Talk:Verteporfin

Typo fixed

Have corrected a typo (was written "amedication" instad of "a medication" and have added photosensitiveness to the secondary effects, plus a comment that it is adviced to avoid exposition to sun light and unscreened lighting for 48 after. I was treated with this drug just three days ago so I guess it is true (didn't tried to have a sun bath, he he). Bill Bones 20:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Effectiveness ?

Is there any data on success rates and need to repeat the PDT ? Rod57 (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Chemical Structure is Wrong!

The chemical formula given is wrong! (Please check with Chemidplus) There is no CH2 unit within the porphyrine ring, and of course there is no double bond at the carbon forming the 2nd stereogenic center. 213.23.164.14 (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

How is it produced

and is it expensive ? US Patent : 5,756,541 expires 11 March 2016. - Rod57 (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Verteporfin edit

An account called Zefr, in good faith, reverted my edit and cited WP:MEDINVITRO on 17 December 2023 On 17 December I made an edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Verteporfin&diff=1190276557&oldid=1190174513 He reverted this edit and took out more. Again, it must be noted, he cited WP:MEDINVITRO in good faith Here is his revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Verteporfin&diff=next&oldid=1190276557

Looking at WP:MEDINVITRO, this is what it says.

WP:MEDINVITRO In vitro studies and animal models serve a central role in research, and are invaluable in determining mechanistic pathways and generating hypotheses. However, in vitro and animal-model findings do not translate consistently into clinical effects in human beings. Where in vitro and animal-model data are cited on Wikipedia, it should be clear to the reader that the data are pre-clinical, and the article text should avoid stating or implying that reported findings hold true in humans. The level of support for a hypothesis should be evident to a reader. Using small-scale, single studies makes for weak evidence, and allows for cherry picking of data. Studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in context by using high-quality secondary sources rather than by using the primary sources.

It should also be noted the sources are secondary. And my last edit was a review. No single research article is over emphasised in the article. He has also removed information with regards to the shortage of verteporfin too, but did not disclose this. He pulled that info alongside this WP:MEDINVITRO, guideline.

He also removed info regarding a 2021 trial of vertepofin in cleft lip trials in humans. He also pulled that info alongside citing this WP:MEDINVITRO guideline.

I Parsed on that guideline (WP:MEDINVITRO,) he cited, I noted this passage:

Where in vitro and animal-model data are cited on Wikipedia, it should be clear to the reader that the data are pre-clinical, and the article text should avoid stating or implying that reported findings hold true in humans. The level of support for a hypothesis should be evident to a reader.

The input I put in on my edit on the 17 December did not imply the data was more than preclinical.

He also took out more info, citing the WP:MEDINVITRO guidelines.

The further information he reverted is in vivo and ex vivo information. It is not all in vitro like implied. It has in vivo animal data, on humans, pigs and rodents. In the language, this info did not imply it was more than preclinical.

But mainly I'd like to, in good faith, refer to the above passage from the guidelines he cites in good faith. Hence, note how in the article he reverted, the article does not imply this is the data, therefore it holds true in humans.

Parsing the implying that reported findings hold true in humans from the guidelines. I'd argue the article he reverted, does not imply that in the language. The information highlighted testing not holds true. Testing implies 'to find out'. At most it highlights a will for people to test this logic out. Thus, there is no it 'holds true in humans' weaselling. You cant deduce that article implies this currently holds true in humans.

In conclusion, I'd argue, via citing the In vitro guidelines, he should amend any 'holds true in humans' language he perceives, not delete.

Hence if he finds something weaselling that implies it holds true in humans, then he, citing WP:MEDINVITRO, guidelines, in good faith, should amend the weaselling language that concerns him. I do not believe, via citing the WP:MEDINVITRO, he should delete?

Using the guidelines, in good faith, I have reverted the article to before my edit on the 17 December. It is now on the 16 December article.Melvapent (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The section contained primary research and an opinion article in NEJM (which is not accessible to the general public), so these have been removed as conjecture, and too preliminary and unconfirmed to mention. I have trimmed the section again, requesting better sources. Zefr (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

You cited WP:MEDINVITRO.

Now you are stating they are not secondary sources?

They are not primary and original sources. For instance you have taken down a newspaper article. A newspaper article is a secondary source.

They are all secondary. They mention the research done by others. Thus, a validation of a premise, is a citation from a secondary source.

They are not primary. This is not premises validated by original research. Though you can cite primary sources if they are paired with secondary sources.

BTW I come in good faith. I'm not here to edit war.

Melvapent (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

You are confusing WP:SECONDARY with source quality needed to support medical content, as described in WP:MEDASSESS. Opinions, conjecture, and primary research studies (in vitro or in animals) do not qualify as sources for a section on skin scarring. See bottom of the left pyramid in MEDASSESS - lab studies and other "primary" sources (side of left pyramid) are not suitable for medical content in the encyclopedia - they are unconfirmed and speculative with insufficient evidence for clinical implementation. No national regulatory agency, like the FDA, or medical organization recommends verteporfin for this purpose. Zefr (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

You started off citing WP:MEDINVITRO..

Using the WP:MEDINVITRO the article does not imply humans should use it. It implies testing, not using it. The guideline explains amend the language if you find the article conveying humans should use it. Instead you deleted citing WP:MEDINVITRO

You moved on from WP:MEDINVITRO.

Next you moved on to primary and secondary sources. The sources are secondary.

Now you are citing other guidelines. You are moving the goal posts every time. Like I said I come in here in good faith. This is not an edit war.

BTW these are all quality sources you have took down. You took down the citation from Clark from the nejm.org. And then put up a citation needed tag. Melvapent (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

References

The goalposts have not been moved. You have not read all of WP:MEDRS which includes the sections I have described. MEDRS is identified at the top of this talk page, and apparently, you have ignored this instruction. If you'd like a different interpretation, post a topic at WT:MED where experienced medical editors can respond. I cannot explain this any more clearly and have nothing further to add here. Zefr (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)