Talk:Ibogaine/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sasata (talk · contribs) 00:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article. Before we begin, could you source the various citation needed tags that have been recently added? (one by me) Sasata (talk) 00:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, done. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 00:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had a really thorough look yet, but it seems to me that there's major issues with the quality of the sourcing. Much of the article is sourced to drug advocacy websites that don't qualify as reliable sources. Why should the following be considered reliable: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]? The sections "Pharmacodynamics", "Psychoactive effects", "Side effects and safety", "Therapeutic uses", and "Pharmacology" should adhere to WP:MEDRS sourcing standards, but in addition to lower-quality web sites currently being used, there's a number of statements being cited to primary literature.

Erowid is not on its face an overall unreliable source, and it's not being used to reference specific controversial facts or supply primary or anecdotal evidence. It's a notable site (see comments and refs on its page to being discussed by professionals), so I don't think it's an obvious WP:External links failure. At worst it's WP:ELMAYBE #4, and its notability (in general) and depth of content (albeit not all WP:MEDRS) beyond what we would include here in article push it up for me). DMacks (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the short pharmacodynamics section is filled with jargon and little contextual information, and would be difficult for anyone without pharmacological training to understand.
- Too technical wording? Ok. Should I re-add the other substances as examples?
  - I'm not sure what was there before, but ideally, it should be written in language understandable by a bright high-school student. Sasata (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
surely more can be said about Naranjo's use of ibo in psychotherapy?
can we dump the trivia list of television episodes where the drug makes an appearance?
- Yes, we can, but why? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think it's encylopedic, and it's very existence encourages others to insert mentions of the drug's every appearance on TV, movies, and novels. See WP:Trivia. Sasata (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
there's more, but I'm not sure the sourcing problems can be dealt with in the normal time frame for a GAN. What do you think? Sasata (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Going to be cutting and sourcing. Going to be on it in 1 hour. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I can do it quickly. Could you post all the rest? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 19:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I prefer to wait until the new sources are added. When reviewing, I like to have the source open so I can verify the text as I go along. Also, some of the text may change when you source it, so there's no point in giving a detailed commentary until this is done. Sasata (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - So if there is any more concerns about reliable sources, please tell me. I think I have fixed the problem. "it should be written in language understandable by a bright high-school student." is telling me nothing, but I've described agonist and antagonist. The legal status will need to be improved though. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 00:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply? ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 18:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure what part of my statement was difficult to understand, but WP:Make technical articles understandable is our guideline for this. Sasata (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I'm still reluctant to give a detailed analysis, it seems like there's a lot important info missing:

the organic synthesis is mentioned in the lead, but not the body of the text. What year was this achieved?
- I think that having that in the text would not be good, but added the year.
what plants other than T. iboga is the compound found? What are typical concentration ranges in nature?
- None other.
when was the chemical structure determined?
- It was isolated and determined in 1901. : J. Dybowski, E. Landrin. (1901). Plant Chemistry. Concerning Iboga, Its Excitement-Producing Properties, Its

Composition, and The New Alkaloids it Contains, Ibogaine. It was also independently isolated that same year by Haller y Heckel.

Catamai (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- What article has that information?
the article mentions Lotsof's 1985 patent, but not the 1969 French patent for Ibo use in psychotherapy
- Done.
what method(s) are typically used to extract the drug from plants?
what is its IUPAC name?
- Done.
it should be mentioned somewhere that the root extract is a mixture of not just ibogaine, but also smaller amounts of ibogaline and ibogamine
is ibogaine auto-oxidized in solution? Do we know its stability half-life?
what analytical methods are used to detect ibogaine?
the marketed formation Lambarebe is mentioned, but what about Iperton and Endabuse?
is ibogaine absorption dose-dependent? Gender dependent? Is there a first pass elimination effect? Any data on plasma levels after administration?
how is the drug eliminated?
- Found nothing about that.
no mention is made of interactions with muscarinic (M1 and M2) receptors or nicotinic acetylcholine receptors.
is the pharmacological profile of noribogaine significantly different than ibogaine?
have there been many pharmacodynamic studies performed in humans?
does repeated use lead to psychological or physiological dependence? How about tolerance? Any cross-tolerance with similar drugs?
the legal status section needs to be expanded to provide a more worldwide view.
- Agree.
"The pharmacology of ibogaine is quite complex, affecting many different neurotransmitter systems simultaneously." This sentence is word-for-word from Mačiulaitis et al. 2008, although this is not given as the source; two other sources are cited.
"Because of its fairly low potency at any of its target sites, ibogaine is used in doses anywhere from 5 mg/kg of body weight for a minor effect to 30 mg/kg in the cases of strong polysubstance addiction. It is unknown whether doses greater than 30 mg/kg in humans produce effects that are therapeutically beneficial, medically risky, or simply prolonged in duration." I can't verify these statements in the cited source. Could you point them out to me?
Similarly, I can't see where the sentence "… these results suggest that neurotoxicity of ibogaine is likely to be minimal when ibogaine is used in the 10–20 mg/kg range typical of drug addiction interruption treatment regimes, and indeed death from the other pharmacological actions of the alkaloids is likely to occur by the time the dose is high enough to produce consistent neurotoxic changes." is supported by the second cited source. I don't have access to the first cited article, but, as a case report/primary study, it shouldn't be used to source this type of general statement.
In general, there's still too many statements that are being cited to primary research, which goes against WP:MEDRS guidelines. There's several general reviews (and textbooks) available so this shouldn't be necessary.

There hasn't been a lot of effort to address the concerns I've listed above, and I think it would be better if these were worked on outside of the constraints of a GA review. All of the extra information I've asked to be included in the article is available in the sources that are already being used. I hope my comments have been useful, and I hope to see an improved version of this article for review in the future! Cheers, Sasata (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - I agree this article need much more work. The referencing need to be more accurate. Ibogaine and noribogaine are 2 different drugs with different pharmacology.
  - the apparent binding affinities provided are issued from a book chapter (not an original research article) where there is no information on the methods used to deliver these numbers.

Catamai (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]