything other than derision. Guy(Help!) 23:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No objection. I think that not even homoeopaths talk of the "pharmacology" of their medicines. Pity to lose a Good Article, though ;-) ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) I have been bold and went ahead and removed the wiki pharm project banner from homeopathy.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, it needs to be crystal clear that homeopathy is not a form of actual medicine or pharmacology in any way, shape or form. DubiousIrony ^yell 07:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's a medicine: a great combination of psychotherapy and placebo effect.--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

American Mock Trial Association

Is this a reliable source?--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that a college mock trial would be. But I reverted it, simply because the given url does not go to anything supporting the sentence it was supposed to source.--Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Good act, Tryptofish. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as{{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse|url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

• {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics /books} 03:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Mefloquine

I've noticed that there is a single-purpose editor who has been making significant changes to the article mefloquine which appear to me to be quite one-sided. I don't know enough about this area to able to tell whether this is a good thing in terms of neutrality or not (is a formerly unbalanced article now becoming better, or is the article becoming skewed away from a neutral point of view?) If someone more knowledgeable could take a look, I think that would be helpful. Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm more of a CNS person, so this is pretty far from my expertise, so it would be good if someone else would look. Based on the editor's comment on the article talk, I am somewhat inclined to think that this may be a good faith effort to be more NPOV, but I'm not really sure. The page is certainly a mess, though (multiple format problems, and becoming a quote farm), and needs a lot of fixing up. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Initiative to bring in psychologists

People who watch this page may like to know about a new initiative to bring in psychologists. SeeWikipedia Initiative from the American Psychological Society at WT:MED for more information, and keep an eye out for new editors who might need help when you encounter them in articles about psychoactive drugs, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

MedlinePlus

We currently link to medline plus when it is available in our disease and disorder boxes in the right upper corner of pages such as gout. Wondering if we should also be linking to medlineplus for medications. Here is the page for example for aspirin[2]. Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 10:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a good source of information, but I'm starting to worry about list cruft. We already link to WHOCC (ATC codes), Mesh (CAS number), PubChem (twice), IUPHAR, DrugBank, ChemSpider, UNII, KEGG, ChEMBL and eMolecules. Question: How many identifiers do we need, and which?--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

None of these provides clinical information on side effects, etc. This is primarily classification / chemistry stuff. We need more clinical information. Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 10:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Style guide

Just in case some of you don't have Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide on their watchlists: Doc James is planning to bring all the medication articles into a consistent format. Comments on possible changes to the style guide would be welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide/Archive 1#Organizing the sections. All thumbs up for James!--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Reformatted our main page

I have reformatted our main page to make things line up better and I hope easier for others to edit. I found what was there before a little impenetrable and I have been at this a few years. Comments? Made it similar to WP:MED to hopefully increase cross pollination between the two groups. Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 22:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It would've been nice if you would have DISCUSSED this first on the talk page rather than unilaterally deciding on the format yourself. What gives you the right to just come in here and change everything? The previous format with columns was easier to find stuff and required less vertical scrolling. WTF? (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Potassium iodide

With all the hysteria about radioactive fallout, it might be good to expand potassium iodide to better cover the effects of taking excessive amounts of it.65.95.13.139 (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Archiver

It looks like we need an automatic one for this page. And opposed? Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 14:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no clue what in the heck an "archeiver" is? You're going to have to explain that one. Do you mean an archiver? If so, no need to re-invent the wheel here. I think there are several automated talk page archive bots out there. WTF? (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes and I was suggesting we us one of the many out there... --Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 02:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This is probably the most commonly used archive bot out there. They request that we get a consensus among users that this is needed prior to requesting it. Do we have consensus that we want this? WTF? (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes I think it would be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 15:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent "drug" → "medication" changes

I haven't been around much, but I have spotted some moves and content changes switching "drug" to "medication", such as moving Anti-diabetic drug to Anti-diabetic medication (quite a while ago, actually). I'm not sure this is an adequate change, particularly without discussion.

As Wikipedia very broadly follows WHO terminology and our drug categorization is closely modeled on the ATC, I believe keeping the term "drug" where it has long been established, particularly in article titles and categories, would be most appropriate. We sort of had this debate eons ago, back when the project was called WP:DRUGS and the {{Drugbox}} was still in development—perhaps it is time to rekindle it? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Medications IMO should be the prefered term --Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 20:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If that page covers insulin, which is a biologic rather than a drug, then the page move was an improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify this for a non-native speaker? I always thought that "drug" = "Medikament" (German), but this doesn't seem to be the case from your comment. Are monoclonal antibodies drugs? And what about low weight heparin? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

At least in US English, "drug", when spoken by the general public, carries a connotation of illegal/narcotic drugs, whereas "medication" clearly refers to medically appropriate use of, well, drugs. (To my understanding, "biologics" are a sub-class of "drugs". I guess that WhatamIdoing is getting at the distinction between synthetics and naturally-occurring substances, but in my opinion that's a subtle one.) I don't feel strongly either way about these renames. "Medication" has the advantage of being better understood by the general readership, for the reason above, whereas "drug" serves the purpose of not talking down to our audience.--Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it (i.e., probably not very well), biologics are not generally drugs in the usual sense. Whole blood is a biologic; nobody would call that a drug.

Monoclonal antibodies and heparin seem to be biologics.

In the US, the short answer is that if you're dealing with CDER at the FDA, it's a "drug", and if you're dealing with CBER, it's a "biologic". WhatamIdoing(talk) 19:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the vagaries of language (if not of the FDA). I agree that no one relatively few people would call whole blood, or oxygen, a drug, but heparin might well be called one, and quinine or bacitracin, definitely so. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I recall hearing that the FDA 'rationalized' the system a couple of years ago (i.e., they traded a bunch of products between the two groups, so that things that are biologics by any reasonably standard definition, but "feel like" drugs, are now in CDER). I haven't looked up heparin's regulatory status, but there's a link on my user page to CDER's list, if you want to find out. If it's (1) on the market and (2) not in the Orange Book, then it's regulated as a biologic.WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If you look in the Merriam Webster dictionary, drugs include, "a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body." So that includes toothpaste, biologics, herbal remedies and homoeopathic "remedies". MW describes "medication" as a synonym for drug. If you want a more precise word you may want "pharmaceutical" or "medical drug". I don't know if you want do drop drug just because it has an illegal connotation in some uses, because currently that connotation only comes from the context. 24.77.80.153(talk) 03:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that drug often implies illegal status and medication / medicine is more clear which is why I suggest we use it.Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 23:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Drug is a neutral term. We fill prescriptions at drug stores and speak of drug companies that make legitimate products. My nursing drug reference has the words "Drug Guide" on the cover in large type. Medication seems to presuppose that these things are being used in a medical context. It also sounds like a euphemism. A quick search on britannica.com reveals an entry for "drug," but not for "medication." — Precedingunsigned comment added by Nburns1980 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Are we writing in English or an unofficial local dialect of English? The proper word should be dictated by what the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam Webster Dictionary say.24.77.80.153 (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Redirect of brand names to generics?

Was a bot every made to do this? Uptodate / Lexicomp has a great database brand names to generic names.--Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 04:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There is PotatoBot. It added such a redirecting function after a previous discussion now archivedhere.

Still, help is appreciated in fixing entries on its logof names that could not be redirected automatically. Mikael Häggström(talk) 05:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Drugbox: which way do we want to go?

Please comment at Template talk:Drugbox#Drugbox/Chembox merger vs. two infoboxes.--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide might also be of interest.--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Free reference accounts for busy content editors

Content-oriented editors may wish to apply for a free "Credo" account. See Wikipedia:Credo accounts for the requirements, which include having more than 3,000 edits in the main namespace and having been an editor for >12 months. Four hundred accounts are on offer, and only about one-third have been requested so far. It's possible that people who don't quite qualify might be able to get any "leftover" accounts.

Credo seems to offer online access to major reference works, such as medical dictionaries. It does not seem to offer access to peer-reviewed journal articles. WhatamIdoing(talk) 17:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Taskforce

Should WP:PHARM be a taskforce of WP:MED similarly to EMS, etc? Discussion is taking place hereWT:MED --Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 10:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd intuitively oppose this, but are there any rules about the difference between a WikiProject and a Taskforce? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

We have this Wikipedia:Task_force. But it is probably just a technically really.--Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 11:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

In practical terms, you would typically move the existing PHARM pages to something like "WP:WikiProject Medicine/Pharmacology task force" (leaving behind a complete set of redirects) and merge WikiProject infrastructure, e.g., talk-page banners and WP:1.0 assessment categories. The primary (in this instance, probably small) advantage is that you can dump the routine administrative work on the existing processes at WPMED.

It should not be done unless the people here actually want it to be done. WPMED is emphaticallynot interested in 'hostile takeovers'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose This group is not a puppet of WP:MED. WTF?(talk) 13:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Project page design

Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot has objected to the new design of the project page. The stated objection was "no consensus", which of course is specious and anti-policy, since it's not necessary to get permission to edit in advance—especially when multiple project participants worked on the changes without expressing any objections, which is itself proof of consensus.

