Talk:Orphenadrine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Needs more references!

There are a multitude of claims made in this article that seem to be pulled out of thin air as if a pharmacist working for the manufacturer personally wrote it. I don't want to make that accusation, but c'mon...just take a second look at it. No normal person would go out of their way and find information that specific and seemingly genuine and just forget the citation after hours of research. This article needs work, that's all that needs to be said. Aglo123 (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Tone of article, Evidence of Bias and Minimization of Side Effect Issues

This article reads like it was written by a drug company. It asserts many things more strongly than a NPOV article about the drug should read. for example "making it a good alternative to Neurotin® as an adjuvant analgesic for chronic pain management." "Euphoria is not an "adverse effect" -- from whatever source, it certainly helps in the healing process"

these are value judgements not plain statements about effects. the second one even takes on the nature of an argument.

The article is largely of high quality with sources cited but the NPOV language makes it seem like a shill. Stblndr 13:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. This article was largely written by (presumably) one editor, contributing from a range of IPs, and while there are indeed two references, they don't corroborate the statements most likely to be challenged (such as the two you mentioned, which are probably original research). Fvasconcellos 15:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The side effects section is definitely NOT NPOV. It sounds like it was most likely written by someone who uses this and other drugs for the purpose of euphoria as well as pain management. That is fine, most of those people have experience with the drug and can provide insight. However, if they cannot also provide verification, their word is in no way special. "Euphoria is not an adverse side effect" is clearly biased. One could argue that euphoria can add another element to addiction of opiates, and thus is NOT wanted by all who use the drug for pain, as it can cause problems. "Orphenadrine is believed by many people, patients especially, to weaken, eliminate, and/or pre-empt the dysphoria via a mechanism which is not completely understood at this point although it is possible that it has to do with its action at NMDA receptors."

Believed by whom? This isn't cited, and it sounds like they are just saying what it does for them and assuming it is a common effect, and taking a stab at why they think it does that. I'm changing these, i don't think anyone will protest from the looks of things on the discussion page. More work is still needed. -Indalcecio 00:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"All the effects of orphenadrine do, none the less, increase the ability of just about any regimen of drugs for pain relief to stop and prevent suffering, as opposed to purely the pain stimulus considered without the cascade of secondary and tertiary effects of noxious stimulation of nerves and the unique properties of chronic pain of various aetiologies. "

ALL of the effects? even the adverse side effects? HOW does it relieve suffering? Sounds like somebody just wants (really badly) to state his meme that euphoria is always good when caused by a drug. If they can't even discuss it and back it up, yet keep changing it, they obviously dont have any sound arguments and i'm taking it out. 24.183.14.168 03:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly agree with these criticisms. This drug is a potent inducer of delirium in the elderly, esp. any elderly in cognitive decline. This article should be red-flagged for serious bias. DFW 4/9/08

Factual Accuracy Problems

This article has a lot of inaccurate statements about things which are not entirely relevant. Here are a few in order of appearance: Orphenadrine is not an isomer of diphenhydramine. Gabapentin (Neurontin) is not a general analgesic adjuvant, it is only for neuropathic pain. Pubmed shows that orphenadrine is rarely mentioned as a headache treatment, and then only before the year 1982 (I will concede that many random websites seem to mention it as a headache treatment). Orphenadrine citrate is administered parenterally, and the anion would not affect the rate of absorption into the brain. Can I just start deleting inaccurate and irrelevant tangents? Fluoborate 09:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do. This article needs serious cleanup. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The "Duration of effects" section didn't seem to mention orphenadrine's duration of effect, it just claimed that benzodiazepines and cyclobenzaprine have effects that are too long-lasting. It also stated questionable facts about diazepam metabolism. I deleted the section, but someone may create a new "Duration of effects" section if they have anything to say about orphenadrine, itself. Fluoborate 09:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Scattered information

Information about uses, pharmacology, etc. is scattered throughout all the different sections. Furthermore, many facts are repeated in different places. The article contains a great deal of pertinent information, but it needs to be better organized. Fuzzform (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Opioid potentiator.

Orphenadrine + Methadone, apparently this has recreational value/abuse-potential as an opiate potentiator esp. for methadone. Nagelfar (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)