David Goodman wrote:
I notice that in several survey the information that
most physicians
regret Wikipedia not having is information on standard dosage,
information that we have made the policy decision to omit.
I think this a particularly stupid decision. For current drugs, the
information is standardized and available from the authoritative
source--the official drug information. It's not a matter of
unsupported opinion, it's pertinent, and the sources are impeccable.
(Giving the variation in actual dosage used, or giving historical
does, is another matter, though there are sometimes sources for that
also). The general reason given is that WP is not a source of medical
advice. No, but it is and should be a source of reliable medical
information. The range of official usual dose is a fact, and can be
reported.
Well, I imagine we can link to this information if it is online; and I
imagine the disclaimers about following such advice in self-medicating
or (feels queasy here) treating others are better left on some other
site. I'm also uneasy at taking US-centric medical advice as normative.
It is simply not the case that prescribing is an international standard,
I believe. Body mass index must have some relevance. And so on. David
has a point in that certain official recommendations could be presented
as such, as verifiable facts. I would be alarmed even about physicians
consulting an editable site such as WP about such key numbers.
Charles