Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Cervarix.
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
I think Ceravarix deserves its own article. Just the section "Social issues" should be merged into HPV vaccine. — Remember the dot ( t) 18:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Since no one has replied, I went ahead and merged the "Social issues" section into HPV vaccine#Controversy and removed the proposed merge tag. — Remember the dot ( t) 04:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it is incorrect to say: "This means that a woman who is already infected with HPV will not benefit from this treatment."
I think this is too generic, as there is more than one strain of HPV. If a woman is infected with one strain of HPV, she may still benefit from the vaccination, as it may protect against the strains she is not infected with.
202.129.81.153 01:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
At this point the claim that UK based their selection of Cervarix over Gardasil on relative duration of protection appears to be speculation. It contradicts the one source that covers this topic in the article. Please provide sources to support the claim if you want to add it. (Evidence is lacking both that Cervarix provides longer protection, and the claim that in this specific case that was a consideration). Thanks. Zodon ( talk) 01:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
This reference has been removed from the main text, where it was placed inside the first passage of the article. "controversial [1]".
The reference does not qualify the characterisation that the vaccine is controversial. The vaccine has been introduced in many countries with highly developed health care systems. It can a subject of discussion whether or not the vaccine is controversial, but I find it hard to believe that this should be highlighted in the first passage in the article. Lipothymia ( talk) 12:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
In the light of the death of a 14 year old girl shortly after vaccination with Cervarix this (re-) ignited the debate about whether Cervarix or Gardasil should be prescribed in the United Kingdom. There was a note already in the article that said "by whom" when the article stated that there was some controversy about the use of Cervarix. There has been considerable discussion in the UK media about the difference whereby Cervarix protects against HPV types 16 and 18 and Gardasil protects against these variants and also variants 8 and 11 one the one side and that it cost more per dose on the other. This appears to be the controversy as at this time. Soarhead77 ( talk) 13:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
References
A girl who was vaccinated against cervical cancer died from a malignant tumour and not from a reaction to the jab, it has been revealed. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8284517.stm) 60.49.111.200 ( talk) 10:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
This section is clearly not neutral, and barely related to Cervarix. I say take it out. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 16:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The benefits and risks of vaccination must be weighed with the benefits and risks of screening to reduce cervical cancer in a cost-effective manner.
{{ Request edit}} Not done: -- ANowlin: talk 21:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Not done for now: This request has been sitting for quite a while now, but that is beside the point. If this information could be included, a source would be needed, and not just a message on a talk page. -- ANowlin: talk 13:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
My name is
Maitri Shah, PharmD, and I work for
GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals (GSK) in the United States as a Medical Information Scientist. My intent is to provide information to the editors of Wikipedia for their use in Cervarix related articles to help ensure that healthcare professionals in the United States receive accurate and balanced scientific information.
Please visit my User Page for information regarding my intentions for engagement on Wikipedia in alignment with the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest Principle. Any potential side effects of Cervarix or other GSK prescription drugs should be reported to the FDA. Visit www.fda.gov/medwatch, or call 1-800-FDA-1088.
I would like to propose that a new section be added to the Cervarix article that includes the important safety information for Cervarix. Below I have included important safety information, which has been summarized from the US prescribing information:
Proposed New Section: Important Safety Information
Cervarix is contraindicated in patients with severe allergic reactions to any component of the vaccine. Safety has not been established in pregnant women. Register women who receive Cervarix while pregnant in the pregnancy registry by calling 1-888-452-9622. Because vaccinees may develop syncope, sometimes resulting in falling with injury, observation for 15 minutes after administration is recommended. Syncope, sometimes associated with tonic-clonic movements and other seizure-like activity, has been reported following vaccination with Cervarix. When syncope is associated with tonic-clonic movements, the activity is usually transient and typically responds to restoring cerebral perfusion by maintaining a supine or Trendelenburg position. The tip cap and the rubber plunger of the needleless prefilled syringes contain dry natural latex rubber that may cause allergic reactions in latex-sensitive individuals. Alternative is the single dose vial, in which the vial stopper does not contain latex. The most common local adverse reactions and general adverse events in ≥20% of patients were pain, redness, and swelling at the injection site, fatigue, headache, myalgia, gastrointestinal symptoms, and arthralgia. Vaccination with Cervarix may not result in protection in all vaccine recipients. [1]
End of Proposed New Section
The Important Safety Information for Cervarix above is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
Maitri Shah, PharmD, GSK (
talk)
16:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Note to the Editors:
Please note that the following statement from the introductory section of the article is not part of the U.S. FDA-approved package insert, also described as the “labeling”.
