Talk:Recombinant human epidermal growth factor
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | 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 Recombinant human epidermal growth factor.
|
POV Issues
editThis article has some very major POV issues. Some examples to get other editors going:
- This section is intended to make it seems like scientists in the USA are marginalizing the drug due to political issues, by attributing to the whole group a quote which is completely unattributed and cannot be used to represent the whole group, even if it were sourced to someone within said group: "The drug and clinical trials have been looked over by scientists in the USA, calling the drug "very clever", but the political situation..."
Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now or in the foreseeable future to draw up a better version, but I'll see what I can do. Aero-Plex (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- As you diputed the neutrality of this source I assume you've read the entire article. Unfortunately you must have missed the part where the "clever" quote is even announced in a headline. De728631 (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- And I have to admit that I missed the fact that "Heberprot" is not mentioned in there. Instead the drug discussed in the MSNBC article is called Citoprot-P. Maybe that was an early-stage name of the generic substance while Heberprot is a brand? De728631 (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- The developer's "History" page quotes a peer-reviewed publication that refers to "Intralesional Injections of Citoprot-P..." so I guess that's it. But we need a source that draws a direct line between the two names. De728631 (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- [omicsgroup.org/journals/medication-safety-in-hospitals-avoiding-medication-errors-in-the-medication%20use-process-2167-1052.1000134.pdf[predatory publisher] This] essay states that "The growth factor is ... a lyophilized preparation containing 25 or 75 μg of rhEGF per vial under the brand Heberprot P®." De728631 (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- The developer's "History" page quotes a peer-reviewed publication that refers to "Intralesional Injections of Citoprot-P..." so I guess that's it. But we need a source that draws a direct line between the two names. De728631 (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- And I have to admit that I missed the fact that "Heberprot" is not mentioned in there. Instead the drug discussed in the MSNBC article is called Citoprot-P. Maybe that was an early-stage name of the generic substance while Heberprot is a brand? De728631 (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Heberprot-P. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131007222555/http://www.caccv.org.ar:80/raccv/V10-N03-06.pdf to http://www.caccv.org.ar/raccv/V10-N03-06.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Sources
editOK.... so looking for Heberprot-P there are no reviews in Pubmed. There are 7 primary sources going back to 2009. Jytdog (talk) 08:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- PMID 23396236 is a review but not indexed as such by pubmed. It is not independent (by the lab that developed it) but it is the best thing we have. Jytdog (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- but the search with the generic name yields... 9! Jytdog (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)