Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 10 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

List of archives

Merged Archive WikiProject Preclinical medicine: 1 Merged Archive WikiProject Clinical medicine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 WikiProject Medicine Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172

A "smart" recent changes page for WP:MED articles

I see at WP:MED there are two links to recent changes pages, but I see drawbacks to each and I was thinking a "smarter" version could be more efficient. I was thinking of something that appears like Tim1357's page. The main difference I am proposing is that there would be a # of certain trusted users who could approve recent changes to articles tagged under WP:MED, thus making them invisible. That way we know what really needs attention, and we would longer waste time double/triple etc. reviewing things. I've spent a little bit of time here looking at recent changes to medicine articles, but one reason I haven't done as much lately is because it seems inefficient. In a future page, I imagine higher quality articles could appear more urgent, with maybe GAs italicized and FAs bolded. An essay could be developed to describe when one would and wouldn't clear a recent change. If a "trusted user" becomes untrusted, maybe there could be WT:MED discussion with an uninvolved admin to close the discussion to eliminate access. Of course, even if developed there's no guarantee this tool would be successful, but the potential payoff seems big enough to try. Biosthmors (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you proposing that we start using existing tools or that a developer should create new tools? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't make that clear. I'm proposing a new tool, and I wonder if there is any interest in having it developed. I imagine it could be an efficient way to sift through recent changes. If I'm missing out on existing tools, let me know. The two I've seen are listed at the WP:MED page (at the bottom of "Other ideas") section. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds a little like Pending changes? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 18:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, except it would just be an optional additional watchlist tool for those with familiarity with MEDRS and MEDMOS. Biosthmors (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that I should be on any list of trusted users. Double-checking is often a good thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Double checking is good, so I'm not proposing any change to current watchlists. I just don't like the idea of people triple/quadruple/etc. checking harmless recent changes, though I'm not sure how often this happens in practice. Biosthmors (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd use this if reviewed changes were simply marked "Reviewed by: User X, User:Y" but not invisible. It wouldn't stop me from double-checking their work, but would highlight changes that have been overlooked by experienced med editors. The reviewer would need to tick a box. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Artificial heart valve

Resolved

 – I think. Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate another opinion on this edit. It looks like puffery for a valve that's not yet received approval. I reverted a similar edit a couple of days ago. It's too late here for me to give it due attention. Perhaps I'm misreading. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Politely removed per WP:MEDRS and WP:ADVERT, not to mention WP:UNDUE. —MistyMorn (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The last sentence in particular is merely promotion. I don't think there's any need to mention this specific brand of valve, probably best to get rid. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

TED talks as references

A user is wondering if this is appropriate for prostate cancer

Diet has been implicated in the development of prostate cancer, and stress management and diet can slow or reverse the progression of cancer.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 02:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It's obviously not the best possible/most academic source, but is the last half even true? This might be a significant DUE violation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The user in question has subsequently attempted to remove a bunch of review articles from 2010 and 2011 stating that they are old [1]. Have submitted a 3RR. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 03:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt that for the Ornish video to be considered a reliable source, its authority must lie solely with the expertise of the author, since there is no visible editorial or peer-review process for the works that appear on ted.com. Dean Ornish is a notable academic with strong views on the influence of lifestyle on health, but looking at his publications, I'm not seeing much beyond a series of primary studies dating back to the 1990s that cannot be used to refute the conclusions of recent secondary sources. I think there may be just about sufficient weight to use his attributed view where there is a clear controversy, but otherwise it seems to be on a par with Linus Pauling and vitamin C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RexxS (talk • contribs) 16:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Prostate cancer

User above is now attempting to remove review articles from 2010/2011 saying that they are old and out of date. Extra eyes appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 21:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you and the editor in question have worked out the immediate issue - is that correct? MastCell ^Talk 05:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Beginning too. Extra eye however are appreciated.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 06:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I echo Doc James' call for more eyes. Would also benefit from eyes on Mammography, Breast cancer and Breast cancer screening where this editor has also been editing. This editor has a particularly "aggressive" style of editing, and seems to be under the impression that any opinion not published in the last year is "outdated". Yobol (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Or that anything not published by the Cochrane group is not suitable for Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 00:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Here [2] he states he thinks only Cochrane should be used. Here he calls a review from 8 months ago "old" [3]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 01:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to watch all these pages and also related ones. NCurse _work 06:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 13:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Edits on Anesthesia

