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
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
This article refers to Allopurinol as "Another uricosuric". The statement is wrong on two counts.
Although it is common to write and to talk about uricosurics, the term is wrong at any time. Biochemical terminology is very precise and there is an internationally accepted terminology. Any compound ending in ~ose is reserved only for sugars ( glucose, ribose, mannose, etc).
Uric acid is not a carbohydrate, let alone a sugar, to to use the term uricosuric is against the international biochemical nomenclature convention [[1]]. The term should be urico-uric, as uricuric is hard to say.
Secondly, allopurinol is not urico-uric.
Finally, benzbromarone is both urico-uric and a Xanthine oxidase inhibitor.
I am amending the article with references to J Rheumatol. 1975 Dec;2(4):437-45.
See "The pharmacology of hypouricemic effect of benzbromarone."
Sinclair DS, Fox IH. [User:Historygypsy|Historygypsy]] (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be (a) correcting a non-problem (what does "uricosuric" have to do with "compounds ending in -ose"?) by (b) making up your own terminology -- Google found no instances at all of "urico-uric." And (c) you now have the major task ahead of you of changing all instances of "uricosuric" in Wikipedia to "urico-uric", including the article Uricosuric itself, since otherwise Wikipedia will be using inconsistent terminology. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]