Talk:Fluvoxamine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cleanup, references and WP:NPOV

I've been working on the drug interaction section plus some other cleanup here and there but other sections need attention, especially for references. Please be aware that there seems to be a general tendency to WP:SYN in this sort of article so we do need to take the time to document our sources. I put flagged two sections I think need references the most. I didn't flag the article with a POV notice as the prose could be a writing stylism. Or is it POV?Trilobitealive (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Historical relevance

I removed the historical relevance section, because it didn't cite the key claims (about Columbine and the alleged homicide during a trial). It can be put back with citations to reliable sources. Superm401 - Talk 20:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

effect of luvox on the brain

i have a feeling of slight pain and itch left posterior occiput, is this a side effect of luvox? im on 150mgm on is it to much or too small a dose —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.132.68.202 (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

SSRI

I took before Venlafaxine and Sertraline. Now Faverin and the Efect is almost the same but may it chnage by use of long term what will be happen by me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.241.211 (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed

This:

"Although its effects are similar to other SSRIs, fluvoxamine has different pharmacological effects. For this reason, fluvoxamine can be of benefit to patients who experience unusual or limiting side-effects from other antidepressants. Fluvoxamine also appears to cause fewer side-effects than other SSRIs, particularly in relation to loss of sex-drive."

definitely needs a citation. Otherwise, this claim is only some PR try for fluvoxamine.--Spiperon 22:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I searched for this sentence on google and it is present on many pages (67). Don't have anything for definitive citation though. -- Amit 14:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The primary pharmacological of SSRI are the same but the secondary pharmacological is different among SSRI. Please refer to the citation provided. Uniearth 11:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Any chance of getting an online abstract?Trilobitealive (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Sales fell, and Solvay withdrew the medication from the U.S. market in 2002 to prevent further investigation which might have revealed that at least one homicide had occurred among participants during Fluvoxamine's Phase III Clinical Trials prior to FDA approval." This also really needs a citation. I've tagged it for now. 98.220.2.29 (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Manufacturers

The article as written seems to imply that Jazz and IVAX are the only manufacturers of both Fluvoxamine and Luvox. However, ANI Pharmaceuticals also manufactures both. [1] --64.77.218.74 (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ciprofloxacine

Anyone aware of interactions with this antibiotic? Both are strong inhibitors of CYP1A2, and I don't know how they mess with each other. --201.67.57.101 (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Paedophilia

The reference that Fluvoxamine has been used to "treat" paedophilia strikes me as particularly odd. Since paedophilia is not a disease per se, it seems a little strange to say Fluvoxamine is used to treat it. Maybe some sort of qualification is in order. As an analogy, imagine if one were to write in the article on EST that it is commonly used to treat Homosexuailty. I am not questioning that there are paedophiles who are taking Fluvoxamine to try to adjust their psychology and sexuality, just that it seems strange to call it a "treatment" without first making the assumption that paraphilia are treatable medical conditions. 76.105.4.183 (talk) 06:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Longest half-life?

"Fluvoxamine has the shortest serum half-life of all SSRIs, with a mean of 15.6 hours." -- AFAIK, fluoxetine is the SSRI with the longest half-life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.2.3 (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Bioavailability inconsistency

The table says 77%, the article says 53%. I'm confused, are these different methods of administration maybe?W3ird N3rd (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Chemical name

The infobox gives

(E)-5-methoxy-1-[4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]pentan-1-one O-2-aminoethyl oxime

but Sittig gives

5-Methoxy-4'-trifluoromethylvalerophenone O-(2- aminoethyl)oxime maleate (1:1)

Clarification appreciated. Spicemix (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Countries

"although in other countries", says the Medical Uses section. Countries other than what? I assume this is a reference to the FDA thing, and I also assume that the FDA thing is North American, but it's a bit unclear. —Vom ^(talk) 15:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Vom: The FDA stands for the "Food and Drug Administration" and is actually referenced earlier in the article when discussing the black box warning. It is an agency of the United States government which regulates and categorizes (we use the term "Schedule" to describe categories of) pharmaceuticals. So yes, it's "North American" but specifically the United States of America. I think because this is the English Wikipedia page, it may have been written by an American, and this reference is for American readers. If you think we should change this, perhaps we should make it something like, "While the United States FDA has only approved this drug for the treatment of OCD, it is approved for use by *insert other nations' regulating agencies* (in Austrailia, the Russian Federation, and UK respectively) for also treating major depressive disorder." RedDarling (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Largest manufacturer

First of all this source is very hard to access.[2]

Which text specifically says it is the most common manufacturer? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

"reuptake" ?

