Talk:Lumateperone

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lumateperone. 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/20150511081955/http://www.intracellulartherapies.com/products-technology/product-pipeline.html to http://www.intracellulartherapies.com/products-technology/product-pipeline.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160321032756/http://ir.intracellulartherapies.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=931821 to http://ir.intracellulartherapies.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=931821
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150511081955/http://www.intracellulartherapies.com/products-technology/product-pipeline.html to http://www.intracellulartherapies.com/products-technology/product-pipeline.html

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) 01:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Advertising
This article is in dire need of a makeover. Most of the sources are not independent: either they are straight from the horse's mouth (also called a "press release") or written by authors serving in the employment of the sponsoring pharmaceutical company. ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   22:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think we need to delete everything except the lede (which cites an excerpt from a reference work on small-molecule drugs for schizophrenia with no apparent link to the drug's clinical trial sponsors as its sole source). Everything else depends on primary sources, which are not in this case allowable sources for facts stated in wikipedia according to WP:PRIMARY.


 * WP:PROMO applies in the cases where the clinical efficacy and incidence of adverse drug effects compared to other drugs are mentioned. Finally, the article copy makes each statement in wikivoice, but the authors of every paper cited are affiliated with the clinical trial sponsors, so those sources fail the requirement that the sources be independent, third-party sources. Those statements must go, because by WP:MEDRS guideline, they're not adequately sourced.


 * Ordinarily, I'd wait for a consensus before acting, but that could take a month or more. In that time readers would be exposed to medical information in wikivoice that violates our WP:NPOV ethic.  Those parts of the article should be removed now under WP:BOLD.  I'll take care of that.


 * Anyone associated with the clinical trial sponsors for the drug which is the subject of this article should, in the order stated:
 * declare your affiliations with the company developing this drug and/or clinical trial sponsor (see WP:COI),
 * read WP:RS,WP:PRIMARY, WP:PROMO, WP:MEDRS, and especially WP:NPOV,
 * seek consensus on this talk page before reverting any change or restoring any material relative to the subject of this artlcle.
 * Thank you.--loupgarous (talk) 04:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Numbers
Regarding this diff (by Boghog) and that diff, that diff number two (both by 75.165.16.84). Does the 10.1358/dot.2018.54.12.2899443 journal (cited [14]) have a confirmation for the "4.1nM D1" and "3.2nM D2" and "serotonin transporters at 3.3nM." figures? The reason why I am asking this is because the official leaflet (www.caplyta.com --> "Prescribing Information" --> Page 4, Section 12.1 and the first paragraph of Section 12.2) has numbers which are an order of magnitude greater than those included in the article. Just editing the article without asking doesn't seem a great option, as source [14] is not downloadable. --Gryllida (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your question. Unfortunately I do not have access to the original source either. My contribution was based on the abstract only and I cannot verify or refute the values that were added later. In addition, it is not clear what kind of values these are nor the experimental conditions under which they were measured.  Finally it is debatable whether this level of detail is appropriate for an encyclopedic article.  Hence I have removed them.  Boghog (talk) 05:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming and for the change.
 * I am wondering if there is a way to keep these figures -- for the sake of informing the reader -- without causing them to erroneously believe something that is wrong. Currently I see two options:
 * 1) Would this be a better source for this?
 * Meyer, Jonathan M. "Lumateperone for schizophrenia." Current Psychiatry 19.2 (2020): 33-39.
 * PDF from Google docs: link
 * Couldn't figure out how reliable of a source it is: single author, but perhaps peer reviewed? Doesn't say where these figures are from, either. Does it have to be some sort of a standard procedure before a new drug is allowed on the market?
 * 2) Would writing with attribution, i.e. "According to the prescribing information leaflet, ... " or "According to the prescribing information leaflet, which didn't include a description of the research method, ... " be adequate?
 * Please let me know whether you would consider either of these two options acceptable, or leave it out entirely as poorly sourced.
 * Thanks, Gryllida (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Couldn't figure out how reliable of a source it is: single author, but perhaps peer reviewed? Doesn't say where these figures are from, either. Does it have to be some sort of a standard procedure before a new drug is allowed on the market?
 * 2) Would writing with attribution, i.e. "According to the prescribing information leaflet, ... " or "According to the prescribing information leaflet, which didn't include a description of the research method, ... " be adequate?
 * Please let me know whether you would consider either of these two options acceptable, or leave it out entirely as poorly sourced.
 * Thanks, Gryllida (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please let me know whether you would consider either of these two options acceptable, or leave it out entirely as poorly sourced.
 * Thanks, Gryllida (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gryllida (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

would have been the best source since it is indexed as a review in PubMed, but unfortunately I cannot access the full text document. Myer (2020) published in Current Psychiatry. This journal is not currently indexed in PubMed which makes this a questionable source. Myer in turn cites is a better source. This source reports the following values:

Boghog (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This looks good. Thank you for adding this to the article as a right aligned table, appreciated. Gryllida (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Success rate with Lumateperone
What success rate this medication has in reducing auditory hallucinations? 120.18.13.125 (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)