Talk:Bromazepam

Bromazepam was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 6, 2014). 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 Bromazepam.

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

untitled

link in japanese is missing

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%AC%E3%82%AD%E3%82%BD%E3%82%BF%E3%83%B3

Added, thanks! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3d Structure

i've made a 3d spacefill for this image, along with many other benzos, as i'm trying to make spacefills for all of them. i don't want to replace the nice 3d ball and stick model. any ideas of where i could put it ? Ccroberts^{( t · c · g )} 01:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add it to Benzodiazepine? The article is quite long, and has only one image, in the lead. By the way, the nice 3d ball-and-stick model is mine, and if you'd rather replace it instead I won't really object :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really this bad?

Why is this entry almost all negative? There are many legitimate uses for Benzodiazepines, I'm a psych RN and am quite glad to have the minor tranquilizers to use on my floor. This drug like many if abused can have bad consequences, as it is I believe this article is quite biased.Bobyoung53 (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am not trying to be rude, but you would have to go by to the 1960's or perhaps also the 1970's to say that benzos only have bad problems if abused. Minor tranquillisers is also a very old term and was replaced I think in the 1980's with the term sedative hypnotic as it was found to be an inaccurate term for the drugs pharmacological properties by expert bodies. The problems with therapeutic use long term have been widely accepted since the 1980's. Having said that if you think that there is undue weight to the negative aspects of bromazepam in this article, feel free to suggest how we can expand positive effects side of bromazepam to bring more balance. The drug is not commonly prescribed compared to other benzos so it is fairly short in nature and not indepth. I have looked over the article and cannot find anything inaccurate in it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biased article

I AGREE WITH COMMENTS ABOVE, THIS ARTICLE IS BIASED. My apologies if not using the correct format for the talk page, I'm new to editing so please understand.

This article gives very little in the way of information on the helpful properties of this medication, or on benzos in general. Instead it launches almost directly into an attack on the drug, giving nothing but negative information. I'm not saying the information is inaccurate, I'm saying it's biased. The author also seems to have a problem with benzos in general, and in my opinion goes off on a tangent in comparing how bad ALL benzos are which is not even what the article should be about. Therefore in my opinion it should be flagged for edit based on biased source information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levontaun (talk • contribs) 02:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced study on learning impairment

Regarding the following citation:

Liljequist R; Linnoila M, Mattila MJ, Saario I, Seppälä T (October 1975). "Effect of two weeks' treatment with thioridazine, chlorpromazine, sulpiride and bromazepam, alone or in combination with alcohol, on learning and memory in man". Psychopharmacologia 44 (2): 205–8. doi:10.1007/BF00421011. PMID 710.

From what I read in the abstract, it appears to contradict what the article states: "Bromazepam 6 mg 3 times daily for 2 weeks taken alone impaired learning capacities significantly in humans in an experiment. In combination with alcohol the impairments of learning capacity became even more pronounced."

Furthermore, this citation is a primary source and perhaps should be removed completely, or at least noted clearly that more studies are required.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AioftheStorm (talk · contribs) 05:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will be reviewing this article. :) AioftheStorm (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have gone ahead and failed this review. My primary problems with this article are the prose, lack of inline citations in certain areas, and potential for expansion. If those are addressed and resubmitted for review this article will probably pass.AioftheStorm (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Lead doesn't adequately summarise the article. Primarily, mention of its indications should be made(why do people take this drug?), and also a sentence on prominent side effects, contraindications, interactions, and potential for dependence should be added. In total I think a lead of about 4-7 sentences should cover this article. My only other gripe with the lead is the use of the word anxiolytic without a definition or context clues to discern its meaning. Perhaps it should be replaced with antianxiety, or just say (antianxiety) after it. Lead looks good to me. The side effects section is very choppy, single floating sentences should be hincorporated into larger paragraphs, and sentence fragments should be fleshed out into full sentences. Although it is difficult to explain jargon in a way that is understandable to lay people without being too wordy, a few more words in the third paragraph of the "Tolerance, dependence and withdrawal" section should be added to help illuminate to the casual reader what any of that means. Additionally the subsections under contraindications should probably be changed into a bulleted list. Other than those and a few small hiccups the writing is reasonably well written and follows the WP:MOS.

What exactly do you want me to add to the "Tolerance, dependence and withdrawal" section? It is pretty straight forward, but give me an idea. Thanks. --Dendro†Naja ^{Talk to me!} 17:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"decreased turnover of noradrenaline and dopamine and serotonin ... decreased activity of tyrosine hydroxylase and increased levels of the catecholamines ... a fall in tryptophan, 5-hydroxytryptamine levels occurs"

What do these chemicals do and why do we care about their changes? 5-hydroxytryptamine is serotonin, just a different name, and although varied word choice is usually good, for technical paragraphs I think using the same term will keep things simpler for the reader. I've also gone ahead and changed "decreased" to "increased" for tyrosine hydroxylase's activity. Tyrosine hydroxylase produces L-DOPA, which is a precursor to several catecholamines(noradrenaline and dopamine being two of the catecholamines that are derived from L-DOPA), which is why an increase in tyrosine hydroxylase was observed alongside an increase in catecholamines. Similarly tryptophan modulates the synthesis of serotonin, which is why a decrease in both was observed. 4-5 sentences should be enough to basically state what they are, what they do, how the drug affects them, and how them being effected affects the person. Anyways, sorry for the late replies here, I will try to finish my review over the weekend.AioftheStorm (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The prose still is awkward in many places. Sentence fragments such as "Impaired memory, visual information processing and sensory data and impaired psychomotor performance." need to be changed into full sentences. Floating single sentence paragraphs need to be incorporated into larger paragraphs, and paragraphs need to flow better show more organization.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is not apparent for several sentences which source is being used to support them, for instance the last part of the side effects section has no citations.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The Legal Status section needs to be longer than one sentence. An explanation of what a Schedule IV drug, why Bromazepam is classified as one, and potentially its legality elsewhere would be nice provided such info can be found. Also see here, and here for potential ideas on how to expand this section. The interactions section should similarly be expanded, perhaps with an explanation of what the consequences of bromazepam's interaction with these other drugs is, should bromazepam never be prescribed with them, should it be prescribed but at lower dosages? What are these drugs, why would someone be taking them? How do they cause this interaction? There is much that can be added: that cimetidine inhibits stomach acid production and is used to treat heart burn, and that its use reduces bromazepam clearance and increases its elimination half-life, that propranolol, used to treat hypertension, anxiety, and panic has been shown to significantly increase elimination half-life but has not been shown to reduce bromazepam clearance. Anything at all to make this section larger than a sentence.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bromazepam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bromazepam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]