Yes, "reuptake" is a real word. Perhaps we should have an article on neurotransmitter reuptake? Karada 07:26 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yup yup you guys can write an interesting article on that weird looking word =)) --Poor Yorick

Common-dosage information seems relevant to me. Thoughts? Tarka 07:33 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Can this drug safe in pregnancy for a woman with pre existing depression?

Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer :-) --Michael 11:15, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Fluvoxamine connected to circadian rhythm sleep disorders, as distinguished from other SSRIs.

Summary: According to the abstract appended below, fluvoxamine usage may induce circadian rhythm sleep disorders (CRSD), unlike some other SSRIs.

Relevance: It is important to include CRSD as a potential side effect due to its debilitating effects and the difficulty of its treatment. Awareness of this study could suggest a simple solution for those affected to try: namely, the substitution of a different SSRI.

Request: My Wikipedia edits have primarily been grammar/punctuation so I don't feel confident editing pharmacology content. Therefore, I'm submitting this information for you to act upon as you see fit.

The Abstract:

Circadian rhythm sleep disorders as a possible side effect of fluvoxamine by Hermesh H1, Lemberg H, Abadi J, Dagan Y. CNS Spectr. 2001 Jun ;6(6):511-3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15744215/

Sleep problems, day somnolence, and fatigue as a result of psychotropic drugs are very common. Psychiatrists usually consider these effects a result of insomnia and treat them by prescribing sleeping pills or other benzodiazepine agents. We describe here 10 cases of circadian rhythm sleep disorders (CRSD)--and not merely insomnia--as a possible side effect of fluvoxamine (FVA). Two other serotonin reuptake inhibitors, fluoxetine and clomipramine, did not induce CRSD in any of these 10 patients. We speculate that FVA-induced CRSD is caused by the effect of FVA on serotonin and melatonin levels in the central nervous system. CRSD as a side effect of FVA can be treated by replacing the suspected FVA or adding melatonin to a beneficial FVA treatment. Thus, it is important to be aware of possible iatrogenic CRSD in order to treat appropriately. Prospective studies are needed to confirm our observation and to study the influence of other psychotropic drugs on sleep-wake schedule.

Cited in:

World Psychiatry. 2007 Jun;6(2):108-11. A prospective study of delayed sleep phase syndrome in patients with severe resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder. Turner J1, Drummond LM, Mukhopadhyay S, Ghodse H, White S, Pillay A, Fineberg NA. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18235868

Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2005;7(4):357-65. Behavioral and psychiatric consequences of sleep-wake schedule disorders. Dagan Y1, Borodkin K. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16416711

SoSaysSunny (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Five healthy volunteers ingested a single dose of 5 mg melatonin. One week later they were given a single dose of 50 mg fluvoxamine with or without an additional dose of 5 mg melatonin after three hours. Coadministration of fluvoxamine led to a 23-fold higher (p<0.05) area under concentration-time curve (AUC) (6.2 to 141.3 mg/h/L and a 12-fold higher (p<0.01) serum peak concentration (Cmax) (2.18 to 25.1 ng/mL) of melatonin (1).

Serum profiles of melatonin were studied in a 51 year-old patient, without drugs, under separate administration of fluvoxamine and melatonin and under combined treatment. Administration of 75 mg fluvoxamine and 5 mg melatonin increased the availability of melatonin 20-fold (2).

References

(1) Härtter S, Grözinger M, Weigmann H, Röschke J, Hiemke C. Increased bioavailability of oral melatonin after fluvoxamine coadministration. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2000;67:1-6.(PubMed Id: 10668847) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10668847

(2) Grözinger M, Härtter S, Wang X, Röschke J, Hiemke C, Rose DM. Fluvoxamine strongly inhibits melatonin metabolism in a patient with low-amplitude melatonin profile. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2000;57:812-3.(PubMed Id: 10920471) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10920471

--ee1518 (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Abstract: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15744215/

Title: Circadian rhythm sleep disorders as a possible side effect of fluvoxamine. 2001 June.