Cervarix is also formulated with AS04 (Adjuvant System 04), a proprietary adjuvant, that has been found to boost the immune system response for a longer period of time. Maitri Shah, PharmD, GSK ( talk) 19:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, I would like to note that the only HPV type that demonstrated statistical significance in the analysis of the 12 other oncogenic types in the Phase III clinical trial was HPV type 31. Maitri Shah, PharmD, GSK ( talk) 19:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I have reviewed other highly rated pharmaceutical product articles to see what format was used to include safety information. Many articles including Atorvastatin and Warfarin included safety information in sections of the article (e.g. Contraindications, Adverse Effects). Therefore if the above Important Safety Information is not appropriate for the Cervarix article, I propose the following three new sections and content be added to the article after the Clinical Trials section:
New Section: Contraindications
New Section: Adverse Effects
New Section: Warnings and Precautions
Thanks
Maitri Shah, PharmD, GSK (
talk)
18:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
References
{{ Request edit}} Not done for now: Edit looks like it can be done once source is confirmed. Once my question below is cleared up, I will make the edit, and tag as done if the source checks out. -- ANowlin: talk 23:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Done -- ANowlin: talk 03:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Done -- ANowlin: talk 01:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I would like to propose the following corrections to the Clinical Trials section (highlighted proposed deletes with strike through and adds in green):
Phase II trials demonstrated 100% protection of the vaccine against types 16 and 18 HPV, including among 1100 women from
North America and
Brazil.
[1] Phase III trials included over 660 18,000 women from
Germany and
Poland 14 countries in
Asia Pacific,
Europe,
Latin America and
North America (reference: Paavonen J et al. Lancet 2009;374:301-314). Company officials are now conducting a clinical trial to determine whether Cervarix is more effective than rival Merck's HPV vaccine
Gardasil.
[2] a trial that compares the immunogenecity and safety of Cervarix with
Gardasil (reference: Einstein MH et al. Human Vaccines 2009;5:1–15)
Below is the proposed update without markup:
Phase II trials demonstrated 100% protection of the vaccine against types 16 and 18 HPV, including among 1100 women from
North America and
Brazil.
[3] A Phase III trials included over 18,000 women from 14 countries in
Asia Pacific,
Europe,
Latin America and
North America.
[4] Company officials are now conducting a trial that compares the immunogenecity and safety of Cervarix with
Gardasil.
[5]
Maitri Shah, PharmD, GSK (
talk)
13:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
{{request edit}}
Done --
ANowlin:
talk
03:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, in the spirit of completeness for the Cervarix article, I would like to propose the following additions to the "Indications" section. Currently, this section does not actually contain indications for Cervarix, so I have proposed this below, as well as the Limitations of Use and Effectiveness and Administration information which should also be included as part of "Indications".
Cervarix is indicated for the prevention of the following diseases caused by oncogenic HPV types 16 and 18: cervical cancer, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or worse and adenocarcinoma in situ, and CIN grade 1. Cervarix is approved for use in females 10 through 25 years of age.
[3]
Limitations of Use and Effectiveness
[4]
Administration
[5]
Immunization with Cervarix consists of 3 doses of 0.5-mL each, by intramuscular injection according to the following schedule: 0, 1, and 6 months. The preferred site of administration is the deltoid region of the upper arm. Cervarix is available in 0.5-mL single-dose vials and prefilled TIP-LOK syringes.
Thank you.
Maitri Shah, PharmD, GSK (
talk)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
Hi, I recommend that the following additions be made to the Clinical Trials section (highlighted in green, with full source link displayed):
Updated section without markup with source link included in bottom references:
Thank you.
