I'm gonna start a company selling two rebranded generic drugs: a sleeping pill called Zzz and a remedy for erectile dysfunction called, obviously, Xxx.
The numbers in this article are very frustrating, and the graph is misleading. The rise in absolute popularity of drugs with names with z and x has a lot less meaning if it's not presented along with the rise in total drugs too. That number (80% rise) is also mentioned, but you have to do mental arithmetic to figure out how that affects the other numbers, and it doesn't help you normalize the graph.
In fact, judging by the graph, if the total number of drugs increased by 80%, it looks like the relative popularity of "x" is actually static / declining over time.
All numbers for increases in popularity of x and z should have been normalized to the increase in drug count; in other words, described as an increase in the share of the total set of drug names (or share of new market entrants, or whatever).
this guy did a similarly in-depth bit on the same topic showing precise distribution of drug name letters compared to their distribution in common written english. pretty interesting stuff. http://www.bookofodds.com/Blogs/Numbers/2010/06-June/Why-Pre...
My father, a clinical psychiatrist, tells me that he has read in the British Medical Journal (the publication linked in the OP) of a study that had drug names as its variable. They gave many patients the same drug, but gave it to them under a variety of differently constructed names. He says that this study found that names beginning with X and Z produced a greater efficacy than any other letter. Unfortunately he can't remember anything else about it, I am working on finding out more.
I know this is a lame excuse for not citing sources but still, its very interesting, and personally I trust my father :)
Interesting. Do you think it's the same reason car manufacturers always put either 'z' or 'x' into the model name for a 'sporting model'. The list is endless, it's easier to find a sports model without these additions. Coverage is near-complete if you add 'GT' and/or R into the list, but these speak to 'grand touring' and 'racing', whereas 'z' and 'x' do not.
I had a doc prescribe me Xyzal for allergies last year. I can't help but think the name was a running gag in the marketing department that stuck. Especially considering the drug's website includes a pronunciation key under the brand logo.
[+] [-] schrototo|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Semiapies|15 years ago|reply
(Warning: TV Tropes wiki. Do you need another time sink?)
[+] [-] m_myers|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danilocampos|15 years ago|reply
You're not kidding. Lost an hour the first time I innocently followed a link there.
[+] [-] barrkel|15 years ago|reply
In fact, judging by the graph, if the total number of drugs increased by 80%, it looks like the relative popularity of "x" is actually static / declining over time.
All numbers for increases in popularity of x and z should have been normalized to the increase in drug count; in other words, described as an increase in the share of the total set of drug names (or share of new market entrants, or whatever).
[+] [-] localhost3000|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] YuriNiyazov|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JonnieCache|15 years ago|reply
I know this is a lame excuse for not citing sources but still, its very interesting, and personally I trust my father :)
[+] [-] brc|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grav1tas|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hanibash|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ben1040|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Florin_Andrei|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kondro|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wambie|15 years ago|reply