Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Template talk:Infobox drug/Archive 19) (bot |
|||
(491 intermediate revisions by 58 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Permanently protected}} |
|||
{{Talk header}} |
{{Talk header}} |
||
{{WPBS| |
{{WPBS| |
||
Line 9: | Line 10: | ||
| algo=old(90d) |
| algo=old(90d) |
||
| archive=Template talk:Infobox drug/Archive %(counter)d |
| archive=Template talk:Infobox drug/Archive %(counter)d |
||
| counter= |
| counter=19 |
||
| maxarchivesize=150K |
| maxarchivesize=150K |
||
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}} |
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}} |
||
Line 15: | Line 16: | ||
| minthreadstoarchive=2 |
| minthreadstoarchive=2 |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{collapse top|title=Infobox drug: Changes log|bg=#ccc}} |
|||
* 2016-12-08: add ECHA InfoCard from Wikidata P2566 (// with Chembox) |
|||
* 2017-02-14: add licence_CA, improve showing+link of DailyMedID. licence_US link broken at FDA site. |
|||
* 2017-02-16: PubChem (CID) add option 'none'. Shows & categorised (also: CASnr, Chemspider, ATCcode), simplyfy ATC/vet, fix ATC issues, always show PubChem SID, added licenSe_EU, licenSe_CA, general code cleanup |
|||
* 2017-02-16, indexes (2nd identifiers): use unbulleted list not <code><nowiki><br /></nowiki></code>, use /formatX subtemplates, use standard formatting, rename some index params (hard removal) |
|||
* 2017-02-16, tracking categories: track 2nd identifiers & indexes to help maintenance checking (incl. Wikidata), rename and deprecate some, redo the track subtemplate, add default tracking option (when no need for new category) |
|||
* 2017-05-10: add physiological data set (endogenous drugs); parameter metabolites possible in two sections. |
|||
* 2017-05-19: reorder to position of pronunciation in rare situation; metabolism maybe repeated in contexts; add option component #5. |
|||
* 2017-07-20: add new parameter legal_BR, legal_BR_comment with options (Brazil) |
|||
* 2017-08-18: add INN_EMA to allow EMA-licence showing for differently written INN. |
|||
* 2017-08-25: add local INN variants AAN, BAN, JAN, USAN as synonyms; move synonyms into clinical data section. |
|||
* 2017-10-15: add cat 'Drug has EMA link', rm cat 'Drug has EU (EMA) licence'. See {{plain link|1=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=EMA&prefix=Template+talk%3AInfobox+drug%2F&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search&ns0=1|2=EMA talks}}. |
|||
* 2017-10-21: licence_EU and EMA: improve external link (see also [[Template:Infobox drug/licence|subtemplate]]) |
|||
* 2018-03-08: adjust TemplatePar error message |
|||
* 2018-03-31: add tracking physiologica data |
|||
* 2018-03-31: add section gene therapy; with 4 parameters; tracking |
|||
* 2018-03-31: add parameter gt_target_gene |
|||
* 2018-04-14: adjust labels in gene therapy (gt_*) |
|||
* 2018-04-18: add links 'edit at WD' to E-number and ECHA chart ID |
|||
* 2018-08-20: vaccine_type: allow free text |
|||
* 2019-04-22: add DTXSID, DTXSID2 for CompTox database el (uses P3117) |
|||
* 2020-07-05: [[:Category:Infobox-drug molecular-weight unexpected-character]]: +main other |
|||
{{Warning|1=This list is over a dozen edits out of date. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_drug&action=history Template:Infobox_drug&action=history].}} |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
== |
== Tolerance potential? == |
||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 13:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1597670513}} |
|||
{{Cot|bg=aliceblue|What is GoodRx and why should we add it to the drugbox?|collapse=no}} |
|||
I’m sort of puzzled why things like addiction liability and dependence liability are a thing in these info boxes for various drugs but tolerance potential/rate isn’t? I know there is a number of variables like dosage and rate of frequency and even individual enzyme properties, or maybe even receptor sensitivity, but the same is also evidently true for the other aforementioned potentials. From what I can clearly tell, some substances certainly have abnormally fast tolerance increases (such as opioids & amphetamines); whereas others can have pretty modest rate of increased tolerance. And even substances with potential for reverse-tolerance (like salvia and cannabis) should also have this mentioned in the infobox. [[User:Dexedream|Dexedream]] ([[User talk:Dexedream|talk]]) 04:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC) |
|||
As for what GoodRx is, their support page probably explains it best: |
|||
*[https://support.goodrx.com/hc/en-us/articles/115004944026-What-is-GoodRx-How-does-it-work- What is GoodRx? How does it work?] – fairly concise summary of what services GoodRx provides |
|||
*[https://support.goodrx.com/hc/en-us/articles/360001302523-How-does-GoodRx-make-money- How does GoodRx make money?] – explains where their revenue comes from |
|||
:Interesting thoughts. Got sources? FYI, I'm working on adding an indicator on pages for drugs that have [[black box warnings]]. I found a source database but I'm struggling to figure out the correct edits to the templates. ([[Template talk:Infobox drug/legal status/sandbox]], and/or [[Template talk:Infobox drug/sandbox]]...) [[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 04:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
As for why we should add it to the drugbox:<br />The retail cost of pharmaceuticals in the United States is often prohibitively expensive. It's not hyperbole to say that adding GoodRx links to the article drugboxes could potentially ''save someone's life'' (I'll substantiate that assertion using [[insulin (medication)]] as an example of how and why) merely by facilitating the use of a service that provides consumer drug price information as well as drug coupons that typically discount the retail cost of a prescription significantly; at the very least, adding these links will help US consumers who click the drugbox's price data link to avoid exorbitant drug costs. I realize that this is a lengthy post, but I clearly illustrate the benefit that this website can provide to consumers in the examples below. |
|||
:Tolerance in and of itself isn't an even remotely notable drug property. To the extent that it plays a role in drug dependence, it's necessary to understand. And, for what it's worth, sensitization of drug reward is the biological process that mediates the development of addiction; drug tolerance doesn't play any role in its pathophysiology. IMO, if there are any notable drug effects that tend to undergo tolerance or sensitization with repeated use, content about that should be added to the article, not dumped into an infobox with limited context. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 05:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Edit request 15 November 2023 == |
|||
; Insulin analogs |
|||
See [https://www.google.com/search?q=insulin+cost+united+states+death this Google search for the string 'insulin cost United States death'] and just pick any article (e.g., [https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/50-states/2019/03/21/diabetes-insulin-costs-diabetics-drug-prices-increase/3196757002/], [https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/he-lost-his-insurance-and-turned-to-cheaper-form-of-insulin-it-was-a-fatal-decision/2019/08/02/106ee79a-b24d-11e9-8f6c-7828e68cb15f_story.html?noredirect=on] [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47491964]) |
|||
{{Edit template-protected|answered=yes}} |
|||
In a nutshell, they all say the same thing: the rising prices of insulin analogs in the United States has made it prohibitively costly for some people to fill a prescription for one of those drugs. The clinical efficacy of insulin analogs for diabetes is completely irrelevant if people can't afford to buy them. The news articles from the google search and the examples I provided all say that insulin analogs (nearly all of which cost >$300 out of pocket per the news articles and from checking every link in [https://www.goodrx.com/insulins# GoodRx's insulins drug category page]; NB: the prices listed next to the drugs on that page are "GoodRx fair prices", not the lowest price with their coupons) are prohibitively costly for diabetics without health insurance; some ration their insulin and/or don't fill prescriptions, and in some cases doing that has led to [[diabetic ketoacidosis]] and resulted in death, as stated in those sources. The majority of those articles specifically mention prices for various dosage forms of brand name or generic [[Humalog]] (insulin lispro), which is the cheapest short-acting insulin analog (NB: none of those articles mention GoodRx or online drug coupons). If you compare the prices for brand name Humalog/generic insulin lispro mentioned in the sources to the ''retail'' prices on [https://www.goodrx.com/humalog GoodRx's generic Humalog page], you'll notice they're more-or-less the same as what's listed there, but GoodRx's Coupons for generic Humalog discount the retail price by ~60% for all three dosage forms (i.e., the kwikpen, carton, and vial). In other words, if someone with diabetes lacks insurance and can only afford to pay a certain $ amount out of pocket for generic Humalog each month due to financial constraints, using GoodRx Coupons will more than double their [[purchasing power]] of insulin lispro at that $ amount (i.e., with GoodRx coupons, a consumer with a limited/fixed budget can buy approximately 2.5 times as much insulin lispro for the same total cost as they could without those coupons). That increase in purchasing power could very well obviate the need for a person to ration insulin or forego their prescriptions, thereby mitigating the ketoacidosis risk. |
|||
::{{Ping|Doc James}} I imagine you added some of the content in [[Insulin lispro#Cost]] to that article since it looks like your style of writing. Compare [https://www.goodrx.com/humalog?dosage=10ml-of-100-units-ml&form=vial&label_override=insulin+lispro&quantity=1 GoodRx's Coupon price of $68.38 and estimated retail price of $165.00 for a vial (10 ml insulin lispro 100 units/ml)] to the following sentence from [[Insulin lispro#Cost]] about the price of that drug product: {{tq|In April of 2019, Eli Lilly and Company announced they would produce a version selling for $137.35 per vial, about half the current cost.}} I hope that it's now clear why it would be prudent to provide links to the GoodRx website from drug articles – particularly articles on expensive prescription drugs – as well as why simply listing GoodRx's price data on Wikipedia isn't useful; if it isn't clear though, it's because that ~60% discounted price requires that a person [https://www.goodrx.com/coupon?pharmacy_id=3&extras=Jgh-gUlBnPHdw9PzILdY_ltJQiU%3D+SYIo23siZGlzdGFuY2VfbWkiOiA2LCAibmV0d29yayI6IG51bGwsICJwcmljZSI6IDY4LjM4NDM2ODg5NjQ4NDM4LCAibG9uIjogLTExOC4yODI0MDgsICJsYXQiOiAzNC4wMjY1MjUsICJzZWFyY2hfdGltZSI6IDE1NjU3NDE3NTguMDMyNzY0LCAicGhhcm1fZmlsdGVycyI6IFsiYXBwZW5kX3RvcF9zdGF0ZV9waGFybWFjeSIsICJlc3J4X21haWxfb3JkZXIiXSwgInByaWNlX2ZpbHRlcnMiOiBbImdvbGRfY3ZzX21lbWJlcnNoaXBfcHJpY2VzIiwgImluY2x1ZGVfZXNyeCIsICJpbmNsdWRlX29ubGluZV9jcGMiLCAiaW5jbHVkZV9yZWdpc3RlcmVkX3VzZXJfcHJpY2VzIl0sICJ6aXBfY29kZSI6ICI5MDAwNyJ9&drug_id=43764&quantity=1 print out this coupon] for a vial (10 ml insulin lispro 100 units/ml) and take it to a ''Walgreens'' pharmacy where that coupon for that price is valid. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 02:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
'''Description of suggested change:''' |
|||
Edit the change I made (to the sandbox copy) to the legal_US= line into the template. I tested it in [[Template:Infobox drug/sandbox]] and it works. It will display [[Boxed warning|<span style="border:thin solid black;">WARNING</span>]]<ref name="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web |title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]] |access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref> based on data I've begun adding to wikidata. I have buy-in at |
|||
[[WT:MED#Black_box_warnings_project]]. |
|||
'''Diff:''' |
|||
; Two widely prescribed generic antibiotics (levofloxacin & azithromycin) |
|||
Current:<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">legal_US={{{legal_US|}}}</syntaxhighlight> |
|||
This is a study of prescription drug economics/cost-minimization conducted by USC that used GoodRx data+coupons; I've quoted all of the relevant content from this source on GoodRx below.<ref name="Pharmacoeconomic study with GoodRx data+coupons conducted by USC">{{cite journal | vauthors = Arora S, Sood N, Terp S, Joyce G | title = The price may not be right: the value of comparison shopping for prescription drugs | journal = The American Journal of Managed Care | volume = 23 | issue = 7 | pages = 410–415 | date = July 2017 | pmid = 28817779 | doi = | url= https://www.ajmc.com/journals/issue/2017/2017-vol23-n7/the-price-may-not-be-right-the-value-of-comparison-shopping-for-prescription-drugs | quote = <br />Abstract<br />'''OBJECTIVES:''' To measure variations in drug prices across and within zip codes that may reveal simple strategies to improve patients' access to prescribed medications.<br />STUDY DESIGN: We compared drug prices at different types of pharmacies across and within local markets. In-store prices were compared with a Web-based service providing discount coupons for prescription medications. <u>Prices were collected for 2 generic antibiotics because most patients have limited experience with them and are less likely to know the price ranges for them.</u><br />'''METHODS:''' Drug prices were obtained via telephone from 528 pharmacies in Los Angeles (LA) County, California, from July to August 2014. '''Online prices were collected from GoodRx, a popular Web-based service that aggregates available discounts and directly negotiates with retail outlets.'''<br />'''RESULTS:''' Drug prices found at independent pharmacies and by using discount coupons available online were lower on average than at grocery, big-box, or chain drug stores for 2 widely prescribed antibiotics. The lowest-price prescription was offered at a grocery, big-box, or chain drug store in 6% of zip codes within the LA County area. Drug prices varied dramatically within a zip code, however, and were less expensive in lower-income areas. The average price difference within a zip code was $52 for levofloxacin and $17 for azithromycin.<br /><u>'''CONCLUSIONS: Price shopping for medications within a small geographic area can yield considerable cost savings for the uninsured and consumers in high-deductible health plans with high negotiated prices. Clinicians and patient advocates have an incentive to convey this information to patients to improve adherence to prescribed medicines and lower the financial burden of purchasing prescription drugs.'''</u><br /><br /><br />Given the growth in internet use and online purchases of prescription drugs, we simultaneously collected prices for the 2 medications obtained at the same set of pharmacies from '''GoodRx''', a popular Web-based service that aggregates available discounts and directly negotiates with retail outlets to provide consumers with coupons for discounted drug prices. Patients can enter a medication name and zip code and the website will list prices at most pharmacies operating in or near that zip code. To test the acceptance of the '''GoodRx''' coupons, we physically presented them at 5% of the pharmacies to ensure their prices would be honored. The study protocol was reviewed by the University of Southern California’s institutional review board prior to initiation. We examined the distribution of discounted drug prices by pharmacy type, as well as the extent of price variation in high- versus low-income areas, and then explored how prices varied across pharmacies in the same zip code. Given that most individuals purchase medications near home, examining prices within a zip code is an implicit measure of the potential cost savings from price shopping. ...