There appears to be an attempt to promote OMFS as practitioners of anesthesia on that page. Outside comments would be helpful. The same editor has been edit warring to include this gem on the OMFS page, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Yobol (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

On the anaesthesia page he provides a source that sounds incredulous from a UK perspective. It makes out oral and maxillofacial surgeons like superheroes. Perhaps in the USA they actually do administer their own general anaesthesia and manage the airway. JFW | T@lk 22:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the reference. I would normally regard it as a reliable source, but the claims seem rather ... bold. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Artificial nutrition and hydration in end-of-life care.

The Liverpool Care Pathway, the UK NHS protocol for care of the dying in the last hours of life, is in the news again.

Following a Daily Mail piece last month that it's all a plot to starve and dehydrate the elderly to an untimely death, the story has been taken up by more papers yesterday and today, generally in a sensationalist and utterly uninformed way, following a letter to the Daily Telegraph by six usual suspects grinding some rather worn axes.

After the DM piece, the wiki article has unfortunately acquired a "Controversy" section, which currently leaves rather a lot to be desired.

I'd be grateful if anyone with a good grasp of palliative / end-of-life care could step in and sort out the wheat from the chaff. Jheald (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this is resolved now. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Is a separate Controversy section really warranted at all, given the overlap with critical material in the Reception? —MistyMorn (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking along those lines too, so have simply removed the "Controversy" subheading, leaving the text under "Reception." --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Now there's the small question of what weight to give to povs such as those included in a "recent" newspaper letter written by some activist doctors. —MistyMorn (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The remaining content doesn't characterise the controversy very well, doesn't clarify whether it is a popular or scientific controversy, and doesn't really establish the existence of a significant controversy. Perhaps we should continue this on the article talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Childbirth

I would appreciate more eyes on this page. A familiar editor to those who have been watching the prostate cancer and breast cancer pages recently has been adding information to WP:SYNTHesize dangers of induction of labor before 39 weeks using primary studies. Some of the material also does not appear to be supported by the sources provided. Yobol (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I saw that primary research paper and that he added it. Am meaning to see if there are secondary sources that support this.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 03:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There are dangers for inducing labor at any point. There are also dangers for not inducing labor. This is really a question of balancing benefits and risks. For example, in the presence of preeclampsia, you may well have a choice between inducing early or planning a funeral.

James, when you look for sources, please see whether you can find sources that differentiate between early inductions "for cause" and early inductions for convenience. The recent changes in the article seem to be using all early inductions and claiming that it proves something specifically about early inductions in healthy mothers. It seems likely to me that the serious medical problems that lead to many early inductions might be more likely to produce the harms that are being touted here than the isolated fact of slightly early delivery. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That was my impression. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 13:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate more input on the talk page of the article, especially regarding the appropriateness of primary studies in the article, the recent additions to the lead, and the single-minded focus and WP:WEIGHT on the dangers of pre-39 week induced labor. This editor continues to add disputed content, and would appreciate input on whether I'm misreading policy. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes agree much of it needs fixing. The headings are too long. The sources need fixing up. etc. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 02:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Notablity of medical devices

I've tagged some claims in Venowave, and I wonder if the subject is notable. Any guidance on the notability of medical devices? I don't know the particulars of this article, but does one randomized controlled trial on a device establish notability, for example? Biosthmors (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Not medically notable for its own page until a review article appears or discussion in a major textbook IMO.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 02:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Technically, it's the same as any other commercial product, so WP:CORP applies. That generally means that you need two completely unrelated sources (two different authors and two different publications, and none of them controlled by or employed by the manufacturer) to qualify for an article. A review article by someone connected to the manufacturer is a secondary source, but it's not an independent/third-party source, which is a critical point for notability. (WP:Secondary does not mean independent.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Article: Eschar

|Hello NCurse,

as stated in the headline I have a Question regarding the medical Article Eschar. I am slightly confused by the image included in the Article. The caption states the wound in question to be covered by an Eschar (scab). Searching for scab though leads nowhere near the Article in question. This leads me to the following I would like to inquire: Is the object in the picture a wound covered in an Eschar or in a scab? (Especially since the term "black wound" redicrect to Eschar and the picture shows no such thing.) If it is the latter, the picture would have to be removed. The former leads to the second question. Are scab and eschar synonyms (Addendum: per the greek origin)? If yes it would follow that appropriate consequences be taken in the article scab. If not, the word would have to be removed from the question.

