Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 123

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

Archive 123

Archive 124

Archive 125

→

Archive 130

Case study of wiki in several cohorts of classes

Just out today there is a paper presenting a case study of Wikipedia editing in a physical therapy program. I am an author.

• Weiner, Shira Schecter; Horbacewicz, Jill; Rasberry, Lane; Bensinger-Brody, Yocheved (18 March 2019). "Improving the Quality of Consumer Health Information on Wikipedia: Case Series". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 21 (3): e12450. doi:10.2196/12450. PMID 30882357.

The classes are at Wikipedia:Touro. The outreach model is applying the Wikipedia:Education program to a 3-hour workshop where all the attendees do research and draft their text proposals and citations in advance. Tracking is with meta:Programs and Events Dashboard.

The Wikimedia Foundation sponsored open access publishing of this paper through its grants program as documented at meta:Grants:Project/Rapid/Touro College/publishing wiki education research in healthcare.

I have some additional information about this project which I intend to share, but which was out of scope of this paper. The paper talks about "persistence", which is a measure of the extent to which content which someone posts to Wikipedia actually stays in Wikipedia over a period of time. In general, editors wish to make persistent edits and to avoid edits which will not be persistent. Later on wiki I will share something about those measurements and tie it to this research.

For now, I hope that others can use this paper as supporting evidence of the usefulness of classes editing Wikipedia's medical content. For me it has been enlightening to learn how many patients have pain which they are treating with physical therapy, and how much more time that patients spend engaged in making thoughtful decisions about physical therapy as compared to many other types of healthcare, and also how often Wikipedia contains the perspective of pharmacology but lacks perspective of physical therapy in its articles.

Thanks everyone. If anyone wants to check student edits in this program just made on 12 March 2019, then please see the dashboard. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

great work/info[1] thank you Lane--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Splitting the Fear of children article into Pedophobia (phobia) and Pedophobia (social phenomena)

Can we get some opinions on whether it was a good idea to split this article this way? And if splitting the article at all is best? I commented at Talk:Pedophobia (phobia)#The split on the latest development. But there is previous discussion there and later sections about the changes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

"Correlation between Autism Spectrum (AS)" material at the Causes of transsexuality article

We need opinions on the following matter: Talk:Causes of transsexuality#"Correlation between Autism Spectrum (AS)" material. A permalink for it is here. The matter concerns sourcing, how to present the material, and whether or not we should present any of the material in that article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

well said--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Retrograde ureteral

Is there a better name for this, or does this topic already exist as an article somewhere? It seems like it was created as vandalism and has been sitting unsourced for 13 years. Natureium (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It might be the same thing as Ureteroscopy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing. Recommend redirect. PeaBrainC (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a method of approach for procedures on the ureter(s). Definitely not something you'd expect to see listed as a procedure without further clarification; for example retrograde ureteral stent insertion. Retrograde ureteric procedures can also be performed on women, so the lede is inaccurate. (Not a clinician, but have coded urology.) Little pob (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Redirecting. Thanks all. Natureium (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

ECHO-7 and Rigvir

Some expert eyes are really needed on ECHO-7 article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHO-7). It is an unproven anti-cancer drug from Latvia, currently in the center of a fresh scandal in its homecountry Latvia, so manufacturers and their publicists are flooding the page with their edits. Any help would be appreciated. KC LV (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Have you considered Wikipedia:Requests for page protection? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, will do! Great idea.KC LV (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi protected. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Decolonization

I came across the term decolonization in Susan S. Huang and wonder if an article could be put together explaining the term. Decolonization (healthcare), perhaps. The Decolonization article has more to do with tackling colonialism than ridding bodies of bacteria - which is what I understand the term to mean. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I've thrown together a stub; but placed it at Decolonization (medicine) based on the percussion example at MOS:MED. I'll redirect the red link above, and the British spellings shortly. Little pob (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, Little pob. I've put a hatnote on Decolonization, though whether its the most appropriate hatnote template and/or wording, who know. I'll try to find some articles to point at your new article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

On whether lay synonyms are synonyms

Further opinions requested at Talk:Dissociative_identity_disorder#"Split_personality"_as_sometimes_a_synonym. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Frontiers: blacklisted or no?

Hi all, continuing our previous discussion on whether we should reject papers from Frontiers journal at the RSN here. petrarchan47คุก 19:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• give opinion{gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Health - Health care - Healthcare

I have a question. Some articles have different name. Some are Health in COUNTRYNAME, others are Health care in COUNTRYNAME, while some others are Healthcare in COUNTRYNAME? I dont understand that? Shouldn't all have the same name? Please explain to me. is there a reason for that? Also, i cannot move some articles, and have information : The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. How does exists if article name is not like that? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Bookman (talk • contribs) 11:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dr.Bookman: the guiding policy is Wikipedia:Article titles. A country or territory might favour one variant over the others - which will be reflected in the reliable sources - and must be reflected in the article title. Some regions may use health, healthcare, and health care interchangeably. Others might view health as an umbrella term, of which health care (and/or health care) would be a specific sub-term. For example; the UK used to use health to refer to health care and social care as a whole (recently there has been a shift to the term "health and social care"). The page move problem you're having is probably down to the presence of a redirect page. However, these page moves are potentially controversial, and should therefore be discussed at the talk page of each page you wish moved. Little pob (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

"Health care in" could be changed to "Healthcare in", but articles starting with "Health in" aren't supposed to cover the same topics as articles starting with "Healthcare in". "Health in" article should have information about health statistics, public health, outcomes, the healthcare industry, etc; whereas "Healthcare in" articles focus on the healthcare system. Not all countries have articles on both, because they haven't been written (yet). Natureium (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

So that should all be fixed, then? Is there a way to link all articles that are Healh care in, so i can move them to Healthcare in? That may be for a start? Natureium, Little pob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Bookman (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dr.Bookman: Searching article space for intitle:"Health care in" gives 244 results but some of those are redirects. You can work through those at your pleasure. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The rule of thumb I had heard is that "healthcare" refers to the industry, while "health care" refers to what medical professionals provide. If there are a lot of pages that need to be moved, we might want to make sure there is a determination about what is correct. Natureium (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

agree w/ Natureium--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Some people do follow that distinction: Healthcare organizations provide health care to improve health. Perhaps this might help explain the distinction:

• Health in Ruritania is fair. Lots of people die from preventable diseases, and some people have stunted growth due to malnourishment during childhood.
• Healthcare in Ruritania is limited. There are not very many hospitals, and there is only one hospital that has an MRI machine.
• Health care in Ruritania is typical for developing countries. Family members are intimately involved in caring for sick people, and they buy antimalarials without a prescription every time anyone has a fever.

These may not be the best examples, but the point is that some people use these three words to mean different things. If that distinction is being followed, then moving the article makes it "wrong".

That said, in most cases, I suspect that no difference between "Healthcare in" and "Health care in" is actually meant, and that if both happen to exist, it might make sense to merge those articles anyway. Perhaps for clarity, if you mean to write about "healthcare" as strictly defined (organizations, etc.), it would be worth considering a more specific name, e.g., Healthcare infrastructure in... or Healthcare industry in... WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Neutra Phos

This is a brand name that is no longer manufactured. Is there somewhere that this could be redirected to? Is a page for general phosphorous replacement products needed? Natureium (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

You could redirect to Dietary supplement or Mineral (nutrient) as there doesn't seem to be a phosphate supplement specific page at present. A general Phosphate supplement page could be useful and would have precedents e.g. Calcium supplement, Magnesium (medical use), Potassium chloride (medical use). I don't have time to write a page for Phosphate supplement but if anyone wanted to, a preliminary search suggests that suitable sources could include [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], and [[5]]. PeaBrainC (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree an article on Phosphate supplement is needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I created a stub to start off. Natureium (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Oral cancer

Could some take a look at two new tables in the staging section. I'm a neophyte with table structure, so I think they might benefit from someone with more experience wrt structure. Ian Furst (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I've fixed what I thought were the biggest problems (font-size too small; using a table to make 3 columns). See if that's any better for you. --RexxS (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Much nicer. thank you. Ian Furst (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

(Yet more) links to DAB pages

Iliostalis

I have collected yet another batch of articles with links to DAB pages on medicine-related topics. Search for 'disam' in read mode and for '{{d' in edit mode; and if you solve any of these puzzles, remove the {{dn}} tag and post {{done}} here.

• Encephalomyelitis
• Cardiac plexus
• Soumen Basak
• Sialadenitis
• Iliocostalis Done
• List of primary immunodeficiencies
• Iodinated contrast
• Hypovolemic shock
• Secondary constriction
• Shu Hongbing
• Trichomonas vaginalis
• Paramedicine  Done

Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

thank you for post(did one)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Is this really all that's accumulated? I think it's been nearly three months since our last list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

All of these are done now. Keilana (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Air China Flight 112

Sars-corona

Hi...I would welcome any suggestions or edits on Air China Flight 112 (SARS outbreak)? Whispyhistory (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

references seem ok[6]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Ozzie10aaaa: Whispyhistory (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Pill identification

R180 was converted from a redirect to a disambiguation page today. When looking to see if there were other entries that belonged on the page, I found that the first few results on google were related to the marking on 4mg Tizanidine Hydrochloride pills. Tizanidine hydrochloride redirects to Tizanidine which makes no mention of pills at all. Do editors here think that this should be mentioned in the article, in a different article and/or on the dab page?