<br /><br />Table 1 shows the variation in drug prices by pharmacy type, categorized as chain, independent, grocery store, big-box, and online ('''GoodRx'''). This captures variation in prices both across and within zip codes and reflects the discounted price. The average price of generic levofloxacin purchased with a '''GoodRx''' coupon or at an independent pharmacy was less than half the price versus a grocery or big-box store and less than one-fourth of the discounted price obtained over the phone at chain drug stores. Although prices were highest at chain drug stores, there was far less variation in price at this type of location (interquartile ratio [IQR], 1.05) compared with the other retail outlets (IQRs, ~2.0).<br /><br />'''Prices varied less for azithromycin than levofloxacin, but relative prices followed a similar pattern. <u>The lowest average prices were found via GoodRx ($20)</u> and at independent pharmacies ($23); chain drug stores charged the most ($37).''' There was little variation in price for chain drug stores (IQR, 1.05), particularly in comparison with independent pharmacies (IQR, 2.47) and grocery stores (IQR, 4.30). Asking for a discount had the largest effect at chain drug stores in the case of levofloxacin (lowering the average price by $11, or 10%) and at grocery stores in the case of azithromycin (by $8, or about 25%). ...<br /><br />Table 4 highlights general approaches for obtaining the lowest priced medication in an area. <u>In more than half of the 71 unique zip codes in the study sample, independent pharmacies had the lowest price for levofloxacin (53%), followed by '''GoodRx''' (44%).</u> In only 2 of 71 zip codes did a chain or big-box store have the lowest price for levofloxacin. We observed the same pattern when we restricted the analysis to the 39 zip codes with a big-box store. For both levofloxacin and azithromycin, the lowest price prescription was offered at a grocery, big-box, or chain drug store in just 6% of zip codes. ...<br /><br />Finally, we used a single website to represent discounts available online. '''<u>Nonetheless, GoodRx is the largest price aggregator and coupon tool used by thousands of doctors and millions of patients every month. Further, 100% of GoodRx coupons were honored when physically presented at the pharmacy during this study.</u>'''<br />'''CONCLUSIONS'''<br />Slowing the growth of healthcare costs underscores nearly every health policy initiative in the United States and is the motivation for public and private efforts to increase price transparency in healthcare markets. <u>Price transparency initiatives face considerable obstacles, however; most prominently, how to reliably measure and convey information about quality and price for thousands of complex medical services produced by a wide array of providers and organizations. The task is less daunting for prescription drugs because quality is fixed.</u><br /><br />'''''<u>The extent of price variation found in this study suggests that consumers could readily benefit from greater price transparency. If this information were widely available to consumers, large variations in drug prices across pharmacies would likely be reduced.</u>'''''}}</ref> It's not the only pubmed-indexed article that used GoodRx data for research purposes (e.g., {{PMID|28895827|30796990}}), but it's the only one I've come across that analyzed the utility of GoodRx for prescription drug cost minimization in the United States. It's worth reading the excerpts below IMO. |
|||
{{Cot|Reflist with excerpts from the study on prescription drug cost minimization|bg=white|collapse=no}} |
|||
{{reflist talk}} |
|||
{{Cob}} |
|||
Sandbox:<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">legal_US={{#ifeq: {{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|[[Boxed warning|<span style="border:thin solid black;">WARNING</span>]]<ref name="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web |title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]] |access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref>}}{{{legal_US|}}}</syntaxhighlight> |
|||
([edit: I entered the code w/ Template:TextDiff as directed but it didn't display it properly in preview, so diff now manually displayed above. Help, appreciated, collapsed.) |
|||
So just to summarize: GoodRx provides a valuable prescription drug price comparison tool and coupons that often steeply discount the exorbitant retail prices of prescription drugs in the US. It helps uninsured individuals and families as well as those with high deductible plans to afford medications they'd otherwise be unable to purchase with no strings attached. And, in exceptionally rare circumstances, using GoodRx can increase the purchasing power of an individual with a limited budget enough to be able to afford sufficient quantities of a medication so as to prevent potentially lethal complications that result from treatment/management non-compliance. This is US-centric content and it is just another external link in the drugbox, but personally I think the potential benefits that this offers to our readers and the number of readers who can benefit from including this link (relative to all the other random crap we link to in the drugbox – see [[#Clinical data and Identifiers]] below) merits its inclusion. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 02:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 01:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
{{cot}} |
|||
(I entered the code as directed but it doesn't display properly in preview. If needed, view [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_drug&diff=next&oldid=1181456421 diff].) |
|||
:I tried putting <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki> around the parms to the TextDiff above, and it produced this: |
|||
{{TextDiff|1=<nowiki>|legal_US={{{legal_US|}}}</nowiki>|2=<nowiki>|legal_US={{#ifeq: {{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|[[Boxed warning|<span style="border:thin solid black;">WARNING</span>]]<ref name="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web |title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]] |access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref>}}{{{legal_US|}}}</nowiki> |
|||
Following up on [[Talk:Epinephrine (medication)#Cost information in the United States]], what do others think of placing a GoodRx link in the drugbox template? We could use a left-hand side field as "US consumer prices" and the RHS could just link directly to the corresponding GoodRx webpage(s) listed on Wikidata for an article (that'd require creating an identifier property for GoodRx). I'd be willing to add the corresponding identifiers to all of the Wikidata entries on prescription drugs listed on the GoodRx website with a bot if there's consensus to do add it to the drugbox. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 18:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:First impression: better not. [[GoodRx]] is not encyclopedic, is it? It's like a marketing tool. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 18:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Drug articles currently contain price information and most reputable sources (even including a number of PubMed-indexed publications) that report US consumer price information cite GoodRx’s drug prices. Anyway, since individual drug products from different pharmacies are perfect substitutes, the only factor that matters in marketing drug products (by a pharmacy, not a pharmaceutical company) is price. So, that website is more of a cost-minimization tool for consumers than a marketing tool for pharmacies. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 02:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::How is it encyclopedic to provide the cost links? [[WP:LINKFARM]] comes to mind. What's next? Second car prices? Also, the information is US specific. ~So far, I object to including this. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 13:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{Ping|DePiep}} Amphetamine is an atypical example since most drugs don't have 6 approved formulations. Even so, I could just add the top 2 or 3 most prescribed formulations and list the brand names instead of lengthier generic names (NB: if a formulation has a generic, price data for either the brand name version or generic version can be displayed by selecting brand/generic in the dropdown list at the top left of the corresponding webpage, so it isn't misleading to list the brand name instead of the generic name); . That data is included on each of their drug product webpages. |
|||
:::::Re the US-centric data: we already have 3 US-specific fields in the current drugbox (see the 2nd drugbox example below for amphetamine). If desired, we could change the LHS to "Consumer prices" and modify the RHS to prepend <small>{{abbr|US|United States}}:</small> to permit the inclusion of price data for other countries/regions that are currently supported by the drugbox. |
|||
:::::Would doing it that way be more amenable to you? [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 22:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::'''Oppose'''. I am not convinced that it is encyclopedical, let alone belong in an infobox. Bringing up the argument "saves lives" sort of proves that. (Below is a subthread on splicing the el's from the infobox). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 20:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::{{Ping|Doc James}} Could you offer your input? [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 06:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::What does "RHS" stand for? I am okay with GoodRx. We also have this website which I primarily use for US prices.[https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/prescription-drugs/pharmacy-pricing/index.html] |
|||
:::[[User:Seppi333]] do you have an example of what you propose? [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 07:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
{{Drugbox |
|||
| drug_name = {{sm|l}}-Norpseudoephedrine |
|||
| C=9 | H=13 | N=1 | O=1 |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
:[[User:Davemck|Davemck]] ([[User talk:Davemck|talk]]) 02:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{Ping|Doc James}} Using the drugbox to the right for reference, the left-hand side (LHS) fields are "Formula" and "Molar mass" and the corresponding right-hand side (RHS) fields are C<sub>9</sub>H<sub>13</sub>NO and 151.209 g·mol<sup>−1</sup>.<br />Since a given drug article may have several drug products associated with it, I'd code it so that it pulls the GoodRx pagenames (which is the name of the drug product) and corresponding urls from WikiData and displays each entry in a list using this syntax: <code>[GoodRx_url Pagename_of_Drug_product]</code>; e.g., [https://www.goodrx.com/amphetamine-salt-combo Amphetamine Salt Combo], [https://www.goodrx.com/amphetamine-salt-combo-xr Amphetamine Salt Combo XR], [https://www.goodrx.com/mydayis Mydayis], [https://www.goodrx.com/adzenys-xr-odt Adzenys XR-ODT], [https://www.goodrx.com/dyanavel-xr Dyanavel XR], [https://www.goodrx.com/amphetamine-sulfate Amphetamine Sulfate], [https://www.goodrx.com/dexedrine-spansule Dexedrine Spansule], [https://www.goodrx.com/zenzedi Zenzedi], [https://www.goodrx.com/lisdexamfetamine Lisdexamfetamine]. Those products and links are the same ones from this table: [[Amphetamine#Pharmaceutical products]]. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 07:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::Generally speaking, I don't think most drugs will have that many links; e.g., the amphetamine article would only have the first 6 above listed in its drugbox. I need to request access to GoodRx's database to obtain the pagenames, urls, and hopefully the corresponding INN for each drug product to be able to program a bot to add these though (lacking the INN would make this task a pain in the ass). [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 07:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
{{Template:Infobox drug/sandbox2|drug_name=Amphetamine |
|||
|GoodRx= [https://www.goodrx.com/amphetamine-salt-combo Adderall], [https://www.goodrx.com/amphetamine-salt-combo-xr Adderall XR], [https://www.goodrx.com/amphetamine-sulfate Evekeo] |
|||
| image = Racemic amphetamine 2.svg | width=300 |pregnancy_US = C | legal_US = Schedule II }} |
|||
:::I'll code a template sandbox example in a bit. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 07:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{ping|Doc James}} Example shown to the right. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 22:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It would be nice to have the actual numbers within Wikipedia not just the links. People should not have to go elsewhere. |
|||
:::::Am working on a clean up of Wikidata's medication information. We are going to work on making sure all entires have the proper INN (in multiple languages), followed by adding the medicaid pricing information for wholesale. We could also than look at adding GoodRx data. We could than whichever number we want from Wikidata. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 03:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I'm not sure how wholesale price information would be useful to any of our readers. The intent behind my proposal is to link to current consumer drug price and pharmacy information externally, not list historical consumer price data internally; we can't provide the current price data on Wikipedia since consumer drug prices in the US change frequently and it doesn't seem feasible to regularly automatically update drug prices from the GoodRx database: assuming we were able to pull drug price data from GoodRx's database whenever we wanted, we'd have to edit a couple thousand wikidata items ''every time'' we import new price data from their database. Our readers who are interested in current price data would have to go to their website regardless of whether we list GoodRx price data on WP since we don't provide the necessary drug coupons for buying a medication at those prices and we wouldn't list the corresponding pharmacy to which the GoodRx price we list pertains. |
|||
::::::Like I said before, I'm willing to write a bot script in python to import the urls and pagenames from GoodRx to the appropriate wikidata items if there's consensus to add the external links. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 04:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::The wholesale and retail price vary little from each other. I am okay with either. I however do not want just a link, I want the actual number. Yes we may need to update it once a year, but people should not have to go elsewhere. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 06:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*'''<s>Oppose</s>''' '''''support''''' I advocate for human readable information in the infobox, and for machine readable information and external link collections to be at the bottom in an authority control box. We have discussed drug infoboxes a lot in the past. I do not like the present boxes with the collection of links which take up valuable space and human attention at the top of the article but which either or both convey no useful information and advertise an external collection. I would support the addition of GoodRx and similar database links at the bottom of the article but oppose it being added to the collection in the highly visible infobox at the top. Additionally I advocate for the other links being removed from the top and for the infobox to be entirely intended to convey topic-specific information to humans. My opposition is not about GoodRx and is only about adding more coded information and brand advertising. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 16:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Bravo. This is a good description of the concept of [[WP:INFOBOX]], and the deviation {{tl|Infobox drug}} has accumulated. Too often the infobox is seen (by highly regarded editors in this) as a data sheet for consumers & doctors, not an encyclopedic summary of a medicine. Earlier on, I suggested we could move a set of data to the External links section, probably in a template but definitely not an infobox. Similar issue plays in {{tl|Chembox}}. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 05:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)] |
