Talk:Cycloserine

No efficacy in anxiety disorders
By my read, most recent reviews assign at least tentative support for the efficacy of cycloserine in this indiction.


 * "Following a series of small-scale studies offering strong support for this clinical application, more recent larger-scale studies have yielded mixed results, with some showing weak or no effects. We discuss possible explanations for the mixed findings, pointing to both patient and session (i.e., learning experiences) characteristics as possible moderators of efficacy, and offer directions for future research in this area."


 * "We demonstrate in part preliminary but increasing evidence that D-cycloserine may be effective in various psychiatric diseases, including schizophrenia, anxiety disorders, addiction, eating disorders, major depression, and autism"


 * "D-cycloserine is a promising combination strategy for cognitive behavioral therapy of anxiety disorders by augmenting extinction learning."
 * Even the Cochrane Review that is your preferred source states "Given there is some promising preliminary data from individual studies, further research is necessary to assess DCS compared with placebo augmentation of cognitive and behavioural therapies, and determine mechanisms of action as well as magnitude of effect in anxiety and related disorders." As is so often the case, the Cochrane Review conclusions are clouded by poor writing.  They state "there is NO evidence of an effect", and then cite limited evidence of an effect ("there is some promising preliminary data") and advocate further research based on this limited evidence base.

Overall, there are a number of voices out there saying this is promising, that it flat out works, or that the evidence is mixed, and I believe my text summarized this state of the science better than yours. WP:NPOV requires that we present different viewpoints in a manner proportional to their prevalence in reliable sources. Unless you question the reliability of these reviews, there is no basis to toss them all and plug in the conclusions (if we can figure out what they are) of the Cochrane Review. 73.162.132.47 (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "more recent larger-scale studies have yielded mixed results, with some showing weak or no effects", preliminary evidence, and promising evidence is all very weak evidence. Added that it is preliminary.


 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * this works for me, thanks 73.162.132.47 (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Why does "orientomycin" redirect here?
Not mentioned in article. Is it a generic synonym, a brand name, or something else? Equinox (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It was a former brand name, per this source. Others apparently included Closerin, Closerina, Cyclomycin, Cyclorine, and Cyclosin.  We generally don't list brand names except for the originator brand, as those sections become spam magnets.   Jytdog (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)