Talk:Calcipotriol

Pharmacology Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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 Calcipotriol.

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

I just made a complete edit of this page. The old page had very little info about the drug itself, and a great deal of unreferenced claims regarding this drug's supposed tendency to cause hypercalicemia and a host of other problems. While such findings have occurred, they are extremely rare, and only in patients using an unusually large amount of the drug. I referenced my claim that this drug is safe with multiple sources. OsteopathicFreak 05:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A hormone can be a vitamin....

I removed the following from the article:

(These facts demonstrate why many believe Vitamin D should be reclassified as a hormone, not a vitamin.)

Vitamin D is a prohormone that is converted into a hormone in the kidney. That however has nothing to do with whether it is is a vitamin. Vitamins are defined as such based on whether they are, or are not: "nutrients required in very small amounts for essential metabolic reactions in the body". Vitamin D clearly fits this description. Thus, a molecule can be both a hormone and a vitamin, the terms are not mutually exclusive, and the above statement confuses the definitions of both.--DO11.10 22:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: "Worsening" vs "exacerbation" of psoriasis

I am puzzled by two entries in the Adverse effects.

Common: Worsening of psoriasis
Uncommon: Exacerbation of psoriasis

Is there some medical distinction between "worsening" and "exacerbation"? In normal English they are synonymous, and medicinenet.com (which is not authoritative, I know, but should be indicative) says "In medicine, exacerbation may refer to an increase in the severity of a disease or its signs and symptoms." So is this an error, or is there a difference between these two entries? --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]