|||
::::TBC: I said ''Bravo'' to the original opposition (argumentation). _[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 19:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::Different people have different opinions on the layout and content of infoboxes, as it's not standardized. [[MOS:INFOBOX]] doesn't preclude the inclusion of ELs in infoboxes after all. Other editors think infoboxes detract from articles. Removing all the ELs from the infobox isn't the "right way" to present summary/supplemental data to our readers; it's merely ''one way'' of doing it. As for the EL template, we are 100% going to use a scaled down version of the drugbox. When I said – "{{tq|The first is that I imagine a lot of readers will have no clue what happened to every drugbox on Wikipedia if we suddenly cut them in half without providing some kind of indication of what we did with the other half of the drugbox data (it's not like they're going to know we've moved it to an EL section and I doubt most of them will scroll all the way to the bottom of the article to try to find what we did with it). The second is that all of those links are still very much pertitent to the Drugbox even after being split out, so there should be a means of navigating to them quickly within the Drugbox (this is analogous to the "Supplementary data page" link in the chembox).}}" – I meant it at face value. We're going to cut the drugbox in two and keep the appearance identical; and, that's why that there's going to be a link from the drugbox at the top of the page to the External data half at the bottom. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 22:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::No, the appearences of an infobox, ''any'' infobox, follows from its informational description (say MOS:INFOBOX). For exampple, since it is some summary of the article topic, we can not reuse it for an EL list. Sure readers might be surprised when the Drugbox changes (half a dozen el's disappear), but that does not imply that the new EL list is an infobox in any sense (this is more a soft change management issue). After all, this is removing those el's from Drugbox ''because they don't belong in the infobox''. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 19:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
{{anchor|Clinical data and Identifiers}} |
|||
{{Template:Infobox drug/sandbox2|drug_name=Amphetamine|GoodRx= [https://www.goodrx.com/amphetamine-salt-combo Adderall], [https://www.goodrx.com/amphetamine-salt-combo-xr Adderall XR], [https://www.goodrx.com/amphetamine-sulfate Evekeo]| license_US = amphetamine| Drugs.com = {{Drugs.com|parent|amphetamine}}| ATC_prefix = N06| ATC_suffix = BA01 | DailyMedID = 53d40847-e0d3-48ec-81a7-ec5478553565 |
|||
| image = Racemic amphetamine 2.svg | width=300 |pregnancy_US = C | legal_US = Schedule II}} |
|||
{{Ping|Bluerasberry|DePiep}} I've added a lengthy explanation about what GoodRx is, the services it provides, the motivation for adding this link to the drugbox, and clearly illustrated the utility of GoodRx to consumers with 2 examples. I strongly suggest reading all of it; but, at the very least, just read the quoted excerpts from the journal citation. |
|||
:@DePiep: I've modified the LHS and RHS to prepend "US:" on the RHS for consistency with the other fields. I'm completely open to suggestions/feedback on this and would also be fine with limiting the number of external links to 2 for the RHS if limiting it to 3 is still a problem for you; that said, I'd be pretty appalled if, after reading what I wrote in the collapse tab above, you still felt opposed to adding a GoodRx field to the drugbox solely because it includes retail price data and drug coupons. |
|||
:@Bluerasberry: See the drugbox to the right for the "Clinical data" fields that I'm referring to immediately below, including the proposed GoodRx field. I agree with you that the identifiers should probably be moved but I strongly disagree about the clinical data links. It is not even remotely possible for us to include the price information and GoodRx coupons for drugs on Wikipedia that're listed on the GoodRx website; the only way to make that content available is to externally link to it. While GoodRx does get around 10 million visits to its site per month, not many people actually know about GoodRx; if you read the news articles I linked about insulin, you might've already realized that. I'm hoping you consider the benefit to WP readers in the US from linking to a website that offers significant cost savings on prescription drugs to outweigh the cost of a slightly less visually appealing drugbox as a result of 1 new infobox field. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 02:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:#We currently have 7 ''Clinical data'' fields (the 2 ATC parameters below count as 1 field) that link to an external source and list only the drug name, a code, or the name of the corresponding website with a hyperlink on the right-hand side. While the websites that are linked serve different purposes, these links are all displayed the same way as the field that I've proposed adding for GoodRx. ''With exception for the ATC code and DailyMed ID (which uses the [[National Drug Code]] for a drug as the input), none of these fields are coded.''<br />All of the fields in this section and all of the corresponding websites supplied as an external link in this section should be human readable; with exception for the ATC code link to the WHO page, all of those websites are human readable. As for the GoodRx website, that's obviously human readable; it wouldn't be a [[price comparison website]] if it weren't. As mentioned below, it also provides clinical data in the "Drug Info" tab ([https://www.goodrx.com/adderall/what-is? example]).<br /><br />Given the utility that the clinical data external links provides the drugbox (in terms of clinically-relevant information ''about the <u>drug</u>'' as opposed to about the compound), none of these should be moved out of the drugbox. I imagine a significant fraction of readers of a drug article would be interested in the website content from one or more of these links since they all contain clinically-relevant drug information.<br /><br /> |
|||
:#We also have 12 ''Identifiers'' fields that link to an external source and generally display a hyperlinked website-specific identifier for the corresponding webpage on the right-hand side. While these fields all just link to another website like the clinical data links do, the type of content they contain is entirely different from the content the clinical data websites contain (even the ATC code WHO link includes dosing info). Besides price information, GoodRx also contains clinical data on dosage forms, strengths, and brand vs generic formulation for an active ingredient as well as other clinical data in the "Drug Info" tab ([https://www.goodrx.com/adderall/what-is? example]) on common side effects, indications, interactions and precautions, etc.; hence, the proposed GoodRx field is also entirely different from the identifier links. ''All of these fields are coded''.<br />While I personally find some of these database links useful and handy to have in the drugbox for my own use, I recognize that the content is probably only useful/relevant to <1% of the readers of a drug article. Given the wide range in types of external links included here and the general lack of utility to the average reader, I agree that moving this out of the drugbox and into an article footer template for external links might be a good idea. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 02:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
'''Diff:''' |
|||
{{Cot|Clinical data and identifiers parameters|bg=white}} |
|||
Current:<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">legal_US={{{legal_US|}}}</syntaxhighlight> |
|||
<pre> |
|||
<!-- Clinical data --> |
|||
| Drugs.com = |
|||
| MedlinePlus = |
|||
| licence_CA = <!-- Health Canada may use generic or brand name (generic name preferred) --> |
|||
| licence_EU = <!-- EMA uses INN (or special INN_EMA) --> |
|||
| DailyMedID = <!-- DailyMed may use generic or brand name (generic name preferred) --> |
|||
| licence_US = <!-- FDA may use generic or brand name (generic name preferred) --> |
|||
| ATC_prefix = <!-- 'none' if uncategorised --> |
|||
| ATC_suffix = |
|||
</pre> |
|||
Sandbox:<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">legal_US={{#ifeq: {{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|[[Boxed warning|<span style="border:thin solid black;">WARNING</span>]]<ref name="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web |title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]] |access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref>}}{{{legal_US|}}}</syntaxhighlight> |
|||
<pre> |
|||
:I have fixed the code display for you. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 02:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
<!--Identifiers--> |
|||
| CAS_number = |
|||
| PubChem = |
|||
| PubChemSubstance = |
|||
| IUPHAR_ligand = |
|||
| DrugBank = |
|||
| ChemSpiderID = |
|||
| UNII = |
|||
| KEGG = |
|||
| ChEBI = |
|||
| ChEMBL = |
|||
| NIAID_ChemDB = |
|||
| PDB_ligand = |
|||
</pre> |
|||
{{cob}} |
{{cob}} |
||
{{ref-talk}} |
|||
::{{ping|Seppi333}} I have failed to make myself understood. I am not contesting the quality of the information or its inclusion. I only object to its placement at the top of the article rather than at the bottom. None of the above information is of any use to an end consumer. I advocate that everything in an infobox, with the exception of 1 external link to an official website if applicable, should be to inform a human immediately upon reading without any additional clicks. I oppose placement in the top primary infobox and will support placement anywhere outside of and below the primary infobox at the top. I am already in agreement with your argument for the value of this content. |
|||
: {{not done}} See below. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 02:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::If you fear the bureaucratic process of moving these links out from the top to elsewhere, then I would support you including GoodRx or anything else at the top now as a temporary measure, so long as you agree and assert that all this content is inappropriately placed, problematic, and needs to be moved as soon as possible. |
|||
::If you have other ideas I am ready to find a way to support your idea to share access to this information, which is a good idea. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 05:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::I am also supportive of moving a bunch of technical stuff to the end of the article. We have finished doing this for disease related articles on EN WP. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 07:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Re-opening. I asked several questions below that have gone un-answered for several days. --[[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 09:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::''(part of the talk here ended up in section [[#Prototype]] below)'' |
|||
:[[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] |
|||
::::::(ec) Re Seppi: Good, except for the link to EL-box in the infobox. OF course, every EL related to the infobox and v.v.: that connection is the article title. (But maybe temporally useful because of the change). |
|||
:1. If I add the same URL to the thousands of wikidata entries (which I think is a bad idea) then you'll do the migration? That's worse than making the source info visible here, as my code does. |
|||
::::::To improve the process & thinking: I '''oppose''' adding GoodRx to the infobox. (Doesn't this split need a separate thread?). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 20:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:2. Did you notice that the code you're refusing to add contains a full citation for the data? |
|||
:::::::I am adamantly opposed to splitting the drugbox without adding that wikilink. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 22:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:3. It does, do doesn't WP:NOTBEUC apply? |
|||
::::::::That's the point: add this new external link in in the el section, not in the infobox. Are you suggesting we ''must'' add it to the infobox ''before'' ou would consider moving links down the article? Sounds like you are bartering with non-existant goods. What leverage does this threat have? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 16:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Hello? |
|||
:::::::::Not before. That would be odd. Ignoring the consensus issue, who else would be coding a bot script to do this if it weren’t me? This isn’t a simple edit to the drugbox we’re talking about. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 03:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:-- [[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 06:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Edit: if you meant the GoodRx link instead of the EL box wikilink, then yes, I did mean before. I intend to write the import script before I write the one to split the drugbox. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 03:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]], would you mind hopping up to this section and explaining why you think that [[Module:WikidataIB]] needs to be used, given that the source is being supplied here? I understand not wanted "Boxed warning"; I want to know why you are insisting on "Boxed warning{{dummy ref|Wikipedia source}}{{dummy ref|Copy of same source from Wikidata}}". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{od|:::::::::}}'''oppose'''. I'd agree if the price was listed, with GoodRx as the reference but not with a straight up link. While I agree this is in the public good for US citizens (as already pointed out) I see a lot of dangers. (1) I can't find precedent for including a for-profit link in the infobox (I equate this (from a philosophical point of view) to having the IMDB or Rotten Tomato link in the infobox of a movie), but I think much of the general community would oppose. (2) Their profit model could change, without disclosure, and we could be giving bad and unverifiable information. (3) Their methods seem to be bit of a black box; we can't independently verify accuracy or that they're unbiased (4) There may be bias in the way information is presented (e.g. the referral fees or advertising that is not well marked as such) (5) very specific to the US. Overall; I like the idea as a public service but oppose it because it's easily corruptible by the company and it gives them a significant, and unfair advantage over anyone else that may be providing the same or similar services. [[User:Ian Furst|Ian Furst]] ([[User talk:Ian Furst|talk]]) 19:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::I have not objected to this section. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 16:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::{{Ping|Ian Furst}} Every DrugBank link in a drugbox, as of right now, is a for profit link. If you go to any drugbank page (e.g., https://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB00295 https://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB00910), you'll see an ad in the top-right of the loaded page that says things like: "High-quality data is the first step for training Machine-Learning and Artificial Intelligence models." and "Learn more about how you can use our data to enhance your EMR System!" Click that link and you'll immediately be taken to https://www.drugbankplus.com. I got excited by the idea that I'd be able to use a drugbank API when I saw the AI banner, but I'm not paying for that. . Not only that, but adverse effects, contraindications, and black box warnings are all behind a paywall as well (just load a page and search the term "ADDITIONAL DATA AVAILABLE"). At least GoodRx doesn't let down their users with a paywall for their services. EDIT: as of right now, your points about (2) and (3) apply to GoodRx and Drugbank equally, but (4) applies even moreso to Drugbank since it makes no attempt whatsoever to explain its business model. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 13:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::Well, someone using your account [[Template talk:Infobox drug#c-Jonesey95-20231115024000-Unreferenced data is being pulled from Wikidata|wrote]] "The code in the above edit request should also use [[Module:WikidataIB]]" below. That [[Template talk:Infobox drug#c-Pppery-20231119023000-Jonesey95-20231115024000|has been interpreted as an objection]] to this change. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Fair enough. The module is the standard way of implementing the RFC. My question below, "Why would anyone want unsourced information in Wikidata?", seems relevant. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 17:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::A small fraction of it is probably unsourceable; I doubt there are any sources out there that say whether [[Measles]] should be listed as an instance of Q12136, Q112193867, or Q112193769 (three variations on saying that it's a 'disease'). Therefore having some fraction unsourced is of no particular concern to me; some of it will be obviously correct in its real-world meaning, even if editors can differ over the ideal item number to represent the obvious fact that it's a disease. |