I sinccerely appreciate your input and would like to thank you for your time.

With regards --Abracus (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe it would be better to hear the opinion of the whole medical community on this. Please post it on the talk page of WikiProject Medicine as well. NCurse _work 06:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Clinically all eschars are scabs, but all scabs are not eschars. An eschar is dry, black, hard necrotic tissue (see: [4]). In dermatology, some remember a basic differential for an eschar with the mnemonic CAGES T: Clostridium/Calciphylaxis, Aspergillus/Anthrax, Group B strep, Ecthyma gangrenosum, Spider bite, and Tache noir from ricketssial spotted fevers. Hope that helps. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Expert suggestion by "My core". I agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 18:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jmh, Hello My core,

thank you for your quick answers. (This is cross posted in the medicine portal and on Jmhs' talk page as per his request.) My core and you, Jmh, answered the questions I raised halfway. Namely you state An eschar is dry, black, hard necrotic tissue. The picture in the WP-article does indeed show no such thing. While the scab shown it might be dry and hard, it is certainly not black. (Wherefore I assume it is not an Eschar.) Also, since you made the distinctions clear, might it not be necessary to alter the article about wound healing (to which scab redirects) in such a way that the logical distinction becomes clear? The caption under the image in question also remains in its illogical state. I raised the question because I did and do not feel qualified to edit medical articles and the logic of both of them seemed contradictory.

Your

--Abracus (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on the definition given above, the image is question is a scab but not an eschar. For examples of what an eschar looks like see [5]. The image name and caption should probably be changed. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a picture of one which I will upload shortly.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 13:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime, the old image has now been moved to File:Scab.jpg. -- The Anome (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Medicine

We had a short discussion at Wikimania this week about starting a thematic organization as per here [6]. People interested in being involved? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 13:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

1. I would love to try to help get the chapter started. As the intern at Wikimedia NYC I can help set up the starting documents and get probono lawyers to help out. Peter.C • talk • contribs 13:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
2. I am interested to help as well. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Sounds neat. I'd be interested to see where it goes. Canada Hky (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
4. I would be involved. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
5. This is very encouraging. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Interested in principle, although limited time and travel opportunities at this point. Increased online collaboration would be marvellous. JFW | T@lk 20:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

   Yes activities would take place primarily online Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 22:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Have begun the proposal at meta

here. Peter Coti has kindly offered his parents to help us incorporate. As the number of groups wishing to partner with us at WP:MED increases it is important that we have an organization that can work with them in person as well as online. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 14:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia in residence at WHO

Meet with a gentleman from the World Health Organization this week. They are interested in the idea of having a Wikipedian in residence. Would anyone here be interested in a such a position? Discussions are still in their very early stages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 22:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Description of Wikipedian in residence. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Orthostasis: request for advice

I've redirected orthostasis to standing, as that is the literal meaning of the term. However, "orthostasis" previously linked to orthostatic hypotension, and orthostasis is linked extensively elsewhere, presumably in some cases with the intent of linking this other meaning.

This is where expert help is needed. Are there any other things "orthostasis" and/or "orthostatic" could mean? Could some of the page linkers have intended other meanings, such as orthostatic intolerance. orthostatic hypertension, orthostatic tremor?

