Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 53

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

→

Archive 60

Crash course/Beginner's Guide developed for Students 4 Best Evidence editing campaign

Hello Everyone,

Students 4 Best Evidence is planning a Wiki Week from September 15 to 19 to encourage students to add evidenced based content to Wikipedia health articles. http://www.students4bestevidence.net/s4be-wiki-week-15th-19th-september/

In addition to adding great content during the edit-a-thon, the aim of the campaign is to encourage the students to settle in long term and continue editing medical articles. To help guide the students contributions, we have identified a few tasks that are useful for the medical articles:

• add high quality references to health articles.
• rewrite health article leades to be a comprehensive overview of the topic in simple language with sufficient references.
• add maintenance templates to health articles that need further attention.
• remove duplicate content or excessive wording from existing health articles.
• fill in gaps in content in existing health articles using high quality sources.

For the Education Program:Students 4 Best Evidence/Students 4 Best Evidence, September editing campaign () this months, Ammar developed a crash course/beginners guide to help the students get started. http://www.students4bestevidence.net/wikipedia-medicine-newbie-crash-course/

We're encouraging the students to create an account and do practice edits before the day of the edit-a-thon, so we will likely see the new medical editors coming in over the next few weeks. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. Hope it goes well Sydney. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

With regard to this point, "rewrite health article leades to be a comprehensive overview of the topic in simple language with sufficient references", I believe that references in the lede generally are unneeded/discouraged. The lede summarizes the article, rather than introducing new moments. The references belong in the various subsections. --Hordaland (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I think referencing the lead is important and should be done routinely. Especially as we are just translating the leads of key medical topics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense, but there's no mention at all of a lede section in wp:MEDMOS. Just overlooked? LeadSongDog come howl! 18:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The policy on this is in WP:LEADCITE. There is nothing wrong with citations in the lead, if they are needed. There just tend to be fewer citations, as most of a lead will be a summarization of the rest of the article. Alternative names for a topic, for instance, may only be mentioned in the lead and may need a reference to back them. Stubs are often all lead and could certainly use citations. --Mark viking (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• As Doc James says, the reason that medical articles include references in the lead is so that they can be translated to other languages with adequate references. And also if references are included in the lead, it can be taken from the article and used separately as a good plain language overview of the topic. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Without citations in the lead the lead often fills up with "citation needed" tags. These are a pain to continually clean up and it is thus easier to reference the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Started discussion here [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

COI query - Moving section from existing article to its own article space

There is a section in an existing article that I feel merits an article in its own right. The original article is John Travis (physician) and the section is the Illness-Wellness Continuum. This is a model that has been (and still is) widely used in relation to wellbeing and I feel it is sufficiently notable to move into its own space. I have expanded the original section - currently residing in my sandbox: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Fbell74/sandbox

As I have a connection to the creator of this concept I wanted to get the views of editors on this to see if it maintains neutrality. I originally posted this comment in the Teahouse but another editor (Roger (Dodger67)) suggested I post here, as it seemed to be relevant.

Any help would be gratefully received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.139.48 (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It's all set out at Wikipedia:Splitting. I doubt the continuum would meet the WP:GNG requirement for a standalone article, but I haven't examined this in any depth. The guidelines at WP:COI offer sage advice. Personally, I think people with COIs are better off not editing on topics for which they have a conflict: this cleanly avoids many difficulties and so spares other editors' precious time resolving them. I would also recommend getting an account. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I see - thanks for pointing me in the direction of the Wikipedia:Splitting information. I have an account but stupidly hadn't logged in before posting the comment.Fbell2 (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

is there actually strict policy on editors with a conflict of interest in articles. noticed a few discussions on the NPOV noticeboard where editors have clearly had outside interests in medical related articles.Docsim (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, conflicted interests fuel a high proportion of editing activity hereabouts. For general COIs I believe there is guidance, not policy (and typically a conflicted editor will even then read the guidance as somehow not relevant to them). For medical content, we have an essay: WP:MEDCOI. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Clinical trials on glucosamine and chondroitin

Was this a really notable area of medical research, or is this a really undue article? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

BlueRasberry started it with stuff from two other articles, where they were presumably TMI. This is legitimate. The actual WP:NOTABILITY of the topic is surely beyond question, but then notability as such is rarely an issue with any area of mainstream medicine, such is the volume of RS literature. At AFD it it is RS not MEDRS that applies, no? The page views are reasonably high at about 800 per month. Articles like this should carry a "last updated as at...." tag though. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John. Since we do not really have a space limit and their are lots of sources I do not see a issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

What John says is so. I only made these articles as place to put content that I found elsewhere. The content is useful for what it is and it seems to have worked as a way to keep the glucosamine and chondroitin articles clean of primary sources. Check

• Chondroitin_sulfate#Clinical_trials_for_osteoarthritis
• Glucosamine#Clinical_trials_on_glucosamine_and_chondroitin

as both sections are short and seem to have been accepted by the community. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I find the title of this article a bit strange. Any article name with the word "and" in it is immediately suspect. As both glucosamine and chondroitin are apparently precursors of glycosaminoglycan, wouldn't it be better to replace "glucosamine and chondroitin" with "glycosaminoglycan"? Also "clinical trials" appears a bit narrow since at least glucosamine has been used clinically for a number of years. Perhaps it would be better to replace "clinical trials" with "treatment", which would cover both current use and clinical trials. Finally the main use appears to be the treatment of arthritis. Hence wouldn't a better name for this article be "glycosaminoglycans for the treatment of arthritis"? Boghog (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Boghog How would you feel about the title Clinical trials on glycosaminoglycans for the treatment of arthritis? You suggested covering both clinical use and clinical trials. The clinical use part probably should go into the main article for the drugs. Right now, so far as I understand, these articles only contain information which is dubious with regard to treatment but good with regard to summarizing the history of the research. I was unaware that these two drugs could collectively be called "glycosaminoglycans" but if that is the case, and if the sources are using that term when they discuss "glucosamine and chondroitin", then it seems right to match the title to the sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Bluerasberry Per WP:CONCISE, I prefer the shorter name that I proposed above, but would accept the longer name that you propose. An even shorter tittle would be "Glycosaminoglycan arthritis therapy". Another possibility is "Glucosamine and chondroitin combination arthritis therapy". I agree that the available clinical evidence shows no benefit with this type of treatment. Nevertheless, at least in the US, glucosamine and chondroitin are sold as food supplements and not drugs. Furthermore at least a few physicians recommend this therapy to their patients. Hence this therapy is currently used by a number of patients who are not in clinical trials. Therefore I think it is appropriate that the scope of this article include both the clinical trials (it doesn't work) and its current "nutraceutical " (nevertheless patients continue to take it) use. Boghog (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the appropriateness of the page name: The lead currently regards efficacy, reviews and recommendations (ie "treatment" "use"?). It does not actually mention any "clinical trials". 86.134.200.29 (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@ IP - the text of the article does talk about clinical trials and primary research.

Boghog If the article's title were "Glycosaminoglycan arthritis therapy" or "glycosaminoglycans for the treatment of arthritis" then someone might be tempted to put useful health information in the article, which was something I was hoping to avoid. I was trying to use the term "clinical trials" as a signal to indicate that all the information contained in the article would be useless for guiding health decisions, and that this would be a good place to post sources which would be inappropriate outside the context of a discussion of research. I do not mean to press the issue about this article specifically, but I might like to hear any other thoughts you have about best practices for doing this generally. Do you want this article to contain both health and research information, or just research information? If this were just a research article, can you suggest a titling scheme to indicate that this or any like article is a review of the clinical trials on a topic, and ought not actually be the place to summarize the health conclusions of the research? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Bluerasberry I don't think it's feasible to split health research information from health information in the context of evidence-based medicine. The fact that the lead currently focuses (broadly in the spirit of WP:LEAD) on questions of efficacy, recommendations, etc is perhaps indicative of the intrinsic difficulties of such an approach. While I agree there is a case for Wikipedia providing more information than it does at present regarding the research history of major clinical trials, I'm not sure this is an appropriate way to do that (in preference, say, to summary style). Hum, perhaps Clinical research or evidence...? 86.134.200.29 (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

We already have made commitments to have some separation of research and treatment. In MEDMOS there is a section for "research", and what happened in these glycosaminoglycan articles was that the research sections became so long and were being replicated in enough different places that it made sense to fork these sections from each article and merge them into one new article. Evidence-based medicine follows decades of outdated evidence, and for many drugs and procedures, this outdated or dead end research could be summarized in a clinical research article like this one. Especially in alternative medicine there is a community which likes to review the old research, and I was hoping that forking the research from the health information would circumvent controversy while creating a place for people to host information from medical journals which is noncompliant with WP:MEDRS but still aligned with WP:RS. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hum, yes, it's a delicate question I agree. I suppose "Research" can be understood in two ways: as ongoing research (per the MEDMOS usage?); or as the history of the research, ie how the evidence-base was built (another legitimate topic, imo). 86.134.200.29 (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The advantage to "Clinical research" (vs "Research") is that it should discourage people from including non-human primary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Freely accessible ebola articles from a traditional publisher

Science/AAAS says that "Given the current outbreak, unprecedented in terms of number of people killed and rapid geographic spread, Science and Science Translational Medicine have made this collection of research and news articles on the viral disease freely available to researchers and the general public." Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Available on their website without payment but not under an open license Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Which is all we need to improve the articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Partly true. It does mean that we cannot use their images. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding editing wars

Hello, I am a somewhat new editor and had never encountered problems before. On Sensory Processing Disorder problems have surged concerning terminology. I followed some steps on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution but has not seemed to work. I would like some advice on how to proceed. Thanks Chibs007 (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. This is the first time I've become aware of that article, and my reaction is that it might not pay to get people from this WikiProject involved in it, because the article seems rather dubious in a number of respects. Looie496 (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm indeed. See too these associated articles:

• Diagnostic Classification of Mental Health and Developmental Disorders of Infancy and Early Childhood (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Zero to Three (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Thanks. Indeed the terminology I followed for the page comes from the DC:0-3R. Apparently the editor that wanted to create the changes opted undo a previous merge and create a full new page, Sensory Integration Dysfunction to avoid conflict. If I took many important resources from this project I apologize. I was suggested to ask for help here, maybe it was innadequate. Will try other options.

Chibs007 (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but what is the DC:0-3R? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It's mentioned above -- the Diagnostic Classification of Mental Health and Developmental Disorders of Infancy and Early Childhood. Looie496 (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer: is it a good, recognized source? Its current article doesn't make it appear so. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 01:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

To answer my own quesion: yes - PMID 21142337. The article was just lacking backbone. Incidentally, there seems to be a link to a scan of the entire manual hosted on a US .gov domain. How's that work in copyright/permissions terms? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 02:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh! Important question indeed. It is a good source. I don't think a link to a full scan is ok with copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chibs007 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the stickers on the book's cover (page 2 of the PDF) reads:

Permission to reproduce and disseminate this material has been granted by
E. Fenichel
to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

ERIC is a good site. Its function is similar to PubMed and PMC but for education-focused content.

Many refs in the DC0-3 article are missing bibliographic data. Working on that now.—Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 20:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

Can someone look at User:TigerInWoods. Much appears to be paraphrased a little close. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Medically-themed signpost issue

Hello to all! Just a quick shout-out to celebrate the relatively medically-themed Signpost for this week:

• Doc James's op-ed
• Coverage of our related Anatomy WikiProject
• Traffic report with the articles receiving the most views for this week being Ice Bucket Challenge, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and Ebola virus disease

--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Dyadic developmental psychotherapy as a treatment for child abuse

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Child abuse#Dyadic developmental psychotherapy as a treatment. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of... The Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy article needs some looking into from this project as well; for one, that title needs to be decapitalized, per WP:Article title. Flyer22 (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to clean up Dyadic developmental psychotherapy (including the capitalisation) and its mention at Child abuse which made claims unsupported by MEDRS-compliant sources (in my humble opinion). I've warned Panasonic345 about edit-warring and asked them to refer to MEDRS. I'd advise Flyer not to revert further on Child abuse, but it does still need more eyes on these two articles, as it's not fair to leave Flyer in the position of having to revert multiple times to maintain MEDRS and I won't break 1RR. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, RexxS. As seen in the article's edit history, I've had help reverting Panasonic345 (talk · contribs). Also seen in the article's edit history, the WP:Sockpuppetry regarding Panasonic345's addition to that article is noted. Reverting WP:Sockpuppets is a WP:3RR exemption. Despite this, I had ceased reverting Panasonic345 to see if someone else would revert his or her latest edit and to see what else would be stated on the article talk page about the matter. When no one reverted, I brought the matter here to WP:Med. Flyer22 (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the same material this banned sockmaster always adds. This has been going on for years and they have a real-life COI, so expect to see more eventually. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

How to help new editors

I know that some of you are very interested in helping new users, and I thought that you might like to look at the ideas posted here: Sixty ways to help new editors. It has a lot of ideas, and it would be easy for anyone to find one or two things to try out for a while. User:Ocaasi's WP:The Wikipedia Adventure gets a namecheck, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Using the term "diagnosis"

I have been cleaning up our article on Multiple chemical sensitivity. It is not a widely-recognized diagnosis with an ICD code or anything like that. Is it appropriate to use the term "diagnosis" in this context? - 2/0 (cont.) 20:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the article, it has quite a bit to say about diagnosis. It's quite possible that there are two valid viewpoints: no diagnosis exists (per WHO in the first paragraph); or it's a diagnosis by exclusion (per the rest of the section). If that's so, the section probably just needs tightening up to present each view with due weight. Of course, it might be that the WHO view is mainstream and the alternative is sufficiently fringe that it ought not to be there at all. In that case, take an axe to the latter part.

Either way, it seems there's sufficient sources and content to justify having a Diagnosis section. --RexxS (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

"Diagnosis" is the process of identifying something (ideally, but not necessarily, something useful) about the nature of your situation; it is not the process of assigning an ICD code to your situation. People can be "diagnosed" with anything, even conditions that have been rejected by medical authorities or conditions that are unknown to medical authorities. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with WAID Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks for the sanity check. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Introducing Myself Ammar/user:amosabo

Hi all,

I'm Ammar, I'm a 5th year medical student in Cario, Egypt. I have had this account for a few years now but have not really done anything useful with it yet. I am doing a placement at the UK Cochrane Centre (Summer 2014) and I am helping out with one of their partner networks: Students 4 Best Evidence (S4BE) which I have been a volunteer contributor for for just over a year now. S4BE is a global student network for Evidence Based Health.

As you will have heard from Sydney above, S4BE are organizing a Wikipedia week to encourage students to participate in editing Wikipedia's health content, and I am helping out with that.

I hope to continue editing Wikipedia after the event and my placement end. I met some of the very kind people from WikiProject Medicine in Wikimania London and must say it was a pleasure; everyone was very welcoming and the atmosphere was very encouraging. I would be delighted to get to know you all better and would love it if anyone had any tips/pointers.

Amosabo (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back, Amosabo. Will you and Sydney be suggesting topics to the students? I'd like the students to have a good first experience, which is more likely to happen if we encourage them to pick articles that aren't regularly the site of battles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Doc James and WhatamIdoing for the welcome. Yes we will be, especially since some of them are new to Wikipedia we've prepared a specific task lists with the help of the UK Cochrane Centre who have identified a number of articles with potentially relevant content. They are in my sandbox, do have a look and tell me what you think. amosabo ^t@lk; 15:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Lina Medina: the world's youngest mother or a hoax?