However, I strongly suspect that there's some sort of substantive objection, since an experienced editor like Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot wouldn't believe that project members were somehow required to get advance permission to make changes to their own project page.

Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot, can you tell us what you don't like about the changes? It is certainly a dramatic change: What do you think the problems with the new version are? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, a dramatic change such as that should be discussed on the talk page of the wikiproject prior to going through with it. This was not done. Doc James merely posted to the talk page saying, "I have reformatted our main page... blahblahblah" Who the hell appointed him in charge? And the new design absolutely SUCKED! Completely uninspiring, uncatchy, and just an attempt at making this project a clone of WP:MED. Little wonder why the same user brought up merging this group as a taskforce into the medicine project in a subsequent discussion (the merger is also BAD idea as well). I also don't like the fact that it's completely dependent on vertical scrolling, as opposed to the use of columns to try and reduce that. His design also has way too much "white space", making for a rather ridiculously boring and uninspiring page (I think 1995 called. It wants its HTML back). Also, I'm not referring to what Doc James did as the "new version", because I've reverted it. Making those changes was a completely unacceptable thing to do in the first place.WTF? (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Doc James, as a regular participant in this project has exactly as much right to change the page as any other regular participant. Nobody "appointed him in charge" of designing a new page, exactly like nobody appointed you to be in charge of vetoing it. He doesn't need your permission to make an effort at improving the page (as he sees it), just like you don't need his permission to civillypoint out its shortcomings (as you see them).

As to your substantive objections, they seem to be:

1. You prefer a column-based design because it requires less vertical scrolling.
2. You object to (excessive) white space because it is boring and uninspiring.
3. You object to having PHARM's project page resemble WPMED's project page.

Did I miss any substantive objections? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The bigger issue here seems to be that, with his recent actions, Doc James appears to be intent on doing away with this wikiproject in favor of completely merging it into WP:MED (see the merger discussion as well). That would not be a good idea. WTF? (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

So the changes would probably be okay with you, except that Doc James did it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I will list the reasons for the change:

1. The columned version is very hard to edit and thus new users will be less likely to contribute.
2. We do not need a list of participants on this page. Would be better as a sub page.
3. A though the changes I made actually decrease white space.
4. Merging is a separate issue and one that if others do not agree with I will not puss

Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 23:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

1. With edit links at the top right of each section in the left column, what's so difficult about that? Granted, the edit link for the right column is all the way down at the bottom of the column, but that section shouldn't have to be edited terribly often anyways. As far as new users are concerned, I think most of them are not going to be worried about "messing up" the main page of the wikiproject, and will hopefully ask their questions on the talk page first.

2. I agree on the list of participants. We could put just a link there without redoing the whole damn thing, though.

3. Totally disagree on Doc James' version actually decreasing white space. His version also deletes the image as well, making for a far less attractive page as well.

4. I do agree that merging is a separate issue, but your making bold and major changes to a design which mirror's WP:MED's design, as well as bringing up the merger in close proximity, makes me wonder about a possible "hidden agenda",. . . The truth is, we need more editors around here actually improving articles for a change, rather than worrying about silly little sh!t like rearranging main pages of wikiprojects and other minor process-based stuff.WTF? (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes we definitely need more editors. Making things more clear I think would attract them. The current page does not. I am hoping to make the pharma articles more applicable to the general reader. Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 02:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The current page is more attractive to new editors than your proposed mumbo jumbo of whitespace and nothingness,. . . WTF? (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I prefer we keep the majority of the text on the right rather than the left. Another issue I have with this layout is that it does not have a TOC box. A third issue is that theWikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Nav template does not line up well in the left column.Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 16:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no specific preferences about the project page's design. I want to note, however, that the navbox did line up well before James changed its layout. --ἀνυπόδητος(talk) 11:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any strong preference. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding barnstars and will continue working on the page. User who complained does not seem active currently in this project... Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 23:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, fine. Whatever. You want to keep making stupid changes like this to process and procedure, rather than actually editing articles and improving them. Fine. It's no wonder that the total number of editors actively involved in Wikipedia is dropping off like a fracking rock. Too many idiots concerned with petty little process crap instead of what matters. I used to be more interested in this project. But silly debates over petty little processes like article categorization and page design is a waste of fscking time,. . . WTF?(talk) 13:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, WTF, if changing the project page is a waste of time, why do you keep doing it? You could be actually editing articles and improving them, instead of editing the project page and complaining about others doing—well, exactly the same thing that you're doing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Are the medication articles too technical and if so what should we do about it?

An article was recently published regarding Wikipedia's medication articles. It raised the concern that our content is too technical. Law MR, Mintzes B, Morgan SG (2011). "The sources and popularity of online drug information: an analysis of top search engine results and web page views". Ann Pharmacother. 45 (3): 350–6. doi:10.1345/aph.1P572. PMID 21343404. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

What, if any, changes should be made in response to such criticism? 15:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at some of our pages such as paracetamol I would have to agree. Now I do not think we should in anyway remove technical content from Wikipedia but what I do suggest is that we present the more generally relevant information first. A few suggestions to achieve this: These unsigned suggestions from Jmh649 (talk · contribs)

Comment – Where in the Law, et al. paper does it state that the content of Wikipedia drug articles is too technical? The main purpose of the Law paper was to assess the popularity of various online sources of information about drugs. It does comment that "Wikipedia is potentially both incomplete and subject to serious biases" and "further studies should continue to assess the authorship and quality of the drug information appearing on both Wikipedia and other sites to determine whether patients are obtaining accurate and understandable information". But no where in the paper does it state that Wikipedia drug articles are not accessible. I whole heartily agree that increasing the accessibility of Wikipedia drug articles is a worth while goal, but the citation that you provided does not explicitly support that goal. Boghog (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia page had the lowest completeness and accuracy score and worst readability of the 28 Internet sites studied."Doc James(talk · contribs ·email) 22:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(Only half joking: I could say that about Wikipedia as a whole, not just the medical pages.) Are you sure that it is about the issues discussed below, as opposed to the Randy from Boise issues? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure to what you refer? Doc James(talk · contribs ·email) 23:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I meant people putting misinformation into pages, making the pages inaccurate, as opposed to the pages being too technical. At least on the antipsychotics pages, that's a bottomless pit.--Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You only quoted part of the sentence taken from the introduction of that paper. The entire sentence reads "Similarly, an analysis of sources of information about methotrexate found that the Wikipedia page had the lowest completeness and accuracy score and worst readability of the 28 Internet sites studied" which in turn cites PMID 19004031. So the entire statement is based on the analysis of one Wikipedia article, methotrexate. Boghog (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Plus I have discussed the paper with its author. Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 03:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion the fact we are an encyclopedia necessitates some higher degree of technical complexity. Wikipedia does not give medical advice, therefore our article is not aimed at the patient who has just been prescribed the drug or the healthcare professional that might prescribe the drug, but covers the entire topic, from its indications, counterindications and other information a source like those above might have, all the way down to the method of action and chemistry, right through on to social/cultural impact and depiction in popular culture. Our mission necessitates less readability than a site that aims only to give advice for consumers.HominidMachinae (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Every topic should be explainable at the highest level. More technical complexity should exist in the encyclopedia, but only after a general, higher level description.Niluop (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is for no split of the infobox

The drugbox Move the current drug box with it chemical and pharmakinetic data lower in the article. Add a simpler clinical drug box to the lead. I have created an example here. This is as opposed to the current warfarin article. This would only be done on topic pages that deal with chemicals that are exclusively drugs. This was discussedhere Support #Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 17:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose If we make the text "user-friendly" there's no rush to strip the technical data out of the infobox. Readers without any background are likely to read the text first and the summaries later, while readers that are already familiar with the topic in general are looking for things like the half-life or the technical links. If we can serve both audiences, all the better. SDY (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC) If you look down the article the info box with all the technical details is still there just lower down. Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 17:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Yeah, I saw it, but I'm not sure I like it. While making the article understandable is a big deal, the infobox has a lot of useful information that we specifically want up front so people don't have to go hunting for it. It might be worthwhile to shuffle the order somewhat so that the "simple" stuff is near the top, but having two infoboxes seems confusing and redundant. SDY (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Strong oppose – per SDY and as stated in more detailhere andhere, we have two audiences: the general public and the more technically oriented. The lead certainly should be written in a way that is understandable to a wide audience. But we also need to capture the attention of the technical audience. If key technical data is included in the infobox, it will immediately draw the attention of the technical community and they will be encouraged to read the rest of the article. Even better, if they stay long enough to read the article, they might be tempted to jump in and expand it. Finally, I think we should not under estimate the ability of patients, particularly if they are suffering from a life threatening illness, to become experts in their particular disease and treatments. They will be more strongly drawn to an article that is both understandable to a wide audience but also contains more in-depth material. Boghog (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Mild oppose. I looked at the two warfarin examples, and it seems to me that the proposed new version emphasizes what the pills look like, as opposed to providing information about the chemical structure. As a thought experiment, if we were to substitute a photo of pills of a different medication, what would be the consequences? The page would be about the same, and the only harm to our readers would be of the form "The pills I got at the pharmacy don't look like the ones on Wikipedia." Admittedly, we obviously wouldn't really want to mislead readers that way, but that comes awfully close to WP:NOTGUIDE. I see our readership as coming here for encyclopedic information about a given drug, and not specifically for medical advice, although I readily admit that there's a blurry line between those. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose. {{Infobox disease}} does the same. If anything, we could add parameters in the drugbox that might be useful for the general reader (e.g. a field that states thatlinezolid is an antibiotic, or metformin an antidiabetic or a biguanide).JFW | T@lk 10:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Strong oppose There are many compounds which are drugs, which are not used for treating specific diseases or whatever. So why create confusion by putting the drugbox on all those drugs on top, while having some where the drugbox is lower on the page. It makes indeed way more sense to add some technical data to the drugbox and keep that on top. That does not prefer people who are more interested in clinical parts, that does not prefer people that are more interested in pharmaceutical data, and it does not prefer the people who are more interested in the chemical data. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Order of content

I propose that we move the "clinical indications" / "therapeutic uses" / "indications" and "side effects" section first. This would than be followed by section on chemical properties. And finished by a section on history. This would place what the general reader is usually looking for first. This was discussed[3].

