Talk:Polypill

Original first draft for this article

This item is an original article produced for a website- it has not been posted. It uses information from the BMJ website and the original paper journal. I suppose therefore that the intellectual property lies with the authors of the paper- Wald and Law- and with the British Medical journal. There is no known legal copyright for it. The information though is within the public domain and this is a summary of the facts within the public domain.

Hello. You say it was produced for a website, but I note you don't say this website. That would be ok if you were the author, or if the author had agreed to release it under the GFDL, but your comments strongly suggest this is not the case. You admit that "the intellectual property lies with the authors of the paper", but then contradict yourself by saying it's in the public domain. Copyright problems aside, if you've looked at any other articles in Wikipedia or indeed in any encyclopedia you will surely be aware that this doesn't look remotely like an encyclopedic entry, and very much like someone's personal essay deposited here where it doesn't belong. On top of this it is not formatted or linked properly and you appear to have made no effort to make it conform to Wikipedia's house style. Now it would be great if you could write a proper article about the polypill, but this is not it. It seems the user who marked it as a copyright violation didn't list it properly, but I have now done this so that the question can be considered. If the article is deleted, you're still more than welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, but I'd recommend you create an account and read some of these first:

• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Cite sources
• Wikipedia's Manual of Style

Plus a whole load of others you may come across.

— Trilobite (Talk) 06:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

hi

I wrote the article for my personal ( small company) website but assumed that it could be used on wikipedia too. There is no copyright issue, that I am aware as I wrote the article. The polypill has been subject to international conferences to discuss it's development. As a concept and development it is not copyrighted. The BMJ was used to check facts and not plagarised.

Confess naiviety to the wikipedia format etc. Only after I had posted it did I realise that it was not in keeping with the rest of the entries.Later I returned and found that I should not edit it so haven't. More than happy to try resubmitting an improved version again

Hello. If you wrote it and you're happy for it to be used on Wikipedia then the copyright issue is solved. You're more than welcome to rewrite the article - perhaps base it on the original text but with different wording and overall tone etc. The problem was that it didn't read much like an encyclopedia article, which is most likely what caused the editor who flagged it as a violation of copyright to do so. It would be good to have an article on the polypill, in fact I'm a little surprised we didn't have at least a couple of sentences already. You don't need to worry about the really finer points of Wikipedia format - someone else can sort that out, but I'd recommend looking at some of our other articles, particularly ones dealing with medical topics, to get a feel for how this could be improved. Thanks for contributing the article and apologies for the confusion over its copyright status - we get so many copy-and-pastes of other people's work (several hundred are deleted each week) that any article that looks out of the ordinary raises suspicions and is often assumed to be in violation of copyright. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Thanks for your help. I have editted it, hopefully so it is more appropriate in style. I tried putting some links in too. Feedback would be most appreciated

It's an interesting article, and a valuable addition to the wikipedia. Stylisticially it does still read a lot like a journal article rather than an encyclopedia one, but that's easy fixed. I'll make some adjustments over the next day or so (as I'm sure will others). It really needs some citations (journal references and external links both to scholarly and newsy webpages). -- John Fader (talk · contribs) 00:59, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Have editted again and included details on Wald and Law. I do not know how to properly format this inclusion though. At what point is the article "clean enough"? the edits were done when I wasnt logged in --Wazza (talk · contribs)

The Indian Polycap Study

The Indian Polycap Study has been added with a massive new 6-header section, plus a link to its own article at Polycap. It seems a bit excessive and disproportionate to the rest of the article, and reads a little like it's partly about promoting the Polycap approach. I am not sure how to fix it or even if it needs fixing. Comments please? Oh, and I'd be most grateful if the editor could please stop the excessive bolding, which I do not think is supported by the Manual of Style at wp:mos and seems to add nothing. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Now mentioned as possible wp:coi at User talk:Drmaseeh. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

COI

I believe there is a conflict of interest here and at Polycap and have added the COI template to the article page. Drmaseeh has a username similar to someone featured in the article and has been adding extensively on this topic. The user has not responded to attempts to make contact. Thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Polypill claim and "incidentally"

