Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 75

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70←Archive 73Archive 74Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77→Archive 80

Subcutaneous Immunoglobulin

Hi all - we have an article about IVIG (and several individual brands of it,) but we don't seem to have an article about sub-cutaneous immunoglobulin. Would anyone be interested in drafting such an article with me? I should have all the necessary journal access, and any that I don't should be coming up in the next couple weeks. I admit that I do have a bit of a direct personal interest in the matter as I have CVID and am on igg infusions myself, but in any case view this as a pretty big article set to be missing. Many newly diagnosed patients turn to Wikipedia for guidance (whether or not they necessarily should,) and IVIG vs SCIG is one of the bigger choices a newly diagnosed patient in need of some form of IGG will have to make. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Aside from mode of delivery and pharmacokinetics, IVIG and SCIG are quite similar. Perhaps they should be subsections of an article about immunoglobulin supplementation? Otherwise, there will be substantial duplication; the juxtaposition will improve understanding, IMHO. — soupvector (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you, and will probably start a draft (which I'll link here) of such an article in my userspace tomorrow. SCIG and IVIG are two subsets of immmunoglobulin supplementation, and that commonality is more significant than the mode of administration. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Immunoglobulin supplementation is also a redlink. Is that the ideal name? (Also, keep WP:DYK in mind. It's nice to have some solid med stuff there when we can.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I was debating between Immunoglobulin supplementation and Immunoglobulin therapy. I have the very beginnings of a draft started here - feel free to poke at it as you please. the article about IVIG wasn't in very good shape to begin with, so it will likely take me some time to get the draft in to such shape that it wouldn't embarrass me to make this article live, heh. I also still lack access to a few journal networks (UpToDate full access + Dynamed + Elsevier would all be nice - at least a couple of those are coming - but having access to EBSCO etc at least gives me decent access.) I'd like to get a reasonably comprehensive and medrs compliant article up before I move it in to livespace. Our IVIG article isn't exactly stellar, and we had no mention of SCIG or IMIG anywhere pretty much. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I think you've made a good choice in the title, as it's more inclusive of both supplementation and other therapeutics (e.g. immunomodulation). This will be a busy week for me, but I'll return when I can. Also, I have access to just about everything, so while I cannot share the copyrighted papers with you, I am happy to paraphrase and discuss sources. — soupvector (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I've gotten a good start to the article (which is saying something, because bluntly, IVIG sucks.) Once I've rewritten another section or four, I'll probably put it live and redirect IVIG to it. And, why not, DYK it - I don't think I've even bothered to DYK enough stuff to hit the QPQ requirement yet, lol (though I shall certainly QPQ anyway.) Kevin Gorman (talk)

Gluten-free diets and autism

Some discussion about how best to summarize a source at Talk:Gluten-free diet#Wording for autism. Would appreciate help in finding les mots justes. Alexbrn (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's been a lot of committed activity on this topic and the NCGS material has now spread widely through some of our articles. The POV is being markedly recalibrated (e.g. in this lede to the edit). By my understanding NGCS is something of a controversial condition the classification, diagnosis and treatment of which is rather up in the air. By contrast it seems to me Wikipedia is now rather certain on the topic. Could probably do with a look from better-qualified editors than me to judge. Alexbrn (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It is relatively easy to get an idea. Do a search (mark review) in PubMed about "non celiac gluten sensitivity" and check out the current medical literature. There are doubts about pathogenesis, diagnosis protocol, and treatment, but it doesn't mean that the disease doesn't exist. Wikipedia doesn't have "its own POV", Wikipedia must reflect the reality. If knowledge progresses, Wikipedia moves with it. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Omeprazole

Omeprazole

 Done Can someone with experience at moving pages and protection please look at what has happened again with Omeprazole, where this has been moved to Omez. This is just one proprietary name for this drug. Perhaps we do need a little more though in the omeprazole page on trade names to prevent this SPA returning. Thanks! (No time today) Jrfw51 (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I moved the page back, reverted the edits User:Zemocaps made to the article, and blocked him as an advertising-only account. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Ack. A bot came through and "fixed" all the redirects to omeprazole by retargeting them to Wikipedia:Omez (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Omez). I fixed a few dozen but there are dozens more. I don't have time to get to the rest now, so maybe someone can help out. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Ed thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
And thanks to User:CFCF for fixing most of the redirects. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you everyone! Sorry you had to waste your time on this. Seems to be a recurring pattern. Can we maintain protection? ... Jrfw51 (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Reflux nephropathy

Hello all. Reflux nephropathy has quite a complicated and dense wp:first sentence when the lead is supposed to be accessible, unfortunately: "Reflux nephropathy, RN is a term applied when small and scarred kidneys (chronic pyelonephritis, CPN) are associated with vesico-ureteric reflux (VUR)." Meanwhile, google pops up "is a condition in which the kidneys are damaged by the backward flow of urine into the kidney" from [4]. So if someone has the time (I do not at the moment) to address this, I think it would benefit the readers. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 00:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I fiddled a bit - needs more work. — soupvector (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Libgen - article access?

Are you aware of Libgen? As a proponent of Academic journal publishing reform it is a source of journal articles which may not be available through university access. It may be good to make sure coverage of this topic is unbiased when it comes to information on medical publishing. (I've done my best to find high quality sources.) Distrait cognizance (talk) 10:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It was not shutdown. Still hosted in Russia.--Kopiersperre (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:LINKVIO is prohibited, as being possibly contributory copyright infringement. You all know that the community takes a very cautious stance with anything involving copyright concerns. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I think we should block Distrait cognizance, because he is basically invoking copyright infringements through articles like ICanHazPDF or Sci-hub.--Kopiersperre (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree w/ WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

For non-Signpost readers

http://www.cracked.com/blog/8-things-that-made-my-hospital-stay-weird-as-hell/ - see #7. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

interesting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine participants may be good administrators

Participants here often create a lot of content and have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable. I can imagine that the pharmaceuticals area may have issues with undeclared paid editing and sockpuppetery. Detecting and handling this must give you good experience. Well, these are considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even find out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

thanks for information--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Gun control

I wanted to seek the opinion of other WPMED editors regarding whether claims about gun control being effective/ineffective at reducing gun deaths fall under the purview of MEDRS. If so, we should remove a fair number of the sources in the article gun control because they are primary. Everymorning (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

As a relative outsider I would think not. More a legal issue than a medical one. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a good reason why MEDRS specifies biomedical. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
As WhatamIdoing says (I think). Not covered by MEDRS, but secondary sources preferable. Everymorning, when adding material specific to the US, you need to make that clear. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
MEDRS would seem to be a non-issue here. As Johnbod mentioned, a topic like this really should use secondary sources as it is a topic where we should raise source quality. I'd be concerned if the article mostly used primary sources without even thinking of MEDRS. That being said, I'd consider this under MEDRS in a similar fashion as I would to say an occupational hazard topic. In a statement like, "Does X affect the rate of Y?" when Y is something clearly medical related such as death, it's a medical topic whether it's dealing with a pathogen, physical hazard, or something with a social mix. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmm - follow that logic too far & most military histry would be under MEDRS. Something like the effect of different types of bullet is under MEDRS, but otherwise that people die when shot is not, nor are medical sources generally going to be the most appropriate for covering the issues. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with using MEDRS compliant sources in the article on gun control. Added on here [10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
seems like a good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
...except Doc James moved the goalposts. The original question was abut removing sources from articles about gun control if they did not meet the MEDRS standard -- a very controversial and contentious idea. Doc James changed it to using sources that meet the MEDRS standard where such sources exist, which everyone agrees is a good thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with using MEDRS-compliant sources in that article. There is, however, a problem with using exclusively medical sources when the subject is multi-disciplinary. "A neutral, balanced article" does not result from using solely "medical journals" (and MEDRS is explicit that non-medical academic journals are not "ideal") when the subject is legal, social, and philosophical, in addition to being medical. I don't think that Doc James meant to imply that solely medical sources should be used in such an article. Instead, I believe that he meant to say only that there is nothing wrong with using up-to-date, reputable, scholarly, secondary sources—from all the relevant disciplines, not just from medicine—in that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, let's hope so! Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • So to reiterate: Obviously, as WAID said, the subject of gun control is not solely medical but multi-disciplinary. But as far as claims like "a study in Social Science & Medicine found that gun ownership was more strongly associated with gun suicides than with gun homicides." are concerned, do these types of claims qualify as medical enough to be required to pass MEDRS? That is the only question I want to hear answers to here. Thanks. Everymorning (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Technically, "Study X" is always reliable for a statement that (accurately) says "Study X found _____". What you really need here is WP:MEDDUE, which hasn't been written yet. That's one of MEDRS' structural problems: we aren't recommending independent-secondary-reputable-journal-etc. sources to determine whether or not the statement is verified by the cited source; we're recommending these to avoid providing undue emphasis to tiny minority POVs or results that may have been due to chance (p=0.05 = 5% chance that the study results were random—or higher, if the lab quietly did the study several times until they got the results that they expected). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
would agree w/ WAID's general statement on MEDRS--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Retronasal Olfaction