I have no opinion either way, and I'm not advocating for or against inclusion anywhere, but I haven't found any guidance about it so I don't know if it's been discussed previously or what the issues are. Thryduulf (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that's a very helpful redirect. If someone is googling the imprint on a pill, google will give them the results. If we starting creating redirects from pill imprints (all brands, all generics, all dosages, all forms), we'd have thousands. Natureium (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Ossification of humerus

Not sure what needs to be done with this. Natureium (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe selectively merge into humerus? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

no sources. section already exists in humerus. delete imo. Ian Furst (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The ossification section of the Humerus article is also unsourced, but furthermore is only two lines long and has far less content. While the Ossification of humerus article is also unsourced, it is better than the text at Humerus. I think merge is a better option, ideally find a source, then turn Ossification of humerus into a redirect. PeaBrainC (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm working on merging the content, finding some sources, and making it readable. Will redirect when done. Keilana (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Meta reading

If you deal with groups on wiki (beyond this awesome one, of course), then you might be interested in meatball:GoodBye. MeatballWiki has many interesting pages, but this one, which is about the end of the lifecycle for contributors, is IMO one of the best. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

good reading, thanks WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Can I add the findings from randomized controlled trials?

Recently, I have edited a page and some of the information was from RCTs. Those citations were deleted by another contributor. Can anyone confirm me that information from RCTs should not be included? What about the large RCTs? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sara3054 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Sara3054, and welcome to Wikipedia!

The short answer is: We avoid what are called "primary sources", such as original research papers. This includes randomized controlled trials and anything that provides equal or "worse" evidence than that.

The long answer is: It's a bit more complicated than that. So what we want, when we're talking about scientific questions, is an article that adequately represents the current (more or less) state of scientific beliefs. And for this, we need to use good sources (we call those "reliable"), and we need to represent them fairly, without trying to make one point of view sound better than what the experts think of it (we call that "neutral", or more specifically, giving Wikipedia:Due weight to the various viewpoints). We think that hewing as closely as possible to the ideal academic sources is most likely to give us the end product that we want. In particular, for Wikipedia:Biomedical information like whether aspirin prevents heart attacks or what causes cancer, we tend to follow recent review articles and textbooks instead of the news headlines (which are often overstated) or primary research papers (which can be cherry-picked).

Now, I'll bet you can imagine the problems if we just declared those to be "the rules" that have to be followed under all circumstances: A million-person study is sometimes worth adding before anyone has had time to get a review article through the peer review process. There might be too few patients to run a decent RCT at all, or that might be all we can find (rare diseases, but also a major problem for writing about comorbidities). A condition might be common, but there might not be any "ideal" sources about it because nobody bothers publishing research on it (consider Back labor: a third of women giving birth have it, and there is exactly one (just one!) review article that uses that term in all of PubMed). A subject might be "medical", but the focus of the sources might be on environmental impacts (and I hope the world never sees an RTC in humans about whether a drug is bad for wild fish). So while we set forth an "ideal" standard, we are trying to leave some room for editors' judgment, especially when the literature is quite thin for that subject.

As a practical note, I've found that often the information in a good RCT could also be supported by a secondary source. By the way, tf you are more familiar with scientific standards, then you might find this page useful: Wikipedia:Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking time to explain all these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sara3054 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nature therapy

Form of Nature therapy

For info. I wanted to publicise this AfD debate in a neutral manner to get independent eyes on the discussion, but then I thought bugger that, went to FTN, and came here. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

All-on-4

Could I get some opinions on All-on-4? The phrase is a registered trademark of Nobelbiocare (a major dental implant manufacturer), and the article is weighted heavily to product push imo with few references. In 2014 I would have argued for deletion. Now, however, the phrase is thrown around as a generic term for the procedure of a fixed prosthetic on 4 implants (even though it's still a registered tagline), and I could easily clean to a procedure article. This could also be easily merged to Dental implant. Do I clean? Delete? Merge? Go have coffee and look again in 5 years? Looking for some thoughts. Ian Furst (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

There's a WP:DENTISTRY that this would be appropriate for. Natureium (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Found some copy and pasting and trimmed. Trimmed a bunch of unreffed / poorly reffed stuff. Would merge to dental implant. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Primary vs secondary sources on fatal dog attacks

Some WikiProject Medicine expertise would be useful at Talk:Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#By_Nomopbs re what counts as a primary vs. secondary source. Bondegezou (talk) 11:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Bondegezou, thank you for posting that link. It is an enormous wall of text, and much of it seems to be arguments about fiddly details of historiography rather than doing what's right for the article. If anyone happens to be looking for a solid example of rulemongering on Wikipedia, this should be a candidate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I just encountered it answering a WP:3O. Everyone else, I think more eyes on the article would help to turn the enthusiasm of the current editors into a good quality article. Bondegezou (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Merger Discussion Notification

NOTE: I am proposing this discussion for FleishmanHillard on behalf of Daiichi Sankyo. I am a paid editor and am aware of the COI guidelines.

Per the merger discussion guidelines, I wanted to notify WikiProject Medicine of a merger discussion I’ve initiated on the page for pigmented villonodular synovitis (PVNS). More detail is on that page’s Talk page, but in short, we have initiated this discussion at the recommendation of a conflict of interest editor who we’d previously contacted about adding tenosynovial giant cell tumor (TGCT) as a synonym for diffuse-type pigmented villonodular synovitis (PVNS).

We are seeking the community’s guidance on how to go about ensuring that tenosynovial giant cell tumor (TGCT) is accurately defined on Wikipedia. Currently, there is not a stand-alone TGCT page. It instead redirects to the giant-cell tumor of the tendon sheath (GCT-TS) page, which does not include TGCT terminology. This would suggest TGCT is solely a synonym for GCT-TS, which is incorrect. According to literature, TGCT is also closely related (and some say interchangeable) with pigmented villonodular synovitis (PVNS) as well. Thanks for your time and consideration. Jon Gray (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

4 of the 7 references are non-MEDRSWikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)(and ref #3 is dated[7])?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Jon, we usually follow the ICD system for organizing disease articles. Do you have a list of the various ICD codes for these conditions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I can help with the ICD-10 codes: (ICD-O-3 and national variants may offer more specificity.)

• PVNS = M12.2
• TGCT = D48.1
• GCT-TS = D48.1

The relevant index trail is Tumor, giant cell, soft parts see Neoplasm , connective tissue, uncertain behavior then Neoplasm, connective tissue, [site], uncertain behavior. If you go straight to Vol 3's neoplasm table, there are "see connective tissue" instructions at both tendon (sheath) and synovial membrane. A code from category D21, the code currently listed at GCT-TS, would be used if the tumour was known to be/specified as benign. Little pob (talk) 10:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! It sounds like TGCT and GCT-TS were basically treated as the same thing then (although, ideally, we'd explain naming in the articles). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Russian Journal of Genetic Genealogy

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Russian_Journal_of_Genetic_Genealogy SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

thank you for post/link--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Dental dam article -- STI material

At Talk:Dental dam#Page under review as part of a university assessment task (a permalink here), we could use some opinions on wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Flexner Report

One of the sources here, used twice in the article, is the non-peer reviewed Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons published by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons a fringe group that among other things denies that HIV causes AIDS. The association's article has a lot to say about the journal, starting with:

"The group's Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JPandS), until 2003 named the Medical Sentinel, the journal of the association, is not listed in academic literature databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed or the Web of Science. The quality and scientific validity of articles published in the Journal have been criticized by medical experts, and some of the viewpoints advocated by AAPS are rejected by mainstream scientists and other medical groups. The U.S. National Library of Medicine declined repeated requests from AAPS to index the journal, citing unspecified concerns. As of September 2016, JPandS was listed on Beall's list of potential or probable predatory open-access journals. Quackwatch lists JPandS as an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical. An editorial in Chemical & Engineering News described JPandS as a "purveyor of utter nonsense." Investigative journalist Brian Deer wrote that the journal is the "house magazine of a right-wing American fringe group [AAPS]" and "is barely credible as an independent forum." Writing in The Guardian, science columnist Ben Goldacre described the Journal as the "in-house magazine of a rightwing US pressure group well known for polemics on homosexuality, abortion and vaccines.""

The actual source used is: I think this needs replacing but don't know that I'm the person to do it. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree and trimmed / replaced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Surgical pathology subspecialties

I'm working through the list of unsourced medical articles, and we have a bunch of stubs of subspecialties of surgical pathology, most of them unsourced. Are these worth keeping, or should we redirect them to surgical pathology? I listed some of them here, but there are more:

• Ophthalmic pathology
• Pulmonary pathology
• Renal pathology
• Gastrointestinal pathology - this one is very long but still basically unsourced
• Orthopedic pathology
• Soft tissue pathology

Thanks, Natureium (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

We should probably have them, and they should probably be turned into something that is vaguely useful to, say, to the friend of a medical student. Imagine that you're not a medical or medical-adjacent person, and your friend is going on and on (and on and on) about the current subject, and you just want to know enough to ask a decent question or make a comment like "Oh, so you're trying to figure out whether he has ____ or ____, right?". That's probably what should be in those articles.

The alternative isn't redirecting; it's merging them to Surgical pathology#Subspecialties. I know that this can feel really weird to WPMED folks, but the rule isn't "source it or blank it". The policy is actually that you must WP:PRESERVE apparently good content. It must be possible for a reader to verify that we didn't just make up that content. What we tend to forget in our little corner of Wikipedia is that possible assumes that the reader is not only just reasonably educated but also has access to both a decent library and a web search engine, in addition to whatever sources might (or might not) be cited in an article. I glanced at a couple of these, and I didn't see any contents whose verifiability concerned me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

some of these names look a little weird to me, and I wonder if they're true sub-specialties. Here is a list I found from the American Association of Pathologists of sub specialty certifications available. E.g. "soft tissue pathology" is this dermatopathology, or someone who specializes in sarcomas, or neuro? It's a weird distinction. I wonder if there's anyone from path that might be able to look and provide direction.

• Combined Anatomic Pathology and Clinical Pathology (AP/CP)
• Combined Anatomic Pathology and Neuropathology (AP/NP)
• Anatomic Pathology
• Clinical Pathology
• Blood Banking/Transfusion Medicine
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Informatics
• Cytopathology
• Dermatopathology
• Forensic Pathology
• Hematopathology
• Medical Microbiology
• Molecular Genetic Pathology
• Neuropathology
• Pediatric Pathology Ian Furst (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, some of those names are questionable. Are there any pathologists on Wikipedia that we can page? Barring any other ideas, I'll start merging any sourced information into surgical pathology. Natureium (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikimania

A few of us from Wiki Project Med are working to put on a space at Wikimania for Health related talks. We are drafting this HERE. Please suggest ideas and indicate if you are able to attend. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Sahaja Yoga

• Sahaja_Yoga#Sahaja_meditation_and_associated_research

What do you guys think about this section? Does it pass MEDRS? I'm seeing a citation to the Journal of Complementary and Alternative medicine, which seems questionable. I'm not that familliar with MEDRS and Sahaja Yoga to comment on the rest. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Without looking, I think it's safe to say that there is no research on any kind of yoga that both claims a clear benefit for the specific "brand name" of yoga and meets MEDRS' "ideal" source quality. This is because MEDRS's ideal was calibrated for heavily researched medical conditions, such as hypertension (about which more than 4,000 review articles were published in the last five years) and not for individual types of yoga (this one, for example, can boast just 3 recent review articles, and zero in the core clinical journals).

Whether or not the available sources are adequate depends on the exact claims being made. WP:RSCONTEXT matters in all articles and for all statements, regardless of whether or not MEDRS also applies. For example, a source could be adequate for saying that "Alice Expert wrote that this yoga is great" while not being adequate for saying that "this yoga is great".

And, finally, WP:DUE is a policy that applies to all parts of all articles, including sentences that could be supported by reliable sources. Even if a source is "reliable" for saying that Alice Expert wrote something, the fact that she said that might be too unimportant to include. This rule cuts both ways: if most of the reliable sources discuss the fact that Alice Expert wrote about it, then the fact that Alice Expert wrote about it ought to be covered in the article, with some suitable compromise wording that acknowledges the fact while doing our best not to lead readers to overinterpret that fact. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

For clarification, despite it's name it's actually meditation focused. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I removed the section, but it has since been added back. Discuss it here:

• Talk:Sahaja_Yoga#Ad_and_MEDRS

Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Another update: the section was added back, and I just removed it. I invite others to chime in on the discussion on the talk page so that we can try to reach a consensus. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• A.N.Other cult based around a "superhuman" figure, making a lot of bullshit promises and exploiting its members. Probably better discussed at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 07:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

A lot of the same research is used here. Is it valid or also dubious?

• Research_on_meditation#Sahaja_yoga_and_mental_silence

Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Medical citation needed span

I don't know if anyone here is familiar with {{cn-span}}, but due to the fact that there was no template which had this functionality for specifying text that needed a medical reference in a manner similar to Template:Citation needed span prior to today and since I wanted a template with this functionality, I created {{Medical citation needed span}}. Template shortcuts include {{mcn-span}}, {{mcn span}}, and {{mcns}}.

The usage/purpose of this template is fairly straightforward and works exactly like Template:Citation needed span. Compare {{mcn}} in (1) with {{mcns}} in (2) below:

1. This text is sourced.^[1] This text is a biomedical claim that needs a medical reference.
2. This text is sourced.^[1] This text is a biomedical claim that needs a medical reference.

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Image request

Would someone mind taking a picture of some coban for cohesive bandage? Natureium (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Search for free images to add to Wikipedia articles, or replace non-free images and placeholders.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Notability of academic journals

I've come across a bunch of medical journal stubs and have asked for input on what should be considered for inclusion here. Thoughts welcome. Natureium (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

There is always WP:NJOURNAL. However, my assumption is that every special interest carves out its own notability criteria to subvert WP:GNG (WP:POKEMONCHARACTER sort of thing) so I don't think this is a battle worth the effort - just accept that Wikipedia is going to be full of shit and life is easier that way. Alexbrn (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I AfD'd one, and people are voting to keep based on it being indexed by scopus, which seems like a very poor indicator of notability to me. By that standard, we should have 34,000+ articles on academic journals. Natureium (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is broken. All we do is help limit damage. For this Wikiproject that essentially means keeping the bogus in check. Alexbrn (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC related to secondary academic sources with insects

While the direct subject isn't medical, part of an RfC at Talk:Decline_in_insect_populations#Use_of_sources_for_insect_declines deals with the interplay of secondary sources vs. primary research articles and newspapers in an area of disputed science that may be of some interest to editors here given the type of material we work with in medical topics. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

interesting post, thank you Kingofaces43--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Health at every size:

There's a neutrality dispute at this article.

• Talk:Health_at_Every_Size#HAES_article_lacks_Neutral_Point_of_View

Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Talk:Health_at_Every_Size#Merge? Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar/Archive 2#Medical conspiracy theories — alternative and pseudo‑medicine

If you have an opinion on the title/content of this sidebar, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should this epilepsy research be added to the Cannabidiol article?

Please weigh in if interested here. petrarchan47คุก 10:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

What makes you think you're going to get a different answer this time? Multiple editors have told you this is not reliable for this purpose. WP:Forum shopping wastes people's time. Alexbrn (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

New WP:JCW/PUB

This is a compilation of journals, arranged by publisher (from most to least citations). It's very early, and needs a ton of cleanup, but the results are interesting. For example, if you're interested in AMA journals, you can search (with quotes "American Medical Association"), and find the JAMA journals consolidated under one heading.

Again, there will be lots of false positives, but they can be suppressed exactly like those from WP:SOURCEWATCH can be suppressed. See WT:SOURCEWATCH#FAQ (Q4 and Q6) for details on how to do that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

very useful--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Event metrics tools

Update on a tool I heard about at work: The wishlist folks are working on a sort of metrics dashboard that will be useful to people who run Wikipedia editing parties (aka WP:EDITATHONs). I decided to try out WPMED as an "event". Using the people listed in the newer Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Members (which isn't all of you, by the way), and looking at the activity in editing (any/all) articles during the first three months of this year, I found:[8]

• 198 new pages created
• 16,800 pages edited, with an average daily page view total of 6.7 million page views
• 45,800 separate edits made to articles
• 32 new files uploaded to the English Wikipedia
• at least 1 of the 7 new editors who signed up kept editing for more than one week

The tool can't look at talk page categories to check only edits made to WPMED-tagged pages, but we could check out edits to specific mainspace category trees, like articles in Category:Cancer and its subpages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing why I try to look at the link I get "You are not authorized to view this program because you are not an organizer." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I've just added you as an organizer. If anyone else wants a look, then just post here. I suspect that it can take at least 10 names. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Derrick Morris Article for Deletion

file:Derrick Morris.png

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Derrick Morris (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Medref-inline and Template:Medref inline are redirects with different targets

Resolved

 – The 2nd redirect target has been updated to Template:Medical citation needed. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

While creating the template in the section above, I noticed a problem with these redirects.

• Template:Medref-inline is targeted to Template:Medical citation needed
• Template:Medref inline is targeted to Template:Unreliable medical source

Does anyone have any objection to me retargeting Template:Medref inline to Template:Medical citation needed? I think that page would be a more appropriate target for that redirect. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Disclaimer, that I don't tag stuff, but I consider those tags two separate things when I see them. Template:Medref inline when someone uses an inappropriate source (e.g. sources CNN when claiming excess salt causes hypertension) vs Template:Medical citation needed when a source should have been given (e.g. doesn't list any source when claiming excess salt causes hypertension). Ian Furst (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Ack, one is transcluded 700+ times, and the other 500+ times. I wouldn't consider them equivalent, so I don't know if there's an easy way to fix that without having to edit all those pages. Natureium (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Another option is to actually fix the problem indicated by Template:Unreliable medical source, and remove the source and whatever questionable material it might be attached to, but that's not a small task. Natureium (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware that I would have to retarget the backlinks if I did this, but that can be done easily enough with WP:AWB. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

No objections from me then. Have fun. Natureium (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

{{Medref inline}} actually only had 1 backlink and 0 transclusions; I removed the backlink and retargeted the redirect accordingly. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Cholera project

Should anyone have time:

• Federspiel F, Ali M (December 2018). "The cholera outbreak in Yemen: lessons learned and way forward". BMC Public Health. 18 (1): 1338. doi:10.1186/s12889-018-6227-6. PMC 6278080. PMID 30514336.
• 2016–19 Yemen cholera outbreak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just replaced several very marginal sources there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• article is 2016–19 Yemen cholera outbreak--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• That is what I listed-- what did I miss? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

my mistake--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Move of Sexual addiction article

Article was moved to "Compulsive sexual behavior". Opinions are needed at Talk:Compulsive sexual behavior#Move of the article. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Retraction bot request for approval

Hi, I noticed this new on Twitter. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/RetractionBot I am looking forward to learning more about this. JenOttawa (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

interesting prior discussion..Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_26#Creating_a_bot_to_search_Wikipedia_for_retracted_papers--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for flagged this @Ozzie10aaaa:. JenOttawa (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Cortico-somethingal-thalamic-cortical loops

Basal ganglia circuits

Cortico-striatal-thalamic-cortical loop and Cortico-basal ganglia-thalamo-cortical loop have been tagged for merge since 2018 and no one has commented. Does this fall under your guys' wheelhouse? If so, thoughts? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: I'm sure the striatum is part of the basal ganglia, so that sounds like a good merge. And yes, this is probably the best WikiProject to handle this although I am unsure who is the correct neuroanatomy geek to process the merge. JFW | T@lk 22:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:Neuroscience and WP:Anatomy are relevant to this and they might have some thoughts. Natureium (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

yes those two projects are relevant--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC About Lisdexamfetamine

About how to balance wording when the high quality literature says different things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: Given the varied definitions of those terms and the fact that this just has to do with what we put in the drugbox after "physical" and "psychological" (i.e., since I don't want to waste my time arguing about definitions), I cut those terms/links and just listed "high". The article text never made a distinction between the two. I don't think there's any point in discussing this any further as my edit has made the issue moot. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Older source state that their is no physical dependence. Newer sources state that their is physical dependence as it is now recognized that unpleasant physical symptoms occur with withdrawal following chronic use.