Hi. The article has this: "Incidentally, the Polypill concept was floated a year earlier by Dr Salim Yusuf in an Editorial in Lancet in 2002." Reading the referenced paper I find the concept mentioned thus "(perhaps even a combination pill)." Is that "floating the Polypill concept"? I'm not sure: I worry that it is not. While I'm at it, I'm not sure about the use of "Incidentally" in that sentence and in this one: "Incidentally, the Polymeal was on the menu at the first Polycap Investigators' Meet at Bangalore." There's something about it strikes me as potentially unencyclopaedic: a bit chatty, or something. Oh, and both "incidentally" edits came from the same non-communicating, possible-COI-editor who was very busy here for a while but has currently stopped. Incidentally, for personal reasons I am no longer editing these articles and have removed them from my watchlist, and I wish you much luck with them. Oh, and it's The Lancet - sorry! :) Cheers, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Study in 2011 reported sizeble reduction in systolic BP & in LDL cholesterol after just 12 weeks of 4-agent polypill. Side effects minor

PILL Collaborative Group, Rodgers A, Patel A, Berwanger O, Bots M, Grimm R, Grobbee DE, Jackson R, Neal B, Neaton J, Poulter N, Rafter N, Raju PK, Reddy S, Thom S, Vander Hoorn S, Webster R.

+ Collaborators (114) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21647425#

An international randomised placebo-controlled trial of a four-component combination pill ("polypill") in people with raised cardiovascular risk.

PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e19857. Epub 2011 May 25.

PMID 21647425

PMC 3102053

Free PMC Article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/21647425/?tool=pubmed

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

There has been widespread interest in the potential of combination cardiovascular medications containing aspirin and agents to lower blood pressure and cholesterol ('polypills') to reduce cardiovascular disease. However, no reliable placebo-controlled data are available on both efficacy and tolerability.

METHODS:

We conducted a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial of a polypill (containing aspirin 75 mg, lisinopril 10 mg, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg and simvastatin 20 mg) in 378 individuals without an indication for any component of the polypill, but who had an estimated 5-year cardiovascular disease risk over 7.5%. The primary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), LDL-cholesterol and tolerability (proportion discontinued randomised therapy) at 12 weeks follow-up.

FINDINGS:

At baseline, mean BP was 134/81 mmHg and mean LDL-cholesterol was 3.7 mmol/L. Over 12 weeks, polypill treatment reduced SBP by 9.9 (95% CI: 7.7 to 12.1) mmHg and LDL-cholesterol by 0.8 (95% CI 0.6 to 0.9) mmol/L. The discontinuation rates in the polypill group compared to placebo were 23% vs 18% (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.00, p = 0.2). There was an excess of side effects known to the component medicines (58% vs 42%, p = 0.001), which was mostly apparent within a few weeks, and usually did not warrant cessation of trial treatment.

CONCLUSIONS:

This polypill achieved sizeable reductions in SBP and LDL-cholesterol but caused side effects in about 1 in 6 people. The halving in predicted cardiovascular risk is moderately lower than previous estimates and the side effect rate is moderately higher. Nonetheless, substantial net benefits would be expected among patients at high risk.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12607000099426. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Lifestyle Modification and "punishing the sinners": This seems to be an opinion and has no citations to indicate otherwise.

I have removed said sections completely. Gabbe (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Spam or useful background?

(Note: I have a potential COI here so will be trying to avoid editing the article myself if it's contentious.) Looking at this removal of the link to http://www.polypill.com ... :UseTheCommandLine says "clearly linkspam, and prohibited by WP:EL". Is that definitely the case?

I had a look at EL and I can see some ways in which it tends to be forbidden (it's commercial) but I can also see a potential argument that it is useful background. It was billed as "Wald and Law's Polypill" and Wald and Law are named in the article as the originators of the term, so I suppose it goes some way to answering the question "hey, what are those guys up to these days" or even "can I/people get a polypill?" (Which, yes, could be a commercial enquiry but also a seeking for greater knowledge!) It also has quite good stuff on the make-up (or break-down?!) of their particular flavour of polypill (https://www.polypill.com/what-is-polypill.html), and an explanation of the rationale behind it (https://www.polypill.com/evidence-for-polypill.html). And it's not currently one of 326 sites answering the same questions, as far as I can see - if it were and they were all clamouring for an EL I can see we'd want to be very strict but with this whole thing in its infancy I do wonder if the article might not be well served - at present anyway - by keeping the link in as background. (It's a pity we don't have a "beware - commercial site but has other interesting content" or "dodgy looking but less dodgy than it might be EL" or "evil commerce but not entirely evil" flag!)

