Talk:Bimatoprost

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pharmacology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemicals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fashion

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Bimatoprost.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 07:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since reassessed to Start-class. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Lumigan

I have performed the merge as requested. The article could use some restructuring and toning-down of some text that may be construed as medical advice. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latisse Pricing

Latisse has been an amazing product - but pricing has been quite varied. The company is wholesaling to physicians at $72 per vial. Reputable online physician's offices like [www.latisse.bz] have put themselves in the leader of the pack by offering latisse at $89 per vial. The sites must be physician driven and physician involved www.latisse.bz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.58.29 (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanism of Action?

Hey, so does anyone know how this drug works? If so it would be awesome if someone could fill that in. I can do some research but it could take a while... Thanks, Leftwing (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serious concern over lack of critical information, and consequent bias

This article focuses almost entirely on a purely cosmetic extension in the approved use of this drug. A single sentence appears on the therapeutic indication which originally brought this complicated drug to market. This article should, for sake of balance, be immediately reduced to a short article, leading with 1-2 sentences on the original clinical indication and it details, followed then by a sentence on the cosmetic and by a sentence on the recent further observations relating to adipose. It should remain short and balanced, until editors have time to spend to restructure and improve the nearly entirely absent and critically important apsects of the drug's orignal primary therapeutic indications, its development history, its synthesis and formulation, and its contraindications and off-target effects. Until then, it is an improper article for any quality encyclopedia. Prof D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meduban (talk • contribs) 02:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. Its primary medical purpose for glaucoma treatment has been barely described. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.49.89.233 (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and it looks like any concerns tagged on the actual article have subsequently been removed presumably by Allegran, it looks like they wrote most of the article.  Have tagged with multiple issues but for some reason it hasn't tagged properly sorrysorrysorry I typed out the tags exactly and double checked them before posting edit but for some reason it has not visually translated the way it has on every other article I've ever edited.  V. concerned at this article's existence and the fact that by the look of it it just keeps getting reverted to an advert for Latisse rather than an article on the active ingredient, which is barely discussed.  Dr Adams 6-7-15.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.27.22 (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How it works

"Bimatoprost reduces intraocular pressure in man by increasing aqueous humour outflow through the trabecular meshwork and enhancing uveoscleral outflow."[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to work with you, but please do not revert me until we have sorted stuff out via talk. If you had followed the link through which I provided you would have come to footnote 13 which was a link to the FDA product label. That label says it is THOUGHT that the action of the drug is such and such. So it appears we have 2 sources claiming different things. One claims a fact and the other claims a supposition. I prefer the FDA source to the Australian source and where there is doubt I think we should present the doubt, which I tried to do in my edit. Kelly222 (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]