Hi,
I agree that providing well-sourced "typical amounts" (perhaps with a historical perspective?) is useful information. That is not an issue. Here is an abstract from [[Trimipramine]] without a citation:
"The recommended initial dose is 75 mg daily in two or three divided doses. Initial tolerance may be tested by giving the patient 25 mg on the evening of the first day...."
Which would be better written:
"The American Medical Association recommends a dosage of 75mg for the treatment of acute <whatever> without complications.^A" A) The AMA reference (not rxlist.com)
If the AMA does provide such recommendations. Having a vandal change specific dosage amounts is a scary prospect, as some people may actually trust our information at face value.
Thanks, George en: [[User:GChriss]]
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 19:02:48 +0000 English Wikipedia wrote:
On 18/02/07, George Chriss GChriss@psu.edu wrote:
Is there a substantive reason that we provide dosage information on
prescription drugs? I generally remove the following sections on sight:
Please don't do that. It's useful knowledge to know what dosages are typically given for what.
e.g. amitryptyline, which has quite different dosages for depression and for chronic pain relief (and has come into its own for the latter after SSRIs beat it for the former).
- d.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Feb 18, 2007, at 15:06, George Chriss wrote:
Having a vandal change specific dosage amounts is a scary prospect, as some people may actually trust our information at face value.
These are prescription drugs? If so, I'm sure said people will trust their doctors and the labels on their drugs and the inserts which come with the drugs far more than an online encyclopedia. Perhaps they will call their doctor and say, "I read that the usual dosage was much higher/lower, what gives?" And their doctor will tell them the information was wrong. Even if they trusted the information, that's no reason to act on it.
--keitei
On 2/18/07, Keitei nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 2007, at 15:06, George Chriss wrote:
Having a vandal change specific dosage amounts is a scary prospect, as some people may actually trust our information at face value.
These are prescription drugs? If so, I'm sure said people will trust their doctors and the labels on their drugs and the inserts which come with the drugs far more than an online encyclopedia. Perhaps they will call their doctor and say, "I read that the usual dosage was much higher/lower, what gives?" And their doctor will tell them the information was wrong. Even if they trusted the information, that's no reason to act on it.
--keitei
My general experience based on how people react to information about "alt med" on the net suggest that there are a fair number of people who will not trust their doctors or even consult them.
On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 10:04:42PM +0000, geni wrote:
On 2/18/07, Keitei nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 2007, at 15:06, George Chriss wrote:
Having a vandal change specific dosage amounts is a scary prospect, as some people may actually trust our information at face value.
These are prescription drugs? If so, I'm sure said people will trust their doctors and the labels on their drugs and the inserts which come with the drugs far more than an online encyclopedia. Perhaps they will call their doctor and say, "I read that the usual dosage was much higher/lower, what gives?" And their doctor will tell them the information was wrong. Even if they trusted the information, that's no reason to act on it.
--keitei
My general experience based on how people react to information about "alt med" on the net suggest that there are a fair number of people who will not trust their doctors or even consult them. -- geni
More a response to keitei, but I deleted his original message.
We have to also think about the fact that "prescription drugs" and "call your doctor" are First World things. In West Africa for example, what we call prescription drugs are often frequently available in the market. Their misuse is one of the factors that leads to drug resistent bacteria. Maybe reliable information about doses may be usefull here. I'm not sure.
Brian.
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
We have to also think about the fact that "prescription drugs" and "call your doctor" are First World things. In West Africa for example, what we call prescription drugs are often frequently available in the market. Their misuse is one of the factors that leads to drug resistent bacteria. Maybe reliable information about doses may be usefull here. I'm not sure.
And not just in West Africa. When I lived in Chicago, the immigrant-run corner store near my house had a variety of black-market prescription drugs. At first I was horrified, but when I did the math on exactly how many hours your average illegal immigrant had to work to pay for one doctor's visit, it made a lot more sense.
William
On 2/18/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
We have to also think about the fact that "prescription drugs" and "call your doctor" are First World things. In West Africa for example, what we call prescription drugs are often frequently available in the market. Their misuse is one of the factors that leads to drug resistent
bacteria.
Maybe reliable information about doses may be usefull here. I'm not sure.
And not just in West Africa. When I lived in Chicago, the immigrant-run corner store near my house had a variety of black-market prescription drugs. At first I was horrified, but when I did the math on exactly how many hours your average illegal immigrant had to work to pay for one doctor's visit, it made a lot more sense.
William
There are plenty of on-line places whose purpose is to give dosages. Usefulness? I use that one every once in a while and get firmly scolded, Wikipedia is not a recipe book, for cakes or drugs, and dosage is a lot more complex than just knowing the amount. In my industry, we say, "the dose makes the poison." Should Wikipedia risk that?
KP
On 2/19/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
There are plenty of on-line places whose purpose is to give dosages. Usefulness? I use that one every once in a while and get firmly scolded, Wikipedia is not a recipe book, for cakes or drugs, and dosage is a lot more
Quite frankly, I don't see anything "unencyclopaedic" about providing a definitive, stereotypical recipe for [[pancake]]. It would be much more useful and authoratitive than this waffle:
-- American or Canadian pancakes contain a raising agent, usually baking powder, and contains different proportions of eggs, flour and milk, which create a thick batter. If desired, one could add cinnimon and sugar, giving the pancake additional flavour. This batter is either spooned or poured (1/4 measuring cups are good for pancakes) onto a hot surface, and spread to form a circle about ¼ or ⅓ inch (1 cm) thick. The raising agent causes bubbles to rise to the uncooked side of the pancake, at which point the pancake is ready to be flipped. --
Granted, we should include a source for the recipe, and a good one at that.
