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-371. 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

If the compound lacks blood-brain-barrier penetration, can it really be classed with the template below it as being a CNS (central-nervous system) stimulant? This reminds me of the case with Loperamide, it is not CNS functional because it does not cross the BBB but is technically an opioid; but it is not a CNS depressant. RTI-371 should certainly not be classed a stimulant if it is not active across the BBB. Nagelfar ( talk) 13:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply