Talk:Pralidoxime

Pharmacology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemicals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Pralidoxime.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Untitled

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The description of the mechanism is poorly written and therefore difficult to understand. It should be rewritten. Specifically, the first sentence contains excess clauses that obscure the meaning. Also, the explanation of 'aging' of the adduct is too vague, and warrants a more careful biochemical explanation; there is no such thing as a "permanent bond".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.160.177 (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you. The mechanism of action section is extremely poor. I don't understand it at all, most probably because it makes no sense. I would gladly correct it but I don't know the mechanism of action of this substance so I can't. However I know enough about pharmacology to see it's currently flawed.

MOA of 2-PAM

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

for information on the MOA of 2-PAM, see the CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry:
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/cholinesterase/pam_medications.html
--74.179.96.106 (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Charges

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would this not be dipolar in solution, with a -N-O^- group (betaine or zwitterion)? I feel that this is important because it would make it much more nucleophilic. Zwitterions are also much more water soluble but have difficulty crossing lipid cell membranes. That's a real problem for a time-critical antidote, so it might be interesting to hear how it gets in (co-opting an active transport system)? Project Osprey (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic