Talk:Misoprostol

message: are what the paragraph refer to; the controversy re "convenience inductions" is cited from numerous reliable sources/merely reported.  if there's another side of the controversy you want to present, find a reliable source who states it.
Cindery 06:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  specific risks of misoprostol... 

message: as i said, marsden wagner etc. reliable sources/the controversy is reported on. if you think there is another side/you have seen it from a reliable source, go find that source and cite it.
i suggest you read the wikipedia text re NPOV, edit warring, etc.  if you don't like what marsden/cbs new have to say: too bad. you can't just delete accurate information because you don't like it. if you think a point of view hasn't been represented, you can include it, but you can't just delete information you don't like.
Cindery 17:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  figure out what NPOV is 

message: the article and the quote are specifically about cytotec, not induced labor in general. (cytotec is harsher/faster and much, much cheaper). hence i will be moving it back.
Cindery 00:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  moving cytotec article 

message: this article points out some differences. it's juts an example of the differences between cytotec/other labor inducing drugs. and a simple google search will inform you that cytotec and misoprostol are synonymous. *you need to do research and cite facts/sources.* your opinions cannot be cited in the article as references/are not sufficient. and whether you think marsden wagner is "sloppy" for calling cytotec "cytotec" is compeltely irrelevant.  also, when you repeatedly delete disputed text, you are supposed to remove it to the talk page until the dispute is resolved.
http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/07/11/cytotec/index.html
Cindery 07:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: differences between cytotec and pitocin

message: "The "routine" use of Cytotec is controversial. Speeding delivery can be medically necessary when the mother is overdue or at risk because of high blood pressure or diabetes, but critics charge that doctors often rely on Cytotec for "convenience inductions," using the drug to induce labor during office hours rather than letting nature take its course. "Cytotec enables doctors to practice daylight obstetrics," says Dr. Marsden Wagner, a neonatologist who served for 15 years as a director of women's and children's health in industrialized countries for the World Health Organization. "It means that as a doctor, I can come in at 9 a.m., give you the pill, and by 6 p.m. I've delivered a baby and am home having dinner."  In May, 2005, the FDA sent out an alert to women, warning them against the use of Cytotec."
Saying that Cytotec and misoprostol are "synonymous" is like saying that gasoline should be called "Exxon".  Citing Google is not convincing (and it's amusing that you're citing Google to try and settle an argument on Wikipedia!)  "*you need to do research and cite facts/sources.*"  No shit!  Perhaps if you had posted the Salon.com article instead of the Mother Jones screed, we wouldn't have gotten into this whole mess.  My point about the Mother Jones article still stands--the problems it describes are problems caused by labor induction, and the reason that it's such a concern for Cytotec is that the formulation is not intended for labor induction and contains far more misoprostol than is appropriate for that use.  "your opinions cannot be cited in the article as references/are not sufficient."  Jesus, you're saying that it's my opinion that a formulation and the drug it contains are two different things? 192.31.106.34 15:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  paragraph under dispute 

message: gynuity is a spin-off company of the population council. (both danco and gynuity were set up by the pop council, and winikoff, lead exec of gynuity, appears all over the media as a spokesperson for mifepristone, and along with hausknecht--lead exec of danco--publishes papers in medical jounals supporting mifepristone.) having three orgs instead of one does make it appear that three orgs support this or that, as opposed to one source making assertions/supporting something...it's a kind of pr strategy/definitely influences public opinion. let's call it "corporate sockpuppetry." :-) but, that aside, i have no problem with gynuity compiling studies in a biblio. but they are not an authoritative/unbiased resource for a synthesis interpretation of studies to date. "instructions for use" is a little misleading--it apes product insert packaging, but is not in fact product insert packaging and has not been approved as PPI by any regulatory agency in any country. you are correct that gynuity's synthesis is not "one study," per se, but it is one selective synthesis (based on studies deemed too small by everyone else, including ibis and cochrane, too establish any conclusive claims for efficacy.) in the absence of adequate studies, i do not object to citing the range of efficacy based on small studies to date, or even to gynuity's observation that of the small studies, gestational age is associated with higher efficacy. (higher efficacy in general is associated with lower gestational age for chemical abortion drugs.)
Cindery 17:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: gynuity

message: The DrugBank entry for misoprostol says the half-life is 20-40 minutes. A salon.com article (popular source, not scholarly) from 6 years ago says the half-life is unknown. I think we need to change this contradiction in the article, and I personally would prefer removing the salon.com info, but I wanted to see what other editors felt before editing.--Andrew c 20:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Half-life 

message: Overall this is a very biased and poor entry on misoprostol.  The drug's important role in preventing and treating post partum hemorrahge in the developing world is not even mentioned.  The impression that the drug has no legitimate routine use in obstetrics is also way behind the times.  How about quoting some scientific and clinical trials rather than silly anecdotal scare stories?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.128.216.162 (talk • contribs).
I think that it's about as good as it needs to be.  Heck, go back and look at some of the earlier versions where Cindery kept pushing her Mother Jones screed right into the middle of the article.  Now that she's taken her ball and gone home we're past that. 71.202.217.229 05:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The misoprostol entry should be rewritten from scratch.

message: Cites Cochrane Collaboration results without caveats; the abstract summary for that research states, "misoprostol also increases hyperstimulation of the uterus. The trials reviewed are too small to determine whether the risk of rupture of the uterus is increased. More research is needed into the safety and best dosages of misoprostol.", as well as "meconium-stained liquor more common". Perhaps this should be reflected in the article... http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000941.html
Ybanrab 15:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  paragraph on Labor Induction 

message: The WHO suggests the drugs use as complimentary and that it "requires close medical supervision", the only medicine on the list to do so AFAIK, current list at http://www.who.int/medicines/publications/EssMedList15.pdf
Ybanrab 15:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHO essential drug list 

message: After reading through this article, I found that nowhere in it was mentioned how the drug was discovered/developed (and the people involved), nor how did the mifepristone/misoprostol combination come into being. Comparing to other articles (even the one about mifepristone), it's missing some valuable information.Imnowei (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the drug 

message: Venture Strategies are reporting: "We are excited to report two new registrations of misoprostol for management of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) in Africa! In February, Somaliland approved misoprostol for PPH and Mozambique did the same in April" and they offer this map summarising the situation. They also point out a recent New York Times article: see here on the drug. Seems like useful stuff to include. Bondegezou (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a section on "countries where misoprostol is approved for abortion/labor induction/PPH treatment" would be useful. 192.91.173.36 (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New registrations

message: Misoprostol is actually mixture of four diastereomeric forms (two pairs of enantiomers). The pharmacologically active form is the llR,16S (or 2R,4S) shown in the picture.   
Reference: Daryl A. Roston, Ranmali Wijayaratne. Two-Dimensional Liquid Chromatographic Method for Resolution of Prostaglandin Enantiomers. Anal. Chem., 1988, 60(9),948–950  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanevala (talk • contribs) 06:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Misoprostol isomers

message: There is no discussion in the article about a woman who just gave birth vaginally or had a C-Section. Why are doctors prescribing
this drug to women who just gave birth? What issues, risks or benefits does this drug have for women who have just given birth? Machn (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See the section about post-partum hemmorhage. 192.91.171.36 (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cytotec Prescribed After Giving Birth Vaginally or by Cesarean "C-Section" Section

message: The article cites Derman et al (Lancet, 2006) as finding that misoprostol administration reduced maternal mortality by 30+%. This needs to be revised.  Derman et al did not attempt to measure maternal mortality as an outcome.  The article should be changed to note that the study found a 47% reduction in acute post-partum hemorhage and an 80% reduction in acute severe post-partum hemorhage. I would be happy to draft some alternative language for this important paragraph.Bob Pond (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effectiveness for preventing post-partum hemorhage 

message: ee1518 (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to translate this you are more than welcome too. We are looking for translators :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Estonian article yet, what is the Estonian translation?  

