Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 86

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80←Archive 84Archive 85Archive 86Archive 87Archive 88→Archive 90

Ancestral health

Anyone interested might like to look at the new Ancestral health. Is this the same as Evolutionary medicine? If it is a distinct topic, the new article needs some sources. Johnuniq (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The two are not synonymous. Evolutionary medicine is a term describing the application of methods and concepts from evolutionary science to the study of medicine. Ancestral health is a ambiguous neologism employed by a group that calls itself the Ancestral Health Society and used to describe attempts to emulate the "Ancestral Lifestyle" to improve health and well-being in modern humans. They created a journal named the Journal of Evolution and Health to publish materials on ancestral health. A third of the journal's editorial board lacks a graduate degree and they published their first and only issue in 2013. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Ouch. Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The people in the actual Ancestral Health movement seem to use the two terms interchangeably. http://ancestraldoctors.org/how-we-view-ancestral-health/ says "Please watch the video below, featuring Rick Henriksen, MD 'Evolutionary Medicine in Primary Care' for more information about ancestral health". Why would I watch a video about Evolutionary Medicine to get more information about Ancestral Health if they are different things?
Why does http://kresserinstitute.com/ invite you to "Join a Unique Cohort of Highly Qualified Functional and Evolutionary Medicine Practitioners" and then on the same page say "The Ideal Approach: Functional Medicine Meets Ancestral Health"? Why does the "Ancestral Health Symposium 2016" ( https://ahs16.sched.org/list/descriptions/ ) have a presenter from the Evolutionary Medicine Interdisciplinary Center? Why does https://re-evolutionary.com/about/ say "Anastasia became interested in evolutionary medicine and got involved in the Ancestral Health movement while still a medical student"?
You can, of course, find places where subtle differences between the two are discussed, just as you can with "health care" and "medical care" -- two other terms that are often used interchangeably. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The first link you provided described Ancestral Health as:
Ancestral Health means using the best practices of previous generations within modern medicine to prevent and treat modern diseases with lifestyle changes.
This is in line with my characterization of how it is used, and does not describe the employment of the basic science of evolution to applied problems in medicine and health which characterizes evolutionary medicine. I don't believe your question "Why would I watch a video about Evolutionary Medicine to get more information about Ancestral Health if they are different things?" can be answered without first answering why, if they believe they are synonyms, does a board member from Physicians for Ancestral Health give a 50 minute speech on evolutionary medicine that seemingly avoids any usage of the term "ancestral health" outside of a declaration of his position at Physicians for Ancestral Health coupled with a disclaimer that his views are his own.
The Kresser Institute, founded by Chris Kresser, L.Ac. (who "personally" created the "entire" course and delivers "all" its materials), doesn't appear to have an internally consistent meaning that it assigns to its terminology. It would take more time than I'm willing to invest to ascertain what an "Evolutionary Medicine Practitioner" is or what they mean when they say they offer the "Only Case-Based Functional Medicine Training with an Ancestral Perspective".
Going through these links, I've lost track of my line of thought. I'm just going to conclude with it being irrelevant (for the purpose of keeping these wiki articles distinct) if they believe the terms are synonymous since that would be mostly due to them redefining evolutionary medicine to refer to their concept of ancestral health, rather than the other way around. This would still leave us with two distinct articles, Evolutionary medicine and Ancestral health/"Evolutionary medicine as viewed by ancestral health proponents". M. A. Bruhn (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Or it will leave us with one article, because it's not obvious that Ancestral health is a notable topic. Notability requires someone outside the little movement to write about it (among other things). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Page promoting the offline app

Has been put together here happy to have peoples feedback. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

professional and easy to look up content--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
That page looks great. I have some qualms about medical information being sourced back to WP (which version of a subject's page is used to create the entry in this app?), but they're not insurmountable, and I'm sure you weren't looking for commentary on that aspect, anyways. So... Yeah, the page looks great! MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The app is based of the version that is present when the underlying ZIM is created.
I do not see the risks as being any different with our content being avaliable in an online versus an offline format. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Naming election for the medical journal is now open

Wikiversity Journal of Medicine may change its name, and an election for this is now open at:
Wikiversity:Talk:Wikiversity Journal/Future as separate Wikimedia project.

The name of the project will be the entry that gets the most points during an election lasting until 12 (noon) August 16 (GMT time), wherein each voter gets 5 points. Those eligible to vote are:

Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


sign up/give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Leukophobia

My attention was drawn to this article at Wikipediocracy and I've just checked it. It badly failed WP:MEDRS and I suspect the author's other work on phobias may need to be checked for the same problem. I've made the most urgent changes (and do not consider myself competent to go further) and someone else is AfDing it (I edit conflicted with their placing the template), but I'm not sure deletion is the best solution, and as I say, the editor's related work would seem to need attention too, so I am bringing the matter to your attention. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes we had someone create a bunch of articles around phobias a while ago. Mostly just a Latin / Greek naming exercise. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Anaplasmosis vs Human_granulocytic_anaplasmosis

Anaplasma phagocytophilum

After reading these articles I think they are about the same disease. Or I misunderstand something? Ruslik_Zero 19:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

... for anaplasmosis in humans Human granulocytic anaplasmosis. (there is a Anaplasmosis in canine [1])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
In the first article humans are also mentioned. Ruslik_Zero 07:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:MEDMOS I agree that we should merge the two of them and than have and than have a section called "Other animals" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:RSN#List of people with bipolar disorder

Please comment. I've having an issue with IP editors that keep re-inserting names of historical figures with speculative, posthumous diagnoses and I'd be interested in input from this project about the question I just posted at WP:RSN#List of people with bipolar disorder. —PermStrump(talk) 04:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking back through earlier discussions it seems clear that we need a guideline (if we don`t already have one, somewhere) on the topic, and that it should reflect a consensus with wp:WikiProject Biography.
  • I think @Permstrump: identified one key exclusion criterion at wp:NONDEF.
  • I`d further suggest that "Person X, who was notable, later developed condition Y" isn't good enough, even with good sources. We need evidence that "Person X's condition Y was notable". For inclusion on a manageable, finite list we need further evidence that "Person X had one of the most notable cases of condition Y". To take a nonmedical example, David Beckham includes sourced assertions about his 32 tattoos, but it is neither an extraordinary number that would set him high among all people with tattoos, nor is it a defining characteristic of his that would ``generally`` be seen in the lede of sources covering him. Hence it should not justify his appearance on a List of people with tattoos. In contrast, J. Edgar Hoover or Alan Turing might justifiably belong in a List of closeted homosexual men, while Stephen Hawking or Lou Gehrig would sensibly be included in any List of people with ALS. Their condition was not defining of them, but it is nearly always discussed when they are described. A borderline example might be Ronald Reagan, whose Alzheimer's disease came long after his principal notable activities, but whose case was used widely in fundraising and awareness efforts, with Nancy's support.
  • Some of these categories and lists exist primarily for maintenance tracking purposes, to ensure that problem assertions of a controversial nature are given visibility. Would not a hidden maintenance category be the better mechanism to use in such cases?
Just a few thoughts, I'm sure there are many others. Should we bang it around for a while, or just start work on a draft directly and let the ideas evolve around the draft? LeadSongDog come howl! 18:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The criteria will depend upon the subject. "People with extremely common thing" needs a different set of rules than "People with rare thing". If it's common, then you should exclude as many entries as possible, to make the list usable. But if it's rare, you should tend to include most entries that can be reliably sourced (e.g., to a self-identifying news article), so that the list can be reasonably representative. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we will rarely be able to justify a choice of a few dozen from a few million as for List of people with lung cancer, but for very small populations such as Proteus syndrome we might feasibly include all publicly-known members. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


Peripheral half life

I cannot find an explanation of this term anywhere on Wikipedia. The article Biological half-life has no mention of it. I'm trying to disambiguate periphery (piped to peripheral) in the infobox for Carbetocin. Does the peripheral half life have anything to do with peripherally-selective drugs? For once, Google has failed me. Can anyone here help? Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

This article specifically refers to the given half-life of 85–100 min as the half-life of carbetocin in peripheral circulation. You can disambiguate to this article: Peripheral vascular system.M. A. Bruhn (talk) 09:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much. — Gorthian (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the disambiguation work. Although to be honest now that I've woken up and had a look at it again I'm not sold on this disambiguation. With a half-life of 85–100 min carbetocin will disperse throughout the entire systemic and pulmonary system which is how some authors define "peripheral circulation". By contrast the Peripheral vascular system was apparently a merger of an article on peripheral veins with an article on peripheral arteries. Either way I think somehow the disambiguation should convey that it is referring to the half-life of carbetocin in the "peripheral circulation" as defined in this context as the sum of the systemic circulation and pulmonary circulation. In other contexts though, such as someone being described as having "poor peripheral circulation", "peripheral circulation" would be referring to the blood vessels distal to the heart and would refer to the topic of the Peripheral vascular system article.M. A. Bruhn (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I wondered about the Peripheral vascular system link, but I thought maybe it was a good qualifier because the peripherals would be where the half life is measured. (I actually have no idea about how those numbers get determined.) As for the disambiguation, we can only do so much with a piped link; it has to be something that exists on Wikipedia, or else it needs to be unlinked entirely.
Reading that abstract gave me pause: It comprises the systemic circulation, which supplies blood to all parts of the body except the lungs, and the pulmonary circulation, which supplies blood to the lungs. With that definition, what part of the vascular system is not "peripheral"?! — Gorthian (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Fetal circulation and placental circulation aren't really well described by using systemic and pulmonary circulation. I've also seen "peripheral circulation" used to describe the systemic and pulmonary circulation with regards to circulating blood cells. A pharmacist really would be the best person to ask though. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you again for all your time! I may drop by WP:WikiProject Pharmacology. — Gorthian (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
In this context of the carbetocin infobox, I think mention of peripheral can safely be deleted. The distinction that is being made here is how long the drugs persists in the peripheral vs. central nervous system compartments. Since the target of this drug is in the periphery and measurement of drug half-life is usually made in the periphery, specifying that the measurement was in the periphery is redundant and unnecessary. Boghog (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2016 (UTICA)
Thank you for clearing this up Boghog. Gorthian, I apologize for taking up your time leading you down the wrong path. Looking back I can see several errors in my reasoning and in my decision to post prematurely. I had actually initially considered central and peripheral compartments but thought those always referred to a generalized model of blood-infused vs. non-blood-infused compartments, and I also wrongfully began to worry that half-lives in a multicompartment model wouldn't be practically useful because you cannot mathematically describe them without making them a function of multiple difficult to measure/estimate variables which the half-lives would be sensitive to. It seems tunnel vision set in trying to rationalize how the math would work out, and stepping back now I see that I missed several pretty apparent things. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 09:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@Boghog and M. A. Bruhn: Sounds like a normal Wikipedia discussion to me. :-) I'll go ahead and remove the word peripheral in that infobox. (It would still be nice if there were a sentence or two in Biological half life.) Thank you for your help. — Gorthian (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I've ripped off (with attribution) the section at Oxytocin #Administration to create an example at Biological half-life #Peripheral half-life, which should illustrate the concept. I've also created the redirect Peripheral half-life for future use. Is there any need for Central half-life as the complementary term? --RexxS (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I think, honestly, that we should just shove this term under the rug. I've seen it used to describe half-lives of circulating blood cells and have seen "half-life in peripheral blood" referring to blood in a limb that has had its circulation isolated from the rest of the body. It's just a more concise way to refer to a variety of things whose meaning the intended audience should be able to discern from the context. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I imagine that the only instances where a compound's central half-life would differ from peripheral half-life are in circumstances where: a compound is preferentially metabolized by an enzyme that has an expression profile which markedly differs between the CNS and periphery; a compound can't effectively penetrate the BBB and BCSFB but can access the CNS by an alternate route or as a prodrug AND either the renal excretion of the compound is fairly rapid relative to its metabolism or the expression profile of the compound's metabolizing enzymes differs somewhat between the CNS and periphery.
In the case of oxytocin, I imagine that its metabolizing enzymes have different expression profiles in the CNS/periphery. Phenethylamine is another example of a compound that has a different half-lives in the CNS and the periphery. MAO-B is by far the most significant enzyme involved in its metabolism and the protein is preferentially expressed in the brain. The phenethylamine drugbox distinguishes the half-life based upon endogenously synthesized phenethylamine (~30 second half-life in the CNS), which is produced primarily in catecholamine neurons, and exogenous/orally administered phenethylamine (~5-10 minute half-life in the periphery), which is rapidly absorbed and distributed throughout the body/brain.
If there are other notable examples of compounds with different half-lives besides these two, then I suppose it might be worth covering central half-life in the biological half-life article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hypotrichosis with juvenile macular dystrophy

Fluorescent angiogram of a 5-year-old boy with HJMD

This was one of the articles produced via the WMF translation tool (from German). I've gone through the translation but I don't have a medical background; could someone please check it as a medical article? Thanks. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Yngvadottir. Was a really decent article about a very rare desease. All it required was a little bit of organizing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Synovial v. Ganglion cyst

Synovial cyst redirects to Ganglion cyst, via a claim they are the same.[2] @CFCF: But this and this say they are not. Our article on ganglion cyst isn't telling me much about the synovial cyst that has been plaguing me for a year. Methinks we need a synovial article! There are 309 reviews in PubMed, and PMID 25190552 . Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

My understanding of histology is that many things are not very well defined, and that even general descriptions of things can be controversial. I think the idea of differentiating synovial cysts from others by them being lined with synovial cells and essentially being an extension of the joint fluid which might still communicate with the rest of the joint fluid is a good idea. But I don't think making separate articles is a good idea. To quote from the third link you posted:
The literature on the subject is still somehow confusing with both terms used interchangeably [3, 43]. For example, different sources will use GC to qualify what, with appropriate review of the pathologic description, would truly cor-respond to a SC according to the previous definitions. Even more frequently, the term “synovial cyst” will be used to mention what typically corresponds to a GC, a soft tissue mass lacking a synovial lining with a mucinous, gelatinous content.
What this means in practice is that editors will likely be sticking articles that use the term GC into the GC article even if the article is really describing SC's, and vise versa, and in the case of articles that use them at the same time simultaneously editors will be confused as to which article they should be inserted into. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to change the title to something more like "Synovial/Ganglion cyst" and contain a section describing how the terms are used. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, M. A. Bruhn for the explanation of the histology and how this error came to be, and nice to "meet" you! I suggest though that our accuracy is improved by following our guidelines rather than worrying about edits that uninformed editors might make. Our work here typically is to clean up after them anyway, and this case should be no different.

A synovial cyst is a real thing, distinguished from a ganglion cyst, and it meets notability. There are numerous published reviews. We do ourselves and our readers a favor by having both articles and explaining the differences. And there is no policy/guideline reason not to have them.

I know someone who has a spinal ganglion cyst, and that (in his case) is a Very Bad Thing. Life limiting and health endangering. I have a spinal synovial cyst, and that is a less bad thing, but I find no information about it on Wikipedia, while information abounds in PubMed and in other reliable sources. We aren't serving our readers, and the very confusion you and that article mention should be covered in our content! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Now, to some of the problems with ganglion cyst relative to synovial cyst:

  1. There is a link to synovial cyst in ganglion cyst. As there should be, but there should be an article on synovial
  2. "These cysts most frequently occur around .." a synovial cyst article would explain that spinal cynovial cysts are rare. This article has no content.
  3. "Ganglion cysts are diagnosed easily, as they are visible and pliable to touch." Spinal synovial cysts are detected via MRI ... no mention in article.
  4. Check out the disaster we have for Treatment. Compare to recommended treatment of spinal synovial cyst.

If someone could kindly correct CFCF's well-intended redirect, and if someone were to forward to me the best reviews not freely available, I can do some of this work as my limited free time allows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

An edit notice for each article might be useful for warning editors about the inconsistent use of terminology in the literature, hopefully addressing M. A. Bruhn's concern. SandyGeorgia I'm happy to forward you any reviews you name I can access through uni (I've got your email address). I'm not sure what you mean about correcting the redirect, but you can edit it using this link, if that's any help. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Even if they are technically separate things, it may be valuable to keep them in the same article.
(To be filed in the category of "there is nothing new under the Sun": This feels like the same conversation that we had in about pica-type disorders last year, except that our initial impressions are reversed.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Adrian, you may have an old email; I don't want to undo redirect without hearing from CFCF and getting consensus. WAID, not the same-- there is lots of information, and many reviews, about synovial specifically, unlike the PICA situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
The pica situation did have the additional complication of whether the one was really notable. This one is just a pure editing decision: given that both could be well-sourced, but many people don't even know which kind they have (it looks like even if the cyst is surgically removed that nobody usually bothers with checking to see whether it's a synovial or ganglion cyst[3]), should they be handled separately or together? If handled together, then perhaps the page should be moved to Juxtafacet cyst, which appears to be the name for both of these sub-types.[4] WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
You bring up fair points Sandy, and also it is a pleasure to meet you as well. While it may require more effort upfront, I think the most efficient route forward would be to create a sourced paragraph describing the differences between the two terms; such a paragraph should eventually be provided in the article anyways, and from such a paragraph I believe whether there should be two articles or one would clearly emerge. Alternatively if you feel confident from your current review of the literature that two distinct articles can and should be made, and that such a step would just be an unnecessary complication, then I would be fine with you going ahead and changing the synovial cyst article from a redirect into an article and beginning work on it. I will try and review the literature so that I can form a better opinion and help contribute to the content of the article/articles either way. However, comments such as "Your doctor doesn’t need to distinguish between them since both are treated the same way. In fact, doctors rarely take the extra step to clinically diagnose the type of cyst you have once it’s removed" from the second link you provided are initially concerning. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
It's good to see you back Sandy. It certainly seems to me that once you have the sources, there's no real reason not to recreate Synovial cyst. One small complication I came across when looking at the history of Synovial cyst is that the last version of the article talked about a myxoid cyst which when I did a Google search seems to be described variously as "digital myxoid cyst", "mucous cyst", "pseudocyst", and "benign ganglion cysts of the digits". Perhaps there's scope for somebody more knowledgeable than I to work on the article Cyst to explain better all the different types. It would be a valuable overview for the lay reader. --RexxS (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
thanks, RexxS, for all of that. I'm not really back-- just sitting around on a sore back and noticed that Wikipedia gave me no info. I, too, feel it over my head for a complete rewrite, and hope someone with more medical knowledge weighs in on the best way to address this. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Upon further review I believe a separate article for Synovial cyst is warranted. Such an article should discuss general information about synovial cysts, their relation to Ganglion cysts, and—I believe—should have significant in-depth discussion of site-specific synovial cysts limited to three regions: the popliteal region of the knee (Baker's cyst), in the hip around the iliopsoas (Iliopsoas bursitis), and in the spine (particularly the lumbar region) at the facet joints. I base this predominantly off the extended discussion by this source that Sandy presented which makes a compelling case that these cysts can usually be safely assumed by their locations to be synovial, and that there is only significant literature written about synovial cysts at these locations. I will now attempt to explain the bursitis/cyst confusion. Bursae are small, synovial-lined sacs around joints which serve to cushion them and which may or may not be fluid-filled (if they are then it is with synovial fluid). An inflamed bursa may swell up (bursitis) with synovial fluid, and may even develop communication (somehow) with the nearby synovial joint, making them virtually indistinguishable from a synovial cyst that developed out of the synovial joint itself. Additionally, communication between synovial cysts and the joint is difficult to detect using standard techniques, and closure of the channel through which they communicate can occur. For this reason synovial cysts and enlargements of bursae are often used interchangeably, and varying definitions for the two have been proposed. However the term Baker's cyst is used to describe both as is Iliopsoas bursitis, and for the reasons described above these two conditions along with spinal synovial cysts should be discussed in the synovial cyst article with discussion of synovial cysts in other parts of the body limited. To summarize I think it is okay for SandyGeorgia to go ahead and create a synovial cyst article and if they so desire begin a section on spinal synovial cysts. I will go around and start thinking about how to deal with inconsistencies at various articles: Baker's cyst, Iliopsoas bursitis, Synovial bursa, Ganglion cyst, etc. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

  • My concern with splitting the articles is that they will be less informative than if they are combined. The terms are used very much interchangeably, even in text-books and the academic literature — so it might cause some confusion to split them into two separate articles based on a single review.
    A better solution may be to explain differences in the article and to give some insight into why there is confusion.
    Frankly, I had never heard of spinal synovial cysts, and that may make up a neat focus for a new article instead.Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 07:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to both! OK, then, the writing of this content is pretty well over my head, and I can see that how to organize the content is not a straightforward decision. I've got an MRI finding of "2 mm left L4-5 synovial cyst without L5 impingement"; I hope they know what they're talking about as well as you all do :) Whomever is capable of writing this content, we do need to clarify somewhere and give more info as M. A. Bruhn details; there is lots of info in MEDRS sources about lumbar synovial cysts, which seem to be not much of a big deal. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Sandy, I hope you feel better soon. If you are bored and interested, then you might be able to tell how precisely the person writing the MRI report was using that term by reading the MRI section on this webpage (contrasted with the same section on this page. I'm under the impression that the radiologists sometimes assign that label based on the odds ("this kind of blob in this location is 50 times more likely to be synovial rather than ganglion, so let's just call it that").
In the more recent papers, I'm seeing some divergence in opinion about whether it matters. Consider:
  • "The distinction between synovial cysts (with a synovial lining) and ganglion cysts (without a lining) is a histological one. As other authors have discussed, there is no clinical relevance to differentiating between ganglion and synovial cysts, as their presentations, treatments, and prognosis are identical" [5] (2016)
  • On the other hand, PMID 25190552 says that the focus for synovial cysts should be on correcting the cause, rather than removing it, and the other way around for ganglion cysts. (My question: How much of this is due to the difference in location, rather than the difference in type? Is their rule "remove ganglion cysts but not synovial cysts" or is their rule really "remove knee cysts but fuse lumbar vertebrae"?)
  • PMID 26911967 talks about differentiating the two via MRI, but seems to care more about differentiating juxtafacet cysts from non-juxtafacet cysts, rather than differentiating the two types of juxtafacet cysts from each other.
Carl, what do you think about setting up a "tree"? We could put the main article at Juxtafacet cyst, with all of the general information about both types and all locations. Anything that is eventually so large/detailed as to be better in its own article could get a {{Main}} summary in the main one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Good info, and good suggestions ... thanks WAID! Not so concerned about in which article we park this kind of information, but we do have some missing coverage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is already understood, or if there is some confusion present, but I'd like to go ahead and explicitly state that juxtafacet cyst only refers to cysts beside the facet joints of the spine, and is not a general term for synovial/ganglion cysts throughout the body. I'd be fine with an article titled Juxtafacet cyst or Spinal synovial cyst, but either way I think the content should relay the fact that these are usually synovial cysts. I'll have to look more, but I'm not sure if a ganglion cyst confirmed by histology has ever been reported by the facet joints. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Tech news for real editors

Tired of logging in every time you turn around? And tired of how it always seems to happen either in mid-edit or when you only have a few seconds? Well, I am, I have been ever since they shortened the "Keep me logged in" length to just 30 days a few years ago. But I have happy news! Our long-requested wish for a longer login length is finally coming true, thanks to the persistence of one awesome dev. As of this coming Tuesday, "Keep me logged in" will be extended so that you can stay logged in for up to one year (unless you manually log out or clear cookies first).

This change will not affect your account until the next time you login. So if you had to re-login today, then it'll be another 30 days from now before you'll see the benefits.

Request: If you work at another wiki, then please share the news! This will go out in Tech/News, but a lot of regular people won't read that. There's also information for admins at mw:"Keep me logged in" extended to one year about how to make the length of time display in the login message. (This has already been done here at the English Wikipedia, but not at many other projects.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Cool thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Press regarding cupping therapy

The piece says regarding cupping "Wikipedia, the world’s most trusted medical fact gold mine also says it is a pseudoscience."[6]

We have come a long way :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Haha! I found this paper in the prestigious Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine journal. There are other small RCTs that seem to show some benefit in selected situations—notably pain relief. Of the review articles, those in the "CAM" journals all indicate clear benefit, while the non-CAM journals tentatively imply possible benefit with a need for more rigorous study design & investigation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Main term

For depression we go to a disambig page which lists depression (mood) and major depressive disorder at the top.

For anxiety IMO we should do the same as people often mean anxiety disorder or anxiety (mood) when they use the term. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me that the anxiety page has it right with a DAB hatnote. Other instances of anxiety are obvious lesser items in terms of the main page being the umbrella term. Seems amiss that depression takes the reader to a DAB page when the page most often searched for will be Major depressive disorder which is a featured article. --Iztwoz (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The page views for the depression-related pages suggest a 60–40 split in what readers want, and the anxiety pages seem to be similar. I'd either go with the dab page, or with the mood page as the primary. Everyone experiences anxiety as a mood (and if you truly don't, then there are researchers interested in getting a look at your brain), but only a small minority have a psychiatric disorder from it. Going from "normal human experience" to "sometimes, it's not normal any longer" is a reasonable progression (in educational terms); the opposite feels like medicalizing normality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
mood page as primary...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

When people are sent to the disambig page for depression they go to the disease more often than they go to the mood.[7] Even though all people experience the mood and only a lesser number the disease. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Anxiety only ranks a bit higher than anxiety disorder on pageviews[8] and that is with anxiety holding the easier to search for term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I follow WAID's logic for mood as primary, but I think a disambig page is the best choice—distinguish between the two and let the user choose. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 20:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Are things that increase the chance of "suicide" "risks"

Discussion here Talk:Suicide#.22Risk.22 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)



more opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Much confusion about "electro shock therapy"

There are 2 different "electro shock therapies":

  • Aversion therapy with electro shocks (mild, but painful shocks to bodyparts) Aversion therapy can also made with drugs which make ill (like in the film Clockwork Orange). This is a behavior therapy to unlearn addictions.
    It is also used as an aversive punishment for conditioning of developmentally delayed individuals with severe behavioral problems.
    Normally is used 0,5-10 mA and sometimes short spikes with 300 mA at low voltage.
  • Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) (shocks with much more power to the skull to effect the brain, triggering epileptic events, muscle contraction, the "convulsion", like in the film One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest) Until today (with some important changes) it is used for depression and shizophrenia. There are also "shock therapies" with drugs, i.e. insulin. There are no reports of good results with addiction.
    ECT begins with 200 mA until 900 mA (in history also 1600 mA).
  • (And there is this scurile therapy in China: China's Gay Shock Therapy (Channel 4) There are 2 clinics in this documentation. First is clear aversion therapy. The second at ~11:43, the journalist states: "The doctor said the electric shock will threaded the sexuality by rebalancing his nervous system." )

And there is very much confusion about this first two in the world, often with therapies for homosexuals. I had even read about the non existing "electroconvulsive aversion therapy". I have seen articles and videos which talk about aversion therapy and put there pictures of ECT.

