Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

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

Archives: Index, 1: 3 months

About special / specific populations

Proposal for uniform name

The medical manual of style says, "special populations" and the one here says, "specific populations". The smaller community of contributors here is here at the Pharm MOS. How would people here feel about changing the term to be "special populations" to match the use at the medical guide? If that does not sound agreeable, I will check for opinions at MEDMOS about changing theirs to match this one, or otherwise seeking some kind plan to use the same term. It is the same concept, right? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Change from "specific populations" to "special populations", as these have the same meaning and uniformity is helpful. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind. I still want uniformity but I think Sizeofint is right, that "specific" is the better term. I was imagining that they meant the same thing but they do not. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer specific - Agree that uniformity is good. I prefer "specific" because of some of the connotations with "special". Sizeofint (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Position of special populations in the order of articles

Right now "special populations" is listed as a subsection of "uses", which is ordered to be first. In WP:MEDMOS special populations is ordered to be last in the article. I think that it would be useful to have the same practice in medicine and pharmacy.

I suppose that the argument about placing "specific populations" first as a subsection of uses is that the uses section is the appropriate place to describe usage.

I suppose that the argument about placing "specific populations" last in its own subsection is that information about specific populations will typically not be relevant to the general audience. The "uses" section, being first, should be kept as simple and concise as possible for the general reader. Also by putting "specific populations" at the end, the inclusion of very specific or fringe cases is better placed with the lower-quality article real estate at the bottom. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure Could someone show an example of an article where it seems very appropriate to have "specific populations" posted in the usage section at the top? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Rasberry: Based upon a search for Special populations and Specific populations, there aren't many drugs that actually include an independent section with either heading; it looks like there's about 15–20 drug articles on WP that include "Special populations" as a section anywhere in the article and less than 5 drug articles that include "Specific populations" as a section heading.

"Special populations" examples: Labetalol, Zaleplon, Mebendazole, Isoniazid, and Metamizole currently place a "Special populations" section under the "Uses" heading; Naloxone, Fexofenadine, Repaglinide, Maprotiline, Gentamicin, and Cefazolin include content on special populations under an independent level 2 heading with that title. Some articles that use "Special populations" as a level 2 heading appear to be using it to cover content which would more appropriately be covered under the heading "Contraindications" (e.g., Naloxone). This is also the case in some articles that use "Special populations" as a level 3 heading under Medical uses (e.g., Metamizole).
"Specific populations" examples: Ceftriaxone and Quinolone include content under a level 3 "Specific populations" heading as a subsection of "Medical uses"; Ceftaroline fosamil uses a "Use in Specific populations" heading.

To answer your question: the article on Zaleplon appears to appropriately discuss differences in efficacy between the general population and "Special populations" (specifically, the elderly) in a level 3 subheading with that title under the "Medical uses" heading. The coverage of special populations within the medical uses section also seems relevant/appropriate in the Isoniazid article IMO. The "Specific populations" subsection in Quinolone also seems to be relevant/appropriate to medical uses – it appears to be the best example for an article which uses that heading. I haven't looked at every article with a section titled "Special populations" (see the Special populations search), so there may be other examples. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: to clarify, I consider it appropriate to place "Special populations" or "Specific populations" under a "Uses" or "Medical uses" heading if the content contains any coverage of a variance in efficacy or medical indications between the general population and a specific/"special" population. If the section only covers contraindications or side effects that are relevant to a specific group, then the content isn't appropriate/relevant to the "Uses" section. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Aren't the "Special populations" subsections in MEDMOS for "Surgeries and procedures" and "Diseases, disorders, and syndromes" rather than drugs? Are we trying to align PHARMMOS with just the drugs section of MEDMOS or all of MEDMOS? Sizeofint (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sizeofint You are correct. Pharmmos has a drug guide, but MEDMOS has all sorts of guides including for drugs. Most MEDMOS guides keep similar ordering systems, and when "special populations" appears, then it is last. MEDMOS right now says nothing about special populations in its own "Drugs, treatments, and devices" section.

I am not sure what I want to be uniform - I suppose I am suggesting that anytime "special populations" are addressed, perhaps for all of medicine and pharmacy, that we consider where that should be placed. I am not sure if this is a big decision or not. These orders have been in place for years and I am not sure how thoughtfully they were created, or if even they really went into wide use. Wikipedia has enough trouble covering general use without including special use, so many articles do not cover special use at all.