Steve
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 10:04:42PM +0000, geni wrote:
My general experience based on how people react to information about
"alt med" on the net suggest that there are a fair number of people who will not trust their doctors or even consult them.
We have to also think about the fact that "prescription drugs" and "call your doctor" are First World things. In West Africa for example, what we call prescription drugs are often frequently available in the market. Their misuse is one of the factors that leads to drug resistent bacteria. Maybe reliable information about doses may be usefull here. I'm not sure.
There's that, but some doctors are in the habit of providing antibiotics on request to any patient. There is also very heavy veterinary use of antibiotics to keep farm animals from getting sick. That too is bound help build up drug resistance.
Ec
George Chriss wrote:
If the AMA does provide such recommendations. Having a vandal change specific dosage amounts is a scary prospect, as some people may actually trust our information at face value.
Seems to me that having people trust information from Wikipedia about drug dosages at face value _at all_ is the scary prospect. I wouldn't bake a cake using a recipe from Wikipedia without checking against outside sources first, whether the article's history showed vandalism or not. We already have medical disclaimers specifically intended to cover this, IMO we shouldn't have to go to great lengths to protect idiots against themselves.
I don't think giving dosage info is a smart idea. Besides the obvious fact that there's going to be people who will take them at face value, the whole point of prescription drugs is that a doctor needs to determine a dosage.
Dosages change per condition and from person to person (kids should get less than adults and weighty adults should get more than lighter ones, and then there's adjustments needed for big drinkers, pregnant people and people with lung or heart conditions, just to name a few). There's no way Wikipedia can give reliable information on dosages -ever- there's just too many possibilities.
Mgm
On 2/18/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
George Chriss wrote:
If the AMA does provide such recommendations. Having a vandal change
specific dosage amounts is a scary prospect, as some people may actually trust our information at face value.
Seems to me that having people trust information from Wikipedia about drug dosages at face value _at all_ is the scary prospect. I wouldn't bake a cake using a recipe from Wikipedia without checking against outside sources first, whether the article's history showed vandalism or not. We already have medical disclaimers specifically intended to cover this, IMO we shouldn't have to go to great lengths to protect idiots against themselves.
I wonder if you think the same thing when someone dies because they trusted the info. There's so many different ways to dose medicine that there's not one all-inclusive dose. If we can't include one reliable dose, we shouldn't include any at all.
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
I wonder if you think the same thing when someone dies because they trusted the info.
Why wouldn't I? I'd feel bad for them and their survivors, but the fact that they actually went ahead and did something that I considered to be an idiotic thing doesn't change my opinion of how idiotic it was to do it. If anything it reinforces my opinion.
We've got information about the composition of thermite, too. Should we remove it in case someone tries making some and burns his house down?
There's so many different ways to dose medicine that there's not one all-inclusive dose. If we can't include one reliable dose, we shouldn't include any at all.
This sort of caveat should be mentioned right in the article itself. A range of typical doses is still useful and interesting information.
On 18/02/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder if you think the same thing when someone dies because they trusted the info.
We have enough of a problem protecting people from other people's stupidity on the mailing list ...
- d.
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 2/18/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
George Chriss wrote:
If the AMA does provide such recommendations. Having a vandal change
specific dosage amounts is a scary prospect, as some people may actually trust our information at face value.
Seems to me that having people trust information from Wikipedia about drug dosages at face value _at all_ is the scary prospect. I wouldn't bake a cake using a recipe from Wikipedia without checking against outside sources first, whether the article's history showed vandalism or not. We already have medical disclaimers specifically intended to cover this, IMO we shouldn't have to go to great lengths to protect idiots against themselves.
I wonder if you think the same thing when someone dies because they trusted the info.
I would be thinking "Darwin Award, Special Wikipedia Category". Of course then we'd have the all-important [[List of Darwin Award winners who died from trusting Wikipedia]].
:-)
But to be serious, I think it's reasonable to be ruthless about sourcing and quoting this kind of info, and deleting if none is found. If a pharma company recommends a dosage on their website, and we phrase our text as "As of 2007, BigPharmaCo's website recommends 75mg [1]", then we're just transcribing what is already on the net, not playing doctor. (It would be ultra-clever to develop some kind of tool that tracks these, and flags the WP text for review if the website changes.)
Stan
On 2/19/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I wouldn't bake a cake using a recipe from Wikipedia without checking against outside sources first...
Ingredients:
* 2 cups self-raising flour * 1 cup sugar * 2 eggs * 2 tbsp nitroglycerine
Method:
Mix dry ingredients well. Beat egg and fold into dry mix. Throw nitroglycerin at the mix as hard as you can.
Stephen Bain wrote:
On 2/19/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I wouldn't bake a cake using a recipe from Wikipedia without checking against outside sources first...
Ingredients:
- 2 cups self-raising flour
- 1 cup sugar
- 2 eggs
- 2 tbsp nitroglycerine
Method:
Mix dry ingredients well. Beat egg and fold into dry mix. Throw nitroglycerin at the mix as hard as you can.
Two tablespoons seems like high dosage for angina medicine. I also don't think that throwing the pills will have the desired medical effect.
Ec
On 2/18/07, George Chriss GChriss@psu.edu wrote:
If the AMA does provide such recommendations...
The best source to cite here would be the [[Physicians' Desk Reference]] or, alternatively, the manufacturer's package insert for the medication (which is the same thing). I don't think the AMA generally makes recommendations on dosage; the manufacturers are generally the ones that figure that out.