Talk:Antihemorrhagic

Conflict

the article says two conflicting things: coagulation vs. constriction of blood vessels. which one is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 06:14, 16 March 2006 (talk) 85.64.78.111

I'm purty sure it;s constriction, but there is no reference to co-agulation now so I guess someone changed it.Wolfmankurd 15:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Constriction aids coagulation. Without constriction, a lot more coagulation has to happen before bleeding stops. The only thing I know about which constricts so much that blood can't physically flow anymore (watertight constriciton, let's say) is cauterization. --76.200.148.120 (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Pain

Do we really need a citation about the stinging pain being greater than the bleeding pain? If you've ever used a styptic, you'll know which hurts more...Newuser1379 00:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Styptic and hemostatic don't mean quite the same thing

Although Wikipedia and most medical dictionaries discuss the two things together, hemostatis simply means stopping bleeding, while styptic means tissue contraction. From researching online sources, the medical hemostatics seem to work by promoting clotting, so I will tweak the lead section to make the distinction.

Do you think the main title for this article should be styptic or hemostatic? Either way, the other title can redirect to the main one so it is easily found.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with your findings - hemostatic agents stop bleeding, while styptics stop bleeding by tissue contraction. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that all styptic agents are hemostatic agents, but not all hemostatic agents are styptics. The hemostatic agents used in medicine (Celox, HemCon, and QuikClot) work by adsorbing water from the blood, concentrating clotting factors, activating platelets, and promoting steps in the coagulation cascade. These agents are therefore not styptics, as they do not directly initiate tissue/vessel contraction.

"Styptic" is not an appropriate title for an article, as it is an adjective. "Hemostatic" is not appropriate either for the same reason. Because styptics are a subset of hemostatic agents, I am going to be bold and move this article to hemostatic agent. Since originally a copy and paste merge was performed, I'm going to copy and paste back to hemostatic agent. A history merge could then be performed between styptic and hemostatic agent if you want to keep your edits with the article. I also think styptic pencil should probably have its own article, though I won't split this article now. Styptic pencil is analogous to QuikClot - they are both hemostatic agents. --Scott Alter 18:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a tool for history merge? If there is, there is no real need for it, because the history is on the redirect page if anyone wants it. Anyway, a copy and paste merge/move is much better than using the move command, as it preserves the history in both places, (so complying wih GFDL) so I am glad that is what you opted for. I take your point about examples of agents, but pencil and powder are probably too short to split into their own articles until they expand greatly. They will just be orphans out on their own.

To a layman (me), the pencil is really a delivery method rather than an agent - the agent is the styptic substance (alum etc) itself, also found in the powder. Not important now, but did you notice that you used styptic in place of a noun in your third sentence? English is a funny old language. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, history merging is possible, see: Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. You may request one at Wikipedia:Cut_and_paste_move_repair_holding_pen. Anyway this one is done, as I have just merged the edit history of Styptic pencil‎ and Styptic into this. Please check if I restored the correct version - Nabla (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes - your last edit was the most recent version of the article. --Scott Alter 21:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never actually used styptic in writing or speech before, but yes, it is also a noun. Though in the previous article, it was used as a modifier of substance, pencil, and powder - which is why I objected to styptic (used as an adjective in the article) as the title.

When I merge articles, rather than create a new article from scratch, I usually pick one to start as the base and merge everything into it - I try to minimize copying and pasting. Nabla has performed history merges on styptic pencil, styptic, and hemostatic agent. While this is not exactly what I would have done, all three page histories are now merged together. Personally, I would have kept styptic pencil with its own past histories, since there is some overlap of with the hemostatic agent. However, since it is already done, we can just leave it alone. It is even more complicated to reverse a history merge. --Scott Alter 21:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Focus of article

The focus of this article seems to be heading towards "things that stop bleeding." There is currently no article on antihemorrhagics (antihemorrhagic redirects to bleeding). Basically all of the drug templates have their own main articles. However, the {{Antihemorrhagics}} do not. Should this article be renamed to antihemorrhagic and expanded to focus on all things that stop bleeding? It would then be added to the {{Major drug groups}} template. This would cover all of the ATC code B02 drugs. The only problem I see is how to incorporate the non-ATC drugs (the current focus of the page). I do not know how they are classified pharmacologically. Should they be incorporated into the {{Antihemorrhagics}} navigation template? I do not think any of these products are classified in the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System, so I'm not sure where they would go. And what about Category:Hemostatic agents and Category:Antifibrinolytics? Should they be merged into Category:Antihemorrhagics? Should Category:Antifibrinolytics remain as a subcategory of Category:Antihemorrhagics or Category:Hemostatic agents? I'll leave a note at WP:PHARM for some assistance. --Scott Alter 22:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

TV Ad

TV ad section was irrelevant, not encyclopedic and seemed included only to indulge someone's nostalgia. If the name of the product, and its relevance were included, that section might be able to be restored, if re-written.Youdontsmellbad (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Chemicals

I do not believe that QuikClot uses zeolite in their products anymore.