Dear medical experts: This isn't about a disease, but I'm not sure where to report it. There seem to be plenty of books which talk about this subject. Should I add some references? Should I report it at the Anatomy wikiproject?—Anne Delong (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I would classify the topic as either neuroscience or psychology, but there's no need to report it elsewhere. There is certainly a lot more that could be said about the topic, but in my opinion it would be okay to publish the draft as a stub. Looie496 (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
[11] reference could be useful--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Anne Delong – WP:Neuroscience is reasonable active, at least Tryptofish is and he posts there. :) CFCF 💌 📧 18:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm only intermittently looking in here, and by the time I saw the ping, it appears that the draft has gone red. It strikes me as an interesting topic, somewhere in the range of neuroscience and physiology. Maybe it could be added as an expansion of Olfaction#Olfaction and taste. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Tryptofish , I have restored the draft for your consideration. If you don't find any thing useful, I can always delete it again as long as no one edits it.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Reading the replies more carefully, I see that Looie496 and Ozzie10aaaa are speaking in favour of keeping this. (Sorry, a little groggy after jamming all night at the Central Canadian Bluegrass Awards.) Unless someone beats me to it I will work on the draft tomorrow after I get some sleep.—Anne Delong (talk) 07:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me (and please continue to do so, as I am not watching), and for restoring the draft. I just read it. My reaction on reading it is to oppose a standalone page, not because it fails notability, but because it would work much better as part of a larger page. I strongly support making it a new second paragraph of Olfaction#Olfaction and taste. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Tryptofish. Matthew Ferguson 57 has been improving the draft. Perhaps he has an opinion about this? If it's to be merged it would be better done by someone more knowledgeable (I'm a musician), with an edit summary crediting the two editors who've worked on it. I can help with the attribution templates afterwards.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
If, as I urge, you go the way of a merge, it really would just be a matter of copy and paste to the end of the section to which I linked. Nothing fancy needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Support that, but not too keen on the direct quote in the content. There is not enough content in the draft to justify a standalone article currenlty. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree. I had been thinking the same thing about the quote. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, it looks like merging is the way to go. One of you could just move appropriate material, rewording or shortening to avoid the quote. If Matthew does it, he will only have to credit Jdori in the edit summary, since the rest is his own work which he can move if he wants to. The draft can be moved to mainspace as a redirect to the appropriate section.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Could be tidied a bit more. Have removed the direct quote and added a few other refs. Will merge later if no-one else does it first. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible ref spamming, more scrutiny of contribs probably warranted

This diff showed up on my watchlist, and a review of that diff and their contribs going back to 2008 shows that they appear to be adding material related to one particular author. I don't know enough about this area to know what's what, but I thought I'd bring it up here for a little more scrutiny from those who might. For example, the page N-localizer seems largely devoted to this author, and the use of this particular technique/device has been added by this particular user across a number of pages related to radiology; oddly, a pubmed search for N-localizer only brings up two articles, written by this author, one of which appears to be trying to push against what they feel are "misconceptions" about who actually invented the technique/device... Yobol (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

N-localizer some references are not MEDRS[12] compliant (irrespective of author)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
In what way are the references (and which references?) not MEDRS compliant? Did you just look at the publication date? Are the references primary publications making claims that should be supported by secondary sources? (Heck, do the particular claims in the article fall squarely within MEDRS?) Did you review the article content at all, or are you just mechanically applying the MEDRS' rules of thumb as a checklist—again? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I believe you need to read Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)... again... and compare to the references available on the article N-localizer,( an example would be [13] which could be more recent) ...thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
So yes, blindly applying MEDRS' rules of thumb to all the sources as a checklist, rather than performing and reporting a useful analysis. That's all you had to tell us. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
refer to prior answer(read carefully)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Alternatively, you could refer to the multiple times people have criticized your excessive and largely unhelpful comments. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
continued at article talk[14]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
A few thoughts.
  • It's a bit troubling that the only three recent – and by "recent", I mean "from within the last decade" – sources used for the article are authored by Russell (R.A.) Brown (once as sole author (2013) and twice with J.A. Nelson), the individual who really sdeems to want to have his contribution to this invention recognized. Two of those papers are in Cureus, which has its own issues with a dubiously-speedy peer review process and generally poor reputation for quality control (see, for example, Jeffrey Beall's blog, and note that Cureus is not MEDLINE indexed and does not have an impact factor).
  • Without being an expert in this area, it's not immediately obvious whether this Wikipedia article represents a useful, primarily-historical perspective on the development of an important medical device, or whether it is a selective retelling which over-emphasizes the importance of (mostly) one individual. Our articlee on the N-localizer is extremely light on information about current use of the device.
  • With respect to MEDRS and sourcing, much of the sourcing in the article should be looked at with respect to whether or not it provides useful and balanced historical context, rather than whether or not it represents MEDRS-checklist-compliant current health information. The near-exclusive reliance on Russell Brown's publications is likely problematic from the standpoint of assessing NPOV. Current textbooks in stereotactic surgery would probably be very helpful to provide context.
  • While the term N-localizer is seldom used in PubMed-indexed articles and abstracts, it appears that devices of which it forms a part get better coverage; see Brown-Roberts-Wells: a type of stereotactic frame. (Compare roughly similar number of cites for Leksell frame, another type of stereotactic frame.) I haven't investigated whether or not the term N-localizer is widely employed in these articles.
  • One wonders if this information should be merged (very selectively and briefly) to another article, perhaps stereotactic surgery or (eventually) a new article on stereotactic frames.
  • It seems likely that Kirigiri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – who has contributed extensively to Russell A. Brown and added many citations to his work in this and other articles over the last couple of years – is somehow related to Brown.
Overall, I can't tell for certain if this is a case of someone who wants to right great wrongs and seeks more recognition for a relatively minor invention, or if this is a genuinely major but overlooked development—but I have suspicions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Dextrocardia

would appreciate any help with this important article, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

This rare condition is tagged as low-importance for the project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
true...though PubMed [15] shows several articles for 2015 (and about 140 pages in total)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The frequency of a disease is not the only measure of importance. IMHO the link (e.g. PMID 25589952) between situs inversus and primary ciliary dyskinesia is among the most fascinating in medicine, because of the mechanistic relationships among molecular machines, embryology, anatomy, and physiology. Anatomy goes from being a black box to something dynamic and understandable. Just my $0.02. — soupvector (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome

An editor on Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome wants to add information about "research that is currently being conducted on me and several other patients", first without a source and now with a book of case studies that I've questioned. KateWishing (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

commented on talk page--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Mindyskim

Hello again, editors. Here's another old draft on a medical topic. If this is a potential article, it will need to be moved off the user page and into Draft space. If not, it can be deleted under db-g13, as long as no one edits it.—Anne Delong (talk) 05:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

ref might be useful in Reproductive toxicity article...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Skulls

Human skull

Are any of you interested in WP:WikiProject Death? There's a discussion about whether the photo of a human skull in their WikiProject banner should be removed on the grounds that it is "tasteless" or "offensive". The discussion is centralized at Template talk:WikiProject Death#Images. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


Talk:Infant vision

Please join a requested move talk there...more eyes needed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Image

Gynecomastia

Do people agree that this is photoshopped or do you think it is real?

