Talk:Memantine

message: "Though exceedingly rare, extrapyramidal side effects (such as dystonic reactions, etc.) may occur, in particular, in the younger population."  What reason, if any, is there to believe this?--Clevera (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extrapyramidal side effects 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Memantine. 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/20050525221801/http://www.medforum.nl:80/idm/IDM1332001LA.pdf to http://www.medforum.nl/idm/IDM1332001LA.pdf
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 20:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: User:Slipton if you want to add content about Merz partnering with Neurobiological Technologies to get access to "the patents of Stuart A. Lipton from Harvard Medical School", as you did here and again here you need reliable secondary sources establishing all that.   You cannot just assert it, and citing the patents that were putatively licensed is not sufficient either.  If you don't understand, please ask. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Neurobiological Technologies and Lipton patents

message: Could mention in History -  says it, but could find FDA source to confirm. - Rod57 (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  FDA approval for Alzheimers in 2003 

message: The adverse effects mention memantine can induce reversible neurological impairment in people with multiple sclerosis, leading to the halt of an ongoing clinical trial. Although one of the articles referenced is entitled that exact line, it is important to note that the actual study, the details of the which can be found here https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT00638833, explicitly state that the inclusion criteria for the study is the MS patient have "severe cognitive impairment". There are no results posted, although the status does list that the trial was terminated due to unexpected side effects. The article referenced in the wiki entry, http://n.neurology.org/content/72/19/1630 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19092106, concludes that "Memantine at a dose of 30 mg/day may induce transient worsening of neurologic [sic] symptoms of multiple sclerosis". 
Because patients were already diagnosed with severe cognitive impairment, there is not enough evidence to state that the memantine at that dosage would induce neurological impairment in MS patients with no or mild cognitive impairment; the existing evidence suggests that this dosage of memantine could worsen existing neurological impairment specifically in those already suffering from severe cognitive impairment.
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Th inc (talk • contribs) 06:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: PMID 19092106 fails WP:MEDRS; i've removed the content from the article. Jytdog (talk) 06:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adverse effects 

message: I seen on another page of wikipedia about this drug
Memantine is that drug. It is a derivative of amantadine which was first an anti-influenza agent but was later discovered by coincidence to have efficacy in Parkinson's disease.
See in this link on NMDA receptor.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NMDA_receptor
Under Section Ligands --> Antagonists --> Memantine and related drugs. Vennam Akhil (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this Drug first invented towards Diabetic Drug ? 

message: Isn't UpToDate a reliable medical source? --Exert yourself (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with Uptodate is that one cannot link to a specific version. So well reliable not a great source for us here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for reply. But this is not the first time I used UpToDate as a reference and you knew it [Ref], [Ref II]. Why you didn't say anything?? I am so confused now. --Exert yourself (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: UpToDate

message: States "Compared with patients who received donepezil alone, those who received donepezil in combination with memantine exhibited limited improvements in cognitive functions (g = 0.378, p < .001), BPSD (g = -0.878, p < .001) and global functions (g = -0.585, p = .004). Gradual titration of memantine plus a fixed dose and gradual titration of donepezil as well as a fixed dose and gradual titration of memantine resulted in limited improvements in cognitive functions(g = 0.371, p = .005), BPSD(g = -0.913, p = .001), and global functions(g = -0.371, p = .001)."
This "limited improvement" was removed by User:Exert yourself Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The final interpretation made by the systematic review is "greater" not "limited".--Exert yourself (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

text: agree with Doc James 'interpretation'--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Exert yourself, I see that you are currently blocked. A dispute over interpretations of a source should be discussed on the talk page. As others have made clear to you, you shouldn't repeatedly revert. Doc is solid when it comes to medical matters and WP:MEDRS. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: PLOS review

message: I'm pretty positive it's a partial not a full agonist at d2h receptors - somebody should update this as a means not to confuse people. Also, how does the drug compare dopamine wise to Amantadine? anybody know the exact binding affinity of the dopamine that's being targeted?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:F83F:4F5A:B9DA:CFAE:BCC6:CA8D (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  D2h partial agonism and possible binding affinity  

message: Under Pharmacology:
>Due to this low affinity, therapeutic concentrations of memantine are most likely too low to have any sigmaergic effect as a typical therapeutic dose is 20 mg, however excessive doses of memantine taken for recreational purposes many times greater than prescribed doses may indeed activate this receptor.[35]
>[35] "Pharms - Memantine (also Namenda) : Erowid Exp: Main Index". erowid.org. Retrieved 7 November 2018
Firstly, this doesn't even link to a page with relevant information. Secondly, all of the links found on the page lead to anecdotal stories by people with very low credibility (not doctors, not researchers, but self-professed "psychonauts"). It isn't even a secondary source. 
I don't know how to flag it, though (this is a brand new account, my first ever), so I'm hoping someone can either help me understand how to go about flagging it, or perhaps someone can take care of that. I looked, but didn't find documentation on the matter.
I haven't reviewed the rest of the citations, but if someone has been editing this page with links to Erowid experience reports, I wouldn't be surprised if other unreliable sources were slipped in. Will update if anything is found. NamoTassaBhagavato (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pharmacology: Erowid Experience Vault is not a reliable source 

message: Hello  I refer to
your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Memantine&diff=1199499702&oldid=1199487843 of the page Memantine where you reverted my edit where I fixed an error.
When the display-authors limitation is set in the main template "cs1 config", as in this page, then this setting applies to all citations. There is no need to set it additionally in each citation if it is already set in the "cs1 config". If this option is set in both config and individual citation, the articles go to the "error" / "warning" category "CS1 maint: overridden setting". My edits fix this problem and remove pages from this "CS1 maint: overridden setting" category. In that particular edit, the page already has "", so if the page has a duplicate "name-list-style=vanc" or "display-authors=6" in each individual "" or at least in one , then the page will go to the error category, "CS1 maint: overridden setting", as you can see. Before my edit, the page was in "CS1 maint: overridden setting". My edit removed the page from this category. Therefore, please consider restoring my edit.
You also mentioned "Pointless edits - where authors have been limited ref needs to show this", however, I already explained in my talk page the essense of these edits, see the text "I'm now fixing pages that are in the hidden "error-like" category.", and the edit is not poitless - it fixes the page from being listed in the error category.
Thank you!
Maxim Masiutin (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  CS1 maint: overridden setting -- fixing the page and removing it from the error / warning category