Talk:Celecoxib

message: i think that recent expansion of the dosing section gives this too much weight, and violates one of the 5 pillars, WP:NOT - particularly WP:NOTMANUAL.   We should either delete this section altogether or reduce it to something more simple, as it was.  Thoughts?  Perhaps also the adverse events...  these two sections read like the drug label.Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent detail added to dosing 

message: I can find no refernece from the AHA itself where they say celecoxib should be used "as a last resort on patients who have heart disease or a risk of developing it", however when searching this phrase wikipedia is the first result followed by an infinite list of news articles, possibly citing this one. The exact wording of this article is used in most news stories. Perhaps they have retracted this statement since then or never in fact made it in the first place? I have deleted this until someone can find a good reference for it (the reference was a dead link anyway.) It's probably a good call by the AMA if they did, but I can't confirm this. 14.203.153.172 (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That is very strange!  I did a google search and the first two hits were journal articles where this is said.  I am un-deleting and adding the citation. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Heart Association 

message: So, this article has one of the oldest dated maintenance tag on Wikipedia. I figured it might be a good idea to see if we can fix that. The Update Inline tag is to see if there has been any subsequent published clinical trials on the use of the drug in treating post-surgical adhesions. Specifically, it is because the Children's Hospital Boston press release said that a multi-centre trial was planned. Here's the three trials I've found subsequently:
* http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3829728/
* http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1602144/
* http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20420282
Just wondering if someone who knows more about medicine than me could take a look and perhaps update the article based on the information contained here. (Pinging User:Doc James and User:Keilana as two medical folk I know who might be able to help.) —Tom Morris (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that is all I find to. Will trim this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update inline 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Celecoxib. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090316103119/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jjpBsTFN9SEtQu-xyDltivC2GJ8AD96S2KVO0 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jjpBsTFN9SEtQu-xyDltivC2GJ8AD96S2KVO0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article says that "coxibs (which includes celecoxib) increase the risk of major cardiovascular problems by about 37%", but that contradicts the result of the 2016 study.  The latter study seems to have been accepted by the FDA advisory panel  so this article probably needs to explain why the previous study might have been wrong, according to experts. The FDA will probably soon update the safety warning. -- Beland (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The studies could be seen to disagree, though not for the reasons you state. The first study is comparing celecoxib to placebo when it comes to its conclusion on the risk of cardiovascular problems. The second study finds that celecoxib is not significantly more dangerous than naproxen. Assuming naproxen is also more dangerous to placebo, this makes sense. The issue comes when you realise that the first study finds naproxen not to be significantly more dangerous than placebo; however, this isn't necessarily contradictory as it's possible for celecoxib to be significantly more risky than placebo while naproxen is not significantly different to either celecoxib or placebo, due to the way statistics works. PriceDL (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Also, and importantly, the second study only accepted participants who were already at high risk for cardiovascular problems. PriceDL (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

text: I have hopefully cleared up the confusion with some rewrites. I shall refrain from removing the section template until someone verifies this makes more sense now. PriceDL (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   Thanks for the rewrite! That makes a lot more sense now, so I removed the contradiction template. -- Beland (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: The second and third paragraphs of the history section appear to cover the same court case. It needs to be read, and perhaps condensed, by someone with knowledge of the compound and its history. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication of litigation involving Searle