Some newer sources recognize that it is controversial. I am happy to move to leaving this out of the infobox of stimulant articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The most salient rule of thumb is that complicated stuff that requires explanation or nuance doesn't belong in an infobox. Explain it in the article body and omit it from the infobox. And, as the person who started the RFC, you're entitled to remove the template and end the advertising once you've got the answer you needed. You don't have to wait 30 days or get people to agree that it's okay to do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we have a mostly clear conclusion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth Celi

• Elizabeth Celi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

3rd nomination for this article - subject has written books WP:GNG Even though the books are self published the books are in many libraries. In addition the subject has made a widely recognized contribution in her field. Often quoted on the topic of Men's Health across Australia 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Libraries are full of books by non-notable authors. See notability requires verifiable evidence. A "widely recognised contribution in her field" is a long way short of "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field (Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians)" as required by WP:ANYBIO#2. --RexxS (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks like you're canvassing here to promote a specific viewpoint... Natureium (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I am happy to weight in. But will definitely come to my own conclusions. They are within this WikiProject so the notification is reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Tourniquet

Hi! I've removed a lot of copyvio from Tourniquet, added at various times at least three different people apparently associated with James McEwen and/or his company Delfi Medical. The article is pretty much a wreck as a result, and needs to be completely re-written by someone with appropriate background knowledge and experience. I'm not that person; any takers? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the hard work. User:Justlettersandnumbers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

proposal of deletion of Human and artificial cause death in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries

I created the article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#After_nominating:_Notify_interested_projects_and_editors

The article was proposed WP:AFD at 21:40, on the 20 April 2019. Incidentally, I think the proposing editor doesn't have a valid set of reasons (please see WP:DEL-REASON) for the proposal, so the proposal itself shouldn't actually be permitted.

cordially, Sederecarinae (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Sanjay Razdan

• Sanjay Razdan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A seemingly notable doctor, urologist, robotic surgeon, and professor. Widely published. But sourcing is thin. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

somewhat spammy, not too notable...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Saccharomyces cerevisiae SEM

I have added two sections to the article: about use as a probiotic and about human infections caused by this yeast. I tried to follow WP:MEDRS as well as general scientific guidelines and common sense judgement in selecting and citing sources, but since I have no medical training myself, neither training in microbiology (nor in any other branch of biology), I believe that it might be useful if some professional medical researcher could give a look to my additions. Эйхер (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

should also post atWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Microbiology fox some parts of the article text--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. I'm particularly concerned that in all reviews about medical efficacy of S. boulardii one of the authors declares connection to a manufacturer of the drug (at least in the past). Should it be mentioned in the article? Or it would be undue weight? Эйхер (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

We haven't tended to mention that kind of detail, unless it seems to explain facts. You might want "studies published by the manufacturer said X, and studies published by government researchers said Y", but we don't usually bother with "all the published studies involved the same person" or "all the published studies were conducted by the manufacturer". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

agree, however should you have doubts post on article talk page for more opinions--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject research

The next mw:Wikimedia Research/Showcase has two talks: "Group Membership and Contributions to Public Information Goods: The Case of WikiProject" and "Thanks for Stopping By: A Study of 'Thanks' Usage on Wikimedia". They'll begin on Wednesday, April 17, 2019, at 19:30 UTC (11:30 a.m. PDT). It will be recorded on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmb5LoJzOoE

This might be interesting to anyone who deals with groups or who uses the Thanks button. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

great info WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Little factoid: They contacted researchers/experts from a database. Only one in 4,000 responded to say that they were already editing Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

But how many responded to say that they weren't already editing Wikipedia? --RexxS (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

They were asking for comments on high-traffic economics-related articles, rather than actual editing, and they found that a really surprisingly high percentage of experts were willing to provide comments. Response rates appear to be subject-specific: they had a baseline of 45%, but she mentioned that another study had found only 2% (psychology?). I think the "treatment" groups were told how many page views the articles had and said that the expert's own papers "may" be used in the article (in a way that felt to me like "You might already be quoted on Wikipedia, and this is your chance to find out whether your work was correctly represented", not "Hey, you could spam your papers around Wikipedia!"). This increased responses but the baseline was already so high that it might not be really worthwhile.

Also, we talk about wanting experts, etc., but when we get their comments, we're not actually very quick to act on them, and when we do, we'd rather not have to make very many changes. She eventually organized a student group to process the suggestions (100% of which have 'stuck', so they did a good job). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth. Roughly 10 times now, I've emailed world-leading gurus on particular subjects. Each time, it's for a specific questions, or request for images about their subject. So far, the response has always been helpful and they seem engaged. I think most understand what Wikipedia represents, but have little interest in actually editing. The article on 'Anaesthesia' is a good example where Axl and I had a discussion about what hypnosis means in terms of anaesthesia. I contacted the person, who wrote the definition for the major textbook on Anaesthesia (world wide). He helped us sort out the definition. At some point, it might be worthwhile to add a tag to point out who the world experts are, or where the best review papers exist. Sometimes, it's hard to sort the good references from the great ones in the articles. Ian Furst (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

such a tag may not be a bad idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Craig Simmons

Hello medical experts. Would someone from this project please look over the Draft:Craig Simmons page, which is up for review at AFC? Some of the references are at PUBMED. I know it needs work on being more factual and less about inspiration and goals. The editor responded somewhat to my comment about the need for independent references. I am willing to work on the tone if I was right about the notability.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Anne, but I don't think Simmons quite meets our notability guidelines. He seems like one of very many respectable academics who has done solid research without ever being anything outstanding. He doesn't have "significant coverage in multiple independent sources" to meet WP:GNG and he hasn't made a significant contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his field such that independent historians have written about him (to meet WP:ANYBIO #2). The best bet for notability is through WP:NPROF #5 on the assumption that a Canadian university's granting of the title "Distinguished Professor" is equivalent to that in the USA. The only other possibility would be if the Canada Research Chair (tier 2) in Mechanobiology award, which is "for exceptional emerging researchers, acknowledged by their peers as having the potential to lead in their field", was accepted as meeting WP:ANYBIO #1 (a well-known and significant award or honor), although I would have thought the Tier 1 award (outstanding researchers acknowledged by their peers as world leaders in their fields) to be more like what we should expect for ANYBIO#1.

All of those are just judgement calls on my part and I'm sure others would disagree with me. If you want to see the article developed, I recommend concentrating on getting news coverage of Simmons' Canada Research Chair award and the "Distinguished Professor" title. If you, or AhmadKml, can flesh those out in the article text, particularly if they were reported beyond the immediate institutions involved, you will probably stand a decent chance of avoiding deletion in mainspace. Please feel free to copy any or all of this onto the Draft talk page if you wish, as this page gets archived quite quickly. --RexxS (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Since our recent record in rejecting Canadian scientist bios is a tad embarassing, someone who understands these things should check out the citation indices. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

User:DGG might be better. But yes currently poorly referenced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

GENERALLY1) Fundamentally, I do not consider any award for emerging anything to indicate notability in any field. All the rest of the wording "distinguished", "exceptional" is puffery--the key part is "emmerging". People are notable once their accomplishments have emerged. "emerging" = "might be notable someday," known around here as WP:TOOSOON. This is not to say that someone with such an award as the hgihest award might not actualy be notable, just that the Canada Research Chair people have not accepted it yet. And , obviously, someone with that award in their earlier career might and often will actually become notable later. This in fact seems to be the case here--the award is from 2006. 2)Most US named professorships are permaent awards at the highest level. But sometimes an award given as a "Distinguished" professorship is a term award, given for a term of anywhere from 1 to 5 years. And the title "University professor" has a variable meaning,; some universities use it a term award ; others for retired professors--I know Berkeley does (or at least did), 3) we always need to go by citations. Awards in the absence of high citations indicates a situation that needs further checking. (sometimes, of course, it just indicates a very narrow specialty, but it can indicate notability by press release) SPECIFICALLY: 1)Looking at google scholar, I see 10 articles with over 2000' references each. That's enough for very clear notability. There's no need for anything qualified or uncertain here. 2)In any case the article is promotional and worded as a press release. For articles like this I find it easier to rewrite than to successfully explain how to rewrite. I will do that, and accept. DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC) AND The expected danger of promotional writing is to make something look notable when it really isn't; but I have seen an increasing number of instances here where promotional writing (sometimes innocent copy-cat, not promotional intent) leads to our being suspicious and obscures the actual notability. DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC) ANYBIO is based upon press coverage, but the wording of press coverage is likely to be hyperbola and PR; this is especially true in subjects where it is thought the general public cannot judge for themselves. As an encyclopedia , we should report the accomplishments, not the taglines.

