This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pharmacology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Chemicals Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 RTI-31. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

23:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)ProfMad Profmad ( talk) 23:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC) RTI-31:- The material acquired was from a reliable source. The supply quickly went quiet? 250mg was tested over a 24 hour period. It had little, to no anaesthetic quality. Effects noticeable at 5mg doses, and extrememy euphoric by sublingual ad. A longer t1/2 than Cocaine, and preferable! I doubt it will reliably reappear, since, it is a highly habituating substance. Some forums suggest the materials tested was not RTI-1, with 'peculiar' recounts, since its effects are potently obvious. 23:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)ProfMad Profmad ( talk) 23:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply

This article is very technically written (and at some points clunky in grammar) and needs language softening for general readability. An expert in pharmaceutical chemistry will need to do this. I cannot. Grammarpolicealpha ( talk) 11:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC) reply