Talk:Lilotomab

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 Lilotomab.

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 is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lilotomab 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 sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

orphan tag

Offically linked. Remove unlinked please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2c1:8002:1a30:a018:9591:5ade:e6df (talk • contribs) 02:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Betalutin vs Tetulomab

I am not an experienced Wikipedia user, but created the initial versions of both Tetulomab and Betalutin. These articles have been combined into one which I think is not correct. Betalutin is the monoclonal antibody Tetulomab linked to radioactive Lutetium-177. The radioactive Lutetium-177 emits the beta radiation that kills cancer cells. The major group interested will be cancer patients searching for clinical trial information. (The first patient treated with Betalutin is still alive.) Patients will search using both Google and Wikipedia for Betalutin, not Tetulomab.

I suggest an undo of the merging of Tetulomab and Betalutin?

RajeRaje (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC) RajaRaje[reply]

@RajeRaje: People searching for Betalutin is not the problem, they will be redirected here. However, I have noticed that quite a lot of information has been deleted after the merger (i.e. the combination of the two articles). I'll have a look at it over the next weeks as time allows. Regards --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there was a lot of content that we don't put in articles about drug candidates that I weeded out. And unsourced stuff, etc. In my view if the conjugated mAB gets approved we can make a new article then, as this will remain a reagent. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. @RajeRaje: we don't normally name discoverers and developers unless they are really famous. Certain phrasings ("with minimal damage to nearby normal healthy tissue") could be seen as promotional – if it caused more than minimal damage, it wouldn't be in clinical trials. If you think any more information should go into the article, please find a reliable source and feel free to ask me for help. Regards, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]