For some links, see:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Orthostasis (currently from 11 mainspace articles)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Orthostatic (currently from 6 mainspace articles)

What's the best way to proceed with this? A disambiguation page? A hatnote? -- The Anome (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone here help with this, please? -- The Anome (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Editors adding multiple links to his own papers across many articles

User:Miroslavpohanka is adding many links to his own papers to stuff they do not really support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 22:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ayurveda safety concerns

The lead of the article on Ayurveda contains a paragraph on safety concerns, which are a major issue in the discussion in independent reliable sources. This paragraph, naturally, is loathed by proponents of Ayurveda who either delete it or try to bury it elsewhere in the article. More eyes would be apprectiated. A discussion is in progress on the article talk page. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Have watched the article in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 15:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Secondary or primary sources?

And continues to insist that primary sources can be used to refute secondary sources. They are using this primary source [7] to refute this secondary one [8]. See discussion here [9] and [10] among other places. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 15:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I read wiki rules treat NCI "Cancer Trends Progress Report" as secondary. It's used elsewhere as secondary. NCI should be senior to BJC review. ie a review of reviews (NCI) is better than one underlying (BJC) review.

I plan to use http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/cancer_resource_center/downloads/WCRF%20Policy%20US%20Summary_final.pdf to supplement the NCI.32cllou (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This ref should not be used at all [11] as it is a primary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 16:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup, it's just a progress report of an original study - a primary source, apparently without peer review. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is the full policy report (NCI refers us) http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/cancer_resource_center/downloads/Policy_Report.pdf 32cllou (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Great and I am happy with the reference. However please do not remove other recent secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 17:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"The report is based on the most recent data from the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, other federal agencies, professional groups, and cancer researchers."

That does not sound like a primary source or an original study to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

However this bit is [12] and is looking at the consumption rates of fruits in vegatables in the USA rather than specifically the cancer risk associated with said consumption.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 17:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that [13] is a primary source. The connection between diet and cancer is complex, with apparently reliable secondary sources contradicting each other. Here is a discussion about diet & lung cancer. (No doubt WhatamIdoing would criticize my analysis of the sources.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

There's lots of work to do in those three articles(diet, healthy diet, prostate cancer) based on this review and policy statement(s), and please help (be constructive, not obstructive). We only have space for the best secondary, not one BJC review which (lone) says different stuff and confuses stronger findings. Do not remove NCI statements re antioxidants, high heated meat, and fruit and vegetable (spec types of plant foods) consumption and reduced risk of specific cancers. We should be taking this opportunity to read the whole report http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/cancer_resource_center/downloads/Policy_Report.pdf 32cllou (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)32cllou (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly you plan to continue to try to remove this review article from 2011 [14]? Is it that you disagree with its conclusions? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 17:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

We have plenty of space. Adding one extra sentence to say that things aren't 100% proven doesn't cost us a dime. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

OK BJC leave in, but generally isn't http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/cancer_resource_center/downloads/Policy_Report.pdf ie peer committee findings policy review of reviews superior to that single BJC review? Isn't it bad to place BCJ inferior review where it will harm stronger secondary?32cllou (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, I don't think this is a binary either/or situation. We can cite both sources (and I agree with WhatamIdoing that both are secondary). The sources don't really differ much, except by putting a slightly different "spin" on existing data. The NCI source says there is "some suggested evidence for a lower risk of cancers" with a healthy diet, whereas the 2011 Br J. Cancer review says there is "little to no evidence".

To me, the sources are basically agreeing that there isn't very much or very strong evidence. But there's also nothing to lose by encouraging Americans to eat a healthier diet - no one is going to be harmed, and there are proven benefits in the non-cancer outcomes - so the NCI puts a slightly more positive spin on the limited evidence for cancer risk. This falls squarely under "experts reviewing the same data reach slightly different conclusions" category, and we should just explain and cite both positions. MastCell ^Talk 18:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree and will add back in a summary using [15] " It is recommended that people maintain a normal weight (limiting consumption of energy dense foods and sugary drinks), eat plant based food, limit red and processed meat, and limit alcohol." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 20:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Selenium

PS looks like we need that selenium sentence back Doc from secondary see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22648711 32cllou (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes there is a relationship between selenium serum levels and cancer per the ref. This report on page 150 states [16] that a trial of supplementation did not find benefit. I will add this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 17:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Higher selenium blood levels have been associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer, a trial of supplementation however did not find benefit.