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

this seems to go back here[16] (per [17])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I would be very reluctant to use any (purported) medical image that had so little information about its provenance or veracity. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

While I agree with TenOfAllTrades the following web-app which analyzes for image manipulation http://29a.ch/sandbox/2012/imageerrorlevelanalysis/ doesn't show anything that indicates photoshop use. Either someone who is very professional at what they do changed this image as a raw, but the low resolution/quality seems to indicate a consumer camera was used to take this image – why it likely is real. CFCF 💌 📧 21:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

That sort of analysis, while very helpful if it detects a problem, is much less robust if it doesn't detect one. While the low resolution/quality certainly could suggest a poorly-operated consumer camera, low-end phone camera, or webcam, it's not necessarily a mark of veracity. A competent digital faker would start with a high resolution image, make whatever changes they wished to that original image, then add a bit of blur, a bit of noise, and downsample their image to a lower resolution before jpeg compressing it. All of those steps are easy to do using widely-available, widely-used, free tools – or Photoshop – and taken together they do a very good job of hiding the variations in background noise that would normally be a signature of a pasted-together image. I fear that you significantly overestimate the difficulty of carrying out such manipulations.
Of course, that's not the only way to do it. You wouldn't see any sign of digital manipulation if the appearance were created with, say, stage makeup. It would be a 'real' photo of fake anatomy. (I'm always a little bit...disappointed?...when I see biochemistry and molecular biology papers retracted because the author got caught digitally cut-and-pasting bands in a Western blot. Any halfway competent scientific fraud should be smart enough to just spike their experimental samples with a little bit of their positive control; the result would be utterly indistinguishable from the real result, and they could produce all the fake results they needed in a day's work.)
All that said, in a case like this I actually get stuck long before I even get to the question of photo manipulation or fakery. The image purports to show an atypical unilateral presentation, which may or may not be a good thing for a Wikipedia article. Because the image uploader has no other contributions and provides no information whatsoever about the image beyond the bare claim that it represents gynecomastia (and has even lost any useful EXIF data from the image), we don't have any supporting documentation about how the patient was diagnosed or how the image was produced. The uploader may have uploaded the image entirely in good faith and still gotten the diagnosis wrong. (I note that the only practising physician who has commented on this image – Doc James – has expressed strong reservations about it.)
As a further aside, I wonder about whether appropriate consent was obtained to submit this image to Commons; the original uploader described the subject as a "young male", and it makes me very twitchy indeed when I see poorly-documented photos of (likely) minors with medical conditions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I said nothing to the effect of it being a good image, representative of the condition, or even appropriate for Wikipedia - all I expressed was that the image is less likely to have been photoshopped - noting that the image may have been altered, just not by a novice. CFCF 💌 📧 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Even if it was not photoshopped it looks fake. QuackGuru (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

2014 study

Goniewicz, Maciej L.; Hajek, Peter; McRobbie, Hayden (2014). "Nicotine content of electronic cigarettes, its release in vapour and its consistency across batches: regulatory implications" (PDF). Addiction. 109 (3): 500–507. doi:10.1111/add.12410. ISSN 0965-2140. PMID 24345184.

Is this source unreliable or reliable? See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#2014_study. QuackGuru (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

That's really not the question. It is reliable but primary, but it is covered in this August's Public Health England report, and we should use that as a ref. Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

History of Medicine

Can you add epidemics to the Category of History of medicine? I made a page on the Cocoliztli epidemic of 1576 and am not sure if I can. JerrySa1 (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

its there [18] under [19]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
That's not the right answer Ozzie! I have added it to Category:Epidemics, which, via Category:Medical outbreaks, is part of the History of medicine category tree. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
your right ("List of Epidemics" mentions the Cocoliztli epidemic of 1576, but has no link),thanks John--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if every epidemic belongs under the History of Medicine category. Some epidemics have not had a measurable impact of medical care as a whole, while some others have. It would rather clutter the category. JFW | T@lk 11:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
You misunderstand what I said, or how category trees work (like so many). Category:Epidemics is in Category:Medical outbreaks, which is in Category:History of medicine. No clutter, but you have to dig down to find things. Johnbod (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Post-flu enteropathy?

Do we have an article for post-influenza enteropathy under some other name? Should we, or is it basically the same as Enteropathy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I think a redirect would be fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
If it's not any different from post-infective irritable bowel syndrome it really doesn't need its own article. I suspect it isn't actually an enteropathy but a functional condition. JFW | T@lk 12:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Passiflora incarnata

Several new editors have recently added extensive medical use information to Passiflora incarnata. It could probably use the review of medical experts. 72.94.61.22 (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

People with VS People diagnosed with

There is a discussion going on now re category naming:

This may apply also to many other categories of interest to WikiProject Medicine. See:

67.0.98.166 (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way, all I wanted to do here was create a category for articles about people with dissociative disorders other than DID. Sigh. That category already has content, it just hasn't been created. It needs to be created so it can be included in broader categories. 67.0.98.166 (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Flublok influenza vaccine

Dear medical experts: Here's another old draft about a medical topic. Promotional aspects can be removed if this is a notable topic. Should the page be kept and improved, or should it be redirected to Protein Sciences?—Anne Delong (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Anything notable can go at influenza vaccine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps someone with medical knowledge can pick out what's notable, and add it to the suggested article with an appropriate edit summary crediting the draft's creator. The article seems to indicate that the vaccine is created using a different and faster method from traditional vaccines; that may be of interest.—Anne Delong (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

CDC

There has been some vandalism here and I am not sure if I can catch it all, I could use some help. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this was real, not vandalism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You know...I know everyone is pretty busy but I would like to share with you what I just deleted from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention article:

some content from the CDC page

CDC zombie apocalypse outreach campaign

Main article: Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse

On May 16, 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's blog published an article instructing the public on what to do to prepare for a zombie invasion. While the article did not claim that such a scenario was possible, it did use the popular culture appeal as a means of urging citizens to prepare for all potential hazards, such as earthquakes, tornadoes, and floods.[1]

According to David Daigle, the Associate Director for Communications, Public Health Preparedness and Response, the idea arose when his team was discussing their upcoming hurricane information campaign and Daigle mused that "we say pretty much the same things every year, in the same way, and I just wonder how many people are paying attention." A social media employee mentioned that the subject of zombies had come up a lot on Twitter when she had been tweeting about the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster and radiation. The team realized that a campaign like this would most likely reach a different audience from the one that normally pays attention to hurricane preparedness warnings and went to work on the zombie campaign, launching it right before hurricane season began. "The whole idea was, if you're prepared for a zombie apocalypse, you're prepared for pretty much anything," said Daigle.[2]

Once the blog article became popular, the CDC announced an open contest for YouTube submissions of the most creative and effective videos covering preparedness for a zombie apocalypse (or apocalypse of any kind), to be judged by the "CDC Zombie Task Force". Submissions were open until October 11, 2011.[3] They also released a zombie themed graphic novella available on their website.[4] Zombie-themed educational materials for teachers are available on the site.[5]

  1. ^ Khan, Ali S. (2011-05-16). "CDC Zombie Warning". "Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse". Retrieved 2014-03-08.
  2. ^ "Skepticality Podcast". Centers for Zombie Control and Prevention. 2011-10-25. Retrieved 2014-03-08.
  3. ^ "Are You Prepared? Video Contest". Prepare.challenge.gov. Retrieved 2012-04-16.
  4. ^ "Preparedness 101: Zombie Pandemic". 2012-07-16. Retrieved 2014-03-08.
  5. ^ "Zombie Preparedness". Retrieved 2014-03-08.
..pretty crazy, right? Can someone let me know just how long this section has been in the article?? I am not going to type in capital letters or anything but how is it that so many other editors were editing other articles but were not even remotely interested in collaborating in removing vandalism after I posted a request above? Are we perhaps overly-fascinated with solving the MEDRS crisis? It's things like this that will undo the good that we have done in donating our time in providing good medical content. We should all be a little concerned.
If you really want to see something fascinating, check out the fake CDC website these people set up. Check out their references at the bottom of this talk page.
Can I be quite frank, when I post to the Project Medicine talk page, I think I am just talking to myself half the time. This is about the most frustrated I have been since I started editing.
The Very Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Barbara, this is actually a real thing that the CDC does. Their goal in this campaign is to cause people who wouldn't ordinarily pay attention to disaster preparedness information to hear about how to prepare in case of a real emergency. It looks like vandalism but it's definitely not. Keilana (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, very few WP talk pages are as much read as this one. There, that's three people responding. Shouldn't we put it back, maybe with a yet more explicit explanation of CDC's reasoning? Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
From what I see, that article is a part of the actual CDC website, which is clear by clicking on the CDC logo while at that article. And as seen here, Fox News reported on it. As seen here, The Atlantic reported on it. As seen here, Forbes reported on it. So did other WP:Reliable sources. Whether or not a zombie apocalypse can happen is actually a common question, especially since the popularity of television series The Walking Dead, and some scientists think it could happen...though not exactly like it does in fiction. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I've been talking with some administrators in the chat room and they confirmed what you have all posted above - it is a real thing. I'm thinking it had undue weight and needs to be put in a "in popular culture" section. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay let me just say....I'm a dork. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
No, you're a conscientious editor who doesn't happen to be omniscient. And instead of pretending that you hadn't seen something suspicious, you spoke up and tried to make it better. We'd be better off if more editors did the same. (Also, CDC [linked in the first message above] is a disambiguation page rather than your intended target.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

As a CDC contractor I do not work on this particular program, but I can verify that Zombie Preparedness is a CDC initiative. "As it turns out what first began as a tongue in cheek campaign to engage new audiences with preparedness messages has proven to be a very effective platform." James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Arvind Kumar

Hello again medical experts. I plan to accept this draft about a doctor, but I'm not sure what to do about the section titled "Education". It's likely that this material should be incorporated in sentence form into the other sections, but since it's acronyms and abbreviations I wouldn't know how to to this. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

this should be added [20]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hospital Acquired Infections