I am concerned about the article Lina Medina. She is presented as the youngest person known to have given birth. To me the story appears to be a hoax as there is little evidence to support the claim that at 5 years old she gave birth. Many women have been left infertile from giving birth at a very young age, but Lina Medina is said in the article to have given birth to another child almost 40 years later. I would like the sources in the article to be examined, in particular by experts in human growth and development. AlwynJPie (talk) 06:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The section discussing the topic is at Talk:Lina Medina#A Hoax?. A WP:Permalink is here. Like I told AlwynJPie, WP:Reliable sources, including Time, report the pregnancy as real. Some of these sources include medical evidence of the pregnancy, such as mention of X-rays. If there are WP:Reliable sources reporting the pregnancy as a hoax, and those sources have evidence that it is a hoax instead of simply claiming it as a hoax based on original reports, then that material should of course be included in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Need opinions

There is a deletion nomination at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ipsilateral_monoparesis with no discussion after 10 days. I would appreciate other people from WP:Medicine to take a look and see what you think. Thank you! --Gccwang (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Also while I have your attention I've proposed a merger of Hemiparesis into Hemiplegia -- the discussion is located at Talk:Hemiplegia#Merge_Hemiparesis_and_Hemiplegia. Thank you again!! --Gccwang (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Heroin vs diamorphine

Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Richard Lehman in BMJ mentions Wikipedia

Many who were at Wikimania will remember meeting Richard. I think we missed this so far 2 mentions in the last 3 sections before the plant. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John. One of the points is now raised at Talk:BCG vaccine#Variable efficacy?. 86.164.164.123 (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Back labor

User:Milowent has just created Back labor. This is a condition affecting about a million pregnant women each year in the US alone, and it's been a redlink for years. It's just a stub right now, but if it were expanded by just a few sentences, it would be a good article for WP:DYK. If anyone has any ideas, please join in. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought we had some sort of award for creating new medical articles of high importance?

I thought "back labor" was work that had been left undone JFW | T@lk 20:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I've added a "see also" to Presentation (obstetrics) as that is relevant but as yet unlinked. I've also added a couple of diagrams, although sadly the occiput posterior position doesn't have an image that I could find on commons. If we had an ICD code, then there would be perhaps enough info for an infobox - I'm guessing that List of ICD-9 codes 630–679: complications of pregnancy, childbirth, and the puerperium might have a relevant code, but someone who actually knows ought to make that determination. I am not an obstetrician, nor do I play one on TV. --RexxS (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, JFW. I've awarded it. I'd forgotten about that trophy, and it's fun. It looks like someone else has applied for it at WP:MEDMAT, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikicredit

I just created Wikipedia:Wikicredit to keep a record of the ongoing byline for contributors trial started from the recent discussion in this forum and as a place to list any other projects to give more credit to Wikimedia contributors. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiTrust, although defunct, is potential relevant to this discussion. Boghog (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I added that too. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks Blue. We are discussing the creation of a gadget to allow people to op-out. Hoping to get User:RexxS to build it :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a note, it is longstanding practice that wikipedia articles not have bylines and the place to change that practice is a discussion which is widely representative of community members, not a specific project. That discussion appears to be here and is ongoing. Protonk (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

We have consensus to run this locally on a number of articles related to this project per the link provided by Blue Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that pretty handily oversteps the bounds of what a project covers. Protonk (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

While concerns were raised. We are now testing the concerns on medical articles to see if they are legitimate. Those who primarily maintain these articles were fine with this, in fact they were supportive of it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Protonk, I'd rather experiment on a couple thousand articles than on a couple million. I assume that you agree with this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I can agree but feel it's immaterial to the matter at hand. Protonk (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that having a "Contributors" link next to the tagline on some medical articles for a few months is going to cause any genuine problems, and you never know, it may prove popular. Anyway, TheDJ had very kindly already built a gadget to do the job for us. It is at present only available with the Vector skin and can be enabled from your Preferences -> Gadgets -> Testing and development. It only shows on pages that are in the hidden Category:Articles with contributors link - which is now being set solely by {{Infobox disease}}. I'm requesting that the gadget should be enabled by default as it is already limited to a narrow range of medical articles. Naturally, any editor would even then still be able to turn it off for themselves from their Preferences. I hope this represents an acceptable way forward that is satisfactory for all. --RexxS (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Rexx Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way we really have a reputation issue. While Wikipedia is good enough to plagiarism it is not good enough to attribute. This of course hinders our ability to collaborate with other organizations who are concerned about associating themselves with us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

A discussion about restarting a trial of this is here MediaWiki_talk:Gadgets-definition#WP_MED_3_month_trial. Currently few have weighted in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Article assessment screening

One of our fabulous automated assessment screening duo has produced an updated version of m:Research:Screening WikiProject Medicine articles for quality/Stub prediction table. Harold Frost (about a quarter of the way down on the updated page) is where I'm at at the moment. The ones above that are articles that I think are probably still stubs (but perhaps you will disagree? It's a somewhat subjective system). If anyone wants to have a go at re-assessing the ones I haven't looked at yet, then feel free to start with Harold Frost and leave me a note to let me know how far you got. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Endometrial cancer

is now at FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Endometrial cancer/archive1. Some regulars here have commented but I don't think it's been announced here. I have some COI, as it was reviewed by CRUK, so will hold off commenting for now. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

WMF blogpost on CRUK images

New images released are quickly put to use - my blogpost re the CRUK diagrams and also some Royal Society images is on the global Wikimedia Foundation blog, and also the Wikimedia UK blog here. Also there is a version of an internal newsletter I did on the CRUK project at User:Wiki CRUK John/Newsletter 1. Thanks again to all who have helped placing these images! Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

And now the figures for the page views of Wikipedia articles containing CRUK diagrams have just been run, and were just over 1.1 million in August – traditionally a month with low views. The same articles had 1.317 million views in July, although the CRUK images were not on them then. The full details are at: the BaGLAMa report here

The process of adding images is by no means complete on the English Wikipedia, and none of the images have yet been added to other language versions of Wikipedia. I would hope the same report, which will now be run automatically sometime after the end of every month, will be showing over 20 million views a month by 2015. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

articles on proteins that are also used as drugs

Insulin-like growth factor 1, Platelet-derived growth factor are two articles I came across today and worked on a bit. The IGF-1 article was a disaster and is just a bit better now. How do you all think we should handle articles that molecular biology people have filled with all kinds of basic science data , and that have use as a drug as a recombinant protein? Seems weird to shove the whole article into MEDMOS format (and would probably cause a ruckus with the biology people). Have a separate article on the drug like Insulin-like growth factor 1 (drug)? Very interested in thoughts on this...I opened a discussion on the Talk page of IGF-1 Talk:Insulin-like_growth_factor_1#handling_clinical_aspects_of_IGF-1 Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The article "Insulin" is explicitly about the protein while "Insulin therapy" describes the drug. That seems like a sensible solution. Of course there is a lot more known about insulin than about IGF-1 or PDGF, especially as a drug.

If there is only a small amount of information about the drug applications of IGF-1 & PDGF, those could be added to the main article. If you anticipate a big expansion, or if that occurs later, a spin-out article could be created similar to "Insulin therapy". Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks, that makes sense! Jytdog (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

So just to clear things up, and to see if you're with me: any new article should be IGF-1 therapy? This would also have the benefit of being able to include anti-IGF1 drugs. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping them in together as long as possible, but if you've reached the level of tens of thousands of words, it's time to consider a split.

The "which format" question is usually settled by considering what the "primary" subject is. If you heard someone on a bus talking about IGF, would you assume that they were talking about the drug, or about the natural protein (and, e.g., its effects on cancer risk)? For that one, I'd assume that latter, and therefore follow mostly a non-drug layout. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

that makes a ton of sense. thx to everybody! Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

CFCF, I think that "IGF-1 therapy" is a sensible title. However I don't think that it should include anti-IGF-1 drugs. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Useful health related maps

Hi All

I've just uploaded some maps to Wikimedia Commons under the Category Maps by MetricMaps, many of which are health related and some of which are animated. Below are the ones I think are probably most relevant. Mrjohncummings (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

US maps

% of US Car Crash Fatalities Where Driver Blood Alcohol Level Was .01 and Above 1999 - 2012 Abortion Access in Texas Verifying Current State Lic Facilities and Female Pop Proximity Homicide Vs. Suicide Prevalence By US State 1979 - 2011 Legal Intervention Mortality Rate 1979-2011 By Census Region Max Air Temperature F for US County from 1979-2011 Saint Louis Demographic, African American By Census Tract Unaccompanied Children Released to Sponsors by State, January 2014 - July 2014 from Central America US Lung Cancer Mortality Rate 1979 - 2011

Mrjohncummings These maps are great. I tried to post one to an article but it was immediately reverted due to lack of source data, which I realize is a valid concern. I wrote to the map makers about getting access to the original data sets from which these were derived. If we could just link to the data sets in the file description then I think that would sort the problem. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Bluerasberry Once we've got some of the maps used on articles it will be nice to give MetricMaps some feedback on how many people see the maps they produce. Thanks for working on this. Mrjohncummings (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Mrjohncummings I am at a standstill without data sources. I need a URL to a data set to post in the Commons description of each map, otherwise, they all have a WP:RS problem. I got a complaint almost immediately and stopped posting pending resolution. I pinged the map people on Twitter and still have no reply. I expect they do not know what I want or why it matters. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Acupressure mat

This article seems to be making medical claims:

People who used an acupressure mat on their upper to lower back experienced the following effects:[4]

• Improving conditions of liver, kidney, and spleen • Alleviating headache, fatigue, depression, and insomnia • Easing spinal problems, sciatica, muscle spasm, cramps • Better immune system, digestion, and elimination

The source cited (http://www.alfombramagica.es/smarty/templates/09-003/web/research.pdf) is a dead link, and somehow I doubt it would pass WP:MEDRS anyway. Comments? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the sentence before that one states it came from a 1996 pilot study anyway. Definitely sounds like it would have failed WP:MEDRS. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I added one sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, it's unfortunate so much effort needs to go into finding and combating such nonsense. One way to make it easier to monitor is to rate all such pages under WP:MED or WP:ALTMED. Then it's possible to track changes automatically (or at least this used to be possible with toolserver). User:Kephir/gadgets/rater is an excellent tool for that. By monitoring these pages we can make sure this dribble never gets accepted in the first place. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Term definitions infobox/template

Is there a particular infobox or other template that we use or anyone can suggest for defining a list of topic-related terms for transcluding to multiple related articles? Most of the terms related to the two notable addiction paradigms (the pharmacological [see ref quote] one and another termed the reward-reinforcement paradigm [this includes concepts like self-administration, conditioned place preference, drug reward, behavioral reward, reinforcement, etc... gene expression terminology is used a lot too]) aren't defined as a group on addiction or anywhere else I've looked. The former is mainly a clinical/diagnostic paradigm, whereas the latter is a research paradigm (e.g., used by all the reviews cited in ΔFosB).

A second related point that I figure I'll mention: addiction and dependence are essentially used interchangeably in virtually every addiction and addictive drug article on wikipedia, and also in template:infobox drug's dependence liability (I'm guessing this is influenced by the DSM's framework). See the dependence liability field at Caffeine for a high-traffic article example of where this is weird. It makes the meaning of the term "dependence" very vague in drugboxes/articles at the moment. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfinished ref quotes that I've temporarily reformatted for readability

References

No idea what you mean by `Is there a particular infobox or other template that we use or anyone can suggest for defining a list of topic-related terms for transcluding to multiple related articles?` Why would we want to transclude lists of terms to articles? We have the boxes at the bottoms of pages. We have blue links. We are not a dictionary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Ideally, I'd want to transclude a column box that could be used to list terms and had a right-aligned box, similar to an infobox. I figured I'd seen something like this before, I just don't remember the article. This would be a substitute for transcluding a whole section of prose solely on definitions that covers these in the text. Also, most of these articles have tiny infoboxes and giant TOC's, so there's usually a lot of room in the right-column. From the recent statements made during the dispute at sex addiction, I gathered that there's at least a minority of people who think the establishment of diagnostic criteria is equivalent to the medical/clinical identification of an addiction. This isn't even remotely true, and most articles include text associated with both frameworks, which is why I think it would be useful to indicate that there's two addiction frameworks and the associated terminology, or, at the very least, a link to a page of those terms. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean something like this: {{Docking glossary}} or {{Transcription factor glossary}}? Boghog (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what it was, thanks! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 14:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Boghog, I just changed the formatting at {{Docking glossary}}. I think it's easier to read, but if you don't like it, feel free to revert. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree the new formatting is easier to read. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

And from an accessibility point-of-view, it's also an improvement. A glossary is a perfect example for the use of a definition list. --RexxS (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Would support their addition at the bottom of the page with the rest of the boxes. Adding to the lead is a little much. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

If you need the glossary to make any sense out of the article, then it needs to be towards the top. Discovering what all those words mean when (if) you get to the end is not very helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There has been talk about creating pages that are glossaries and adding a link to this page somewhere. I think LT was working on this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the goal is to follow the Make technical articles understandable guideline, not to transclude an full glossary of drug-dependence terms. MOS:JARGON recommends that editors “Avoid excessive wikilinking… as a substitute for parenthetic explanations…” (emphasis mine). However, when several articles share the same jargon, it might be wise to provide a consistent (and properly referenced) set of definitions in that style. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 13:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Pathophysiology section at the Sexual addiction article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Sexual addiction#"Pathophysiology" section. A WP:Permalink for that discussion is here. The discussion is about whether or not text that Seppi333 included is a WP:Synthesis matter, and whether or not the text should be presented as though sexual addiction is a valid concept, given that some researchers dispute that sexual addiction exists. Flyer22 (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. User:Seppi333 has inserted a great blob of material from the FOSB article into at least three other articles -- Addiction, Substance dependence and Sexual addiction -- in a context which seems to suggest that the FOSB theory of addiction is the be-all and end-all of addiction research (not to mention the end of the discussion regarding the existence of sexual addiction), in a way that seems to break WP:NPOV and border on being WP:SYNTH.

When I removed and queried their edits, they were most forthright in laying down the law that this was settled, uncontrovertible medical fact. Which is interesting, because that's not what researchers in the field appear to say about it. (see, for example, [2], where the author makes it very clear in the abstract that this is a tentative conclusion)

From Seppi333' user page, I can't see any claim that they have any background in biochemistry or medicine. Asking them about this seems to have annoyed them quite a lot. I'd appreciate it if any medically knowledgeable editors could take a look at this. -- The Anome (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The Anome (talk · contribs · logs) has been deleting entire sections of content on ΔFosB in substance dependence, sexual addiction, addiction for reasons (largely irrelevant to wikipedia policy) that this user is arguing at Talk:Sexual addiction. I could use some assistance in dealing with this. Virtually all of these sources are also used in Amphetamine.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit: noticed a section was already posted since I last opened the create section window. Again, all of these sources are used in an FA-nominated article, so whether or not this material is factually accurate is a very important issue. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

My point is this. The material you've added is perfectly fine Wikipedia article material, supported by WP:MEDRS, etc. etc. I have no problem with that. The way you've inserted it into these articles, though, is contrary to WP:NPOV and appears to me to constitute WP:SYNTH, in giving a misleading impression that this is the end of the discussion as far as medical research goes. As the abstract of J.K. Ruffle's recent review article on the matter shows, it clearly isn't, and Ruffle is a proponent of the hypothesis.

Their language is clear:

" This induction is likely to, at least in part, be responsible for the mechanisms underlying addiction, a disorder in which the regulation of gene expression is thought to be essential. In this review, we describe and discuss the proposed role of ΔFosB as well as the implications of recent findings." (My italics.)

You clearly have very strong opinions on the matter, which you don't hold back on, and present yourself as an arbiter of truth in these matters, yet you (self admittedly) have no relevant professional expertise in thse matters.

