Talk:4-Chlorokynurenine

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 4-Chlorokynurenine article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Pharmacology Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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.

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 4-Chlorokynurenine.

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

competing articles

Dear Medgirl131, It appears that we were trying to upload very similar pages on 4-Chlorokynurenine, and the yours was "approved" first. I'd like to discuss with you about merging the information from both pages. What are your thoughts? GC2013 (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sources

just checked pubmed and there is one review. here is the search. The ref is PMID 22939820. I just read that and found no discussion of this compound there (happy to provide it to anybody who wants to see for themselves and can't access it).

On their website Vistagen identifies this review - PMID 26854424 - and I checked that and it does have a very brief discussion of this drug candidate. So we have one MEDRS/SCIRS source we can use to generate content. Whew. Almost all the content about the drug candidate's activity needs to be reduced in WEIGHT - we don't write content about health and science based on primary sources like this. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

also dug up PMID 23237916. (which was already here)... found a few others.. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews:

were cited in this article, but they don't mention this chemical. The use of PMID 25954495 was particularly egregiously bad as it was used to support content about the activity of this compound. Jytdog (talk) 05:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]