Talk:Amlexanox

Amlexanox was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 15, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

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 Amlexanox.

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

Expansion

This article may have some interesting information for expansion:

Bell J (2005). "Amlexanox for the treatment of recurrent aphthous ulcers". Clinical drug investigation. 25 (9): 555–66. PMID 17532700. Free full text —Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references meet WP:MEDRS requirements...

First 2 are blog article and third is primary source...Please follow WP:MEDRS Lesion (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Article completely sourced and rewritten now, going to submit it for GA because, why not! :) Zad68 19:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good job with this article, Lesion (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Amlexanox/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First impression is that this article is very brief for a GA; this is reinforced by the presence of Stub markers and the very short paragraphs on several sections, including Contraindications (less than one line), Adverse effects, History, Legal status, Economics, and Research. The article is not quite a stub, but rating it higher than C or perhaps B would not appear justified in its current state.

The technical coverage also appears at first sight to be rather shallow. Why, for example, are the effects on mast cells, basophils, and neutrophils not discussed at all? Its mechanism of action should certainly be discussed in more detail. In addition, what is known about the drug from its clinical trials? There's hardly anything there in the article, so on the face of it we have a quick fail here.

I am happy to wait a week for improvements to be made to the article, but these will have to be reasonably substantial to address these initial concerns. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick review! I'm actually a little curious about this process. I started to expand the article from a stub by grabbing all the WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary sources I could find, and when I got to the end of them, this is all there was. What happens in the case where there just simply aren't a ton of good sources? I've been doing TRIP Database and PUBMED searches for secondary sources like review articles and meta-analyses. Is my approach to finding sources wrong? Any help appreciated... Zad68 14:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything can become a good article; some topics just aren't known in enough detail to warrant it. If you are certain there are no other usable sources, that's all that can be said and we should close the GAN cycle now; however, I'd expect you could find reliable sources on the clinical trials, which must be published. As for a quick review, I have performed only brief preliminary checks and would expect to review a more finished article in more detail. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know "not everything can become a GA", that's interesting. The one article I found that (I believe) reviewed the clinical trials was Bell 2005, and someone helpfully inserted the entire text content of it into the article in this version. The review didn't seem to go into the mechanism of action, and it basically just stated "some tests were run, canker sores healed faster, the drug was absorbed into and excreted by the body". There was some discussion of safety testing in rats but what we need to cover is its safety in humans, which gets a brief mention as "well tolerated" in PubChem. You seem to know about pharmaceutical articles; do we normally refer directly to the primary studies? If you wouldn't mind helping point me in the direction of where I should be looking I'd appreciate it. Right now it is looking like 1) not all the sources were identified, so quickfail, or 2) all the sources were identified but there just isn't enough meat here to make a GA out of it, so quickfail. Either one is fine with me, I don't mind, I'd just like to know the answers to my sourcing questions for my future article development efforts. Zad68 14:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'd better assume the article needs more development so I'll close this now. We are allowed to use primary studies, with care; WP generally and rightly aims for reliable secondary sources which review the various primary studies. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. In doing a few GA reviews myself I have found that some projects are very against primary sources (WP:MED) and some actually encourage/require them (WP:DINO). Maybe it was wrong of me to assume the WP:MED attitude was applicable for a pharmaceutical article. I'll ask at the pharmaceutical project for more guidance. Cheers... Zad68 16:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discontinuation

The main page says that the product has been discontinued in the USA; both McKesson and Kinray show it as discontinued on their ordering pages. Conversely, the American manufacturer, Uluru Inc., still shows it as a current product on their official web site.

I called them and asked, and they told me the product is unavailable; they are currently (12/2013) looking for a new distributor, and I should call them back in a couple of months. Unfortunately they were unable or unwilling to provide me with a written release stating this, so I can't add it to the main page (wp:or). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalom S. (talk • contribs) 18:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical Trial

There's an open label human clinical trial underway, http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01842282

The dosage is 50 mg. t.i.d. I'm not a Wikipedia editor, so I'll let someone else add this information to the article.108.219.39.17 (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the conclusions of clinical trials may be incorporated once they have been commented on in a review, systematic review or meta analysis. Wikipedia tends to lag behind scientific breakthroughs because it is a general encyclopedia. For more information, please see WP:MEDRS. 94.196.234.101 (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]