I think it should clarified primaly at the begin of the ETC-article. (Sorry, but i think my english is to bad for this.) I made an additional entry in Electroshock (disambiguation). First use of aversion therapy is not mentioned in Electric shock. Electro-shock therapy and Electroshock redirects to ETC. I think a better target would be Electroshock (disambiguation)

In Yang Yongxin it states (with a source from China, which support this) that he used ECT against internet addiction. Also here in English: "China Youth Daily reporter verifies the qualifications of physicians from other areas of mental health practitioners found that the treatment is using electric shocks to “punish” the person who has “internet addiction”, this stimulation known as aversion therapy. / [...] Using electrical stimulation to the brain as the way of treatment has been highly controversial. [...] YANG Yongxin told to the China Youth Daily reporter that his original “wakeup brain therapy” is 1 ~ 5 mA of current through the brain, such stimulation did cause pain, but very safe and will not cause any harm to the child." 1-5 mA is normally used for aversion therapy and nothing direct to the brain. The other parts in the article told clearly about about aversion therapy.

Examples of confusion (homosexuality):

If you search, the confusion is so common in the world. So, i think it would be good to clarify it in Wikipedia to work against this confusion. --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 22:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

any improvement to Aversion therapy or Electroconvulsive therapy is welcomed, as long as Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) is followed...upon looking at the respective histories [10][11] (you've made no edits) you should take to article/talk[12]or [13],thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Are biomarkers signs or symptoms?

Discussion here Talk:Attention_deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#Biomarkers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you need to rephrase the question in this section heading. The issue at hand isn't simply "is content on biomarkers relevant to signs and symptoms?"; it's more generally "where does information on disease biomarkers belong?". What we decide here with the ADHD article should be standardized in MOS:MED for guidance on where to put biomarker information in an arbitrary disease article.
In any event, the peer-reviewed article that I quoted in the discussion gives a fairly unambiguous answer to the question in the section header:

The term “biomarker”, a portmanteau of “biological marker”, refers to a broad subcategory of medical signs – that is, objective indications of medical state observed from outside the patient – which can be measured accurately and reproducibly. Medical signs stand in contrast to medical symptoms, which are limited to those indications of health or illness perceived by patients themselves.
— What are Biomarkers? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078627/

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
That article is specifically about classification for research. It is not a description of the "normal" use of those words by the rest of the world.
When biomarkers are in clinical use they belong under diagnosis. When they are not they belong under research IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I generally agree with the idea that lab test results and imaging reports are not "Signs and symptoms".
But this leads me to a conclusion that you might not enjoy: for conditions such as Hypercholesterolemia, which are defined by lab test results, the ==Diagnosis== section should probably be first, not third or fourth or whatever it is now. It's kind of silly for that article to start off with ==Signs and symptoms== when the condition is almost always asymptomatic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
One than has a short section on "signs and symptoms" stating their usually are not any. Which is also how that section begins. How many mg/dL or mmol/L of which cholesterol is needed to meet which classification of the condition IMO should not be the start of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I think you're assuming that "usually asymptomatic" is not going to be followed by hundreds of words about uncommon symptoms (as it is in this particular article). Also, MEDMOS recommends that all articles begin with ==Classification== (if relevant), so starting off with how much cholesterol meets which classification could be argued to be more compliant with the suggested order anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Offline Medical Wikipedia in Persian

We just launched for Android here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

looks great--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Pterygium (conjunctiva)

Pterygium

User:Lawrence Hirst has been adding promotional content to Pterygium (conjunctiva) using references solely authored by LW Hirst. I have trimmed some of the promotional wording, but it could use a look from someone with medical expertise I think. I started a report at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard as well. Deli nk (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

MedAccred

Please could somebody review Draft:MedAccred and see whether it is salvageable? Concerns have recently been raised that the AfC reviewer who rejected it may have been over-zealous, and I have found several articles they rejected to be worthy of publishing. In this case, the tone is promotional, but the subject may be notable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

will look (trimmed had a lot of non-essential information)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
@Ozzie10aaaa: Thank you. I've published it, but I'm sure it needs more work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it will survive AfD in its current state. I've dropped some links and a source on Talk:MedAccred, but it needs more. --RexxS (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Skin conditions and people of colour

Looking at Cellulitis, I realised that all the images show the condition affecting white people. There are no pictures of black or other people of colour with the condition. The same is true of all 14 photographs in commons:Category:Cellulitis.

I recently read about a paper, Dermatologic health disparities, from which one news source reported " half of dermatologists report that their medical schools did not prepare them to diagnose cancer on black skin". (As a lay person, I have not read the paper.)

Has anyone surveyed our articles, to see whether this is a common issue?

What can be done to ensure representative coverage? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

This is an issue not only concerning skin conditions or Wikipedia, but a general issue in medicine — and unfortunately not one that can be solved very easily by us. There are some efforts for more representative coverage of anatomy spearheaded by Peter Isotalo, but when it comes to diseases there is no work being done that I'm aware of. I've also received a grant to work with medical images and one of the things I want to focus on are these types of systemic bias in what images we have, I will see if any health organizations that specifically target people of color to see if they are interested in rectifying this issue — they just might be. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much we can do in the short-term on the picture front, but what we could start immediately addressing is the text in these articles. In the current cellulitis article it routinely describes the appearance of the skin as red, however...
The skin is brownish-black in dark skinned people, dull red in Caucasian skin;
and...
When examining patients with skin of color, it is helpful to note that the angry red color in cellulitis or the erythema in psoriasis/inflammatory skin conditions may appear as a more subtle red or even have a purple hue to it.
The first source also describes differences in appearance in Erysipelas. There's probably a lot of diseases with issues concerning redness of skin or pigmentation disorders that should have this addressed. This might make for a good task or project for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, perhaps in collaboration with this wikiproject. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Google Scholar has search results for diagnosis racial differences.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Some light-skinned people use sun tanning to darken their skin, and some dark-skinned people use skin bleaching to lighten their skin.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Many of those who contribute here are from areas of the world were people with dark skin are uncommon. We therefore get the pictures from the population that present to us. Would be excellent to have people upload more images of people with health conditions and dark skin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Commons has a global population of contributors (albeit with a western bias). How can this project, with its specialist knowledge of what is needed, reach out to that community, to explain that and solicit contributions? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
In terms of educational value, most skin conditions are usually easier to see on light-colored skin. I suspect that practical reason is why textbooks and journal articles use more light-colored subjects, despite having many more opportunities to get other images. It's not just "not enough black people": the photos I've seen tend to have particularly light colored skin, especially when color changes and border features are described. (But when pigment loss is the issue, then it's the opposite, as any image search for vitiligo will show.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
That's an excellent argument for showing both. "Here is the condition clearly visible; here it is, more subtle, but you can still see it..." --GRuban (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I would be happy to show both if someone had images they were willing to donate. If you reach out to organizations some might be willing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Top-importance article assessments

Hi everyone. I'd like to start a discussion about the appropriateness of a few Top-importance assessments for our Wikiproject. The full list of Top-importance medical articles can be found here (this list is stratified by quality rating) or at Category:Top-importance medicine articles. Our project's guidance on rating article importance can be found at WP:MED/Assessment#Importance scale. Normally, an article rating should be based upon a combination of factors that include:

  • its relevance to medicine and overall significance as a medical topic (subjectively assessed)
  • the significance of the subject to the general population (could be assessed based upon epidemiology for disease articles and whether or not it's one of the leading causes of death, whether or not an article subject/topic is a "household name", and the long-term interest in the topic among our readership based upon WP:MED/PP)
  • the relationship between a topic's rating and a parent article's rating or a more general topic's article rating

Most of our Top-importance articles appear to be aptly rated, but there's a few that I'd like to discuss. These include:

  • Upgrading Lung disease to Top-importance (note that Common cold, Influenza, COPD, Asthma, Tuberculosis, Pneumonia, and Croup are rated Top-importance, but this article is rated Mid-importance; hence, the parent article is currently rated lower than its sub-articles)
  • Downgrading Sepsis to High- or Mid-importance (note that the prevalence of clinically significant/severe forms of sepsis isn't particularly high among the general population and the disease isn't a "household name", although the article's monthly page views are fairly high) Struck out per the discussion below.
  • Either upgrading Liver cancer to Top-importance or downgrading Cervical cancer to High-importance (based upon the Cancer article and the WHO: skin cancer (including both melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers) has a very high prevalence; the most prevalent cancers in males are lung cancer, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, stomach cancer, and liver cancer; the most prevalent cancers in females are breast cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, cervical cancer, and stomach cancer. Liver cancer [est. 782,000 cases] was more prevalent than cervical cancer [est. 528,000 cases] in the general population in 2012, although if 100% of the population were female then cervical cancer would have been more prevalent during that year. The cancer article and all of these cancers except for liver cancer are currently rated Top-importance. I'm more inclined to upgrade the rating of liver cancer than downgrade the rating of cervical cancer.)
  • Downgrading Hemorrhoid to High-importance (IMO this doesn't really seem like a Top-importance article topic, so I'd like some feedback on reassessing this one)
  • Downgrading Cataract to High-importance OR upgrading Refractive error to High- or Top-importance (note that Visual impairment is rated Top-importance; Visual impairment#Cause notes that cataracts are responsible for 33% of all visual impairments and 51% of all cases of blindness; refractive errors are responsible for 42% of all visual impairments and 3% of all cases of blindness. I don't feel particularly strongly about downgrading the cataract article since it seems to be the primary cause of blindness or about upgrading refractive error to Top-importance since it generally isn't a major cause of severe visual impairment/blindness.)

