Talk:Modafinil

Statistical Significance

I refer to the statement “ Modafinil has been shown to have minor and barely statistically significant effectiveness in managing fatigue in people with MS”; in basic statistical analysis where a p value is predetermined by the researcher to account for the probability that their results are unlikely due to chance, the results can either be “statistically significant “ or not. Even if the p value generated is very close to the the predetermined probability value, this has no meaning whatsoever, because we’re working with probability values or p values based on a normal curve. The error in this article is find sometimes in other scholarly articles I read or asked to review for blind peer reviewed journals; which is something like “ the results where almost statistically significant “ or “ the results approach statistical significance “. These statements are also examples of misinterpretation and or misunderstanding of parametric statistics.

Therefore I strongly recommend that the article be updated to improve scholarly rigour. If no one has raises an objection or needs clarification, or makes the amendment, I will undertake to do this myself.

Dr.khatmando (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC) Dr. Jason M Dixon Advanced psychometrics, epidemiology, clinical educator. Editorial Board, WikiJournal of Medicine

Yes, that sentence and its paragraph were poorly written and sourced, and were removed with 3 edits in Special:Diff/1289788786. Zefr (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Good oh! After looking at the cited references, and the results, discussion of these related to MS, did not add value to the article itself.

Your edits make for a better read. Thanks for your attention to the matter. Cheers Dr. J Dr.khatmando (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1289787389 shows the removal; Special:Diff/1289788786 doesn't.

I don't agree that there's anything inherently wrong with the "the results approach statistical significance" or "barely statistically significant effectiveness" language.

I say that "because we’re working with probability values or p values based on a normal curve" is not a compelling argument.

I object to the removal on that basis.

The "often report" language is certainly not compatible with scholarly rigor. Flagging / Removing. Looking at the widely used review, cite_note-pmid38988104-42, the effectiveness in managing fatigue in PWMS is poor and it directly contradicts the unsourced "without causing drowsiness or disrupting nighttime sleep" claim in the paragraph. Flagging / Removing. Figures 1-5 (all the forest plots) show that across all metrics, most of the individual studies did not find statistically significant effectiveness in managing fatigue in PWMS. Many of the results favored control over Modafonil. RememberOrwell (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Your edits on Modafinil

Hi Boghog; Are you giving any thought to picking up the GAN for this article at the top of this Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause and Maxim Masiutin: I have made a number of edits to this article over the years and I am a top 5 contributor which may be disqualifying.

This is becoming a very long article, and a thorough review will be time consuming. A couple of thoughts:

• The research section should be trimmed to focus on the research topics that have received the greatest attention.
• Consider trimming or consolidating off-label uses and emphasize that the evidence is mixed or exploratory.
• As stated in a previous GA, next to the text "Modafinil may also have cognitive benefits in people with bipolar disorder who are in a remission state." the citation PMID 31599501 appears misplaced
• The following recent relevant reviews that are not yet cited
  • PMID 41367108 - adverse events
  • PMID 40208562 - treatment of residual sleepiness in patients with obstructive sleep apnea
• Tea with toast raised a number of points here: Talk:Modafinil/GA2#Changes_needed and the response was here: Talk:Modafinil/GA2#On_bipolar_disorder. I found the responses inadequate. A GA review benefits most from clear yes/no answers and concrete edits, rather than extended discussion of how individual papers were read. Clarifying these points directly will help move the review forward efficiently. If key sources are behind paywalls, including a short, focused quotation in the citation that directly supports the statement in the article is appropriate. What editors (including myself) object to are lengthy quotations, which can be distracting and may raise copyright concerns. Boghog (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

• Hi Boghog; I'm asking on behalf of the GAN page which looks like Modafinil is one of the oldest nomimations on the page; It might be nice to get someone from the med page to consider doing the article at GAN. Separately, those were really good comments about the great apes genetics you made in your other discussion and maybe you might have a follow-up to it? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

