Talk:Dostarlimab

Good results in some rectal cancer
The widely reported news of good clinical trial results in dMMR rectal cancer was briefly in this article. Should be restored IMO. - Rod57 (talk) 08:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * refs NEJM - Rod57 (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I disagree: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2201445 clearly doesn't qualify as a WP:MEDRS (Medical reliable source): from the article:

"Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content, as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information; for example, early lab results which don't hold in later clinical trials." This clearly applies in this instance - the trial was relatively small and it's still early days. Dansharkey (talk) 07:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Primary sources from reliable sources may be used but are discouraged, and no analyses can be made from them, only specific statements of facts. See WP:PRIMARY. MartinezMD (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm going to restore some of the content in question. This topic has been covered really extensively outside of the initial primary source. The cat is out of the bag on this one. It's sorta silly that we would cover it up. NickCT (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it is notable with the coverage it has received. I did make it more specific as required in WP:PRIMARY to avoid giving the impression it is a panacea. MartinezMD (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II
— Assignment last updated by Jkvu25 (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II 2022 Group 7 proposed edits
Enhance description of Dostarlimab in the introductory paragraph.

Add Pharmacology section.

Add research section about studies/trials that relate to newer data.

Add information about populations who may benefit from Dostarlimab use (people with endometrial cancer.

Add data (if available) regarding renal/hepatic dose adjustments.

Add Availability/affordability section

Enhance adverse effects section

Add more information on adverse effects Iswu (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Iswu (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Group 6 Peer Review
Person A Question 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain]

The group's edits substantially improve the article because it will add a couple things to the Lead. First, it would add a brief description of all the sections. This group lacks the section of "History" in their lead. Other than that, the lead is concise, and does not add extra material that is not in the article. As for the content guiding framework, the content is extremely relevant to the topic, and the references are up to date. Content that may be missing might be the mechanism of action of the drug, if it is known. Although I don't know if there has been studies of this drug in other populations, the editors might want to add examples of efficacy and reaction in other populations. As for tone and balance, the article seems neutral and does not seem to undermine any populations. In addition, the article is well written and is not confusing. The sources are current and it includes a myriad of different perspectives from different articles.

Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain]

Yes, the group has achieved its goals of improvement. From what I have seen edited, the group added an ample amount of information from reliable sources and has addressed many parts of the drug that was previously not addressed.

Question 3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines?

Person A answers: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? [explain]

Yes, overall, the draft submission reflects a neutral POV as seen by the lack of opinions or leading language in the article. By reading this, I would not be able to guess the perspective of the writer. There is no negative or positive associations in the article. In addition, the writer does not tell information on behalf of someone. Anewens (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Person B (Snschmidt) 1. I felt that this article clearly explained the use of Dostarlimab. I appreciated how the sections were divided and it allowed the reader to navigate the information smoothly. Keywords were defined as well as the abbreviations used throughout the article.

2. The group achieved its overall goal in expanding this article and providing reliable sources to support the information provided. There were many important pieces of information regarding the medication including the use, side effects, history, cost, and trial data. After reading this article, I feel that I have a basic understanding of this medication and its indications and I can access the provided resources to learn more. 3-b. The cited references were freely available and were from a variety of journal articles which contributes to the reliability of the information provided. However, there were a couple of sources that were marked 'unreliable medical sources' so I hope that will be corrected.

-Mentioned EU in the first paragraph before defining the abbreviation. -Could you explain what is a platinum containing regimen? -There were a couple of sources in the article that are marked 'unreliable medical source'. -The first section of Efficacy had some grammatical errors 'achieved favorable in', 'reduced oin 42%'. -Could you explain what the medication dosing is and is it for a specific age range? Snschmidt (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggestions for improvement:


 * Thank you for your feedback! I have added some clarification on what a platinum containing regimen is. I will also look into the 'unreliable medical source' and the grammatical errors as well. Thank you for bringing this to our attention! Tsui.a (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Person C (Mdchee) Mdchee (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC) 1. The group's edits substantially improve this article and add more information about Dostarlimab. Each section has a heading and sub-headings to divide information and make the content easier to read. The language is neutral and does not try to persuade the reader in one direction. The lead is clear and succinct to give a brief description of Dostarlimab, and then expands to a variety of topics related to the drug. 2. The group has achieved its overall goals for improvement. The group expanded the information on the topic substantially and used reliable sources. 3. The article contains headings and subheadings that are consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. One suggestion for improvement is to organize the sections so that the beginning of the article discusses the disease state, and then leads into information about the drug. For example, after the lead section, the article can go into Endometrial cancer which is the disease state that the drug is treating. This can give the reader background on what the drug is used for. After talking about the disease state, the article can introduce the history of the drug, pharmacology and efficacy, clinical trials, side effects, medical uses, and society and culture. This can help the article flow better and organize the content in a way that makes it easier for the reader to follow along. Mdchee (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Mdchee

Person D (Itzhou) Itzhou (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

1. I believe that these edits substantially improve this article. The structure of the article is clear and content is neutral as well. The language is friendly to the general reader and does not contain unexplained medical jargon. The lead is clear and concise to introduce this medication to the reader before moving onto details about their drugs.Itzhou (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

2. I believe that this group has achieved its overall goals for improvement. The content is well written and the sources are reliable as well. There is a large variety of information in regards to this drug and it remains informative and neutral throughout.

3. This article does support diversity, equity, and inclusion. This drug is approved for treatment of endometrial cancer, however, there was no mention of pronouns or specific race, keeping this article neutral. The article remains neutral throughout without biasing towards one area or another, so I believe that these edits reflect and support diversity, equity, and inclusion.Itzhou (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Anewens (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Our group has reviewed all the references and they are now correctly formatted. Tsui.a (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)