Talk:Levocetirizine

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 Levocetirizine.

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

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 Jun 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

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.

article has improved considerably, should therefore not be deleted rikXL 22:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Third generation ??

Should this drug be genuinely considered as a third-generation antihistamine. In effect, it's only enantiomer, and nothing like the advance that cetirizine and other second-generation drugs were from the first-generation "sedating" antihistamines. My feeling is that to call it "third-generation" is unjustified hype.. and, as an aside, it's made very little impact on the marketplace.

SunnieBG 11:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In fact, the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters for Allergy and Immunology call it a second-generation antihistamine (they include fexofenadine as well). Biochemistry&Love (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Structural formula

Structural formula given in the drugbox is that of an unspecified enantiomer of cetirizine; it can be used for racemic cetirizine, but not for levocetirizine, which is stereochemicaly the (R)-enantiomer (L-isomer); the correct structural formula is:
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/7821/levocetirizinedv8.png
--84.163.87.66 10:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Research Statement unsupported by footnote

The claim of 70% reduction in asthma events in children is not related in any way to the linked paper (footnote 2), which measures nasal and asthma symptoms in adults. This statement needs to be supported or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.69.183 (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In fact, the cited research only enrolled individuals 18 years-old and older. I've removed it. Biochemistry&Love (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly constructed sentence.

This sentence is just weird. :

"The manufacturers claim it to be more effective with fewer side effects than the second-generation drugs; however, there have been no published studies supporting this assertion, although other studies have concluded it may be more effective.[1]"

Splitting up side effects and effectiveness would make it clear.

Something like :"Some studies as well as the claims of the manufacturer state it as being more effective. The manufacturer also claims it to have fewer side effects." would make it look better but I'll leave it to the main creator of the article or someone with a better grasp of English to edit the main article instead of me.

The original puts it's effectiveness as being a claim at the beginning of the sentence but by the end it's a conclusion..

83.101.83.96 (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Levocetirizine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121022184859/http://beximco-pharma.com/allergic-disorders/147-curin.html to http://www.beximco-pharma.com/allergic-disorders/147-curin.html

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]