Talk:Low-dose chemotherapy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] NPOV / OR / Alternative /Pseudoscience ?

I've had a go at wikifying (adding sections & subsections), working up the references into full citations, removing bad links (or merely advertising).

Minimising treatment side effect is of course to be welcomed. Likewise use of a number of differing approaches (e.g. on tumour vasculature) is innovative. The studies cited are real enough, but the extrapolation into the POV of this article, namely that low-dose treatment is currently an alternative to conventional aggressive treatments, seems at best speculative (citations needed if not to be considered as original research - see WP:NOR) or at worse pseudoscience (e.g. I.P.T.).David Ruben ^Talk 02:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

"Lowdose" is not a word, so should not the article title be "Low dose chemotherapy" rather than "Lowdose chemotherapy" ? "Low-dose chemotherapy" would be an alternative I suppose. David Ruben ^Talk 02:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, "low-dose" is already mentioned in the text, so I would vote for that spelling of the title. dockingman^Talk 16:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Current uses of "low-dose" in article was my doing, so one can't claim a prior styling, but I'll WP:be bold and rename :-) David Ruben ^Talk 00:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)