• Hi ErnestKrause Sorry for being so dense. By "pick up" you mean I take over the nomination and someone else review it? I am OK with addressing @Tea with toast: suggestions and I think that gets us pretty close to GA. I don't have any strong motivations about comparative genetics of the great apes, but I could create a stub for others, especially yourself, to expand. I am not a genetics expert and this is getting way outside of my area of expertise. I feel much more confident with drug articles. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks for clarifying; my thought is if you might be able to find one of the md doctors who edits Wikipedia to do the review for Modafinil based on the current nomination. Separately, that's perfectly fine about the great apes article, and I'll keep trying to tie-in with some editor who has a interest in genomics or proteomics to start that article. Good wishes. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Articles tend to slowly drift in various directions; I prefer to avoid controversial topics especially for substance banned in some countries. 20:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC) Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

You are still supporting the GAN nomination; it seems to be the oldest nom at this time? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm looking at this article, having not read it or anything, just skimming through how the prose looks, and think that, maybe, just maybe, I might find this long article a daunting challenge to review. However, that split-up clean-up tag makes it seem like the page needs to be reorganized beforehand, lest the review be predestined to fail.

I think I'd be willing to try and review the article, but I'm not sure if it would be worth it if it's just going to fail, unless you want a detailed list of all the potential issues in this article.

I also think that, if I'm able to do a proper review (unlike the previous two which were labeled as "abandoned", and the nominator responds accordingly, there may not be a need for that clean-up tag. I can't argue that this article is long, or that it definitely needs to be organized. But regardless, would you guys still like me to review this article (considering that I'm in the mood to right now), or should I not considering its current state? — Alex26337 ^(talk) 05:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Alex26337 I can fix factual or thechnical errors but cannot reorganize the article or do any major articles. I fixed however all objections of previous reviewers. If you think that resoling these objections is enough to meet the requirements, please help and review. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Modafinil/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Maxim Masiutin (talk · contribs) 21:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 16:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

StartCzarking0 (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Nom is #1 author with >40% of the content written.Czarking0 (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Earwig results look fine to me.Czarking0 (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Organization

• I think the "Society and culture" section is poorly named. The paragraph with Modafinil's use varies by region. and the subsequent one should be included in that section. This seems like the sort of thing that could be better communicated with a map?Czarking0 (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• The occupational section is not in summary style. The information can be accomplished with two or three sentences.Czarking0 (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• The exact mechanisms of action of modafinil are not known This seems like an important thing to state outside of the addiction subsection
• Keep the Interactions section as prose.
• Make Pharmacology the second section
• Colors produced by modafinil with various reagents Seems like too much detail to me
• The Brand names section would work better as a table with some explanation of where they apply. Could have columns for countries and regulation Czarking0 (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Originally developed in the 1970s by French neuroscientist Michel Jouvet and Lafon Laboratories, modafinil has been prescribed in France since 1994,[162][38] and was approved for medical use in the United States in 1998. This has nothing to do with Economics.
• smart drug and sports usage should be covered in the Usage section

Sources

• The talk page discussion regarding MS treatment needs to be resolved.Czarking0 (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• In children, modafinil is more effective than placebo for treating ADHD symptoms This seems like a cherry-picked claim from the meta analysis but I have not read the source yet. Placebo is rarely the important comparison for something as common and with as many treatments as ADHD.Czarking0 (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Length

I do not immediately dismiss this based on length. It is at 6-7 thousand words readable prose size. That might be fine. However, I do look for statements to remove.