Maitri Shah, PharmD, GSK (
talk)
15:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Proposed updates without markup:
<showing links so we can see the sources> David Ruben Talk 00:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); URL–wikilink conflict (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
This needs redrafting. In essence, IMHO, it is inappropriate material for the article, remembering that articles are not written for doctors or patients as their target. Details of phase studies are rarely of any great interest to the general readership, bore the pants of me a family doctor, and need be considered (from copyediting stand) as relative weak material per WP:MEDRS – it is primary research, and stringing these together risks being original interpretation. A single good secondary review source will eventually summarise far more succinctly. Research development studies are frankly irrelevant once a drug proceeds to the next level, so a phase II study is interesting but is of little importance once the subsequent phase III study is reported. Likewise, once a drug is in real world usage, I think phase III studies are of historical interest only - the vaccine might well give 100% protection in research conditions, but in real world of being left out of fridges a little too long, variable quality injection administration techniques, and booster doses being given a little outside of recommended optimum intervals, who knows quite what precise impact will be...? An independent study done 5 years down the line will be the more impressive value to be used. Ok, I've done my rant against some paragraphs which sound like marketing spiel :-)
I failed to match the references to some of the statements.
I would critiscise the proposed overall suggested wording for the following points:
So upon trimming by half, may I suggest the following as a more readable redraft:
David Ruben Talk 02:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Please could you clarify what the consensus is here, and exactly what you'd like editing, and then use another {{request edit}}. Thanks, Chzz ► 20:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I rearranged the sections of the article to make them more closely match WP:MEDMOS in September 2010. I am not sure whether the best place for the licensing section is down at the end (as the legal section in MEDMOS), or whether it was better up in the history. (Since most of it is history of when it was licensed where). Opinions? Zodon ( talk) 06:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
to be effective 7.3 years the section is mislabeled. efficacy should be telling us "the reduction in the incidence of a disease among people who have received a vaccine compared to the incidence in unvaccinated people." [5] instead what is written is telling us about long those effects last which is not efficacy. Note the CDC has some actual efficacy info: [6]
§TE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.216.147 ( talk) 23:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Cervarix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cervarix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Cervarix.
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
I think Ceravarix deserves its own article. Just the section "Social issues" should be merged into HPV vaccine. — Remember the dot ( t) 18:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Since no one has replied, I went ahead and merged the "Social issues" section into HPV vaccine#Controversy and removed the proposed merge tag. — Remember the dot ( t) 04:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it is incorrect to say: "This means that a woman who is already infected with HPV will not benefit from this treatment."
I think this is too generic, as there is more than one strain of HPV. If a woman is infected with one strain of HPV, she may still benefit from the vaccination, as it may protect against the strains she is not infected with.
202.129.81.153 01:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
At this point the claim that UK based their selection of Cervarix over Gardasil on relative duration of protection appears to be speculation. It contradicts the one source that covers this topic in the article. Please provide sources to support the claim if you want to add it. (Evidence is lacking both that Cervarix provides longer protection, and the claim that in this specific case that was a consideration). Thanks. Zodon ( talk) 01:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
This reference has been removed from the main text, where it was placed inside the first passage of the article. "controversial [1]".
The reference does not qualify the characterisation that the vaccine is controversial. The vaccine has been introduced in many countries with highly developed health care systems. It can a subject of discussion whether or not the vaccine is controversial, but I find it hard to believe that this should be highlighted in the first passage in the article. Lipothymia ( talk) 12:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
In the light of the death of a 14 year old girl shortly after vaccination with Cervarix this (re-) ignited the debate about whether Cervarix or Gardasil should be prescribed in the United Kingdom. There was a note already in the article that said "by whom" when the article stated that there was some controversy about the use of Cervarix. There has been considerable discussion in the UK media about the difference whereby Cervarix protects against HPV types 16 and 18 and Gardasil protects against these variants and also variants 8 and 11 one the one side and that it cost more per dose on the other. This appears to be the controversy as at this time. Soarhead77 ( talk) 13:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
References
A girl who was vaccinated against cervical cancer died from a malignant tumour and not from a reaction to the jab, it has been revealed. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8284517.stm) 60.49.111.200 ( talk) 10:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
This section is clearly not neutral, and barely related to Cervarix. I say take it out. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 16:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The benefits and risks of vaccination must be weighed with the benefits and risks of screening to reduce cervical cancer in a cost-effective manner.