|||
::::::In this instance, Rudolfo and I have been talking about the advantages of setting a bot as a sentinel over the items. Sources do not prevent vandalism. Auto-revert bots do. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::Glad to see it's been clarified that there's no objection. |
|||
::::It's not appropriate that this was derailed. It's not appropriate to demand I try to make or push for someone's unrelated changes that are not even in my wheelhouse. |
|||
{{adminhelp|answered=yes}} |
|||
::::Dear admin: |
|||
::::I'm asking that the above-requested template change be made. (In other words, I'm asking that [[Template:Drugboxwarns]] be copied to [[Template:Infobox drug]]. That will modify the one line of [[Template:Infobox drug]] exactly as I've asked that it be modified. The only difference is that the sandbox template also has some other changes that I presume make the sandbox work better, but shouldn't be copied to the live template.) Using the <nowiki>{{adminhelp}}</nowiki> template, as it's been over a week with no action, and I think it's been clarified that there's no objection. As a bonus, warning of these particularly important safety issues may, just perhaps, thereafter regularly prevent iatrogenic catastrophes. (Yeah, I know, [[Wikipedia:General disclaimer|Disclaimer]].) [[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 03:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I resolved the accessibility issue, [[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]]. Switched to CSS: [[Boxed warning|<span style="border:thin solid black;">WARNING</span>]]. [[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 07:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]], you wrote, I will not move [[Template:Infobox drug/sandbox]] to [[Template:Infobox drug]] because I believe that you should not be using math markup for presentation for reasons of accessibility. |
|||
::::::Will you move it now? I removed the math markup and resolved the accessibility problem. [[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 01:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::<hr>Hello? Feedback please! [[User:Arthurfragoso]], @[[User:Wostr|Wostr]], '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|P.I. Ellsworth]]''''', @[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]], {{ping|User:Redrose64}} do you see any showstoppers? We currently have many articles that warn about minor side effects but fail to higlight black box warnings. It's a bad situation that we need to fix, pronto, IMO. [[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 03:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I don't see any showstoppers. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Will you move my edit live? If not, what holds you back? --[[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 03:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Like you, I don't have the necessary user rights to edit the page. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}} |
|||
I've {{done}} the original edit request, since it seems to now be uncontested. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 00:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
===Next steps=== |
|||
:Yay! Bravo, all. There's still work for me/us left - e.g. NIRMATRELVIR AND RITONAVIR ([[Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir]] is one of the drugs I/OpenRefine failed to mark in wikidata; not sure why. Need to get the import/match to work better. I wonder how many pages the warning is displayed on. [[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 01:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::In its current form this is not useful and is exceptionally bulky in the infobox. For example, on [[clonidine]], I see the "[WARNING]" box beside Rx-only, and yet neither hovering nor clicking on either the warning nor the citation give me any indication as to what the warning is '''for this drug'''. It is barely helpful to know that there ''exists'' a black box warning for the drug in the infobox. I suggest either adding the black box warning text to display when hovering over the "[WARNING]", or updating the citation to dynamically link to the appropriate drug's text, or at worst internal-link to an anchor in the article's body that specifies the black box warning. In fact, in this particular article, there is no other mention of the black box warning, and so all that's left is a bulky and uninformative box in the infobox. [[User:Kimen8|Kimen8]] ([[User talk:Kimen8|talk]]) 00:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::Adding information about the specific warning would require a lot more work. This may be a step towards that, but the goal here was just to say that the drug had earned a boxed warning. |
|||
:::If we reach that greater goal in the future, I might suggest [[DailyMed]] as a standardized source ([https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/lookup.cfm?setid=ada02f1f-ae78-4435-879e-492ae862d504 clonidine], which has two boxed warnings). But it might also be better to have this in the article itself, cited to whatever the best sources are the editors choose. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::Considering that DailyMed link does display black box warnings, and appears to have a uniform url-syntax, can that not just be used to effectively do what I had suggested/hoped it would do in my comment above? I understand the preference for an FDA link if the FDA is issuing the warnings, but at least to me the value of having information in the infobox is that if I (the reader) want to learn more about something that isn't expounded (in the infobox or article), I can follow the links and sources to learn more. As you said in a comment below, in order to do this with the FDA link as it is, I have to download a file (and is it searchable HTML? I didn't go that far), because the information is not actually present at the link provided. Ideally yes, articles mention black box warnings in their body and use appropriate sources in doing so/explaining that, but until then, I think the autogenerated bit in the infobox could be more useful. [[User:Kimen8|Kimen8]] ([[User talk:Kimen8|talk]]) 01:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The file is a .csv file, so your computer will probably open it as a spreadsheet. That means that it's both searchable and filterable. |
|||
:::::The DailyMed id numbers are not intuitive (e.g., <code>setid=ada02f1f-ae78-4435-879e-492ae862d504</code>), and I believe there is a different one for every single formulation by each manufacturer. See https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/search.cfm?query=clonidine&searchdb=all&labeltype=all&sortby=rel&audience=professional&page=1&pagesize=200 – but I think that only these four: https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/search.cfm?adv=1&labeltype=all&pagesize=200&page=1&query=34066-1%3A%28clonidine%29+ have boxed warnings. They'd have to be matched up by hand. This is possible but hours of work. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Very well, the url looked simple enough but it makes sense that specific preparations etc would have different entries in dailymed (and thus may or may not show black box warnings). I will have to be satisfied with the current implementation. [[User:Kimen8|Kimen8]] ([[User talk:Kimen8|talk]]) 01:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I see this as an incremental improvement. It took us years to reach this point, and it only happened because of a couple of months of work by @[[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]]. The next step will be more complex, but maybe we'll be able to manage that some day, too. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I do see the value in this, and my first reaction was one of letting perfect be the enemy of good, mixed with the aesthetically-unappealing presentation in the infobox of the "bulky" [WARNING] text ''before'' the Rx-only phrase (not that I can think of a better way to do this at the moment). It is indeed a step towards making sure that black box warnings make their way into articles. [[User:Kimen8|Kimen8]] ([[User talk:Kimen8|talk]]) 17:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I wouldn't want you to think of your reaction as letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. I'd rather that you think of it the way I do, which is helpfully advocating that we not stop here, but continue to look for even greater improvements. <code>:-)</code> [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Also, unless I'm missing something, [https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 the link] in the autogenerated citation seems to only list drugs whose generic names fall in the range "A"{{endash}}"C" (I checked [[lamotrigine]] to make sure that the "A"{{endash}}"C" link wasn't specific to clonidine, which begins with a "c", and the same link is on that page). [[User:Kimen8|Kimen8]] ([[User talk:Kimen8|talk]]) [[User:Kimen8|Kimen8]] ([[User talk:Kimen8|talk]]) 00:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, you have to scroll to the right part of the page, or even click the arrow to go to the relevant page. Only 200 items are displayed on each page. As the list changes over time, there is no way to predict in advance which page a given item will fall on. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::I see 15 pages. Page 1 starts at "A" and page 15 starts at "C", hence my comment. [[User:Kimen8|Kimen8]] ([[User talk:Kimen8|talk]]) 00:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The citation says to use the "Download" button. It's >10MB, which would not be a friendly thing to dump on unsuspecting readers. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::A week ago, [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk:Mismatch_Finder/Collaboration/Purdue_Summer_of_Data_2024&diff=prev&oldid=2021715311&diffmode=source here], I had already proposed/made a request for help for doing essentially what Kimen8 is suggesting. I wrote in part, {{tq|The text of each warning is generally concise and consists only of the most import warnings, so it may be worth [importing from the FDALabel database,] storing [in Wikidata] and adding to articles via wikidata.}} I'm flattered. :-) |
|||
:::Regarding linking to a viewable page with the warnings: There's already code in the template to link to dailymed for some drugs. Perhaps we could use that, but my concerns include that the dailymed data may be less accurate than the FDAs, and strictly speaking, it would not be truthful to say dailymed is the source of the info. |
|||
:::I think we can and should do the import of the warnings themselves. But we'd be want them to appear in the '''body''' of articles, right? I think so... |
|||
:::Also, see the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_drug#Template-protected_edit_request_on_9_December_2023 new edit request below]; the wrong code was migrated. |
|||
:::And "(Use ''Download Full Results'' and ''View Query'' links.)" is in the footnote, as [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] noted. We could add the formatting I added. |
|||
:::[[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 04:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::Kimen8, |
|||
::::I welcome your further thoughts on next steps. |
|||
::::The bulky warning box is fixed. (Obsolete code was migrated due to miscommunication.) I put the (now-smaller) box before the Rx-only phrase intentionally, but if there's consensus, it can be moved. |
|||
::::Let's discuss this further at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Black box warnings 2nd project]], at least if it's not about the Infobox. --[[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 02:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::My personal opinion is that the Warning should be after the Rx-only phrase (such as {{green|Rx-only ([WARNING])}} or along those lines), because the order in which I deem the information important is: The infobox parameter is about legality/scheduling so the legality/schedule should go first; the black box warning is auxiliary information and should go second. [[User:Kimen8|Kimen8]] ([[User talk:Kimen8|talk]]) 14:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}} The WARNING doesn't belong in the legal section. It is part of the FDA label and not a legal status. Its placement is annoying and distracting. The black box warning is not in the article. --[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 20:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== "Solubility in water" == |
|||
*'''support''' per Blue Rasberry rationale--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 10:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
===Prototype for [[Template:External links list Drug]]=== |
|||
{{anchor|1=Prototype for [[Template:Drugbox external links]]}} |
|||
{{hatnote|See [[Special:Permalink/911052801#External data]] for an example that includes template fields that are pulled from wikidata. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 07:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)}} |
|||
{{anchor|1=Prototype}} |
|||
{{External links list|GoodRx= [https://www.goodrx.com/amphetamine-salt-combo Adderall], [https://www.goodrx.com/amphetamine-salt-combo-xr Adderall XR], [https://www.goodrx.com/amphetamine-sulfate Evekeo]| MedlinePlus = a616004 | license_US = amphetamine | licence_EU = yes | INN_EMA = amphetamine | Drugs.com = {{Drugs.com|parent|amphetamine}}| ATC_prefix = N06| ATC_suffix = BA01| CAS_number_Ref = {{cascite|correct|CAS}} | CAS_number = 300-62-9 | PubChem = 3007 | IUPHAR_ligand = 4804 | DrugBank_Ref = {{drugbankcite|correct|drugbank}} | DrugBank = DB00182 | ChemSpiderID_Ref = {{chemspidercite|correct|chemspider}} | ChemSpiderID = 13852819 | UNII_Ref = {{fdacite|correct|FDA}} | UNII = CK833KGX7E | KEGG_Ref = {{keggcite|correct|kegg}} | KEGG = D07445 | ChEBI_Ref = {{ebicite|correct|EBI}} | ChEBI = 2679 | ChEMBL_Ref = {{ebicite|correct|EBI}} | ChEMBL = 405 | NIAID_ChemDB = 018564 | PDB_ligand = 1WE| smiles = NC(CC1=CC=CC=C1)C}} |
