Talk:Ranitidine

message: I think you might need to check the structure of this, the nitro group should not be connected to a ethylene group, it looks like its just a methyl group.  Check this out: 
:You're correct, thanks. I've amended the structure. -Techelf 09:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure

message: This has become an amazingly inexpensive drug.  I recently bought a bottle of 240 generic Ranitidine tablets (75 mg) at Sam's Club for $5.88 (i.e., 2.5 cents/tablet).  Is it appropriate to put something in the article about the price?  NCdave 13:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Price

message: Some of the eBay auctions for Ranitidine mention "the ranitidine shortage."  Is there such a thing?  What is causing it?  Should it be mentioned in the article?  NCdave 14:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shortage?

message: Reference source "2" does not support the statements in the "Abuse and False Positives" section. I searched 
through a couple of journal databases but couldn't find any confirmatory research for this. However I found some
anecdotal support for this in Introductory clinical pharmacology (Roach & Ford, 2008)(Available for viewing online at Google Books). 
Someone with more expertise in pharmacology might be better positioned to appraise the source and amend the article.
Jdcounselling (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Abuse and False Positives

message: Can experts expand on this article to include more information on metabolism? It states that clearance mechanisms are hepatic, but can we be more specific? --1000Faces (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Metabolism?

message: This esentence appears in the article "The drug not only increases gastric pH, but also reduces the total output of gastric juice."
I believe it should say "not only decreases gastic pH" - can some competant person please check this out and take appropriate action?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.64.95 (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Error in text?

message: This could be an additional section if anyone has access to the printed copies of journals like Reports of Patent, Design and Trademark Cases (RPC) and Fleet Street Reports: Cases on Intellectual Property Law (FSR).  An FCIPA former colleague (named by the judge in one of those law reports) resigned from Glaxo because even though he had given his written professional opinion (referred to in the judge's decision) that the UK "epimer" patent was invalid for lack of novelty, he had been ordered to attempt to enforce it.
If anyone wants to follow this up - look for John C. (or The C. Report) in the law reports. I could supply his full surname, but will not do so in a public forum. Narky Blert (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Patent enforcement

message: I'm finding a problem with this recent addition. The text currently reads:
:In October 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) observed that a third-party laboratory was using higher temperatures in its tests to look for nitrosamine impurities. The NDMA was generated by the added heat but the higher temperatures were recommended for using a gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC/MS) method to test for NDMA in valsartan and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs).[59] 
But when I clicked footnote 59, I couldn't find anything to back this claim up at the cited source. Can someone find that claim on that source? Or was the wrong source cited? Or is this totally erroneous?
RK (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this cited correctly?

message: Many other drug articles give some rudiments of synthesis. This bears on the dimethylnitrosamine recall: where in the manufacturing process would DMNA be introduced? Or does it form spontaneously on decomposition? The reference given does not mention origin, just presence. The information leads to fact that only one offshore manufacturer supplied all generic and name brand retailers. Recently, another medication (possibly the same international manufacturer) was found to contain DMNA but another 'how could it contaminate the product?' question. TaylorLeem (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manufacturing/synthesis like in other drug wikis 

message: Amidst ongoing robocalls attempting to find next of kin for a pharmaceutical about which, two years ago, the New York Times wrote "some experts are advising expectant mothers to use alternative forms of relief" seems to need some editing: there is a need to question restoring the word "is" before "considered generally safe in pregnancy." Nuts240 (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't add medical claims that don't have sources that meet WP:MEDRS guidelines. See WP:MEDMOS and WP:NOTNEWS. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Word "is" recall vs. a claim of "safe"

message: (single sentence, as labeled above- comments?): While a 2005 Wiley text proclaims "considerable use in pregnancy over the last 30 years with an excellent safety ... " WebMD has recently said "Not recommended" and in 2020 The New York Times published "some experts are advising expectant mothers to use alternative forms of relief." Nuts240 (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: non-medical journalism

message: Can this flag be removed? This section as it is now doesn't seem particularly complicated or difficult to comprehend to me. 208.68.20.28 (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup flag: Hard to understand 

message: @Nthep - It's not the opening paragraph.  It appears above the byline.  . See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_33#Subtitle%3F. You still think it shouldn't be there?  Tanishism (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it shouldn't be there. Above or below the byline it is not part of the title but the equivalent of a lead paragraph herel Nthep (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last edit - subtitle of Bloomberg piece? 

message: I removed a paragraph that had been ripped straight from the EMA's interim report press release and inserted clumsily into the article and replaced it with something that fit in and led naturally, did not restate what had been stated in the previous paragraph, and cited the authoritative ruling's announcement, which is the same text as the interim announcement that was linked before.
I may have made some factual or semantic errors, as I do not quite understand the workings of the European Union or its regulatory structures to any degree of sophistication. Regardless, I believe this is an improvement and I welcome feedback and corrections. Dylan Lainhart (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modification and clarification of paragraph discussion regulatory action in April 2020