• Given its approved status in the US to treat narcolepsy, physicians can also prescribe modafinil for off-label uses, such as treating ADHD in both children and adults. This is overly US focused and is a general statement about how off-label use works in the US rather than a claim about the article subject.Czarking0 (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) As a more general point, this is functioning as an attribution rather than an important regional claim. If the regional claim was the important part then my advice is to simply the article by dedicating a section to regional variation and then not making regional points elsewhere. If this should merely function as an attribution I recommend reworking it so it does not need attribution and combining info with rest of section.Czarking0 (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• 2021 meta-analysis concluded that attribution not needed, I'll stop this comment but my point is to give the whole thing a pass over to remove places where MEDRS yield an unnecessary attribution. Czarking0 (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• The effectiveness of modafinil as a cognitive enhancer is still debated. Some studies suggest significant increases in cognitive abilities, while others indicate mild to nonexistent cognitive improvements. Either the first sentence or the second is redundant depending on how much detail you feel is important. Similar issue in other areas such as and in cases with signs of CNS stimulant-induced mitral valve prolapse or left ventricular hypertrophy.[107][108] The package insert in the United States cautions about using modafinil in people with a documented medical history of left ventricular hypertrophy or those diagnosed with mitral valve prolapse who have previously exhibited symptoms associated with the mitral valve prolapse syndrome while undergoing treatment involving central nervous system stimulants.Czarking0 (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• No significant changes in body weight have been observed in clinical trials, although decreased appetite and weight loss have been noted in children and adolescents. Certainly you do not plan to list all the side effects that do not occur? What is the point of this statement?Czarking0 (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Unlike other stimulants, modafinil does not induce a strong subjective feeling of pleasure or reward, which is commonly associated with euphoria, an intense feeling of well-being.[21] Euphoria may be an indicator of a drug's potential to be abused. Substance abuse is a compulsive and excessive use of the substance despite adverse consequences. Explaining what substance abuse is is clearly off-topic when you did not explain what a CNS stimulant is.
• even in people who have a history of cocaine addiction Why are we talking about people with a history of cocaine addiction now? Czarking0 (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• modafinil was the 302nd most commonly prescribed medication in the United States cutCzarking0 (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• with just over 1,000,000 prescriptions. Point in time info works better as a graphCzarking0 (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• This means that it is a drug with a perceived low potential for abuse and low risk of dependence; still, the use of Schedule 4 drugs in Australia is restricted to those who have a valid prescription from a medical practitioner. Way too much detail about specific drug relation in a single country. None of this is specific to Modafinil. Make similar adjustments elsewhere.Czarking0 (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• such as sprinter Kelli White in 2003,[224] cyclist David Clinger[225] and basketball player Diana Taurasi[226] in 2010, and rower Timothy Grant in 2015, summary style does not cal for naming all these peopleCzarking0 (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Writing

• required Cephalon Who is cephalon? Czarking0 (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• The reasons why Pretty much never use this phrase. Just say the reasons Czarking0 (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• which is the narrowing of blood vessels No way you are explaining vasoconstriction but not contraindication, mitral valve prolapse, left ventricular hypertrophy. Decide what background knowledge the appropriately broad audience needs to understand this article then edit the whole thing to be understandable to that audience. I suggest the average nurse should be able to understand this so I don't think you need to explain what vasoconstriction is. I doubt the average nurse really understands this transition Despite being a CNS stimulant.
• Modafinil is also contraindicated in people with congenital problems like galactose intolerance, lactase deficiency, or glucose-galactose malabsorption} Maybe just drop congenital? The thing that makes these complications similar is not really that they are congenital.Czarking0 (talk)
• The Tolerence section is a little too bullet pointy.Czarking0 (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• the amphetamine scale of the addiction research center inventory, sympathomimetic jargon
• The LD50 info would be better communicated with a bar chart.Czarking0 (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Modafinil's patent history involves several key developments. removeCzarking0 (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Coverage

still, in 2004, the price of modafinil in the US was around $120 or more per monthly supply.[213] However, the availability of generic versions has increased since then and may have driven down prices. Is this really the best you can say? I would think you can make a plot of prices over time. This is outdated and vague.Czarking0 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I gave explanations on unexplained medical jargon and addressed, I hope, all the issues that you raised, thank you for your review. Please find updated article. As for the "Society and culture", I took the recommended order from the article template at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Article_templates/Drug,_treatment,_or_device Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)