Good. I came back here just now to please add the concern that users would (they should NOT) think supplements are beneficial.32cllou (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm slightly troubled by this - the association between selenium levels and prostate cancer is supposed to be a preliminary result which generates the hypothesis that selenium supplementation might prevent prostate cancer. That hypothesis has been tested, and it didn't pan out. To go back to the statistical association reported in cohort studies seems silly, when this idea has already been tested in a prospective, randomized fashion. But that's me. MastCell ^Talk 18:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I was the one who took it out, but then finding the review Doc used thought he might want it back.

Yes so we now state there was tentative evidence that their was an association with selenium but that it did not pan out. I am not attached to the wording I added and am happy if you wish to clarify it further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 20:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Insulin-like growth factor

What do you think about http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16900085 insulin-like growth factor? Isn't that a known pro prostate cancer risk agent?32cllou (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)32cllou (talk) Sorry forgot to give you all this ref http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9637140 32cllou (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes would belong in the section on pathophysiology. This ref is better Rowlands, MA (2009 May 15). "Circulating insulin-like growth factor peptides and prostate cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis". International journal of cancer. Journal international du cancer. 124 (10): 2416–29. PMID 19142965. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). Feel free to add it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 21:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

How about this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15110491 to paraphrase a short sentence from this quote: "High concentrations of IGF-I were associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer (odds ratio comparing 75th with 25th percentile 1.49, 95% CI 1.14-1.95) and premenopausal breast cancer (1.65, 1.26-2.08) and high concentrations of IGFBP-3 were associated with increased risk of premenopausal breast cancer (1.51, 1.01-2.27). Associations were larger in assessments of plasma samples than in serum samples, and in standard case-control studies compared with nested studies. INTERPRETATION:

Circulating concentrations of IGF-I and IGFBP-3 are associated with an increased risk of common cancers, but associations are modest and vary between sites. Although laboratory methods need to be standardised, these epidemiological observations could have major implications for assessment of risk and prevention of cancer."32cllou (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The other one is a little newer (2009 verses 2004) thus I would use the newer one. But they both say the same thing. "High levels of IGF-I are linked to prostate cancer" maybe Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 23:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Antioxidants and cancer

Can I use this research? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15523104 abstract below For a short sentence like Consumption of antioxidant rich foods may reduce cancer risk.

"Epidemiological studies show that a high intake of anti-oxidant-rich foods is inversely related to cancer risk. While animal and cell cultures confirm the anticancer effects of antioxidants, intervention trials to determine their ability to reduce cancer risk have been inconclusive, although selenium and vitamin E reduced the risk of some forms of cancer, including prostate and colon cancer, and carotenoids have been shown to help reduce breast cancer risk. Cancer treatment by radiation and anticancer drugs reduces inherent antioxidants and induces oxidative stress, which increases with disease progression. Vitamins E and C have been shown to ameliorate adverse side effects associated with free radical damage to normal cells in cancer therapy, such as mucositis and fibrosis, and to reduce the recurrence of breast cancer. While clinical studies on the effect of anti-oxidants in modulating cancer treatment are limited in number and size, experimental studies show that antioxidant vitamins and some phytochemicals selectively induce apoptosis in cancer cells but not in normal cells and prevent angiogenesis and metastatic spread, suggesting a potential role for antioxidants as adjuvants in cancer therapy."32cllou (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

PS Are you all sure I can't use that NCI Factsheet to make the same statement? How about if I don't list any specific foods like the NCI factsheet did?32cllou (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The thing is we have a number of excellent recent studies which has found that supplementation of antioxidants actually increases cancer risk. Will provide them shortly. The human body uses oxidation to destroy cancerous cells thus anti oxidants may not be a good idea. And well some foods may decrease the risk of cancer there is little evidence that this occurs via antioxidant mechanisms.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 16:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A number of refs

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22218797

1. http://www.aarp.org/health/drugs-supplements/info-10-2011/vitamin-e-supplements-raise-prostate-cancer-risk-health-discovery.html

Will find better references soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 16:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Dissociative Identity Disorder