I have no problem with the FOSB hypothesis -- it sounds perfectly reasonable to me, it might wellbe true, who am I to say? I also have no problem with it being mentioned in all of these articles. But, if it is to be in those articles, it needs to be mentioned at much shorter length, with attributions as to who is putting forward the hypothesis, and to in particular to cite references that explicitly say that the FOSB hypothesis applies to the particular article it's being mentioned in. Otherwise, this is just original research on your part. -- The Anome (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've deleted all but 1 citation for every behavioral addiction clause, so there obviously can't be any synth in the text now. Go ahead and WP:V check.
• You realize Ruffle's publication is a primary source, right?

• I don't think you understand what I'm talking about with WP:SYNTH, but I will check.
• Regarding Ruffle's paper, I'm not citing it in a Wikipedia article -- I'm just using it as evidence, here, that an actual credentialled medical researcher advanced those opinions in a peer-reviewed journal -- The Anome (talk)

I just noticed pubmed doesn't call it a review, though the article itself indicates this. Since it is a review, I'll download and read it and then use it to write/cite text for these articles later this week when I get around to updating FOSB again. Also, you're correct, I'm a bit clueless as to how text cited by a single source could constitute WP:SYNTH, a policy on combining material from multiple sources. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The WP:SYNTH policy is about original research by synthesis, where an editor combines reliably sourced statements in a way that makes or suggests a new statement not supported by any one of the sources. For example, unless your sources refer to sexual addiction directly, then you would be making the inference yourself that it's relevant to that article -- making the (possibly correct) inference that because FOSB is likely involved in sexual and other reward pathways, it's necessarily also implicated in sexual addiction -- and that would be original research on your part.

In the meantime, can you please take the disputed sections out of the articles for now, or allow me to do so? As you can see, I've got no objection to either the FOSB hypothesis or its presence in those articles per se, it's just that it needs to be done in such as way that WP:NPOV and WP:OR are followed, and in particular the clear absence of WP:SYNTH. -- The Anome (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there any reason for the urgency here? It's not like the WP:DEADLINE is upon us. Why not just leave it alone until someone can improve it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You may want to try WT:MCB if you'd like to get feedback from an appropriate project to review content on molcular biology. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Absoutely. I've got no problem with the molbio content of the FOSB material, it's the implicit linkage to clinical concepts like addiction, substance dependence, sex addiction etc. where everything gets blurry. -- The Anome (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@The Anome: The relevant sections to sex addiction are the introduction, "sexual reward", and "concluding remarks" sections of this ref. Since you don't appear to have a problem with the reference, instead of deleting all the content, it might be better if you simply read the sections (they're not that long), wrote your own version, and we arrived at a compromise version. That's a bit more constructive than deleting everything. It's also a solution I don't strongly oppose.

Edit: The other review on sex addiction is this one. The quoted excerpt is the only part of that review supporting the article text on sex addiction, so it's much shorter than the first review. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Agreed. I'm working on another off-wiki project at the moment, but I will have a go at this tomorrow. In the sexual addiction article, I think it probably belongs in the "Causes" section of the article, alongside the "Psychological distress theories" and "Heterogeneous theories" subsections, perhaps with a subheading like "FOSB hypothesis" or "Biochemical hypothesis". I think it should be a brief one or two paragraph summary of the views of authors who explicitly link FOSB to sexual addiction, per WP:NPOV with a link to the FOSB article itself for the full details of the FOSB/addiction hypothesis.

For example, the reference above could be used to support a sentence of something like the form "In a 2012 paper, Blum et. al. proposed the hypothesis that DeltaFOSB played a critical role in both drug addiction and sexual addiction." There should be similarly customized treatments for addiction and substance dependence, with the section in addiction being larger than the others. I don't believe there's any need to introduce large chunks of the FOSB article into other articles, that's what wikilinks are for. -- The Anome (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No, really, it's not resolved, unless your idea of problem resolution is to steamroller all other opinions out of existence.

Not only have have you completely ignored my offer above to submit an NPOV version that meets policy as a starting point for meeting consensus, you've now gone back and shoved all the FOSB stuff back in, and also, as a bonus, now removed anything about competing psychological theories. Please see my revision here, which I believe references the FOSB material in a balanced way that I believe follows the WP:NPOV guidelines, and allows the reader to follow the link to the FOSB article to read about the FOSB theory in detail.

As I said in my comment to you in my comment on your talk page, added a few minutes ago, some experts think sexual addiction does not exist. Yet others think it not only exists, but has a clear biochemical mechanism. Yet if it doesn't exist, it can't have a cause, and if it has a cause, it must exist. It's clear that these two positions are logically incompatible, but are both held by experts: therefore neither of these views are uncontroversial, and WP:NPOV applies.- The Anome (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Fun clean up job: Splints

Splint (medicine) is pretty weak. I'm sure that anyone who has taken a basic first aid class, or even just spent ten minutes reading online, could improve it easily. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Perfluorooctanoic acid

I raised this article last year[3] but failed to make any headway in cleaning up what looks to be content with a very decided POV built on iffy sources against the backdrop of legal action in the US. Am I seeing that right? would appreciate a sanity check before attempting clean up again ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Needs some primary sources trimmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine and WikiAfrica

This article says Wikipedians are delivering Ebola information in Africa. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we've been working very hard over at WP:MEDTRANS, and you're very welcome to participate in any way you can, and we have a number of new guides out there showing you what can be done–even for an English-only speaker. We recently hit ~60 languages with a translated Ebola article and you can find all the links here WP:RTTS. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Newsletter with all this and more due out in a few days! -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent to see this :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Ejection fraction edits

Recent edits to Ejection fraction appear to me to have made the article less helpful to the reader. I have no medical background and am not sure how to correct the article. I would be grateful if an editor with a medical background could look over the introduction. Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 05:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Which edits exactly? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Though Lbeben appears to be a medical professional, his edits have been problematic in the past. The second paragraph is wordy and uses too much jargon. Also the historical background in the second paragraph doesn't seem appropriate for the lead. Thanks for your help. SchreiberBike talk 16:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyone looking for a project? Look at Throat culture

Throat culture needs some serious serious work...... NickCT (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I just worked on it a bit. It definitely needs a lot more work, but this should be a good start. The article needs considerable expansion and needs WP:MEDRS-compliant references (currently sporting zero). Another thought-this might be a good project for students 4 best evidence if anyone is still looking for a project. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Students 4 Best Evidence edit-a-thon starting now!

Hi everyone,

The Students 4 Best Evidence edit-a-thon is starting now! Join us in the Google Hangout

See the list of students and articles being worked on at the course page. Education Program:Students 4 Best Evidence/Students 4 Best Evidence, September editing campaign () Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 11:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all who joined in! We've had some useful outcomes, not least is the work done on articles - and the confidence gained by the new(ish) editors who have made a small dent in the list of tasks, but have pledged to continue working with this initiative.

Other valuable developments are: a proposed follow-up session towards the end of this term as a joint effort between Cochrane and Cancer Research UK; and an offer from some of the Cochrane reviewers to inform us when they publish new reviews that they feel would interest us. I'm hoping we could make a subpage of WPMED to house a place where the reviewers could leave announcements of new reviews - does that seem like something the regulars here would like to see? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: six month interaction ban between Flyer22 and zzz

Opinions are needed on the above linked discussion. I and the other editor edit medical articles. Flyer22 (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes a strange situation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Recreational drug use

Has been changed significantly. Wondering what others thoughts are per [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice of intention - working on clinical coding articles

As several of the below articles are under the WP:MED umbrella (and as a coder there being a potential WP:COI), I thought it best to declare here that I intend to start cleaning up the articles around clinical coding in the near future.

I'm currently looking at a structure similar to below:

• Clinical coder - the specific occupation.
• Clinical coding - new (currently a redirect) - the practice of applying codes from a classification to a health service encounter (irrespective of the practitioner).
• Medical classification - the tools used in clinical coding.

as this seems to reflect the separation between practitioner, mechanisms and implements used in other articles around occupations.

Related articles that may also need work during or afterwards:

• Medical billing
• Diagnosis code
• Procedure code
• Pharmaceutical code
• Topographical code
• Case mix
• Diagnosis-related group

For various reasons, including the COI, I'm going to assume that all should this be done in sandbox; with consensus/fresh eyes being sort when ready to publish. However, I need to ask; do articles have their own sandbox area? If not, is it possible to have multiple sandboxes in my user space? Little pob (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is possible to have many sandboxes in your own userspace.

Being a coder is not really a COI. IMO you should be able to edit the articles directly without concern. Drop us a note here and we will be happy to look at your work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Working for/with a particular coding system might represent a COI, though as I think there is relatively muted competition between the various systems which different countries/organization use (is this right?) it may not be too serious. I agree you should be able to edit directly, but you need to declare your potential COI. You've done this on your user page, which is great, as well as here. You might also consider a note declaring it on the talk page of articles you intend doing major work on, especially if your edits might be considered controversial. And/or in your first edit summary on a page. You could ask here for a check when pretty much finished with an article. But it doesn't seem a very controversial area, not that I'd know. Best of luck! Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Being an expert or professional is not usually considered a conflict of interest. You might like to read WP:MEDCOI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

MEDDATE when no newer sources have been identified

We are having a bit of discussion at Talk:Acupuncture#MEDDATE regarding what the MEDDATE section of MEDRS suggests that we do when sources used by the article are more than five years old but no newer sources have been identified to replace potentially outdated information. Do we summarily remove the source and information cited to it? Do we add a tag such as {{update inline}} or {{medrs}} to indicate to readers that the article may not reflect current understanding? Do we leave it alone until newer sources of similar caliber are identified? This article is covered by WP:FRINGE as well as WP:MEDRS, but the sources in question are all solid medical reviews that are more than five years old. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that WP:MEDDATE is clear on the matter; we should not remove a medical source simply because it's not published in the last five years or so. Unless, of course, more recent reviews are available. But WP:MEDDATE points out, "Within this range, assessing them may be difficult. While the most-recent reviews include later research results, do not automatically give more weight to the review that happens to have been published most recently, as this is recentism." And it gives space to areas that are less researched, stating that sourcing "may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." My opinion on the particular case you are citing is that "we leave it alone until newer sources of similar caliber are identified." Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

How certain are we that nothing has been published about this in the last five years?

How elderly are the sources? Are these maybe just six, eight, or ten years old? Or are they from the previous century? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

A 2008 review. See Talk:Acupuncture#The_source_we_are_working_with_.5B34.5D. QuackGuru (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(e/cx2) Largely in agreement with Flyer22 here; we should update information as we find newer source of equal or better quality, but not remove material just because it is cited to a review that is 6 years old. Some fields are incredibly fast moving (HIV treatment) in which 5 years may be too old; others have so little research that a 20 year old textbook might be the best source. I would not tag sources that are arbitrarily older than x years as they may still be the best sources available on the subject. Yobol (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to look at the source or what it supports or why people are fighting over it. Instead, I'll tell you my general opinion:

• If you've got a review article, and there have been no more recent review articles on that particular point, and the review is less than ten (10) years old, then leave it alone.
• If there are more recent reviews (notice the plural: it means "two or more") on that particular point (not just the field in general), then update or replace to reflect newer sources.
• Otherwise, it's complicated, and we need to talk about specifics.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The tags were targeting any source older than five years without any objection to the text. Even a 2005 Cochrane review was tagged. They thought sources older than five years should be tagged even if no newer source was found. QuackGuru (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Another discussion about the sources. See Talk:Acupuncture#Regarding_new_consensus_on_MEDDATE.27s_application. QuackGuru (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Useful free sources

[5] Mostly WHO stuff but in an easy to access format. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Edward Tobinick

I am new at editing and am attending the Students 4 Best Evidence Cochrane event in Oxford. I came across this medically questionable active page recommending injection of etanercept for stroke. There are active arguments but they are not being debated on medically relevant grounds. The intervention is without reliable evidence and the author has lost his license to practice medicine in other states. Is it possible to mark this page for examination by the medical project for relevant evidence and accepted practice.AmyEBHC (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The article is nominally a biography but appears to be used as a WP:COATRACK for convincing readers of the subject's belief that injections of Enbrel are good treatments for back pain, Alzheimer's, and stroke (and possibly other things).

It looks like the article recently received some significant changes that removed negative information and added a lot of praise. The page has been protected due to edit warring twice in the last two months.

The person who removed it was technically correct: proper (in this case, newspaper-type) sources for the governmental disciplinary actions like this one should be used instead of court documents. It might have been better to WP:PRESERVE the accurate information and improve the source than to blank it, but that's not actually required.

I'm not entirely convinced that the subject is notable. It's difficult to find properly published sources that both (a) aren't written by him and (b) say more than a couple of sentences about him. This criticism of his research isn't proof of notability, and descriptions on blogs like Science-Based Medicine and QuackWatch aren't, either.

AmyEBHC, thanks for letting us know about this problem. I candidly cannot recommend that you try editing this as your first introduction to Wikipedia. I think this is going to need to have attention from multiple highly experienced editors (and maybe admins). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Have trimmed a bunch of primary sources making medical claims. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, James. I was doing the Cochrane training with User:RexxS and User:HenryScow, & suggested Amy post here rather than doing anything herself. Prima facie it seems a clear case of medical POV-pushing and promotion using the cover of the protection we give to WP:BLPs. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Another brand new account has just showed up. Many need some protection this article may. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Tobinick (2nd nomination). I don't think this guy is notable enough for an article. It's been to AfD before in 2006, and I don't think it was wisely closed then (the argument he was going to be as notable as Pasteur hasn't quite come true). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

There seem to be related problems at:

• Etanercept#Experimental and off-label uses
• Alzheimer's disease research#Etanercept
  Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Addressed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please look at these two articles?

• Ankaferd BloodStopper
• Hüseyin Cahit Firat

Some medical claims which I don't think are well sourced. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sourced at all, Neil, if we require MEDRS-compatible sourcing. I've gently revised the first and commented on the two talk pages. They probably both ought to be gutted down to whatever can be reliably sourced (assuming the latter survives). --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much RexxS. I can usually judge the reliability of sources pretty well but when it comes to medical studies, I prefer to leave it to expert volunteers. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Reanalyses of Randomized Clinical Trial Data

An interesting paper in JAMA which provides a wonderful illustration of why we should insist on secondary sources. Of course, it too is a primary source in some regards... LeadSongDog come howl! 14:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

"Reanalyses differed most commonly in statistical or analytical approaches (n = 18) and in definitions or measurements of the outcome of interest (n = 12)." I don't have access to the full text, but isn't that pretty much the definition of post-hoc analysis? The original trial endpoints and statistical analysis are pre-specified as good statistical practice requires. Overall (and admittedly without having seen the full text), this strikes me more as a warning of some of the potential problems with reanalysis of trial data than direct evidence of its benefits (which have been demonstrated in other sources). Formerly 98 (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that these were reanalyses of the original study hypothesis (primary outcome), as distinct from post-hoc sub-group analyses. Therefore, such reanalyses aim to verify the published findings by conducting an alternative (improved?) analysis of the original data set. The findings of the paper published in JAMA are relevant to key questions regarding transparency and the desirability of open access to trial data. The accompanying editorial concludes:

The recognition that one trial can potentially lead to different findings and conclusions depending on many discretionary decisions that are made about the data and reanalyses almost mandates that those choices are transparent and described in detail—and that others have the chance to replicate them. Rather than the rare exception, open science and replication should become the standard for all trials and especially those that have high potential to influence practice.

Support, 86.164.164.123 (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is not just retrospective subgroup analysis, nor is it that the newly chosen endpoints and statistical methods are "non-transparent". It is that any non-prespecified analysis of the data creates a problem of multiple hypothesis testing. This is part of why the EMA for a while (I don't know the current status) was pushing for data release only to those who provided advance protocols of what their re-analysis endpoints and statistical methods would be. The issue is similar to why the FDA does not allow companies to substitute "improved" endpoints or statistical analyses for proving efficacy after their data is unblinded.

