Talk:Tigecycline

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): 3 icecreamcones, Hkay03, Smoshrefi3, JKwood$3. Peer reviewers: LDP02, Khuynh sf2, Amek2, Csj02.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Mortality and black box by USFDA
I would suggest to expand on the issue of mortality, such as increased of mortality was due to what? Without such specification it's unclear and vague. About black box, I would suggest to add what the black box actually says. Dmatteng (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Its an unusual drug as almost nothing is resistant to it in vitro, but higher mortality is seen specifically in the case os severe infections, suggesting some non-resistance related issue with clinical efficacy. There are some details in the US pkg insert.Formerly 98 talk 16:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * brilacidin Might be even more promising, would nice if editors would improve that article. Regarding the mortality of this drug: Is the mortality rate due to side-effects? Or due to overgrowth of non-susceptible bacteria? Or due to it's inability effectively treat the susceptible bacteria? Dmatteng (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

We pretty much re-edited everything and elaborated on all the sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3 icecreamcones (talk • contribs) 21:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer review for 3 icecreamcones' edits
We felt that the group did a good job keeping a neutral point of view and using reliable sources. Some of our suggestions are to include the drug class in the lead section. We also felt that abbreviations such as cSSTI and cIAI may not be necessary if they're fully written out. For the susceptibility section, we wonder if this data is meaningful for the general population, especially since susceptibilities can vary from location to location. For the dosing section, it may be helpful to combine the information with the kidney and liver problems to make the section look a little more clean. Finally for the DDI section, it may be useful to give a basic explanation of the mechanism behind the interactions. There is also a sentence at the bottom of the section that seems out of place. LDP02 (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for all the help in revising our article. We took every piece of criticism and made adjustments to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3 icecreamcones (talk • contribs) 21:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Wrong IUPAC names
I have marked for missing citations obviously incorrect names containing amino(hydroxy)methylidene or even "amino-hydroxy-methylidene" groups not present in the structure (however not totally wrong, these would be presumed minor tautomeric forms), wondering if these names came from some authoritative sources. INN definition publication has correct "carboxamide" in name, however this name is also not absolutely correct – has three adjacent opening square brackets. —Mykhal (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Pubchem illustrates this chemical as an alternate tautomer, and the name in our infobox generally agrees with that form. Drugbank and Chemspider have the tautomer illustrated in our article and names that look correct for it. DMacks (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)