Support

1. Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 17:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Looking at a bottle of ibuprofen I have at my desk, this is the format the OTC label uses, and by a "principle of least surprise" this is probably what a reader is expecting to see first. SDY (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
3. The most important information about a typical drug is certainly its uses. How it was developed and when it was marketed on which continent can make interesting reading, but I wouldn't emphasise it by putting it first. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
   1. Qualify my support: This proposal does not mention the "Mechanism" section, which probably belongs to the top in my opinion. See my comment below ("Working with the chemists")--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Support – Uses followed by chemical properties, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, and history as outlined here sounds reasonable (simple → complex per SDY below). Most people coming to read these articles probably are not particularly interested in the history so I agree that the history section should come last. These are only guidelines and there may be special cases where altering the order may make sense but at the same time, it would be desirable to have a consistent ordering of sections for most articles. Boghog (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Neither support nor oppose, as a "point of order", so to speak: this is current practice (has been for ages) and is enshrined in MEDMOS. I see no reason to rehash it here.Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I agree that Paracetamol has got the section ordering wrong and has the scary pharmacology/chemistry too high up. But, MEDMOS has never mandated section ordering and I don't think we should. The sections are a bullet list rather than a numbered list. The given ordering may work for many articles, but not all. A number of our drug articles begin with history and are all the more interesting for it. Any discussion on modifying the proposed sections or listed order of sections should start with an analysis of our best articles. A brief glance at some of them hints there is no consensus. Guidelines should follow best practice. Colin°^Talk 18:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

   Standardization has some real value here, especially when addressing two drugs of the same class. If someone is comparing paracetamol and ibuprofen they shouldn't have to do a lot of hunting. Even if it isnt the current practice, standardizing the content makes it easier to use, and ease-of-use is exactly what we're aiming at. SDY (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Even if MEDMOS doesn't specify section ordering, my impression across Wikipedia as a whole is that History sections often come first. Again, WP:NOTGUIDE means that we are not giving medical advice here. This should be an encyclopedia, not an online site for looking up what medicine you should ask your doctor for. I'd like to assume that our readers are smart enough to skip over the sections that don't interest them. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
   • MEDMOS gently recommends a typical order for a variety of different medicine-related subjects atWP:MEDMOS#Sections. 'History' sections often come last (or nearly so), as they are often the least important aspects. For example, 'Tuberculosis is a bacterial infection that kills lots of people but can usually be treated with antibiotics' is generally more important to our typical reader than 'The first written description of tuberculosis is in some Greek document that is 25 centuries old'. In many medicine-related articles, especially for newer therapeutics, there's no history section at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
     • The reader should have most of the vital facts from the lead before we even get to worrying about section order. It is reasonable for MEDMOS to present an order that is likely to be useful but I wouldn't want it to become a block to any editor faced with actually trying to present their facts and tell their story in a reasonable way. I sigh when folk talk about MEDMOS specifying an order when (unlike the proposed PHARMA style guide) it makes no such demands and goes out of its way to give examples where the presented order might not be useful. Unlike the BNF, say, we have little idea why a reader has come to a drug article like midazolam, which makes our task harder. Colin°^Talk 18:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Oppose. We cannot discuss the uses/indications for a drug before we have discussed how it works. I have no objection to the "history" section moving to the end, as we do in disease articles. JFW | T@lk 10:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

   Do you really mean "how it works"? As in "mechanism of action". I think very few of our readers will be able to understand the "mechanism of action" section, and for a fair number of treatments, we have little idea "how it works". Perhaps you mean "what it does" (like lowering blood pressure), but it is difficult to discuss that without an idea of what was wrong in the first place. I have no objection to "indications" being first (it is on MEDMOS) or early (the lead will cover the primary indications too), what I am uncomfortable with is requiring any section ordering.Colin°^Talk 16:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a rule that can be ignored if necessary, but there should be some expectations. Completely opposed to JFW's assertion of "mechanism first." Mechanism is a complex technical subject, and the progression of articles should start with the simple things. SDY (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Oppose - per WP:IAR: that competely depends on what we are discussing. Are we discussing a compound which has as single use a drug, or something that has more functions. Sections can have a preferred order for certain articles, but not a defined order that we have to decide here via RfC. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

What should we use for the first heading

Three Four possibilities for the first heading have been put forth "clinical indications", "therapeutic uses", "indications", and "indications for use". Indications IMO implies approval from a licensing board thus I propose we change it to "clinical indications" which would more easily leave room for discussion of off label uses in this section.

Support

1. Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 17:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
2. With strong caveat. While I like the basic idea, do not use the term "clinical indications." This is exactly the problem - many of our medical articles look like they are written for a clinician, not your average joe. Some of this isn't a structural problem, this is a problem with overuse of terminology that most readers will struggle with if they understand it at all. SDY (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The reasons why "therapeutic uses" is a bad idea have already been stated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)#Indications vs Therapeutic uses. Adding "clinical" to the front is no help to the average reader (who thinks "clinical" is an adjective meaning "analytical or coolly dispassionate"). Nor does it remove the licensed/off-label concern Doc James has about the term. I can find no dictionary (medical or otherwise) that supports the idea that "indications" implies approval from a licensing authority. When the BNF gives an indication for a drug that is not licensed for that purpose or age group, it tags it with [unlicensed]. It may be relevant to an article to follow this practice and note that an indication is not licensed in the US or UK, etc. There are thousands of drug articles on Wikipedia that use the term "Indications". We would need a very strong reason to change our style guide to something else. Colin°^Talk 18:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
2. again per WP:IAR: Oppose. We should not have a defined order of what first for a drug, it depends too much. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment

1. I have low enthusiasm for any of these four. All of them sound legal and/or medical in a jargon-like way. How about, per WP:KISS (sort of), something like "medical uses"?--Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I second that suggestion. The bottle of ibuprofen I'm staring at makes it even simpler as just "uses" but given the nature of the encyclopedia "medical" is a useful qualifier. SDY(talk) 20:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes I would support "medical uses" aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 22:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. "Medical uses" is probably more accessible to general readers than "Indications" or "Clinical indications". Axl ¤ [Talk]08:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Support "Medical uses". It's understandable, precise, and includes uses under (clinical) investigation as well as approved uses (as opposed to "Indications" which seems to exclude the former). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that we really want "possible uses that nobody is actually using this for, but someone is currently running an experiment on" to be placed in this section. That sounds like material for a "research" section, not a "how it is being used" section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If "medical uses" includes investigative research as well as current (best) prescribing practice, then I couldn't be more opposed. This is exactly what is wrong with many of our drug/medicine articles. Colin°^Talk 07:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

IMO medical uses does not include investigative research. Like in disease article this should go in a section at the end if included at all. This is how it is currently described[4]Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 07:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

James, I thought you wanted not to emphasise the legal issue whether a drug is approved in some country or another? But thinking again, maybe we should actually draw the line between "Uses/Indications" and "Research" when a drug is approved anywhere in the world.--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess I did not make myself clear. I want to use a combination of reviews articles ( such as AHFS [5] ), guidelines from NICE etc, and approved uses from national / international bodies. Thus not emphasis legal issue but do give them appropriate weight as we do not wish continue with the status quo which seems to be using primary research to conduct our own mini reviews... Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 19:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's such a good idea. Particularly for older drugs, the most common and best supported uses may not be "on label" anywhere in the world. The paperwork to have something be a legally "approved indication" is very expensive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth looking at what our best work does? Category:FA-Class pharmacology articles has only eight members, two of which aren't really about drugs, so it doesn't take long.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A little background

It might be useful for people to know a bit about the how these publications happen:

They usually compare publicly available sources (like Wikipedia articles) against industry-favored advice for writing patient guides (the sort of brochure that might be handed out to patients, or kept in a literature rack in the lobby of the doctor's office). Such advice typically has a requirement that it can be understood by a patient with the intelligence and reading skills of the average ninth grader (about age 13 or so). When this is mapped to adults, we're talking about someone with an IQ of about 85, who would struggle to read The New York Times.