Interestingly, just today, this news report by Derek Lowe of a biotech suspending development of a drug due to what they call "fraud" by employees who conspired to view unblinded clinical trial data and reformulate the trial endpoints after unblinding of the data to make the drug look better. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Evidence of willful malpractice is another matter. Imo, providing open access to data sets is ultimately relevant for transparency (as well as to possible pooled analyses). Quite what credence to give to an alternative analysis, in the light of the methodological questions it will inevitably raise, is a question that must be open to peer review and debate. As of course is the original report of the study design, analysis and interpretation... 86.164.164.123 (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me restate that in a way that might be clearer. Its not a subtle question of methodological questions that are equally applicable to the original and re-analysis that I am referring to. I'm specifically referring to the well-established issue of the multiple comparisons problem. This is an important potential source of statistical error and even "cherry picking" for reanalyses that do not prespecify both the endpoints and the statistical method. It is normally not a potential source of these problems in the original analysis because the FDA requires pre-specification of both the endpoints and the statistical plan for any trial designed for regulatory approval. My point is simply that in order to be valid, the reanalyzers need to publically pre-state their analysis plan like Cochrane does and not go on a fishing expedition. (Though even Cochrane has been criticized for deviations from its prespecified analysis)

In general, whatever the flaws in pivotal clinical trials reviewed by the FDA for approval purposes may be, they are all based on efficacy endpoints and statistical analyses that are selected in advance of unblinding of the data, e.g., the investigators are blind to any effect their choice of one endpoint or statistical method vs another will have on the conclusions ("statistical significance") of the study. They cannot cherry pick. This can never be rigorously known to be true for any re-analysis, except in the narrow situation in which patient-level data is released by companies or regulatory authorities only after the re-analyzer pre-specifies an analysis plan. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course those are all valid points. But ones that do not (imho, at least) militate against the principle and potential of open access, per se (although that would presumably preclude the possibility of prespecified reanalyses, which at present are somewhat rare anyway). 86.164.164.123 (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I wish they were all valid points, but they are not. Not all trials are subject to FDA review (accupuncture practices, for instance). Even when they are, investigators, funders, and journal editors can and do cherry pick. The simple fact is that investigators (or their funders) quite regularly choose not to publish, rather than publish a "failed" trial which merely found the "wrong" conclusion. Simply search through clinicaltrials.gov and you'll see a huge proportion of trials which have not published conclusions, despite being long past their end dates. One sees extraordinary levels of this in trials of homeopathic preparations, herbals, manipulation therapies and many other alt-med interventions. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog: I agree with much of that, but a lot of the studies of non-publication have their own problems, including the COI problem that a paper is always more publishable if you get an "interesting" result, and that many of the authors are seeking to publicize or add support for pre-existing publicly held positions.

This paper for example, found that 29% of "large" (large was used as a marker of "importance" for the purposes of this study) clinical trials remained unpublished, and concluded (more accurately, simply assumed) that this 29% corresponded to negative trials that were being covered up for commercial purposes. But if you go to the listing of the unpublished trials in the supplementary material, here is what you find for the first 10 unpublished Industry-sponsored trials.

1. NCT00005918 is just a comparison of an immediate release to an extended release version of stavudine from 2002. Should have been published, but this was a really minor drug and calling the non-publication of this trial a coverup seems a little extreme.
2. NCT00046761 is a 2005 trial of a drug that was never approved. Not exactly a coverup of negative results for marketing purposes
3. NCT00057239 is a 2003 trial of an antidepressant that was dropped from development and never approved.
4. NCT00057382 is a 2003 trial of a cancer drug that was dropped from development and never approved.
5. NCT00062582 is a trial of an approved drug in an indication for which it was never approved. Probably should have been published anyway.
6. NCT00071266 is a trial of an approved combination pill for hypercholesterolemia. It should have been published.
7. NCT00083421 is a trial of an Alzheimers drug that was abandoned and never marketed.
8. NCT00087724 also a trial of an Alzheimer's drug that was abandoned in development and never marketed
9. NCT00097344 is a trial of a breast cancer drug that was abandoned while in development and never marketed
10. NCT00106509 is a trial of an antibiotic that was abandoned in development and never marketed.

So I'd say there are some problems, but I'd look beneath the headlines before concluding that every unpublished trial is a coverup. I for one, would rather see researchers spend their time trying to find new drugs than writing up unsuccessful trials of drugs that will never be marketed. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

A fascinating and insightful discussion and I would agree with most of what has been said above. However I would disagree about the value of writing up unsuccessful drug trials. There is a lot to be learned from failed drug trials, especially for refractory diseases such as Alzheimer's. The cost for researchers to write up the results of a failed clinical trial are minuscule compared to the cumulative sunk cost of developing that drug candidate. Furthermore the volunteer participants in these trials were put at risk. In my opinion, drug sponsors and journals have a moral responsibility to recoup as much as possible the financial and human capital that went into developing and testing a failed drug candidate by publishing the results. Boghog (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair point.Formerly 98 (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Health claims

We have an interesting situation here Pantyhose#Risks were a bunch of health claims are made using poor quality sources. Attempted to add a Lancet review and a user have removed it twice without joining the discussion here Talk:Pantyhose#Risks. Peoples thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree that the sources are poor quality. Removed some of them and asked for medical citations compliant with WP:MEDRS. Also asked for a few clarifications with respect to who is making these health claims. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Unusual citation activity in Monoclonal antibody

Would someone please check this series of recent edits? I get worried when I see low volume numbers on things that have plenty of articles in journals with high volume numbers, but maybe that's just me. EllenCT (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

they were funky, thanks. fixed. Jytdog (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Contagion (film) -- need comment

Is this the place to request a medically-literate person to comment on a discussion on Talk: Contagion (film) https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Contagion_%28film%29#Plot_summary_too_long.3F

This film is more than just entertainment; a scientists refer to it in discussing epidemics today, like the Ebola epidemic (which probably also has a bat reservoir). It was extensively reviewed in the scientific literature. The plot summary here is useful because people who may not have seen the film may want a detailed summary so they know what's going on.

One editor wants to cut the plot summary down, and he's rounding up other editors who agree with him.

Some editors are treating this as if they're looking for is a quick synopsis so they can decide what to watch on TV tonight.

Could you look it over? Or is there another place to make this request? --Nbauman (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Probably not the best place to gain perspective here. just my opinion.Docsim (talk) 05:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

hi im new

I've been helping on the talk page and with other editors for the,, "Ebola virus west Africa outbreak" article, is that within the scope of what the wikiproject medicine does?,,or is there something else I should do?,,,,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to WikiProject Medicine! The article "Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa" is indeed in the scope of this WikiProject. If you look at the top of the article's talk page, you should see a list of WikiProjects that have an interest in the article. As an aside, if you see an article that you think should be tagged for this WikiProject but isn't, you can add this yourself on the article's talk page. You don't need any special permission to do this. If in doubt, you are welcome to ask on this page. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

thank you,,,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:PULSE August/September double issue soon out!

I'm currently fleshing out the content on the Pulse newsletter. If anyone would like to help please feel free to polish upon it up until it is released. I've provided much of what is there, and am working on the medical translation parts, but if anyone want to add anything else, please do! Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/August_2014
Ping LT910001, Bluerasberry
-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Ping, Wiki CRUK John, maybe you'd like to leaf over it and add something? Thanks!

I really want to get this out in the next few days, and it desperately needs varied content. I've done my best, but some of it is outdated, and could use input from others here! -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal that User:Protonk's removal of my (Flyer22's) WP:Rollback rights be overturned

Opinions are needed on the above linked discussion. A WP:Permalink regarding it is here. It concerns this WikiProject because I revert a lot of WP:Vandalism and other unconstructive edits at medical articles. Flyer22 (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

With this edit, Chillum removed the above notification from our talk page. I am appalled that someone who is not an active member of this project should have the nerve to attempt to dictate what is seen on this page and what is not. I have therefore restored the notification in the firm belief that members of WPMED are perfectly capable of making their own minds up on an issue such as the one that Flyer22 has tried to bring to our attention. --RexxS (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:CANVAS before getting all appalled. Also please reduce your sense of ownership of this page. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 02:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

What arrogance. You come here, removing posts in direct contravention of WP:TPO and then are rude enough to assume that just because I don't agree with your ridiculous interpretation of WP:CANVAS that I haven't read it. This page is for discussing issues of interest to WPMED; get some clue before you turn up here trying to throw your weight around. --RexxS (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Ownership of a page? This page is for the benefit of the people involved in the project! It is ridiculous to assume a non-member could make the distinction of what is important for the project and what is not. The exact same thing happened over at WT:ANAT, and someone else had to restore the message. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

interesting points regarding ownership of page. appears many articles suffer from this. however i don't think this aggressive tone in some comments here is helpful to anyone. can someone instead perhaps outline clearly and calmly what the main issues are.Docsim (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe User:Chillum was just trying to bring more attention to Flyers post by removing it and generating further interest from this community? Anyway would strongly recommend they NOT do this again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The removal of the canvasing what brought to the attention of ANI where it is agreed the canvassing was inappropriate. I have already explained that canvas allows posts to place directly related to the dispute. I don't see how this page was directly related to someone losing their rollback rights. Recommendations that fly in the fact of policy cannot really be taken by me.

Membership is not a requirement to edit here. When someone is spamming many posts all over it is appropriate for an admin to reverse those, even if it is a page where people don't like outsiders doing things. Again, I acted appropriately. I don't get what all of the fuss from you people is all about. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 15:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• No, you didn't. But I'm not surprised that a few other members of Team Wikipedia Project Police at ANI have been willing to pretend you did, and that you believe them. Your (and their) gross misapplication of WP:CANVASS to prevent wider scrutiny of Protonk's bad removal of Flyer22's rollback flag fortunately failed. LHM^{ask me a question} 16:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

While consensus here is that your edits were inappropriate. That flyers comment was related as it effects the function of our project and thus his comment was within policy. Thus recommend you not persist. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cordocytes

Dear medical experts: The above old AfC submission needs more independent sources, but is the topic notable? Should the draft be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I found only one paper in Pubmed, and it isn't a secondary source. (This source is listed in the draft article.) All of the sources listed in the draft (including the PubMed paper) are by the same two authors.

Curiously, the top hit on a Google search is for the Wikipedia editor Cordocyte. The Google search also found another paper (Edelstein) listed in Pubmed. Although this paper was not written by Pais & Danaila, it directly refers to those authors. Edelstein's paper seems to imply that interstitial cell of Cajal is an old name. However this is not implied by the draft.

Overall, I am inclined to think that the term is a neologism invented and promulgated by Pais & Danaila. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Axl. I have deleted it under db-g13. It can always be refunded if the term becomes notable in the future. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Images of sick and dying people

People here have previously discussed images of people who are visibly sick before. I've opened a new discussion here that may interest some of you: Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#Vulnerable people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Patellofemoral pain syndrome

The above article will be undergoing expansion over the coming weeks. Any help would be much appreciated. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue as to whether Chondromalacia patellae is the same condition as PFPS was already discussed recently in this forum by searching the archives [6]; and in the chondromalacia talk page [7] This source [8] treats them as one and the same. Currently the Chondromalacia patellae article states it is the same as PFPS. Another source states:

"In the literature there is some agreement that PFPS is a term to be applied only to people with retropatellar pain in which no cartilage damage is evident (Arroll 1997; Cutbill 1997; Holmes 1998; Juhn 1999; Thomee 1999; Wilk 1998; ). However, retropatellar pain is generally thought of as a self-limiting condition with a good prognosis, especially for people who are young (Kannus 1994), people who have unilateral complaints, and people in which crepitation is absent (Natri 1998). This means that people are usually managed in primary care and are rarely referred to specialist care (Bourne 1988). Therefore reliable diagnostic techniques for determining cartilage damage such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or arthroscopy (Cutbill 1997; Nissen 1998) are seldom applied. In fact a diagnosis based solely on symptoms and physical examination of the knee is not uncommon. Furthermore, Natri showed that neither the radiologic nor the MRI changes seen in affected knees showed a clear association with persistent symptoms seven years later (Natri 1998). This makes the distinction between chondromalacia patellae and PFPS theoretical rather than practical, so people with either chondromalacia patellae or PFPS will be included in this review." (source= [9]). Matthew Ferguson (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Atkins diet

I think Atkins diet needs some attention and Medical research related to low-carbohydrate diets needs some attention to discuss what the actual current consensus or major viewpoint is, if there is one. Second Quantization (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the "softening" mentioned in the lead of the 2nd has continued, & the rough consensus is that a general low-carb approach to weight loss is the most successful, but not actual Atkins. Eg Richard Lehman remarked along these lines in a recent BMJ blog (he being my personal proxy for "actual current consensus or major viewpoint" on such things). Most of the refs used now seem 2008-9, as so often. But the matter can't I think be called settled. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Need an admin

Could someone move the sub-stub Pleura-pneumonia to Pleuropneumonia? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

 In progress Doing... Zad68 02:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done If you need anything else I'll be in the mechanical room behind the elevator, make sure you knock LOUD! Zad68 02:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Don't forget to wear ear protection in loud workplaces. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Presenting potentially alarming prognosis information

Some of you will remember we discussed this at CRUK before Wikimania. Just as a matter of presentation (I haven't edited the actual content yet), what do people think of the approach I've tried at Pancreatic_cancer#Prognosis? Again the wording probably needs work. Does anyone object to this approach as such? The idea would be to have overall survival rate information elsewhere, but to treat prognosis stats by stage this way. Can people comment at this section on the talk page, perhaps also noting the one called "Thank you" two above it. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Commented. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

npp for category tool

Please comment. Gryllida (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Traditional African medicine

I've initiated a reassessment, my reasons are described here: Talk:Traditional African medicine/GA2. Page was created as part of an educational assignment in 2010 and marked as GA two weeks afterwards. Would any other users like to contribute? --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The references are not properly formatted in the Notes section. The WP:LEDE does not summarise the body. More sources are needed to update the article. The article easily fails GA. QuackGuru (talk) 07:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've copied these to the reassessment page for posterity. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

There will be an effectiveness and safety section in the article and it will be summarised in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:Good article criteria do not require "properly formatted" references.

Someday I should just make a template for this. Maybe getting spammed with the same template several times would help squash this persistent myth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and coincidentally had opened an RfC on citation style template overuse a few days ago (Template_talk:Citation_style#Request_for_comment_on_use). I've delisted the article because of other concerns noted on the reassessment page. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The refs are not formatted and it is impossible to verify any claim. QuackGuru (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Although I don't like the style of reference formatting used, the references certainly are formatted. A couple of the urls are dead, but otherwise, if you made the effort to get hold of the sources, you should be able to verify the content. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru, the only problem with the ref formatting is that you screwed it up by removing the heading that separates the short citations from the full ones. If you're not familiar with this system, then see WP:CITESHORT, or if you're like more details, Chicago Manual of Style or just about any other style book that would be recommended to students by any professor of English. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

See WP:CITESHORT: "Some Wikipedia articles use short citations, giving summary information about the source together with a page number,..."

The citeshort is used for when there are notes or a summary about the source for the reader. See Traditional Chinese medicine#Notes for how that is done.

This is not what was done at Traditional African medicine (TAM). The references for TAM are not "properly formatted". Any GA article that used malformed refs should be delisted. QuackGuru (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Could I encourage you to actually click through to WP:CITESHORT and read the example? You obviously haven't done so, or you'd not believe that an explanatory footnote like the one in the TCM article had anything at all to do with short citations. You're looking for the bit that begins with this paragraph: Some Wikipedia articles use short citations, giving summary information about the source together with a page number, as in <ref>Smith 2010, p. 1.</ref>. These are used together with full citations, which give full details of the sources, but without page numbers, and are listed in a separate "References" section.

