Talk:Piracetam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chemical structure[edit]

The 3D model depicts the 2 oxygen atoms towards each other but MMFF95 calculations predict they repell each other and instead the nitrogen is attracted by the oxygen of the ring.

Simon de Danser (talk)

smart drugs[edit]

Shouldn't this article @ least mention that piracetam is 1 of what r called "smart drugs",/if I'm not mistaken, 1 of the main 1s. I think I'm saying something similar to the editor of the previous heading on this talk page (Document Hippo, / Issues With the Article, respectively)Slarty1 (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please post Cochrane Studies to confirm. 2603:6000:D700:194D:194B:C354:1DE1:8FBB (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS[edit]

@205.178.116.169: On your Talk page you'll find an introduction to editing medical topics on Wikipedia. You are adding content with is not sourced to reliable WP:MEDRS sources - please don't. Alexbrn (talk) 06:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it looks like this individual is engaging an edit war. FWIW, at a glance, the sources look okay to me, though this person appears to be adding an inappropriate, overly promotional tone to the article. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I've checked (bare URLs are used) have been primary so failing WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heavily biased introduction, questionable motives[edit]

I take issue with the phrasing here: "Piracetam is a drug marketed as a treatment for myoclonus[3] and a cognitive enhancer.[4] Evidence to support its use is unclear, with some studies showing modest benefits in specific populations and others showing minimal or no benefit.[5][6]"

If you recognize Piracetam as a "cognitive enhancer" (note: nootropic), then how can you equate its use to "modest".."no benefit" when that only applies under certain circumstances? This is an incredibly bold, and to an extent manipulative introduction to a historical drug used for decades, and its efficacy is a debate yes, but a debate implies two sides!

There is evidence of it improving cognition in the healthy in addition to "specific populations", but first and foremost we should address the valid concern with your blinding approach that Potassium deficiency or impotent, low doses could certainly render it ineffective.

A few studies I quickly found on it improving cognition in healthy people: [1] [2] The potassium deficiency argument: [3] The dose-dependence argument: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

References

  1. ^ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/826948/
  2. ^ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/785952/
  3. ^ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1314083/
  4. ^ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8272204/
  5. ^ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9527146/
  6. ^ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10555876/
  7. ^ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8177925/
  8. ^ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8457235/

Is this article a hit piece? So counter-productive to the flow of information I thought Wikipedia stood to protect. Disappointed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirsadalot (talk • contribs) 08:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked your first two links, but they were primary research. Please see WP:MEDRS for guidance on sources the English Wikipedia finds viable for medical content. Alexbrn (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I see no issue with primary sources in that context. Non-prescription substance use in healthy individuals doesn't seem as though it pertains to medical content (as I believe that implies treatment), but I digress. I came here only to talk about the narrative of your opening statement... I think it deserves to be worded with more specificity. Sirsadalot (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article's text has over six hundred editors, and the WP:LEDE is just meant to summarize the body. All WP:Biomedical information on the English Wikipedia is covered by WP:MEDRS, and that includes any effect piracetam might have . Alexbrn (talk) 08:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then let me elaborate further. Your WP:LEDE neither accurately summarizes the body nor the generalized application of Piracetam. So I propose an edit to your leading statement to appear as un-biased: "Piracetam is a drug marketed as a treatment for myoclonus[3] and a cognitive enhancer.[4] Evidence to support its use in the cognitively impaired is unclear, with some studies showing minimal to no benefit.[5][6] This may be due to dose-dependent effects and aldosterone malfunction in these populations.[sourcing]" Sirsadalot (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, primary sources on pubmed are NOT appropriate to use as sources for content here. This is clearly and explicitly stated at WP:MEDRS. You're as free as anyone else to use reliable secondary sources that conform to WP:MEDRS, just be sure to avoid WP:SYNTH. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn@Global Cerebral Ischemia@Sirsadalot: The article states: "Evidence to support its use is unproven, with studies showing minimal or no benefit".

But our citation [5] states: "Its efficacy is documented in cognitive disorders and dementia, vertigo, cortical myoclonus, dyslexia, and sickle cell anemia." I am no scientist but it appears to me that the reference states the opposite of what Wikipedia is saying. Please explain. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we have "Piracetam reduces platelet aggregation as well as fibrinogen concentration, and thus is contraindicated to patients with cerebral haemorrhage.[5][3]"

...but again that appears to be contradicted, here [1] -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Piracetam&oldid=1207909883"