Thanks, Doc James, Johnbod and DGG. According to Academic ranks in Canada, "Distinguished Professor" is a rank above "University Professor", and on a par with named chair. I realize that the draft needs better referencing; I brought it here in hopes that someone with access to medical and biology journals could see if his work was being discussed as well as cited. I have been told that professors in medical fields tend to have more citations than in some other fields because the individual papers often have many authors. Adjusting for this by sorting Google Scholar profiles by specialty, it seems that he has more citations than anyone else in the world in two of the three areas, and stands 11th out of several hundred in his main specialty.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Google scholar searches and pubmed searches are not references. Too much primary research. We need secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. The searches can sometimes point to secondary sources among the citations, but they aren't sources themselves. I would only include a Google Scholar profile in the External links section of a biography article.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Not even in the ELs. It is not uncommon for multiple people to have the same name and thus their publications to come up in a single search. I know it is true for me. In fact another ER doc has my name aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

That is not uncommon. It is necessary to check for subject and date, even for the ones they mark verified. There hve been instances where I could not be absolutely sure. It is always worthwhile searching for a genuine CV. it gets other people with the same first name But what I do, is link to the page as a reference for citation numbers to specific articles that I have checked are by the right person. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

LATE

I've made a stub for Limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy (LATE) which is hitting the lay media. If anybody has the time, please review it. Abductive (reasoning) 17:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Please see this discussion

Talk:Anesthesia#RFC
Interstellarity (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Pancreatic cancer

The editor of the Pancreatic cancer page asked me to post my addition here. I would like to offer the following sentence for pre-review. If there are any issues please suggest how I can make this conform to Wiki standards. This research has significant implications.

An active area of research is to explore whether galectin specific targeting might have therapeutic potential, since there is evidence for aberrant protein glycosylation and overexpression of Galectin-1 and Galectin-3 in pancreatic cancer.

User:Fpbear, I'm not a contributing editor to Pancreatic cancer but the 2019 Review offers this; "A wide range of alterations to glycans have been detected in pancreatic cancer, and these show promise as both potential circulating biomarkers and as targets for glycan specific therapies." My opinion would be that the work is pre-clinical (even as a biomarker), and therefore inappropriate for an encyclopedic reference edited for the general public. E.g. it would not be appropriate under either the diagnosis or therapy section yet. While the references are reviews, I think this is less an issue of an appropriate reference, and more an issue of consensus as to whether the fact stated is appropriate for the article. Ian Furst (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Ian FurstThanks for the sentence from the review paper, that would also be a good one to use. There is a "Research directions" section in Pancreatic cancer and it would seem appropriate to put this important research into the research section. Otherwise what would be the purpose of the research section? I agree this is not intended for the diagnosis or therapy section.

Also, I should note that there are Galectin inhibitors in Phase 1, 2, and 3 clinical trials, including a trial for melanoma and head & neck cancer. These same inhibitor compounds can be applied to pancreatic cancer therapy if the results continue to be successful. So it is not just distant pre-clinical work. The pre-clinical research helps guide toward the target indications; pancreatic cancer in this case.

I'd go along with a referenced sentence in the research section, but see what others say. All of your references seem to be strong reviews. However, it's not really my area of expertise. I'm interested to know what people more involved in the topic think. If it's a tangential area of research, or a burgeoning area. (btw, if you use : at the start of your typing it will indent (we normally add one more indent for each comment), and hit ~~~~ at the end of your comment it will automatically add your username. Ian Furst (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. This is a burgeoning area of research. The same team that helped win the 2018 Nobel Prize in Medicine (the team that ran the clinical trials for the development of aPD-1 cancer immunotherapy) is now actively running clinical trials for galectin inhibitors. https://oregon.providence.org/news-and-events/news/2018/10/nobel-prize-honors-immunotherapy-researchers-work/Fpbear (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with the population genetics of sickle cell disease

I was wondering whether this publication reflects accepted medical history of sickle cell disease; because if so I plan to add some information from it to African humid period. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It is a pretty solid summary, but it isn't a review / secondary source. Canada Hky (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Does someone know of such a source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@M.darlison: Can you assist here? Bondegezou (talk) 10:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Health of Filipino Americans#Merger Discussion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Health of Filipino Americans#Merger Discussion . RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Merging "Giant axonal neuropathy with curly hair" into "Giant axonal neuropathy"

Hello everyone. Please join the discussion on Talk:Giant axonal neuropathy with curly hair as to whether that article should be merged into Giant axonal neuropathy. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

before merging...BTW Giant axonal neuropathy with curly hair single reference does not indicate a page number...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hi, I was looking up something to do with transferrin saturation, and noticed there was a "no references" tag. I just wanted to check that https://labtestsonline.org/ would do as a reliable resource before I started a tidy up. As in, I know it is reliable, but is it wiki-suitable? Thanks, Red Fiona (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Labtestsonline is maintained by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry and it displays the HONcode logo. Sounds jolly good as a source. I will have a quick look for journal articles too. JFW | T@lk 12:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Redfiona99: I think the paucity of journal articles might be because Tsat% is part of iron studies that are difficult to interpret without each other. doi:10.1136/bmj.j2513 looks like a good general overview. JFW | T@lk 12:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jfdwolff:, that's pretty much why I was having to look it up, to try to figure out how the overall picture worked. I shall have a tidy up when I have time. Red Fiona (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Bug in PMC field of Visual Editor's citation template for PMID

Last couple of times (citation #1 fixed here and citation #4 fixed here) I've added a citation using a PMID with the "Cite" tool in wikitext editor, the PMC field is corrupted by an extra "PMC" prefix (PMC IDs begin with "PMC", whereas PMIDs are strictly numeric). I would guess that someone originally wrote the PMC formatter to prepend with "PMC", then someone "fixed" the PMID citation template to include the PMC prefix. Anyone know where to take this? I'd go to a Talk page but I don't know which one to use (things seem to be buried a few levels deep). — soupvector (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

File a phabricator ticket. --RexxS (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, and that allowed me to verify that it's been reported A LOT - what a mess!. Have looked through some, and they vary in specifics with some closed or committed, but I can't really glean status overall - my hope is that the Phabricator mavens have more skills/tools to parse that list; if not, my sympathies to those who manage that tool. — soupvector (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Trappist the monk does all things citation templates. If anyone can explain why Wikipedia's citation templates require that only the numeric part of the actual id code be used, he'll either be that person or know that person. The answer might be inertia (i.e., we either have to add a switch to {{pmc}} to detect it, which is relatively expensive, or we'd have to do a massive bot run to change them all to the correct format).

At some point, we should probably look into whether Wikidata is including all the usual identifiers. For example, PMID 21765645 = PMC3134971 = doi:10.1016/j.ijms.2010.08.003 = NIHMS236863. We don't include all of the possible identifiers on Wikipedia, but Wikidata should have them all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a pretty messed up citation:

{{Cite journal|last=Barros|first=Mônica Bastos de Lima|last2=de Almeida Paes|first2=Rodrigo|last3=Schubach|first3=Armando Oliveira|date=2011-10|title=Sporothrix schenckii and Sporotrichosis|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21976602|journal=Clinical Microbiology Reviews|volume=24|issue=4|pages=633–654|doi=10.1128/CMR.00007-11|issn=1098-6618|pmc=PMCPMC3194828|pmid=21976602}}

1. Barros, Mônica Bastos de Lima; de Almeida Paes, Rodrigo; Schubach, Armando Oliveira (October 2011). "Sporothrix schenckii and Sporotrichosis". Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 24 (4): 633–654. doi:10.1128/CMR.00007-11. ISSN 1098-6618. PMC 3194828. PMID 21976602.
2. |date=2011-10 can't be a range of years and YYYY-MM is not allowed by MOS:DATES
3. |url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21976602 links to the same place as |pmid=21976602 and also hides the automatic link to PubMed but ...
4. |pmc=PMCPMC3194828 has too many PMC prefixes so doesn't link by itself nor does it auto-link |title=
5. and is (apparently) a duplicate of this ref (scroll up to compare the fixed Barros et al citation – presently #1)

All of these except the last appear to have been fixed in the article.

But, about PMC. It used to be that cs1|2 wholly rejected PMCIDs with the PMC prefix which was in keeping with the original wikitext-based cs1|2 templates. That was changed with this edit 29 April 2017. There is now no requirement that |PMC= be digits only. cs1|2 will accept either digits-only or digits with one PMC prefix. The code strips that prefix because the rendering: "PMC PMC3194828" looks silly (when there are errors, as above, the module renders the PMC as-is in case it just might work – an indicator that something in the module has gang agley). When a template has |pmc=PMC..., the module categorized that article into Category:CS1 maint: PMC format. Gnomes (and User:Citation bot I think) use this category to strip the prefix from the PMCID which is why it is so near to empty most of the time.

If ve is going to allow itself to add extraneous PMC prefixes as it did above, we should tweak Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers so that it strips all PMC prefixes instead of just the first one. Gnomes or bots seem to be keeping the error count down, Category:CS1 errors: PMC stays relatively empty, but those volunteers shouldn't have to be continually cleaning up garbage that ve shouldn't be producing in the first place.

{{pmc}} is not a citation template so doesn't fall within the bailiwick of cs1|2. Some thing like this might be used to replace {{{1}}} in that template:

{{#invoke:String|replace|source={{{1}}} |pattern=^[Pp][Mm][Cc] |replace= |plain=false}}

testing that idea by replacing {{{1}}} with PMC3194828:

{{#invoke:String|replace|source=PMC3194828 |pattern=^[Pp][Mm][Cc] |replace= |plain=false}} → 3194828

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate the expert attention to this! (ty WAID!) — soupvector (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Which means that we probably need User:Mvolz (WMF), whenever she has a moment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Reading time

I heard about m:Research:Reading time/Draft Report in a meeting yesterday, and I think some of you may be interested.

Reading time is just what it says on the tin:  how much time people spend reading a given article.  The answer is:  not much.

Specifically, half of people opening a Wikipedia article are gone 25 seconds later.  Only a quarter stay on the same article for as long as 75 seconds.  And it's shorter if the person is from a developed country and/or if the reader is using a mobile device.

We know there is some demand for long articles (think about anyone with a loved one in the hospital, on a desperate quest to learn everything right now), but for the most part, we've got somewhere between 10 seconds and (if we're lucky) two minutes to tell typical readers what we think they need to know.  