{{ Request edit}} Not done: -- ANowlin: talk 21:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Not done for now: This request has been sitting for quite a while now, but that is beside the point. If this information could be included, a source would be needed, and not just a message on a talk page. -- ANowlin: talk 13:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
My name is
Maitri Shah, PharmD, and I work for
GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals (GSK) in the United States as a Medical Information Scientist. My intent is to provide information to the editors of Wikipedia for their use in Cervarix related articles to help ensure that healthcare professionals in the United States receive accurate and balanced scientific information.
Please visit my User Page for information regarding my intentions for engagement on Wikipedia in alignment with the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest Principle. Any potential side effects of Cervarix or other GSK prescription drugs should be reported to the FDA. Visit www.fda.gov/medwatch, or call 1-800-FDA-1088.
I would like to propose that a new section be added to the Cervarix article that includes the important safety information for Cervarix. Below I have included important safety information, which has been summarized from the US prescribing information:
Proposed New Section: Important Safety Information
Cervarix is contraindicated in patients with severe allergic reactions to any component of the vaccine. Safety has not been established in pregnant women. Register women who receive Cervarix while pregnant in the pregnancy registry by calling 1-888-452-9622. Because vaccinees may develop syncope, sometimes resulting in falling with injury, observation for 15 minutes after administration is recommended. Syncope, sometimes associated with tonic-clonic movements and other seizure-like activity, has been reported following vaccination with Cervarix. When syncope is associated with tonic-clonic movements, the activity is usually transient and typically responds to restoring cerebral perfusion by maintaining a supine or Trendelenburg position. The tip cap and the rubber plunger of the needleless prefilled syringes contain dry natural latex rubber that may cause allergic reactions in latex-sensitive individuals. Alternative is the single dose vial, in which the vial stopper does not contain latex. The most common local adverse reactions and general adverse events in ≥20% of patients were pain, redness, and swelling at the injection site, fatigue, headache, myalgia, gastrointestinal symptoms, and arthralgia. Vaccination with Cervarix may not result in protection in all vaccine recipients. [1]
End of Proposed New Section
The Important Safety Information for Cervarix above is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
Maitri Shah, PharmD, GSK (
talk)
16:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Note to the Editors:
Please note that the following statement from the introductory section of the article is not part of the U.S. FDA-approved package insert, also described as the “labeling”.
Cervarix is also formulated with AS04 (Adjuvant System 04), a proprietary adjuvant, that has been found to boost the immune system response for a longer period of time. Maitri Shah, PharmD, GSK ( talk) 19:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, I would like to note that the only HPV type that demonstrated statistical significance in the analysis of the 12 other oncogenic types in the Phase III clinical trial was HPV type 31. Maitri Shah, PharmD, GSK ( talk) 19:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I have reviewed other highly rated pharmaceutical product articles to see what format was used to include safety information. Many articles including Atorvastatin and Warfarin included safety information in sections of the article (e.g. Contraindications, Adverse Effects). Therefore if the above Important Safety Information is not appropriate for the Cervarix article, I propose the following three new sections and content be added to the article after the Clinical Trials section:
New Section: Contraindications
New Section: Adverse Effects
New Section: Warnings and Precautions
Thanks
Maitri Shah, PharmD, GSK (
talk)
18:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
References
{{ Request edit}} Not done for now: Edit looks like it can be done once source is confirmed. Once my question below is cleared up, I will make the edit, and tag as done if the source checks out. -- ANowlin: talk 23:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Done -- ANowlin: talk 03:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Done -- ANowlin: talk 01:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I would like to propose the following corrections to the Clinical Trials section (highlighted proposed deletes with strike through and adds in green):
Phase II trials demonstrated 100% protection of the vaccine against types 16 and 18 HPV, including among 1100 women from
North America and
Brazil.
