Talk:List of abbreviations used in medical prescriptions

Merger proposal

 * Disagree: Prescriptions are a common point of interaction for the general reader of Wikipedia. They will encounter abbreviations in List of medical abbreviations much more rarely. Samw (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever the decision be, the two lists heavily overlap and not in sync. I was already thinking about spliting the general list into specific classes of abbreviations: List of abbreviation for medical conditions and diseases, List of abbreviations for medical procedures, List of abbreviations for drugs, etc. `'Míkka>t 04:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

we should add a red star next the ones that should be avoided.
If a medical student is referencing this, and they see Q.D. as daily, and don't check the bottom, they won't see to avoid this.

If we put a RED star or some other flag, so that people know not to use this abbreviation, this would help.

Thoughts? Tkjazzer (talk) 06:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

for recommend not to use section, add other suggestions on writing
for example, suggest using Daily instead of QD

We should add all the suggested uses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkjazzer (talk • contribs) 06:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of "List of dosage abbreviations"
List of dosage abbreviations was a duplicated subset of what already exists on this page (and wrongly described list as pertaining to "dosages" rather than "frequency of dosing"). A couple items not currenly included but would need verification:

List of dosage abbreviations:

anyway give convincing rational for including items not currently included - ?ventenary-only ? David Ruben Talk 00:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

RC
bisacodyl RC, I imagine it means PR - but what is does RC stand for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.214.17.5 (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Merging List of medical abbreviations: Do-not-use list into this article
The inclusion of a second list of "Not recommended" abbreviations at the bottom of List of abbreviations used in medical prescriptions makes no sense, since List of medical abbreviations: Do-not-use list covers this topic exclusively. Regardless of the merge decision, this must be rectified.

As per merging, I think it is very important we indicate that some of the abbreviations on List of abbreviations used in medical prescriptions are on the official United States Do-Not-Use list! Without these caveats, the article is presenting antiquated information! It would be a simple matter to create an annotated list merging List of abbreviations used in medical prescriptions and List of medical abbreviations: Do-not-use list. Perhaps abbreviations on the official United States Do-Not-Use list could have a red background, abbreviations which are not recommended a yellow background and the rest the usual gray background. I'll wait a week or two for responses and then proceed. Scientific29 (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge complete! Scientific29 (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see the value of flagging deprecated usages in this article, but from a Wikipedia (i.e. International) viewpoint am concerned by the US-centricity intrisic in the use "Joint Commission" and "official United States Do-Not-Use list". I would suggest that such information needs to be reduced in status to a notes column, not given as much prominence as the sole colour coding? Somersetlevels (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

American bias
It's inappropriate to have one code for "not recommended by American authorities" and another for "not recommended in at least one place anywhere else in the world". Reference an international body, such as the WHO, or don't have a separate colour code depending on which national body advises against the abbreviation, or don't colour code at all. And, in response to an earlier post, medical students really should not be using Wikipedia as a guide, and Wikipedia should definitely not be tailoring itself to make it a better how-to guide for medical students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.202.45 (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

c for "with"
Am I correct in thinking that this matches the traditional use of c/ in ordinary use, which has in recent decades generally given way to w/? Varlaam (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * c in general is short for 'cum' which is Latin for 'with' 163.40.114.55 (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

"Numerical abbreviation" Roman Numerals vs. IV, X, c
The section says, "When expressing a numerical quantity, roman numerals are commonly used...", yet IV (4) is "intravenous". Could someone clarify this? (And capitalize Roman.) Laguna CA (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * «IV» (or «Ⅳ» as a single Unicode glyph) is the roman numeral «4» (see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals ), but is identical to the «IV» (or «i.v.», using full points «.» and small script to mark the abbreviation depends partially removes the ambiguity but it could be mandated or not by writing standard) abbreviation for IntraVenous.
 * For the scope of differentiate roman numbers from latin capital letters some use to exaggerate the serifs of roman numerals (or encompass the full composed number with an underline and over¹-line, like «X̲̅I̲̅V̲̅»² for «XIV» equal to «14»), but this is a "modern" "invention" which may can conflict with "roman very-big-number notation" and when denoting ordinals while also using roman numerals as cardinals. Conflict with either of those cases are non-existent in today uses while talking of ℞s.
 * ¹("over" in the sense of "up", not "trough")
 * ²here i used the Unicode's "Combining Diacritical Marks" U+0305 "Combining Overline" and U+0332 "Combining Low Line" to recreate what it looks while hand-written.
 *  Have a nice day!, Nickh ²+, --37.161.49.106 (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC). 

apothocary system and TIW
no mention of apothocary system which is what I think the article tries to say about number 1-3. It is somewhat incorrect as the appothecary system can go to 4 with the numbering system.

also TIW = three times per week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.40.114.55 (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

SUC is substance use calendar
I didn't find it in the article... so just mentioning it here. --118.96.148.144 (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of abbreviations used in medical prescriptions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130310233725/http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/Do_Not_Use_List.pdf to http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/Do_Not_Use_List.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Article needs trimming
I had some ideas for improvements but wanted to share here first. This article has an issue in that it reads like a WP:TEXTBOOK, like one intended for an American medical student. We should remove the discouraged practices section and the section about handwriting. The color codes on the list should be removed, and instead we should use footnotes to indicate deprecated items because it is more standard for lists on WP and looks better visually (that's assuming we should indicate them at all–I don't know for sure). Lastly, I'm not sure the section about numerals is within the scope of this list article. Pythagimedes (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Table missing 'm.', incorrect translation of 'mitte'
Section Table is missing one of the commonest abbreviations of all, 'm.' for mitte. The table includes 'mit., mitt.' = mitte but the translation is incorrect: it is too specific. It should not be 'number of tablets provided ' but 'send' or 'dispense', i.e. what is to be sent out to the patient, which could be a quantity of liquid, number of tablets or capsules, or any other formulation. A typical traditional prescription is in three sections, Rx, m., and sig., i.e. 'Prepare', 'Send', and 'Label'. For instance: Rx caps. niacin m. 90 sig. t.i.d. p.o. I will make the change but I thought the details should be mentioned here, as this is the style I was accustomed to personally circa 1965 but I haven't found a good reference. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

TT .. ? = tea-time!
I gather TT is in use, alongside OM etc, to specify a time of day - tea-time. (It seems likely this is an English / British thing!) Anyone know? Source?? 2A04:B2C2:405:EB00:7179:2ED1:8D08:3FC5 (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)