There is some very strange content in this article. It seems like someone with an ax to grind wrote it and so its POV is very bad. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Something else weird about this article - someone called World Heritage Encyclopedia claims to have written it. They applied their own free license to it and a lot of Wikipedia's health content. Then they got it mirrored on Gutenberg.
What are they doing? Why are they claiming copyright of so much Wikimedia content? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Here is their own website's entry. [21] Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, both pages are tagged CC BY-SA 3.0. EEng (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
EEng Creative Commons attribution requirements are not fulfilled by stating "CC By-SA". See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. Wikipedia content including text is submitted under the CC-By-SA 3.0 license, which says, "You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner". This encyclopedia is making no attempt to give credit to the copyright holders and is instead claiming to be the copyright holder. They seem to be violating the terms of the license. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Both pages say "Sourced from World Heritage Encyclopedia™ licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0", with the link to the license. Now, at the very bottom there's a copyright notice too, but I suspect that would be considered a nullity, as to the material taken from a CC source, under the circumstances. The copyright notice at the bottom is appropriate because WHE holds copyright on its version of the material (i.e. a derivative work of the Wikipedia version). EEng (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
EEng What do you mean "both pages"? Do you mean that the Wikipedia article somewhere says that it was taken from World Heritage Encyclopedia? I am imagining that WHE copied its content from Wikipedia. Do you have reason to believe that Wikipedia copied from WHE? WHE has a lot of articles which seem to be copied exactly from Wikipedia without attribution and which claim copyright ownership. I do not know what you mean to say by talking about a link to the license or noting that there is a CC-source. What I am expecting to see is a notice on WHE that the content was taken from Wikipedia and that the copyright holders are the Wikipedia contributors. Instead, WHE is saying that they are the copyright holder and not acknowledging that they took the content from Wikipedia without complying with the terms of the CC license's requirement for attribution. Do you see something other than that? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, small print at the bottom of the WHE page: "This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002." my bolds. Johnbod (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The two pages you linked in your first post above, [22] and [23], both say, "Sourced from World Heritage Encyclopedia™ licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0. Help to improve this article, make contributions at the Citational Source". The text CC BY-SA 3.0 links to the license, and Citational Source links to the Wikipedia edit history. That's both the license and attribution. The WHE is the copyright holder, on their version of the material. EEng (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
It gets even stranger when you read the World Heritage website. Take a look at the name of the website: Project Gutenburg Self-Publishing Press. Not a good omen. Just pretend that there were no copyright confusion - the article on the page is basically one primary source. It is a journal article, potentially self-published. Editing is a hobby for me, but this fiasco of an article is making me queasy. If you look at the article's talk page, I have also described problems with the photo that is used in the article. I've no experience with this sort of thing, but it needs to be completely and totally redone. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I guess I am not going to wait around to see what happens but I will begin working on this. Anyone else is welcome, of course. I will start by using med Mos headings and go from there. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
EEng WHE is not the copyright holder on their version. They are one of the copyright holders of their version. Their content has multiple copyright licenses and theirs, the latest one, is only one of them. CC licenses are cumulative and later ones do not replace earlier ones. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, so some webpage template sticks an incomplete copyright notice at the bottom of each page. All this matters exactly .... why? Will you be notifying WMF's lawyers, who will be taking swift and decisive action? EEng (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
EEng, no protocol is to list them. They are already listed at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Vwxyz#Worldheritage.org. This matters because some people, maybe Barbara, were concerned that Wikipedia copied them, and it is nice to be able to quickly demonstrate the contrary. This is for the benefit of editors not the pirates. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
What pirates? The CC license is there, and clicking on the link takes you to Wikipedia's own revision history. How could anyone be confused? Why are we even discussing this? What's at stake? Who's on first? EEng (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
EEng It matters to the extent that Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks matters, and you should continue this conversation to the extent of your interest in that policy page. The stake in this is clarity of Wikipedia's instructions for reuse and how that benefits Wikipedia contributors. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks for clarifying. EEng (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Barbara (WVS) - I am not sure why you care that WHE is self published. It is a mirror of the Wikipedia article. You seem to be suggesting that Wikipedia copied them, when the evidence indicates they copied Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for unravelling this convoluted mirror and forks issue. Detecting a mirror site is not a skill that I have at this time but probably need to develop. In any event the WP article is in awful shape and I have begun to assemble better sources and editing out unreferenced content. I care about self-published books, articles, and other written content that has no editorial oversight, that's all. When I read 'self-published' I instantly discredit the source. In any case, the WHE will have revise their page to reflect the changes in the WP someday. Best Regards and Thank you for your comments,
Barbara (WVS) (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hypokalemic sensory overstimulation

This article was recently brought to my attention. Based upon a simple pubmed search of the name – [24] (1 primary source journal article found) – I'm inclined to delete the Wikipedia article. Does anyone have any input/objection to this before I go ahead and WP:PROD the article? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Google Scholar has a few more hits but still only 12. It also seems to me like one hit is about a legit medical thing.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest deleting it or potentially merging any relevant content to hypokalemia. G-scholar includes a number of questionably related sources, so I think we can discount those hits. CFCF 💌 📧 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

We have this ref [25] so it has got some notice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You think it's worth keeping? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Need opinions on sources for Applied behavior analysis

Hi everyone. I am seeking opinions on these edits [26] to the lead of Applied behavior analysis. I am discussing the reliability of the sources with another editor, but we have reached an impasse. You can read the discussion here: Talk:Applied_behavior_analysis#Poor_sourcing.2C_promotional_links. I realize other WikiProjects are more relevant to the article, but they do not appear to be active. Thanks. CatPath (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

have commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
InfoPurist (talk · contribs) has also been trying to add similar inappropriate material to Artificial intelligence. This editor appears to have little understanding of basic Wikipedia policies. Looie496 (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

edit in NS1 antigen test

Dengue testing

It would be great, if someone knowledgeable could have a look at this recent edit please. As it lacked sources for several statements, included "convenient" links to companies, and added some less-than-neutral language, I have reverted it for now. But to be fair, some of that content may be a valid improvement (I wouldn't know as total ignoramus in that area), but it needs a check for accuracy and neutrality. GermanJoe (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick work, Ozzie10aaaa. GermanJoe (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Physical exercise and Mental illnesses

At DRAFT:Physical exercise and Mental illnesses we have a class assignment as an article. Anyone know what to do with it? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Stuck Behind Paywall

Hi everyone, would anyone possibly have access to the following article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25474485)? If so, can someone please share it with me? I don't have access and it looks like it would be a good article to use for the acne article since the research section is a bit sparse at this time. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Mail me :) CFCF 💌 📧 20:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
YGM TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry TylerDurden8823, but I can't find the mail. Could you maybe send it again? CFCF 💌 📧 00:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I resent it. Did you receive it this time CFCF? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
You might want to try meditation or something. Nursing resentment corrodes the soul. EEng (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Anyone else have access to this particular paper? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
@TylerDurden8823: I do, and I know my Wikipedia email is working. (FYI, there have been a lot of reports of problems with yahoo addresses and Wikipedia mail not getting delivered, if that helps debug the problem.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, does anyone have access to this paper? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25410148 If so, would someone please send me a copy? I'm working on improving the varenicline article. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Looks like I have that one too, just sent you an email TylerDurden8823. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Terrific, thank you! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

TylerDurden8823, good that you managed to get the article, but I checked and double-checked my inbox, and there is nothing there (not spam either). I've never known to have problems with Wikipedia e-mails before, but you can find my full address here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force/Sign_up#Contacts (don't want to plaster it all over for spam-bots). I'd be happy if you sent me a mail so that next time you're stuck I can try and help you at once. CFCF 💌 📧 06:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at it. I have a University of Pittsburgh library card (the greatest benefit of being a Visiting Scholar!) Barbara (WVS) (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you will be able to get access but here are some articles for which I downloaded the pdf. I can't get the one you requested above. The University of Pittsburgh does not have access to it. Let me if you want any of these emailed to you.
The Lancet, Volume 379, Issue 9813, 28 January–3 February 2012, Pages 361–372; Acne vulgaris, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60321-8
Skin needling as a treatment for acne scarring: An up-to-date review of the literature;International Journal of Women's Dermatology,Volume 1, Issue 2, June 2015, Pages 77–81; doi:10.1016/j.ijwd.2015.03.004
Review Treatment of acne with teat tree oil(melaleuca)products:A review of efficacy,tolerability and potential modes of action;International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents,Volume 45, Issue 2, February 2015, Pages 106–110
Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Latter is "tea" not "teat".... doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2014.10.011 PMID 25465857 LeadSongDog come howl! 21:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk about scholarly citations on Wikipedia