[1] Phase III trials included over 660 18,000 women from
Germany and
Poland 14 countries in
Asia Pacific,
Europe,
Latin America and
North America (reference: Paavonen J et al. Lancet 2009;374:301-314). Company officials are now conducting a clinical trial to determine whether Cervarix is more effective than rival Merck's HPV vaccine
Gardasil.
[2] a trial that compares the immunogenecity and safety of Cervarix with
Gardasil (reference: Einstein MH et al. Human Vaccines 2009;5:1–15)
Below is the proposed update without markup:
Phase II trials demonstrated 100% protection of the vaccine against types 16 and 18 HPV, including among 1100 women from
North America and
Brazil.
[3] A Phase III trials included over 18,000 women from 14 countries in
Asia Pacific,
Europe,
Latin America and
North America.
[4] Company officials are now conducting a trial that compares the immunogenecity and safety of Cervarix with
Gardasil.
[5]
Maitri Shah, PharmD, GSK (
talk)
13:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
{{request edit}}
Done --
ANowlin:
talk
03:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, in the spirit of completeness for the Cervarix article, I would like to propose the following additions to the "Indications" section. Currently, this section does not actually contain indications for Cervarix, so I have proposed this below, as well as the Limitations of Use and Effectiveness and Administration information which should also be included as part of "Indications".
Cervarix is indicated for the prevention of the following diseases caused by oncogenic HPV types 16 and 18: cervical cancer, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or worse and adenocarcinoma in situ, and CIN grade 1. Cervarix is approved for use in females 10 through 25 years of age.
[3]
Limitations of Use and Effectiveness
[4]
Administration
[5]
Immunization with Cervarix consists of 3 doses of 0.5-mL each, by intramuscular injection according to the following schedule: 0, 1, and 6 months. The preferred site of administration is the deltoid region of the upper arm. Cervarix is available in 0.5-mL single-dose vials and prefilled TIP-LOK syringes.
Thank you.
Maitri Shah, PharmD, GSK (
talk)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
Hi, I recommend that the following additions be made to the Clinical Trials section (highlighted in green, with full source link displayed):
Updated section without markup with source link included in bottom references:
Thank you.
Maitri Shah, PharmD, GSK (
talk)
15:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Proposed updates without markup:
<showing links so we can see the sources> David Ruben Talk 00:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); URL–wikilink conflict (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
This needs redrafting. In essence, IMHO, it is inappropriate material for the article, remembering that articles are not written for doctors or patients as their target. Details of phase studies are rarely of any great interest to the general readership, bore the pants of me a family doctor, and need be considered (from copyediting stand) as relative weak material per WP:MEDRS – it is primary research, and stringing these together risks being original interpretation. A single good secondary review source will eventually summarise far more succinctly. Research development studies are frankly irrelevant once a drug proceeds to the next level, so a phase II study is interesting but is of little importance once the subsequent phase III study is reported. Likewise, once a drug is in real world usage, I think phase III studies are of historical interest only - the vaccine might well give 100% protection in research conditions, but in real world of being left out of fridges a little too long, variable quality injection administration techniques, and booster doses being given a little outside of recommended optimum intervals, who knows quite what precise impact will be...? An independent study done 5 years down the line will be the more impressive value to be used. Ok, I've done my rant against some paragraphs which sound like marketing spiel :-)
I failed to match the references to some of the statements.
I would critiscise the proposed overall suggested wording for the following points:
So upon trimming by half, may I suggest the following as a more readable redraft:
David Ruben Talk 02:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Please could you clarify what the consensus is here, and exactly what you'd like editing, and then use another {{request edit}}. Thanks, Chzz ► 20:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I rearranged the sections of the article to make them more closely match WP:MEDMOS in September 2010. I am not sure whether the best place for the licensing section is down at the end (as the legal section in MEDMOS), or whether it was better up in the history. (Since most of it is history of when it was licensed where). Opinions? Zodon ( talk) 06:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
to be effective 7.3 years the section is mislabeled. efficacy should be telling us "the reduction in the incidence of a disease among people who have received a vaccine compared to the incidence in unvaccinated people." [5] instead what is written is telling us about long those effects last which is not efficacy. Note the CDC has some actual efficacy info: [6]
§TE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.216.147 ( talk) 23:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Cervarix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cervarix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)