PeptidePedia The community reference

Talk:Reconstitution calculator / Archive 1

Archived discussion·1 closed thread

This is an archive of past discussion on Reconstitution calculator. Do not edit it. To revive a question, open a new section on the current talk page and link back to the thread here.

Does this page cross the line into instruction?Resolved

Raising this early because it will be raised eventually. A calculator that turns a dose into a syringe reading is a step closer to instruction than an article is. Project:Medical disclaimer says we describe rather than instruct.

My own view is that this page is on the right side of the line, because it selects nothing: the reader supplies the dose, and the tool performs a division they could do on paper. But the page should say so explicitly rather than relying on the reader to notice. — Ref_Desk_Ron (talk) 09:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts. The distinction that matters is whether the tool has an opinion. This one does not — it has no idea what compound is in the vial and it will happily convert a nonsensical dose.

I would go further and have it refuse to suggest anything at all, including a "typical" starting value. The moment a default dose appears in the interface, the page acquires an opinion. — DrTitration (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

That is a good rule and I have written it into the lead: the tool converts, it does not select. The default of 0.25 mg is there because a field needs a value, and it is described in §Worked examples as the first row of the table rather than as a recommendation. — Ref_Desk_Ron (talk) 08:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Support. One addition: the tool should show its working. A reader who can see "0.25 / 2.5 = 0.10 mL" learns the arithmetic and can check it; one who sees only the answer has to trust us. — UnitsUrsula (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Implemented — there is now a working line under the results. ✓ DoneDrTitration (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Resolved. This thread is closed. Reopening it is fine if new sources appear; please add a new subsection rather than editing the closed discussion.