The WMF analytics team is presenting a pair of talks on the subject of m:Wikipedia as the front matter to all research this Friday December 4, 2015 (two days from now) at 12:00 noon PST. They will talk about unique identifiers and scholarly citations in Wikipedia. One of the speakers is from CrossRef, and his subject is primarily about how Wikipedia citations bring non-scientists into contact with the scientific literature. The talk will be broadcast on YouTube, so that anyone can watch it. There is more information on Meta. Please join if you're interested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

good info[29]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"Cock and ball torture"

I believe the article Cock and ball torture, and in particular the section Cock and ball torture#Safety, could do with some attention from medical editors, as I think parts of it are definitely matters of medical concern. Given the wide variety of sex-problem-related human experience that is observed in emergency rooms worldwide every day (for example, the extraction of rectal foreign bodies, the emergency removal of metal cock rings, or even more exotic things like damage due to scrotal infusion) I think it's likely that there is relevant medical literature in this area. -- The Anome (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean help for editors at the page, or help for persons undergoing the procedure? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
nice one--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe editors could work in Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators somehow. EEng (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "Work in" -- get it?
This article should be renamed, it does not sound encyclopedic at all.104.14.150.187 (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
IP, see WP:Article titles, especially the WP:Common name part of it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Laser-assisted new attachment procedure primary sources dispute

This is the disputed edit. KateWishing (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

commented/will keep eye on--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Low_back_pain#NRT

Further input welcome Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This is about neuroreflexotherapy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's split infoboxes and change content focus and implement Wikidata all at once

I request the opinions of WikiProject Medicine participants at Template talk:Infobox medical condition#Another reform proposal - split infobox into "human readable" and "non human readable" and call from Wikidata. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Lane and I have done one article as an example which can be seen here Gout. It is a lot of work to do this for a single article as one needs to plug all the data into Wikidata. If we do do this it will take years, but than again we have no time limits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you intend for all of the external links (eMedicine, OMIM, PatientUK, etc.) to be completely invisible for 30% of our readers? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
User:WhatamIdoing can you clarify? Ah yes I see it does not show on mobile so you mean 63% of our readers per [30]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
It's 30% overall, sitewide. The most popular pages may have a different profile.
If you want this to be useful/visible to everyone, then you can't use the navbox templates or CSS classes (styling), and you need to make it re-size sensibly for different screen sizes (both widescreen desktop systems and narrow smartphones). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
User:WhatamIdoing so how would we do that? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The solution is to not use Template:Navbox, or refer to any of its classes. This is a hard-coded table, but something like this ought to work:

Classification ICD-10: M10 • ICD-9-CM: 274.00 • OMIM: 138900 • DiseasesDB: 29031
External resources MedlinePlus: 000422 • eMedicine: emerg/221 • Patient UK: Gout • MeSH: D006073

The details can be tweaked, but this is just a quick demo to show the overall concept. Since it's just two columns (unlike {{Arthropathies and related conditions}}, which follows it on Gout), it should adapt fairly well to narrow screens. Perhaps if someone has a smartphone, you'll look at it and see whether it's readable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes that appears to work. We will need to build a template based on the above if one does not already exist.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
@Doc James and WhatamIdoing: A natural next step would be to have these values pulled from Wikidata instead of stored locally. I am having a discussion about how to do that at Help_talk:Template#Template_redesign_-_want_to_make_horizontal_infobox - I do not immediately know how. The starting example that we have in {{Medical condition classification and resources}} cannot be replicated exactly because if you look at gout (Q133087) in the ICD-9 field there are multiple values when this box should only display 1, perhaps just the first one. This was not an issue with the other box. Mr. Stradivarius suggests Lua code to select the data we want. All of this pushes the limit of my understanding and I will not have time to teach myself this within the next few days. I want to learn this but I do not know where to begin, and still I am looking at the examples I have coming to understand how this works.
I might not be able to do this soon. I cannot say - I only know that right now I do not know how to do this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Have switched to Template:Medical_condition_classification_and_resources so the template still shows in mobile. We now need to figure out how to get it to work more like WAIDs example. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Including brand names

There is a minor disagreement at Clear aligners concerning whether an article on a medical product should list no/some/all brands. For example, this edit removed two major brand names from the lead (brands discussed in the article), and added five brand names to the body of the article. A comment here suggests that it is routine to add all brand names under which a drug is sold. Questions: What is the background regarding brand names for drug articles? Any thoughts on how brands should be handled at clear aligners? Johnuniq (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

IMO the brandnames should at least occur in the body of the article. The first brandname should occur in the lead. This is what we do for meds. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but to spell that out, you are saying that all brands should be included in the article? What about a topic with twenty brands? Is there a discussion somewhere about that because it reverses what I have seen elsewhere. I'm thinking of articles about some topic where there are a few major organizations active, and a dozen others. It is normal (although I can't recall where at the moment) to list the major players and reject others as spam with "WP:WTAF" (write the article first) often being used in the edit summary. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
We often have dozens of brandnames listed at the end of med articles. Their is no clear guidance on this right now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Gold Nanoparticles (Chemotherapy)

I'm about to log off for the day but notice a lot of recent activity here, some of which is based on poor sourcing. Also a lot of material is being introduced about gold nanoparticles into other related articles by a number of new accounts named Nanosomething which is obviously suspicious. Editors less tired than I am might want to take a look ... Alexbrn (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. It is also happening (at least) at Colloidal gold and Photothermal therapy - there are many similar-named accounts at work so it's difficult to track this across the Project. Alexbrn (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
[31] found another one--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I've raised this at WP:AIN. Alexbrn (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
its a class project[32]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

New article

I created a page recently on the Cocoliztli epidemic of 1576. Is this within the scope of this wikiproject?JerrySa1 (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

have added to article/talk--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for outside input on Valsartan/sacubitril

Please see the article and the Talk page. [Note:— 169.230.155.123 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ] -- 169.230.155.123 (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

have commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
See: WP:SPA.--Elvey(t•c) 21:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
That link shows over 100 edits, of which 5 are on this article. Between casting aspersions and your attempt to delete my comments from the article Talk page, this is not turning out to be a very productive interaction. Could we just focus on the sources and what they say? 169.230.155.123 (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Whoops; it's the other IPs you've been using that are SPAs. So, come clean - do you have any wikipedia accounts or not? --Elvey(t•c) 23:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Chamomile

Chamomile

Chamomile...just to be clear here ...are we saying it is good to " treat wounds" and "treat headaches and insomnia" and so on ?? We sure that the limited studies of camomile oil say this vs what people claim? -- Moxy (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, some severe problems there. Like a "Medical use" section thst doesn't actually contain ... medical usages . Alexbrn (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I think there is content in at least three sections ("Medical use", "Tea", and "Oil") that misrepresent the cited sources. Deli nk (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
still needs some better references (drug interaction)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Use of "victim" in place of "person," and expansion to the Definitions section, at the Rape article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Rape#Use of "victim" in place of "person," and expansion to the Definitions section. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I've quoted the line from MEDMOS to the discussion. It appears that the guidance against calling people victims of chronic illnesses has been mis-remembered as guidance of calling people victims of anything, including crimes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Immunoglobulin draft potentially good enough to replace what is out there currently

It looks like the last version of this section has been archived, so I figured I'll just start another one instead of reverting the archive bot. Pretty much all of ENWP's content about immunoglobulin therapy (which includes several RoAs: intramuscular, subcutaneous, and intravenuous) is located at one article - IVIG. I have a draft here and although I know it doesn't address all problems in the current article (there are whole sections I haven't touched yet,) I suspect it would be preferable to the current article. While I intend to work on it further, how would people feel about moving my draft live to immunoglobulin therapy, and redirecting SCIG, IVIG, and IMIG all to the new partially done draft? Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

seems like an acceptable redirect--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • It's definitely not a GA or anything, though I intend to work on it further - in normal circumstances I would've just made the move without asking for feedback, but medical editing is not my realm of expertise :) but given that our IVIG article doesn't include mention of SCIG or IMIG, it seems like it's appropriate. I think I'll go ahead and move it live, though I certainly intend to work on it more. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Psoriasis-Genitalia Pathology Examples Acceptable?

