Talk:Aspirin
| Aspirin has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| This It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Anti-Estrogenic Effects and Breast Cancer Therapy
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40360-022-00571-9
'Estrogen is involved in the pathogenesis of breast and gynecological cancers. Regular use of aspirin reduces estrogen levels.'
'Since low doses of aspirin may decrease estradiol levels, it could be considered a promising adjunctive therapeutic candidate in postmenopausal women to decrease BC incidence. However, further studies with larger sample sizes, measurements of estrogen levels and its related compounds in different time points accompanied by long-term follow-ups are needed to better elucidate the potential mechanisms by which nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) negatively affect breast cancer.'
OneAccountPlease (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- We strive to avoid primary sources in biomedical articles, and results of small academic studies rarely merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia. — kashmīrī TALK 13:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- Besides, what you proposed would be a WP:SYNTH – because the cited Iranian study does not link aspirin with cancer (but with estrogen levels only), and yet you make such a claim in Wikipedia voice. — kashmīrī TALK 13:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- Not regarding estrogen, but here's a review Exploratory Review of the Role of Statins, Colchicine, and Aspirin for the Prevention of Radiation‐Associated Cardiovascular Disease and Mortality | Journal of the American Heart Association so in addition to mentioned in the article benefits, there is a fresh potential. Shouldn't this be included as a source? Xobbitua (talk) 09:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Article review
It has been a while since this article was reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:
- The "Formulations" section has a "needs expansion" orange banner: is this still valid?
- There is uncited text in the article.
Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
The "Formulations" section has a "needs expansion" orange banner fom 2023. There is uncited text in the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- Both fixed. Anything else? Boghog (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- I updated the 2020 study on ED. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Both issues appear to have recently been fixed. That leaves a couple of minor tags to be sorted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
On reference #47 (Goel A, Aggarwal S, Partap S, Saurabh A, Choudhary (2012). "Pharmacokinetic solubility and dissolution profile of antiarrythmic drugs". Int J Pharma Prof Res. 3 (1): 592–601.), it indicates verification needed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that's one of the two tags. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
The source exists, but seem to deal with antiarrythmics, not antiinflammatories. Therefore I have removed it. Boghog (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
The second tag requested that the USPSTF recommendations be updated. This has now been done in this edit. Boghog (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Chiswick Chap, Bearian, Boghog, and Z1720: where does this reassessment stand? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep, article seems to be in good shape with wide coverage, full citation, and good structure. Ref 69 is doubtful and probably needs something better for MEDRS. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Ref 69 has been supplemented with PMID 26247959. Although it is older (2015), it was published in a higher-quality journal. It is not labeled as a review in PubMed, but it analyzes 22 studies and therefore qualifies as a secondary source. Boghog (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep GA status. Bearian (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep all the previous concerns have been addressed. Boghog (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I added some citation needed tags to the article on some statements might need them. I removed some level 3 headings to merge some sections per MOS:OVERSECTION. Z1720 (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Requested citations added in these edits. Boghog (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. The concerns that I raised in the GAR nomination have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
"Headache tablet" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Headache tablet has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 1 § Headache tablet until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
