User talk:SK2016

Hi

Adalimumab
SK2016,

Thank you for your recent contributions to Wikipedia.

It seems as if Adalimumab is your first contribution.

Since I've worked on this article before, I'd like to make a few points.

First, it might not be a good idea to make a massive rewrite all in one draft. It would be better to make smaller changes and explan the reason for each one as you go along.

Second, the introduction is supposed to be a summary of the article. I think the old rewrite was a more comprehensive summary of the article. Somebody who wanted a basic background on adalimuimab could have gotten it from the article. Now, that information is scattered through a long, sometimes technical article.

Third, you seemed to have relied heavily on the package insert. The main style sheet, WP:MEDMOS, does things differently. For example, I don't know of any sources except the company itself that spells "HUMIRA" in caps. Wikipedia doesn't use "®". The registered mark is used by the people who own the trademark for legal reasons to protect the trademark. There's no reason for anybody else to use it.

The best sources are secondary sources that discuss the drug or class of drug. (For example, serious side effects can get lost in the package insert's boilerplate. Or the package insert may report a result that is statistically but not clinically sigificant.) I'd prefer a review article in someplace like Annals of Internal Medicine.

According to WP:MEDMOS, Wikipedia doesn't write for patients or doctors. Wikipedia isn't a procedural manual. We don't say "consult your doctor." We don't give long lists of adverse effects. We're writing as much for biology students as we are for patients. It's more important to give an adverse effect that reflects the mechanism of the drug, such as immune deficiency. It's a safe assumption that any doctor who prescribes a monoclonal antibody should know everything in the package insert.

You also seemed to have used some subheads that WP:MEDMOS doesn't use, like "Product information," "Warnings and precautions," etc.

I hope I haven't discouraged or offended you. But a lot of rewriting goes into these Wikipedia articles. --Nbauman (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nbauman,

Thank you for your input. This was my first article, and so I am new to the rules of writing and editing a Wiki article. This was actually a school assignment for me, and since I will be graded on this (grades are based on whether there were other edits within a month of my edits), I needed to provide as much accurate and helpful information as I could. In no way did I intend to offend other editors. My edits were based on researching the drug. You made a lot of good points about the editing rules, such as subheadings and "consult your doctor" details. I do, however, think that the article does need more structure in general. Maybe you could figure out a way to do that since you retained very little, if any, of my contributions and would do so again if I attempted to edit the page in the future. One major detail that I would highly recommend changing is the claim that "In rheumatoid arthritis, adalimumab has a response rate similar to methotrexate, and in combination nearly doubles the response rate of methotrexate alone.[1]" This is not completely true, and although lay language is generally the way to go, omitting a few key words from this sentence represents false information. The following statement is taken directly from the article: "In patients with early aggressive rheumatoid arthritis, adalimumab produces similar results as methotrexate after one year of therapy." This means that adalimumab and methotrexate only have similar effects on patients in their EARLY AGGRESSIVE STAGES OF RA AFTER ONE YEAR OF THERAPY. And the claim that "the combination nearly doubles the response rate of methotrexate alone" is also not true because yet again this is only true in people with EARLY AGGRESSIVE RA AFTER ONE YEAR OF THERAPY. These are very important details that change the claims that are stated in the new Wikipedia article. I attend the School of Pharmacy at University of California, San Francisco, so I do know what I am talking about regarding this aspect. Although I know you probably meant well with your comments and deleting my contributions based on your judgement, I would have at least looked at them, and then chuck or keep them. I understand that you made more contributions to Wikipedia pages, but I do not think you are proficient in evaluating data and presenting accurate information. Since you will not let me edit the page, maybe you can edit that one sentence so that at the least, the general public has more accurate information about treatment options for RA. I hope this did not offend you or discourage you in any way from deleting the contributions of other editors. Maybe in the future, you could message them first before deleting their work, which probably would have taken an entire day to complete.