Hi everyone, there's been a bit of debate at psoriasis regarding whether or not a picture of genitalia affected by psoriasis is appropriate (or necessary). Please see diffs here [33] What are your thoughts on this matter? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

might be worth keeping per [34] [35]inverse psoriasis...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Seems appropriate given the source posted above ("psoriasis frequently affects the genital skin"). However, images could be better quality, there is shadow from presumably the camera. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't see anything on the talk page at the moment. One potential issue is that the article says that the typical site is within skin folds, "around the genitals (between the thigh and groin)" rather than on non-folded skin, and that's not what's shown in the picture. Also, how certain are we that this looks like (reasonably typical) inverse psoriasis? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The user who removed the image (I think, it was originally an IP that removed it, but then I heard from User:Dat GuyWiki) left me a message on my talk page and I replied on his. You're right though that perhaps this should be moved to the talk page but I thought it would be good to get wider consensus. The question is more about whether a picture of genitalia demonstrating it being affected by psoriasis is appropriate/needed or not. If another image is better, that's definitely fine. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Various IP addresses keep trying to remove it so perhaps getting the article under semi-protection is in order? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Is it appropriate? Maybe, although it does highlight the psoriasis, personally I couldn't see it very clearly. Also, the article is already thriving with images. If it would be an article with around 6-8 images or less, then I would surely keep the image, however there are 11 images. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Derm condition. Should be a fair number of images. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I have little medical expertise. I am the owner of a penis, to which I am attached, but that is as close as I come to knowledge, here.
All I can see on the image is a pale patch. Are there not many medical conditions that lead to skin looking like this? Is this a valuable image for this article, or is it merely useful for a more general article on skin/genital skin issues? Fiddle Faddle 19:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
To address what WAID said above, this page [36] and this page [37] from the National Psoriasis Foundation and DermNetNZ do support the idea that inverse psoriasis is the form that most commonly affects the genital region (including (but not limited to) the inguinal region). However, it does sound like the lesions expected would probably be red rather than white (although I suppose either is possible), so perhaps a different image of penile psoriasis would be more representative. This article [38] also indicates that they would be expected to be red (erythematous) rather than white and does have one picture of psoriatic balanitis. I'm not sure how to go about obtaining the picture from the article though if we want that one instead. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
don't see anything else [39]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Typology at the Intimate partner violence article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Intimate partner violence#Michael P Johnson's Typology Theory. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


Paracetamol - Alzheimer's disease

Paracetamol

Paracetamol#Alzheimer appears to be a paste of the abstract of the Jones article that it cites.[40] It does seem like a summary of the Jones article should be in paracetamol--could someone from here fix it? I'd probably mess it up if I tried. Thanks. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I removed it. A summary might be WP:UNDUE. The paper only seems to have one citation, a very anti-paracetamol review that nonetheless dismisses it: "relating the ubiquitous paracetamol (Modick et al., 2014) to the worldwide increase of Alzheimer’s disease (Jones, 2014) appears somewhat far-fetched". KateWishing (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I defer to your knowledge on this matter. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:RfC at the Domestic violence article regarding WP:Alternative names

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Domestic violence#WP:RfC: Is the current lead sentence best for the article?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC closed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Clitoral Erection and Clitoral Erectile Dysfunction

I recently edited the article on Clitoral Erection by adding a sentence about Clitoral Erectile Dysfunction. Specifically, I stated there is a hypothesis that lack of stimulation during early brain development may cause atrophy of the relative brain areas that control clitoral erectile function, resulting in permanent clitoral erectile dysfunction, although empirical research is necessary for confirmation. I also included a reference to a paper on academia.edu (https://www.academia.edu/s/559e1d73ea) that describes the hypothesis in more detail and offers some documentation. I made no other claims except that the hypothesis exists and its existence may be verified outside Wikipedia.

My contribution was quickly deleted by an editor who referred me to Wikipedia's Medical Source Guidelines, WP:MED I asked on that persons Talk page why my contribution had been deleted, and the person stated "...the source you added is not up to medical standards." I disputed that criticism and then my contribution was also called "Fringe" and "Editorializing," even though my contribution contained no claims of certainty or even probability, and included no words like "clearly" etc. WP:MED Guidelines do also say: "Neither of these pages are 'laws', but are intended to give, inspire, and organize our contributions. They should never prevent anyone from writing and improving medical articles!"

So why wasn't my contribution modified for improvement instead of completely erased without warning? Newnamenow (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Very likely because it was from a unusable source, and there are no reliable sources that would support your statement. CFCF 💌 📧 18:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

CFCF Thanks for your input. But the content I added didn't make any assertions of fact other than to report that there is a hypothesis, and I provided a reference that anyone can check to verify that the hypothesis exists. If the reference was the real issue, then why wasn't my edit marked or modified (e.g. remove the reference and note "needs citation") rather than deleted completely and as quickly as possible? Wikipedia encourages contributors to "be bold." If someone objects to a particular edit by modifying it, that's editing. But if someone responds to a potentially controversial topic by silencing the whole topic, that's not editing - it's censorship. Newnamenow (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Boldness is only part of Wikipedia's guideline. The more complete guideline is WP:BRD: bold-revert-discuss. In other words, be bold, but be prepared for your edit to be reverted, and be ready to discuss whether it is appropriate. In this case the issue is whether the hypothesis is notable enough to justify covering it in our article. The best evidence for notability is attention paid to it by other reputable published sources. It's very unlikely that a forum discussion on a web site will be considered notable. See WP:MEDRS for the general policy on sources for medical articles. Looie496 (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Technically, BRD is an optional essay, not a guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: I am the editor Newnamenow is referring to, if you don't already know; see User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#Clitoral erection article. A WP:Permalink for it is here. SMcCandlish stepped in to discuss the matter with Newnamenow at my talk page, and Doc James addressed Newnamenow at User talk:Newnamenow. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Looie496 This discussion here has the appearance of being a technical question concerning Wikipedia policy, and despite the potentially controversial nature of the hypothesis of clitoral erectile dysfunction and its possible cause - if it becomes widely known the careers of some political opportunists and profiteers in the child sex abuse prevention and rescue business would be in jeopardy, as well as casting doubt on the traditional and cherished practice of anti-sex education in early childhood - I will give critics the benefit of the doubt by assuming their intentions are constructive and impartial and their statements of their motives for deleting my edit are sincere. However, I will note that Drcrazy102 has suggested that I should have initiated a discussion on the Clitoral Erection Talk page (which I had already done), but Flyer22 Reborn and other supporters of the deletion have largely confined their comments to Flyer22 Reborn's Talk page (or attempted to redirect the discussion to that page) rather than defending the deletion on the Clitoral Erection Talk page. Newnamenow (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Without a proper source the material can't go into the article, regardless of how important it is and how obvious it is to you that it is correct. Looie496 (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Newnamenow, unless a person supports child sexual abuse, I don't see how this bit would "put the careers of some political opportunists and profiteers in the child sex abuse prevention and rescue business" in jeopardy "if it becomes widely known." First, "it won't become widely known" because, from what I see, it's not given any serious academic attention. And very likely won't ever be given it. Second, while I am one of the editors who seek to keep pro-child sexual abusers off Wikipedia (WP:Child protection), I was not thinking of a child sexual abuse angle when you added that. And it's suspicious to me that you would jump to a child sexual abuse angle, rather than a masturbation angle. After all, boys generally learn to masturbate before girls, and do it more often than girls. Third, you've been given ample reason for why your content should not be added. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I also already explained in great policy detail to to Newnamenow, in the user-talk thread referred to, why "But the content I added didn't make any assertions of fact other than to report that there is a hypothesis" doesn't cut it. The fact that some idea exists does not make it an encyclopedic topic, not even as a subtopic of another article. If there are no reliable sources indicating that the idea has been backed by real research, or that it has attracted noteworthy commentary or controversy, in independent, high-quality, reliable sources, then it's not encyclopedic information; it's no better than a random blog post. Even if some new idea appears in a refereed journal, if it's a primary research/hypothesis paper that attracts no coverage in followup research or in literature reviews, it's basically just noise. There are literally tens of thousands of academic journals. Nowhere near every single hypothesis that passes just enough peer-review sanity checking to see print in one of them is magically transformed into something that must be included in Wikipedia, and certainly not an idea that warrants a new article (for which we have a particularly high standard covered at WP:NOTABILITY) on this alleged dysfunction. I'm skeptical that this "why oh why can't I include pointers to wacky ideas about ladyparts?" complaint needs to be shopped around from page to page when the question has already been answered, in multiple places, multiple times, by multiple editors. @Newnamenow:, please see WP:IDHT and WP:1AM in addition to the policies and guidelines to which you've been referred many times.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Major expansion at Fetal rights - NPOV?

