Talk:Paracetamol/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Panado

Csn we talk about how addictive this is, I mean seriously so many people around Maddadeni can't live without it. Kay gee 2019 (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello there Kay gee 2019 (talk · contribs). Do you happen to know of any published works talking about people being addicted to it? I think it is certainly worth adding if you would be able to show us some information about it. FACP2007 (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Paracetamol involvement: "Maternal Genes Tied to ADHD Development in Children" via Medscape.com

I came to this Wikipedia page when viewing "Maternal Genes Tied to ADHD Development in Children", a news article via Medscape.com, by Marilynn Larkin, May 09, 2019. Therefore I began searching for Paracetamol definition, with which I was not familiar.

The article is sourced by Reuters Health, NY, as reported online May 1 in JAMA Psychiatry. I would like to have it reviewed and its results re: Paracetamol incorporated into the article as appropriate.

Thanks and regards, Charles

C9637m (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

APAP

Is an abreviation N-acetyl-para-aminophenol (APAP)

https://www.pharmacytimes.com/publications/issue/2013/october2013/apap-an-error-prone-abbreviation

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed rename

I propose that, per WP:UCRN this article be renamed from Paracetamol to Acetaminophen. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the relevant Wikipedia style guidelines, but in instances where something is known by multiple common names, it seems that the prevalent name in its place of origin should overrule others. This compound was first developed and marketed in the USA, where it is known as Acetaminophen, so I think your proposal has merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.66.237 (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The naming thing is serious. Most of the world calls is Paracetamol, but in the Americas and Japan it goes by Acetaminophen.

It is not uncommon for travellers to be unable to find this drug when referring to it by the other name (EU visitors asking US drugstores for Paracetamol, or Americans asking European pharmacies.

Maybe we can get someone to rework the naming section to move more of this info to the intro paragraph of the article. Riptide360 (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The convention for drugs per WP:MEDMOS/WP:PHARMOS is that we use the International nonproprietary name, which is what the article is currently named. Here is the relevant INN list if you want to check. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Relevant to this, for readers interested or confused by the INN/USAN controversy, is having the "preferred" IUPAC name shown. See Acetamide. The Chembox has both "PIN =" and "SystematicName ="; Drugbox has only "IUPAC_name =". Is there any way for Drugbox editors to add both to that template?71.230.16.111 (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

We use INNs just like we use metric first. Yes the USA really need to get their act together. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Link to cause of analgesia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AM404 notes a paraAminoPhenol metabolite activating canabinoid receptors. At least a "see also" link. Shjacks45 (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Lede needs further copyediting to make it appear standard and encyclopedic

The structure of the lede, presentation of pronunciation, etc. need a knowledgable expert to copyedit it to a reasonable pharmacologic standard. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AM404 re acetaminophen metabolite activating cannabinoid receptors. Makes sense, a similar study showed Acetaminophen caused s general "don't care" attitude (reminiscent of THC). Shjacks45 (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

citation overkill

Why does the lead have 30 citations, including multiple simple and uncontroversial statements that each have two or three citations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Overdose Section lacks citations

I am not sure why this hasn't been covered yet; but several statements in the "Overdose" section lack medical citations. So, what, if anything, should be done? 4Cancer (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Empathy, Emotional pain, and Mistakes

I've heard that Tylenol reduces empathy, emotional pain, and causes people to make mistakes. This seems like important research. Should there be sections about these topics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.186.206.157 (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Covid19, SARS and Paracetamol use

Upon a thorough look at the article, it appears this section on SARS did not exist so I added a short sentence about Paracetamol becoming central to treating symptoms of coronavirus in the pandemic. However, because of the significance of the pandemic and the widespread use of paracetamol in lieu of ibuprofen, do you think it would be appropriate to create a full section on this matter and provide analysis of the recent scientific consensus? Mightberightorwrong (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Picture

Do we need a picture of the crystals paracetamol? I found Acetaminophen.jpg but the crystals look a bit dirty. Keresluna (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

My opinion is no, we do not need that picture, but for others would be nice to have a link, so they could check it out. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Where should I put the link? Keresluna (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Here The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Article states paracetamol is preferred over ibuprofen for COVID 19, but sources do not support this.

The article states: "During the COVID-19 pandemic it was widely considered by the scientific community as the main and most effective analgesic medication to treat symptoms of COVID-19.[148][149][150][151]"

However, [150] states: "In this cohort of COVID-19 patients, ibuprofen use was not associated with worse clinical outcomes, compared with paracetamol or no antipyretic."

Sources [148] and [149] are literally talking about how the news of ibuprofen worsening COVID-19 is unsubstantiated. (Source [151] is the unsubstantiated news article about ibuprofen being bad)

[148] doi:10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000713

[149] doi:10.1136/bmj.m1555

[150] doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2020.06.003

[151] https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m1086.abstract

Thus, I am appending "but this was found to be unsubstantiated" to the text.

Play150 (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it confuses the reader. The crucial information is, “Taking anti-inflammatory drugs (ibuprofen, cortisone . . .) could be an aggravating factor for the infection. If you have a fever, take paracetamol,”. I'm not sure why there's information on ibuprofen for covid on Paracetamol (acetaminophen) page. 118.233.77.26 (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think this paragraph offers any useful information. There is no special relationship between paracetamol and COVID, why mention it? I’d advocate for removing this (and the numerous references).