@Doc James: I imagine you'll want to weigh in on this.

Thoughts? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Sepsis definitely deserves to be a top-importance article. It's difficult to get good epidemiological data on it (as a result there's virtually no data on its prevalence in developing nations), it has in the past been poorly defined and people are often confused about whether to list it as the cause of death. If you look at a list of leading causes of death in the US/world/etc, often sepsis isn't included, but this obscures it's importance since many of the deaths attributed to other diseases came from them triggering an immune response that lead to sepsis. It's probably a leading cause of death worldwide, and there are sources that say this, but honestly we just have no good numbers on it's mortality (although it is definitely large enough to be top-importance). M. A. Bruhn (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
That's a fairly cogent argument for keeping its current rating so I'll strike the proposal. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Lung disease is currently mid-importance. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I would be supportive of making it high importance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Since there's been no objection, I've upgraded near-sightedness, refractive error, and liver cancer to top-imp and lung disease to high-imp. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks User:Seppi333 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
(Off topic but...) since lung disease was mentioned, I linked chronic lung disease the other day and was notified that is a disambiguation page. Perhaps it should be expanded into a parent article that summarizes other conditions? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
that could be done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Seppi333 You are raising good points that it is not clear how importance should be assessed. I have a broader perspective, and it could be ignorant or uninformed, but so far as I know there is no clear WikiProject guidance anywhere for how to set importance rankings. I also think that uniformity or aligned practices across WikiProjects do not exist either. If there is no precedent, and no standard practice, then each WikiProject might do anything. I think the time is becoming ripe to develop any set of assessment criteria and to consider proposing a universal ranking system that could be used across WikiProjects. Some people were just discussing this at WP:Council at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Overhaul_of_article_assessments. It seems like other people have interest in this and are expressing needs for another system. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
    • The original point was to figure out which articles should go into the WP:1.0 offline releases. WP:VITAL articles, of course, but what else? A combination of subjective importance (i.e., a group of editors say that this is 'top' and this is 'high' and that is 'low') with page views was settled upon. And, secondarily, if it's important enough to go in an offline copy, then any sensible WikiProject should prioritize improving those articles. But 1.0 is basically dead AFAICT, and people generally don't use that model to pick articles to edit, so I'm not sure that there's any point behind them any longer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
      @Bluerasberry: Determining an article's class rating is usually a lot more straightforward than determining an appropriate importance rating for a project; for class ratings, you basically just need to look at how long the article is and how well it's sourced to decide on a stub/start/C/B rating.
      The criteria that I listed above are what I use when I attempt to determine an appropriate importance rating when assessing articles for WP:MED and WP:PHARM, particularly when I'm unfamiliar with the article topic (e.g., when addressing rating requests at WP:MED/Assessment#Requesting an assessment or re-assessment). If others in the project wish to standardize the methodology for article importance assessments, I suppose these criteria would be a good place to start. However, like I mentioned above, some of the criteria are subjectively determined (e.g., importance rating based upon the medical relevance/significance of an article topic), while others are based upon objective measures (e.g., importance rating based upon the rating(s) of parent articles – such as ADHD-PI / adult ADHD relative to ADHD or Adderall relative to amphetamine – or importance rating based upon the rating(s) of very closely related articles – such as amphetamine relative to methamphetamine). Hence, if these criteria are offered as guidance, there will still be some inconsistency in article ratings given by different people; however, this would at least establish a standardized approach to rating article importance.
      On a related note, we currently offer guidance at WP:MED/Assessment#Is WPMED the correct WikiProject to support this article? for determining whether or not an article's talk page should be tagged with {{WPMED}}. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
      @WhatamIdoing: I agree that importance ratings don't really serve any readily apparent practical purpose for our project since we don't have any work groups that are focused on improving high/top-importance articles; however, we do track the progression of various article importance-based metrics at WP:MED#Metrics. As for me personally, article importance ratings have affected my editing behavior in the past: e.g., I periodically standardize the date formats and use of dashes in our top-importance articles based upon MOS:DATE/MOS:DASH with scripts as well as format them with WP:AWB. I also tend to focus more of my attention than I otherwise would on editing the top-importance articles that are on topics that I'm familiar with. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
class and importance rating are both important...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about notability of a BLP

More views would be welcome at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Asking for some other opinions. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Scrupulosity

See Talk:Scrupulosity, new editor needing guidance. (No, I am not back!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

My first reaction, "Yay, Sandy's back". Awww... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Clinical Research Advantage, Inc.

Hello again, medical experts. This draft has some references, but I am having difficulty in separating press releases and advertisements from useful information. Is this a notable company? It will be deleted shortly as an abandoned draft unless at least one editor thinks it's important enough to edit it.—Anne Delong (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The article reads like a promotional narrative and is non-encyclopedic. There are dozens of companies like this, i.e., not notable. --Zefr (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree and have deleted the article. NW (Talk) 20:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! That's one more off my list...—Anne Delong (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

arthroscope

Arthroscopy

Your article on the history of the arthroscope is missing an important step in the evolution of the arthroscope. Dr. Watnabe's scope was, as mentioned, a simple tube fitted with optics. To illuminate the interior of the knee, allowing the surgeon visibility inside the knee, Dr. Watnabe mounted a small light bulb on the end of his scope. Their was a problem with this arrangement. The light bulb had a tendency of breaking inside the patient's knee. In 1972 I was a patient of Dr. William Torgeson, Chief of Orthopaedic Surgery at the Lahey Clinic in Boston. At the time I was employed at the Fiber Optic division of American Optical Company in Southbridge MA. Dr. Torgeson asked if we could attach a fiber optic light source to the Watnabe scope eliminating the broken light bulb issue. In the process of attaching a light guide to the rigid scope one of our engineers, George Carpenter, asked why we didn't replace the rigid tube with a flexible fiber optic scope similar to units the company fabricated for various industrial applications. Working with Dr. Torgeson we produced the FIRST flexible, articulating arthroscope. This unit was the direct forerunner of the arthroscopes used in today's knee surgeries. The history stated in your article leaps from Dr. Watnabe's rigid scope to today's flexible, articulating arthroscope implying that the bulk of the development work was done out of country. True, by today's standards, the first units were crude. The surgeon was required to pear into an optical end piece and manipulated the tip of the scope by rotating two knobs mounted on the body of the instrument. However, the surgeon was able to view the anterior and interior of the knee with one small incision. The reader should remember this was in the early 1970's. Small video cameras that the scope could be attached only became available some 25 years later. During this interval the flexible arthroscope was successfully used as a diagnostic instrument allowing the surgeon to elect a more conservative treatment course in many patients.

Richard L. Dumaine72.49.221.64 (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources (and MEDRS depending on text added)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

For the orthopedically oriented, an advertising brochure posing as a WP article and another on the way

-- Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

good to see you back!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Organ donation

the above article could use some edits,[14]..... thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

"Could use some edits" is not helpful. What specifically are you requesting? ‑ Iridescent 12:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Any improvements to the article. It's something we do here at WPMED: if someone we know dies, then we try to improve an article related to that person. Since this editor was an organ donor, articles on organ donation are a good match.
I've worked on those articles in the past, although it's been a long time since I looked at them. Most of them have a lot of information about the sociolegal issues of convincing people to be donors. It might be interesting to see whether we could turn up some sources about how the surgeries happen, and expand the articles with that technical information. It sounds like his heart was transplanted, so perhaps that's an area to focus on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I didn't know the background about the editor who died that was an organ donor, but when I clicked over from here, the nonsense in the lead was immediately apparent. I haven't read the rest of the article yet, but if it's anything like the lead, there are probably a lot of indiscriminate trivia, medical claims without WP:MEDRS and soapbox issues. I already trimmed some trivia from the lead, but here's an example of some I didn't get to yet: ...researchers from the Ganogen Research Institute transplanted human fetal kidneys from therapeutic abortions, including from fetuses with anencephaly, into animals for future transplantation into human patients.[15] The animals were able to survive on the human kidney alone, demonstrating both function and growth of the human organ.[16] I don't know if "trivia" is the right word, but it's primary research and far from the top of the list of things that should go in the lead that aren't already there. I can only imagine what the rest of the article looks like. —PermStrump(talk) 13:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree. If it's going to be in the article (and why that one, rather than some more specific article?), then it needs to be moved. There's also quite a lot of work that could be done with simple copyediting, or getting more recent (or less American-only) statistics on the number of people on waiting lists.
I've just created a new ==Donation process== section that I hope will be useful for putting in the medical side of things. What do you all think about this book for some information about how to maintain the body in the post-death and pre-removal stage of the process (e.g., drugs commonly given to improve recipient outcome)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
[17]very good reference WAID(Springer, 2012)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
So far, we've had about five editors contribute to this article in response to this request, and there's still some easy stuff to fix. Please jump in and see if you can make a net improvement in an article that gets more than 500 readers each day. We still haven't used that (technical) book that I linked above, and the lead could use some basic information about pre-donation testing and consent. (I just moved all that stuff about the youngest donor down into the body. The stuff from the lead about growing kidneys from aborted fetuses in animals is now on the talk page for further discussion.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure if organ donation article is the right place for this edit. QuackGuru (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
since the article covers so many related topics, I would leave it ...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