As for your belief that malformed citations are a cause for de-listing or failing an article, you can take up your proposal at WT:GACR. Just be prepared to lose that particular debate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, this system is used to FAs moderately often. Conatus and Royal_Maundy#Notes use it in slightly different ways. See Throffer#Notes for an FA that features all three elements: one explanatory footnote, 59 short citations, and an alphabetized list of full citations (including some WP:General references). It would be silly to prohibit at GA what is commonly and automatically accepted at FA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? The notes section is for "Some Wikipedia articles use short citations, giving summary information about the source together with a page number,..." This is one example for a notes section. A notes section can be used for a summary or to give the reader addtional information such as I did at TCM and Acupuncture. See Traditional Chinese medicine#Notes. See Acupuncture#Notes.

Another use for a notes section is for notes like Conatus#Notes and Royal Maundy#Notes that is used for a very different purpose such as when different page numbers are used for a single source.

There are only specific circumstances for when to use a notes sections. The notes at Traditional African_medicine#Notes are not used together with the full citations. They are separated. At Royal Maundy#Notes a reader can click on a short citation to read the full citation to verify the text. See Royal Maundy#CITEREFRobinson1977. QuackGuru (talk) 07:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure about that. There are dozens of acceptable ways to format citations. "Onwuanibe, pp. 27", which is one of the ones you're talking about, is definitely one of those acceptable styles. Some of the sources cited in that article are too short for page numbers to matter, like the Gale Encyclopedia entry. You don't include page numbers if they're not necessary.

I have no idea why you say that Conatus' "Traupman 1966, p. 52" and Royal Maundy's "Robinson 1977, pp. 23–24." are serving a different purpose than Traditional African medicine's "Onwuanibe, pp. 27". They use different technoogy, but the purpose (telling the reader where to verify the material) is obviously identical. We always assume that our readers are smart enough to read an author's last name in the short citations and find that author's last name in the immediately following alphabetical list of full citations (just like readers have done on paper for the last century). There is no requirement that any sources whatsoever be clickable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

A short citation must be linked together to the full citation. You can see how this was done at Conatus#Notes and Royal Maundy#Notes. If the citations are not linked then the reader won't know which short citation belongs to which full citations. Only in some circumstance there is a benefit for using a short citation with a full citation. If the benefit has not been met then the references should be formatted the usually way. At Traditional African medicine, no reason has been given for using a shortcite which is not linked to the full citation. QuackGuru (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

QG i don't think you have a leg to stand on there. but more importantly, QG if your point is that the article is not GA on the basis of ref formatting alone, that would a losing argument. my sense is that your argument is not hung from that one peg, so what is the point? you can put the ax down on this issue. hardly any Med articles use Chicago style in any case (and my sense is that the African article is going to get its refs reformatted soon anyway) Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"A short citation must be linked together to the full citation." This is not true, if by "linked" you mean using a clickable wikilink (or similar technology). So long as the reader is capable of reading one and finding the other, then it's sufficient.

Please feel free to read the entire WP:CITE guideline, or just ask at WT:CITE. If you find anything that says that they must be linked, then please advise. NB that the current, non-linking style used at Traditional African medicine is exactly what the CITE guideline gives as an example of how to do this. WP:CITESHORT contains no clickable links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

See https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Royal_Maundy#cite_note-FOOTNOTERobinson197727-16

See https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Royal_Maundy#CITEREFRobinson1977

The short and full citations are obviously liked together at Royal Maundy. This is done at Royal Maundy because a single reference is sourced to more than one page. At Traditional African medicine the references are not linked together and there is no point to having a short and long citation when a single reference is not linked to cited different pages. The "non-linking style" is wrong and should be discouraged. How is the reader to know which source is the full citation? Only if it is needed there should be a short and full citation with a linking style at Traditional African medicine. A "properly formatted" shortcite used the "linking style" like Royal Maundy#Notes. QuackGuru (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be otq: Template:Harvard_citation/doc#Wikilink_to_citation_does_not_work LeadSongDog come howl! 20:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

At Traditional African medicine there is no linking whereas at Royal Maundy there is a "linking style". Of course there are several possible solutions for fixing the malformed citations according to Template:Harvard citation/doc#Wikilink to citation does not work. QuackGuru (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"How is the reader to know which source is the full citation" when the reader is given the name of an author, the year of publication, and a page number, and immediately underneath that short citation, he reader is given a full bibliographic citation, one of which also contains a matching author's name and publication date?

Maybe because the reader spent several years of high school writing reports using this exact style of footnoting? Maybe because the reader will use just a tiny bit of common sense? Maybe because the reader is not actually a complete idiot and therefore does not look at "Smith (2010) page 15" followed by a mere inch lower on the screen by an entry that says, "Smith, Bob (2010) The Sun is Really Big New York:Random House" and jump to the idiotic conclusion that there could not possibly be any connection between these two references to someone named Smith who published a book in 2010?

This isn't "wrong". This isn't even difficult. This is a system that is widely recommended by real-world experts and used in millions of papers and books. It is used, without any hint of links, as a normal and acceptable method in the example at WP:CITESHORT. This is 100% "correct". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

No matter what you say the links are not properly formatted and don't work without the link to the full citations. The citation style can be fixed according to Template:Harvard citation/doc#Wikilink to citation does not work. I prefer the links to help the reader. Is there any reason not to link the short citations to the full citations? QuackGuru (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

They are not formatted the way you like them, but it has been abundantly demonstrated above that this is not a GA requirement, nor one of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Citing_medical_sources. It is inappropriate to talk of them being "malformed", "not properly" formatted, or not "working". If it bothers you that much, you might ask on the talk page if people object to you changing them, but they are well within their rights to do so. I don't think WP:CITEVAR has been mentioned above, but it is highly relevant here. If people want more examples of FAs using similar systems, most of mine do (all the ones where I was the primary writer). The system has many advantages templates lack, though they aren't really used here. Having said all that, I can't see the article as GA standard, on a very tricky subject. I'll comment there. Johnbod (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I added some text to the page. Please review. QuackGuru (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Introducing new editor

Hi, I'm new to Wiki and plan to edit 'pregnancy' related content to incorporate evidence from Cochrane reviews. I would appreciate any advice/help that you can offer.Dogboxer (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not possible for you to break anything so do whatever comes naturally. I see that you already edited the morning sickness article and you did great. Do that anywhere else. Pregnancy articles are watched by a lot of people so you are surrounded by friends. If you ever have a question post it here or on the talk page of a pregnancy article and people will respond.

I have been looking at pregnancy and caesarean section lately so if you want to look at those together then do anything there and I will meet you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dogboxer: Welcome! And if you have any questions or need help or a second opinion, please feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. Happy editing... MastCell ^Talk 15:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for very short article

Hello all. I've found Visual processing, which doesn't seem problematic but it's very short and (probably?) covered elsewhere. However I'm not a subject matter expert and as such I'm unwilling to redirect it (and don't know a good merge target to propose or do one). Is this ok by itself? Should it be expanded? Or is it better merged into a more appropriate target. Alternately is there an extant article which better covers this topic but exists under a different name? Thanks. Protonk (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you can go ahead and redirect it to Visual perception. They are essentially the same thing, and visual perception even has a section on artificial visual perception. As there are no references in the article I don't know if you would even need to merge, as there are no references for the name. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It might be better as some sort of disambiguation page. Visual processing in a biological systems is covered at a high level in Visual system and at lower level in some of the daughter articles. Visual processing in a computer context is covered at a high level in Computer vision and in lower levels in various image processing articles. While there is some overlap between the computer and biological vision communities (one notable interface may be neuromorphic engineering), its not clear that an article uniting the two fields is the best approach. --Mark viking (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

DynaMed as a source

DynaMed may be interesting in collaborating with us. Ie they may be willing to give us a fixed number of accounts. What are peoples though of using DynaMed as a reference? They are a review of decent high quality even though they are a little hard to access. Anyone can get a 30 day free trial which will make follow up fairly easy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a traditional peer review as part of their process on their webpage. I think this is very important, as peer review helps ensure that mistakes are not made and that the conclusions published are at least within a stone's throw of mainstream. Is this something that we can check on? found it. https://dynamed.ebscohost.com/about/reviewers Formerly 98 (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I accessed it through the medical school library out of curiosity. I searched for "the use of vitamin D in the prevention of falls in older adults". It actually worked well - interface slightly different from others but clearly navigable. I believe it is recommended to the medical students by library staff. I think editors would find it useful. It would be an intermediate step - the original literature would have to be accessed but links are present and easy to use. Mdscottis (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes , the main benefit is that it gives a good idea of the framework and comprehensiveness of a subject, and links to key articles. I've used it a bit at work and I liked how accessible it is/was. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Medical records and cybersecurity

It seems to me that this deserves mention by Wikipedia.

• Your medical record is worth more to hackers than your credit card—Reuters (September 24, 2014)

—21:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wavelength (talk • contribs)

Infection control

Article is in need of some TLC. Mostly dated refs, very US-centric, preoccupied with HIV and HBV to the neglect of others. Needs a section to address major outbreaks. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

will try and improve this. also it seems so many articles suffer from this US-centric flaw you mentioned. may be worth actively defining this by saying US research.Docsim (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

RS

Can we consider this as reliable source? - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 06:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It was written 13 years ago, so it's very likely outdated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Trip database gives numerous secondary hits for "diet and arthritis", including a Cochrane review from 2009. You would be much better off, in my humble opinion, basing any new content on the newer sources that are available. --RexxS (talk) 08:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Another article in need

Pontocerebellar hypoplasia is in serious need of expert attention, if anyone is up for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

TylerDurden8823 and I have made a start, but it could do with some solid secondary sources and further sections - Diagnosis, Screening, Management, Epidemiology, History are the obvious ones. I've dropped 3 secondary sources onto the talk page if anybody cares to do a little more work on the article. --RexxS (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I would love to help, but I do have some questions: what kind of reference would these links http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/pontocerebellar-hypoplasia http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9673/ and MedlinePlus be? Primary, secondary? Are they good enough so I can read them and start building the Diagnosis section? Should I add the sections suggested above me, adding the section needs work box? thanks Chibs007 (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The first one is probably secondary, but might be tertiary (the lines are fuzzy between categories) but it's pretty much a FAQ. The second is great. MedlinePlus is generally okay for more basic material, but it occasionally contains some material that is seriously outdated or otherwise wrong. (I suppose, though, that's not too different from anything else.)

Here's a pre-formatted citation for the second one, to save you a little time:

Namavar, Yasmin; Eggens, Veerle RC; Barth, Peter G.; Baas, Frank (1993). TSEN54-Related Pontocerebellar Hypoplasia. Seattle (WA): University of Washington, Seattle. Retrieved 2014-09-26.

Just open this section (as if to add a comment) and copy it. Then you can paste it into the wikitext editor (with <ref>...</ref> tags) wherever you want.

If anyone's following along for the upcoming auto-filling citation system for WP:VisualEditor, it took just two clicks to make this from the URL: click once to choose the item in the Cite menu, paste the URL into the blank, and then click on the "Insert" button. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Perfect! thanks! I am still a rookie and code the old style. Hope I will learn fast. I will work on the diagnosis section and add the others the upcoming week. Chibs007 (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Spammy or not

This person is adding lot of links to OIE User:Zszabo81. Wonder peoples thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This user is adding external links to World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). The organization is as reputable as can be presented. Some of the links are directly relevant, and others are to general disease information. I might prefer that only the single most relevant link to this organization be added, because the tendency on Wikipedia is to try to minimize the number of external links especially if multiple links go to one organization's content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Many of them take you to a page with no information on the disease in question. I agree one link is fine if it goes to the right page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

i had some interaction with the new user on her talk page - seems well intentioned and teachable.Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Agree they are well intentioned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Corneal Inlay

Dear medical experts: I'm pretty sure this is a notable topic. Is the content appropriate, and are the references reliable? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Since no-one else has looked into it (pun intended), I have done so. There are 44 papers in Pubmed that mention "corneal inlay". Although only two of these papers (Lindstrom and Sweeney) are review papers, I think that overall, there is enough third-party coverage to support notability of the topic.

15 references are provided in the draft article:-

1. The first paper (Chang, "Novel Approaches to Treating Presbyopia", Review of Cornea & Contact Lenses) is not listed in Pubmed.
2. Seyeddain (1) is said to be a cohort study but is really a case series—a primary study.
3. Dexl (1) is another case series by the same group in Salzburg.
4. Yilmaz is a larger case series (39 patients).
5. Tabernero (1) is a small case series in Murcia, Spain.
6. Waring is a larger study of 507 patients.
7. Dexl (2) is another case series from the Salzburg group (24 patients). [The draft misidentifies and misspells the first author as "Taberno".]
8. Tabernero (2) is a primary source describing a series of 16 models (Murcia group).
9. Dexl (3) is another case series from Salzburg. (The draft misidentifies the primary author as Seyeddain.)
10. Dexl (4) is more of the same, again with the primary author misidentified.
11. Gatinel is a case series of two patients.
12. Seyeddain (2) is a letter.
13. Tomita is a bigger study of 180 patients.
14. Ocular Surgery News seems to be a news website. There are several relevant articles on that website. The reference used looks suitable.
15. The journal named "Cataract and Refractive Surgery" is not listed in Pubmed, although it is unclear if this should be the "Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery". Either way, the article title given is not listed in Pubmed, although Waring has similar papers listed. The most similar paper is Corneal inlays for the treatment of presbyopia. This is a "historical article".

In summary, all but one of the references are inappropriate. The draft needs to be re-written from scratch with carefully chosen references and in-line citations. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Axl, you really looked into that! Okay; I have removed all of those sources except for the one you liked, and found book and article sources for replacement. I also rewrote the first part to be more readable by non-scientists (for example, people like me with bad eyesight). However, having no previous knowledge of this topic except for one lecture at my local computer and technology club, I may have mangled it, so I hope that you or anyone else who is more knowledgeable will adjust as necessary. It'd be good to get this into mainspace at some point. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Your re-write is a big improvement over the previous draft. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Axl, (or anyone else?) should it move to mainspace now to be improved there? Or are there still policy problems? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It is reasonable to move it into mainspace. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Axl; it's now at Corneal inlay. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy and Completeness of Drug Information in Wikipedia: A Comparison with Standard Textbooks of Pharmacology

Reading the morning news I came across a news article about a new paper published in PLOS:Accuracy and Completeness of Drug Information in Wikipedia: A Comparison with Standard Textbooks of Pharmacology

Their research found we have something like 99.7%±0.2% accuracy when it comes to drug information, and 83.8±1.5% completeness.

Looking at the abstract they also did some review of readability. Indication was most complete and pharmacokinetics the least - which is understandable. Their conclusion is very promising (my emphasis):

Drug articles in Wikipedia had an average of 14.6±1.6 references and 262.8±37.4 edits performed by 142.7±17.6 editors. Both Wikipedia and textbooks samples had comparable, low readability. Our study suggests that Wikipedia is an accurate and comprehensive source of drug-related information for undergraduate medical education.