So with that in mind, maybe it'd be a good idea for anyone with "favorite" articles to take a look at what you see at the very top of the page.  25 seconds is enough time for an average adult to read about 100 words.  Half the time, that's the most amount of time we've got.  (There are lots of free word-counting tools on the web, or you could estimate it as a third the length of this message.)   Look over the beginning of the articles you care about, and ask yourself:  Are we "burying the lead", or are we getting straight to the main point?  Are we getting lost in classification systems, etymologies, or technical jargon, or can people glance at the page and discover right away that "Scaryitis is a bacterial infection that causes redness and fatigue, and can be treated with antibiotics"?

I'll admit that article leads haven't always been my favorite thing to work on.  They often feel like a haphazard collection of information that probably belongs elsewhere.  But it's looking like most of our readers never get any further than that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that info, WAID. I'd be willing to place a bet (not that's there's much chance of settling it, short of commissioning specific research) that for many visitors, most of that time is spent looking for a single piece of information in the infobox. If that turns out to be the case, then the decision to move all of the technical, jargon-y stuff out of the infobox was a very wise one. You've given good advice about the lead, and I suggest that it would also be worthwhile making sure that the infobox doesn't contain any "fluff" and encapsulates the key points of the article as concisely as we can manage. --RexxS (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this WAID. JenOttawa (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

WAID thanks for sharing. Two questions: (1) Any idea if this is a consistent statistic across Wikipedia, or unique to WP:MED articles (can we learn from others who do it better)? (2) When I think back to why I come to Wikipedia, as a user, it's usually for a very specific reason; are we better to build out better ways to find information in the articles? It's hard to reconcile low site visit time with the popularity of the site. Ian Furst (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

RexxS, I'd love to have a fully featured tool that could survey people who are navigating away from a page, but I don't think it exists. There is a very limited, somewhat brittle microsurvey tool that could maybe be used for people who stick around long enough to notice it and aren't in a hurry. (Anyone who's in a hurry won't reply, so I think that might be particularly prone to a biased sample size. It still might be better than nothing, though.)

Ian, I haven't looked, but these numbers are likely either "all Wikipedias" or "all sites" (hopefully except Wikidata and Commons, which aren't really for "reading"). I don't think that any subject-specific questions have been explored. I gather that they're less certain about the mobile web numbers. (Hmm, let's see: I could go read the report, or I could ping the author, who might want to know about this idea of splitting response times by subject area anyway. Let's go with the ping.)

On the second question, I'm wondering whether it might be possible to build a "search on this page" feature for mobile device users. Surely I can't be the only person who is frustrated by the inability to find a specific part of a long article when there's no ⌘F option in the mobile web browsers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not as easy as ⌘F/F3/Ctrl F; but does this not work?[9] (I don't have an iOS device to check with.) Chrome Mobile - at least the Android version - has a "Find in page" option from the menu to the right of the address bar. Little pob (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking more about it last night, and the way I search for information now. 80% of the time, I read the blurb that Google gives at the top of search results. Often it's Wikipedia but (in Canada) it's often the MayoClinic. Which leads me to wonder, do they provide a better 100 word answer to common questions? Here is the search result for high blood pressure (MayoClinic result), and here it is for hypertension (Wikipedia). Should we consider making our opening 100 words more user friendly/responsive, within the context of an encyclopedic reference? Ian Furst (talk) 11:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe? Does Google give about 100 words in their blurbs? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I was just questimating. It looks more like 40. Trying to summarize an article in 40 words seems like either an incredibly high or low bar, but something to keep in mind when creating the first two sentences? Ian Furst (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Thanks so much for your interest in my project! We thought about looking at reading times by subject area, but chose to focus on differences across global audiences instead. One of the challenges is how to identify or measure content areas in a precise and scientific way. It seems like there are some reasonable approaches that can work if we just focus on 1 language editions (e.g. topic modeling or Wikiprojects). There's a real possibility that I or someone else might follow up with a look at different types of content, so I'm curious if you have any ideas about measurement, or any other questions that might be interesting.

I do think that short reading times suggest the importance of article ledes, and it's interesting to see your intuitions about why that is important and the relationship to search engines. One thing I would point out is that the fact that reading times are typically short might suggest that people don't have much time or attention to spend reading, but it might also suggest that Wikipedia articles already do a pretty good job making it easy for people to find the information that they are looking for.

I'm really glad you found my work interesting and I'm happy to keep chatting if you have any more comments or questions. Groceryheist (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Groceryheist, thank you for the work. It would be interesting if you could determine any interactions on the page. My questions is, are people looking for something specific, and that is why reading time is low. My presumption (right or wrong?) is that they would be more likely to land, or pick a link from the table of contents. Ian Furst (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ian Furst: I agree that is an important question and it can help tease apart the two possible explanations I mentioned above. Mediawiki does not support much of the kinds of browser instrumentation to collect data on readers that it would take to answer that question. However, on the mobile clicks on links to expand sections can be measured and there's a project working on analyzing that data. Adding more browser instrumentation is a nuanced and multifaceted problem with implications for privacy and for the user experience. That said, I think that if the community supports it then the chances that the WMF finds an ethical and effective way to collect data to answer such questions can increase. Groceryheist (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

To add more detail about the other data (see also my presentation at least year's Wikimania):

• A salient fact to keep in mind is that on 60% of mobile pageviews, readers never look beyond the lead section (i.e. don't open any of the subsequent, collapsed sections), as also noted on WP:LEADCREATE or in an earlier discussion on this page.
• To Ian Furst's question: The "Why the World Reads Wikipedia" surveys mentioned in our draft report offer another source of insight on how often people look for something specific ("around 35 percent of Wikipedia users across these languages come to Wikipedia for looking up a specific fact").
• Beyond the lead section, it's also worth being aware that the other sections likely receive vastly differing amounts of attention. We again have some information about this on mobile (see these charts I generated for pneumonia and sepsis a while ago; I'm no longer working at WMF at this point, but others might be able to access the data for information about other articles).
• Aside from a section's topic, its heading (i.e. TOC entry) might play a big role in whether readers are going to make it there and find out that it contains the information they are after. At Wikimania last year the idea arose to systematically test this on mobile, Doc James and I developed this a bit in phab:T200810 regarding the technical infrastructure that would be necessary, but it would still need to be prioritized among the many competing demands WMF developers have to satisfy.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC) (T. Bayer)

HaeB, do you know if anyone's looked at the effect of infoboxes on mobile? I saw a page the other day with one of those mile-long infoboxes, and it took forever to scroll down to the sections/TOC. I wouldn't have been surprised if someone just gave up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:HaeB Yes testing if "frequency" would be better than "epidemiology" or "management" is better than "treatment" would be useful data for us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Dermatology redirects

I've just retargeted autographism and factitious urticaria to Dermatographic urticaria (they previously pointed to Hives) because neither is mentioned in the previous target and the more specific article seemed to more closely mirror definitions elsewhere. I don't really know anything about skin diseases, though, so if anyone would like to take a look and either confirm that this was a good decision or rectify the situation in some other way that would be appreciated. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Those were created as part of a major project. Did you have a chance to look at and understand Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Missing articles/Archive 1#ICD Redirects (linked in the edit summary when those redirects were created)?

As for "not mentioned in the current version", I know that's currently a popular story for deleting old redirects among some editors who hang out at RFD, and it might even make sense for people's names, but a lot of medical content ends up having multiple names from different decades and different countries (see, e.g., List of paracetamol brand names) – so long that we sometimes can't, and often shouldn't, include them all in the relevant article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes that an article does not contain the term being redirected is a very silly justification to delete the redirect.

Maybe we need to create a rule for medical articles saying it is okay to have redirects that are not mentioned in an article and add it to our WP:MEDMOS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I asked whether the retargets were appropriate; I'm not sure why you're both talking about deletion, which no one has proposed. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The redirects now reflect ICD-10, by which I mean both trail to the new target (i.e. L50.3 Dermatographic urticaria). With the caveat that, because it's a medical classification, the ICD often ends up grouping similar conditions to the same code. Therefore, other MEDRS may offer "better" redirect options. Little pob (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not the best person to answer the factual question (which is why I only provided context on their creation and didn't opine on that).

Doc James, any such change should probably happen at WP:Redirect rules, where RFD regulars would take note of it, but my conversation at Wikipedia talk:Redirect#RFD as cleanup did not suggest that there was much interest in discouraging what you've described as a "very silly justification". See, e.g., Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 17#Furunculosis of external auditory canal, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 10#Acute HIV Infection and Early Diseases Research Program, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 10#Cicatricial due to trauma/injury alopecia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• (not wading into the policy questions) The revised redirects make medical sense to me (they are an improvement IMO). — soupvector (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for posting this! WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

RFC about suicide

Some of you may be interested in Talk:List of suicide crisis lines#rfc 1BB1897. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Anatomy schematics

Hello,

I have come into contact with people from the University of Geneva specialising in "Sciences, Sexes and Indentities" questions [10]. They have produced schematics that I find of interest, especially female reproductive organs seem from an oblique angle [11]; since they seem interested in disseminating them widely for educational purposes, I inquired whether they would release the material under a Free licence.

In their answer, they say that they were considering a Cc-by-sa-nd licence, in order to ensure reliability of the information. May I ask whether WikiProject Medicine has ways to mark serious content and prevent inexact derivative from spreading?

Thank you very much and good continuation! Rama (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Rama People who are are unethical and willing to make poor derivatives also do not care that they are infringing upon others copyright.

If that is what these folks from the University of Geneva are worrying about using an NC license will not prevent that. Actually no license will.

