Jump to content

Talk:Rabeprazole

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How about some citations?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mind adding some citations? Nope. Who cares? After all, this is just Wikipedia, a safe house for self-proclaimed experts, right? I don't think so. It might even be said that this article is completely made up by fellow Wikipedians to preach some sprt of "ass effect" propaganda? So I suggest you guys try to add some reference to support your claims, just as I am doing right now. And that "ass effect" thing is very peculiar. What a marvellous piece of slang! Roshu 08:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshu Bangal (talk • contribs)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Overhaul[edit]

Just an FYI: I am reworking major changes to this article. I hope to have them finished by next week. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 02:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Let me know what you think.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 23:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While the article is in OK form, it relies on the review from 1999 so is not really ready for GA review. The MHRA label is from 2013 and would be better to use more. I looked at pubmed and PMID 22928894 appears to be the most recent review on this drug from 2012, and isn't cited. It should pass GA fine once the refs are updated and sources checked against them. Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for searching for that review; I'll have to take a look at it. Do you recommend trying to remove and replace the older information then, or just citing on top of it? ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 03:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Generally see what the newer says the same or different; if the same just replace with the newer ref (to save someone from doing the same exercise later) and if different, change the content and cite the newer. generally older refs should just fall away... Thanks for your work on this! Jytdog (talk) 07:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! My edits are complete. Thank you again for the advice! ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 00:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, except for the huge picture of the bottle of Aciphex which is just going to draw the ire of all the generics people and doesn't add a lot of value. i would take that out... Jytdog (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Rabeprazole/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tom (LT) (talk · contribs) 10:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I will take up this review, about one of my favourite drugs. Give me some time to familiarise myself with the page, and I'll respond in 2-3 days. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Will verify no discrepancies found
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Nil issues
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. See comments nil issues
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. See comments
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

Comments[edit]

Wording[edit]

As stated above this article is really easy to read and I think does a great job of communicating its subject matter. Some fairly small changes to increase the readability:--Tom (LT) (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
Medical uses
Adverse effects
  • "However, the most common side effects " -> remove "However"
  • "Rare side effects include rashes, flu-like symptoms, and infections" would be good to know what type of infections
  • "liver injury (hepatotoxicity) have been reported in the literature" -> (a) "liver injury", removing hepatotoxicity; and (b) remove "in the literature"
  • "coma, and death" if these are a result of an already mentioned side-effect, then I suggest reword to "which are potentially fatal" to clarify which side-effects cause this; I am certain death is not an idiopathic side-effect
  • "Rabeprazole is associated with elevated serum gastrin levels, which are thought to be dependent upon the degree of CYP2C19 metabolism the drug undergoes. Notably, rabeprazole is not as significantly metabolized by this enzyme compared to other medications in the same class, like omeprazole.[1]" might belong better in a different section
  • "but it is unclear if these effects were due to rabeprazole or extenuating circumstances" and "Theoretical side effects": I am somewhat concerened here about WP:PEACOCK / overly promotional language. If this could be reworded that would be great
  • Acid suppressive drugs are associated with a slight increase in the risk of gastric cancer [1]
    • This is related to the hypergastrinemia side effect, mentioned under the ADRs. The meta-analysis you've cited doesn't specifically address rabeprazole, though a couple of the studies analyzed included rabeprazole (only one by name). I'm not sure I feel comfortable declaring that acid suppressants increase gastric cancer based on that study, though I can certainly see the biological plausibility for such a claim. I'm just not sure that the evidence is conclusive yet--for any acid suppressant. How do you feel about the qualifier, "may be associated," instead?―Biochemistry🙴❤ 23:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pharmacology
Update
  •  Question: One more issue: "Conditions that involve excess gastric acid production (e.g. Zollinger-Ellison syndrome), conditions that are worsened by gastric acid (e.g. ulcerations of the gastrointestinal tract), and conditions whose pathophysiology are driven by gastric acid (e.g. symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease) are responsive to rabeprazole treatment" Sorry for addition at the last minute. Something not quite right here. Is Z-E syndrome really "Responsive to rabeprazole treatment"? is GERD's pathophysiology really "driven" by gastric acid? I think it might be most correct to remove the last bit and maybe reword "driven" somehow. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rabeprazole is FDA-approved for the treatment of Z-E, so I'd argue that it is responsive to it. Given that rabeprazole is also FDA-approved for the treatment of GERD, and rabeprazole's primary MoA as an acid-suppressant, I'd also feel comfortable noting that GERD is driven by acid (though there are, of course, other factors that contribute to GERD and cause it, such as increases in abdominal pressure secondary to obesity, allowing the acid to insult the LES). I've reworded this bit under Medical uses to better reflect the role of gastric acid in GERD. Let me know what you think.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 05:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, as you state GERD is more to do with the problem of reflux of gastric acid. I also fail to see how suppressing acid in ZE helps the underlying tumour [2]. If possible I would be most happy if we could compromise and reword this to something like "Rabeprazole is used in the management of..." and then remove the "are responsive to rabeprazole treatment". --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt replies too :). So, only three issues remaining - need some more information on that source, and the cancer bit inserted. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! Let me know if there's anything I've missed! (: ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 05:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No further issues identified. Have boldly made one small edit, and have promoted to GA - well done! --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your diligent review! (: ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 03:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rabeprazole&oldid=1209936441"