Also, anything that is deemed inappropriate or irrelevant for a patient should normally be omitted (e.g., chemistry, commercial history), and anything that is necessary for the person's personal medical care must be included (e.g., how many pills to take, when to call your doctor). Pages are evaluated for their reading grade level as a whole, not just on the parts that might interest a patient.

Obviously, Wikipedia is not writing a patient guide. We are writing for chemists, for students, for people who click on Special:Random, for healthcare professionals, for investors, and for people who heard about a drug in the celebrity TV show, as well as for patients (to whom we refuse to give medical advice). We therefore include "inappropriate" material also exclude "necessary information".

The goal here is not how to make Wikipedia stop being an encyclopedia and start being a drug formulary or patient advice page. Those services already exist on the web. The question here is whether and how we could make articles more interesting or informative to people who are notpharmaceutical professionals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes agree. We can link to other sources that provide patient information sources and do not need to structure stuff like that here. Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 17:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Further suggestions

Looking at the paracetamol article, one thing that's definitely obvious is that we need a better lead paragraph. Since we have the infobox, maybe a loose policy of "no numbers in the lead" to focus on the big picture ideas rather than the technical details. SDY(talk) 17:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a bad idea. We make a similar sort of recommendation for mathematics: Focus more on "why anybody cares" and less on precisely and definitively defining the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree that this would be a useful measure. Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 09:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, this (WhatamIdoing's suggestion) has kind of been standard practice for ages. Paracetamol is a poor example—it has been in bad shape for ages and does not conform to MEDMOS.Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Working with the chemists

Seeing that all pharmaceuticals are chemicals, it might be an idea to discuss these issues also with the chaps over at WP:CHEMS. They might have a particular perspective on this matter. Have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry)/Compound classes, which has a framework for compound articles. Correction: the correct guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry)/Chemicals.

In my mind, there needs to be a logical flow to articles on chemical compounds, including drugs. One cannot really begin to discuss practical application of a chemical substance (drug or otherwise) without having discussed its properties. My hierarchy for good drug articles would therefore be:

• Lead: summarise all that is relevant
• Chemistry: molecular structure, boiling and melting points, racemic constituents, synthesis,added later: presumed mechanism of action
• Uses:
  • Pharmacology: ADME, toxicity
  • Clinical applications: indications, common off-label uses (including evidence base for use if extant)
  • Common and unusal adverse effects
  • Approval/regulatory framework
  • Abuse/illegal use
• History/Societal impact
• Referencing apparatus

Keen to hear what others think here.JFW | T@lk 10:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand which medicines are approved for what uses with out having any idea of the chemistry, boiling point, or if it is a racemic mixture. I usually do not care as the question I have is does it work. The medical use IMO should be discussed before adverse events. As one only gets those if they take the medicine and thus only if they know why it was used.Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 11:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

As Jfdwolff has eloquently stated above, "all pharmaceuticals are chemicals". In other words, without chemistry, there would be no drugs. The definition of a drug includes the chemical structure and therefore it is imperative that the structure along with key chemical properties are prominently displayed in the first infobox at the top of the article. It is clear that we have more than one audience. It is also clear that you are not interested in the chemical properties while many others like myself are. You need to accept that some readers are deeply interested in the chemistry. That being said, as long as the chemical structure along with key chemical properties are prominently displayed in the drug infobox, I am less concerned about the order of the sections. The lead will attract attention of a wide audience while the infobox will attract the attention of chemists. Boghog (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree now :-) that we should leave the chemical information in the infobox in the lead. It is only the ordering of section I am discussing here.Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 13:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

While I wholeheartedly agree that we need the help of the chemists and support the inclusion of the structure right at the top, I don't think that things like synthesis and melting point help much for understanding the drug's action in most cases. The structure often does (eg. beta blockers, nuncleosidic antivirals etc). That being said, I do think that the mechanism of action helps understanding indications, CIs and side effects and should therefore moved further up, probably right after the lead. Any comments? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about the order of sections. I would personally like to see the mechanism section right after the lead (I agree that if the mechanism is presented first, it is easer to understand the indications). On the other hand, a wide audience is probably more interested in reading what it is used for first. Hopefully once we have captured their interest, we can encourage them to read on to figure out how it works. Hence I support putting the indications section before the mechanism of action section. Boghog (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I've invited the folks at WT:CHEMS to join this discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that drugs are chemicals, starting a drug article with the chemistry followed by the pharmacology is deeply nerdy and a very bad idea. The whole issue that sparked Doc James to review our drug articles was the criticism that they aren't accessible or even interesting to the general reader, who vastly outnumbers the pharmacists and chemists. Look atparacetamol before he moved the sections around. The most important information about a drug is why is it used and what does it do (at the macro level, not the molecular level). Paracetamol is used to treat mild to moderate pain and for fever. Why should I have to wade through nine sections before I read that. What percentage of readers look up Viagra with an urgent need to know that it works by "protectingcyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) from degradation by cGMP-specific phosphodiesterase type 5"? And what percentage could even read that sentence--it might as well be French. There are billions of chemicals and the pharmacology of hundreds of thousands of them has been studied and, I dare say, is of interest to various groups. But only a tiny fraction of these become drugs. It is the reasons why those tiny fraction are drugs that are the relevant part of a drug article. Have a look at WP:WEIGHT, which is about balance in an article, not just opinions. What do most reliable sources, when discussing the article topic, spend their time on?Colin°^Talk 18:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If the chemistry sections are unreadable or irrelevant to the general reader they should be rewritten to become readable and relevant. The logical sequence is: this is the drug, this is how it made, this is how it acts, and therefore it is used for the following indications; side-effects arise because of the way it acts.

The intelligent reader will look at the lead, identify what they want to know (side-effects to paracetamol) and skip the chemistry bit to go straight to the adverse events bit.

Compare it to writing an article about a disease where we skip over the clinical characteristics ("signs and symptoms") and go straight to the diagnosis and treatment, because the average reader has already heard about the disease (because they've met a patient, because they've received the diagnosis etc) and wants to know how it is diagnosed and treated. We cannot completely compromise the logical sequence to satisfy people's reading habits.JFW | T@lk 19:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

All drugs have know uses or else they are not drugs. All drugs do not have a know mechanism of action. This argument seem similar to saying we should put the pathophysiology of diseases first because unless we know the mechanism of the disease we cannot understand its symptoms. We have a whole specialty of diseases (psychiatry) where the cause / pathophysiology is unknown yet the symptoms are well described. We have whole classes of medications (SSRIs) which we know some about there effectiveness but know little exactly how they work ( as we do not have the pathophysiology of the disease ). Thus I do not support this arrangement. Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 20:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Exceptions proving the rule?JFW | T@lk 20:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A logical presentation is not a "how does it work?", rather a "how does this affect me?" Sure, the intelligent and educated reader will know how to use the article, but the whole point of a general reference work is that the reader is assumed to be uneducated and they are reading the article in an attempt to fix that. If they knew it all already, they wouldn't need Wikipedia. SDY (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the first question for a typical reader is "What, if anything, is it good for?" (that is, Why should I spend my precious time reading the rest of this article?), rather than "How do you make it?" or "How does it work?"

The typical patient probably doesn't care how it's made, but the typical reader isn't a patient, and might be interested—but only if he's decided to finish reading the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

A brief mention of the relevant physical properties and synthesis is important early, even in pharmacology articles. In some cases getting the synthesis might be a bit of a pain, though. As a whole, I think that the order that JFW proposes is reasonable. Shanata (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is it "important early". What reason do you give, other then perhaps a personal interest? The comparisons with disease articles, as Doc James points out, quite useful. Let me quoteWP:WEIGHT: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements... in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public" (my emphasis). The overwhelming literature on a marketed drug concerns its use for and effects on the person. Virtually nobody needs to know how to synthesise the drug other than pharmacy students. As far as the general public is concerned, the only relevant parts of synthesis are issues like patent protection, cost, purity, volume -- and I've yet to read a drug article that tackles those in that section. I'm all for making these sections as readable and interesting as possible for the general reader, but it is not possible to change the relevance of a section: the relevance is something the reader brings to the article. Most readers will not find these sections particularly relevant and their difficulty will be a major turn off early in the article. Colin°^Talk 07:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Colin, can I suggest you assume good faith when addressing Shanata's points?

As I have tried to explain earlier, the logical flow of an article would be lopsided if we jumped straight to indications. It makes discussions about the mechanism of action and side-effects very difficult to contextualise. If the sections on synthesis and basic pharmacology are too turgid for the general reader, they need editing to make them readable, not moving.JFW | T@lk 09:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing bad faith about my comments, JFW; I think you misread. Shanata said these aspects were important early, but gave no reason. There are lots of aspects of drugs we might personally find interesting, or even important, but what about our readership. Perhaps Shanata has a good reason. I undestand your point about "logical flow" but disagree, so do many folk here. There are several ways of tackling an article on drugs, each with some merits, but this seems to be the least desirable for anything other than a academic textbook on pharmacy. Is there drug article that follows your suggested order and that would not be improved by changing to move the chemistry and pharmacology towards the end?