Paracetamol

Paracetamol-

There has been some literature positing a risk of neurological/psychiatric and respiratory problems in people if their mothers took acetaminophen during pregnancy, which have been hyped in the media some and the alternative media a lot (e.g www.naturalnews.com/acetaminophen.html [unreliable fringe source?] natural news]). The content of our article reflected the most recent reviews. A new primary source published yesterday (here - not even pubmed indexed yet). More eyes would be helpful. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

[18]?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
PMID 25851072, PMID 27046315 perhaps? If I read correctly, they seem to agree: there's a small but significant association; there's no evidence of causality (due to experimental design limitations); it's still the best available option for prenatal fever.LeadSongDog come howl! 02:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Announcing WikiConference North America in San Diego, Fri-Mon 7-10 October

WIKICONFERENCE NORTH AMERICA 2016

I am inviting participants in WikiProject Medicine to WikiConference North America to be held in San Diego Friday to Monday 7-10 October. Here are further details:

  • The conference includes a track called "Health care and science", so submissions with that theme are particularly welcome
  • We are accepting submissions until 31 August.
  • We are accepting scholarship applications 9 August - 23 August. About 40 scholarships are available only for people in Canada, the US, and Mexico. Last year about 200 people applied for scholarships.
  • More volunteers are needed. In the usual wiki-way, anyone may comment on program submissions. At the conference in person, all staff will be volunteer and all attendees are encouraged check in with conference organizers about volunteering for the task queue even for an hour. Anyone interested may contact Flonight and Rosiestep to offer volunteer support.
  • Major sponsorship for the conference comes from the San Diego Public Library who are providing the venue and a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation.
  • This is the third year of this conference, with WikiConference USA being in New York in 2014 and in Washington DC in 2015. Check the schedules of those for examples of what kinds of programming will be offered this year.

Discussion about the conference on-wiki could happen at meta:WikiConference North America.

I am one of the organizers for this event. If anyone has questions or comments, then conversation can happen here at this WikiProject also. I am advocating for topics related to medicine in Wikipedia to be well represented at this event. If any participants at this WikiProject wants to talk by video about the conference, I am available to meet by video chat if you email me. I might, for example, support anyone in making a presentation submission if you are unfamiliar with the wiki conference format. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

In particular, I will be presenting about my work at NIOSH. James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Looks like fun. Unfortunately I am unable to make those dates. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I probably can't go either due to the specific dates. That's a shame :( TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
may go, not sure--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Korephilia article

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korephilia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)



give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Muneeb Faiq

There is a report at WP:COIN pointing out that the article has significant problems, including medical claims regarding "brain diabetes theory of glaucoma". Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I've made some edits and removed some puffery. It's still not much good. --RexxS (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

apparently, back to draft[19]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

New WikiProject Medicine page

It's very nice to look at, but in monobook skin, I can't see the links for talk, history, etc.

When looking at an oldid like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=727985700 the message in the pink box ("This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ...") and the diff navigation can't be seen in any skin that I've tried.

It's not a critical error for me, because I can use keyboard shortcuts to work around it, and most of the features hidden won't be used, but there might be some folks inconvenienced. --RexxS (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, will look into the issues with monobook. As for the oldid links I think we can ignore that since most the page is built around editing the modules — the main page is basically just a transcluded template that shoulnd't be changed.Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
If anyone is curious, you can see the other "skin" at this link. (This link won't change your prefs or anything.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, using WhatamIdoing's link I'm not getting these issues at all. Everything looks normal to me, even better than in vector (apart from some issues with the other WikiProject links at the bottom that I will take care of shortly).
RexxS – is this only when you're looking at oldids or do you have some other settings/special javascript that could be interfering with the banner? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't able to reproduce the issue, but I moved the banner down 10px – which should make sure the links are never covered. I've chosen to ignore the oldid issue which noone should be coming across anyway. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I've just rolled back your last change, Carl so that I can see if it's reproducible. We can always restore the fix (although -48px is needed to completely clear the project/talk/edit/etc. tabs in Monobook) when we're sure we're looking at the same problem. I have an alternate account, Famously Sharp, that has no mods, addons, etc. because I use it for demonstrating when I'm training editors. The page looks fine in Vector skin. When I use WAID's link to view it in monobook, it has exactly the same problems that I describe above on my main account. Do you have any settings/js/etc. that are preventing you from reproducing the issue? Should I post screenshots? --RexxS (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Posting screenshots means uploading and dealing with licenses and then (probably) a soon-to-be-useless file hanging around for decades. Unless other people are interested in this, I will point out that both of you have e-mail enabled, and it will be faster and simpler to exchange e-mail addresses and send the screenshots that way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Heh. You're assuming that I haven't spent the last 20 years creating websites and running two large webservers (php & asp) with virtually unlimited webspace. I don't need a licence to upload my own stuff onto my own servers and don't care if a screenshot stays there until the heat death of the universe. I could email it, of course ... hmmm ... nah - http://www.metropolis2.co.uk/demo/images/WpMedMonobook.png --RexxS (talk) 02:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Flexal virus

I've just created a stub for Flexal virus. It is, however, sourced directly from a paper in Archives of Clinical Microbiology, a relatively recently created open-access journal: is it suitable as a WP:RS for this sort of article? On a wider topic, what would be the best way to check journal reputation for recently-created online journals? -- The Anome (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata Discussions

Hi all! I would like to post here again an invitation for the participants to also watchlist the talk page of WikiProject Medicine on Wikidata (d:Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Medicine). The community on Wikidata is smaller, so some discussions needing 2nd opinions go stale. You can also request queries for specific lists and datasets on the talk page. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes I wish that all Wikimedia projects shared their talk-spaces. So that we'd have unified projects and editorships rather than 100+ bubbles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes universal watchlists :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
You can have that feature now, more or less, with WP:Flow. It's being used on mediawiki.org with pretty good success. Whenever someone starts a new thread on a page that you're watching, or replies to a thread that you posted in, you get a message about it in Echo/Notifications (similar to a Thanks message). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I have tried WP:Flow and really do not like it. I would rather muddle on with the issues we have with the current system then switch to that at this point in time. Hopefully now that flow is not in "active development" the WMF will be willing to develop our current talk page system further. One of the things I dislike most about flow is there is no "history" button. I cannot view all the comments made since I last checked the article in question. Also it appears to rearrange the order of talk page comments which is confusing.
P.S. I also hate the layout and functioning of Facebook. Just because they do something does not mean we should too. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
For those who wish to see this themselves check out [20] You will notice that you cannot compare between two sets of difs.
We need to improve our current talk page systems and we need to allow visual editor on talk pages. We need this rather than a third way of communicating. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner

How long do you intend to keep this around? I am made uncomfortable by the idea of a maintenance template that's not asking for maintenance. I suspect it may surprise readers. I would also argue it should be dismissible (similar to a centralnotice) and only visible on mobile. — Earwig talk 05:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

[21] its a good banner, giving important info--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
The offline app is definitely another reason to improve Wikipedia. Have recruited a few people through this app.
Would be nice to make all maintenance templates dismissible.
Would also be nice to be able to run banners on specific subsets of articles such as those associated with WP:MED. I am not sure we have that capability yet though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
It's on seven articles plus a couple of WikiProject and user pages.
I think the information in it is unimportant to nearly all of our readers. Most readers want all of Wikipedia (not just medicine), and they don't want either the app or a complete offline copy (less room on their phones for selfies or whatever is important to them). Most of our readers are casual people who want to know what their lab result means, whether their friend is going to die, or what the news is talking about.
Templates like this can't be dismissed. However, I believe that it either is, or will soon be, possible to run m:Special:CentralNotices (which are dismissable) on specific pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
We were getting about 2.5% of our downloads from the banner with it being on 4 pages (50 of the 2,004 last week). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
From my POV, 50 downloads out of 100,000 page views is not a lot of readers being interested in the app. Perhaps it'd help to be do some geo-targeting with it or something. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
How does one do "geo-targeting"?
By the way the medical app on a daily basis (installs - uninstalls) is 10 times more popular than the general Kiwix app for all of WP. The general app still has 3.6 times more total installs but has been around a lot longer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
placed a banner at the top of my talk page,(it would be nice if we all did)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Look at a draft?

