Talk:Elafibranor

Medical Claims

assertions of a clinical outcome need WP:MEDRS sourcing. primary sources are not usually acceptable, and reporting based only on primary sources seems to me to veer too far towards WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. This is actually part of a much broader issue i've noticed with pages for therapeutics that have not yet, or only recently made it out of trials. clinical trials or the results thereof are not secondary sources. I actually have posted over at WT:MED about this very issue (where i have mentioned this page specifically, among others), asking whether we need a policy for guidance on experimental therapeutics. I think we do, actually. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 19:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

We could go through and delete half of Wikipedia's references on these new compounds if you'd like. Sure, guidance is important. But these are the foundational references that the FDA and others will use to approve these drugs in the future. They are published in peer-reviewed journals. I think they are relevant and should be included. Foamyslippers (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I would have no problem with "go[ing] through and delet[ing] half of Wikipedia's references on these new compounds". Sounds rather fun, actually. The fact that there exists a lot of poorly sourced material already doesn't mean that we should allow new poorly sourced material. I'm actually not quite sure how to handle these situations, though I've run into them quite a lot recently. The problematic thing for me is the implied assertion of safety. And really, statements like in the original formulation of the page would not fly in a more highly trafficked article about, say, lovastatin. So why should they be acceptable here, on a page about a drug with a much shorter history of use in humans? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 19:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, some of the original content was essentially advertising from Genfit. None the less, it's also their published results of their study. It can be mentioned on here, with an appropriate reference, at least once the peer-reviewed results are themselves published. The PMID reference that you keep deleting should not be removed. It is a peer-reviewed study regarding the effects of the drug. If you can state a more specific argument in favor of leaving the PMID reference that you twice removed, please do so. Foamyslippers (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The Diabetes Care reference you want to include is a primary study in humans. Per WP:MEDRS (specifically WP:MEDREV):

If the findings involve phase I or phase II clinical trials, small studies, studies that did not directly measure clinically important results, laboratory work with animal models, or isolated cells or tissue, then these findings are probably only indirectly relevant to understanding human health; in these cases, they should be entirely omitted.

The nut of it, for me, is that this is a primary source. It seems to me that this is summarizing the results of what would be, by US standards, a Phase II trial. There are no review papers on the effect of this drug in humans, and only one other primary source that I could find on pubmed. From where I sit, the reference should unequivocally be left out. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 20:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I see. The Wikipedia position is that all primary studies should be omitted... That wasn't clear to me before. However this may be a more unique case. This finding is directly related to human health. It's a finding to measure the effect on human health. As it describes the primary action of this chemical in the human body, I think it has much more relevance than the general position on primary studies indicates. Foamyslippers (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I can tell you that based on my experience, this is in no way unique. But you don't have to take my word for it; please feel free to ask/clarify over at the reference desk, the reliable sources noticeboard, the aforementioned talk page for wikiproject medicine, ask for a third opinion, or whatever else you feel is warranted. All I ask is that you mention where you are doing so on this page, so that I can follow the discussion. and just as a trying-to-be-helpful suggestion, you may want to review WP:MEDRS itself a bit more thoroughly, as it pertains substantially to a lot of stuff that WP:PHARM deals with. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 21:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Drugs of the Future

"GFT-505" (PDF). Drugs of the Future. 37 (8): 555–559. 2012. is a secondary source. Does it meet MEDRS standards? Just in case someone wants to expand the article. Thanks to User:SmartSE for pointing this out. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Indexed on pubmed? yes. review article? yes. so yes. (It still makes me a bit nervous to summarize things at this stage of the game, but that's more a personal preference than anything i guess.) -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 21:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

move?

Apparently it now has a standard name, elafibranor. Should the article be moved accordingly? —Tamfang (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)