Talk:Artemether

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AngelaZakinova, Smilesalways, Eacademia. Peer reviewers: Radtk109, PharmerQ, CJ Bolus Dose, Pbayrasy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

link

I just linked a missing link 'co-artemether'(in artesunate) to this article, which, as noted is very rudimentary but explains how the 2 components belong together. It seems to me that artemether is less important than co-artemether, and would have liked to rework arthemeter to reroute to co-artemether and put the current artemether content there. My technical skills are not up to this, however - can anyone help, please? 160.62.4.10 (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

plans

Planning to edit this page as a part of WikiProject Pharmacology. Editing or adding the following sections: Medical Uses, Chemical Nature and Adverse Effects, MOA and Interactions, PK/PD for improved clarity and correct citations. Eacademia (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

edited medical uses

Condensed the medical uses based on systematic reviews. AngelaZakinova (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)AngelaZakinova

Edited Pharmacokinetics/Pharmacodynamics section

Deleted original section because due to lack of citation, and although relevant to mechanism and activity, not informative in terms of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Eacademia (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Review

1. STUDENT 1 (Christine Boulos) – Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…
In general, this draft submission reflects a neutral point of view. Under medical uses, the author does state that artesunate appears to be more effective for treatment of severe malaria. This claim seems is supported by a reference for efficacy of drugs based on disease severity. However, it seems as though this may be a recommendation for treatment. I think it would be more neutral to state that Artemether is used to treat severe malaria, but remove the comparison to artesunate for treatment, since this may also vary based on unique patient cases. The other sections of this page did not seem to have any biases. — Preceding Christine Boulos comment added by CJ Bolus Dose (talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

2. STUDENT 2 (Kendra Radtke) – Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely accessible? If not, specify…
Overall, it seems like the article cites many primary sources. It is better to use clinical guidelines, review articles, or meta-analysis for the Wiki article. If you are having trouble finding this, you can use the tool on PubMed for the primary articles you have already cited which lists what articles have cited this article. There is a good chance there is a review article in that list. Or, you can filter the PubMed searches to only include review articles or meta-analysis. Here is the link for the WHO malaria guidelines: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK294440/ Specifically, " The World Health Organization recommends the treatment of uncomplicated P. falciparum with artemisinin-based combination therapy." -- this statement states a primary source. Perhaps there are clinical guidelines or a secondary source that would make this argument more substantial. The following sentence " Given in combination with lumefantrine, it must be followed by a 14 day regimen of primaquine to prevent relapse of the malarial parasites and provide a complete cure." cites an "in vitro" study. This doesn't seem reputable if the sentence is implying a 14 day regimen "cures" malaria. The WHO has clinical guidelines for malaria that might be a better source for this. For the mechanism of action section, is there a review article that explains and elaborates on the mechanisms of artemisinin derivatives? this would be better than citing primary sources. Radtk109 (talk) 04:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Radtk109 (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

3. STUDENT 3 (Quintin Wright) – Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style for medicine-related articles? If not, specify…

Yes the edits are consistant with Wikipedia's manual style for medicine-related articles. Small edits I may consider making are in side effects and interactions section, the first sentence of each section is basically the same, just reworded differently. Another edit I would consider is making the title "interactions" into "drug interactions" since that is what 80% of the section is covering. Finally in the interactions section, since you are citing askling et al. and stover et al., you do not have to include their name in the sentence because I can click on the link to find their article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PharmerQ (talk • contribs) 22:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

4. STUDENT 4 (Panathda Bayrasy) – Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify…
Overall, the article shows no signs of direct plaigiarism. However, there is one sentence that could be paraphrased differently because it is too similar to the first sentence in the abstract section of the original source: "The World Health Organization recommends the treatment of uncomplicated P. falciparum with artemisinin-based combination therapy.[4]"

Other issues that are consistent throughout the entire page include:

• Link to original source not valid. For example, link [10] does not show a complete citation and I cannot locate original paper.
• Citations should be added to information that is not perceived as common knowledge. For example, the first paragraph under the Mechanisms of action subsection could have been more extensively cited.

Other than these points raised, the article shows no direct evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation — Pbayrasy (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)