Jump to content

Talk:Tetracycline antibiotics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shouldn't it be mentioned that tetracycline can be hepatotoxic and should not be mixed with other hepatotoxins? How much solid evidence is there that it is hepatotoxic? VERY VERY LIMITED.

I think I'll add it... [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] --Mark PEA 11:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted image

[edit]

i have deleted the image of some specific tetracycline. images like this add no useful information, and may actually mislead the unsophisticated reader. i.e.it was just a picture of red and yellow capsules. i'm sure there are other formulations that look similar if not identical.Toyokuni3 (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Age limit

[edit]

Are you sure the age limit on tetracyclines is still 12 years of age? According to the CPhA monograph on tetracyclines in the CPS 2008 - the age limit is now 8 years of age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.28.13 (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

[edit]

I think that this article should be merged with this other article Tetracycline. What do you think? Jacopopitaciu (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the tetracycline class of antibiotics, which share a four-fused ring structure. The article you link to is about the specific antibiotic tetracycline, the first-in-class of the tetracyclines, so the articles should be kept separate (like how there are separate pages for ampicillin and the penicllin class of antibiotics). DocLovely (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potential new section - Use in antiquity

[edit]

Apparently, Nubians in or near modern Sudan used these a few hundred years before Christ. References:

Examples section

[edit]

Should we convert the examples section into a table perhaps with columns for source, half-life, year of first/FDA approval, comments eg suitable uses ? Rod57 (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tetracycline antibiotics. 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:

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) 04:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Effective against viruses?

[edit]

In the Mechanism of Action section, the article claims "It has been shown that tetracyclines are not only active against broad spectrum of bacteria, but also against viruses, protozoa that lack mitochondria and some noninfectious conditions." (emphasis added)

This statement is not sourced, and it goes against information provided by reputable public health agencies that antibiotics are ineffective against viruses. I did a very brief search and I could not find information to support this claim. I request that this claim either be cited, or be more clear about what it means to be "active" against viruses. Otherwise I think it should be removed. Thanks.

TheKenster (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]