|||
::::{{Ping|Bluerasberry}} I'd be fine with moving all the fields in the drugbox that list an external link – including DailyMedID, Drugs.com, MedlinePlus, licence_CA/EU/US, ATC code, GoodRx, every identifier except the IUPAC name, and the 3D model image – into a new EL template for drug articles and then using a bot to remove all those parameters from the drugbox while simultaneously placing that new template in the "External links" section of every drug article. One further condition is that we'd need to include a link to the external links section (e.g., something like <code><nowiki>[[#External links|External data]]</nowiki></code> or <code><nowiki>[[#External data|External data]]</nowiki></code> provided that I add {{tlx|Anchor|External data}} to the heading of the new template) at the bottom of the Drugbox for two reasons. The first is that I imagine a lot of readers will have no clue what happened to every drugbox on Wikipedia if we suddenly cut them in half without providing some kind of indication of what we did with the other half of the drugbox data (it's not like they're going to know we've moved it to an EL section and I doubt most of them will scroll all the way to the bottom of the article to try to find what we did with it). The second is that all of those links are still very much pertitent to the Drugbox even after being split out, so there should be a means of navigating to them quickly within the Drugbox (this is analogous to the "Supplementary data page" link in the chembox). |
|||
::::Using the authority control template for displaying that content is a bad idea IMO. Too much garbage gets lumped into it and I've deleted it from several drug articles for that reason. Also, when there's a lot of data mapped into that template, it looks like [[Template:Authority control#Examples]]; those "examples" are almost unreadable. |
|||
::::Anyway, if you're alright with the approach I've described above, it should be proposed at [[WT:PHARM]] for further input. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 18:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{Ping|Doc James}} does that approach sound fine to you? If so, are you fine with adding the GoodRx field to the Drugbox for now? [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 18:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::We need to add the actual number. I am working to do that but it will take a few months. The license I think is good in the infobox at the top rather than the bottom. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 06:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::{{Ping|Doc James}} As I mentioned above, adding price data from GoodRx isn't useful IMO. If you want to do that with another data source, that sounds fine; however, this proposal pertains to adding an EL to the drugbox (and subsequently, the external data box) for the reasons I've explained above. I'd appreciate it if you commented on that. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 04:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::So I support adding price data and the link as a reference. I do not support just adding it as an EL to the infobox. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 08:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::{{Ping|Doc James}} I'm about to ask GoodRx to give me access to their database or send me a dataset containing the relevant data I need. Will see if it's possible to obtain that as well. As for price, is it the current lowest GoodRx Coupon price you're interested in using? [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 10:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::I just realized that since some brands contain multiple dosage forms (e.g., insulin lispro - vial/kwikpen/carton, as described above), it'll be a tough ask to give me as much data as I'm looking for if they send me a dataset. If I can get access to their database, I can get the data you're looking for, but if not, an external link will have to suffice. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 11:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Edit:I could potentially update this once every 1-3 months and list the lowest price associated with each brand name in the Dbox/EL section if that would be more amenable to you. I'd need to see if they'd be alright with providing me with price data on a regular basis though. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 04:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Yes that would be perfect and what we are working on using the gov database. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 08:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{ping|Seppi333}} Yes I support adding to the Drugbox now as a pilot and short term solution to delivering information in the context of a need for a later reform. If you could somehow do a prototype of what it would look like to move some information to the bottom in a sample article then I would appreciate that, but do not consider this as an obligation if this is a distraction and it is not urgent. It is enough for me just that you explained your thoughts. I agree with you just adding the box for this to get sorted in a broader way with the pharmacy board and others later. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 20:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::{{Ping|Bluerasberry}} See right. I don't see any reason to change the way it's presented. I will, however, fix the default width to 300px to match the size of an infobox which is compliant with [[MOS:IMGSIZE]]. [[Template:Drugbox external links]] is the name I'd use for the new template, if implemented. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 22:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::That external links box is awesome and exactly the kind of thing which I want elsewhere in the article and not at the top. Thanks for prototyping it as an demo for discussion. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 16:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I've notified [[WP:PHARM]] editors by creating a thread about GoodRx and splitting the drugbox links out into the EL section at [[WT:PHARM#Template talk:Drugbox#GoodRx]]. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 05:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Suggestion: GoodRx should not be under "Clinical data". Add new header "Marketing info", "Consumer info"?. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 06:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I'd be fine with "Clinical data" or "Consumer info". As I explained above, there is ample clinical data on GoodRx for every drug in its database; one simply needs to click the "Drug Info" or "Side Effects" tabs on the corresponding webpage. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 06:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Name should be "Consumer price (US)" to clarify. Rather than "Consumer price data" [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 08:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::{{Ping|Doc James}} "US:" is prepended to the input on the right of that field, but I can change the text on the left side to reflect your version if you wish. Would you prefer it your way or is the current version fine? [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 10:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::If we move to a number like "US$ 14" than having "US: US$14" might be a little confusing. But I guess either is reasonable. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 08:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
* In the end result, we should ''not'' use meta {{tl|Infobox}}. Also, better not reuse the infobox styling (bg colors). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 06:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*:{{tq|In the end result, we should not use meta {{tl|Infobox}}.}} And why is that, exactly? I made it clear earlier that I still consider all of these external links to be part of the drugbox even after splitting them out, hence the use of an infobox with an identical appearance; we're simply moving them to the EL section since it's just as appropriate to place them there as it is in Drugbox template itself. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 06:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::Per [[MOS:INFOBOX]]. For example, the infobox is a summary of the article, is placed in top, is treated differently (by html, on mobile, etc). Better be guided by [[WP:EL|Wikipedia:External links]]. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 06:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::Formatting should be fit for the EL section: For example, the EL's better be a bulleted list (which can also have subheaders like unbold & unindented). IMO, it could be a multi-column list to be organised as refs list is organised; leave it to the browser etc. (not hardcoded by the template). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 06:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::If an article already has a list of external links, I'd prefer not to bloat it even more by adding this content on the left-side of the page. E.g., [[Amphetamine#External links]]. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 07:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::What you call "bloat" is actually: changing (breakiung) the MOS format for the EL section. Simple: it is an EL list, so present it as an EL list. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 09:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
* Name suggestion: pls skip the oldfashioned informal 'drugbox' wording. Maybe: External links list Drugs. (we want to reuse the principle!) -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 06:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*:{{Ping|DePiep}} I don't see why it matters, but if you want to move the template and leave behind the redirect, go ahead and move it. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 07:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Moved to {{tl|External links list Drug}}. Changed section title + add anchor. Preferred: systematical name, while more descriptive and less informal. Prevent confusion with existing {{tlf|External links}}. If this plan works out well, we could reuse the concept for other templates (like {{tlf|Chembox}}). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 09:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::Just because a template uses {{tlx|Infobox}} to style its contents does not make it an infobox. E.g., {{tlx|Glossary infobox}} is a back-end template for {{tlx|Addiction glossary}} and {{tlx|Transcription factor glossary}}, yet neither of those should be used in place of an actual infobox for an article. Edit: that back-end template was created following this discussion: [[Template_talk:Addiction_glossary#"Glossary skeleton" template]]. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 06:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::That's right by itself. But it ''is'' an infobox when stating <code>class=infobox</code> (as {{tlf|Infobox}} does}}). <code>class</code> defines loads of behaviour, layout, formatting, presentation (responsive even). Our intentions do not count in a browser. We do not want those effects, that would be bad coding and bad information handling. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 09:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
* I've created [[Template:External links list Drug]] and modified the width of the template to match the width of the drugbox when it includes a 300px-wide image (the maximum size and typically the default per [[MOS:IMGSIZE]]). The template at the top of this section now uses {{tlx|Drugbox external links}} instead of {{tlx|Infobox drug/sandbox2}} to generate the example. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 06:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::support to do for drug box the same what was done for diseases (putting links out of the infobox) [[User:EncycloABC|EncycloABC]] ([[User talk:EncycloABC|talk]]) 15:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
It looks like filling in the <code>|solubility=</code> parameter renders as "Solubility in water". If instead one wanted to say something along the lines of "slightly soluble in ethanol, highly soluble in 2-propanol", is there a way to put this into the infobox? I figured out setting the <code>|sol_units=</code> to "&nbsp;" at least removes the suffix "g/mL" part. [[User:Kimen8|Kimen8]] ([[User talk:Kimen8|talk]]) 16:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
===Template coding=== |
|||
:{{hatnote|New subsection to discuss technical issues like template coding, formatting, etc.}} |
|||
{{Drugbox external links|GoodRx= [https://www.goodrx.com/amphetamine-salt-combo Adderall], [https://www.goodrx.com/amphetamine-salt-combo-xr Adderall XR], [https://www.goodrx.com/amphetamine-sulfate Evekeo]| MedlinePlus = a616004 | license_US = amphetamine | licence_EU = yes | INN_EMA = amphetamine | Drugs.com = {{Drugs.com|parent|amphetamine}}| ATC_prefix = N06| ATC_suffix = BA01| CAS_number_Ref = {{cascite|correct|CAS}} | CAS_number = 300-62-9 | PubChem = 3007 | IUPHAR_ligand = 4804 | DrugBank_Ref = {{drugbankcite|correct|drugbank}} | DrugBank = DB00182 | ChemSpiderID_Ref = {{chemspidercite|correct|chemspider}} | ChemSpiderID = 13852819 | UNII_Ref = {{fdacite|correct|FDA}} | UNII = CK833KGX7E | KEGG_Ref = {{keggcite|correct|kegg}} | KEGG = D07445 | ChEBI_Ref = {{ebicite|correct|EBI}} | ChEBI = 2679 | ChEMBL_Ref = {{ebicite|correct|EBI}} | ChEMBL = 405 | NIAID_ChemDB = 018564 | PDB_ligand = 1WE| smiles = NC(CC1=CC=CC=C1)C}} |
|||
* So far, the prototype uses {{tlf|Infobox}} to get it going. That's fine of course. However, since the new list is not an [[MOS:INFOBOX]], I strongly propose to prevent any Infobox suggestion (by formatting, <code>class=infobox</code>, responsive behaviour). I therefor created: |
|||
::1. [[:Module:External links list]] as a full code copy of [[Module:Infobox]], and |
|||
::2. {{tl|External links list}} to employ that module. |
|||
:After this, I removed from the new module all straight "infobox" referencing. Other functions etc. were kept. |
|||
:With this, current ({{U|Seppi333}}'s) prototype looks like {{tl|External links list Drug/sandbox}}. |
|||
:I propose: |
|||
::a. Accept the change principle, away from {{tl|Infobox}}, |
|||
::b. Improve (edit) the new module to tailor it for this list. |
|||
:It allows us to refine the list to more usable settings without being tied to Infobox formattings. I think the formatting should follow [[WP:EL]] section styling. |
|||
:-[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 09:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:[[Template:Chembox]] has: |
|||
* To research: maybe existing {{tl|External links}} ([[:Module:External links]]) could solve this new thing altogether. I have not looked into it. It reads Wikidata values; if it allows overwriting locally (as we want to do now, I assume), we could arrive at target very soon! -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 10:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:| SolubleOther = |
|||
:| Solvent = |
|||
:but I don't know if that's supported here. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Template-protected edit request on 9 December 2023 == |
|||
:::{{Ping|DePiep}} As long as you match the layout/formatting and overall appearance of the example template on the right as closely as possible, I don't really care what markup is used to generate the end result. I also don't care if it's wider (to reduce the height when the LHS or RHS text takes up multiple lines) or not right-aligned, but if right-alignment is not default, having the option to set {{para|align|right}} would be desirable. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 10:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::I disagree that this new EL list should look-and-feel like an infobox. No, basically it should be a bulleted list, in the EL section. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 22:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::We should be using generic names. But seems like a reasonable addition. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 10:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