Different anterior chamber depths as seen from the lateral perpendicular view

Hi! Anyone want to check over Draft:Estimation of the anterior chamber of the adult human eye using EZ Ratio? I'm not quite sure if it's ready or not. It reads a lot like a journal article (ie, OR) or a how to guide and I'm not sure of the sourcing either. I figured, however, that it would likely be more fair for someone more familiar with ophthalmology to glance over the article and give advice on how to proceed. My instinct is to decline it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The article title itself ("Estimation of...") implies an instruction guide. I recommend changing the article title to "EZ ratio", which I think is a notable subject. The second section ("The optical basis of the EZ ratio method") needs to have its content limited. A more encyclopedic tone would be good, although I don't think that the article reads like a medical journal paper. There are also a number of formatting problems. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Needs secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

WT:PSYCH#Invitation to Helping Give Psychology Away workgroup

Ongmianli posted this at WT:PSYCH, but there's not much action at that project, so I wanted to point it out here. Is this a normal way to go about organizing a workgroup? —PermStrump(talk) 00:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe that there is a "wrong" way to go about it. So this is "uncommon" for on-wiki groups, but possibly "typical" for off-wiki ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for including me in this conversation, and for making me aware that this is not common for on-wiki groups. I will be more careful moving forward. Ongmianli (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Ongmianli I was glad to see people wanting to improve psychology related articles, but was a little concerned about the request for full names and email addresses, so I wanted a 2nd opinion. That's all. WP:Psych is not very active, so I didn't know if anyone would respond there. —PermStrump(talk) 04:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Fun

This is a fun way to explore Wikipedia: http://wikiverse.io WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

That was fun. :P —PermStrump(talk) 04:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Temporal lobe epilepsy

Main areas of the brain

Would some editors who feel more comfortable with this topic mind looking over some edits I made to the lead of Temporal lobe epilepsy the other day? I meant to just clarify one thing about olfactory illusions, but once I have the sources out, I can get a little carried away. :) Now I'm starting to second guess myself. Mainly I want to make sure that it's worded accurately and clearly, and I also wonder if some of it should be in the body instead of the lead. Thanks! —PermStrump(talk) 04:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

commented at article/talk(added diagnosis section)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Diet and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder#Food coloring and additives

Me again. Shulae raised an interesting conundrum about conflicting MEDRS sources at Talk:Diet and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder#Food coloring and additives and more input would be appreciated. Gracias! —PermStrump(talk) 05:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


more opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Medical supervision

Does anyone know of a reasonable target article for this link if it were to be created as a redirect? The meaning of the term is probably readily apparent to most people, but a description of what "medical supervision" entails would probably constitute at least the equivalent of a 1 paragraph stub article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Health professional? Sizeofint (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Hard to answer without additional context, but most health professionals are not involved in supervising trainees (if that is what is meant). Graduate medical education might be a better fit. — soupvector (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The context I had in mind was a doctor supervising a patient under some form of treatment. What I had in mind for article content was how treatments are "supervised". Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Just to be precise: a doctor supervision a patient under some form of treatment administered by a non-physician, a physician-in-training, or someone else? Would an anesthesiologist supervising multiple operating rooms (with CRNAs, for example), be what you have in mind? A somewhat different context might be the supervising physician in an emergency department, with a different set of considerations (somewhat less direct). — soupvector (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Physician supervision seems to be a synonym. Would Medical assistant be a complementary article? — soupvector (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Given the fact that there's confusion about this, an article about this should cover all of the above. What I had in mind specifically was a doctor supervising a patient who is using a medical food (which I imagine is administered by the patient) like [22] or [23] which state "Use under medical supervision." That first link also mentions that it can be taken via a feeding tube, so I guess that implies administration by an individual other than the patient. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I think that a section could be added to Therapy (aka medical treatment). Another option might be medical case management. Somewhat related concepts include directly observed therapy for tuberculosis and treatment for eating disorders that involves watching the patient eat the food (including for ~30 minutes afterwards, to discourage vomiting); these could all be described in a "examples treatment types" section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Review Article Edits

Hello everyone,

Could somebody please review my edits at Seinsheimer classification?

Everything I added to flesh out the article is either a direct quote from the research articles, or pulled out from the articles, but I don't know much about A) Adding new references and B) Writing WP articles.

Thanks, PiousCorn (talk) 05:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

could use a ce(otherwise, its fine[24])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

For editors who watch recent changes

There's a new option in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures called "ORES". If you choose this option and go to your Special:Watchlist or Special:RecentChanges, you will see some edits highlighted in pink. These are edits that the tool believes are more likely to be vandalism or otherwise inappropriate. You will also have a new filter in your watchlist, to hide "probably good edits", if you want to check only the ones that the tool finds worrisome first. It is currently set to "low" sensitivity, so it will definitely miss some vandalism (but will still incorrectly flag a few good edits).

This is a brand-new tool in beta testing. Please report bugs in the thread at WP:VPT, or directly to User:EpochFail and User:Ladsgroup. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

thank you WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks WhatamIdoing. You can also post bugs and feature requests directly on phabricator. (file a bug) Talk posts are totally OK. Just make sure to ping User:EpochFail and/or User:Ladsgroup since we're more active in technical spaces than on-wiki. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 14:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Multiple sclerosis research

On this page Multiple sclerosis research, there are several primary sources and editors continue adding more. I wonder if in such pages about research is allowed to use primary sources. It must also improve several ref templates and add PMID.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 08:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

"Allowed" is perhaps not the best word. Primary sources are "allowed" but not "best" for most purposes. Ideally, in the future, a knowledgeable editor will replace most primary sources with better secondary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, you're right, perhaps I have not expressed well, but I meant to add content only backed by primary sources. You have solved my doubt, we must apply the same criteria as for other medical pages. Thank you very much! Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Need a review

Resolved

Anyone have access to this?

  • Kim JS, Khamoui AV, Jo E, Park BS, Lee WJ (October 2013). "β-Hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate as a countermeasure for cancer cachexia: a cellular and molecular rationale". Anticancer Agents Med. Chem. 13 (8): 1188–1196. doi:10.2174/18715206113139990321. PMID 23919746.

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't have access to it through my work library, which makes me think it must be pretty obscure. FWIW my library doesn't list that particular article as peer-reviewed, though they do list the journal as peer-reviewed in general. That happens sometimes when an article is part of a special issue that didn't get peer-reviewed or in an editorial section or something like that. Might there be a better, more accessible source? —PermStrump(talk) 03:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
β-Hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate as a countermeasure for cancer cachexia: a cellular and molecular rationale.
Kim JS, Khamoui AV, Jo E, Park BS, Lee WJ.
Anticancer Agents Med Chem. 2013 Oct;13(8):1188-96. Review.
PMID 23919746 It is a "Review". QuackGuru (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
It might be a review that wasn't peer-reviewed. From the abstract, it doesn't sound like a review in the same sense as it is meant in MEDRS, but obviously I can't say for sure without having access to the article. —PermStrump(talk) 03:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
According to their webpage, the journal has a formal peer-review process: [25]. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
My library doesn't have access to that either - I have requested it via interlibrary loan and will shoot it to you when it comes. Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Left a couple of suggestions at wp:RX LeadSongDog come howl! 20:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I didn't realize that I already have this review on my laptop... my bad. I appreciate the willingness to help acquire it or suitable alternatives though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Cannabis articles

We have some accounts that are creating articles on each strain of cannabis and including medical claims.

Accounts include:

Have redirected a bunch of them to cannabis (drug) as poorly sourced as they are supported by blogs and sources that only mention the topic in passing. People's thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Passages like "Sour Diesel is highly effective in relieving stress, anxiety, and pain. Also, there is some suggestion that it may be helpful in alleviating the symptoms associated with chronic depression.[1]"[26] Gah Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Sour Diesel Strain Effects". Leafly.
Besides the medical aspect, if these are officially registered varieties, there can be a bit of a gray zone for notability. There isn't inherent notability from that, so there needs to be something unique about it in sources. We have other examples in crop articles like Potato#Varieties, but I consider a lot of those pages marginal at best.
If the crop/variety aspect on cannabis keeps coming up for questions of notability, etc. or what's worth keeping in the article as far as text, anyone is welcome to ping me. I've been avoiding the medical side of this topic for sanity's sake, but I'd be happy to take on the crop or variety perspective to see what if anything has staying power in an article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
First discussion beginning here. User:Kingofaces43 what I am seeing is simply dozens of articles were people can say how amazing cannabis is to get around the more evidence based articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
One of the oft-forgotten principles of WP:Notability is "[Meeting GNG] ... is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." This is one of those occasions where there are so many different varieties of a product, with so few differences, that common sense dictates that their presence in an encyclopedia should be as a group - as a section of the existing Cannabis article, or the Cannabis strains article, or as a stand-alone list article linked from the existing articles. My preference would be for the latter, which would allow a full list to be created, including varieties that are not independently notable but have reliable sourcing for their existence. Such an approach should meet the concerns of those who want comprehensive coverage, while reducing the temptation for the stoners to sing the praises of their favourite fix. --RexxS (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. I am always for merging unless a standalone article is justified. This is why I commonly cite WP:Content forking, WP:Spinout and WP:No split. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Agree I like the idea of merging them all. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Ditto. (We can partially thank Wikipedia for the spreading notion that cannabis cures all, but I digress ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay will begin merging to Cannabis_strains Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Merged all but three here Cannabis strains. Non notable / poorly reffed stuff still needs trimming. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I ran out of time yesterday to really look into it, but this tactic seems like the way to go. It'll need a good combing through (WP:CULTIVAR comes to mind). I'm thinking we might be able to omit mention of all the names and focus on what the target characteristics are in breeding for varieties/cultivars. I'll see what I can do in a bit to focus things a bit from just name dropping variety names. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I cleaned up as much of the varieties as I could. Most were just outright deleted due to poor sourcing, original research, editorializing, etc. The remaining ones currently have marginal sourcing at best, so I'll leave it up to someone else to comment on those ones first before doing anything with those. One reference seems to approach a general quality I'd look for on general variety descriptions excluding MEDRS claims, but I couldn't find if this was just blog-like submissions or some manner of fact-checking was involved. That's honestly the "best" I could find though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Thoughts on Malawi Gold and Kush (Cannabis)? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Merge them! Merge them all! In general, the whole "cannabis suite" should I think be refactored to solve the problems of redundancy and fragmentation we have. But it's a big job ... Alexbrn (talk) 05:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Malawi gold has the standard issues of no reliable sources and coatracking about marijuana in general rather than cultivar. Kush has a few potential reliable sources in general, but they are all passing mention of the cultivar at best, so more coatracking there too. I would redirect both those (as opposed to any merge). I'm not sure if we should just nominate the articles for deletion outright, or if redirects to cannabis strains will force editors to try to demonstrate a variety is noteworthy before spinning it off to a standalone article. My slight preference is for the latter, but it's not strong either way. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:CULTIVAR doesn't apply here. There is a formal process for naming cultivars. As far as I am aware, no drug strains of cannabis have gone through the cultivar naming process, likely because naming a cultivar involves acknowledging that one possesses (or at least has access to) the plant being named. There are some fiber strains of cannabis (hemp) that have cultivar names (e.g. 'ICAR 42-118') but we don't have any articles on hemp cultivars. Another wrinkle is that there are supposed to be registration authorities that keep track of cultivar names in a given genus; there doesn't seem to be a registration authority for Cannabis. Lack of an authority doesn't prevent cultivars from being named, but it is difficult to research cultivar names and notabilities without an authority (Cannabis is far from the only genus lacking an authority; authorities are much more likely to be established for ornamental plant cultivars than food/fiber/drug cultivars).
Go ahead and merge away. The only WP:CULTIVAR consideration is not presenting strains as formal cultivars (e.g. Cannabis 'Malawi Gold'), which we don't seem to be doing anyway (side note; Malawi gold is probably better understood as a landrace rather than a "cultivar" that hasn't been formally named; strains bred in the US in recent years could be considered unnamed "cultivars"). Having Category:Cannabis strains under Category:Cultivars isn't technically correct, but it's not a nit I really care to pick (there are likely some grapes in the cultivar category tree that aren't formally named as cultivars, and which might be better treated as landraces). Plantdrew (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
A lot of the articles appeared to be little more than advertising attempts IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


Galen School of Nursing now offers an online RN-BSN program

Hi guys. I am not a member of Wikipedia and don't know how to edit pages. But I found a small lack of info about the Galen College of Nursing and I hope one of you can edit it.

The school now offers an online RN-BSN program. http://www.galencollege.edu/nursing-programs/online/online-rn-to-bsn

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.203.153.242 (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

[27]added by ip--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hyperandrogenism

Hi, @User:Doc James has just added ICD9 and ICD10 codes to Hyperandrogenism. The ICD10 code linked to is E25.9, "Adrenogenital disorder, unspecified", and the ICD9 code linked to is 255.2, "Adrenogenital disorders". These are linked to Congenital adrenal hyperplasia. ICD10 E25, Adrenogenital disorders, includes "adrenogenital syndromes, virilizing or feminizing, whether acquired or due to adrenal hyperplasia consequent on inborn enzyme defects in hormone synthesis". It seems to me that hyperandrogenism is more correctly a clinical sign, or test result, with multiple potential causes. Trankuility (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The ICD9 code 255.2 is also for virilization which is hyperandrogenism
Agree the ICD10 could should be E25 instead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I was excluding E25, sorry that wasn't clear. E25 states "adrenal pseudohermaphroditism". PCOS is also a potential cause of virilization. Trankuility (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
That code includes a number of different things including the one you mention.
Should probably merge with Virilization. What do others think? We also have E28.1 which is androgen excess from the ovaries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree there is a significant overlap with virilization, and also that there are additional diagnoses within E25, but E28.1 is separate and the linkages to the ICD should not be so tightly constrained, in my view. Hyperandrogenism has become a widespread term due to policies in sport, and it might need its own article while current sports policies are suspended. Trankuility (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Added the second ICD10 code. One can have more than one in an infobox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Relatedly, I added a comment to the talk page for Clitoromegaly some time ago, regarding an incorrect ICD code. There's been no comment (which is why I raised my comment about Hyperandrogenism here), but I plan to change that code, in he absence of any concern. Trankuility (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Which code? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
N90.8, “Hypertrophy of clitoris. Trankuility (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Project page

I wanted to add Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine) to the list of resources under the brown/red header "Guidelines and Policies" there but there is no way I could find to edit the list.

There is some very complex formatting going on. This is not good. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

great idea, CFCF might be able to help w/ putting it up--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
gah, I found it. Each "module" has a subpage called "Included" that the main page somehow calls up. So the actual text that appears on the main project page under Resources is here: WP:WikiProject Medicine/Resources/Included. Not a fun game. Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
awesome[28]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes can we made this easier to edit? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Uncited

A fine and dandy mess. Commercial citations were there, most dead: Radio frequency nerve lesioning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Redirected to Radiofrequency ablation Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Pregabalin

Pregabalin

interesting editing, first [29], now [30](coincidence?[31][32])Appreciate keeping an eye on article (or any opinions)thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

They are continuing on with copyright issues as an IP. Have blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
thank you:-)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Notability (Mayo)

I am not seeing notability here ... if it/he is, prepare for a rash of Mayo docs, since they all make the local news.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree. What do you suggest? We do not really prod drafts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
AFAICT we cannot WP:PROD drafts. (That policy should probably be changed to include at least occasional use in the draftspace.)
We probably need to do the difficult thing and demand higher standards for BLPs. However, I recently made an effort to get an accurate statement in BLP about the bare minimum requirement of attention from at least the local news (i.e., not exclusively yourself, your employer, or your mother), and that was promptly watered down ("should" rather than "must" be verifiable in WP:Independent sources, despite NOT saying "must") and largely removed as "unnecessary" and "off-topic".
WP:PROF has problems with this, to the point that evidence of making the local news seems like a significant improvement to me. For example, it declares that every head of every major academic journal gets an article, regardless of whether there's published in an independent source about the person. You find a source that establishes it as a "major" journal (at any point in time, but most likely now), you look up the journal's website to see the list of past editors, and voila, they are all notable. Not even a local newspaper article is required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I've tagged the draft with {{notability|Bio}}, which should give a steer to any reviewer that there's a concern about insufficient sourcing to show notability. Otherwise, just wait for it to be published into mainspace and send it off to AfD. It will need a lot more than a mention in the local rag and a YouTube video to get past the eagle eyes of the current crop of deletionistas running the show there. --RexxS (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Color coding of talk pages

User:WhatamIdoing the French have very nice color coding of their talk pages.[33] How do we get that here? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The threading on that page is an eyesore IMO. Too many lines. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Answer: By convincing the community that they want it (dubious) and copying the CSS from their files (requires an admin who knows what s/he is doing).
(I believe that it would be possible to do this just for your own account.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
commons:MediaWiki:Gadget-ThreadedDiscussions and commons:MediaWiki:Gadget-ThreadedDiscussions.css are an equivalent Commons code. The French code is on fr:MediaWiki:Vector.css. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
You can have it if you want. Just put the following into Special:MyPage/common.css:
.ns-talk .mw-body-content dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl {background:#f5faff;}

.ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl {background:white;}

.ns-talk .mw-body-content dl {border-top: solid 1px #a7d7f9; border-left: solid 1px #a7d7f9; padding-top:0.5em; padding-left:0.5em; margin-left:1em;}
Then you can play about with the background colours, border colours and spacing to your heart's content. Warning: it only works for 14 levels of indentation, so may not be suitable for some of our discussions. --RexxS (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Nice. Works beautifully. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
RexxS, would you mind posting that at WP:DYSLEXIA and maybe ACCESS, too? I imagine that it would be helpful for some editors who watch those pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I've done that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
TheDJ spotted that I'd missed the '#' from border-left: solid 1px #a7d7f9; I've corrected that above. --RexxS (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_86&oldid=1149837727"