Drugs are clinical entites and it is the clinical aspects the matter most about a drug. The occasional serious side-effect of some drugs has been studied to the degree that we discover what aspect of the drug causes it, but I doubt there's a known pharmacological explanation for all the reported side effects like weight gain or sleeplessnes. What aspect of the chemical or pharmaceutical properties of vigabatrin make it a first-line choice for treating infantile spasms (esp with tuberous sclerosis)? And was that drug withdrawn for nearly all other forms of epilepsy because someone discovered its serious side effect (blindness) when they analysed its chemical properties or studied it in a test tube? These properties were discovered clincially and experimentally on people. Colin°^Talk 12:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(←) Consensus seems to be so far that chemistry minutiae (such as physical properties and synthesis) are not that relevant for the general reader and are not required for context, and could perhaps be moved lower down. At the same time I strongly support Boghog in desiring the "mechanism of action" high up in the article.JFW | T@lk 10:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that for many drugs the actual synthesis is not that important, neither are e.g. a boiling point (though it is very important info for some drugs .. and the importance may even end up in the lede - and note that sometimes the melting point decides the form in which a drug has to be administered ...). Generally, the boiling point is just a mention somewhere in the infobox, and indeed, for some the synthesis could be moved down. But it is very dependent on specific cases. For certain drugs some physical properties or parts of the synthesis are a detrimental part of the story of the drug (racemic vs. enantiomerically pure, boiling point/melting point). Sometimes the source of the drug (if it is a natural product) is more of a key point then that it is also used as a high-profile drug - some plants make some alkaloids for a good reason, and that may be more important than the drug use. I am against the thought that we should define a standard order here. If it is for compounds which are very specific drugs, then yes, this is a good order, if it is something that has more functions (some compounds are more than just drugs ..) then the order may very well be that the drug part gets very low in it, way below synthesis and other important facts about the molecule. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The physical, chemical and pharmacutical properties need to be put into context for the reader. Why is a drug given by IV only, or the buccal route? Why must a drug be taken four times a day after meals rather than just once? Why should the patient avoid alcohol when taking the drug? Why does it need to be kept in the fridge? Merely stating the mollecular weight or half life or enzyme interactions on their own is trivia if we fail to supply a reason for telling the reader. We might include them in the drug box for completeness but we need to find a way to interest the reader in these sections. Colin°^Talk 12:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the infobox needs to state these in cold numbers, and all that needs explanation needs to have a part in the text as well. It is a 'quick find' place for everything (and some data which is not necessarily needed for the article itself, but may be interesting to a selected few can be there as well - but if the article states that it is not available in a compressed pill, because it is a liquid ... then having a melting point below RT and a boiling point above RT in the infobox both make sense .. (or it needs to be converted into a solid, etc. etc.). --Dirk Beetstra ^TC 13:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment from two chemists

The synthesis may often be unremarkable but it should still be included for completeness. These drugs do not appear out of thin air, afterall. They are manufactured via (usu.) chemical synthesis. If nothing, a brief mention followed by a reaction scheme is adequate. Especially for high-volume drugs, some production and/or consumption figures are relevant as well. Now from a first principles POV, the preparation of this compound should be at the top, right after properties (blue solid, green liquid). Only after you have the compound can you talk about it (as a drug, etc.), afterall. But if as many here have argued, the general public is really scared (why?) by the chemistry, then it should be a little lower down the article, despite it being an unsatisfactory solution. JFW put it well - all pharmaceuticals are chemicals. They really are. --Rifleman 82(talk) 17:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The topic of readability is super important. The lead paragraph could contain a few explanatory sentences, followed by "In technical terms, the [techie talk] ..." A similar approach could be taken with a select section or two.

In my experience, pharmacology articles excessively cite primary journals vs books and reviews. We have this same issue in the WikiChem, but the implications are not as great because our readers are not dosing themselves with our stuff as much as your readers are likely to do with yours.

Like Rifleman 82 above, I also think that an organic chemistry section is key, althought maybe it should be buried somewhat since organic chemistry is unlikely to be sought by your readers. Typically the section would describe molecular structure/stereochemistry and synthesis/production. I guess there could be a chembox there as well. In WikiProject Chemistry, we strive not to repeat chembox information in the text (i.e. melting points, solubility, etc).--Smokefoot (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A brief overview will be in the lead and a lot of data will be provided in the info box.Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 04:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Synthesis is not something that can be captured in an infobox. The infobox can contains some chemical data of the compound. Note that most of the money of a drug is not in its use, it is in its development - the (organic) synthesis. --Dirk Beetstra^TC 10:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Um. Most of the money is in the phase III trials. (That's why 100x500mg hydroxycarbamidecost about 200€, at least in Austria.) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops, well, still development. My mistake, knew that. --Dirk Beetstra^TC 13:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Article titles

Have come across the page Lithium pharmacology would this not be better at the title Lithium (medicine) as it is to discuss the medication aspects of lithium? Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 16:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. I'm neutral about medicine versus medication versus drug, as the word in parentheses.--Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Agree. Colin°^Talk 21:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Agree. I was interested to find that lithium salt redirects there also.JFW | T@lk 10:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

WT:PHARM Archive

James, I'm not really happy with the new layout of the archive box on top of this page. It provides less information than the old one, i.e. it doesn't give the year, and it isn't clear that the first archives are from WT:DRUGS. Could you say what advantages you see in the new design? Thanks,ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thought it was cleaner looking but undid that change.Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 06:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Jmol links from Drugboxes?

Hi, over at WP:CHEMS we're looking at the possibility of adding Jmol links (to an NIHserver) to allow readers to access manipulable 3D structures. I've also set up an IRC meeting on Tuesday, April 12th at 1500h UTC. Please join us, or leave comments over atWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#IRC_meeting_to_discuss_possible_addition_of_Jmol_links. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

New study on the reliability of articles about the top 20 drugs

A study titled "Reliability of Wikipedia as a medication information source for pharmacy students" (abstract) in this month's issue of the journal Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning found the quality of Wikipedia articles on the 20 most frequently prescribed drugs lacking, concluding

“ Wikipedia does not provide consistently accurate, complete, and referenced medication information. Pharmacy faculty should actively recommend against our students' use of Wikipedia for medication information and urge them to consult more credible drug information resources. ”

I haven't read the full article, but from the abstract it seems that like an earlier study, part of the criticism might be based on differing expectations on what information should be included in such articles ("Categories most frequently absent were drug interactions and medication use in breastfeeding"). However, it also concerns factual inaccuracies and the finding that "Referencing was poor across all articles, with seven of the 20 articles not supported by any references."

I will mention this in the Signpost; quotable comments from WikiProject members are welcome.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Were the authors of the study aware of WP:MEDICAL? That being said, we should take a more careful look at the article however I don't have access to it at the moment. Boghog (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to have the list of articles they reviewed. (I'd guess that they aren't too different from the Rx-only drugs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Popular pages, but it would be better to have the actual list.)

I'd have made a different recommendation to the students: to use Wikipedia for learning about the non-clinical aspects of a drug. True: we don't provide the extremely common lack-of-information statements like "It is not known if _____ is found in breast milk." But the authors' preferred sources don't provide information about the discovery, history, sales, or manufacturing, any of which might be just as interesting to a pharmacology student as whether the medication is excreted in breast milk. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The list is atorvastatin, lisinopril, amoxicillin, hydrochlorothiazide,atenolol, levothyroxine, alprazolam, metoprolol, furosemide, azithromycin,metformin, amlodipine, albuterol, escitalopram, esomeprazole, montelukast,ibuprofen, cephalexin, prednisone, and fluoxetine. Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 06:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Did they give the date on which they looked at the articles? I find multiplereliable sources in 20 out of 20 articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The "Methods" section of the article says "The Wikipedia articles titled with each medication name were accessed on a single day", but doesn't state that day. The only indication I could find is a remark elsewhere in the paper: "At the time this analysis was performed, authors were advised to avoid including 'detailed dosage and titration information' because it could be interpreted as medical advice, could differ across countries, or could be subject to editing by uninformed parties.10" That footnote says: "10. Wikipedia. Manual of Style (medication-related articles). Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title?Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)&direction=prev&oldid=138106419 Accessed January 4, 2011." The linked version of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)is from May 2007.

The "seven of the 20 articles not supported by any references" statement might just be sloppy wording though; it appears that only those parts of each article were scrutinized which corresponded to one of the "20 categories of information". From the "Methods" section: "Wikipedia articles were evaluated for the presence of each category, and for each category that was present, the information was designated as accurate (no discrepancies from FDA labeling), complete (contain all subcategories listed above), and referenced (fully, partially, or none)."

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

We could complain that Wikipedia articles are not written to given "patient information", and that therefore the study was misguided in comparing our articles "with information found in the manufacturer's package insert". The earlier paper (above) compared the articles with databases for professionals and was criticised for not considering "common questions that a patient or layperson might seek answers to." Since there is only partial overlap between the purpose of an encyclopaedia and the purpose of patient or professional publications, any such comparison should take care to eliminate unreasonable expectations. Many of the sections in a package insert should be covered by a comprehensive article, but some sections would be absent or relatively unimportant. Since we can't give specific medical advice, we avoid covering dosage or what to do if you experience ill effects. Practical details like keeping the packet out of reach of children or watching the expiry date aren't really encyclopaedic. Information specific to the branded formulation (what the tablet or powder looks or tastes like, what additional ingredients it contains) aren't relevant to an article on the actual drug; only a tiny number of brands are notable enough to have their own article.