{{edit template-protected|Template:Infobox drug|answered=yes}} |
|||
== [[Volume of distribution]] is recommended to be comprised in pharmacokinetic data. == |
|||
The current boxed warning indication uses LaTeX, which is just plain silly. LaTeX causes a whole image (with ''italicized text'') to be added to the article for no good reason. Can't we stick with text? |
|||
Replace |
|||
Continued: I personally feel it's necessarily as it tells us not only the volume of distribution but also if the drug crosses the brain-blood barrier at a glance. Regards. --[[User Talk:Reciprocater|<span style="color:#014225;font-family:Comic Sans MS;background:#e8f8e0;border:1px solid #a0a040;padding-left:2px;padding-right:2px;box-shadow:1px 2px 3px #acf3ac">Reciprocater (Talk)</span>]] 11:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Template-protected edit request on 15 May 2020 == |
|||
{{edit template-protected|Template:Infobox drug/legal status|answered=yes}} |
|||
The Australian entries in this template have two problems, one easily fixable, one requing specialist knowledge. Firstly, the article they link to has been renamed - it is now [[Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons]]. Secondly, all of the section links are invalid. Mostly this is simply because of differing capitalisation (e.g. #Pharmacy Medicine vs. #Pharmacy medicine) but in some cases the terminology is different (e.g. Dangerous poison vs Dangerous drug). this may reflect a change of legal approach or it may not be significant - only a subject matter expert would know. And to make matters worse, the capitalisation of the target article's sections is inconsistent - e.g. #Schedule 7: Dangerous Drug vs. #Schedule 8: Controlled drug vs. #Schedule 9: prohibited substance. |
|||
I therefore request that at least the first problem should be fixed. I don't have the knowledge to request appropriate fixes for the second problem. [[User:Colonies Chris|Colonies Chris]] ([[User talk:Colonies Chris|talk]]) 11:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Colonies Chris}} I've 'paused' the request for now (effectively 'answered'), because these edits need to be specified first (we will work towards actual code changes). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 13:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* {{ping|Colonies Chris}} I have prepared the changes in the /sandbox: |
|||
::Target article is [[Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons]], no redirect. |
|||
::All Schedules 2–10 now use an anchor to link to, like "#Schedule 3" (so is ''in''dependent of further section texts like "poison"). |
|||
::Added S10 (new in SUSMP) |
|||
::Used informative labeltext from article, like "[[Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons#Schedule 6|S6]] (Poison)". |
|||
:Please take a look at [[Template:Infobox drug/testcases3#Legal for AU|/testcases3#Legal for AU]] (comparing old/live vs. new/sandbox situations for S2-S10). Please report here any improvements or an OK. :-) -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 14:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks, that's a very neat solution and comprehensive updating of the article. It all looks good to me. [[User:Colonies Chris|Colonies Chris]] ([[User talk:Colonies Chris|talk]]) 16:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Please update''' {{tl|Infobox drug/legal status}} with {{tl|Infobox drug/legal status/sandbox}}, all code ({{diffsandbox|1=Template:Infobox drug/legal status}}). |
|||
:Change: updated for new Australian (AU) law; add S10 ([[Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons|SUSMP]]). |
|||
:Tests: see [[Template:Infobox drug/testcases3#Legal for AU|/testcases3]]. Consensus: see discussion above. |
|||
:-[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 17:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{U|Jonesey95}} thx. Why did you write 'Needs testing' in the es? /testcases3 was linked to, and checked etc. Also, one would expect an {{para|answered|yes}} edit here. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 18:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::Sorry for the delay, everyone. I completed the edit and clicked the "Done" button here, but my computer or the WP servers glitched, and my talk page response was not saved to the database. I didn't notice until just now. I checked the results of my edits in about ten articles with different Schedule levels assigned by Australia, and the links worked well. Let me know if my edits caused any trouble. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 20:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{re|User:Jonesey95}} No problem re the misfortune. |
|||
:::::However, it appears that you ''did not perform the edit as requested''. Instead, ''you altered the content'' before saving the new code, all in one edit ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages?page1=Template%3AInfobox+drug%2Flegal+status&rev1=956860680&page2=Template%3AInfobox+drug%2Flegal+status%2Fsandbox&rev2=956823932&action=&diffonly=&unhide=&diffmode=source diff] btwn prepared sandbox code vs. your edit in the live template). You did not discuss your changes. You did not provide a summary in the es. You did not clarify in the {{para|answered|yes}} talkpage edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_drug&diff=956880409&oldid=956864657&diffmode=source above]. This is not changing to preventing bugs etc., this is content change. Meanhile, by skipping the /sandbox and /testcase check (the proposed edit had done), you also introduced a bug; this is not [[Wikipedia:Template_editor#Wise_template_editing|#Wise template editing]]. |
|||
:::::By now, I notice there is a pattern in your behaviour: repeatedly you enforced undiscussed edits one-sidely, while you should know these are controversial for example because they pertain to an ongoing or recently concluded discussion. To do so, you used your [[WP:TPE]] rights. This is problematic in multiple senses; see [[WP:TPE]] throughout, and [[Wikipedia:Template_editor#Use|#Use]] and [[WP:TPEBOLD]] for starters. There is also [[Wikipedia:Template_editor#Criteria_for_revocation|#Criteria for revocation #1]]. |
|||
:::::I propose you (1) revert your edit, (2) perform the edit as requested, and (3) if you wish to propose changes, start a talk—but only ''after'' (1), (2). Also, I strongly suggest you refrain from such edits in the future. There is a simple guideline: when in doubt, [[Wikipedia:Template_editor#When_to_seek_discussion_for_template_changes|start a talk]]. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 10:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I answered the (by the requester's own admission, somewhat vague) original edit request to the best of my understanding and posted here saying "Let me know if my edits caused any trouble." I addressed both the linking issues and the capitalization issues brought up by the requester. The original request did not ask for Schedule 10, so I did not add it. At the time of my edits, there had been no changes made to the sandbox or the test cases page. I see now that there are differences between the sandbox and the live module (Schedule 10, and differences in capitalization), but I see no bugs and {{U|DePiep}} has not provided any specific examples. All of that said, I have reverted my edits because I have learned that it is never good for me to engage with {{U|DePiep}}, who is under [[Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions|editing restrictions]] for repeated failure to interact in good faith and who lost template editor rights for very good reasons. {{U|Colonies Chris}}: please provide your feedback re capitalization and the potential addition of Schedule 10. Feel free to edit the sandbox to match your preferences (and the target article, and the sources supporting the language in the target article), then re-activate the edit request. If you are lucky, another template editor will take care of it for you. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 18:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I am happy with the solution proposed and coded up by {{U|DePiep}}. The test cases provided look fine to me. I wasn't aware anyone else was working on a solution. [[User:Colonies Chris|Colonies Chris]] ([[User talk:Colonies Chris|talk]]) 19:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::{{U|Jonesey95}} You keep evading the issue at hand: you did not perform the request, you did not discuss your edits, you used your TPE privilege to enforce your opinion. Alas, you did revert (1), but still did not perform teh original request (2). And also you think it useful to call this pushback an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_drug/legal_status&diff=957047065&oldid=956860680&diffmode=source "attack"]. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 17:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::[[WP:STICK]]. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 19:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::You could have performed the request (i.e., step (2)). Instead, I had to rerequest it. Also, your notion of an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_drug/legal_status&diff=957047065&oldid=956860680&diffmode=source "attack"] is not an invitation to drop it. Have a nive e edit. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 19:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* The edit was reverted (nullified) by Jonesey95 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_drug/legal_status&diff=957047065&oldid=956860680&diffmode=source]; step (1). No step (2) and (3) then. No further clarification was provided, except that the editor found it necessary to accuse some people of an "attack" in their es. |
|||
:Given that the state now is 'pre-request', I have made a new, fresh, similar request per [[#Template-protected_edit_request_on_17_May_2020|today]], May 17. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 17:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Template-protected edit request on 17 May 2020 == |
|||
{{edit template-protected|Template:Infobox drug/legal status|answered=yes}} |
|||
* '''Please update''' {{tl|Infobox drug/legal status}} with {{tl|Infobox drug/legal status/sandbox}}, all code ({{diffsandbox|1=Template:Infobox drug/legal status}}). |
|||
:Change: updated for new Australian (AU) law; add S10 ([[Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons|SUSMP]]). |
|||
:Tests: see [[Template:Infobox drug/testcases3#Legal for AU|/testcases3]]. Consensus: see discussion above. |
|||
:Note: A [[#Template-protected edit request on 15 May 2020|previous, similar]] request was cancelled. |
|||
:-[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 10:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ETp --> '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 01:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Would it be possible to add additional field for the status of controlled substances in non-Western English-speaking countries? == |
|||
As of right now we have fields for the legal status of drugs in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the United Nations conventions. Only two of these places aren't first-world countries, Brazil and the United Nations. This is in my view a problem as readers of Wikipedia come from all around the world and while it's not necessary to include ''every'' country's drug classification there are definitely some anglophone countries that should be added. India is a prime example. There are many Indians who read the English Wikipedia, in fact there are more Indian English speakers than there are people in every country listed above except Brazil and America, see [[List of countries by English-speaking population]]. Adding a <code>legal_IN</code> field to the infobox would be helpful to the many Indian English speakers that read Wikipedia. Likewise for Nigeria and Pakistan, both countries that have English as an official language and have more English speakers than there are people in many other countries represented in the infobox. [[User:Chess|Chess]] [[User talk:Chess|(talk)]] <small>(please use {{tlx|ping|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 20:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:I'd like to read by other editors what good sense is in this. Is there a natural list (out of ~200 countries)? Anglophone? Big countries? Also, I don't know if there are similar infobox examples. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 21:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC) ping {{ping|Chess}} -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 21:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::IMO, one requirement should be to have an article about the law here, similar to [[List of Schedule I drugs (US)]], [[Drugs controlled by the UK Misuse of Drugs Act]] and [[Drugs controlled by the German Betäubungsmittelgesetz]]. I don't think something like that exists for India (yet). [[User:Aethyta|Aethyta]] ([[User talk:Aethyta|talk]]) 00:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Infobox updates proposal == |
|||
I propose to update {{tl|Infobox drug}} with these edits: |
|||
:1. Use new {{tl|Infobox}} parameter {{para|autoheaders|yes}}, |
|||
:2. Adjust infobox header usage (only semantical headers used as such; otherwise use like {{para|below}}), |
|||
:3. Adjust {{para|data_page}} logic: input overrules default page. |
|||
'''1.''' When set {{para|autoheaders|yes}} in the meta-infobox {{tlf|Infobox drug}}, all ''empty, idle headers'' are suppressed (headers with no data rows do not show). This replaces the more elaborate code like: |
|||
<pre> |
<pre> |
||
|legal_US={{#ifeq: {{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|[[Boxed warning|<math>\begin{array}{|} \hline W\!ARNING \\ \hline \end{array}</math>]]<ref name="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web |title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]] |access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref>}}{{{legal_US|}}} |
|||
OLD: |
|||
| header50 = {{#if:{{{sources|}}}{{{targets|}}}{{{receptors|}}}{{{agonists|}}}{{{antagonists|}}}{{{precursor|}}}{{{biosynthesis|}}} |
|||
|[[Physiological]] data}} |
|||
</pre> |
</pre> |
||
With |
|||
<pre> |
<pre> |
||
| legal_US={{#ifeq: {{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|[[Boxed warning|<span style="border:thin solid black;">WARNING</span>]]<ref name="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web |title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]] |access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref>}}{{{legal_US|}}} |
|||
NEW: |
|||
| autoheaders = yes |
|||
| header50 = [[Physiological]] data |
|||
</pre> |
</pre> |
||
So we can see [[Boxed warning|<span style="border:thin solid black;">WARNING</span>]] instead of [[Boxed warning|<math>\begin{array}{|} \hline W\!ARNING \\ \hline \end{array}</math>]]. Looking at the previous discussion, it seems that the CSS approach I want is the final consensus, but it didn't replace the initial TeX version in the sandbox for some reason. As a result, the wrong version was applied. --[[User:Artoria2e5|Artoria]][[User talk:Artoria2e5|2e5]] <small style="font-weight:lighter">[[Special:Contributions/Artoria2e5|🌉]]</small> 06:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
'''2.''' In two cases, {{para|header''N''|''some data''}} was semantically misused: data "Data page" and "Verification" was shown as a sole header (and would subsequentially be hidden for having no data rows ;-) ). I have changed the code to show these data rows either as datafield or as 'below'. See [[Template:Infobox_drug/testcases11#(data_page)|/testcases11]]. |