A recent major expansion of Fetal rights was performed [41], and subsequently hidden behind a m-tagged edit. I have not had time to go through the entire text. I am informing this page of it because it seems to have slipped under the radar, and especially the removal of tags marking issues with the page is troubling. I question that these were removed without discussion, and that the current edition really is without the following issues: 

{{Unbalanced|date=January 2011}}
{{POV-check|date=January 2011}}

CFCF 💌 📧 17:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

From a quick look at this mammoth edit, my concern would be that this makes the article more a secondary piece, rather than the tertiary one it should be. Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
CFCF, I'm not sure what "under the radar means", unless it means that – for once – someone edited an abortion-related article without instantly creating an edit war, but are you aware that any NPOV-related tag can be removed by anyone unless there is an actual discussion going on about it? "In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor" is the formulation at Template:POV/doc, and it applies to all related ones. Also, one does hope that a major expansion (Look! An actual history section! Citing history sources from highly reputable university presses!) would have resolved any remaining problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
As seen here and here, I was briefly involved with that article back in 2011. It used to be on my WP:Watchlist. I took it off at some point. And because that article is a magnet for the abortion debate, I'd prefer not to get back involved with it. I have enough contentious articles to worry about. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
To me it is unclear how I would be advocating for an edit-war WhatamIdoing. All I've done is comment that a user with self-expressed strong anti-abortion views expanded the article with what has been identified by what now is a few editors as questionable content - while at the same time getting rid of POV-tags. CFCF 💌 📧 23:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that you're advocating for an edit war. I do disagree that this edit happened "under the radar", when it was out there for anyone to look at. Sure, it didn't get an immediate public response (which I grant is unfortunately unusual for abortion-related articles), but that doesn't mean that we should imply that anything secretive or underhanded. Removing the POV tags is completely appropriate whenever you believe that you have solved the problem. That's what you're supposed to do! (And harmless at worst, since four-year-old POV tags almost never produce any constructive behavior.)
If you have a problem with the article content – rather than the identity of the contributor – then I encourage you to improve it, or to post specific, actionable suggestions on the talk page. I didn't read the whole thing, but the parts I glanced at looked okay to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
article might need ce [42]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Tools for highlighting withdrawn academic papers on the talk pages of articles that cite them, etc.

There is a proposal here that WMF develops some tools for dealing with citations of withdrawn academic journal articles. This idea was discussed in this 2012 WT:MED thread. If you think this would be a good use of WMF's time, please let them know. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The kind of sources that MEDRS prefers are virtually never withdrawn, so it shouldn't make much of a difference to this project -- at least, to the extent that we follow MEDRS. Now if we had a tool that would highlight primary sources . . . Looie496 (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
If we have a good list of withdrawn papers it would be easy to build a bot to tag them as retracted. Certain retracted papers may still be appropriate in certain places. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
seems like a good proposal--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

List of synonyms in lead

What do people think of this method of removing synonyms from the lead? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If it said "known under several synonyms" in parenthesis or something like that after Geographic tongue I am okay with it, when an article has maybe 5+ synonyms in lead and the synonyms redirect to the article... but as it stands now the reader will not know what information is hidden in the note. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
It should be possible to create a template that utilised the information provided by a redirect to generate a synonym in the lead. The difficulty might be when a redirect wasn't followed. Essentially; if a visitor was redirected to an article that had multiple synonyms, the template would parse "Article name, also known as searched synonym (among others), [lead continues]...", If no redirect had been followed, the template would parse "Article name, also known by several synonyms, [lead continues]..." (where any italic text is injected by the template). Thinking about it more, this wouldn't be appropriate in cases where someone was redirected to a page for something other than a synonym Little pob (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I would say "Geographic tongue, also known by several other names,[note]...." Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah that's an improvement imo. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes I like Johnbod's suggestion. Okay to have a couple of names but not more than 3 or 4. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
agree (w/ Johnbod )--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

A template for non-evidence based healing modalities?

Over at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Noticeboard I have proposed that we make some kind of template that will allow us to indicate non-evidence-based therapeutic modalities in a more consistent way. [44]. This follows a concern that the way that we indicate lack of evidence is inconsistent and may ultimately lead to confusion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


more opinions--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Fatigue = exhaustion?

Was this edit appropriate? My medical English isn't good enough to tell whether "exhaustion" is a synonym for "fatigue". Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

alternate names:Tiredness; Weariness; Exhaustion; Lethargy [45]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Restored. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit to sexual obsessions

Some of the sources added in this edit don't seem to meet MEDRS, but I am posting here to ask if others agree or not. Everymorning (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Sexual obsessions#Recently added material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: Since Everymorning beat me to posting, I've merged the section I created with this one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Non-celiac gluten sensitivity

There have been a number of edits by an editor relating to gluten currently at wheat and earlier at non-celiac gluten sensitivity, such as disputes over this edit (prevalence of it, what is is, etc.). [46]. Could use some eyes from members here, especially since this topic can get into WP:FRINGE territory sometimes. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

This was recently talked here and archived [47].
It seems that there is an interest from some users to delete, modify or "hide" information about non-celiac gluten sensitivity... I can only repeat my same words: "It is relatively easy to get an idea. Do a search (mark review) in PubMed about "non celiac gluten sensitivity" and check out the current medical literature. There are doubts about pathogenesis, diagnosis protocol, and treatment, but it doesn't mean that the disease doesn't exist. Wikipedia doesn't have "its own POV", Wikipedia must reflect the reality. If knowledge progresses, Wikipedia moves with it."
And I would add that it is unfortunate that there is only "one" editor working in this direction, considering the amount of outdated information that exists in Wikipedia.
Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 06:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Stem cell content

Comments appreciated here Talk:Chronic_obstructive_pulmonary_disease#Stem_cells Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Month

Transverse Myelitis

First off I want to apologize. When I relaunched the MCOTM I really did want to stick with it but some personnel family matters came up right after it began. That said, for those who participated, what are your thoughts? Did you think the MCOTM was beneficial to the Transverse myelitis article as a whole? [Here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transverse_myelitis&oldid=673477707] is the before and [here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transverse_myelitis&oldid=688582387] is it today. Overall, I think the article was improved very much, but still needs more work before it can be considered for a good article nomination. My thought is we should discuss what went wrong and what went right to determine if MCOTM is something we should keep doing. Until then, I think we should keep transverse myelitis as the article as the article of the month. So, what are your thoughts, questions, and concerns? Peter.C • talk • contribs 17:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

the pathophysiology section could have used more work (text/references)...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
It's too rare a condition to justify more collaboration when there are articles about much more common conditions which could use attention. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, but very few suggestions were put forward when MCOTM asked for candidate articles in need of serious work. For MCOTM to function properly, it will require wider participation (at least for the suggestion process but hopefully in improving the article as well). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Might be better to have that conversation thread on this page rather than on the MCOTM page. More people read here and more likely to get opinions. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


Sodium_picosulfate

Hi, I've added a bit of mechanism info to the Sodium_picosulfate article. I don't typically edit medical articles, so it'd be useful if someone from this Wikiproject could cast their eye over it to check if I've made any errors. Thanks! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 22:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

That looks pretty good overall, but I suspect that you are used to real-world ideas about sourcing. We usually prefer recent secondary sources (e.g., review articles or book chapters) instead of the original or canonical sources, especially when the original sources are from the previous century. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Speaking generally, I would be inclined to argue that in situations where we have both 'canonical', 'landmark', or 'original' historical studies and recent reviews which support/endorse the earlier work, we ought to be citing both. It's good to give credit to original discoverers and to provide historical context, instead of just a single present-day snapshot.
In the case of this particular article, one could reiterate the citation of reference 6 (Adamcewicz et al., 2011) to support the 'historical' references 7 (Forth et al., 1972), 8 (Jauch et al., 1975), and 9 (Regev et al., 1998)—at least if refs 7, 8, or 9 are original sources for those facts, or if they represent highly-cited 'landmark' works in the literature. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, the open-access review (Adamcewicz et al., 2011) was the first thing that I found and was thinking of just using it for the whole section. The reason that I added the primary literature was for a bit more detail on e.g. the prodrug metabolism or formulation (e.g. the review is actually a bit vague on the prodrug aspect). I'll double up for now, but I'm happy to drop the primaries if it turns out I'm in the minority opinion. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 09:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. While I've always been a staunch advocate of robust and up-to-date sourcing, I've also always pushed back against the particularly militant down-the-memory-hole editors who try to prevent Wikipedia from acknowledging the existence of pre-2010 (in two weeks, pre-2011) scientific literature. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


Updated offline app

We have an updated offline medical app [48]. Now includes all of pharmacology and anatomy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

page looks great[49]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
That one User:Ozzie10aaaa is the wrong one and not made by use. You need to pay for the files for it to work. And we are working to force them to change their name as they are infringing on our trademark. Our is here and completely free [50] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
thanks for pointing it out,(it is infringement..)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Further details here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/App Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I merged content into the established article and deleted the new one. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Protein losing enteropathy

would appreciate any help with this important article/stub, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Access Donation: AnnualReviews.Com

Annual Reviews is a publisher of review articles in the sciences and social sciences. Its articles cover major topics in each subject area every few years, with other special topics appearing occasionally. For more information see their website. This partnership provides access to their entire Biomedical Life collection. There are up to 100 one-year accounts available to Wikipedians through this partnership. Please sign up at WP:Annual Reviews!

