Talk:Rociletinib

Biomedical content

Hi User:Julia W - please read WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS and please stop adding content about health based on primary sources, and please stop calling clinical research "medical use". You can tell me to "fuck off" all you want but if you edit like a newbie who doesn't understand the basics of editing about medicines, you will get "welcomes" like one. Jytdog (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly did I add that is from a primary source? Is it the clinical trial reference? I'm pretty sure we commonly refer to clinical trials. Also, I intend to eventually swap out the oncotargets reference for another since oncotargets is now considered predatory. You are interpreting MEDRS and MEDMOS in the craziest way. Your reverts are inflammatory. If you object to "medical use" as a heading then change it for something else. Block reverting my edits is unnecessary and rude, and I'll respond to you like you're a troll. Also, stop following me around. Julia\^talk 09:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

here is your edit. You added content from Clovis' website and from clinicaltrials.gov (both primary sources) as well as unsourced content. You added content about research under a "medical use" header.

Nothing you added was based on good sources so none of it was useful. After I reverted, I took time out of my day to read the one MEDRS source that was there and improve the article based on it in this diff.

Your edit-warring and responses are, unambigiously, unbecoming of an administrator.

You are correct that I did follow you here, from Osimertinib; your edit there was funky which led me to look at this one. Yep. this set of diffs there, where you added unsourced content and content sourced to primary source, was not good, and some other person actually got themselves indefinitely blocked (block log) trying like crazy to retain it. Oy. Jytdog (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This diff from 2016 is the one in which the Clovis website was added. It has nothing to do with me. The primary point of you reverting me (adding spam?) seems to have been based on a misreading of the diffs.

I disagree that for basic "this is what the clinical trial was" that clinicaltrials.gov is an unacceptable source. I agree that the published primary research from those clinical trials would be unacceptable. However, it's not a point I need to belabour because I can source the information to review papers instead. No big deal.

You have more experience editing medical articles than I do, so I would appreciate your pointers on how to improve. There are a lot of standards in MEDRS and MEDMOS that must be learnt with time and experience. Rather than completely reverting me, pasting welcome templates, and calling me a "newbie", I would appreciate specific, helpful feedback in the future. Julia\^talk 17:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. The "welcome" message I left on your page is the most concise one we have, and has links to other texts that explains all this, and I am tempted to say WP:RTM but I will briefly explain:

Please start with high quality sources. MEDRS calls for a) recent literature reviews in the biomedical literature or b) statements from major medical/scientific bodies. (NHS Choices is great and we use all that time). Drug labels are fine too, and UK electronic medicines compendium is great for them. To find recent reviews, go to pubmed, do your search, and then from the menu on the left side, check "reviews". Look for high quality ones (Cochrane, BMS, Lancet, JAMA, Nature, etc) and definitely avoid predatory publishers. The community avoids primary sources for content about health like the plague for a bunch of reasons - many of those are explained in WP:Why MEDRS?.

Anything that is WP:Biomedical information needs to be sourced per MEDRS - things like if a drug is effective or what is side effects are, etc.

WP:MEDMOS has a section on common sections for articles about drugs, diseases, etc. Most of the sections are biomedical information about what is actually real, medically (not research). There are sections for "Society and culture" and "history" that just need plain old RS sourcing. There is a separate section for "Research" as well - this should be research trends - high level stuff, also sourced to reviews, not individual studies. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]