...

Full text can be downloaded via Sci-Hub:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cns-spectrums/article/abs/circadian-rhythm-sleep-disorders-as-a-possible-side-effect-of-fluvoxamine/D309995D98BF5DE26B2A9B5AA4E80B2E

• Melatonin therapy of 5 mg/day taken simultaneously with FVA=Fluvoxamine restored the sleep-wake cycle to its normal rhythm in 2 out of 4 therapeutic trials
• The lowest dose of FVA that was associated with delayed DSPS = sleep-phase syndrome was 100 mg/day. (So use 50mg/day).
• FVA was withdrawn. 10 days later, the DSPS completely disappeared; however, a mild depression was apparent and her OCD was significantly exacerbated. Readministration of FVA 100 mg/day resulted in a similar delayed sleep-wake phenomenon within a week from commencement.

--ee1518 (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Fluoride content and bioavailability of Fluoride from Fluvoxamine, compared to fluoride from drinking water and food?

I calculated that 50mg tablet of Fluvoxamine contains the following amount of fluoride:

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Fluvoxamine

• Molar mass of Fluvoxamine = 318.33

• Molar mass of Fluoride = 19

• Number of Fluoride atoms in Fluvoxamine = 3

(3*19)/318.33*50mg = 9mg fluoride.

Or less, if Fluvoxamine is salt of something that pubchem doesn't include in molar mass?

In Finland the average total intake of fluoride from water, food and toothpaste is only 0.6mg/day, although it is higher in areas were drinking water contains more fluoride. 80-85% comes from food. 90% of ingested fluoride is absorbed from gut:

https://thl.fi/fi/web/ymparistoterveys/vesi/kaivovesi/kaivoveden-kemiallinen-laatu/kaivovedessa-luonnostaan-esiintyvat-kemialliset-aineet/fluoridi

Intake of Iodine should be increased somewhat when taking Fluvoxamine, because Fluoride and Iodine are both in group 17 of periocal table of elements, but I don't know the details. So I would supplement with at least 100% RDA of Iodine with FluvoxAmine.

Iodine and some medicines containing fluoride are mentioned here without scientific references: https://www.sun-sentinel.com/health/fl-xpm-2013-12-27-fl-suzy-cohen-122913-20131219-story.html

See elements 9=F and 53=I: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table

--ee1518 (talk) 11:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Contradictory information on the strength of Fluvoxamine's inhibition of CYP2D6

Hi there, this page cites this paper (Full text available via scihub.) for Fluvoxamine being a moderate CYP2D6 inhibitor meanwhile the page for CYP2D6 cites this link stating it's a weak CYP2D6 inhibitor.

Could someone assist in ironing out this discrepancy? 203.54.35.151 (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Alexbrn (talk) 12:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions for Additions

This page would benefit from a more substantial "society and culture" section. Are there any societal beliefs, standards, or effects related to fluvoxamine? A section dedication to how one should take fluvoxamine (with or without food, once or twice a day, etc.) would also be beneficial, as well as a section dedicated to the effects of overdose on this medication. There is some information on the website for the National Alliance on Mental Illness that may be useful. https://www.nami.org/About-Mental-Illness/Treatments/Mental-Health-Medications/Types-of-Medication/Fluvoxamine-(Luvox) AshMW2000 (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Dashes

There is, almost invariably, a mixture of ndashes and mdashes (not to mention masquerading hyphens and double-hyphens) in every article of substantial size. Quote (emphasis mine) ... use either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes, with consistency in any one article:

• An em dash is always unspaced (without a space on either side):

Another "planet" was detected—but it was later found to be a moon of Saturn.

• An en dash is spaced (with a space on each side) when used as sentence punctuation:

Another "planet" was detected – but it was later found to be a moon of Saturn.

--Oblio4 (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Puff claim not in cite

Original:

The tolerance profile also appears to be quite superior than other SSRIs, despite its age.

New:

The tolerance profile is superior in some respects to other SSRIs, particularly with respect to cardiovascular complications, despite its age.

