Talk:Indication (medicine)

Medicine High‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JN1018, Kristinignacio, Julietheenguyen, Dereknguyen93.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Effects

didn't we used to use the word effects insted of indications..... not many people will know wtf indications mean, i for one didn't! Pinner458 (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An effect is not as pertinent as a description of effecting characteristics. 11:59, August 10, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.70.73 (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who includes the indications?

In the following sentence, it says that the FDA includes indications for medications, but this seems strange as normally the pharmaceutical company would include the package insert: 'In the United States, indications for medications are strictly regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which includes them in the package insert under the phrase "Indications and Usage".' Would it work to change "which includes them" to "which are included"? --BB12 (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BenjaminBarrett12 Yes, lolthe entity including them is not clear. It may be the FDA, the pharma company, the larger government, or consumer demand. It is better to use passive voice. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacy Students' Suggested Wiki Edits

We are a group of students who would like to make the following edits on this page primarily in the drugs section:

Add information on how drugs are approved for labeled indications Kristinignacio (talk) 05:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Add types of indications
Add information about indication-specific pricing of drugs
Add information regarding pros/cons of adding indications on prescription labels as a requirement
Expand on FDA regulations regarding indications in prescribing information

JN1018 (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The pros/cons was added on 11/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julietheenguyen (talk • contribs) 17:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacy Student Peer Reviews

Group 15 Peer Review:
1. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?
This group added a lot of new content to this wikipedia page, and I believe that all the draft submission reflects a neutral point of view because the statements added are facts rather than opinions. In addition to writing the information in a neutral tone, the group also provided pros and cons of the application of a medical indication to allow the reader to weigh both the benefits and risks of the use of an indication use. -Stephanie Sin (Stephaniesin (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

2. Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify…
This group edited a start class article, and each group member added significant additions to the page, providing new information based on credible sources that were not previously part of the page. The cited secondary sources are freely available, citing to sites/articles published by credible organizations such as the FDA, the ICER, the New England Journal of Medicine. The new sections that were added (Label Indication vs. Off-Label Indication, FDA Approval, and Effect on Drug Pricing) were directly referenced to credible secondary sources and properly cited. The edits that have been made are still present on the page, and it adds value to the original article. Maus0792 (talk)(Maki Usui)
3. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify…
The group's edits were of quality and thoughtful. It looks like the editors spent considerable effort to research and find relevant information, in particular "indication-specific pricing of drugs." The edits were concise and to the point and generally fits Wikipedia's manual of style, which encourages a simplistic writing style for ease of understanding. (Vinh Ho) -Butter121 (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify…
The article is well written and supported by appropriate references wherever needed to support a particular fact and/or specific information. There is no plagiarism or copyright violation based on my reading. For example, article simplifies the labeled vs nonlabeled indication for a drug in a layman language and support with specific references. The article supports the information presented with high-quality references including JAMA, NEJM etc. In general, the information presentation follows a logical pattern and would be a good resource for someone who wants to understand how the term "indication" is defined in medicine. Notwithstanding paraphrasing of information, there is no clear sign of plagiarism within the information presented in the article. There are few grammatical errors and writing syntax that may need a careful editing.-Praveen Shukla (praveenniper05

Group 3 Peer Review: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annette.chu1 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? After reading the page I think that the draft submission definitely reflects a neutral point of view. The group added more information on "Indications", like the process of determining indications and FDA regulations and did not incorporate any personal or biased views while doing so. The section on FDA approval is a great example of the group's unbiased opinion because they were able to describe the process very eloquently, backed up their statements with references and did not try to sway the reader's opinion on what they thought about the topic. Papnejas2018 (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify… There were a good variety of resources. All were helpful and were used well to convey information without bias. The only article I couldn't freely access is Ref 18 "Incorporating indications into Medication Ordering", but it does look like a reputable resource. I also like how the group cited other Wiki pages such as for "clinical significance" and "adjunct therapy". One thing I would change is for the Wiki-hyperlink from "clinically significance" to "clinically significant". Also (not related to citations), might be helpful to use sub-headers or bulletpoints for "labeled" vs "non-labeled" sections. Annette.chu1 (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted and added edits that made the label indications more clear and changed clinical significance wording. --Dereknguyen93 (talk) 04:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify… The FDA approval process is a very important aspect in U.S. pharmaceuticals obtaining a labelled indication. I think it would be great to expand upon your FDA approval process section by detailing the pre-clinical and clinical trial process involving timelines for pre-clinical studies and phase I-IIi studies since this section's explanation since brief compare to the level of background normally seen in wiki pages! The introductory paragraph also seems too brief and I imagine merging the "Drugs" part into it should help. Otherwise I think the depth of your context box is appropriate. I have never seen parenthesis in wiki titles so I wonder if there's a better title possible. Also the italicized words in the drugs section can potentially be hyperlinked to another wiki page. Aivytran (talk) 05:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Edit regarding addition of specification on the steps of FDA approval accepted and added Kristinignacio (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the introduction section was brief and added a summary of what we discuss in the "Drugs" section! JN1018 (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4. Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify… There are no signs of plagiarism or copyright violation that could be found. Aside from a few grammar errors, it looks like the editors spent a good amount of time adding relevant information and into this page and organizing the information in their own words. As an example, under "Effect on Drug Pricing", the editors included how drug pricing is related to oncology drugs and were able to provide a simplified example of how drug effectiveness is related to drug pricing. (Timothy Do) - Timothy.do (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]