Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/General/Main sections of drug page

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

I thought we'd come to some sort of consensus on the overall layout before discussing the details. A sample page at carbachol gives a good idea of the type of layout I'm imagining. Matt 16:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I object to the "patient info" section. Wikipedia should not attempt to give medical advice. Fuzzform 20:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standardization of drug pages[edit]

(Moved from User_talk:Fuzzform)

Thank you for your feedback on my proposal. My proposal (which I made a long time ago and have since forgotten about) was an initial brainstorm and there's certainly a lot of room for improvement. I've looked over the diazepam page and it looks good, I'll offer a couple of suggestions. Looking over the structure of the document it occurs to me that maybe we could put all cautions in one section, make contraindications, risk for abuse, withdrawl, drug interactions, and overdose all second level headings under a first level heading of "Risks" or "precautions". Also maybe merge the indications and dosages into one section and converted to prose. e.g. "Diazepam is used to treat insomnia, usually 2 to 10 mg is given at bedtime depending on severity of the insomnia. Usually it's a first line drug for insomnia, if it isn't effective on it's own, then second line drugs include...". The use of bold for "Diazepam may impair the ability to drive vehicles or operate machinery" is questionable, I appreciate that you want to bring attention to the information, but that might not be appropriate style for an encyclopedia.

With regards to 'medical advice', I both agree and disagree with you. It's not the role of an encyclopedia to give advice, but rather information. For example; in the current article it says that general recommendations for Tx of insomnia are 2-10mg PO@HS (Dosages section). This is information, and it's good, even though some might call it advice, but it's any person's responsibility to decide for themselves what information to use when deciding their drug doses (if they choose Wikipedia over their physician's advice, good luck to them). However; it also says "After continued therapy in excess of a few weeks, diazepam should never be stopped abruptly, but withdrawn gradually." (emphasis added). This is advice, and a better wording would be "if diazepam is stopped abruptly, then X will happen." Though this is really a small detail I think.

For the 'patient info' section, what I was probably thinking at the time was that there's a lot of technical information that the average lay person doesn't want to read and will have difficulty understanding (pharmicodynamics, pharmicokinetics, and veterinary uses for example). Considering the needs of the reader, the type of information that an average consumer will be looking for should as much as possible be in one place (not scattered throughout the article) and should be readable to the average person (minimizing technical jargon as much as possible). Though this shouldn't come at the expense of the technical information that a professional may be seeking. Perhaps 'patient info' isn't the right name for the section, or maybe it doesn't need to be one section, but the principle should be followed. I don't think that doing this will put WP at any greater legal risk than the information we have there now. This being said, looking over the article right now, it seems mostly readable to the lay person, so maybe such a section isn't needed.

On a slightly related note, as you're working on standardization of drug pages, I have recommended (I think I did anyway), that we take a heirarchal approach to drugs in the manner of the tree of life project (see Chordate taxobox) using the Anatomical_Therapeutic_Chemical_Classification_System (or similar classification system). So there would be an article on each drug, class of drug, or therapeutic purpose. There's problems with this idea, which is why I haven't pursued it, but if you're putting a lot of effort into things, maybe it's something you want to consider.

Anyway, thanks for the comments, ttyl Matt 21:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree; those sections logically belong together in one group. I'm not sure risks would be a good title, but perhaps "Precautions" or "Warnings" would be appropriate. I think we should keep the information about dosage in list form, as it is easier to read. But as for the incomplete sentences, they may need to be changed. Also, I agree that that text about warnings may not be necessary, but thats the way I found it, and I decided to leave it for the time being.
I agree that articles shouldn't be too technical for the average person to understand. Thats why when writing an article, you assume that the person who is going to be reading it knows nothing about the subject. That is a semantically loaded term, and covers the same things expressed in the other sections anyway. As for that small detail you pointed out, I agree, it should be reworded. Fuzzform 01:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sections[edit]

  • I'd prefer "Indications" be renamed "Indications and Usage". This section covers not just what it treats but how it is used.
  • I'd prefer "Dosage" be renamed "Dosage and Administration". This section can include the formulations available.
  • I've added a few points to the article.
  • I've changed the External Links and References bit. Wikipedia has plenty help pages and templates for getting the references bit right. I'm personally a fan of the templates and am happy to leave the formatting up to other folk.
  • I don't think External Links are essential, whereas the References are. I think possibly Wikipedia guidlines have the External Links after the References.

It would be good if we can produce a list of trusted drug resources. Here are some that I have used:

--Colin 22:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dosage and Administration[edit]

By formulations, do you mean specific brand names, generic names, combinations, or all of the aforementioned? Incidentally, the word "formulation" is usually only used in regards to baby food here in the U.S. (this difference in linguistic connotation reminds me of the time one of my English relatives was visiting - she thought the "Thicky Settled" sign was hilarious). Fuzzform 04:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no pharmacist so perhaps someone else could supply the word or phrase that is commonly used when discussing the form that medicines come in. I was using it to imply both the full ingredient list and whether it was one of:

  • Tablets
  • Crushable tablets
  • Capsules (containing powder, gel or sprinkle beads)
  • Enteric-coated or slow-release tablets/capsules
  • Syrup
  • Sugar-free liquid
  • Powder (soluble or for suspension)

Those are just some of the oral-administration formulations that I can think of.

I understand that many generics are designed (required?) to have the same specifications as the original drug. If they don't then they can't be substituted freely. However, for over-the-counter medecines, the extra or inactive ingredients could vary considerably: witness the wide variety of painkiller tablets and syrups. Some claim to take effect more quickly due to their manufactuer's proprietary formulation.

The section title "Dosage and Administration" is borrowed from most drug sheets. The "Administration" bit is important – you don't use diazepam tablets to treat status epilepticus --Colin 09:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology/General/Main_sections_of_drug_page&oldid=117122814"