References

A sweeping "quite superior" is not suitable for Wikipedia, especially in the fragile ecosystem of medical common sense. — MaxEnt 15:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Unconsummated citations

Yuck. Seems I need to bang in a reflist-cite to clear the constipation.

References

— MaxEnt 15:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Efficacy numbers against COVID-19 hospitalization: undue?

@Alexbrn: Why is this data undue? WP:MEDRS clearly says that The best evidence for efficacy of treatments and other health interventions is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and this is an RCT. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Because a meta-analysis of an RCT is not an RCT. An RCT is a primary source. We should really be confining ourselves to secondary sources in any case so maybe this would be useful until something better appears. Alexbrn (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright. I thought that including the confidence intervals would help the reader to evaluate the accuracy of these numbers. Maybe we could also mention criticism [3][4] of the study. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

As it's an unreliable source I don't think it's wise to expose its detail. It might be wrong. Alexbrn (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

In participants who took at least 80% of the pills (2 x 100mg daily for 10 days):

• Risk of hospitalization or extended emergency care was reduced by 2/3.

• 1 death among those taking Fluvoxamine compared with 12 deaths in the placebo group, a reduction in mortality risk of 91%.

https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/antidepressant-may-prevent-severe-covid-19-follow-up-study-indicates/

--91.159.189.62 (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

We're still waiting for reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Information on use for treating COVID

All the information I added on the FLV use in COVID on December 23 was removed shortly thereafter. Yet the information was all based on reliable sources including a JAMA article which has been viewed over 120,000. How is that not relevant medical information? All the other sources are reliable medical information, or are directly from recognized experts, and nothing there was not supported by solid scientific evidence. This is a huge disservice to the world to remove this, so I am baffled by the removal. Please explain the benefit to removing this lifesaving information. Thanks!

Stkirsch (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

We need WP:MEDRS sources. PMID 33180097 is primary research. Alexbrn (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

What an obtuse, intractable standard. This isn't speculative science; these effects are being replicated as we speak. Let's at least allow language on the wiki that acknowledges the preliminary nature of these trials whilst maintaining the central claim that Luvox has demonstrated noteworthy effects. Frevangelion (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Could we, perhaps, treat it as a media phenomenon and reflect in the Society and culture section? Something along the lines: media promotes fluvoxamine for the treament of COVID-19, while not a single double blind trial has been run.The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Never mind. I'v found a JAMA editorial and will use it for the framework.The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Whoops, my mistake. Boy, that's a real shame. Stkirsch (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• [5] Another study, primary source yada yada. Abstract: "We report a real-world experience using fluvoxamine for coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) in a prospective cohort in the setting of a mass outbreak. Overall, 65 persons opted to receive fluvoxamine 50mg twice daily and 48 declined. Incidence of hospitalization was 0% (0/65) with fluvoxamine and 12.5% (6/48) with observation alone. At 14 days, residual symptoms persisted in 0% (0/65) with fluvoxamine and 60% (29/48) with observation." 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources are unreliable. Would need WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Not so. Before overturning the consensus version, please, read the text you are deleting. I strictly followed WP:MEDRS and WP:NOR recommendations.

1. WP:NOR: "In scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed; a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation or a document created by such a person." The secondary source is pmid33180115, the authors are JAMA editorial board, no doubt a reliable source.

2. WP:MEDRS: "Text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal weight, only describe conclusions made by the source, and describe these findings clearly so that all editors even those without specialist knowledge can check sources." (WP:MEDDEF) AND "Primary sources may be presented together with secondary sources." (WP:MEDREV) AND "Using small-scale, single studies makes for weak evidence, and allows for cherry picking of data. Studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in context by using high-quality secondary sources rather than by using the primary sources." (WP:MEDANIMAL)

That is exactly what the following text based on the primary source does: "A double-blind controlled study found that fluvoxamine may prevent clinical deterioration in outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19. The study had important limitations: it was run fully remotely; it had a small sample size (150) and short follow-up duration (15 days)." then, the text based on the reliable secondary source follows, setting this in context: "The accompanying editorial noted that, although this study is important enough to choose out of more than 10,000 other COVID-19 related submissions, it "presents only preliminary information [and] the findings should be interpreted as only hypothesis generating; they should not be used as the basis for current treatment decisions."