message: And no information, in which countries can you buy without prescription and in which countries requires a prescription?
ee1518 (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Ee1518 we do not allow dosage info per WP:MEDMOS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  No dosage information in Wiki yet. No info, in which countries requires a prescription. 

message: This sentence: "Medical abortion has the advantage of being cheaper, simpler, less invasive, not requiring anesthesia, and not having the risk of scarring and adhesions associated with surgical abortion" isn't an accurate representations of the benefits of MAB. First, MAB isn't cheaper (in the U.S.). When it's not the same price as as a first trimester MVA, it's often more expensive. second, "simpler" is pretty vague and not that meaningful here. Medical abortion is "simpler" to obtain for women in countries where abortion is illegal, but MVA and D&C procedures take no longer than the duration of the doctor's appointment, while medical abortion is a longer process. "Not having the risk of scarring" makes no sense because neither MVA nor D&C leaves scars...
Instead, I think the benefits should read: "Medical abortion has the advantage of being less invasive, and more autonomous, self-directed, and discreet. It's preferable to users because it feels more "natural," as the drugs induce a miscarriage. It's also more easily accessible in places where abortion is illegal."  Gynwitch (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefits of MAB over other methods of abortion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Misoprostol. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.docmorris.de/cytotec-200-g-tabletten/01559347?sc=PKV
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The clinical trial was for Misodel, which uses the same vaginal insert technology as Cervidil.  Cytotec is just the antacid tablet; when used for labor induction it is typically cut into sections and inserted into the vagina.  There has never been a clinical trial to study the use of Cytotec tablets for labor induction.  To be correct, the discussion of clinical trials should reference Misodel only and not Cytotec. 192.31.106.34 (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinical Trial for labor induction 

message: It is appropriate for the trade names to appear in the labor induction section rather than another, as labor induction is the specific use for which the formulation (and drug delivery method) was approved in the EU.  It has not been approved in any other formulation, using any other delivery method, or in any other nation.  Also, persons searching Wikipedia may have heard only the trade name and not be aware of the active pharmaceutical; as the drug and delivery system are combined and still under patent, there is no generic equivalent.  Brand/trade names are mentioned elsewhere in the article, so it seems acceptable that they be included here as well. 192.31.106.34 (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: We use generic names generally. Discussion of brandnames goes at the end. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trade names for labor induction drug 

message: With an apology to WP:NOTNEWS: 
The Lancet has published an article saying that misoprostol will be withdrawn from French markets in 2018.  
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2817%2932752-6/fulltext?elsca1=etoc  
However, this article has been retracted, and The Lancet has announced an intention to "republish" it.  
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32907-0/fulltext
Does anyone out there in Wikipedia-land know anything about this?  Is it gonna be withdrawn or not?  Is The Lancet withdrawing and republishing in order to correct a minor error, or is the whole story just fake news?  I can't find any more info online except for the original article and some non-medical news sources repeating it.
Please advise!  
HandsomeMrToad (talk) 07:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withdrawn from France??? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Misoprostol. 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/20070929071156/http://www.rhtp.org/news/publications/documents/Miso%20for%20Pregnancy%20Termination.Bibliography.pdf to http://www.rhtp.org/news/publications/documents/Miso%20for%20Pregnancy%20Termination.Bibliography.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929071204/http://www.rhtp.org/news/publications/documents/Miso%20for%20Pregnancy%20Termination.IFU.English.pdf to http://www.rhtp.org/news/publications/documents/Miso%20for%20Pregnancy%20Termination.IFU.English.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070216041437/http://www.pfizer.com/pfizer/download/uspi_cytotec.pdf to http://www.pfizer.com/pfizer/download/uspi_cytotec.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Adding monitoring parameters for misoprostol, pharmacokinetic information, adding more information on contraindications and interactions
Juliechaeoon (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please make sure your other group members assign themselves to this article before making their individual edits. Health policy (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundations 2 2019, Group 1c goals 

message: Cuántas pastillas debe tomar una pasiente 190.106.221.199 (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuántas pastillas de Misoprostol 200 deve tomar una pasiente