|||
:Seconded. Correct. I (oddly!) didn't notice that [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] did the original edit request, instead of the the edit request as it existed when they edited the template and marked the request done. But note: we may have further improvement come out of discussion with [[User:Kimen8]] soon. -- [[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 04:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
'''3.''': {{para|data_page}} allows adding a data page; otherwise an existing datapage is linked to (example: [[Caffeine]] has [[Caffeine (data page)]]). I changed the logic: when there is input, ''that'' page is linked to; otherwise the default pagename is used -- when existing. BTW, {{tlf|Infobox drug}} has [[:Category:Chemical articles having a data page|* seven]] such data pages; none set by {{para|data_page}} i.e., all by default name. |
|||
:: What I actually did was base off the code in the sandbox, and didn't even notice the midstream edits you made to the talk page on 2 December (yes, you did point them out, but there was so much noise in that discussion that I didn't see them). Anyway, {{done}} [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 04:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== What about the name of company that manufactured that drug? == |
|||
What about the name of company that manufactured that drug? [[User:Abhiramakella|Abhiramakella]] ([[User talk:Abhiramakella|talk]]) 16:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
These changes are mainly technical/logical; no content changes should appear. We need to be extra careful though for information disappearing (without warning apparently). One can check any article by previewing that article with edit <code><nowiki>{{Infobox drug/sandbox|name=abc|...}}</nowiki></code> |
|||
Comments or ideas? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 12:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:Not on my main comp right now, but I can definitely hit the autoheaders tomorrow if no one else gets to it first. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 23:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Black Box Warning == |
|||
::Nothing to 'hit' IMO :-) For example, I noticed that <code>|header70 =</code> interacts with other sections=headers, via {{para|metabolism}} (<code>|header50</code>). Intentionally. Will take a better look at this shortly. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 23:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::BTW, main testpage is [[Template:Infobox drug/testcases11]]. Edits are in {{tl|Infobox drug/sandbox}}, but of course communication is through this talkpage. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 00:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::checked: show/hide header50 (Physiological, [[Dopamine]]) and header70 (Pharmacokinetic, [[Aspirine]]), both ([[Phenethylamine]]) interaction wrt {{para|metabolism}}. Works as expected. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 17:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Template-protected edit request on 5 July 2020 == |
|||
{{edit template-protected|Template:Infobox drug|answered=yes}} |
|||
Please replace all live code with all sandbox code ({{tl|Infobox drug}} ← {{tl|Infobox drug/sandbox}}; {{diffsandbox|Template:Infobox drug}}). |
|||
I had a question regarding how the Black Box warning code is implemented and if the following is possible. |
|||
:Change: one tracking category changed to use {{tlf|Main other}} (undo category pollution). |
|||
:Discussion: trivial edit. [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 08:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ETp --> [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 17:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Many drugs have Black Box warnings only for certain preparations of the drug. Is there a preferred way to mention this? I thought about putting the sentence "The US FDA Black Box warning only applies to certain preparations of the drug, including ___, where the warning says: ___" or something along those lines, but it's clunky. |
|||
== Template-protected edit requests on 2 August 2020 == |
|||
For example with [[baclofen]], neither the preparations Lyvispah oral granules, nor Ozobax oral solution have black box warnings, but Lioresal intrathecal does. In the case of this particular article, the contents of the black box warning are mentioned in the Adverse Effects section, but there is no explicit clarity if someone sees the Black Box Warning symbol in the infobox and goes to the article body to try to see the details of that. |
|||
{{Ping|Primefac|DMacks|Doc James|Seppi333|DePiep|Sceptre}} Recent editors: Greetings and felicitations. In both the Australian and the US "Pregnancy category" fields, there is a space between the category and the comment, e.g. in the [[Ibuprofen]] article, at least when it is used to add a reference. Unfortunately, I can't see where the problem is, even after checking the sub-templates. Would someone please be so kind as to fix this, or tell what other change should be made? —[[User:DocWatson42|DocWatson42]] ([[User talk:DocWatson42|talk]]) 04:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
I was going to ask on {{u|RudolfoMD}}'s page but it seems they are indefinitely blocked. |
|||
* Re {{U|DocWatson42}}. The reason is that {{para|pregnancy_AU_comment}} (and so {{para|pregnancy_US_comment}}) can be used for comment (=add space) and reference (=no space). At the moment, distinguishing between those options is not possible or implemented. |
|||
[[User:Kimen8|Kimen8]] ([[User talk:Kimen8|talk]]) 16:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Long term solution is to find a way to distinguish (preferred), add {{para|pregnancy_AU_ref}} (cumbersom for editor), or enter like {{para|1=pregnancy_AU|2=C<ref>...</ref>}}. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 09:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::I think we should discuss ''why'' it's coded like that. Is {{para|pregnancy_AU_comment}} used for anything other than as a reference? If not, then the space should be removed. If so, it might be worth looking into having a "comment" para and a "ref" para. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 14:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Usage list through [https://bambots.brucemyers.com/TemplateParam.php?wiki=enwiki&template=Infobox+drug TPU]. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 15:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Why? Because this redu es complexity. Also, I had in mind that we could distinguish input. This is recently became possible using {{tl|killMarkers}}-like modules. But it should be used (developed) carefully, for which I do not have the time right now. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 16:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::Well, I suppose the other question is why it matters (specifically, if there's a space between the code and the comment). It's going to be a faff and a half to separate out refs from comments ''regardless'' of how we do it; is there a reason we can't just leave things as-is? [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 17:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::The reason we have this problem is that the MOS is "no space before a ref-marker" but obviously "need space to separate words or an open-paren from preceding text", and there isn't a way to pass leading whitespace in a template parameter-value. If we kept it as a unified field, how about regexp for <code>/^<ref/</code> to decide whether to render it without vs with space? |
|||
::: |
|||
:::Scanning by eye [[Special:Search/insource:"pregnancy US comment"]] for uses other than referencing, [[maprotiline]] seems to use _comment to hack around some uncertainty in the value itself that should probably be done differently, and [[valproate]] has a good use. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 20:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::For what it's worth I set up [[:Category:Pages using infobox drug with a pregnancy comment|a cat]] for the pages using the pregnancy comment. |
|||
::::The more I look into this, the more I wonder if the [[Template:Infobox drug/pregnancy category|entire template subpage]] shouldn't be reworked - basically the only reason there's {{para|pregnancy_XX}} and {{para|pregnancy_XX_comment}} is so that we can link to a country-specific section of [[Pregnancy category]]. Given that the label already does that, we're just duplicating links. I say we drop the linking for {{para|pregnancy_XX}}, and convert {{para|pregnancy_XX_comment}} into {{para|pregnancy_XX_ref}} for sole use as a reference. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 21:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:{{od}} re {{U|Primefac}} {{tq|1=why it matters}} &tc: you lost me. What do yoo actually say or propose? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 23:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm saying that we should get rid of the complexity of the subtemplate, have one parameter for the "type" and one parameter for the reference. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 23:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::??? Less complexity of subtemplate WHILE the request is to add diff between _comment and _ref? What do actualy you propose? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 23:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::That's exactly what I'm proposing; make it simple and convert _comment to _ref. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 23:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* That's {{clc|Pages using infobox drug with a pregnancy comment}}. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 23:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 14:53, 2 March 2024
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Infobox drug: Changes log
|
---|
|
Tolerance potential?
I’m sort of puzzled why things like addiction liability and dependence liability are a thing in these info boxes for various drugs but tolerance potential/rate isn’t? I know there is a number of variables like dosage and rate of frequency and even individual enzyme properties, or maybe even receptor sensitivity, but the same is also evidently true for the other aforementioned potentials. From what I can clearly tell, some substances certainly have abnormally fast tolerance increases (such as opioids & amphetamines); whereas others can have pretty modest rate of increased tolerance. And even substances with potential for reverse-tolerance (like salvia and cannabis) should also have this mentioned in the infobox. Dexedream (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting thoughts. Got sources? FYI, I'm working on adding an indicator on pages for drugs that have black box warnings. I found a source database but I'm struggling to figure out the correct edits to the templates. (Template talk:Infobox drug/legal status/sandbox, and/or Template talk:Infobox drug/sandbox...) RudolfoMD (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Tolerance in and of itself isn't an even remotely notable drug property. To the extent that it plays a role in drug dependence, it's necessary to understand. And, for what it's worth, sensitization of drug reward is the biological process that mediates the development of addiction; drug tolerance doesn't play any role in its pathophysiology. IMO, if there are any notable drug effects that tend to undergo tolerance or sensitization with repeated use, content about that should be added to the article, not dumped into an infobox with limited context. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Edit request 15 November 2023
Description of suggested change: Edit the change I made (to the sandbox copy) to the legal_US= line into the template. I tested it in Template:Infobox drug/sandbox and it works. It will display WARNING[1] based on data I've begun adding to wikidata. I have buy-in at WT:MED#Black_box_warnings_project.
Diff:
Current:
legal_US={{{legal_US|}}}
Sandbox:
legal_US={{#ifeq: {{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|[[Boxed warning|<span style="border:thin solid black;">WARNING</span>]]<ref name="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web |title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]] |access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref>}}{{{legal_US|}}}
([edit: I entered the code w/ Template:TextDiff as directed but it didn't display it properly in preview, so diff now manually displayed above. Help, appreciated, collapsed.) RudolfoMD (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Extended content
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
(I entered the code as directed but it doesn't display properly in preview. If needed, view diff.)
Diff: Current:legal_US={{{legal_US|}}}
legal_US={{#ifeq: {{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|[[Boxed warning|<span style="border:thin solid black;">WARNING</span>]]<ref name="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web |title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]] |access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref>}}{{{legal_US|}}}
|
References
- ^ "FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.)". nctr-crs.fda.gov. FDA. Retrieved 22 Oct 2023.
- Not done See below. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- * Pppery *
- 1. If I add the same URL to the thousands of wikidata entries (which I think is a bad idea) then you'll do the migration? That's worse than making the source info visible here, as my code does.
- 2. Did you notice that the code you're refusing to add contains a full citation for the data?
- 3. It does, do doesn't WP:NOTBEUC apply?
- Hello?
- -- RudolfoMD (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Jonesey95, would you mind hopping up to this section and explaining why you think that Module:WikidataIB needs to be used, given that the source is being supplied here? I understand not wanted "Boxed warning"; I want to know why you are insisting on "Boxed warning[Wikipedia source][Copy of same source from Wikidata]". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have not objected to this section. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Well, someone using your account wrote "The code in the above edit request should also use Module:WikidataIB" below. That has been interpreted as an objection to this change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough. The module is the standard way of implementing the RFC. My question below, "Why would anyone want unsourced information in Wikidata?", seems relevant. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- A small fraction of it is probably unsourceable; I doubt there are any sources out there that say whether Measles should be listed as an instance of Q12136, Q112193867, or Q112193769 (three variations on saying that it's a 'disease'). Therefore having some fraction unsourced is of no particular concern to me; some of it will be obviously correct in its real-world meaning, even if editors can differ over the ideal item number to represent the obvious fact that it's a disease.
- In this instance, Rudolfo and I have been talking about the advantages of setting a bot as a sentinel over the items. Sources do not prevent vandalism. Auto-revert bots do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough. The module is the standard way of implementing the RFC. My question below, "Why would anyone want unsourced information in Wikidata?", seems relevant. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Glad to see it's been clarified that there's no objection.
- It's not appropriate that this was derailed. It's not appropriate to demand I try to make or push for someone's unrelated changes that are not even in my wheelhouse.