If they are interested in seeing there work help as many people as possible using a CC BY or CC BY SA license will help them achieve that goal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, this is my usual argument. I was hoping you might have so clever scheme such as a category reserved for approved images, or something. At least I am used to arguing this, so I'll find myself in known territory. Thank you! Rama (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I will often reference the source of the image when I use the image in a Wikipedia article. Best we can do is simple make it easy for our readers to verify just as we do with text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Applied kinesiology and Muscle response testing

• Applied kinesiology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Muscle response testing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Muscle response testing redirect was converted again to an article. A previous related discussion was here. The restore argument is the same as last time, that the test is distinct from the discipline and warrants its article. Input welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 07:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no current discussion, just someone reverting a newbie. It sounds like we need someone with no preconceived notions to do a literature search to find out the current status. If this test has spread to non-AK practitioners, then it might be better to have a separate article that all of them could link to (but not that one. I couldn't even figure out what the test involves from that stub or what it's meant to accomplish). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Nursing for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Nursing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Nursing until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit request at Systemic lupus erythematosus

Would somebody please have a look at Talk:Systemic lupus erythematosus#Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2019 and implement/close the request as required? I'm not well versed in identifying suitable articles/sources for use in medical articles. Many thanks, NiciVampireHeart 11:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure added a sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much! NiciVampireHeart 08:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Therapeutic abortion

Hi everybody, I would like to report the following issue to users more familiar than me with this kind of matters. A newly registered user recently replaced the content of Therapeutic abortion with a redirect to Abortion#Induced, claiming that they made it in accord with a decision taken in 2010. The page has been then restored in 2015 and nobody complained for that until now. A quick look at the version that preceeded the redirect showed a pretty poorly sourced article, with a lot of POV issues. In any case, I'm not in condition to assess if the item was good enough to deserve a specific article or the information stated in at Abortion#Induced is to be considered enough. Just wanted to signal this situation. Regards, Horst Hof (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Agree with the redirect User:Horst Hof. Refs are insufficient for that article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

2018 Kivu Ebola outbreak

should anyone wish to lend a hand(yesterday[12] …... today[13] 45 cases in one day) thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Expresso Addict[14] thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:Videowiki

VideoWiki Tutorial

The tool has become significantly easier to use as of this week and is now "all on Wikipedia". Still not perfect and still a lot of technical work to do. The tool is based around scripts such as this one Wikipedia:VideoWiki/Gout.

Basically one builds the script, adds the images to the script, and than hits LINK to generate the video, followed by UPDATE to load it to Commons. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

a significant step forward--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes we have been collaboratively creating a video tutorial for the video tool :-) Works amazingly smoothly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I've had my first go at doing a voiceover: Wikipedia:VideoWiki/Dengue_fever. I found that the native recording interface introduces distortions and often clips the recording very close at the ends (both on my computer and on my phone). Using a different app on my phone (mp3 recorder) got much better results. Will maybe do a few more as examples. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 12:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The partnerships listed on the WP:MED page

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine#Partners lists three partnerships:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Cochrane
• Wikipedia:WikiProject CRUK
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia education program in medicine

The CRUK one ended in 2015 as far as I know. What partnerships should be listed? I'm happy to do the formatting if people let me know the current list. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 23:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

We could add the one with Wiki Journal of Medicine and VideoWiki :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Would IIAB be relevant to add too? Wikipedia medical content seems one of the major components of what it carries. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 12:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes for sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes Wikipedia:WikiProject CRUK is I think defunct for the moment - everyone I dealt with has moved on. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I've now updated the Partners section with the additional projects and commented out the CRUK collab. I've converted the CSS into templates, so the parameters should be easy to change to replace the images (I'm not really sure about the videowiki one) and any of the subtitle links T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 08:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Evolution and evolvability looks amazing :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

This looks great. Thank you for helping! JenOttawa (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Help needed in early psychiatry

Hi. I wonder if someone here would be willing to read and edit the Psychiatry section in Arthur M. Sackler. Was this a wrong headed treatment? We have sort of a double whammy in the primitive nature of psychiatry and the controversy surrounding OxyContin and Purdue Pharma so your discretion would be appreciated. I do not wish to smear anyone's reputation, and am attempting only to rely on facts as we see them now. Got quite a long way to go on this bio. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I could also use some help if someone here could read and edit the Marketing section. Harvard published a pretty damning history last week in NEJM. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Diabetes move

I am feeling a little bit disappointed over the move from diabetes mellitus to diabetes. I see little evidence for consensus. It also clashes with the long-held policy of this project that WP:COMMONNAME should not compromise the accuracy of the name of an article. Any thoughts? JFW | T@lk 11:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The article was previous at diabetes mellitus, and diabetes redirected to it. Now it's the other way around.

It looks like the WP:Requested move was discussed for four weeks (which is a long time for RM) and that the votes were about 2:1 in favor of the move. I'm not enthusiastic about this outcome, but I don't think it's a disaster. Right now, it feels more pointless than either helpful or harmful (to me). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

We start with "Diabetes mellitus (DM), commonly known as diabetes," I do not have a strong position either way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Allopathic medicine

Please see Talk:Allopathic medicine#Make this page a disambiguation page WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

WPM2Cochrane - a tool for linking WikiProject Medicine to the Cochrane Library

WPM2Cochrane sample results

At the Insight Centre for Data Analytics, we are currently working on the development of a tool which would help contributors and editors of articles in WikiProject Medicine with the task of identifying relevant Cochrane reviews. The source code and results of the first release of WPM2Cochrane is available on GitHub. We very much appreciate your comments and suggestions to improve this tool.

Arash.Joorabchi (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Gut bath

Gut bath, which currently redirects to Pharmacology (an article where it is not mentioned), has been nominated for deletion at RfD. You are invited to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 16#Gut bath. Thryduulf (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• If you were one of the early commenters, please go back to the discussion and see whether the additional information is helpful to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Xconomy and HealthLeaders on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of Xconomy and HealthLeaders (healthleadersmedia.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Xconomy and HealthLeaders for eMix. — Newslinger talk 00:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• related issue...Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EMix--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Infobox for procedures

I would like to add to WP an infobox for procedures that would take advantage of WikiData semantic relationship. E.g., MeSH code for Parathyroidectomy. Where can I make a proposal for new infobox? EncycloABC (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

did you mean[15]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Or do you mean {{Medical resources}} Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloABC: We know that most readers only look at pages for less than 30 seconds, so we try to keep the information in the lead and infobox as concise as possible and limit it to items that the general public will be looking for. As a consequence the template {{Medical resources}} was created to hold the sort of information that a medical professional might be looking for and placed that at the bottom of the article (assuming medical professionals will be able to scan the entire article), so that the first section of the article remains as simple and uncluttered as possible. That is particularly important as we are trying to translate as many medical articles as possible into as many languages as we can.

To answer your specific example, The MeSH code for Parathyroidectomy would be best placed by using the {{Medical resources}} template. I've now updated that template to fetch the MeSH descriptor ID (P486) from Wikidata, and placed it as a demonstration in Parathyroidectomy #External links. You can see how I updated {{Medical resources}} from its page history if you're interested in updating it further to get more information from Wikidata. --RexxS (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@RexxS: is it worth moving the procedure classification data from {{Infobox medical intervention}} to {{medical resources}} to then free up that infobox for human readable information, or would a new RfC have to be run at the infobox page? Little pob (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

If you want my opinion, I'd just do it. We shouldn't have to run a formal RfC on every edit! But perhaps it's worth waiting to see if anybody here can see any objections to doing that job, and if so, then discussing them on the template talk page (or start an RfC). Template {{medical resources}} ought to already have the codes needed, so it may be just a question of deprecating the parameters from the infobox and eventually doing a bot/AWB run to remove them and add {{medical resources}}. It looks like there are currently 1454 transclusions of {{Infobox medical intervention}}. --RexxS (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

thank you for help with it. I quite motivated to do information for humans AND also for computers/machines. To surface well knowledge in WD and improve WD.EncycloABC (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• The big thing we need to do before the move is decide what we want to put in that place instead. People have ideas? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. Off the top of my head: Synonyms/eponyms. Specialty. Approach method(s) (i.e. open, endoscopic, transvenous etc). Alternative options (e.g. chemotherapy, radiotherapy, sclerotherapy, WLE etc - rather than alt-med). If the information is available, things like typical cost and procedure length might be of use to some readers. Little pob (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Little pob's list sounds like a good starting point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes those sound excellent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay drafted a new version {{Infobox medical intervention (new)}} Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good. Little pob (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

eClinicalWorks draft

When I read Death by a Thousand Clicks: Where Electronic Health Records Went Wrong, I was surprised to find that one of the characters in the story, eClinicalWorks, had no Wikipedia article. I started messing around with one at User:ImperfectlyInformed/eClinicalWorks. If anyone wants to help out, feel free; I'm not super well-practiced at writing new articles. II | (t - c) 08:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I read a long article about electronic health records recently. It's main point was that the EHR systems suffered from not understanding the audience. Should you write down "leg pain", because that's what the billing office wanted to know, or "osteoarthritis in left knee", which is what the next provider needs to know? Every ailment or only the ones that seem important right now? And, perhaps more importantly in terms of making physicians regret their career choices, now that you can technologically enforce it, you can make that highly trained doctor click all the buttons, to the point that it takes half their work hours. Back in the day, it was all on paper, and there were nurses and other staff who could manage the bureaucratic end of things. If I can find it again, I'll post a link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Anisochromasia - Anisochromia

Hello WT:MED friends, which direction should Anisochromasia & Anisochromia be merged in? I don't know enough to make the call. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

My Stedman's Medical Dictionary (27th ed., 2000) lists anisochromasia but doesn't seem to mention anisochromia anywhere, even as a synonym. Note the two articles give subtly different definitions: Anisochromasia is described as non-uniform colour within individual red blood cells (consistent with Stedman's), whereas Anisochromia is implicitly described as non-uniform colour between different red blood cells. Whether that distinction is legitimate, I do not know. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Drug interactions on Wikidata

