Talk:Tocolytic

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 June 2021 and 27 August 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yubmoon, Ylin7, Y.Gebrehiwet, Gcocos.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

I removed the designation "not effective" from MgSO4. I did not read the article that was referenced after this statement so I don't know the quality of the study. They may have very well found that Mag. sulfate is ineffective, or it may be that the study wasn't very good. Regardless, MgS04 is still used in most hospitals (often as first choice) for tocolysis. Someone reading this article may be confused by the "ineffective" distinction, given what is going on in practice today without a lengthy discussion on its effectiveness. I think it is best we leave this out of this page as this is not the place for a discussion of MgSO4's effectiveness. Instead that discussion can be placed in the MgSO4 article. I am not familiar with the use of the other "ineffective" drugs listed to warrant changing their descriptive status. Someone who is may wish to make further alterations IthinkIwannaLeia (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I followed the link for citation 4 and didn't get the right page. I searched the web site and found the article here: http://www.guideline.gov/content.aspx?id=3993&search=management+of+preterm+labor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.14.208.200 (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

disagree with above. if hospitals are using a medication with demonstrated inefficacy for tocolysis, than practice not definition should change. magnesium has many useful adjuncts in pregnancy -- fetal neuroprotection and preeclampsia seizure prophylaxis. So there is a still a role for its use. If it has not shown to be effective, the practice of magnesium for tocolysis should stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westcoastmd (talk • contribs) 03:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Needs citations and further detail about tocolytics Yubmoon (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2021, Group 31 Goals & Proposed Edits

Our goals for this article include:

• Updated table
• Add pk column on the table
• Added citations needed
• Add background information about Tocolytics
• Add indications for Tocolytics
• Reviewed references as a group and found a few duplicates: 1 & 8, 1 & 9, 32 & 33, 33 & 39, 5 & 28. These were consolidated to the first number that appeared

Feedback From Group 16 to Group 31

After reviewing your groups final edits to the article, it looks like you guys did a great job accomplishing your goals. I found that you have substantially improved the article with the addition of "indications" section, "future directions" section, and the update of the table and other resources. In regards to the general tone of the article, it is neutral and unbiased. There is sensitivity to gender as some of the edits made referred to the pregnant person in gender neutral terms, however there was some inconsistency with the non-edited areas of the article that still referred to pregnant persons as mothers. Additionally, information was a presented in a clear and concise manner, understandable for individuals that are not medical experts.K.Alcera (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The group's addition of the "indication" header has a significant impact on the article, which helps the reader understand when the drug class will be used. Previously, the "types of agents" table had many blank sections and a large amount of information that required citations. The group has filled in the blanks and added necessary citations to improve the validity of the article. The addition of the "future direction" header helps the reader understand where there are gaps in knowledge. I recommend that the group adds a relevant photo to the article and to change some medical terms to lay terms for the Wikipedia audience. As for the table, I do not see a column for PK. There is still 1 citation mission under possible contraindications for Sulindac. Otherwise, all goals for improvement have been met. The edits are consistent with the manual of style for a drug. The title is clear and the tone is appropriate for the audience. The article is well organized into headers. If possible, I recommend including headers such as pharmacology and toxicity. LDavis5 (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits on the article. I like the idea of adding the indication section in the article. The indication section makes it clear to audience when and why tocolytic should be used. I would recommend using more lay terms in the side effect columns in "types of agents" section as this information may be important in patient's decision making process. For example, change tachycardia to fast heart rate. The draft submission does reflect a neutral point of view. The article explains both the benefits and possible side effects of tocolytic in a neutral tone without taking any sides. K. Huang, Future UCSF Pharm.D. (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Good job on your article edits! The addition of the new section "Indication" made a significant contribution to the article by making it easier for the readers to find the information they need. Additionally, the drug chart table is nice it is easy to read and well organized. Also, I was surprised that you guys had a future direction section, which provides the reader where this topic is currently at and what needs to be worked on. I really think it is good for the readers that you guys hyperlinked the MoA section so the readers can figure out what those mechanisms actually do. Regarding the citation, everything seems fine and cited except for Hexoprenaline's indication is missing a citation and Sulindac still has a section where it says citation is needed. H. Lee, Future UCSF Pharm.D. (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)