- Well, someone using your account wrote "The code in the above edit request should also use Module:WikidataIB" below. That has been interpreted as an objection to this change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have not objected to this section. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Jonesey95, would you mind hopping up to this section and explaining why you think that Module:WikidataIB needs to be used, given that the source is being supplied here? I understand not wanted "Boxed warning"; I want to know why you are insisting on "Boxed warning[Wikipedia source][Copy of same source from Wikidata]". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Dear admin:
- I'm asking that the above-requested template change be made. (In other words, I'm asking that Template:Drugboxwarns be copied to Template:Infobox drug. That will modify the one line of Template:Infobox drug exactly as I've asked that it be modified. The only difference is that the sandbox template also has some other changes that I presume make the sandbox work better, but shouldn't be copied to the live template.) Using the {{adminhelp}} template, as it's been over a week with no action, and I think it's been clarified that there's no objection. As a bonus, warning of these particularly important safety issues may, just perhaps, thereafter regularly prevent iatrogenic catastrophes. (Yeah, I know, Disclaimer.) RudolfoMD (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- I resolved the accessibility issue, Trappist the monk. Switched to CSS: WARNING. RudolfoMD (talk) 07:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- Trappist the monk, you wrote, I will not move Template:Infobox drug/sandbox to Template:Infobox drug because I believe that you should not be using math markup for presentation for reasons of accessibility.
- Will you move it now? I removed the math markup and resolved the accessibility problem. RudolfoMD (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello? Feedback please! User:Arthurfragoso, @Wostr, P.I. Ellsworth, @WhatamIdoing, @Redrose64: do you see any showstoppers? We currently have many articles that warn about minor side effects but fail to higlight black box warnings. It's a bad situation that we need to fix, pronto, IMO. RudolfoMD (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)- I don't see any showstoppers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- Will you move my edit live? If not, what holds you back? --RudolfoMD (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- Like you, I don't have the necessary user rights to edit the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- I resolved the accessibility issue, Trappist the monk. Switched to CSS: WARNING. RudolfoMD (talk) 07:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I've Done the original edit request, since it seems to now be uncontested. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Next steps
- Yay! Bravo, all. There's still work for me/us left - e.g. NIRMATRELVIR AND RITONAVIR (Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is one of the drugs I/OpenRefine failed to mark in wikidata; not sure why. Need to get the import/match to work better. I wonder how many pages the warning is displayed on. RudolfoMD (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- In its current form this is not useful and is exceptionally bulky in the infobox. For example, on clonidine, I see the "[WARNING]" box beside Rx-only, and yet neither hovering nor clicking on either the warning nor the citation give me any indication as to what the warning is for this drug. It is barely helpful to know that there exists a black box warning for the drug in the infobox. I suggest either adding the black box warning text to display when hovering over the "[WARNING]", or updating the citation to dynamically link to the appropriate drug's text, or at worst internal-link to an anchor in the article's body that specifies the black box warning. In fact, in this particular article, there is no other mention of the black box warning, and so all that's left is a bulky and uninformative box in the infobox. Kimen8 (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Adding information about the specific warning would require a lot more work. This may be a step towards that, but the goal here was just to say that the drug had earned a boxed warning.
- If we reach that greater goal in the future, I might suggest DailyMed as a standardized source (clonidine, which has two boxed warnings). But it might also be better to have this in the article itself, cited to whatever the best sources are the editors choose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Considering that DailyMed link does display black box warnings, and appears to have a uniform url-syntax, can that not just be used to effectively do what I had suggested/hoped it would do in my comment above? I understand the preference for an FDA link if the FDA is issuing the warnings, but at least to me the value of having information in the infobox is that if I (the reader) want to learn more about something that isn't expounded (in the infobox or article), I can follow the links and sources to learn more. As you said in a comment below, in order to do this with the FDA link as it is, I have to download a file (and is it searchable HTML? I didn't go that far), because the information is not actually present at the link provided. Ideally yes, articles mention black box warnings in their body and use appropriate sources in doing so/explaining that, but until then, I think the autogenerated bit in the infobox could be more useful. Kimen8 (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- The file is a .csv file, so your computer will probably open it as a spreadsheet. That means that it's both searchable and filterable.
- The DailyMed id numbers are not intuitive (e.g.,
setid=ada02f1f-ae78-4435-879e-492ae862d504
), and I believe there is a different one for every single formulation by each manufacturer. See https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/search.cfm?query=clonidine&searchdb=all&labeltype=all&sortby=rel&audience=professional&page=1&pagesize=200 – but I think that only these four: https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/search.cfm?adv=1&labeltype=all&pagesize=200&page=1&query=34066-1%3A%28clonidine%29+ have boxed warnings. They'd have to be matched up by hand. This is possible but hours of work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)- Very well, the url looked simple enough but it makes sense that specific preparations etc would have different entries in dailymed (and thus may or may not show black box warnings). I will have to be satisfied with the current implementation. Kimen8 (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- I see this as an incremental improvement. It took us years to reach this point, and it only happened because of a couple of months of work by @RudolfoMD. The next step will be more complex, but maybe we'll be able to manage that some day, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- I do see the value in this, and my first reaction was one of letting perfect be the enemy of good, mixed with the aesthetically-unappealing presentation in the infobox of the "bulky" [WARNING] text before the Rx-only phrase (not that I can think of a better way to do this at the moment). It is indeed a step towards making sure that black box warnings make their way into articles. Kimen8 (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't want you to think of your reaction as letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. I'd rather that you think of it the way I do, which is helpfully advocating that we not stop here, but continue to look for even greater improvements.
:-)
WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't want you to think of your reaction as letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. I'd rather that you think of it the way I do, which is helpfully advocating that we not stop here, but continue to look for even greater improvements.
- I do see the value in this, and my first reaction was one of letting perfect be the enemy of good, mixed with the aesthetically-unappealing presentation in the infobox of the "bulky" [WARNING] text before the Rx-only phrase (not that I can think of a better way to do this at the moment). It is indeed a step towards making sure that black box warnings make their way into articles. Kimen8 (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- I see this as an incremental improvement. It took us years to reach this point, and it only happened because of a couple of months of work by @RudolfoMD. The next step will be more complex, but maybe we'll be able to manage that some day, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Very well, the url looked simple enough but it makes sense that specific preparations etc would have different entries in dailymed (and thus may or may not show black box warnings). I will have to be satisfied with the current implementation. Kimen8 (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Considering that DailyMed link does display black box warnings, and appears to have a uniform url-syntax, can that not just be used to effectively do what I had suggested/hoped it would do in my comment above? I understand the preference for an FDA link if the FDA is issuing the warnings, but at least to me the value of having information in the infobox is that if I (the reader) want to learn more about something that isn't expounded (in the infobox or article), I can follow the links and sources to learn more. As you said in a comment below, in order to do this with the FDA link as it is, I have to download a file (and is it searchable HTML? I didn't go that far), because the information is not actually present at the link provided. Ideally yes, articles mention black box warnings in their body and use appropriate sources in doing so/explaining that, but until then, I think the autogenerated bit in the infobox could be more useful. Kimen8 (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Also, unless I'm missing something, the link in the autogenerated citation seems to only list drugs whose generic names fall in the range "A"–"C" (I checked lamotrigine to make sure that the "A"–"C" link wasn't specific to clonidine, which begins with a "c", and the same link is on that page). Kimen8 (talk) Kimen8 (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, you have to scroll to the right part of the page, or even click the arrow to go to the relevant page. Only 200 items are displayed on each page. As the list changes over time, there is no way to predict in advance which page a given item will fall on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- I see 15 pages. Page 1 starts at "A" and page 15 starts at "C", hence my comment. Kimen8 (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- The citation says to use the "Download" button. It's >10MB, which would not be a friendly thing to dump on unsuspecting readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- I see 15 pages. Page 1 starts at "A" and page 15 starts at "C", hence my comment. Kimen8 (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- A week ago, here, I had already proposed/made a request for help for doing essentially what Kimen8 is suggesting. I wrote in part,
The text of each warning is generally concise and consists only of the most import warnings, so it may be worth [importing from the FDALabel database,] storing [in Wikidata] and adding to articles via wikidata.
I'm flattered. :-) - Regarding linking to a viewable page with the warnings: There's already code in the template to link to dailymed for some drugs. Perhaps we could use that, but my concerns include that the dailymed data may be less accurate than the FDAs, and strictly speaking, it would not be truthful to say dailymed is the source of the info.
- I think we can and should do the import of the warnings themselves. But we'd be want them to appear in the body of articles, right? I think so...
- Also, see the new edit request below; the wrong code was migrated.
- And "(Use Download Full Results and View Query links.)" is in the footnote, as WhatamIdoing noted. We could add the formatting I added.
- RudolfoMD (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Kimen8,
- I welcome your further thoughts on next steps.
- The bulky warning box is fixed. (Obsolete code was migrated due to miscommunication.) I put the (now-smaller) box before the Rx-only phrase intentionally, but if there's consensus, it can be moved.
- Let's discuss this further at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Black box warnings 2nd project, at least if it's not about the Infobox. --RudolfoMD (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- My personal opinion is that the Warning should be after the Rx-only phrase (such as Rx-only ([WARNING]) or along those lines), because the order in which I deem the information important is: The infobox parameter is about legality/scheduling so the legality/schedule should go first; the black box warning is auxiliary information and should go second. Kimen8 (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, you have to scroll to the right part of the page, or even click the arrow to go to the relevant page. Only 200 items are displayed on each page. As the list changes over time, there is no way to predict in advance which page a given item will fall on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- In its current form this is not useful and is exceptionally bulky in the infobox. For example, on clonidine, I see the "[WARNING]" box beside Rx-only, and yet neither hovering nor clicking on either the warning nor the citation give me any indication as to what the warning is for this drug. It is barely helpful to know that there exists a black box warning for the drug in the infobox. I suggest either adding the black box warning text to display when hovering over the "[WARNING]", or updating the citation to dynamically link to the appropriate drug's text, or at worst internal-link to an anchor in the article's body that specifies the black box warning. In fact, in this particular article, there is no other mention of the black box warning, and so all that's left is a bulky and uninformative box in the infobox. Kimen8 (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
The WARNING doesn't belong in the legal section. It is part of the FDA label and not a legal status. Its placement is annoying and distracting. The black box warning is not in the article. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
"Solubility in water"
It looks like filling in the |solubility=
parameter renders as "Solubility in water". If instead one wanted to say something along the lines of "slightly soluble in ethanol, highly soluble in 2-propanol", is there a way to put this into the infobox? I figured out setting the |sol_units=
to " " at least removes the suffix "g/mL" part. Kimen8 (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Chembox has:
- | SolubleOther =
- | Solvent =
- but I don't know if that's supported here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 9 December 2023
The current boxed warning indication uses LaTeX, which is just plain silly. LaTeX causes a whole image (with italicized text) to be added to the article for no good reason. Can't we stick with text?
Replace
|legal_US={{#ifeq: {{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|[[Boxed warning|<math>\begin{array}{|} \hline W\!ARNING \\ \hline \end{array}</math>]]<ref name="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web |title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]] |access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref>}}{{{legal_US|}}}
With
| legal_US={{#ifeq: {{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|[[Boxed warning|<span style="border:thin solid black;">WARNING</span>]]<ref name="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web |title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]] |access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref>}}{{{legal_US|}}}
So we can see WARNING instead of . Looking at the previous discussion, it seems that the CSS approach I want is the final consensus, but it didn't replace the initial TeX version in the sandbox for some reason. As a result, the wrong version was applied. --Artoria2e5 🌉 06:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Seconded. Correct. I (oddly!) didn't notice that * Pppery * did the original edit request, instead of the the edit request as it existed when they edited the template and marked the request done. But note: we may have further improvement come out of discussion with User:Kimen8 soon. -- RudolfoMD (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- What I actually did was base off the code in the sandbox, and didn't even notice the midstream edits you made to the talk page on 2 December (yes, you did point them out, but there was so much noise in that discussion that I didn't see them). Anyway, Done * Pppery * it has begun... 04:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
What about the name of company that manufactured that drug?
What about the name of company that manufactured that drug? Abhiramakella (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Black Box Warning
I had a question regarding how the Black Box warning code is implemented and if the following is possible.
Many drugs have Black Box warnings only for certain preparations of the drug. Is there a preferred way to mention this? I thought about putting the sentence "The US FDA Black Box warning only applies to certain preparations of the drug, including ___, where the warning says: ___" or something along those lines, but it's clunky.
For example with baclofen, neither the preparations Lyvispah oral granules, nor Ozobax oral solution have black box warnings, but Lioresal intrathecal does. In the case of this particular article, the contents of the black box warning are mentioned in the Adverse Effects section, but there is no explicit clarity if someone sees the Black Box Warning symbol in the infobox and goes to the article body to try to see the details of that.
I was going to ask on RudolfoMD's page but it seems they are indefinitely blocked.