Talk:Artesunate

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Radtk109, PharmerQ, CJ Bolus Dose, Pbayrasy. Peer reviewers: Christineyu247, Tu.kenneth, Kevinhng, JMargiott.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Artemesinin
I've moved some data from Artemesinin into a separate Artesunate article. --Gak 21:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor change to the S. haematobium note. While egg production is a measure of viability in S. haematobium its not clear from the paper if the effect is temporary or permanant. It would be very useful if this were in fact a permament effect but the case for this is not yet (2007) proven. Longer follow up is needed here before firm conclusions can be drawn. That being said this does look promising. DrMicro — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrMicro (talk • contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.1.234 (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

NEJM
Topic of an entire article in NEJM, free at http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/17/1774 JFW | T@lk  08:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Courtesy link: A case study, so not WP:MEDRS but perhaps an interesting read for relevant parties nonetheless. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

UCSF Fall 2016 assignment
UCSF STUDENT 1 – Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify… Yes, the draft submission reflects a neutral point of view since the article is purely informative without authors inserting their personal opinions. The article starts off with a good general overview of what the medication is used for and supplemented with a recommendation by WHO, the World Health Organization. While it could be debatable if this organization is biased, it is a well-known global organization that the authors state a recommendation from without incorporating their own opinion if the recommendation is valid. In addition, the authors also state the U.S. FDA recommendation. The neutral point of view is also evidenced by the citation of WHO and the CDC in treatment regimen. The mechanisms of action and pharmacokinetics section also stay neutral as the sections are properly cited to support the chemistry behind the medication. The adverse effects and warnings and contraindications sections are neutral, but the spelling and grammar could be cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christineyu247 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

UCSF STUDENT 2 – Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely accessible? If not, specify… Yes, the points included are generally verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely accessible. A few primary sources were used in this draft submission, but I found them to be properly utilized and consistent with Wikipedia's citation guidelines. I did, however, notice that the link the 7th citation (2010 WHO guidelines) led to a paywall/login page, and the link to the 15th citation (Clark RL paper) failed to load. A few of the PubMed papers were missing direct links, but sufficiently offered the PMID. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinhng (talk • contribs) 12:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

UCSF STUDENT 3 – Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style for medicine-related articles? If not, specify… Yes, the edits are formatted consistently with Wikipedia's manual of style for medicine-related articles. In addition, they did a good job of linking terms that may not be familiar to the laymen, but did not overdo it. ::Tu.kenneth (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

UCSF STUDENT 4- Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify. It is difficult to tell if there is evidence of plagiarism because some of the sources from which this article draws are behind paywalls that a member of the public cannot access. The WHO guidelines for the treatment of malaria appear to be cited twice, citation "3" being the second edition of the guidelines and citation "7" being the third edition. We recommend updating the article with the most updated information in the latest edition. This would mean reviewing the "Medication uses" section. Of what is written, there is no indication that what is written in this article is plagiarized or too-closely paraphrased. JMargiott (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Comparisons to artemether
I summarized the randomized controlled trial (Phu et al 2011) and review (Li and Weina 2010) to the best of my ability, and I welcome any improvements to those summaries. The text came from Project 523 and seemed to bear unbridled enthusiasm for artesunate over artemether. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)