For me these are astounding numbers if they are true. I haven't dived into the paper yet, but will as soon as I have time. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 08:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Their position is a lot more positive than mine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The line about “low readability” sounds like a challenge, doesn't it? But it looks like they only compared readability scores for German Wikipedia. I wonder if readability analysis for their sample of English articles would look much different. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 23:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Totally awesome findings. Not too surprising about problems with readability. I bet that they didn't check to see if the references were outdated which is one of the main problems that plagues our medical articles. But compared to textbooks it would likely be comparable. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥

Comparison of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia

Just came across this...am in two minds about it but leaning towards deleting it - none of the sources are about comparison and not much crops up on google scholar that would apply. Doesn't mention schizoaffective disorder either...what do folks think? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Some well-sourced compare-and-contrast material could be very interesting to some readers and help educate them about the differences. Should it be its own page, or small part of each article? Hmm, I could go either way with that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I support merging any decent content with the other articles. Noone is going to read this article as its title is too unusual. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If it gets a {{Main}} link and a short summary in the related articles, then people will read it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm against using these too much, because when the main article is updated the summary won't be (most of the time). Thus we end up with up to date content in one place, and old content somewhere else. It isn't immediately obvious either even to an experience editor where the best/most up to date content is. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If you haven't already, go have a look at Bipolar disorder § Differential diagnosis and Schizophrenia § Differential. Each mentions the other as one of a handful of conditions (most wikilinked) that should be considered in a differential diagnosis. It's not the sort of content that tends to change quickly. I'm more concerned that moving content into these articles would give undue weight to these conditions in those sections. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 01:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The existing content has a lot of rough edges, but I think it could be developed into a useful article. The four journal sources are comparisons of brain structure between the two. but they're all primary sources. Gonna see if I can mine any useful secondary sources from the intro/background sections. Let me tinker a couple days before proposing merges or anything, okay? —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 15:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Good luck, Shelley. Please let us all know how it goes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Mining those four sources was quite productive; added a section to the article's talk page with the resulting list of MEDRS sources (and a brief explanation). The article itself is still in the messy middle, but getting better. Cas Liber will probably be glad to see there's already a bit more about schizoaffective disorder. Haven't touched the lead section yet, planning to rewrite it once things are further along. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 13:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Generation Rescue assessment

I changed it because it from B-class because it never seemed to appropriately apply to the article and recent changes certainly do not qualify it for that status anymore. Admittedly, I am not a member of this WikiProject so can someone here look and say if they agree?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Electrostatic Spray Ionization

Dear medical experts: I am not sure if this is a medical topic or not. In any case, is it notable, and should it be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anne,

I think this is a chemistry thing. It's notable, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Definitely a chemistry topic. I'm not sure it is notable though. There are only 27 GScholar hits for "Electrostatic Spray Ionization" and in this recent review of mass spec ionization technologies, the method gets only a sentence. --Mark viking (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe not, then. Electrospray ionization (the non-AFC article that the AFC version would have to be merged into) cites 68 sources, though, so I doubt that would get deleted at AFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

There's also the engineering aspect, it's routinely used for spray-painting cars. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark viking, WhatamIdoing and Roger (Dodger67). I've postponed its deletion so there's time to look into this. It may be that the topic is not being studied much scientifically, but could still be notable if it's written about in publications about practical applications, or it may be that it should be merged with Electrospray ionization, but someone knowledgeable would have to do it. If none of these, I can revert my edit later and delete under db-g13. Sorry for posting in the wrong forum. Is Roger right about the cars? If so, someone such as Popular Mechanics should cover it. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

How Accurate Are Wikipedia Articles in Health, Nutrition, and Medicine? - new paper

How Accurate Are Wikipedia Articles in Health, Nutrition, and Medicine? / Les articles de Wikipédia dans les domaines de la santé, de la nutrition et de la médecine sont-ils exacts ?, Norman J. Temple, Joy Fraser, From: Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, Volume 38, Number 1, March/mars 2014, pp. 37-52 | 10.1353/ils.2014.0000. I can't read it though - does anyone have Project MUSE etc? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually this was already on Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Research publications, so maybe already noted here (ahead of the Signpost). Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have access to the whole paper, John? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Is the paper really as worthless as the abstract makes it appear? It looks as though the authors developed and applied a certain analysis to Wikipedia, but then failed to apply it to any other source, leaving their results meaningless. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I have access, mail me if you want it. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Treatment of bipolar disorder by mood stabilizer

Hi everyone! I am a Psychiatry resident and I recently joined Wikipedia. I am working on a project on the efficacy of Lithium vs. Valproate as a mood stabilizer in bipolar disorder. Can we all join in and discuss about it? I will post the relevant information I have. However, I'd like to know if someone has any ideas regarding this.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raysujoy8 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

very interesting project! Would be happy to collaborate. Are you going to be working primarily in the Bipolar disorder article? Quick note, in case you are not aware of the following. Please know that wikipedia is not a place for original research; instead we rely on the best sources we can find, as described in our guideline for sourcing health related content, WP:MEDRS. The best sources are reviews published in the biomedical literature and statements by major scientific and medical bodies (so a treatment guideline from APA or the like would be great). Here is the most recent review I found (which also has some primary research in it) in pubmed that compares lithium and valproate - PMID 22000157. there is also a recent cochrane review on valproate that has some discussion, comparing it it lithium: PMID 24132760. PMID 23873292 and PMID 23749421 look good too.Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes I shall be working on the bipolar disorder article. Of course I shall be looking for research from other sources. Thanks for sending me the info. .Raysujoy8 (talk)

Research on Images of boils

Also from the 24/9 Signpost: "Finally, the paper reports on the results of a small web-based experiment where 163 participants were randomly shown one of three versions of the article de:Furunkel (boil): Either without images, or with a "neutral image", or "with a somewhat disgusting image of an infected boil." The author states that "The most interesting results for the Wikipedia community is that the disgusting image enhances the perceived quality of the article: It is perceived to be more fascinating (p=.023) and more worth reading (p=.032) than an article without any image." Thomas Roessing: The Dispute over Filtering “indecent” Images in Wikipedia. Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology Issue: 2/2013, PDF - also not very new; I can't get the PDF to open though. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes images are important even though finding a perfect one may be difficult / impossible. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

List of electronic cigarette bans

I propose an article ("List of electronic cigarette bans" or "List of vaping bans"), to parallel "List of smoking bans". Please see "Legal status of electronic cigarettes".
—Wavelength (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Article in need of checking over - Microtherapy

Hi all. I just came across Microtherapy, which hasn't been substantively edited since 2007. I lack the medical expertise to judge, but my first impression was that it may be either pseudoscience, or an article which has since been eclipsed by a more comprehensive one under another name. Even if it's neither of those, its sourcing is remarkably lacking. Perhaps if someone from this project is looking for something to do, they could take a look over it and see what needs doing? Thanks! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Good find. Seems like a non-topic. I have PROD'd it. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, that does look a bit problematic. The first source in the article, which waves vaguely at the definition, is just a PubMed search on 'microtherapy'. It turns up just 65 hits, which is awfully thin already. Further, most are not actually papers about the topic (or even mentioning the topic) but the work of a few scientists who have an institutional affiliation with one department of one university (Department of Radiology and Microtherapy, University of Witten/Herdecke). A small number of scientists seem to be trying very hard to make the word microtherapy (Mikro Therapie or Mikrotherapie, in German) into a thing; it's just a synonym for minimally-invasive surgery ([10], [11]). If the term stays around at all, we should probably just point it to our existing article.

If you filter the PubMed results to only include publications mentioning 'microtherapy' in their title or abstract, you're down to 13 hits (at least one of which is a false-positive because of an institutional affiliation in the abstract text). Three more papers refer to an apparent term of art (or possibly a nonce word) in speech pathology from about 30 years ago, and a couple of papers talk about an ocular drug delivery method from the same era.

Worse still, the article at microtherapy doesn't even deal with any of those topics. It actually appears to be describing microcurrent therapy. See Frequency Specific Microcurrent, Microcurrent electrical neuromuscular stimulator, and Electrotherapy (cosmetic), which are themselves in need of varying amounts of attention. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I will leave the article in your collective capable hands, then. Thanks for taking a look! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I've now gutted Frequency specific microcurrent as it was basing its claims on effectiveness on two primary refs. Microcurrent electrical neuromuscular stimulator is a more developed article, but need to be checked for medical claims based on primary studies. It looks pretty bad at first view. --RexxS (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Images of people getting care

I spent a while looking for an image for Morning care (the routine of getting people dressed for the day, most prominently in long-term care facilities). I was unsuccessful. If anyone knows of some, or even could take some pictures, that would be great. Commons seems to have a shortage of pictures of elderly people, and a picture of, say, an elderly man being shaved by someone else is even rarer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a vulnerable person? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Axl is teasing a bit because of the proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#Vulnerable_people.

I am working in health publishing these days and as a Wikipedian, I have come to realize that all health nonprofit organizations all have an endless demand for reusable photos of people getting health care in their illustrations. I am not sure of the focus of the demand, but at least I can say that everyone wants pictures of a doctor or caregiver talking with a person receiving care. The images have to represent as many mixes of ages and ethnicities as possible in both doctor and patient, and neither can look rich or poor. If I tried to imagine a photoshoot which would force every health organization in the world to use Wikimedia Commons images, it would probably be for us to maintain a pool of stock photos with cleared personality rights of a bunch of models who agreed to be depicted suffering from and treating every imaginable disease in health articles. Health organizations pay a lot of money for everything they publish to get images of the recycled fake patients from photo companies, and then when they want to republish something they have to clear the rights again. If the Wikimedia community could provide such pictures, they would practically be forced on the world.

Perhaps some of you remember that in the past few months Wellcome Trust donated 300 gigs of health photos to us. In this donation, they withheld the boring fake patient photos that make them so much in licensing, because this is still big business. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I am working on this at CRUK, where we do lots of our own photos/videos, mostly of real patients, but in this area model release issues may prevent much progress, even for images made in the future. I agree it would be a promising area for a wiki event, if all the right paperwork was set up. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Might be, Axl, although a vulnerable adult is not a synonym for any adult who is vulnerable, and is even less a synonym for an old man getting shaved by someone else.

For our purposes, we would do everything Blue said, and also have photos with the people arranged to focus on the impersonal action rather than on their faces. Unlike an ad for a clinic, we're usually trying to illustrate something other than the interpersonal relationship. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Try the CDC's Public Health Image Library. You can limit the results to public domain images using the Advanced Search.Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 23:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Should Female genital mutilation be categorized in Category:Traditional African medicine?

• See Talk:Traditional_African_medicine#Modern_period The article does not mention it at all at present. Johnbod (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Dont see the need to mention it. what is your grounds for possible inclusion.Docsim (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The lines of argument are that:

• FGM is "medical" because it's safer to do it in sterile medical facilities than in dusty village streets (and in Egypt, you can get it done in medical facilities for exactly that reason). It's also "traditional" and "African" (both undisputed), and therefore it's "Traditional African medicine".
• FGM is cultural, not "medical", because it meets none of the basic definitions of "medicine", i.e., "the science that deals with preventing, curing, and treating diseases".[12]

As for sources, there are a few that mention both terms, but few that equate the two and significantly more that mention "cultural practice" in relationship to female genital mutilation.

If you've got an opinion, then it would probably be helpful to post it on that page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not a very neutral summary - it is of course a "cultural practice", like male circumscision in the West. It is also a medical procedure, with hygene claimed as one of the benefits, as well as the prevention of sexual appetites considered unacceptable. There is no dichotomy there, any more than for other aspects of cosmetic surgery or many other areas of medicine such as psychiatry. The WHO and similar bodies think it falls under them, and take a great interest, as searches will show. I'm very puzzled as to why anyone would think it does not fall under that subject, unless they share the somewhat hippy-ish "all traditional and alternative medical ideas must be great" perspective that seems to dominate the current article and its sources, using an artificial definition of Traditional African medicine that excludes all the questionable stuff to leave altruistic grannies doling out herbal remedies. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Johnbod - Your accusatory comments of motivations such as the above and these replies accusing of "white washing" [13] is starting to get insulting and culturally offensive. Your accusations fall flat when you look at the TAM Category itself and see pages like Infant oral mutilation and Murder for body parts, (of which I have personally contributed [14]) both which are most definitely don't cover your accusations of whitewashing. Your justification is being questioned for adding it to the TAM category, not because of whitewashing or stone-walling, but because you have not providing any reliable references for the view that FGM is practised for healing purposes under TAM (like divination, herbalism, shamanic practices are) and not specifically as a cultural practice. If you do, as WAID has suggested [15], add a sentence or 2. Mycelium101 (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that a health organization is interested in a subject does not mean that the subject is a medical one. Health organizations are interested in skateboarding, too, but that doesn't mean that skateboarding is a medical subject. The WHO is interested in FGM because it causes medical problems (just like skateboarding). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The WHO is almost totally uninterested in skateboarding, and the few mentions seem rather in favour of it. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The WHO is interested in smoking too, but that doesn't mean that smoking is necessarily a medical intervention (even though sometimes it may have been used as such historically, and in certain settings). 86.164.164.123 (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

When hoaxes go wrong

I trust some people here have seen this or this, where a single known Twitterer is credited for starting a phenomenon that is credited with killing two Nigerians and putting 20 in the hospital for drinking too much salt water. It's possible watch how this played out, at least to some extent, though I fear that as usual somebody has been busy sanitizing the primary sources. Interesting though that there are a couple of tweets with an apparently similar idea from three years ago - I wonder how much the myth was already established culturally?

Another difficult case for us free-speech believers concerns the most amazing (and appalling) prank phone calls I ever heard, in which a caller managed to convince two different women that he was a doctor, they had been exposed to a serious disease, and they had to diagnose or treat it by cutting their nipples off - with one actually completing the act.

But I don't think that the knee-jerk reaction of cracking down on communications is right. If there are people walking around with "the key in the ignition", just waiting for anybody, a twitter voice, a phone call, to tell them what to do, then that is the main problem. We need people to think more, to question their source more, and I don't think we can train them to do that by feeding them only predigested data for consumers. And if there is a moral duty here, one which people like the prank caller have badly transgressed, is that ethic really not to say things that are wrong -- or to point out what is true whenever given the opportunity?

We are in the midst of a terrible and international assault on the freedom of communications, and I know that events like the Ebola hoax can be used to back that, but we can do better. Wnt (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think of myself as someone who needs or wants to be led, but it would be helpful if you could relate these anecdotes to particular suggestions that you have about how to edit and improve Wikipedia.... I'm presuming that you're not suggesting we relax our sourcing policies and guidelines based on the false dichotomy in your second paragraph (our goal here should be both to avoid providing information that is wrong, and to provide information that is correct, not just either-or). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't have direct policy application, but my feeling is that we are likely to hear a lot about incidents like this, and what that means for social media, and we should start thinking about the philosophy involved - what is freedom of expression, what duties do people have to one another, and what principles really underlie our revulsion when things like this happen? Wnt (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

People have been scammed for years and years. It occurred long before computers existed. It used to be done in person through speech. No one is going to be banning people speaking to each other any time soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Tell that to Erdogan. Wnt (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to forward my comments. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that might be hard ;). On a side note, this makes it important that we do keep our information free of vandalism. It is hard for me to assess what edits on the Ebola translations actually change. I don't know if meta:Small Wiki Monitoring Team would catch such edits. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wnt, I don't see how this is relevant to WikiProject Medicine. Are you suggesting that our editors should be taking some sort of specific action? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, never mind then. Wnt (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Call for contributions to "Management of myocardial infarction" "Management of acute coronary syndrome

I'm currently working on the article on Management of myocardial infarction Management of acute coronary syndrome, and on the talk page I'm mentioning some issues with it. Your contributions to the article itself or to the discussion I'm trying to open will be more than welcome. The ultimate goal is, of course, to improve the mother article Myocardial infarction, which had once reached Featured Article candidacy, but now has great room for improvement. NikosGouliaros (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

My Sandbox contains the article as it is being rewritten. Comments on it are welcome.NikosGouliaros (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

ebola

due to the new events which have unfolded today in Dallas, Texas, I believe the article "Ebola virus epidemic in west Africa", current "low importance c-class article" should be raised to "mid importance", I would appreciate any opinions thank you.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

the idea that a single case in dallas would change the article's importance is a few kinds of awful.Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Wow. I know Wikipedia has a Western bias, but when you really put it into numeric terms, something like 20000 to 1, it is impressive. Nonetheless, on account of events in Liberia, with substantial international involvement and the potential for a substantial increase in virulence being recognized, I think changing it to "mid" seems justified. Wnt (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy with mid. Nothing to do with Dellas though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to raising the importance level a single western case is irrelevant. Wikipedia is supposed to cover the entire world. Projections of over 1 million infected in January are far more pressing, and may even justify high importance. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone already made the change to "mid importance". The event in Dallas is a major contributing factor to this Wikipedia article being one of the most popular medical articles on Wikipedia (currently ranked #2) and one of the most consulted sources of information on ebola in the world. If we really did up-to-date monitoring and response, or if there were software which automatically changed importance ratings in response to traffic, then I think this article could be top importance because so many people are studying this article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not "importance", despite what the label says (it's too much trouble to change the parameter on 30,000+ talk pages, although we could change the description on the template); it's "priority", as in "Which articles should be put into the offline, limited-space collections of Wikipedia articles that the WP:1.0 team assembles first?"

