Talk:Voretigene neparvovec

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Voretigene neparvovec article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Pharmacology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Voretigene neparvovec.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Needs update, Dec 17[edit]

Ideally by an expert. See 2017 in science for details and references. --mfb (talk) 08:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a big page; which bits are relevant to this article ? - Rod57 (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More info on development[edit]

I think that because this is the first gene therapy, it would be nice to have a lot of info about the development, which seems to be removed from a lot of drug articles. Natureium (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

adisinsight.springer.com refs look like advertising[edit]

The adisinsight.springer.com ref is just a link to an undated (and changing) summary page asking for payment. Would it be unreasonable to ask for a better (ideally free) source ? - Rod57 (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]