This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vancomycin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 Vancomycin.
|
Could we make the line, "Likely it is okay during breastfeeding." in the opening paragraph a little more specific? Even something like "Likely it is not harmful to those who are breastfeeding." sounds better. Lukejodonnell ( talk) 15:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
VANCOmycin is mainly used for patients with Cystic Fibrosis and is commonly used as the first and foremost the antibiotic used to treat exacerbations. VANCOmycin is very hard on the kidneys and can cause problems if not dealt with immediately.-- 198.184.147.19 ( talk) 23:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Jacob Matthew Findley
The image does not show an important detail about vancomycin: that it has axial chirality. The two benzene rings with chlorine atoms, for example, can be as they are drawn, or rotated 180 ºC so the Cl atoms point to the other side. The molecule cannot change freely between those conformations, so having one or the other is an important detail when synthesizing it, and for its activity as antibiotic My point is: why to keep this image, when a better one, that shows all this details, is on Wikipedia Commons? This one: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Vancomycin.png If someone thinks as I do, you can add it to the article
Therefore we can use the simpler of the two in the lead. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I noticed one of the chemical structures has only 1 chlorine in the picture so i am not sure weather vancomycin has 1 chlorine or 2 chlorines in its chemical formula or if there are 2 forms of vancomycin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.163.170 ( talk) 20:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed a gross inconsistency and relative rarity of actually stating what the class of an antibiotic is clearly in a rapidly accessible location. Vancomycin is a great example:the majority of people who look up Vancomycin (I'm guessing medical students) probably don't care about the KEGG, and yet, there it is in the sidebar, easily accessible. But if I wanted to quickly know what class Vanc was in, I'd have to scroll through the text to figure out its glycopeptide antibiotic. This is inefficient and borderline absurd... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.173.105.212 ( talk) 11:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Dear Wiki-heros, Shouldn't all instances of 'by mouth' be replaced by 'administered orally'. Orally is the standard and well-recognised term for this, by mouth to me is ambiguous. If orally is not understandable enough for laypeople, I would suggest to link to this page: /info/en/?search=Oral_administration
J — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasperlevink~enwiki ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
would history not be better placed at the beginning? w. ought to have a degree of uniformity in these articles, i have seen others with history immediately after the summary, and this type, which has it at the bottom. or does it depend on whether a person vs a drug company finds the grail du jour? 64.229.175.25 ( talk) 18:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I added a "Research directions" sections where I mentioned on the combination of vancomycin powder and povidone-iodine lavage, based on a meta-analysis.
Does the source I given corroborate well with the information I added, and is that appropriate for inclusion in "Research directions"?
I read Wikipedia rules that "Research directions" section should not contain primary sources and should not be a description of studies, it should instead be based on very solid major sources to cover trends.
My hope is that the meta-analysis I given satisfies these requirements. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 16:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vancomycin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 Vancomycin.
|
Could we make the line, "Likely it is okay during breastfeeding." in the opening paragraph a little more specific? Even something like "Likely it is not harmful to those who are breastfeeding." sounds better. Lukejodonnell ( talk) 15:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
VANCOmycin is mainly used for patients with Cystic Fibrosis and is commonly used as the first and foremost the antibiotic used to treat exacerbations. VANCOmycin is very hard on the kidneys and can cause problems if not dealt with immediately.-- 198.184.147.19 ( talk) 23:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Jacob Matthew Findley
The image does not show an important detail about vancomycin: that it has axial chirality. The two benzene rings with chlorine atoms, for example, can be as they are drawn, or rotated 180 ºC so the Cl atoms point to the other side. The molecule cannot change freely between those conformations, so having one or the other is an important detail when synthesizing it, and for its activity as antibiotic My point is: why to keep this image, when a better one, that shows all this details, is on Wikipedia Commons? This one: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Vancomycin.png If someone thinks as I do, you can add it to the article
Therefore we can use the simpler of the two in the lead. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I noticed one of the chemical structures has only 1 chlorine in the picture so i am not sure weather vancomycin has 1 chlorine or 2 chlorines in its chemical formula or if there are 2 forms of vancomycin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.163.170 ( talk) 20:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed a gross inconsistency and relative rarity of actually stating what the class of an antibiotic is clearly in a rapidly accessible location. Vancomycin is a great example:the majority of people who look up Vancomycin (I'm guessing medical students) probably don't care about the KEGG, and yet, there it is in the sidebar, easily accessible. But if I wanted to quickly know what class Vanc was in, I'd have to scroll through the text to figure out its glycopeptide antibiotic. This is inefficient and borderline absurd... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.173.105.212 ( talk) 11:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Dear Wiki-heros, Shouldn't all instances of 'by mouth' be replaced by 'administered orally'. Orally is the standard and well-recognised term for this, by mouth to me is ambiguous. If orally is not understandable enough for laypeople, I would suggest to link to this page: /info/en/?search=Oral_administration
J — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasperlevink~enwiki ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
would history not be better placed at the beginning? w. ought to have a degree of uniformity in these articles, i have seen others with history immediately after the summary, and this type, which has it at the bottom. or does it depend on whether a person vs a drug company finds the grail du jour? 64.229.175.25 ( talk) 18:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I added a "Research directions" sections where I mentioned on the combination of vancomycin powder and povidone-iodine lavage, based on a meta-analysis.
Does the source I given corroborate well with the information I added, and is that appropriate for inclusion in "Research directions"?
I read Wikipedia rules that "Research directions" section should not contain primary sources and should not be a description of studies, it should instead be based on very solid major sources to cover trends.
My hope is that the meta-analysis I given satisfies these requirements. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 16:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)