Beyond-use date: difference between revisions

Diff·revision 25 → 26·01:00, 29 Oct 2025

Difference between revision 25 and revision 26 of Beyond-use date. 2 lines changed; the page grew by 497 bytes.

Revision 25 — 22:47, 11 Oct 2025 ForestPlotFinn (talk) alphabetise the see-also list 21,165 bytes +676	Revision 26 — 01:00, 29 Oct 2025 UnitsUrsula (talk) copyedit 21,662 bytes +497
128	For an opened manufactured container the equivalent record is the date of first entry, annotated on the container. Guidance treats an unannotated multiple-dose container as undatable and therefore to be discarded, on the ground that no evidence exists that it is within its period.{{r\|usp797,cdc_injection_bud}}	128	For an opened manufactured container the equivalent record is the date of first entry, annotated on the container. Guidance treats an unannotated multiple-dose container as undatable and therefore to be discarded, on the ground that no evidence exists that it is within its period.{{r\|usp797,cdc_injection_bud}}
129		129
+		130	For reconstituted research peptides the recording problem is compounded by the labelling problem discussed at [[Vial\|vial]]: a vial that carries no manufacturer label offers nowhere obvious to write, and a vial whose contents are identified only by a discarded outer package cannot be annotated meaningfully at all. Community practice of marking the closure or the ferrule with the reconstitution date is the common workaround and is recorded here as practice rather than recommended.{{r\|ppbud}}
+		131
130	== Terminology and the conflation problem ==	132	== Terminology and the conflation problem ==
131	The two kinds of date are conflated pervasively, and the conflation is not merely pedantic to correct, because the two respond differently to the questions readers ask.	133	The two kinds of date are conflated pervasively, and the conflation is not merely pedantic to correct, because the two respond differently to the questions readers ask.