When "special populations" was placed last in MEDMOS, I think this was just a casual decision in which it was decided to put it last anytime that it came up. Since I think it is just a casual decision, I would not recommend treating it as authoritative in PharmMOS, because actually I do not know what factors should be considered in making a thoughtful decision. I think using one name everywhere is least controversial, but moving around order might not be worth the effort to discuss. I though it might be useful to ask for comments, though, just to see if people really had a preference one way or the other. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drug prescribing information doesn't uniformly use these terms, but when they're included in the Rx info they usually are placed under a "Pharmacokinetics" heading; e.g., see amphetamine brand Dyanavel XR (uses "Specific populations"), amphetamine brand Adderall XR (uses "Specific populations" and "Special populations"), nitazoxanide brand Alinia (uses "Special populations"). That said, since there's <30 articles that include a section title which contains either term ("specific populations" or "special populations") and drug Rx info isn't consistent with respect to the use of these terms, I'm not sure that it's really worth specifying where to place these sections in the MOS. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to section headings

There's a proposal at WT:PHARM#Physical and chemical properties section name to change the "Physical and chemical properties" section header to "Chemistry" in MOS:MED#Drugs, treatments, and devices and MOS:PHARM. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

brand names

In the face of brandname spam and in light of the language about listing brands in this guidelines, which people interpret as preventing removal of brandnamespam, I have started to do this in articles. (that was of course after a spammer did this which called my attention to brands listed in that article). This is stupid to me but I see no other way to manage brands. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an appropriate strategy for now. It might be helpful to link the "Many brand names worldwide" to the appropriate section, whether that is "Society and culture" or a subsection of it. Sizeofint (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I started moving them to the "society and culture" section to decrease the ongoing efforts. IMO we do not need the manufacturer associated with each but no strong feelings one way or the other.

I tend to put one or two of the first / more common ones in the infobox and maybe one in the first sentence.

The rest go low in the body.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So I just did this Metoclopramide#Brand_names today. If we are going after SEO, would it still work if we commented it out? Jytdog (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to SEO I do not know. I think this is a fairly closely kept secret by Google and they adjust stuff from time to time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

? don't know what you mean by google secret. By SEO I just mean if our goal is that somebody can find a drug article by searching for a brand name, can we meet that goal by having the laundrylist in the article, commented out? I can't think of any other reason why we would want the laundrylist of brandnames... Jytdog (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, k. When commented out it does not seem to find it when put in our search box.

Redirects improve functioning further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did my best to organize that content in these edits Special:diff/736097698/736104666; I can't really think of any way of improving upon that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! I meant doing something like this but what you did is fine. Jytdog (talk) 05:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes tested what you did and it does not seem to find them aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hm. OK so "hide" is the way to go then for now. Jytdog (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:MED

@WhatamIdoing: I realize that this page isn't actually indexed as part of the general MOS guideline (e.g., it's not listed in Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (science), template:Style, or template:style wide); however, considering that the vast majority of this page is just a concise repetition of relevant statements in MOS:MED that pertain to drug articles (+a few minor details in some places), isn't this technically just a subpage of MOS:MED that covers specific guidelines that are relevant to drugs, analogous to how MOS:CHEM/Structure is a subpage of MOS:CHEM that covers specific guidelines that are relevant to structure diagrams?

For context, MOS:CHEM/Structure is not indexed as part of the general MOS: guideline, but it's indexed as a subpage of MOS:CHEM, which is part of the MOS (i.e., see the navbox template to the right). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of what I'm asking: since this page is a subpage of MOS:MED, wouldn't this page inherit MOS:MED's status as a guideline? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a sub-page of MOS:MED. Even if it were, subpages do not inherit guideline status. Guideline status is obtained by having a WP:PROPOSAL. (Also, WP:Guidelines don't sit in a WikiProject's userspace.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. MOS:CHEM probably needs to be fixed then since, in several sections, it basically just includes a very brief summary of another page (not all of which are subpages) with a {{Main article}} hatnote to link to it instead of elaborating on that page. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with a guideline including a summary of another page.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry was presumably reviewed as part of the major MoS review (around 2010–2011), and therefore I assume that there's nothing to be fixed there. MOS:CHEM is officially a guideline; MOS:PHARM isn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of section on use in euthanasia / capital punishment?

There are a few drugs like thiopental and pancuronium that are used in the lethal injection and euthanasia and I am wondering where is the appropriate place to mention these uses? I think most people would agree they're not medical uses per se, nor are they recreational uses per se. Guessing a separate subsection of "Society and culture"? Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 15:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For drugs with prominent non-medical uses we often have a 'Use' section within which 'Medical use' is a subsection. 'Capital punishment' or 'Execution' could be a subsection there. Sizeofint (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]