However, I can't disagree with the conclusion. I wouldn't want my builder consulting Wikipedia for mixing mortar, never mind my pharmacist using a source any fool can edit. Our drug articles are generally poor. The ratio of knowledgeable active editors to the number of drug articles is simply too small. Any random IP can add their personal experience to the list of side effects or extend the trivia list of brand names. There's often little distinction drawn between established prescribing practice and experimental investigations. A bigger project might be expected to target its activities at vital articles, but with the numbers we have, we can only really expect editors to make a decent fist of a topic that personally interests them. We need more editors.Colin°^Talk 08:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes couldn't agree more. I guess the real question for us is why don't we have more pharmacists contributing... Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 17:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe because they're being warned off the site by their instructors, and being fed false (or at least seriously outdated) information, like a third of the major articles naming zero references. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I am particularly appalled at this: "the information was designated as accurate (no discrepancies from FDA labeling)". Please tell me other sources were used as comparators for appraisal of accuracy. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

From the abstract: "Package inserts, Micromedex Drugdex Evaluations, Clinical Pharmacology, and Lexi-Comp databases were used to verify accuracy, and completeness was evaluated by comparing article contents to package inserts alone."

Relying on package inserts alone for accuracy would be quite scary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Each of those mentioned may be preferable to use in certain cases (such as how-to details), but Wikipedia still offers additional aspects of drugs that other sources don't provide, and often in a more accurate and neutral point of view than others. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost article, with some additional quotes from the study and the above discussion, ishere. Regards, HaeB(talk) 12:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Its entry in article mainspace is currently at the bottom of Reliability of Wikipedia#Science and medicine peer reviewed data. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Drugbox/Chembox merger vs. two infoboxes

Could an uninvolved admin close the discussion at Template talk:Drugbox#Drugbox/Chembox merger vs. two infoboxes? I think the outcome is pretty clear, but I'd prefer it the formal way – this question (or similar ones) has been brought up quite often, and never led to anything. We really should start doing things this time. Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should have an admin closing it with a final decision from the pharmacology project. Mikael Häggström (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Changes

This IP is making a bunch of changes to the chemical structures of drug articlesSpecial:Contributions/82.95.217.180 are they improvements? Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 19:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The changes are obviously a lot more erudite than vandalism would be. Evaluating them really requires an organic chemist, so you might do better to ask at WT:CHEMS.--Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are improvements. Could use some help with the formatting, though. An easy way to check the accuracy of IUPAC name changes is to compare the new version against the verified IUPAC name present in the compound's ChemSpider entry.Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggested making separate templates of drugboxes

I suggested in Template talk:Drugbox that drugboxes could be made separate templates in order to make it easier to newcomers to edit, without being overwhelmed by daunting wiki-syntax at the beginning of articles. More comments over thereare appreciated. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

sounds reasonable.--Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 03:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Drug Box question

(sorry -- thought this was listing new at the top)

Why does the DrugBox return external links to eMolecules & PubChem instead of actually giving us the SMILES string? It seems to me that these links are valuable, but they aren't the SMILES string.

Hansonrstolaf (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be a technical problem. There is code to display of the SMILES strings in the drugbox, but it is commented out with the explanation "exluded until it is clear how we can use a nowiki-tag for template replacements". Apparently special characters in smiles strings such as bracket are messing up the display of the SMILES string. Boghog (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Creating a medication box for classifications of medications

Currently we do not have a drugbox which provides a quick overview of classes of medications for example SSRIs and NSAIDs. Should we discuss creating one? Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 05:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting idea. What would go into such a box? One entry would be the ATC code ( eg.N06AB (WHO) for SSRIs) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

We have the MESH ID http://www.nlm.nih.gov/cgi/mesh/2011/MB_cgi Still have some thinking to do on this one though. --Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 09:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

What about an entry telling people about the use(s) of the drug group? (Antidepressive, Antihypertensive/Blood pressure lowering etc) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes agree. Would be good. Doc James(talk · contribs ·email) 09:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Have started the creation of said template here Template_talk:Drugclassbox help appreciated... Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 09:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

A working {{Drugclassbox}} template is now available for use. Boghog(talk) 16:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed changes to drugbox

A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ukrain

The new article Ukrain may need attention from an expert. It has few references and it has some of the hallmarks of fringe medicine. It apparently has been deleted before. Deli nk (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. I've tagged it in an AGF that maybe someone can come up with evidence to the contrary, but if nothing comes along soon, I'll propose merging it to Chelidonium.--Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Drug Box on Belomycin

(If this is the wrong forum for this, feel free to move it to the correct forum ! )
I just made a cosmetic change on the drug box for Bleomycin , as I've never worked with a drug box before I've left a note over there On the talk page. Feel free to take a look, and if I've botched it up, feel free to change it and let me know where I erred. Thanks
KoshVorlon' _Nal^uboutes_Aeria ^Gloris 18:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Reposting from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Regards, RJH(talk) 15:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This is about a drugbox formatting/display problem; technically minded people might want to take a look. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnstars

Since members of this project frequently work on articles that are also within the scope of other projects, I think it appropriate to list the maximum number of barnstars that might be relevant, so as to maximize our choices when we're awarding them. In addition to the "Medicine" barnstar (which is to be awarded to people working on medicine-related articles, not just by or to members of WPMED), I'd add the Chemistry barnstars. It might be fun to have a pharm-specific one, too, if someone has ideas about what image would look nice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd strongly oppose adding to more confusion by listing every single barnstar on this group's page that might be relevant to this project; which is the primary reason I just deleted the WikiProject Medicine barnstar (specific to that project and awarded by that project, not this one). I have no problem with a couple of non-project specific barnstars that could apply across multiple projects and article categories, though. I would strongly support the idea of developing a WikiProject Pharmacology barnstar. It would be good to have something that could be awarded for outstanding work specifically on pharmacology and drug-related articles.WTF? (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Would support your development of said barnstar. Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 21:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't/didn't we have a barnstar that is a bird's eye view of an acetylcholine receptor? That would be an appropriate image :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

WTF, you seem to believe that WPMED "owns" that barnstar and only "members" should award it. Nothing could be further from the truth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Created {{The Pharmacology Barnstar}}. An alternative image would be File:PDB 1oed EBI.jpg, but I like the present one better. Thanks for the ACh receptor suggestion, Fv!--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Category for failed therapeutics?

I ran across Gavilimomab today. I find no indication that the drug is under development, ever approved, etc.: it appears to have been quietly abandoned when Amgen acquired Abgenix in 2006 (shortly before publication of negative efficacy results).

It is currently categorized as follows:

• Category:Drugs not assigned an ATC code
• Category:Cancer treatments
• Category:Monoclonal antibody stubs
• Category:Antineoplastic and immunomodulating drug stubs

I can't find a cat for "Didn't work, so we dumped it", but there are presumably many such "notable" failures out there. Does anyone have any recommendations for (1) reliably determining that an experimental therapeutic really has been abandoned or (2) how to cat such pages? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Send to AFD, as never of investigational or therapeutic relevance? (Seriously!)JFW | T@lk 21:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

AfD occurs to me too. Do we have a notability guideline that applies here? I would, however, say that a WP:RS is needed for us to conclude that a compound has, in fact, been abandoned. It's not enough for editors to make an inference from absence. I also wonder whether there ought to be a category for notable discredited therapeutics. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It clearly doesn't meet any deletion criteria atWikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion. To delete it, we would have to implement new policy. And I don't think we should. Even if it is a dead-end, what could be more useful than clearly explaining a dead end? --Arcadian (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

With a hundred hits in Google scholar and five papers at PubMed, I have no reasonable expectation of success at an AFD. Even if this one did (and I'm kind of with Arcadian on whether we should), there are lots of these out there, and some of them have even more sources.

I don't know that we'll be able to find a solid source claiming that its' been abandoned. We might find something in a press release or financial report.

