Talk:Sacituzumab govitecan

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sacituzumab govitecan article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Pharmacology High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-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.

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 Sacituzumab govitecan.

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

Results in mTNBC for Development

[1] announces encouraging results for mTNBC. How to summarise ? - Rod57 (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't. It's a press release of unpublished, non-vetted results. It's not salient or reliable information nor is the source reliable, let alone WP:MEDRS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administration Section

Hey@Whywhenwhohow: I noticed that you removed a substantial portion of my edits, mentioning that the source I used (drugs.com), is not a reliable WP:MEDRS source. If you look on the drugs.com website, you'll find that it gathers information from two large credible databases (Lexicomp and Micromedex.) Additionally, according to WP:PHARM, drugs.com is classified as a reliable source. With these thoughts in mind, I went back and added my edits on the administration section. Thank you for also catching the incorrect pronoun use in my edits, and I went back to fix those errors when I added the section on administration. Coffeeking123 (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffeeking123: I removed the content because we don't include dosing and related text in the articles about medications. See WP:MEDMOS, WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:MEDICAL. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! Just to clarify , did you remove those edits under the thought process that providing dosing information of the drug could be interpreted as instructional (which violates policy)? When I added those edits regarding the typical dosing information, I thought that it would not be classified as such because this information came from the drug page itself and was more so a detail on how the drug is typically used in practice. Please let me know your thoughts. Coffeeking123 (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffeeking123: Both of those things. See WP:MEDMOS and WP:NOTGUIDE --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]