Talk:Digoxin

message: it is brilliant 
:What, digoxin or this page? JFW | T@lk 14:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: note

message: See, e.g., the interesting articles by Kurup & Kurup 
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/1275
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12745627&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum
- Jim@pagenotes.com 24.41.95.163 03:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The hypothalamus produces digoxin - it's a neurotransmitter! 

message: In the second para of "Adverse Effects" section, visual disturbances (yellow-green halos) are listed under "common (>=1%)".  However in the final (one line) para xanthopsia (yellow-green vision) is listed as rare.
I suggest that the first mention should be deleted - I am not aware of a great deal of evidence for colour vision disturbance being very common with digoxin use (i.e. agree with the last para!).
Kitb 18:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xanthopsia 

message: I don't know how important this is, but the very first line says dig is a cardiac glycosides. If you click on that link, it'll take you to the definition that states, cardiac glycosides are drugs used in the treatment of congestive heart failure and cardiac arrhythmia. Then under uses, it states the main uses of digoxin is for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter. Is anybody else confused? Not one mention for CHF.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.109.164 (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main uses for Digoxin 

message: The very short mention at end of article doesn't reflect more recent studies of digoxin and chemotherapy with relation to Hypoxia-inducible factors.  Protein inhibitor makes cell susceptible to chemotherapy. Old drugs, new uses. Shenme (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemotherapy applications 

message: Digoxin is a pharmaceutical drug or a chemical substance. How about using 'generations' instead of words like 'predecessors' or 'successors'? Wouldn't that be much more appropriate? And by the way, this section is almost empty. I'm removing this section for now, since it contains almost nothing. If anyones got a better idea, feel free to inform here.-(Roshu 02:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predecessors 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Digoxin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100928084636/http://www.circ.ahajournals.org:80/cgi/reprint/51/2/251 to http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/reprint/51/2/251
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm probably just forgetting something, but this part is confusing:
"Increased amounts of Ca2+ also leads to increased storage of calcium in the sarcoplasmic reticulum, causing a corresponding increase in the release of calcium during each action potential. This leads to increased contractility (the force of contraction) of the heart without increasing heart energy expenditure."
Wouldn't the increased contractility depend on more myosin units working, which would require more ATP and thus more energy usage? Myoglobin (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy usage? 

message: I'm making an extensive trim of this section. My reasoning is:
:(1) The section places far too much weight on the interaction of digoxin and cancer. Remember, although some studies have shown that it has anti-proliferative effects in vitro (which is true of enormous numbers of chemicals), it is not used as an anti-cancer drug. And the studies of how it affects risk of cancer haven't caused any change in its usage. To justify a section this long, we need evidence that in the real world, people are influenced by an interaction of digoxin and cancer.
:(2) The entire section is currently very, very detailed, more appropriate to a secondary review article in the medical literature than a tertiary review in an encyclopaedia.
:(3) The whole lot appears to be wildly plagiarised from the primary sources. Much of what I've checked is extremely closely paraphrased (For example, our text says "In summary, data of this cohort study for digoxin treatment for HF patients was combined with a cell-based strategy that addresses the translation issue, which revealed the complexity of personalized medicine" while the cited source says "In summary, we combined a cohort study for digoxin treatment for HF patients with a cell-based strategy that addresses the translation issue, which revealed the complexity of personalized medicine"). We therefore have to attribute it as directly lifted from somewhere else, or get rid of it.
:Elemimele (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digoxin and cancer - plagiarism and too much detail