We have a general rule that articles about events happening for a limited space in time (e.g., any article whose article contains a specific year) and/or in a limited geographical region (e.g., any US law about healthcare) are lower priority for inclusion than articles about general subjects, e.g., Cramps, which have affected people worldwide every day for millenia, or the main article for Ebola, which includes a good summary of this year's epidemic at Ebola virus disease#2014 outbreak. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It might have been once for the use of WP:1.0, but that's essentially historical now. The "importance" parameter is decided by the Wikiproject whose tag it exists in (and could easily be different between projects): that simply reflects the importance that the Wikiproject gives to its own efforts to improve the article. I agree completely that "priority" would be a much better name. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

each opinion counts,thank you.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Is a MEDRS suggesting systemic bias suitable to establish noteworthyness of non-MEDRS secondary sources?

Regarding the discussion at Talk:Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing#WP:WEIGHT of new study: "Proximity to Natural Gas Wells and Reported Health Status" (2014), I believe [16] (PMID 24413211) is a WP:MEDRS which may establish the noteworthyness of secondary news source coverage of [17]. If this is incorrect, please explain why.

Also, which articles at 7 are WP:MEDRS? Is 8? EllenCT (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

i don't understand what the section header means. As for specific questions... Your link 5 is not an article about health, it is about lobbying/politics/jurisprudence and is indexed that way by medline as you can see here. Your link 6 is a WP:PRIMARY source and not what MEDRS calls for (and notewothyness has nothing to do with MEDRS). your link 7 is a blank search page. your link 8 is WP:PRIMARY and not what MEDRS calls for. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The medline link says the article is a "Review" in Reviews on environmental health and its abstract says "money can buy favors and determine policies that are often counter to the public interest and can even lead to failure to protect the health of the public" (emphasis added.) Is the article about health and lobbying/politics/jurisprudence both? EllenCT (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

yes medline reports the title of the article. it doesn't classify it as health-related review - the classifications are jurisprudence, etc as I mentioned above. Jytdog (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

To what extent does the subject matter of the journal bear on the question? EllenCT (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Primary studies should rarely be used in articles because we need secondary sources to establish their significance. (You have not provided secondary sources.) Remember the warning for opinion polls, "these numbers are accurate within 5% 19 out of 20 times?" Primary studies have similar problems and need corroboration before they become accepted or rejected. Sometimes too they are attacked on methodology. TFD (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, link 7 should have been NEW SOLUTIONS: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy Volume 23, Number 1 / 2013 (Special "Fracking" Issue: FREE Content) -- which of those articles are WP:MEDRS? And link 8 appears to me to be a review of more than 38 primary source studies. Why is it primary and not secondary? If it is secondary, is it WP:MEDRS? EllenCT (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Link 8 appears to me to report the results of a survey of 108 individuals (p 59), though referring to many other studies. That's very primary. Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, its discussion of these references is its most secondary part:

14. T. Colborn et al., “Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective," Human & Ecological Risk Assessment 17 (5) (2011): 1039-1056, doi: 10.1080/10807039.2011.605662.

15. L. M. McKenzie et al., “Human Health Risk Assessment of Air Emissions from Development of Unconventional Natural Gas Resources,” Science of the Total Environment 1 (424) (2012): 79-87, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.02.018.

16. M. Bamberger and R. E. Oswald, “Impacts of Gas Drilling on Human and Animal Health,” New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy 22 (1) (2012): 51-77, doi: 10.2190/NS.22.1.e.

The only question that remains is which of these articles are literature reviews, or better yet, we could summarize all of their secondary sections, right? EllenCT (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not seeing any of these articles as review articles. And we can not take the finding of each review and combine them to create our own review. There is more to high quality reviews than the summary of findings. They do a vigorous review of data sets looking for similarities, biases, and COI among other things. And then base the results on the combination of factors. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Some of them have more substantial review sections than others. What is the proper course of action to take when articles about both policy and health are unlikely to be incorporated in a systematic review? E.g. if we wanted to adapt the data from [18] depicted in [19]? Does WP:OI ("so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments") allow that? EllenCT (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

from my perspective none of the sources you have brought are suitable per MEDRS for sourcing content about effects of fracking on health. Whether they are suitable for other content (e.g. policy, law, lobbying, or politics) is a question for different board. Please be careful not to WP:COATRACK health content in any policy/politics/legal/lobbying content that gets generated based on these sources, if any of them are found suitable for policy etc. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Topics intersect. EllenCT (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

When MEDRS reviews are unavailable

When there are no MEDRS-quality review articles on a topic, but an abundant number of peer-reviewed sources which include literature review sections and would otherwise fit the MEDRS criteria except for the fact that they are not primarily literature reviews, is there any actual specific prohibition on using those review sections as if they were MEDRS-quality? Isn't that established long-term practice here? EllenCT (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

you will find a range of opinions on that. some say if there are no reviews at all then the subject shouldn't be discussed in WP at all. others would reach for something like a review of the literature found in the discussion of introduction section of a WP:PRIMARY source but even in that case most would say that strong statements should not be made based on such weak sources. i would tend to agree with the position that WP should be silent if there are no MEDRS quality reviews at all but cannot judge without more details. Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Who are the "some" that say that topics on which there are no reviews should not be discussed? EllenCT (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Colin, one of the initial authors of MEDRS, pretty much takes that stance. it goes deep. the underlying notion is that our goal is to provide reliable information to the public, and if there are no secondary sources that comply with MEDRS then there is nothing reliable that can be said; so we say nothing. it makes sense.Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not see anything in MEDRS that prohibits it. Often writers of original studies will summarize the existing literature before explaining their own research. I do not see anything wrong with using these, particularly when review studies have not been written or are outdated. The same source can be both a primary and secondary source depending on its use. TFD (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, MEDRS technically doesn't "prohibit" anything, and WP:IAR is still a policy. But on the assumption that the goal is to have the best possible material supported by the best possible sources, then MEDRS does strongly discourage this, because these mini-reviews tend to be biased. It's not always the case that the authors deliberately include only sources they agree with, but they've got limited space, so they focus on the prior work that explains or justifies their own work. The incompleteness results in (varying degrees of) bias. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

that is, as usual, perfectly stated WAID. this is what i meant by "weak". Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Is doing so a long-established practice when editing health-related articles in which there are no WP:MEDRS review articles? EllenCT (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. This whole section is a case of "got a POV, all that's needed now is a good source for it or, failing that, some policy twist that will permit a poor one". There seem to be plenty of good sources on this topic. Why not use PMID 24119661 for the state of the art (which broadly is something like: "we don't yet know the health implications of frac'ing but there is concern, data is being collected, and in time we likely will know more".) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 00:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep. QuackGuru (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! What search term did you use to get that URL? EllenCT (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw this source above. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24119661 See to the right: Related citations in PubMed. Click on See reviews.... I can find anything to get what you want in any article. It takes about two to five minutes. It takes another two minutes to format any ref.

There are sources that might work for economic inequality. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?linkname=pubmed_pubmed_reviews&from_uid=25076771 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?linkname=pubmed_pubmed_reviews&from_uid=25041736 QuackGuru (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Is "confidentiality requirements dictated by legal investigations ... are substantial impediments to peer-reviewed research into environmental impacts." (from this 2013 MEDRS-class review in Science) consistent with "we don't yet know the health implications"? Under such conditions, what are we supposed to infer about the reliability of sources indicating that such nondisclosure is occuring?

And what about "with increasing numbers of drilling sites, more people are at risk from accidents and exposure to harmful substances used at fractured wells" (from this other 2013 MEDRS review)?

And what, do you suppose the "implications for pediatric nursing" are?

Or, the plain language, "shale gas extraction can affect water safety" from this 2013 MEDRS review citing [20] as the first time the US Federal Government admitted health affects from groundwater contamination. All completely consistent with the studies objected to on the original article talk page, and all in the MEDRS reviews linked by QuackGuru. EllenCT (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

the Science article is about environment, not health ("We review the current understanding of environmental issues associated with unconventional gas extraction.") The Resources Policy article is not a review of health effects of fracking. It is an article advocating more public disclosure of chemicals used in fracking. Neither are relevant to MEDRS. The Journal of Pediatric Nursing is more interesting. It is not an article reviewing health effects of fracking. It does provide an overview of chemicals used in fracking and potential risks but is quite clear that "The effects of these agents on the water supply and subsequent human health are not well known and require further investigation" and says that "When applied to children, the health consequences associated with ongoing contact with these and other gas exploitation toxic substances, although not presently known, at the very least, constitute a threat to children's health now and in the future." (emphasis added) - in other words - what Alexbrn said above "we don't yet know the health implications of frac'ing but there is concern, data is being collected, and in time we likely will know more". The article from Energy Policy is not relevant to MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is the Energy Policy article not relevant to MEDRS? The bulk of its Section 2 is all about health and safety. EllenCT (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd just be careful not to jump on these references as validating edits designed to promote a single view of this subject. The statement that "shale gas extraction can affect water safety" is not equivalent to "shale gas is currently having a negative effect on water safety all across the country". In fact it doesn't really say anything at all. Radioactive materials from meteorites "can" affect the safety of water from above ground reservoirs too, but its contingent on said meteor falling in or near the reservoir. The author encourages better tracking and transperancy of extraction efforts, and points out that gas is a good transitional fuel as we move to more renewable sources.

It always worries me when people use the word "admit" to describe statements or reports by government agencies. Most of these people are just bureaucrats with no axe to grind and no conspiracy to carry out. Most are trying to do their job, and not there for the purpose of frustrating activists. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I've never been politically active on the issue of fracking ever, but I'm looking for evidence of how obvious and widely-reported COI breaches (such as mandatory nondisclosure laws) off-wiki materialize on-wiki and affect articles here.

How about, "Although potential benefits of Marcellus natural gas exploitation are large for transition to a clean energy economy, at present the regulatory framework in New York State is inadequate to prevent potentially irreversible threats to the local environment and New York City water supply. Major investments in state and federal regulatory enforcement will be required to avoid these environmental consequences, and a ban on drilling within the NYC water supply watersheds is appropriate" (emphasis added) from the MEDRS PMID 23722091? EllenCT (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

How that relevant to MEDRS? If you're here "looking for evidence of how obvious and widely-reported COI breaches ... affect articles here" then there's a danger that's a species of WP:NOTHERE. We have strong MEDRS on this topic as I said above; simply use them for health content. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a MEDRS, with a half dozen cites already. Understanding systematic biases brought about by the factors described in the very first MEDRS I cited above is essential for improving article quality while avoiding COI censorship. EllenCT (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

i would not use PMID 23722091 to source anything health related in WP's voice. It is an advocacy piece. if the author is notable you could use it to say "X says Y"..... Jytdog (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

PubMed says that PMID 23722091 is a review, not an advocacy or opinion piece. We do not have a rule against using reviews if the author has ideas about what the world should do with scientific information. If we did, we'd have to stop using all position statements, all analyses of cost-effectiveness, and every Cochrane review that said to stop doing something because there was no evidence behind it.

Having said that, Jytdog's formulation of "X says Y" is a good choice, and I would use it unless most relevant "Xes" saying the same "Y". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

thank you WAID, i agree with all that. Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's very important for Wikipedia to cover current research. Often the progress of research is tentative, but it is still notable and important to cover. Wikipedia simply should present research as research rather than as established medical practice. But definitely not to remain silent. Wnt (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Further activity

I'm not sure this discussion has been fruitful, given that this edit has just been made by EllenCT to reinstate the results of a phone survey for "health affects" [sic] stating the source is MEDRS. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I welcome further scrutiny. The section was entitled "Health issues" when Alexbrn posted the above, and he also misrepresented that the report was replaced because it is consistent with the MEDRS expressing conclusions stronger than "more research is needed" as stated at Talk:Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing#Edits contrary to MEDRS conclusions where he has not replied for several hours. The edit and its summary say nothing even remotely similar to suggesting that the survey is a MEDRS. EllenCT (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

copied with edits for localization from here:

• EllenCT was Bold and added a WP:PRIMARY source (Rabinowitz) in this dif on 17:14, 28 September 2014
• Alexbrn Reverted in this dif on 18:16, 28 September 2014
• instead of allowing Discussion to play out per WP:BRD, EllenCT edit warred and re-reverted in this dif. There is no agreement in the Talk discussion to include this source,
• I just restored Alexbrn's original reversion in this dif. EllenCT per WP:BRD please finish discussion there and establish consensus for including this source and content based on it before re-adding. Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand that you would like to exclude jurisprudence articles and policy journals from discussion here, but require the strictest adherence to MEDRS for those sources when you have an axe to grind. I do not believe that represents a consensus view, so I invite further comment and scrutiny at dispute resolution: WP:RSN#Health effects of fracking. EllenCT (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

if anybody here has the stomach for it we could use more MEDRS savvy voice as this article, which is Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing. It is turning into a pile of WP:PRIMARY sources. thxJytdog (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The Efficacy of Mechanical Vibration Analgesia for Relief of Heel Stick Pain in Neonates: A Novel Approach

Could someone please help me get full-text access to this study?

• Baba, Lisa R. (July 2010). "The Efficacy of Mechanical Vibration Analgesia for Relief of Heel Stick Pain in Neonates: A Novel Approach". Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing. 24 (3): 274–283. doi:10.1097/JPN.0b013e3181ea7350. ISSN 0893-2190. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

if you are thinking of using it in Hitachi_Magic_Wand#Medical_applications please don't. That section is in bad shape - full of old, primary sources. oy. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Define old? And note the article cited above is from 2010. — Cirt (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If anyone could help me with my original request, above, I'd really appreciate it. — Cirt (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

if you look at the section i linked to above, there are sources going back to 1979. It is written like a review article itself which is really WP:OR - it should all be sourced to secondary sources. Especially for the "medical" section, most of which should be under research, not medical/clinical. Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

There is one (1) source from 1979. Did you see the dates of the other sources? — Cirt (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

that is true. also a few from 2004, 2006.... the biggest problem from a ProjectMedicine and MEDRS standpoint is the all the primary sources and the label of the section as "medical" (as in actually used clinically). The Otolaryngology and dermatology sections are clinical research into ways to use it; the Proprioception and Postural sway sections, and the last bit of the Sexual dysfunction treatment section, are all about its use as a tool in research (not do to anything therapeutic-y), which should definitely not be listed under "medical". .. you have put a lot of work into this article, for sure! Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging the work I put into this Quality improvement project, I appreciate that. — Cirt (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, I've changed the title of the sect from "Medical applications" to "Academic research". Hopefully that is acceptable to you. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

waaaay better :) Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm happy we could come to an acceptable compromise here while discussing in a collaborative fashion. Pleasure interacting with you, Jytdog. — Cirt (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Afamelanotide

oy, just came across this today, will try to get to it, but needs cleanup. 11:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Oy, indeed. I stripped the bit about the fansite having 50,000 posts, but it needs a lot more work, including someone willing to strip a lot of "According to a 2008 newspaper article in This Paper" and "A Phase II clinical trial involving X number of people" verbiage.