3. The primary source (authors of the study as reported by a reliable source: University of Virginia Health System), follows confirming the caution from the secondary source: Similarly, the study authors themselves cautioned that "the trial's results should not be treated as a measure of fluvoxamine's effectiveness against COVID-19 but as an encouraging indicator that the drug warrants further testing."

You can argue about some points but you cannot delete it wholesale. 13:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Do not use these unreliable sources for medical content. None of your sources are sufficient. Per the general sanctions in effect for COVID-19, disputed text must not be replaced without consensus, yet you are edit-warring your text in. You have been warned. Alexbrn (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Would you please respond to my points? The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

As I said, "None of your sources are sufficient". If there's a review article or better, that would lend sufficient weight and be a strong enough WP:MEDRS. Primary sources and comments don't cut it. If in doubt, raise a query at WT:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Please explain why a JAMA editorial is unreliable source. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

See WP:MEDASSESS. We are looking for sources near the top of the triangle, not the bottom. Anyway, you have decided to take the edit-warring route trying to force your edit. I have raised a query at WT:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

That is reasonable when there are such sources. When there are no sources on the top of the pyramid, WP:MEDRS clearly allows using other reliable sources.The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

When there are no such sources the material is WP:UNDUE because of a lack of reliable coverage. It is not an excuse to use unreliable sources or engage in edit-warring. Alexbrn (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The weight is properly set by the accompanying JAMA editorial, so it is not WP:UNDUE. Specifically, the editorial states: "The pilot study by Lenze and colleagues3 addresses a critically important question during the pandemic of how to prevent individuals who acquire COVID-19 from deteriorating to serious illness.4 If an effective treatment is found for this key gap in treatment, it will affect the health of millions of people worldwide." and further, "This study by Lenze and colleagues3 presents only preliminary information, and requires confirmation in larger trials. But at the same time, it is a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial, which is generally considered a design that minimizes bias and can support causal inference."The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Editorials are low-quality sources, insufficient for medical content. So too are primary sources. You have edit-warred the poorly-sourced and disputed content against the explicit terms of the COVID general sanctions. Content and behaviour should follow the WP:PAGs. Adding weak content bearing on "the health of millions of people worldwide" is especially problematic, which is precisely why the GS for COVID-19 exist. Alexbrn (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

So, the disagreement is clear. You believe that JAMA editorial is unreliable source, I believe it to be reliable. I just wish you responded to my requests for comments in this thread in February https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fluvoxamine&diff=prev&oldid=1004891001 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fluvoxamine&diff=prev&oldid=1005298989 . You never responded, and I thought we had consensus.The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Obviously not, since your content was removed. I sincerely hope you have not been basing medical content more widely through the project based on editorials in your belief they are sufficient sources. Alexbrn (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

You are mixing up something. My content was not removed in February. I twice asked you for comment and you never responded. So I wrote a paragraph and placed into Fluvoxamine article, first time I ever did that. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fluvoxamine&diff=prev&oldid=1005303201 The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

You never "asked" me anything to which I did not respond. I have hundreds of pages on my watch list and don't spend every waking hour monitoring it. The fact I did not notice something last month, does not give you an excuse for WP:EW this month. Your WP:ONUS does not expire after a month, and as the Application Note for the COVID sanctions reminds: "Editors are reminded that the onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Any content or source removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale should not be reinstated without prior consensus on the article's talk page." This is basic stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI. NH2 moiety (tail) of Fluvoxamine mimics the natural antiviral molecule/vitamin called Nicotinamide and is what reduces COVID symptoms by increasing BST2 protein. People that don't understand the science and/or have not had a serious case of COVID should not be promoting this dangerous drug with side effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esserefelice (talk • contribs) 13:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Additional Covid sources

• Review
  • https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33959018/
  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8633915/
  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8739627/
• RCT
  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8550952/
  • https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33180097/
• Retrospective
  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8745642/

In previous discussions it appears MEDRS standards on what to prefer have been stretched to require, but in any case, the sources listed here should be suitable to build a fleshed-out article section. Sennalen (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)