We have Category:Experimental medical treatments, which is IMO appropriate for any therapeutic that's being actively investigated for a new indication (as well as experimental surgeries and the like), but I'd rather have something like Category:Unsuccessful experimental medications or Category:Experimental medications no longer being developed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Abandoned drugs may still live on as research tools. In addition, understanding why a drug failed may lead to more successful follow-up drug candidates. Unfortunately companies often don't disclose this information. But when they do, this data can be quite instructive.Boghog (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bog. Just because a drug has failed does not mean we should not cover it. Once notable always notable. Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 06:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention that sobe drugs are notable for their market withdrawal first and foremost.Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Drugs in Pregnancy

Here is a great book on medication in preg/lactation Yaffe, Gerald G. Briggs, Roger K. Freeman, Sumner J. Drugs in pregnancy and lactation : a reference guide to fetal and neonatal risk (9th ed. ed.). Philadelphia, Pa.: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 9781608317080. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) might be useful to update.--Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 02:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is the text on google books [6]Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 02:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Drugs versus chembox

Fluoxetine is a drug first and foremost. Thus should have a drugbox not a chem box. If a subject is primarily a drug it should have a drugbox. If it is primarily a chemical a chembox.Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 17:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree. There might be grey cases, but this is not one of them.JFW | T@lk 22:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been at this for years, but there has been quite a bit of discussion re. merging both or using chembox for all. I'm still a fervent supporter of the distinction, though—glad to see I'm not alone :) Even if it's just for aesthetic reasons—chembox has all the same fields, but don't tell anyone From a design standpoint, I think the Drugbox is much clearer to read and easier on the eyes. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

We want the information displayed in a different order depending on the main purpose of the chemical. If this is not possible when combined than we should not combine. Having all chemical boxes look like the current drugbox probably would not be approved anyway. Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 23:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

How do we go about fixing this? Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Like so :)Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Chemformula

{{Chemformula}} has been nominated for deletion.65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Change to many articles

Does anyone know what this is UNII_Ref? [7] Being added to a few hundred article by a single user. Doc James (talk· contribs · email) 23:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That's me. The UNII is a code for defining substances. It's used by the FDA, NIH, Martindale, USP, and soon the EPA, primarily for defining food/drug/health related substances. We added a lot of the UNIIs as a first pass a while ago. I'm adding all the new ones that are linked to INN approved terms, but weren't originally caught. Note that the UNII is a part of the Drug and Chem box.Peryeat (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining.JFW | T@lk 06:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

CoI editing of pharma articles: The Signpost's report

Please see this week's In the news, towards the bottom. Any strategies? Tony (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

As long as they really disclose their WP:COI and adhere to other policies and guidelines (WP:ADVERT and WP:DUE spring to mind), I'd say it is okay. Question is, will they adhere?--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BESTCOI is a good page to link to if you suspect editors have a COI. From my experience any editors who did not disclose it would be pretty easy to spot - e.g. only adding content to one company's drugs / removing info about competitors / adding overly positive and poorly sourced information. I don't think it's really much to worry about, but if they can be taught to comply with our policies it could bring benefits to the project. SmartSE (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Pharma is a past master at seeking publicity through multifarious means, like infomercials on TV news and current affairs and the push-polling of medical practitioners. It's a creative art, and happens every day. Is there a check-list of things to look for in WP's pharma articles, along the lines of what Smartse has mentioned, but more fully? Tony (talk)15:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing that I know of, but we could expand on Smartse's examples. The bigger problem might be that we don't have enough editors to watch all the drug articles. --ἀνυπόδητος(talk) 16:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) This has reminded me about the dire straits that the mirtazapine article is in, in particular its very heavy promotion of unlicensed and unproven off-label uses using primary sources. Previously I and other members of this project did some work to try and make it more neutral but the majority of the good work has been undone.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, Anypodetos. The reason I started this thread is my (non-expert's) view that WP's pharma articles—often among the project's most reliable and balanced—do have the potential to damage on a personal level. I'm also aware that there's a google-funded project to translate some articles into the languages of areas that are poorly served by medical infrastructure.Tony (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course pharma articles can do personal damage if someone diagnoses and treats himself on the basis of Wikipedia (if that's what you meant). I doubt that our articles are among the most reliable -- many are in a really bad shape in my view -- but maybe that's only because this is the topic I know most about, and so errors and omissions in this field spring to the eye.

Literaturegeek's post is a good example of our problems with pharma companies, COI disclosure or not. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Since we're just having a discussion here, I'll throw in something that is arguably even further afield, but which strikes me as relevant. For very good reasons, Wikipedia sets strict standards for BLPs. From time to time, the question comes up as to whether we should do likewise for pages that have medical implications, and perhaps we are seeing a case in point here.--Tryptofish (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Do the BLP standards discourage (new) editors from improving these articles? Any studies of such an effect? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. The intention is to discourage defamation of living persons.--Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You all might like to read WP:MEDCOI, which addresses these issues directly and makes some recommendations. Also, some of you might want to go read the main COI guideline, because it doesn't say what you seem to think it says. For example, disclosing a COI is optional. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was under a wrong impression regarding COI. Thanks for telling me.--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

C?closporin?

There's a proposed page move at Talk:Ciclosporin#Moving_it_back_to_cyclosporine that people who watch this page might be able to help resolve. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Drugs.com links in drug infoboxes

A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome.Boghog (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Dectaflur: E or Z?

While PubChem[8] agrees withFile:Dectaflur.png, I suspect that the substance is produced from oleic acid / oleyl alcohol and should therefore be Z. Reliable sources, anyone? Thanks,ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Olaflur for DYK

Nominated Olaflur for DYK, just FYI. I'm a bit unsure about the chemical structure; seeWikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals#Amine hydrofluorides or ammonium fluorides?.--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Bot run for creating redirects to combination drugs from alternative INN sorting

e.g. Misoprostol/diclofenac -> Diclofenac/misoprostol. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PotatoBot 6. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Pentoxyverine for DYK

Nominated Pentoxyverine for DYK. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Bacteriostatic agents

Hello! We currently have two articles, Bacteriostat and Bacteriostatic agent, both apparently about the same subject, and neither of which have any supporting cites. I'd greatly appreciate it if someone knowledgeable could have a look at these, for fact-checking and possible merging. -- The Anome (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they should certainly be merged into a single page, and then given some editing. I don't have time, but you or someone should create a merge discussion on one of the talk pages, and fix the merge templates to direct the discussion to the right place. --Tryptofish(talk) 19:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That may be a bit more complicated (or am I complicating things?) – see Talk:Bacteriostatic agent#Merge discussion. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you did it just right. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I meant the question whether they should be merged, not the creation of the merge discussion :-))) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Soapboxing at Gabapentin?

Hi, requesting that someone better versed than I take a look at what seems to be in part anti-manufacturer soapboxing at Gabapentin by JaguDorje (talk · contribs). --CliffC(talk)

Agree need more eyes. He makes some valid points but is not within guidelines.Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 19:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

ATC code additions

An IP added a number of ATC codes to the lists [9] [10] that seem to be neither in the index nor in the 2012 update list. I suppose they are discontinued/changed codes, seeing that they are in "holes" in the numbering, but I would like to have a second pair of eyes on this before I revert. Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

They do seem to be a part of the 2010 list (follow the links to the respective drug articles and then from the drugboxes to the external ATC site (see for example edrecolomab or basiliximab). Boghog (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This leads (for edrecolomab) to L01XC01 (WHO), while the code added to the list is L03AX06 (WHO). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, now I see what you mean. Basiliximab is listed under ATC_code_L01 so the codes added by the IP do seem to be in error. Boghog (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, reverted now. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Signaltransduction-stub for deletion

Nominated {{signaltransduction-stub}} for deletion. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Assistance please: would someone look over some contributions?

Hello. I've noticed a user making lots of edits to pharma related links. I don't know what to make of them. Can someone check that the contributions are OK and not mischievous or misguided please? --bodnotbod (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

They look good. Fixing names to match INN. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for professional writers writing WP drug articles

Members of this project may be interested in the proposal made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Good practice procedure for Wikipedia medicine articles. -- Colin°^Talk 12:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess we will see if this results in anything.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Caffeine FAR

I have nominated Caffeine for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Merging drugbox into chembox: take 2

A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Discovery and Development of Renin Inhibitors

Another "Discovery and development of ..." article: Discovery and Development of Renin Inhibitors, which has been tagged for review. I haven't got the time at the moment, but maybe someone else can have a look? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

List of plants used as medicine

We can use a lot more eyes to watch over List of plants used as medicine, especially as far as sourcing of medical claims is concerned. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Large navboxes

Some of the navboxes in Category:Drug templates by receptor, channel, or pump‎ are definitely too large to be of much use in this form. Some have also large numbers of redlinks; see for example {{Opioids}}. I propose moving their content to lists (List of serotonergics etc.) and restrict the templates to the most important substances – for example, include only those that are marketed somewhere, plus widely used illegal drugs. Thoughts? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that these are way too large to be useful (one should quickly be able to spot the articles own entry in the navbox so that one can easily locate the most closely related entries). One possible solution is to divide the navbox into individually collapsable subsection and by default, only display the relevant subsection in articles that transclude these templates (see for example {{Transcription factors and intracellular receptors}} and {{Ion channels}}). Boghog (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In addition, I would support removing most if not all red links. These are supposed to be navboxes and there is no point including a red link if there is nothing to navigate to. The red links should be restricted to lists. Also compounds that never made into clinic probably should be removed unless they are unusually notable research tools. Boghog (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

See List of opioids which I copied from the navbox. (It is linked from the bottom of the box.) The navbox needs more pruning to become useful. Thoughts about the list? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The new list looks good. I've put it on my watchlist. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Another one: List of dopaminergics. The corresponding templates need heavy pruning. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

El3ctr0nika opposed pruning of these templates and moving the full contents to list on his talk page (User talk:El3ctr0nika#Lists of drugs by receptor affinity). I still think the navboxes are too large to be useful, but more input would be welcome to find a consensus. Thanks. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The relevant guideline's view on this topic is: "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use." --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think many of the templates mentioned above because of their size definitely fall in the "hard to read and use" category. Hence I think pruning of many of these navboxes is in order. However I think the need to trim {{dopaminergics}} is less urgent since it makes use of collapsible subsections. Boghog (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, they are too large to be useful. Especially when they are being used to replace much smaller, more focused templates developed as part of {{Medicine navs}}. When a 23 line overview like Estrogens and progestogens becomes two templates {{estrogenics}} and {{progestogenics}}, each of which takes 2-3 screens, this is just overwhelming.