I've posted citations for three reviews to the talk page, but I think they're all behind paywalls. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I've followed this a little bit. The fansite data was quoted in a peer reviewed article (possibly even a review) somewhere at one point, though I don't know the reference. The concern is that there are dozens of garage labs making this stuff for body builders and the like who want to get tan, and there have been reports of melananoma like skin changes in some users. Might want to looks at [[21]] too, as it is a similar compound with some similarities in activity. I think Brem does not cause the tanning, but both compounds act on MC4 receptors to increase sexual appetite and induce weight loss. So an obvious candidate for abuse.

Its kind of an interesting compound for the porphyria indication, though it did not hit its primary endpoint in the second phase III trial. Formerly 98 (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Disability in China

I am hoping to start a new article on Disability in China. I hope to set it up as follows:

1 Prevalence
2 Trends
3 Law

• 3.1 One-Child Policy
• 3.2 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

4 Family
5 Education

• 5.1 Special-education system
• 5.2 Access to higher education

6 Advocacy

• 6.1 Deng Pufang

7 Organizations

• 7.1 China Disabled Persons’ Federation

8 Sport

• 8.1 Asian Para Games
• 8.2 Paralympics

Any advice or criticism would be extremely helpful! Thank you! Appleangel11 (talk)

That looks okay to me, Appleangel11. Have you been able to find any similar articles for other countries? Sometimes a good example is worth more than any amount of advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Translation Project Mention in Huffington Post

Relating to our recent release of Ebola information in a large number of African languages together with Rubric and Translators without Borders: The Medical Translation Project was mentioned in A Fight for Awareness in the Age of Globalization in the Huffington Post.

We've also updated the home page, and sign up page. We now have designated roles and guides. That means you can get involved even if you aren't proficient in another language doing things like installing templates or assessing content. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Addition of Malnutrition in Peru to WikiProject Medicine

I am creating a “Malnutrition in Peru” page, and I believe it falls within the scope of WikiProject Peru and its guidelines. Malnutrition is an important health concern in Peru, especially rural populations. I plan on examining the causes, effects, and management of malnutrition within the context of Peru. There seems to be a lack of focus on health related issues, with only seven pages that fall under the “Health in Peru” category. I hope to contribute to this category with the addition of a “Malnutrition in Peru” page. If anyone has any feedback or would like to contribute, I would appreciate the help. Thanks! Aqjiang (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes as long as it stays related to Peru. We need to make sure it does not simply overlap with the article on malnutrition generally. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, it will need to overlap some, because otherwise someone who reads only the article Malnutrition in Peru won't have any idea what malnutrition is. But it should be mostly about Peru's specific situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, some overlap is necessary, but one of the risks with summaries is that updates to the main article won't necessarily be made to the summary. A good idea is to try be short and concise and keep language broad: not going into specifics; not giving number etc. (which are susceptible to change). -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert needed on Morphogen

Is there anyone here who could bring Morphogen up to date? It has been flagged for years as poorly cited, and is clearly far out of date in a changing field. Clearly it's a biology topic, but as that project seems not very active, I thought I'd try here as it has some medical relevance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

What you need is a developmental biologist. Check WP:MCB, I think this is a bit too far from clinical medicine for you to find anyone here. Possibly someone from WP:ANAT could help seeing it is very important to embryology. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's try that. It may be worth leaving this here in case someone else sees it! Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

IP replacing secondary with primary sources

In this edit [22] on the article on atherosclerosis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert needed on Draft:Pacak-Zhuang Syndrome

AfC review is pending for Draft:Pacak-Zhuang Syndrome -- could an expert please take a look and comment on this? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks fine, Jodi.a.schneider. It might be nice to cite the new review at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24781045 but there's no chance of the article getting deleted. Please fix the capitalization to sentence case when you move it to the mainspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated @WhatamIdoing:! It's now published to Pacak-Zhuang syndrome and I've added the new review as a link (maybe someone will integrate it). Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Template request

Template:WikiProject Medicine does not include a link to Portal:Psychiatry when the psychiatry task force is checked "yes". I dont know how, and dont want to try, to add that code. I also am not sure which image would be used, though i think the same symbol that Portal:Psychology uses would probably be fine. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. The image for Portal:Psychiatry is a global setting for all links there. It is currently File:American Lady Against The Sky.jpg. This is set at Module:Portal/images/p. --Scott Alter (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Alternative names for domestic violence (WP:Alternative title)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Domestic violence#Alternative names for domestic violence (WP:Alternative title). A WP:Permalink to that discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Dietary Reference Intake - list of nutrient sources

Could someone comment on Talk:Dietary_Reference_Intake#Top_Sources_in_Common_Measures please. The article contains a list of dietary sources for various nutrients that I think might be inaccurate, misinterpreted or inappropriately selected.TuxLibNit (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Myocardial infarction and Acute coronary syndrome

In wikipedia there is some occasional confusion between myocardial infarction (MI) and ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). For instance, the article on Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) has a link to MI right uder the STEMI subsection of the treatment section. More importantly, there is occasional confusion between MI and ACS. Currently, ACS is the general term encompassing the following acute conditions: STEMI, non ST elevation MI (NSTEMI), and unstable angina. Moreover, NSTEMI and unstable angina fall under the umbrella of non ST elevation ACS: both American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology and European Society of Cardiology guidelines refer to Non-ST elevation ACS rather than NSTEMI. The major article is currently MI, in the sense that it contains most details on the ACS family of medical conditions. Accordingly, MI management is the only special article on the management of conditions of the ACS spectrum, and, indeed, is actually an article on management of ACS, as little distinction is made in current medical practice between management of NSTEMI and (confirmed) unstable angina. This perplexes what articles under each of the above titles must contain. I wonder:

1. Should Myocardial infarction management be renamed Acute coronary syndrome management?
2. Should, perhaps, two different articles be written on the management of STEMI and NST-ACS - which, despite significant overlap, have important differences (e.g. reperfusion)?
3. Should, even, Myocardial infarction be renamed ST elevation MI, and all information that pertains both to STEMI and NSTEMI be directed to Acute coronary syndrome?

My opinion is:

1. Agree. (Though not totally sure).
2. Oppose, despite the great difficulties I have in improving the article on MI management. It would make the articles too technical for the general reader.
3. Oppose. The term of the layman is "myocardial infarction". The article on ACS (which needs to be expanded) will just significantly overlap with the article on MI. (E.g., symptoms are basically the same).

References

NikosGouliaros (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Replies

Of the same opinions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree, oppose, oppose, as well. Yobol (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree, oppose, oppose. Although I would support the third point minus the renaming. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Side comment: The lay term is "heart attack". Nobody outside the healthcare profession says things like "Grandpa died from a myocardial infarction". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

At least "heart attack" is a redir to "Myocardial infarction". - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing is right, of course. I got confused with my mother tongue, where "infarction" is actually a lay term. NikosGouliaros (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree, oppose, oppose too. On stylistic grounds, prefer "Management of acute coronary syndrome" to "Acute coronary syndrome management" (per usage in Nikos's excellent comment). 109.153.156.71 (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This quick and positive feedback allows me to oficially request that Myocardial infarction management is moved to Management of acute coronary syndrome (agreeing with the stylistic opinion of 109.153.156.71). I'm adding the relevant template to Talk:Myocardial infarction management, however I think the discussion can go on here.NikosGouliaros (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support move, per above. 109.153.156.71 (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support move. With appropriate redirs and hopefully useful wls. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That was quick, but the consensus was obvious. Thank you. But maybe "Management of acute coronary syndrome" sounds better than "Acute coronary syndrome management"?NikosGouliaros (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Template editor right

Would a user with permissions be able to give me the template editor right? I'd like to be able to make changes to one or two of the protected Anatomy templates. I've currently made 321 edits to template namespace ([23]). --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Also gave you a couple of more. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Further opinions requested

Here Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Proposed_text_to_summarize_McNeill_critique Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Insulin Allergy

Dear medical experts: The Insulin article doesn't seem to have a section about "insulin allergy". Should it?

As an aside: While looking through this article for mentions of allergy, I noted that it has information about the first uses of insulin in the USA, but nothing about first uses in other countries - just saying... —Anne Delong (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Merged to Insulin therapy Ochiwar (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ochiwar. It appears that you didn't use any text directly from the draft, so no technical merge should be needed; I've deleted the draft now. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Parkinson plus syndrome

Why is Parkinson plus syndrome not named in the template: Template:CNS diseases of the nervous system, while the template is on that page? Is the Parkinson plus syndrome the same as Parkinsonism? Thanks, Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

nice catch! this appears to be two articles on the same thing that grew up independently of each other. should be merged and renamed "parkinson syndrome". Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Mesentery - narrower or broader definition?

Discussion also at WT:ANAT

Right, there is some talk about whether we merge Transverse mesocolon, Sigmoid mesocolon, Mesoappendix and Root of the mesentery into mesentery - all depends on how narrowly or broadly we define mesentery - either "mesentery proper", which is just of small bowel, or the whole lot - so what do folks wanna do? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to add to the confusion there is also Mesenteric organ. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments are needed on some topics at the Vagina article

Comments are needed on what image will make the best lead image for the Vagina article, on genital vs. urogenital terminology, and on what to do regarding medical material concerning the vulva and vagina being split into separate articles. Flyer22 (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeremy Crane

Dear medical experts: Is this old AfC submission about a notable surgeon? Should the page be kept instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This looks like a CV to me. A list of publications and a few links to directories of physicians? I'm quite perplexed as to why this would require input from "medical experts". -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with CFCF. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

CFCF Anne sorts stale AfC submissions and WikiProject Medicine is presumed to be most likely to judge the merits of anything health related, as compared to people at other WikiProjects. I also think this article does not meet inclusion criteria so I tagged it for speedy deletion as we three agree. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Get rid of Cite PMID and DOI

We have discussed this previously and there was consensus to remove Template:Cite pmid and Template:Cite doi from our top 1000 most viewed articles. This has been a great move forwards IMO. I would like to propose removing it from all articles tagged by WPMED and replacing it with Template:Cite journal. Than also have a bot that regularly goes around and replaces any new ones added. Hopefully User:Boghog can do this again.

Support

• Support Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support As before. Perhaps someday we'll have a wikidata approach to citations, but this was a poor substitute. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support I support converting these templates to expanded citations at any time but I do not want anyone otherwise getting rid of these templates or the citation pages the bot creates.

I recognize the seriousness of the problems associated with these templates. However, I fail to see these problems as urgent and I do not want the infrastructure built by these templates to be damaged until it is certain that it is no longer needed. This proposal is not describing any damaging action, and only proposes to replace some templates with expanded citations. I think that is a good line to have in making changes without harming anything. Since the last time this was discussed, d:Wikidata:WikiProject Source MetaData has been established and there is currently a grant proposal being developed at meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Tools for using wikidata items as citations to address this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. This makes editing easier. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• How many articles use this as their chosen style, rather than just on a couple of citations here or there? If the article normally uses {{cite journal}}, then "correcting" the formatting on a couple is no big deal. But if it's used for everything/most citations, then that's a more complicated case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Before BogBot substituted transcluded pmid/doi/isbn templates with in-line cite journal/book templates, only about ~300 of the top 1500 MED articles used transcluded templates. In the vast majority of these 300 articles, the transcluded templates were in the minority. There were only a handful of articles (~10) where cite pmid/doi/isbn templates predominated and even in these, the transcluded templates tended to be the most recently added. Per WP:CITEVAR, if transcluded cite templates were in the majority, I tried to determine what the initial citation style used in the article was and follow this style. Boghog (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I assume that the scope of this request includes any article that transcludes the {{WikiProject Medicine}} on its talk page. According to the template transclusion count tool, this amounts to 32,298 articles. Based percentage of the top 1500 MED articles that had transcluded cite template, I would estimate approximately (300/1500) X (32,298 - 1500) = ~6000 articles would need to be edited. Boghog (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • And, also if the stats hold, then something on the order of 200 of them will need manual processing, which is simultaneously a tiny fraction of our articles and a big hassle to sort out manually, especially if any of them provoke disputes. Should we just leave those alone for now? I'm happy to have the others run ASAP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• There is now broader consensus that transcluded cite templates should no longer be used. Boghog (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  It is great that consensus is to cease using CITE DOI. We also need a bot that goes around and replaces CITE DOI and CITE PMID with CITE JOURNAL. This will make it easier to edit as one can simply use CITE PMID and have the bot take care of converting to CITE JOURNAL. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

First peer reviewed Wikipedia article published, Dengue fever

Finally has been published here [24] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Have added some notation that links to the publication. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. Formerly 98 (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• That's great, congratulations! In the "Contributors" fine print we see "another 1369 people and bots made edits"—LOL, it would be interesting to classify that into positive/negative/trivia, but I guess that can be someone else's research project. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Inspiring!--Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)'

Wonderful, congratulations! Is there any way to see which revision of the article was published? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too! Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It was not one specific revision that was published. A revision was taken. Comment on it were made. The Wikipedia article was improved. Certain changes to the published version were not made to the Wikipedia version as they were request that were against our WP:MEDMOS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm a bit surprised the reviewers didn't request the Epidemiology section be repositioned earlier in the article (pace MEDMOS) and certainly before the Prevention section. Imo, this is an example of a page where it really doesn't make much sense to postpone information about the burden of the disease around the world right to the end. Great news anyway! 109.153.156.71 (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

We have thousands of articles that follow WP:MEDMOS were the epidemiology section occurs after treatment. Thus why that section was placed where it was. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations to all concerned! John CRUK wiki / Johnbod (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! Hopefully the first of many. Very interesting (and for me, timely - soon heading for Thailand & Singapore). --Hordaland (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice work and congratulations. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Question asked on the Talk:Ebola virus disease page

An editor asked about immunology as regards to Ebola virus disease, as there has been some talk in the news regarding using survivors in treating the currently ill. A brief look on the CDC sites suggests a possible 10 year-ish immunity, but cross-strain immunity isn't known (at least, that is the impression I got). Can we get a bit of help on this from someone who knows a bit more on this particular subject? Thanks in advance.Wzrd1 (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe I heard about this being done about 15 or 20 years ago, so presumably it will be mentioned in sources somewhere. This would be a type of passive immunity, so that's probably an appropriate keyword to search for, but that ("passive immunity ebola", no quotation marks) gives me only PMID 11023960 and PMID 9291299 at PubMed, both of which are a bit elderly. Perhaps another term is more common for this idea now, and perhaps the newer term might give you more results.

(Also, Transfusion-related immunomodulation needs some help.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. The issue raised by an editor was, a physician who suffered from Ebola spoke to the notion of using survivors to help treat the inflicted. I see the notion as over simplistic and since it does not consider previous exposures to different strains, *really* problematic. That said, I have zero references to support the obvious and even less to support current immunity and even less time. I'm swing shift and time is a bit of a premium, due to that life thing. From what I recall, the evidence is still a bit awaiting for this epidemic, hence the request for assistance. My Google-Fu is strong and repels nonsense. My Time-Fu is weak, currently.Wzrd1 (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)