Cheers, Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I really like these. Anyone who doesn't have access should really apply. CFCF 💌 📧 22:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
So far, only two of us seem to have signed up for this. That means that there are 98 slots open – well, 97, because I'm going to be #3. If you were thinking about it, please sign up now. The requirements are 500 (just five hundred!) edits and to have an account that is more than six months old. I don't want any publisher to decide that our interest in review articles is merely lip service, so there's no point in offering us free access to reviews. This is a fabulous opportunity for any content creator. If you don't already have this through work or school, and you have any interest at all in improving articles instead of talking about them, then please sign up. If you use it to make one solid improvement during the next year, then it was worth the cost. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Rfc can use your input

Feel free to participate | on this Rfc your opinion is most welcome! KoshVorlon 13:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Clinic Open!

"In a response to rampant poor patient satisfaction scores and an overall demand of patients for more autonomy in their care, a group of internet start-ups have decided to open a network of hospitals where no physicians are required, where patients can receive care they are comfortable with based on their Google searches.[1]

  1. ^ Gomerblog Team (15 December 2015). "Non-physician hospitals, The Web-MD and Wikipedia Clinic, to open in 5 major cities". gomerblog.com. Retrieved 16 December 2015.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this for real? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
No, it's from a popular medical satire site. :) Keilana (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh =) Matthew Ferguson (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Harry Glicken

Please see Talk:Harry Glicken#Hair pulling. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

[51]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Index of medicine articles

...needs some TLC or LCP. Bazj (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Cancer deaths by country

Category:Cancer deaths by country, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Big_iron (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Question about requested edits

Hello,

I am an employee at Manifest, a marketing agency representing Abbott Vascular. Last month I requested edits on Talk pages of several Wikipedia pages: Percutaneous coronary intervention, Coronary stent, Bare-metal stent, Drug-eluting stent, and Bioresorbable stents.

So far, there has been one response, which was on the Drug-eluting stent page, and we are working on requested adjustments for the requests for that page.

Would someone be able to let me know how I may go about having the other requested changes reviewed/made?

Thank you for any input in this regard.

Tom at Manifest (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

please take to talk pages/articles in question--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
It is completely appropriate for Tom to ask for attention here, and important for us to respond. Our COI policy will not work if properly made requests are not acted on. I have responded at Talk:Percutaneous coronary intervention and will look at the other pages; more input would be useful. Looie496 (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
thank you Louie496--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Looie496 and Ozzie10aaaa. I appreciate your responses and help on this. I will respond to your comments at Talk:Percutaneous coronary intervention. I'll stay posted for comments on the other articles as well. For the other articles, if you believe that I should proceed as you recommend on the Percutaneous coronary intervention page (i.e. make the edits myself with the idea that copy-editing would then take place after that), please let me know. Otherwise, I will await comments on the other pages. Thank you again for your input. Tom at Manifest (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello Looie496 and Ozzie10aaaa. I wanted to check back to see if you or another editor may be able to review the requested edits to the Coronary stent and Bioresorbable stents pages. So far, there have been comments on requested edits for Percutaneous coronary intervention, Bare-metal stent, and Drug-eluting stent. Thank you for your assistance.Tom at Manifest (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Looie496 and Ozzie10aaaa. I'm checking back again to see if you or another editor may be able to review the requested edits to the Coronary stent and Bioresorbable stents pages. Also, I have incorporated my edits to the Percutaneous coronary intervention page, with the exception of the recommended paragraph about the Absorb stent, which Looie496 recommended being discussed separately after the other changes were made. I'd greatly appreciate your feedback on the Absorb stent paragraph. (I also left a comment mentioning this on the Talk page for Percutaneous coronary intervention). Thank you for your assistance. Tom at Manifest (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Problems with anorexia

I have recently used the term anorexia in an article as a description of symptoms. Unfortunately, the wiki link leads directly to anorexia nervosa. One is a symptom and the other is a treatable condition. These two terms need to be distinct. I don't know how to fix this. Best Regards,Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Anorexia_(symptom)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

New charity article may need a look for promoting AIDS denialism

Just seen a newly-created article about a 'non-incorporated' UK charity called the Immunity Resource Foundation. The article so far is entirely written by a user who discloses that they were paid to write the article. I'm concerned that the charity seems to be a front to promote HIV/AIDS denialism and that the article doesn't clearly explain this. Can someone look into this? 85.211.96.114 (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no good sources on them. I am not seeing that they are notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Move Essential thrombocythosis to Essential thrombocythemia

 Done The following names exist for the same condition:

The most common by a factor of 7 is Essential thrombocythemia as seen here Pubmed. I was unable to move the article to the common name, could an administrator do this? CFCF 💌 📧 13:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The 3rd is misspelled, and should be essential thrombocytosis - a common term. — soupvector (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that it is—odd how I missed that, and that is the most common name with ~100 more hits on Pubmed than any of the others. I was able to finish the move myself now, but the odd thing was that the misspelled term still gave me some hits on Pubmed, which is why I think I missed double checking (just used copy-paste). CFCF 💌 📧 15:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Abundant primary sources in Regeneration in humans

I've stumbled upon yet another overlooked corner of Wikipedia – the field of gerontology and regenerative medicine. The article on regeneration in humans may include some of the most egregious examples, but the following articles could do with a good looking over:

Thanks, CFCF 💌 📧 20:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

To those add:
Blast! another walled garden. And just when I was thinking we'd nearly finished ;-) Alexbrn (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
And geroscience. CFCF 💌 📧 20:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, lets make a list:

CFCF 💌 📧 21:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

List

(See Index of topics related to life extension) Please, anyone feel free to add to this list without signing

Comments

User:The Transhumanist probably knows a lot about the articles related to this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Party and play

HIV

I've added the Party and play article to WikiProject Medicine because of the public health risk through unprotected sex with large numbers of sexual partners: see this BMJ editorial. I'd greatly appreciate any help editors on this project could bring to bringing this article up-to-date and improving the number and quality of citations. -- The Anome (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Barbara (WVS) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Just trimmed and placed here Talk:Antimicrobial_resistance#Text. Interesting overview here [52] that is much much less sesational. Not going to sell the tabloids but more accurate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

great improvement--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

New image, a painting by Edvard Munch in Borderline personality disorder

Unfortunately, a user reverted the inclusion (as seen here) of the image. After that there was a discussion on the talk page. However, the controversy could not be resolved. Therefore, third opinions would be most welcome. Thanks to all.--Saidmann (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

have commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The caption for the new image has now been updated and extended, containing now three references. The case of the Munch painting is also compared to the case of a van Gogh painting in Major depressive disorder. The connection between mental disorder and painting clearly is much stronger in the Munch case than in the van Gogh case. Opinions on this issue will be most welcome. Thank you in advance.--Saidmann (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cunnilingus tongue

Just alerting editors of this project to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cunnilingus tongue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Creatine and testicular cancer

Some disagreement on what strength of sourcing is necessary to report a connection between these things. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

have commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

About One and a Half Syndrome

Hey I was going through the article on one and a half syndrome and the page doesn't seem to specify what the ipsilateral side and the contralateral side suffer from. Can some one make this more clear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitrimal (talk • contribs) 07:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this helps. — soupvector (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Merger: 1994 plague epidemic in Surat

Hey folks! I've proposed merging 1994 plague epidemic in Surat into 1994 plague in India. It'd be great if some others could take a look and comment. (Discuss). Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


Appreciation for WPMED

As 2015 comes to a close I hope you don't mind if I use some electrons to express my appreciation for the participants in this project. I am just an itinerant editor; you all have created and shepherded the most comprehensive and available biomedical resource on Earth. We cannot know how far the ripples will go temporally, but geographically they are global. Thank you all. — soupvector (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:soupvector for your works of support and also your involvement in this project :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced medical article

Tetanic contraction currently has no cites of any type at all to support it, which is not ideal for a medical article. Would anyone be interested in taking a look at it? -- The Anome (talk) 13:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I added a few citations. Perhaps better ones can be found, but I think the citations provided now fulfill the minimum requirement for a medcal article. Boghog (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! -- The Anome (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation

Editors here may remember that the "post-finasteride syndrome" article was deleted as non-notable. It appears that there is an attempt at coatracking the legitimacy of this "syndrome" on this foundation webpage, more eyes would be appreciated. Not sure that this foundation webpage meets WP:N criteria, either. Yobol (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

have commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Will more editors please take a look to give their opinion? AlexBRN's most recent reversion merely says " Rv. to good, this ain't encyclopedic this stuff" which is a very unhelpful comment. The article is being accused of coatracking because many editors here don't want to acknowledge anything about post finasteride syndrome however when you have a foundation that's main purpose is dedicated to researching the syndrome the matter is nearly one in the same. Thanks. Doors22 (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I did expand on my comment on the Talk page. Yeah, this is yet another attempt by you to coatrack your agenda into Wikipedia. I think what "many editors here" are really thinking is that their patience with this campaign is getting exhausted. Alexbrn (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_75&oldid=1149827091"