1. Red links are discouraged on navigation templates, (Wikipedia:Red link, Wikipedia:Navigation templates) The red links should be removed until articles are created.
2. Some of the subsection titles are too technical. With sections headings like "20,22-Desmolase" one might just as well not divide it at all, as far as the average reader is concerned.

Collapsing is not a total solution, some browsers do not support it. Also, assuming that navboxes will be collapsed at the bottom is not always true, some web browsers show all templates expanded all the time. There are also people who use slow connections, or have to pay for their bandwidth. They will not thank us for tons of unneeded links, especially those to articles that do not even exist. Zodon (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Psilocybin ...

... is a high-importance article for the Pharmacology WikiProject. I'd like to bring it to FAC status, and have opened a peer review here. I welcome any comments/criticisms/advice that would help make the article better. Thanks! Sasata (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:1,4-diazepans

Category:1,4-diazepans has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Vitamin K dosing

Vitamin K#Vitamin K2 (MK4) and bone health states that 45 mg/d (sic) of vitamin K2 were used for the treatment of osteoporosis in the study PMID 15664003, which also says milligrams. Can anyone verify whether this isn't a typo and should be µg? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It is correct, 15 mg three times daily. [Glakay prescribing information]Alfaschz (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and the link! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

New study on the quality of articles about statins

A new article in the Journal of the Medical Library Association assesses the quality of five Wikipedia articles on statins: "Accuracy and completeness of drug information in Wikipedia: an assessment"

Similar to an earlier study that I (HaeB) noted above some months ago, we would like to feature a review or summary of this article in the upcoming issue of the monthly Wikimedia Research Newsletter, which doubles as the "Recent research" section of the Signpost. Is there anyone who would like provide such a review? The issue is going to be published on Monday, and until Sunday evening (UTC) additions are welcome to the draft page at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-10-31/Recent research (also for other papers listed there). Check the previous issues to get an idea of the format.

Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up... I found it interesting that they faulted Wikipedia for not discussing other treatment options. These are pages about medications not the complete management of individual conditions. We have other pages that deal with that in detail. But it is a good point expecially for statins. We should discuss that these are only to be used after other measures have failed. Will fix this :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Pharmacology class to hopefully come and edit

There is a pharmacology class who may be improving Wikipedia as a classroom assignment. I will give people here a heads up when things are finalized. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Vitamin D

I have recently replaced a bunch of primary research studies with reviews at Vitamin D. Could people come comment on these changes. Thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

nab-paclitaxel vs Protein-bound paclitaxel vs Abraxane

Not sure what the official status is, but nab-paclitaxel seems a bit more widespread as generic name than protein-bound paclitaxel, should not the article be renamed? Richiez (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

Doc James has proposed to change our Top level criteria (Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Assessment#Importance scale) to "Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to pharmacology. Strong interest from non-professionals around the world. Usually a large subject with many associated sub-articles. Less than 1% of pharmacy-related articles achieve this rating." I agree that the current criteria are sub-optimal, especially as they wrongly assume that only drugs and drug classes have WP:PHARM articles. Thoughts? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Wondering if we should have an "assessment department"? Publications are looking at how we categorize both by importance and by quality thus we should try our best to keep things reasonable and applicable to our audience. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree the criteria for top-level importance should be tweaked, and many of the current members should be rerated down a level or two. Aiming for > 1% of the wikiproject's total # of articles sounds about right. Sasata (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

How about we put in place something more similar to what is at WP:MED? [11] It spells out what to do for template etc. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, before I saw this thread, I modified two of the reassessments Doc James had made (Receptor (biochemistry) and Neuropharmacology). I think part of the issue can be resolved by recognizing that there is a "high importance" level, below "top importance", but above "mid importance". Also, it seems to me that the assessments ought, properly, to be relatively trivial tools used internally by WikiProject editors to help determine where editing might be needed. It's a misunderstanding for external publications to seize upon these rankings as though they were some sort of cosmic indicator of whether, for example, one drug is more important than another in Wikipedia's exalted opinion. Of course it's an understandable misunderstanding, and we can't stop them from doing it. But that doesn't mean we should take marching orders from them either. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

When we determine importance however we should IMO base this on how important our readership would consider a topic rather than how important we as either physician/pharmacists/research scientists consider it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it's hard to find fault with that. But I can remember lots of times when I've seen IP comments on talk pages saying "I can't believe X isn't top importance! You only have it as mid importance! How can you say this isn't more important!" I guess I'd say that we should direct our editing efforts with an eye to what our readership cares about, and that our internal rankings should reflect that. And, anyway, these assessments are only inside baseball, not something that matters anywhere near as much as the content itself. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

True agree. With respect to top importance article I see these being primarily drug classes like SSRIs and atypical antipsychotics as well as common meds like ASA and nitroglycerin. Things of world wide significance as well as clinical importance. Here we have a list of the top 20 meds [12]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

One way to defuse that is to rename "importance" to "priority". People are generally less offended by "This subject is not my first priority" than by "This subject is not important". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This would be a Wikipedia wide change. (It needs modifying {{WPBannerMeta}}, for a start.) I think it's a good idea and would support it. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Same here I think it would deal with a lot of the confusion.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Chemical structure mass deletion

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011_November_27#All_files_in_category_Unclassified_Chemical_Structures might interest some of you. I haven't really made sense of it myself. On the one hand, some people seem to be saying that these are all low-quality images for which better ones exist, and on the other hand, someone is talking about how he'll eventually create high-quality versions of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Narcotics for discussion

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 30#Category:Narcotics. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding the drug box to vitamins

Should we do this and is there any reason why it is not already done? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Which ones exactly? Vitamin E and vitamin K are about groups of chemicals with vitamin E/K activity, and the other pages I've checked to have drug-/chemboxes. If you find any missing ones, please feel free to add them. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Those and vitamin D. We have created a box for families of chemicals as seen here SSRI--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Yes, I guess those vitamins would qualify as drug classes and could profit from {{drugclassbox}}es. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Marking all Essential meds as Top Importance

I propose that all medications that are listed here by the WHO be listed as top importance. List_of_World_Health_Organization_Essential_Medicines Comments? They add up to about 350 in total. [13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree. JFW | T@lk 06:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the Pharmacology Assessment Scale, major classes of drugs (e.g., penicillin) should be listed as top importance while major individual drugs are listed as high importance (benzylpenicillin, the "gold standard" penicillin). If there are many commonly prescribed individual drugs within a class, they should be listed as mid importance. Hence I would support listing most of the drugs on the Who list as high importance while some (e.g., individual beta lactam antibiotics) should be list as mid importance since there are many on this list within this class. Boghog (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes so I am proposing we alter the assessment scale. We currently have 127 top importance articles [14] of which may such as NNT would not be of world wide interest.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think the current assessment scale is sensible. An article about a class of drugs is inherently more important than any of the individual drugs within the class. The top importance rating should be reserved for only the most important articles (e.g., drug classes, fundamental pharmacology concepts, etc.) whereas the high importance rating is appropriate for individual drugs that are widely prescribed. Boghog (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• I would agree however that Number needed to treat (NNT) is probably not of top importance. Boghog (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Pharmacology is defined as the study of drug action. Hence the scope of this project is wider than the sum of individual drugs. Furthermore the vast majority of drugs have analogs that work though essentially the same mechanism of action and consequently drugs within the same class are often interchangeable. Hence the importance of any one drug within in a class, no matter how widely it is prescribed, is less than the drug class. Boghog (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• While we are at it, I also think it is important to agree on what constitutes a core pharmacology topic. For example, concepts such as pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, ADME, and receptor IMHO are fundamental to pharmacology and therefore should be rated as top importance. Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Can’t agree more; you took the words right out of my mouth. ;-) Alfie↑↓© 01:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I missed reading the assessment discussion above which is obviously very relevant to this thread. I largely agree with the proposed changes to the "top level criteria" with the following observations and caveats:

• Strong interest from non-professionals around the world. – I would hope that core topics such as pharmacokinetics (what the body does to the drug) and pharmacodynamics (what the drug does to the body) would be of strong interest to non-professionals as well as professionals. However if this wording were used to exclude rating pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics as top importance articles, then the wording needs to be changed so that the interests of both professionals and non-professionals are taken into account.
• Usually a large subject with many associated sub-articles. – This wording implies that drug classes but not individual drugs should be listed as top importance.
• Less than 1% of pharmacy-related articles achieve this rating. – There are currently ~ 7800 articles in the pharmacology articles. The 350 WHO Essential Medicines list represents (350/7800)*100 = ~4% of the pharmacology articles. Hence even rating a fraction of this list as top importance would seem to be excessive.

To reiterate, I think the drugs on WHO Essential Medicines list are very important, but for the reasons stated above, I think they are more appropriately rated as "high" instead of "top" importance. Boghog (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)