Talk:Palivizumab

message: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/appletter/2011/103770s5153ltr.pdf
46.138.95.18 (talk) 08:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Anaphylaxis shock

message: This page needs updating according to 
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/07/23/peds.2014-1665.full.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.183.4.7 (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  2014 guidelines 

message: Will add mechanism of action (ML), pharmacodynamics (MS)M. Salari, Future UCSF PharmD (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this source for history:  https://link-springer-com.ucsf.idm.oclc.org/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-72146-8_4 M. Salari, Future UCSF PharmD (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  UCSF Class of 2023 Editing Plans 

message: based on the Manual of Style provided by Wikipedia and the "Guiding Framework" sections, the group's edits vastly improve the article and allow much greater information to be discussed regarding Palivizumab. The group has achieved the feat of adding information to the source page for the drug, completing their goals that were outlined, although slight improvements can be made. For example, I would recommend moving the history section to the top to allow for a more chronological order, and, since the use of the drug was mentioned for young adults in the PK section (referring to bioavailability), it would be nice to know how/when it is used in young adults and why. I believe that, with the mention of many meta-analyses and Cochrane reviews, the sources are verifiable and secondary, and contribute to the overall effectiveness of the group's work, as well as contributing to the article's neutrality. Perhaps a section for just brand names for Palivizumab should be inserted, as there are 2 separate brand names mentioned in separate sections and no manufacturers given credit. The edits are consist with the Manual of Style Wikipedia recommends for drugs, treatments, and devices, with some headers still available to implement into the article, including chemistry, DDIs, research, and manufacturing, although some manufacturing was included in the History section by the group. There is a clear lead section, with a good summary table on the side, neutral content, organized topics, and reliable sources available, that allow me to believe that a good amount of research was done on the topic, and thankfully, the article is conveyed in a way for lay people to read. J Tate, Future UCSF Pharm.D. (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: Overall, the article appears improved. The lead section is pretty easy to understand and has a nice synopsis of the antibody.  The coverage appears balanced and the content is presented in a neutral manner. The references also appear to be reliable. Based off the goals outlined above, I would say the group has achieved its goals for overall article improvement. 
The structure could be improved by moving history after the lead section for a better flow of information. moving history before PK would also introduce RSV-IGIV before it is mentioned so the reader would have an idea what the antibody was being compared to. Additional improvements could be made to the cost section by determing the cost of the drug from manufacturers as opposed to cost based off QALY as that is not easy to understand. An easy clarification for people less versed in medical terminology would be to write monoclonal antibody instead of Mab. 
J.Sallee,UCSF (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  peer review part 1: 

message: first off, the article is presented in anuetral tone. While reading about palivizumab, I did not feel the editors were in any way attempting to sway my opinion to one side or theother, but rather present the data available about uses and drug info in an unbiased manner, so great job. Most of the reference citations work, though a few come up as not available. These do not appear to be edits made by your group as they were added in 2020, but it is something I did not think to check in my group's article - whether previous references are still available. Not all of the links allow full text without access, but unfortunately that will always be the case. the source cited by the group did all appear to be review articles analyzing pther studies. 
J.Sallee,UCSF (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  peer review part 2: 

message: The group's edits have substantially improved the article. The editors did a good job of adding more content sections that very well described the drug. Based on the goals that the editors provided and intended to work on, they successfully achieved all of them. The draft reflected a neutral tone, I did not feel like the article was delivered in one position or another. They did a good job keeping the tone and the language neutral. The edits do reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion. The edits were made so that it avoided advice like not referring to the audience as "you.". It was also very easy to read for the general audience because they avoided using any medical jargon. It was very well written for the public because there was no refrral to patients or cases. 
Jgoucsf (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review