... has serious problems with reliable sources, original research, undue weight, and possible meatpuppetry. I do not feel I can edit the article neutrally, but I would appreciate if some MEDRS-conversant editors could take a look at it. There is a very stark disconnect between the old, stable article and the radically rewritten version created by a single purpose agenda account. Skinwalker (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I need some unbiased help on this page. Editor WLU(t) is Canvassing - diff. Please read what he wrote this morning. I don't want a battle. I just want an unbiased page on DID. I am totally open to help from unbiased editors! See his last note under Howdy on his talk page. This man has so many friends on WP and so much power it's been impossible to work without being completely micromanaged by him in the past - so much so that I don't think I have actually ever even had one edit stay on the page until now. In this paragraph titled "Howdy" he plays victim, which is so far from the truth it's insane. Those that oppose him usually get banned from the DID page or give up and go away. This might be the wrong place to take this, but the admin board is where many of his friends hangout. Please give me advice! By the way - how am I a meatpuppet when I am pretty much in there by my self? The last revert however is a suspicious act by another reverting back to WLU's old version.~ty (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The article needs attention from accounts with access to the sources and a willingness to put in the time, but mostly from accounts who are familiar with the policies and guidelines (or even manual of style - even the table of contents illustrates some of the problems on the page). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and it is not a finished project. I am willing to work on it until it is an A article! This is my goal. My goal is not to push a POV. It is to have a great article. I would love help doing so.~ty (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Without any intended offense to Tylas, who clearly has put a lot of effort into the article, but the article seems to have taken a very large step backwards compared to what it originally looked like, in terms of prose and neutrality (there's 4 lines about the DSM-IV, but multiple paragraphs about the theoretical publication DSM-V? Really?). I think a mass revert would probably be in the best interest of the encyclopedia; everything is stored in history so that that well sourced material to MEDRS compliant sources can be added slowly.Yobol (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The idea of WP is to give information. The information there now is far superior to what it was. Let me work on it. Give me suggestions. I will happily fix them. Please read the article and give me things to work on rather than taking it back to the version that honestly - was embarrassing to those who do know about DID. Better yet! Help me fix the the problems you see. Even WLU admits that the old version of the article needed a complete rewrite. I believe his argument is that he wants the controversy to bear the same weight as the mainstream consensus in the field of DID research. By the way - I have hardly touched the section you just refereed to. That is pretty much how it was. I had no problem with that at all. There is a huge amount of work being put into the changes in the DSM 5 right now that are of interest to the field of DID. I can remove all DSM 5 info if people think that is necessary, but I think it would be a mistake.~ty (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a note on my user page from whatamidoing saying what WLU did is not canvassing according to WP rules, so I apologize WLU.~ty (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A revert to the old version and slow editing to retain limited improvements would be a good idea in my opinion. The page portrays the traumagenic position as unapologetically correct and any who disagree to be simply wrong. The lead doesn't even mention the iatrogenic position. There is far too much name dropping. There are semi-headings like "New Era of Better Therapy" and "Life Does Not Begin With A Unified Identity". The page reads about as smoothly as a roller coaster. The page doesn't follow anything close to the MOS or MEDMOS. Citations are included as plain text numbers like [1] and [2] instead of hyperlinked citations. Citations are incomplete. Images are spammed throughout and bear tenuous connections to the text. The section on etiology doesn't mention the primary controversy over DID - whether it is caused by trauma or inappropriate therapeutic techniques. The controversies are ghettoized to a "controversy" section, which is inappropriate per WP:STRUCTURE. Tenuous theories are presented as unabashed facts. The voice is wrong, with statements like "Virtually all we have to direct us..." and "Integration is a confusing term, since we know we do not begin life integrated." Review articles are deprecated in favour of books which are quite one-sided. There is an obvious copyright violation. All of these issues are ones I can glean just from scanning the page, I haven't even given it a thorough read through and I haven't delved into the actual sources (let alone conducted the careful parsing of sources required to determine neutrality). I very much agree with Yobol, the page does need a revert and attention from experienced editors beyond just myself. My attempts to engage and discuss, despite my constant reference to policy, are dismissed with accusations of bias (for instance, that I'm a member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation), gross misrepresentation of my actions (for instance, another editor leaving me a message is canvassing) and the bizarre nonsequiters. Input from other editors would be greatly appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I really haven't got beyond that whirling brain thing, which presumably is there to illustrate some concepts in the lede? Rather than just hypnotize the reader... —MistyMorn (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Editor Daniel Santos (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC) came and explained to us both how the lede should be. You did not argue a bit with him when he made those suggestions. This was my first contact with him ever, but he appears to be an advanced WP editor who had tried in vain to edit the DID page in the past and was never allowed, I assume by the award