103.51.114.101 (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Intro reads like a snipe-job made by an ibuprofen manufacturer

I propose removing all references to other drugs and focusing on paracetamol 37.170.48.46 (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the lead paragraph includes too many comparisons. But there's nothing wrong with including comparisons later in the lead section. --Macrakis (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Much of the article has an oddly negative tone to it, although it is well referenced. A lay reader coming to it for information is likely to conclude that paracetamol doesn't do very much and is extremely dangerous. Few medical professionals hold this view. It really needs a copyedit by an expert editor to address these WP:WEIGHT issues. --Ef80 (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree! Especially with the "undue weight" aspect!!! Looking through the edit history, the page was SIGNIFICANTLY altered by user name "The Sceptical Chymist" back in March 2021. I would love to see this page go back to how it was before then. When I have time, I'll look into trying to change some of it, but I'm brand new to contributing on Wikipedia and this is a daunting task. Alyssa817 (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The entire 2nd paragraph sounds like an advert for ibuprofen!

2nd paragraph starts with the words: "At a standard dose.." It really feels like someone is trying to promote ibuprofen and say how much better it is than Paracetamol. I dont think this page is the place for such things. 2A02:6B61:5315:0:8C48:4DFB:CFE9:76B8 (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

Numerous edits by a single editor throughout March 2021 have lead to this article reading like an argument against the use of paracetamol/acetaminophen. This is especially apparently in the introduction, and it occurs throughout the article. These edits are heavily cited, but undue weight is given to these arguments. Some of the citations are primary sources.

(I would like to be active in reshaping this article to align with Wikipedia policies, but I am new to contributing and I am overwhelmed.) Alyssa817 (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Alyssa817 - itemize your issues here first. The lede statements are well-sourced, and there have been few lede changes over recent months. Zefr (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The issue here isn't a lack of references, it's a question of tone, balance and weight. The present state of the article is almost evangelical, as if factory farming had been heavily edited by an animal rights activist. Rightly or wrongly, there appears to be an agenda here, even if none exists. --Ef80 (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this criticism (as do all the comments later on the talk page, implicitly). Another point to keep in mind is that paracetamol is an old drug. Little high-quality research is currently being on it, since its medical uses are, I think, well understood (and there is very little funding for such research). I doubt serious people are even writing surveys on that anymore. So, citations to recent articles about its clinical uses are likely to be low-quality papers or ones presenting provocative results which are unlikely to hold up under further research. Recent metastudies suffer the same problem. Citations for clinical uses should either be to recent mainstream medical textbooks, or to survey papers written a long time ago (~50 years). (Its mechanism of action might still be a topic of active study, so recent citations there are more plausible.)

It would be nice if an expert would clean up this article (and ideally sign their name to the edits), or if a moderator would revert it to the state before "The Sceptical Chymist"s edits in 2021. This is an important medicine, and an inaccurate Wikipedia article about it does real harm. (I am a mathematician, and lack the expertise to do this responsibly.) RobertLipshitz (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

This article reads like nobody is certain that tylenol is better than a sugar pill.

Almost every use is "uncertain".... man if only there were a way to find out. Wow, they call out that tylenol does NOT treat a sore throat, because there is "poor data quality".

However, the same quotation says that it relieves a "stuffy nose". I can't find where that comes from in the linked reference, but I'll tell you Tylenol would claim their product relieves stuffy noses if it was proven. And they don't.

Then they note that "it only slightly reduces fever"??? It's the primary anti-fever med where I come from. What are these "facts" and who thinks they belong here?

Oh under adverse effects, here's a good one: "increase in risk taking behavior is possible." Yup that's definitely a real "fact" worth including in the wikipedia article alongside real actual medical adverse effects.

Onset of Action

I'm not very familiar with wikipedia editing (or with medicine terminology in general) which is why I'm not making this edit myself, but I looked at the source for the onset of action orally being 37 minutes, which actually just referenced another source, which also actually just referenced another source, which was the actual study, about the onset of analgesia after third molar surgery. It said that the time to meaningful pain relief was 37 minutes, but that the onset of analgesia was 11 minutes, the latter of which sounds more like onset of action to me but I'm not sure. The 37 minutes was from a study involving 45 people, averaged between 24 & 44 minutes, which, if we are going by meaningful pain relief, "24-44 minutes" sounds more accurate.

Here's the study: Moller, P. L., Sindet-Pedersen, S., Petersen, C. T., Juhl, G. I., Dillenschneider, A., & Skoglund, L. A. (2005). Onset of acetaminophen analgesia: comparison of oral and intravenous routes after third molar surgery. British journal of anaesthesia, 94(5), 642–648. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aei109 Inconspicuous Flaneur (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't have time to clean up this mess but I suggest hunting down and undoing those March 2021 edits and banning the user.

This reads like there was an agenda or unreasonably poor judgement in choice of what data to include and where the more fringe "paper quotations" (not facts) belong.

Agreed. This mess needs to be reverted to line up better with current medical practice. The tone is inappropriate and the views presented are not generally accepted. I tried to remove the paragraph, but apparently "that's not how wikipedia works". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.68.236.9 (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is why WP is U/S... 2A00:23C8:9FF6:DC01:2147:38EA:4881:5694 (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)