Talk:Lactulose

References?

Andrek82 (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC) I'd like to see the direct reference for the "controversial nature" of lactulose's effect in hepatic encephelopathy. What is it?

I would like to know whether Lactulose can be taken daily for long periods of time without consequenses. I read some sources that affirm this claim and others that deny it. I was wondering whether the bowels could get use to evacuating only when the stool contains overwhelming quantities of water, or whether the overwhelming quantities of water in the stool acutaly improve the natural bowel movement eventualy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.141.255.223 (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There are at least two issues with this article. - I purchased some lactulose recently which is not dyed yellow-orange. - "The slightly acidic condition of the colon caused by the presence of ammonia causes active peristalsis." Ammonia is, of course, alkaline. If the breakdown products of lactulose do in fact increase the acidity of the bowel contents, this would react with and therefore remove ammonia. At the very least this needs clarification. treesmill (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There is some very odd an unencyclopaedic language in this article. "Enjoy abusising laxatives" for example. Does that mean that the people who abuse laxatives but don't enjoy doing it don't benefit?? :S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.3.137 (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed the article has some issues in the constipation sectiion, notably with tone and some howto/guidebook material. I'll try to fix it. William.briand (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to the users/bots who fixed my unfortunate spelling errors. I removed tablespoon posology as it is not encyclopedic content (See WP:NOTHOWTO). Message me if you feel that is incorrect. William.briand (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Abbott Laboratories

Please accept the edits to this page (February 15, 2013). My name is Scott Stoffel, and I work at Abbott Laboratories in Corporate Public Affairs, and the edits I am providing are all factual, based upon review of the page with Abbott scientists with expertise in this area. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to access my contact information, found here: http://abbott.com/news-media/contacts.htm ScottStoffelAbbott (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS

This article did follow WP:MEDMOS outlines. Will give the IP a chance to explain why it shouldn't. IMO it was better formatted before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As there was no voiced concern have reverted to before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

General Article Improvements

I would like to try and improve this article a bit, as it comes across as just a list of single statements grabbed from the references. Sometimes these references did not support the statements and sometimes references are outright missing. I started with some small updates to the introduction: I tried to fix up the sentence structure and removed some sections that I felt did not belong in an introduction (e.g. specific details on special populations, details on generic status, drug pricing). I would like to work through the other sections to try and bring it more in line with WP:MEDMOS and WP:PHARMMOS, so I may come back to this and improve it further. Xeldarith (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Every sentence in the intro was referenced and yet you removed most of them.[1] I have thus restored the references in question.

Drug prices is a key aspect of a medication and this content was well referenced aswell.

If you have found "Sometimes these references did not support the statements and sometimes references are outright missing." in the lead happy to discuss. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Doc James, thanks for the comments. I would actually agree that the lead statements are referenced well and it is more of an issue in the rest of the document (e.g. side effects has one reference in the entire section, which only addresses overdose, the availability section and food additive are missing references entirely). I do still feel the structure of the lead could be improved. Most sentences read as simple facts in a list, and do not really come together as a paragraph. For example, we could change the information on side effects from:

"Common side effects include abdominal bloating and cramps. There is the potential for electrolyte problems to occur as a result of diarrhea it produces."

to:

"Side effects include abdominal bloating and cramps, with the potential for electrolyte problems to occur as a result of diarrhea it produces."

This provides the same information, but provides some variety in the sentence structure.

I still would like to look at removing drug pricing in the lead. WP:PHARMOS states both "Do not include dose, titration or pricing information except when they are extensively discussed by secondary sources, or necessary for the discussion in the article" and "Economics Global sales, distribution, etc.; but generally not prices in different countries." I personally wonder if drug pricing is even required in this article as a whole - cost of lactulose is not really a discussion in any sources I have seen and it is not actively discussed in this article. Perhaps if there was some further development of the cost section it would be worth mentioning, but it currently is not developed enough.

Hopefully that provides some context to the types of changes I was trying to make to the lead! - Xeldarith (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Xeldarith the reason the lead sounds choppy is we try to keep them in simpler English. In other words we use short sentences and only put one ideas in each sentence. We do this as we realize that En WP is extensively read by those who speak English as a second language. The body can use more complicated sentence and more flowing prose.

The leads of the EN articles on essential medicines are currently being developed for translation into other languages. The cost while not significant for people in the wealthy world are for those in the developing world. Again I would argue that as we have a global audience this information is important. We just have two sentence on it in the lead. Yes more can be written about it in the body. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the context Doc James - I will just move on to improving some of the references in the body then when I have a chance. I welcome you feedback when I get to that. Xeldarith (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Xeldarith and great having you join us :-) There are about 340 essential medicines. If you are interested would love your help updating the leads of these articles. Am working to write them such that the 1st paragraph is a simply definition followed by uses. 2nd paragraph is side effects and use in pregnancy and other special populations. 3rd paragraph is a bit on history and society and culture aspects such as cost.

Also good having another Canadian :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lactulose. 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/20130616102238/http://www.parmalat.it/documents/10157/29233/upload_00001438_Heat-treated%20milk%20differentiation%20by%20a%20sensitive.pdf to http://www.parmalat.it/documents/10157/29233/upload_00001438_Heat-treated%20milk%20differentiation%20by%20a%20sensitive.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)