As I say, though, I'm not intending to edit where I might have a CoI and I am certainly not intending to start a fist fight over one EL, so this is NOT a challenge! :) I would just be interested to debate it a little further. With thanks and best wishes LBN (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I think that the commercial nature is the primary concern for its exclusion. I also have edited the lead paragraph to remove the author's names (which are extraneous, i think, readers can check the reference), as well as nominated the Nicholas Wald article for deletion, since I was unable to establish WP:N for the man (as noted in the nomination, independent of his research as required by that policy).

While I hadn't bothered to look, I do notice that the "Advisory Board" of the company whose link I removed claims Wald, another Wald (perhaps his son?) and Law are on it. I don't think this is enough to justify the inclusion of the link though, the grounds you claim are imho tenuous at best.

Thanks for your conscientiousness about CoI. I welcome your further questions or comments, should you have any. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 08:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. You may be right; it is certainly a pity that there is not a non-commercial site which does the job, though I suppose it is also up to the reader to go and read the papers, if they are OK with academic journalese. I do not agree that the names of Wald and Law were "extraneous" - you have now edited it into a form which reads slightly strangely to me - the term was coined, but we are not telling people by whom! :) It's almost tempting for me to go and put a {{by whom}} tag on it but I fear that this would look a touch POINTy. Of course as you have decided that the Wald article should go then there is a logic from that PoV in removing his name here, but it looks premature, or even irrelevant, to take the names out of the simple statement about who is supposed to have originated the term. Please consider reinstating the names so that readers can easily see where the term came from. This isn't the place to discuss this other topic: but I will watch with interest how your attempt to delete an article on a knight and FRS goes! :) Thanks again for the reply; I'm going to make tea now. Cheers LBN (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering how, exactly, one justifies including a digression about who coined a term in the section that is supposed to be the most succinct summary for a general reader of an issue, particularly a medical issue? please elaborate. The only reason I have not further revised the section is that I am about to go to bed. Maybe over the coming weeks. Feel free to do so yourself, though I would argue that if one is to put the names of the folks who coined the term (and I'm not sure why simply referring to the paper in question is insufficient), that it should be elsewhere in the article. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. No fisticuffs here. Yup, it's probably too much for the lead. It still seems unfortunate that there is now no link to Wald from this article: Wald's article has not yet been deleted. I think you should please consider relinking his first appearance, while his article is still there. I won't do it myself. Have a good kip. Cheers LBN (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not nominate it under WP:CSD, so it should take a week, perhaps more, before a judgement is made. I will note that the first sentence after the table of contents references the authors several times. I have marked the article as WP:MED and this should hopefully attract some proper scrutiny and cleanup. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and thanks. Best wishes LBN (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to continue along this line of reasoning, i don't actually see anything on the external site in question that would clearly qualify it under WP:ELYES. So, being as I'm fairly unwilling to see the link or its ilk re-included, you might try other venues like WP:ELN if this is a problem for you. If there is greater discussion about it and consensus is that it should be included, you'll get no quarrel from me. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No, not a big problem for me. I'm grateful for the discussion anyway, thanks. Best wishes LBN (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge to Combination drug

This article says: "It is commonly manufactured as a fixed-dose combination (FDC)". The Combination drug starts with: A combination drug or a fixed-dose combination (FDC), and fixed-dose combination redirects to the Combination drug article. See also Talk:Combination_drug#Merge_from_Polypill.--Bawanio (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: I'd be happy if you could help me here. --Bawanio (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bawanio: I can definitely see a case for merging the articles, and encourage you to add the Template:Merge tags to both articles to encourage other editors to weigh in their opinions. That being said I should clarify in general that I'm by no means an expert on pharmacology or how articles on medicine should be written; my interested in the other drug-related article is much more from a social perspective than a medical one. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: @Karthanitesh: Thanks! Well reverted the merge earlier because I didn't discuss it first. So I'm discussing it with you guys now. --Bawanio (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks like this proposal restarted at Talk:Combination drug#Merge from Polypill. Klbrain (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)