he put on my talk page as defender for those who were abused as children. WLU, I have read a vast amount of research the last couple of weeks and not one paper has said that the views are equal. They state the trauma view is considered mainstream, but there is controversy. That is how the lede is arranged per Daniel Santos. I did have quite a bit more in there before that time, but I must agree that he was correct. Simply point out what you view as a violation and I can fix it or you can, but does not mean reverting all the last 1,000 edits or so. In this version there is a huge controversy section, adding things you did not even have on the page about the iatrogenic position. There is even a large section totally on the iatrogenic position. I was interrupted by all this today, but I was adding such to the history as well. The problem with this argument, which you probably know well, is that the average editor does not have a clue what it is we are talking about when it comes to the weight of each argument, but they can go and read the research and see for themselves - which I would love. WLU, you are again playing victim when that is so far from the truth it's ridiculous. You have only allowed those you can micromanage to ever edit that page - or that write what you personally agree with - your POV. There is a very nice editor there on the DID page now who is helping me with WP rules. I am fixing the points WLU said here. All he had to do was mention them on the talk page or fix them instead of reverting all this work back to an old version. I never called him a member of any organization and do not care. My point is that he pushed the iatrogenic POV even though it is not mainstream. I have very much included it in the article, but it is not equal to the trauma view per all the articles I have read - including review articles. I have included both books (which I read many) and reivew articles. No review article is excluded on the page. [User:Tylas|~ty]] (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd support a revert to an earlier, stable version, as it seems quite a mess now - bunches of citations in the lede etc. - on an on. - have any brain studies definitively shown parts of the brain to be associated with DDD, rather than just "trauma" in general? The iatrogenic view is not a quack position. Just my view. I haven't been involved in the writing of the article, but I was startled by the massive, sudden changes without consent of the participating editors apparently. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that is that anyone that edits the article WLU runs off. It's not that people have not tried over a great period of time - they are just not able. WLU stepped back and let me, so I did. I have spent the day fixing anything that editors are pointing out. A revert back to the version that no one is allowed to edit would be simply wrong and I hope that is not WP is and it is a version that even WLU says is in need of a rewrite. It is not the better version. I built on the existing version step by step - over 1,000 edits. I did not run off in the dark and make a new page and spring it on everyone. If WLU will work with me instead of reverting every edit, I am quite happy to work with him. ~ty (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, the present version is not better. Many changes seem to have been made without reference to Wikipedia general policies and content/style guidelines. Reverting to the earlier version should pave the way for appropriate incremental improvements with more eyes on the article. —MistyMorn (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Tylas has done 2189 edits this year (and 260 before that). It looks like all the edits this year are in connection with Dissociative identity disorder. That might be a sign of a dedicated expert working to improve the encyclopedia, but given the lack of real communication on the article talk page (which looks like a series of "I WONT BE CONTROLLED by you or anyone else"), it is much more likely that the descriptions of problems given above are accurate. The current article has an image with caption "Early experiences with caregivers gradually give rise to a system of thoughts, memories, beliefs, expectations, emotions and behaviors about the self and others." that appears to be WP:OR, and text like "It is imperative to get the right diagnosis so a patient receives correct treatment" is a good indication of advocacy. I support reverting the article to the old version. Improvements should be incremental and based on policies, with collaboration being paramount—any issues must be responded to without digressions about other editors. Johnuniq (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Tylas is not a dedicated expert, as she discloses on her talk page she is currently in therapy for DID. If you look in the archives, I have spent a lot of time indicating why I object to specific changes on policy and guideline grounds, and have basically had my concerns dismissed because "I just don't understand DID" [17]. I copied the last stable version to a subpage and have added some text based on a recent review article. I plan on, when I have the time, continuing to update that subpage version based on recent review articles and what improvements Tylas made that are genuine improvements. But it is exhausting to do on my own when my detailed rationales are ignored. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The article should be reverted to its last stable version in my view. Among other (massive) problems, there are 22 citations in the lede alone. For example, the sentence in the lede, "Dissociative disorders, including DID are often mistaken for various disorders by those that are not trained or educated in trauma psychology." is sourced to a Polish journal article, and two Japanese articles, all of which are primary sources. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Re Johnuniq and others: I'm seeing a bit too much failure to AGF and biting the newcomer here. If there is concern over the rate of Ty's edits, ask her to slow down. If there are issues with specific edits, there is a talk page on which to discuss those. An objective review of the situation will show Ty working with commenters, engaging in discussion, and making incremental improvements - exactly what Wikipedians should be doing. In contrast, WLU is developing his own private version[18] in userspace and has been joined by an IP from an area that WLU recently visited, both mass-reverting.

I deeply sympathize with Ty, having been in nearly the same situation. WLU seems to excel in generating this breed of conflict. There too WLU failed to AGF, reflexively reverting to his own version[19][20][21]. The only differences seem to be that WLU could stonewall to keep his personal version in article space, and that the vacation city of the IP was different. Ty is clearly investing a lot of time into Wikipedia, and this should be respected.

If we extend AGF to WLU and assume that the IP isn't a meatpuppet or vacation sockpuppet, Ty is outnumbered anyway: WLU wouldn't need our help.

Re WLU: I can't help but note an extreme prejudice on WLU's part. Specifically, people with a condition are not precluded from being experts on that condition, or any other. Those with extensive knowledge and sources should be encouraged to contribute to Wikipedia, not driven away as WLU often attempts. BitterGrey (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Refractory chronic gout

We have a person associated with Savient Pharmaceuticals the manufacturer of Pegloticase which is a new treatment for gout continually recreating the article on refractory chronic gout. My position is that this is little more than a co tract of our current article on gout and thus I merged the two. Discussion has taken place here Talk:Refractory_chronic_gout. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 15:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that you mean WP:POVFORK rather than WP:COATRACK. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Certainly not a WP:COMMONNAME: just five PubMed results for "refractory chronic gout" (two with Pegloticase in the title [22] [23]). —MistyMorn (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with merge to gout, certainly does seem to be a POV fork. Yobol (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Homeopathy

Help would be appreciated on the Homeopathy talk page (currently here, where several editors have been trying to reason for several days with a new SPA, called Alice1818. Thanks, —MistyMorn (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I've hid the two most recent sections per an obvious WP:CONSENSUS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Alice1818 seems to have declared edit war on the hides [24]. —MistyMorn (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions invoked, this is probably resolved. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. —MistyMorn (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"Cite on Wikipedia" tool at National Center for Biotechnology Information website

I am in contact with the National Center for Biotechnology Information (who run web services like PubMed Central) over them providing references in a way that allows for easy copy-pasting into Wikipedia articles (similar to what Europeana does or the Biomedical citation maker). Where would be the best place to discuss what Wikipedia template formats (e.g. {{Cite web}}, {{Cite journal}}, {{Citation}}, {{Cite book}}) would be best to implement at what NCBI projects? Thanks for any pointers. Please reply at WikiProject NIH. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes User:HB-NCBI is from NCBI and has began collaborating with us. They are open to feedback on changes to pubmed which we feel would make their site better.

I am wondering if we should be looking at vcite or fcite as they are significantly faster. Some of our large pages are very slow to edit.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 05:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that might actually be a good thing. In a way, it penalizes us when we've based an article on a ridiculously large number of sources, which generally means that we've lost sight of either MEDRS or UNDUE. However, the truth is changing citation types needs article consensus, so in effect tools need to support all types. Of course, citation bot can convert to the article's dominant form anyhow, but how much better to do it right the first time? LeadSongDog come howl! 05:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)