Almost all the drug interactions listed in Wikidata appear to be from a 2012 reference. There are quite a few drug interactions that I expected to find but were missing (e.g. fentanyl x amiodarone). Is Wikidata missing interactions, or is there a threshold of severity required that I'm overlooking? I've updated the wikdata item for fentanyl, so please revert if I've made an error. Additionally, is there any scope to use the qaualifier field to indicate the nature or severity of the interaction? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 07:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I suspect they are simply an omission, but wikidata:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Medicine is probably a better place to inquire about Wikidata standards. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: Jo-Jo Eumerus is right about the best location to discuss, but just as FYI for colleagues here who aren't familiar with Wikidata, each property on Wikidata has a discussion page that outlines its use and its original conception. So in this case, you can follow the links from fentanyl (Q407541) to significant drug interaction (P769) to the property talk page and see the sort of limits and constraints that are expected. For fentanyl, you'll have to use your expertise and judgement (or just cite a reference, as you did) to make the case that it meets the definition "a clinically significant interaction between two pharmacologically active substances (i.e., drugs and/or active metabolites) where one substance (so-called 'precipitant') alters the pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics of another substance (so-called, 'object'). The property should be used in this direction: <object> <drug action altered by> <precipitant>". HTH --RexxS (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus and RexxS: Thanks for the info and recommendations. I've also reposted over at WD Med. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Biography of a doctor

Input from subject matter experts would be appreciated on Draft:John Layke. If the doctor should be in (is notable), move the draft to mainspace. If the doctor should be out, leave a note on the draft's talk page. Thanks. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Others can take a look, but it reads like an "About" page from their website. I don't think it meets WP:GNG and should not be published. The primary editor has done little more than this article - so it may be inexperience but I'm concerned about a COI. I'd also note the the quote, "He is also a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons." is referenced with a citation from Hollywood Life, speculating on Khloe Kardashian's nose where Dr. Layke is quoted as saying, ""That picture is 100% face-tuned,” Dr. Layke says. “Just saw her near the office not too long ago and her nose was nowhere near that narrow.” Gasp!" Many of the references have similar issues and are less than ideal. Ian Furst (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

First two refs are not really about him, but simple him commenting on other subjects. Not seeing evidence of notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Kommenting on a Kardashian? Of course that makes him Knotable! NRPanikker (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Top viewed medical articles by language (with totals) for 2018

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Topviews2018byLang courtesy of Edgars. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Didn't thought they will make into wiki. Will make them prettier, add some wikistyle :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 13:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

More stats regarding the breakdown of total pageviews by language here Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Stats/Totals2018 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Nicely done. But what happened to Korean?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathglot (talk • contribs)

It is there, just not all the languages are turned into headings yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Charring cigarettes again

May I informally request views on some COI edits made at Phillip Morris's request? See Talk:Electric smoking system#Suggested to shorten IQOS section HLHJ (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Charring cigarettes? That reminds me. Why the article has a funny title? The title of the article does not match the content. I cleaned up the very long section. It was bloated. I do not want a separate article created. QuackGuru (talk) 04:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I overreacted, QuackGuru. I'm feeling very frustrated with that article. In this case, I was upset to find that a Phillip Morris employee had been asked to choose what material to cut from a section on their product. Sarah at PMI and SimonDes are consistently friendly and charming while doing a job which leaves them facing a lot of hostility. I do not think it is ethical of PMI to misuse their talents promoting PMI on Wikipedia. I am really uncomfortable to see them recommending coverage of PMI's health-related marketing claims. Sarah at PMI recommended this text:

The emissions generated by IQOS contains some of the harmful constituents in tobacco cigarette smoke, though the levels are on average lower than those found in cigarette smoke.[10][11] According to government reports published in the Netherlands,[12] England,[13] and Germany[11], the IQOS product is likely less toxic or harmful than traditional cigarettes.

WP:UNDUE aside, this summarizes two of PMI's standard talking points. These points were also used historically in the marketing of ventilated ("light") cigarettes. It also implies two more talking points: the device produces "emissions", not "smoke", and is not a tobacco cigarette.

When these suggestions were merged into the article, some content in the old section which was incompatible with these marketing messages was removed or moved from the resulting section.

This is a particularly sensitive topic, and I think it would be appropriate to apply WP:COIRESPONSE particularly stringently. Could we agree on some scope of edit suggestions which should not be accepted from PMI? HLHJ (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

If you really are "feeling very frustrated" with that article then I think you could edit other topics. It is not healthy for anyone if they are very frustrated.

I expanded the article and now the content is very neutral without the mass failed verification content. There is content about smoke in the lede and body but we don't need to repeat it many times throughout the article. The section was way too long. QuackGuru (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

College of American Pathologists and Lab Developed tests (LDTs)

Can we take a closer look at what these folks are up to? This as just published: http://web.archive.org/web/20190521191008/https://documents.cap.org/documents/general-ldt-faqs.pdf ! US-regulation-wise, LDTs are to medical lab testing as Nutritional supplements are to pharmaceuticals. The wild west, buyer-beware. And it indicates these foxes are the henhouse guards and are trying to keep it that way by opposing any meaningful regulation. It states that they're opposing any "attempt to regulate the practice of medicine", they think the wild west situation is cool and should be retained with a "grandfather provision", yet there's a shit ton of quack testing done. When I look around at what's advertised, whether to consumers or clinicians, most of the testing advertised are quack LDTs! This confirms that their interests align with pathologists who want to want to have to do as little work as possible. (Note the lack of caveats.) So there's a massive conflict of interest wherein they run the SAAS system that evaluates lab quality and where it exists, auditing! (Note: It effectively doesn't for LDTs.) We're talking irreplicable hair testing, heavy metal testing, etc. --24.130.170.132 (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

We have an article at Laboratory Developed Test. It looks like it could be expanded.

I wonder whether there are obviously legitimate uses. For example, if you use a test as part of a formal clinical trial, and that wouldn't normally be used in clinical practice, is that an LDT, or something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

There are many, many legitimate LDT's in clinical use. Almost all clinically available genetic testing, including single gene testing, panels and exomes are LDTs. Anything targeted for the rare disease community is an LDT. Many assays used in newborn screening are LDTs Some of the tests on the list of dubious tests provided above are legitimate and the primary test to diagnose metabolic disorders. The LDT article could certainly be expanded, but the original post on this topic is not neutral. Canada Hky (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

) A lot of totally evidence-free statements there, Canada. I'm unconvinced. Just because (someone claims that) much of (gene, newborn... or all of - rares) a kind of testing is LDTs doesn't mean that portion of the testing is legit. The claims on quackwatch site aren't by some pseudonymous editor. They're by MDs and are backed by logic and citations.

The lack of regulation given the billions spent is horrifying. For the most part, there's simply no reasonable assurance that such tests are analytically, let alone clinically, valid. One example: ovarian cancer screening tests offered to asymptomatic patients were shown not to work only after patients unnecessarily underwent major surgeries with significant recovery and side effects. http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm519540.htm 2601:643:8680:158F:52F:BC2D:BBE:5BBD (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Ralph Northam article

As you may remember, physician Ralph Northam drew a lot of criticism for his remarks on letting the parents and their physician decide how to proceed when a nonviable deformed fetus is born. The talk page is working on a RfC draft after the first one failed to reach a consensus. It would be good to have a few people with medical experience look it over. Gandydancer (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

important topic, we need more opinions--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Nurse_practitioner

There has recently been an influx of opinionated new editors at Talk:Nurse_practitioner. The situation could use some experienced eyes, even tempers, and relevant domain knowledge. Thanks in advance. - MrOllie (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a mess.

The main points of contention seem to fall into nursing versus non-nursing issues. For example, how can nurse practitioners be a so-called Mid-level practitioner when they have the biggest scope of practice within the entire nursing profession? (Answer: Because the highest level of practice within nursing isn't the same as the highest level of all types of healthcare practitioner.) And why are we comparing physician training against NP training? (Answer: Because they do some of the same things, and people need to understand the differences, including the differences in their education.)

I've left a note at WT:GA to see whether someone could close the long-stalled Good Article nomination review. That might have been the trigger for the sudden attention to the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Drug distribution

Some additional attention would seem to be needed, particularly to the subtopics of drug diversion, cold-chain distribution of vaccines and other biologics (for instance, there's some interesting news at https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-05-life-saving-vaccines.html), and the rapid distribution of radioactive pharmaceuticals. These areas present a major challenge in the elimination of diseases from reservoirs in less-developed areas. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

method creates light, durable, and compact doses that would be ideal for shipping Ebola vaccine, for example, to affected regions of Africa[16] very good info for article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Probable cite spam

Hello, I came across some probable cite spam, see search results for author name. Many/most of the sources seem to be primary research articles, but I am not sure which of these citations meet WP:MEDRS standards (and add relevant information in due weight). I have removed a few obvious issues, but it would be great if a topic expert could look into the remaining linked list and assess some of the more complicated usages - I'd rather not delete some valuable content by accident, even if the source was spammed. GermanJoe (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Hum thanks User:GermanJoe.Betham is a predatory publisher. Received some spam emails from them today.

Came across the same spamming IP as you.76.171.9.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• 76.90.11.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from the same range.
• 149.142.103.148 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from the same location. So yah and they have been at it a long time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC on how to summarize the immune effects of tonsillectomy

Tonsillectomy

• Talk:Tonsillectomy#Immune_function_2

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Oral cancer

Oral cancer has had a major overhaul. I'd appreciate a 2nd set of eyes to give it a copy-edit, and look at the structure. Ian Furst (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

references look ok(deleted EL's/kept the WHO diagnostic)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)