Talk:Oxytocin (medication)

Chemistry

@Doc James: Can you please help me fill the chemistry section of the page. --Gstree (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Gstree I reverted your edits before seeing your request here - Think it's better that edits need to be well formulated before adding to articles. you can use the sandbox for this 'draft' work - best --Iztwoz (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

More interested in the clinical side of things myself. Can take a look at formatting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lithium (medication) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Claims surrounding the autistic neurotype

There appear to be a lot of questionable claims made throughout this article regarding the alleged relationship between the autistic neurotype and oxytocin (both claims that its administration to induce labor may make newborns autistic and claims of therapeutic effects when administered to autistic people). I think these poorly sourced and misleadingly worded claims require revision or removal.

Firstly, a paragraph under the "Side effects" section claims that, since the publishing of a 2013 paper in JAMA Pediatrics, whether or not the administration of oxytocin to induce labor makes infants autistic has "been a topic of debate." In support of this, the paragraph cites the original 2013 paper (which specifies in its text that more research is required before any causal link can be established) and a 2016 paper also published by JAMA Pediatrics, which mentioned some professional discussion, but concluded there was no causal link.

The paragraph, as it is worded now, suggests that this is an active, mainstream topic of debate among experts in autistic neurology and/or childbirth practices (it is not). It also falsely suggests that this was a well supported theory. (Like all "smoking gun" theories regarding the autistic neurotype, no follow-up research ever found a causal link. In fact, it appears several studies published in the years since the 2016 study have been unable to establish a causal link or declared that none exist (including a study published in August 2023 in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology).

I suggest removing this paragraph completely. It is no more appropriate to have it here than it would be to have a section under the "Vaccines" article saying whether or not vaccines make kid autistic has "been a topic of debate." It's extremely misleading wording that makes it sound like the jury is out. The jury is not out. This theory has been proven to be baseless and is not noteworthy.

As far as other sections of the article that suggest the administration of oxytocin to autistic individuals can have a therapeutic effect, they should either be removed entirely or updated with far more recent citations. There is not a single citation in support of these claims that is less than 11 years old. While that might not be considered outdated in other fields of research, that is ancient when it comes to research related to autistic neurology. It should be noted that this 2021 NIH-funded study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found no therapeutic benefit.

On an unrelated note, I think the entry about counterfeit medication in Africa under the "Society and culture" section is irrelevant trivia (primarily because of the age of the citations). Unless someone would like to update those citations, I think the entire "Society and culture" section should be removed (since all it contains is the "Counterfeits" subsection).

If you concur, disagree or simply wish to discuss the above suggestions, please make yourself known. If I don't receive any responses within the next few days, I will assume there are no objections and make the appropriate edits myself. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)