Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine

Archive: 1 2 3 4 5

Announcement: Please have a look at the nascent Medical classification scheme here, add to it, correct it, modify it, whatever seems fit. It would be good to have a sound logical scheme worked out before trying to implement it.

You may also want to add and argue at the Very Important Pages and Where They're At.

Template:WPCM navigation

This is the doctors' mess (or lounge, if you're from the USA). In order to streamline the project, this page contains sections where participants can raise ideas for general discussion and debriefing. To communicate recent work and seek collaboration or peer-review of pages, please see WikiProject Clinical medicine/Collaboration.

Refactored

The page was getting unmanageably large, so I've created Archive 4 and refactored this one. Hope that's OK with all of you. I've still left some pretty old discussions here, but curiously Dr. Ruben replied to an older message just some minutes ago that got swept up into the archive before I realized what was happening. The diff is here.

Regards—Encephalon | ^ζ 20:46:08, 2005-08-15 (UTC)

As above, I've created Archive 5 and refactored this page. I will move the most recent discussions over. --John^DO|^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 13:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mess rules

There aren't many rules. Everybody is welcome here to discuss the project, and this is an informal place for informal thinking.
Introduce new topics under appropriate existing headings or at the bottom under a level 3 header (e.g. ===Recombinant amyloid===).
Please do not shout.
No brawling.
Please rinse your own coffee cups.

Morgellons

I'm not sure if any physicians have taken a look at this article. I've noticed that it has been accumulating external links of varying quality, but I've been hesitant to remove any, given the nature of the article. Read [1] for a more balanced review; unfortunately, I couldn't find anything at Pubmed. --Uthbrian (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd let it be. Looks pretty silly. The photomicrographs on the web page are clearly textile fibers. I've got better things to get into edit wars about. Kd4ttc 01:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I never heard of this, but will probably see one next week. It ought to be possible to put together a neutral article along the lines of the one you linked from Popular Mechanics. What is conspicuously missing from the article is a concise list of diagnostic criteria. alteripse 02:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new phenomenon, an entirely patient created "disease". Probably impossible prior to the internet. Patients chat and diagnose themselves with this. Amazing.--John^DO|^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 21:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked a suitably qualified editor to see if he can improve it. Midgley 17:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medical resident work hours

Anyone who has an opinion on whether or not medical resident work hours should be merged with residency (medicine), state it here. Ombudsman will make a big fuss after I merge it (just like he did after I merged Medical residency with residency(medicine)), so I want a consensus here to refer to. The consensus on Talk:Medical resident work hours was 4 merge v 2 don't merge, but I'd like some more opinions from those who didn't vote. --CDN99 16:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE. There is merit to both, though. The work hour article is long enough, but perhaps would be shortened if put in the context of residency. I think you could do a nice article on residency and merge them. I would merge if you are committed to doing a nice edit job as a dedicated project. It could put the work hour story into perspective. There are patient care issues that are worse with the time limits such as continuity of care that do not get measured in the error rate data. Kd4ttc

I think I've already voted, but this article was created by Ombudsman to further his doctor-bashing agenda. A good stab at NPOV may be necessary. JFW | T@lk 17:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with Merge - Both are reasonably long articles although I agree (JFW) that both could do with editing-down and rewording of their current content. However both need further expanding/boadening:

The residency article in particular could do with expansion to cover the situation in other countries (currently terribly US-centric).
The working hours can have a useful discussion on:
- rotas
- doctor fatigue. Is it better to get no sleep during a night shift covering for several teams, or being on-call more often covering fewer patients and so getting some sleep?
- Does doctor fatigue cause greater clinical errors. Unfortunately, for the juniors medical staff, much of the the evidence in the UK suggested not: it did take longer to make decisions and more care (ie greater effort) made to ensure not making errors (ie more looking up of information or dosages calculated twice to make sure)
- Access to training
- EU vs UK in implementing changes, relationship between those in training and consultants (who after all tend to control the Medical regulatory authorities).

I think good articles of each will be/should be (if they are comprehensive and thoughtfully written) too long to be merged. David Ruben ^Talk 19:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Coronary care unit - please comment and expand. JFW | T@lk 17:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, Intra-aortic balloon pump presented for your pleasure.--DocJohnny 07:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for Merger

Disguised Whale.to

I didn't really know where to put this notice.... John (Whaleto) is now adding a "different" link to all of his articles (ex. [2]). The link is http://www.vaccination.org.uk, which is quite obviously a copy of the whale.to site, or a transfer of the contents to a different location. I seem to be on his radar now, so I'll go remove all the links I can find. --CDN99 18:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For heaven's sake... JFW | T@lk 21:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find heaven, but here is God--John^DO|^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 22:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I were looking for God I wouldn't be looking on an anti-vaccination website :-). He has better places to hide Himself. JFW | T@lk 22:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But we have Wikipedia! So if you are looking for God you even get a disambiguation page! God (disambiguation).Kd4ttc 22:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orthomolecular medicine

This article could use some NPOV.--John^DO|^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 20:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again soliciting volunteers to prevent the alternative med crowd from running off with the kitchen sink.--John^DO|^{Speak your mind} 20:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A single pro Orthomed editor has been pushing that POV vociferously across several related articles, such as Orthomolecular medicine, redox therapy, Megavitamin therapy, and Linus Pauling. Additional medical editors would be welcome and are needed if we are to have any pretense of scientific accuracy in these articles. --John^DO|^{Speak your mind} 22:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electroconvulsive therapy

Is there any truth to the recent edit over there, or is this more anti-medicine propaganda? --Uthbrian (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes was a rant with no links provided to claimed sources. Topic is subject of much controversy and not unlike supposed suicide risk and SSRIs - a study just concluded gives statistical evidence (as opposed to anecdotal rumblings) that "Suicide rates were lower at all ages for men and women in the general population in the interval of high SSRI prescribing. We conclude that there is no evidence from this study of an increase in suicide rates following the introduction of SSRIs in the general population or in a high-risk inpatient sample." (PMID 16421463) . The issue over side effects and ECT has rumbled on for ages and is well covered in the article's talk page, so I have reverted back the edit and suggest any similar major edit be as a result of consensus within the talk page.David Ruben ^Talk 18:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice study you posted about the SSRIs. The only thing lacking was the power to discriminate clear effects in the younger age groups-- it would've been nice to resolve the supposed link between SSRI use in children/adolescents and suicide. It seems that psychiatric interventions are usually targets for criticism. --Uthbrian (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The anon in question reinserted his material, which I have reverted for poor citation. --John^DO|^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 21:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And once again, it has surfaced. --John^DO|^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 22:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ive revert back again (with you disputed tag DocJonny), I hope annon user will respond, else we're heading for page/user block request (I'm not sure what WP does if an editor is annon) David Ruben ^Talk 00:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the anon user has finally posted some refs with his recent edits. --Uthbrian (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These references include some interesting ones but look like they were copied wholesale from the reference sections of Anti-ECT websites. It seems unlikely to me that the editor has been reviewing 50+ year old out of print articles. They include some totally inappropriate ones such as court testimonies, an autobiography by a patient, and a videotaped deposition. These might be ok supporting historical detail but the editor is using them as documentation of ECT side-effects. N.B. The original article seems to be very poorly cited and we could use the assistance of editors with experience in the field to clean up the citations. --John^DO|^{Speak your mind} 22:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is back and included a long diatribe alleging bias and a double standard. Looking at the poor citations for the rest of the article, he does have a leg to stand on there. However, he also reverted the article again prior to discussion. We need more editors with background. I fear we are headed to an RFC.--John^DO|^{Speak your mind} 03:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While this is not germane to ECT directly, I've noticed that the anon user:85.195.123.29 contributing to the discussion has committed multiple acts of vandalism. --Uthbrian (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible syndrome

Can someone help locate a reference to the original publication for this interesting complex of congenital malformations? --Rewster 23:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --WS 14:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metolazone: peer review/feedback requested

I just wrote metolazone. I'd appreciate if editors would take a look at it, leaving suggestions for improvement or revising it as they see fit. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medical hygiene

I've added a new category for medical hygiene. Not sure if I've populated it to its full extent. Also, I wouldn't know where to begin for the article Medical hygiene. --Uthbrian (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a doctor and neither are most people, so you might want to either change or paraphrase "prophylaxis of iatrogenic infections" to "prevention of infection during medical treatment" or some such. Mike Dillon 16:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Uthbrian (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the enormous range of topics that have been referred to vaguely as "medical hygiene" in the last 1.5 centuries (like condom use), I wasn't sure what you meant. It sounds like nosocomial infection control is your central topic. Technically, that is not entirely congruent with iatrogenic infection as not all nosocomial infections can be blamed on the doctors or even specifically on the care itself, while there are a few subsets of iatrogenic infection that are not strictly nosocomial. Maybe several redirects are in order. Good topic though. alteripse 21:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, I created the category after seeing Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery in Category:Hygiene. What do you think should be done with the cat? Is it worth salvaging or should I recommend it for deletion? --Uthbrian (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list of topics is a good list. Leave it. Im a nitpicker about terminology sometimes. alteripse 03:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

Have you seen m:Cite/Cite.php? I think it's a great idea, and much easier to use and maintain than the other footnote systems I've seen. I've been testing it out on Metolazone and I think it's working pretty well. Well, hope it's able to help someone! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen it, but I don't like it. It makes the text very hard to read while editing. It is sad that there still isn't a better referenceing system. --WS 10:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a compromise. Alternatively, articles would need a seperate section where all the footnotes go. Of course the new system implies numbering problems. In my mind, what we need is a seperate window where users can list their sources using standardised formats (web page, newspaper, scientific journal, radio broadcast). In the article text, all he'd have to do is click on the relevant source. This approach would require modification of the editing window and heavy scripting, something the developers may be a bit loathe to do for compatibility reasons. JFW | T@lk 22:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it has its problems, but I still definitely prefer it over the old systems. The one system where you had to have the references in order and if someone rearranged the text all the references got mixed up was terrible. The other one where you can link text and footnotes isn't bad, but for someone like me who often uses the same source for multiple pieces of information, this new system is the best I've seen so far. And I'm sure it will be improved. Anyway, at least we have several options from which to choose. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cite does seem to produce automatically sequencially numbered references and good duplicated-references, but I agree difficult to view page when editing. Two questions

Have you tried inserting multiple links to the same reference (e.g. when one provides a link to the whole article at a journel's website and a link to an abstract at PMID) ?
Does this work with the full reference markup provided by WS's bookmarklet of the PubMed-PMID tool (see here) which I think gives a consistant citation style, that should be encouraged ? David Ruben ^Talk 05:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your first question. A footnote may contain multiple links; is that what you're asking? Metolazone#References has a couple. I haven't used Wouterstomp's bookmarklet (I don't user Internet Explorer), but I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't work—you can put basically any wiki markup in the footnote, as far as I can tell. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have partially solved the problem of dificulty editing an article that uses cite. Take a look at this sample article. The reason it's not a complete solution is that in the references section, it backlinks to an area that is no longer visible. If there was a way to completely disable backlinking, I would consider this a complete solution. Ksheka 13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is not to list all the references in an initial hidden section (using < !...>), which in the reference section will count as the 1st occasion of each citation, but rather include the <ref name="xxx"> ...reference details... </ref> details in the main article as each reference first occurs. Subsequent duplication of a reference is made by using just the reference name (i.e. <ref name="xxx" />). See reworked example. Instructions in m:Cite/Cite.php are really not clear for a new user (being more about how the software implements), so unless people wish to discuss this new system further, I will in a few days add some simple instructions under WikiProject Clinical medicine#References David Ruben ^Talk 13:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, just seen [3] discussion, so this issue is getting discussed all over wiki-land. David Ruben ^Talk 13:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prostate cancer on the main page

Prostate cancer will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on 29 January 2006! --WS 10:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouterstomp admin!

Boys, Wouterstomp (talk · contribs) has received admin powers. Good luck with the mop, Wouter! JFW | T@lk 22:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) --WS 22:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebral sinus thrombosis

I'm starting to wonder if we actually have a page on this. I've checked for various spellings. In any case, I'm interested in writing that from scratch, using Prof J. Stam's April 2005 review in the NEJM as an outline. What title should I use? JFW | T@lk 21:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good topic, use it as the title. I have taken care of one case resulting from extreme iron deficiency and another from extreme hypernatremic dehydration. alteripse 01:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Hypernatremic dehydration is also missing. Perhaps it could be a redirect to Hypernatremia. Mike Dillon 02:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Hypernatremia has a red link to Dural sinus thrombosis, which I would assume should redirect to the Cerebral sinus thrombosis (unless the "cerebral sinus" and "dural sinus" aren't the same sinus). For that matter, the sinuses are not even discussed in the "Composition" section of Telencephalon or in the Cerebral cortex article. Mike Dillon 02:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Google gives "dural sinus thrombosis" 25,600 hits and just 952 for "cerebral sinus thrombosis". --David Iberri (talk) 12:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just wrote dural venous sinuses --David Iberri (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is why WikiProject Clinical medicine rules! You all are so methodical and efficient. Mike Dillon 15:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like sinus thrombosis, cerebral sinus thrombosis, dural sinus thrombosis, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. In practice, I have tended to use more specific terms, such as superior sagittal sinus thrombosis, transverse sinus thrombosis, thrombosis of the torcula herophili, and so on. I'd suggest that all of the above (ok, maybe not T. of the T.H.) be redirected to whichever you pick. :) -- Ikkyu2 04:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming convention

I have looked and looked and looked but cannot find a guideline or any other statement in wikipedia that naming conventions of diseases should be written as their proper medical name, as opposed to the common term. I am assuming there must be policy somewhere since heart attack redirects to myocardial infarction, but can anyone point me in the right direction? If there such a statement, I would be able to write any future articles using that convention. Thanks. - Dozenist talk 16:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the project page to which this discussion page is attached: Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine#The naming issue. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. I saw it written there, but I expected it to be mentioned elsewhere, such as WP:NAME. Is there any way for this naming convention to be mentioned on WP:NAME or one similar to it so that the naming of articles on diseases be under some wikipedia policy or guideline? And thanks for the quick response. - Dozenist talk 21:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the event that there is no other "official" page that this naming convention is written, I suggest that we bring the topic up in WP:NAME and submit it as a proposal. Otherwise, we will eventually see continuing objections to the naming of disease-related articles. - Dozenist talk 19:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypergymnasia

I just happened to find Hypergymnasia, created a few days ago. Are there any references for this phenomenon? There are only 51 Google hits. Mike Dillon 23:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have used the term compulsive exercise, but if I were going to dress it in greek because excessive exercise is too intelligible, I would have picked a term that meant something different from "excessive nakedness". alteripse 00:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alteripase summarized this as "How con you be excessively naked". I'm afraid to tread on the category of people who are excessively naked. Kd4ttc 00:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, gymnotes means nakedness; gymnasia means "exercise" or "training while naked", not just "nakedness". (per Middle Liddell) Mike Dillon 01:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have the old unabridged Liddell ("my Liddell's bigger than your Liddell..."), but I have to confess it confirms that exercise is an alternative meaning, so I stand reluctantly corrected. alteripse 01:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I quote you on the "my Liddell's bigger than your Liddell..." quip? I got quite a kick out it. Thanks, and I'll try to quit bugging the doctors for a while. I'm sure there are excellent articles you all could be writing instead of reading this. Mike Dillon 02:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thrombolysis, Fibrinolysis, etc.

I noticed that we have 2 pairs of similar articles: Thrombolysis & Fibrinolysis, as well as Thrombolytic drug & Fibrinolytic. Should we merge these, and if so, which ones should be kept as the main articles? --Uthbrian (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do some merges and redirects. Thrombolysis != fibrinolysis. Thrombolysis is the pharmacological treatment of thrombotic disease with the help of agents that accellerate physiological fibrinolysis. JFW | T@lk 11:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clearing that up, JFW! --Uthbrian (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vaccine bullies

Please vote keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-vaccinationists. JFW | T@lk 11:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could drop in on the page as well, if you can stand it... There is a possible replacement version growing at Anti-vaccinationist/catholic herald whcih is based on the remarkably civilised collaborative product at anti-catholicism - a page that casts a distinct light on the proceedings around vaccination and immunisation. Midgley 17:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmaceutical companies

I'm pretty sure I saw an article on Wikipedia about a movement of doctors who were refusing to accept gifts from pharmaceutical companies. Does anyone know the name of it? --Kerowyn 00:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about doctors, but there is the PharmFree campaign by the American Medical Student Association. Additionally, I think there was a recent article regarding the issue in the Journal of the American Medical Association (PMID 16434633). --Uthbrian (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I join?

Hi I am a life sciences student studying towards medical school, I am also a Red Cross First Responder. I may not be able to help do much, but I can help wikify, clean up, and help write articles. Mike _{(T C)} 05:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly; please do! You don't need permission; just roll up your sleeves and get to work! Feel free to add your name to the list on the project page as well. You may also be interested in helping out at the Medicine Collaboration of the Week. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bates Method

I hate to waste anyone's time on non-mainstream topics, but I would be much obliged to anyone with a bit of spare time interested in lending a hand to keep things neutral in Bates Method. One editor continually inserts his own interpretation of research into the article rather than accurately portraying what those studies actually state. I've pointed out three times that one study states exactly the opposite of what he thinks it states, but he won't allow it to be changed. Thanks! AED 19:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Quack Watch

Is anyone doing this? I'm starting to see quackery everywhere on the WP; it recently invaded my pet article epilepsy, in the form of a representative of the IAHP.

I made some weaselly edits to that article, but it got me wondering if anyone is keeping an eye out for this on a larger scale, in the name of promulgating our particular systemic bias. (qq.v. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias). Ikkyu2 04:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is quackery all around. Most of it is confined to specific articles, which tend to be poor on evidence. The most trouble we have had is with orthomolecular characters, who aggressively promote their version of pseudoscience (see Talk:Carcinogenesis for an interesting exchange).

I share your worries about systemic bias, but I've also encountered the following: almost all alternative treatments inserted into Wikipedia are a titre personnel. "Dr Donald Quack, M.D. [note the prominent display of academic qualifications] has pioneered the use of lemongrass in gastric ulcers." Most of this almost immediately amounts to self-promotion, vanity, advertising and what-have-you. Personally I hotly agree that the common cold article should mention echinacea, as well as the poor results of this plant in controlled trials. We need to update benign prostatic hypertrophy to mention saw palmetto, and plantar fasciitis cannot be complete without the magnetic insoles.

Sadly, those editors interested in advancing the alternative viewpoint have typically been belligerent, subversive, aggressive, rude and POV. Wikipedia could do with more real information on alternative medicine. JFW | T@lk 20:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just asking if anyone's put together a QuackWatch page - somewhere us physiciwikipedian types could go to see what the latest nonsense du jour is, and contribute our POV. For instance, IAHP started off as a glowing endorsement of a quack organization; now that I'm done with it, anyone who reads the article will realize that there's serious controversy about their methods.

We should have a page to co-ordinate our efforts against these types of organizations. And I say this as someone who is an expert on a particular POV, namely that of traditional Western medicine; not to have our POV included in articles like this makes the Wikipedia worse. Ikkyu2 22:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See for example shaken baby syndrome, where an anonymous editor is essentially arguing that vitamin C deficiency as a cause for shaken baby syndrome is mainstream science based one person's opinion! Andrew73 22:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the edit history of gold salts and my revision as discussed on the talk:Gold salts page. JFW | T@lk 23:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Homefirst Health Services (see the talk page: apparently I am not allowed to have an opinion). JFW | T@lk 22:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were extensive problems with iridology a while back. Rich Farmbrough. 21:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't even get me started on the issues with psychiatry and psychology... If someone makes a list of quack-watchers, I'll be the first on it. Ugh. S e miconscious • talk 21:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear, Semiconscious. I'm a psychiatry resident who's pretty new to Wikipedia, and I actually tried to check the Electroconvulsive Therapy page to see if it had any interesting or useful information -- what a mess. Then I checked out Psychiatry -- much the same. You all are champs for your valiant efforts on those pages -- I'd love to help fix them but it seems a bit daunting. SNG | ^{Talk to me.} 20:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. My. God. The ECT page is scary. Have you looked at the comments page? JFW has been a hero on both that page and psychiatry. Well done! S e miconscious • talk 21:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems like most opioid-related article seems to be frequented by vehement "anti-prohibitionists" and/or recreational users. -Techelf 10:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! I'm about as lax about drug use as a person living in Berkeley can be, but some of these folks editing these pages are quite over the top. S e miconscious • talk 21:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this goes against the spirit of Wiki, but perhaps for certain topics, there needs to be a minimum standard level of expertise required in order to get your edits published. It does end up diminishing the quality of information when people essentially "spam" the wiki with angry, politicized and scientifically unsupported claims. At some point, I would love to see a Wiki created by medical professionals geared toward medical professionals that would allow a searchable, hyperlinked nexus of medical literature, which could be added to, and edited in real time as new articles came out. Text books are always about 2-3 years behind, and are not easily searchable. Usually, when you need info, you need it "at the bedside" and you do not have time to do a medline search to answer quick questions about treatment options for unusual conditions.--Dleicken 06:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the sentiment, but part of the benefit of an open policy is that knowledgeable laypeople can also contribute:
- They may devote far more time researching and keeping abreast of the totality of published literature, compared to myself as a Generall Practictioner (eg IBSgroup is I belive not a doctor but is engaged in useful collaboration with a gastroenterologist over the IBS article).
- Also non-medics can improve the English of doctors, making articles much easier to read.
If one has a doctor-only service, then the risk is that the articles are seen as authoritive and as such individual Doctor editors might be held more accountable for the information:
- e.g. if Dr A asserts X & Y in 2005 and then Dr B the following year updates X but fails edit recent advancement in Y, then is Dr A or B liable for harm caused by someone following the out-of-date point Y ?
- A doctor only-site might also be seen as providing authorative & comprehensive medical advice, the last thing any medical website wants to be seen as providing (e.g. If an article on abnormal LFTs mentions just "remember Wilson's disease", then though this is a useful note to other doctors, it clearly should not be inferred that all patients should always be tested for this)
If the site is closed, i.e. only doctors can access the site, then it will be less widely used:
- Other doctors are unlikely to encounter the site (wikipedia will not appreciate an advertising footnote on every medical-topic page stating "for correct information see wikidoctor")
- Wikipedia is the largest encyclopadia, and it is increasingly likely that patients will refer to it - I would like to think they are provided with a reasonable background to a topic, rather than having to waste much of a consultation time arguing against misinformation from a long computer printout they wave in my face, before even being able to offer the correct state of medical science/application.
If one is to restrict a site to doctors, how is one to verify this? Faillure to do so risks subtle vandalism that may be very hard for a non-specialist to pick up. Anyone can look up my GMC number here in the UK, so proof of identify comes not from my knowing my registration number but having a current physical certificate. Who is going to want to send their original certificates to a website, and which website wants to try vetting authenticity of documents received and being responsible for safe return. Then there is the USA - is there one registration systems or one-per state ? And lets not forget rest of English speaking world (Australia, Canada, Carribean, New Zealand, Ireland etc), and I know I can not even read most of the world's non-english medical certificates (could be laundery bills or certificate of being a Quack). Tricky...
Having stated all this, there already seems to be the start of such a wiki - http://ganfyd.org "The free medical knowledge base that anyone can read and any registered medical practitioner may edit. Ganfyd is a collaborative medical reference by medical professionals and invited non-medical experts." I have not really used the site myself, so am unable to report on its strengths or weaknesses. David Ruben ^Talk 13:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gold salts

On Talk:Gold salts there is now an RFC ongoing on the use of gold salts for autism and whether this information should be a prominent part of the article. Please give your views. JFW | T@lk 22:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compliance & Concordance

I have had a go at writing Compliance (medicine) which is both about drug compliance and treatment more generally. In the UK, at least, this became very 'fashionable' to discuss some years ago and the Government (NHS) developed a term 'Concordance'. 'Concordance', aside from confusing most people, was meant to be an approach at engaging patients in their treatment care to jointly decide and agree upon options, and so (hopefully) reduce non-compliance.

I do think the two terms (Compliance and Concordance) so closely deal with the same issues that splitting them into 2 article will just end up duplicating most points.

This is (potentially) a large topic, so I would welcome any comments or contributions.David Ruben ^Talk 16:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, there has been an attempt to change to "adherence" because it sounds more active and respectful than "compliance". Can you include this? alteripse 17:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open tasks list

Please help to keep the Biology portal's Open tasks list up to date. This is one of our main communication methods to help get newcomers more involved in editing articles. It contains a list of articles that need improving, articles that need creating, articles that need cleanup, etc. And of course, if you have the time, please help and work on some of the tasks on that list! --Cyde Weys 05:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quackwatch: Mesotherapy

Anyone ever heard of Mesotherapy? It sounds a bit fishy to me. --Uthbrian (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does sound quite dubious. Andrew73 23:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is crap. It reads like advertising blurb, using wiki to give gravitas and credence to nonsense pseudoscience. Should be taken out and shot at the earliest opportunity.Jellytussle 04:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. After I removed the copyright violations, there isn't much left of the article now. -AED 23:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium

A lot of shady epidemiological evidence is being thrown up on this topic by a single editor, an admitted anti-DU activist. I have no qualms with activism, but wikipedia is supposed to maintain a neutral point of view, and my personal opinion is that this and related wiki articles currently present a bias not supported by the literature, or respected scientific bodies such as the World Health Organization.

Anyone interested in joining this discussion can do so here:

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles

Dr U 05:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive: Contact lens

Contact lens is currently at the top of Wikipedia's Article Improvement Drive list, and stands a good chance of being selected next with a few more votes. I would be appreciative if anyone would like to lend a hand or recommend additions or changes in the talk page. Mille grazie! -AED 23:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving content to own page

I would like to move the content at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine#Template onto its own page (something like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine/Template for medical conditions). Are there any objections? --Arcadian 03:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea! AED 06:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I can take this opportunity to bring up a dilemma with the template: I've been tying to improve the Tourette syndrome article (currently on a mini-break because of some family issues, but I'll go at it again in about a month). I can't make the order suggested in the template work in that article. Prognosis (which is a little understood aspect of Tourette's) affects how one writes about diagnosis and treatment, so putting it below those two doesn't seem to work ? Since MOST people with TS get better with time, many adults are misdiagnosed, and treatment isn't always needed ... so prognosis information needs to come up front, as it does impact treatment decisions and even prevalence estimates. I could use help on this, since I'm not a medical professional. Sandy 14:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have split out the page as described above. I'll try to make sure that for the next month or so that changes there are also discussed here during the transition, but I'd recommend adding that page to your watchlist. Per Sandy's query above: one option might be to include watchful waiting as a potential "treatment" for Tourette syndrome. I also see the heading "Sociological and cultural aspects" there -- it might make sense to add this as an optional heading at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine/Template for medical conditions. --Arcadian 20:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions, Arcadian. The "sociological and cultural aspects" was a term for lumping together a lot of stuff that may not belong in a medical article. I'm still fishing around for a better title to that section, and am not convinced of the place for that information in the article anyway, but it's "popular" informaton that is difficult to delete. It's interesting that you like the title of that section. When I have time to work on the article again, maybe I can find a way to make that section more workable. Sandy 21:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coombs test needs some help

Hi, the Coombs test (talk) needs some help/guidance/opinions on how the structure of the article should be and how the diagram in the article should look like. The discussion about the diagram also continues on my talk page.

Several points of the article are at discussion, like the general structure, the complexity of the article and how to make it suitable for the non-medical crowd, and how the diagram should look like in order to be comprehendable.

The general goal (IMO) would be to get other people's opinions on the article and make it correct and suitable for a wide audience (like every other Wikipedia article...).

Hope you can help! A. Rad 16:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I jumped on it and did some major re-ordering, with a medical student/general reader mindset (the lab technique and Coombs reagent bits were moved further down). I don't think the article is perfect yet... but it's closer. Nephron 11:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

List of people believed to have epilepsy

I've initiated a peer review on this article. I know it is not a 100% medical article, but it would be great to have some of your expert comments --Colin Harkness°^Talk 13:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury rising

Anyone wants to turn Boyd Haley into NPOV? JFW | T@lk 00:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Health controversies

Might want to watch this with a skeptical eye. AED 07:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 20:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally some progress towards WP 1.0, but there will need be some careful thinking as to precise definitions the criteria use, and how apply the criteria both in general and to medical topics. I brain-storm a few thoughts below:

Even medical articles which have reached Featured status have since been heavily edited (e.g. Asthma) often with linkspams, so which version will get used ? Other articles that cover topics farely comprehensively e.g. Asthma get heavily edited with alternative points of view & linkfarms.
Medicine advances and few articles in wikipedia on medical topics are concerned mostly with historical narrative which might be seen as "complete". Hence an article on Cancer X is likely to have its description of what it is (a cancer of X) & date of 1st description remain constant over time. But if a new test or a new chemotherapy combination replaces the existing gold standards, then the article needs heavy editing. Who decides who may update a topic? There is a further risk that a specialist from a specialist research-centre adds description of some new test/treatment as if replacing the gold-standard (which it might in a few years and few extra millions spent), yet this remains unavailable outside of a research-specialist centre or anywhere in other countries (who continue using existing gold standards). An example of bias might be pneumonia and whilst it reads like a good medical textbook, most cases are treated in community by GPs who have no access (in UK) to performing blood cultures, can't treat on basis of Xrays (may be requested & taken, but report takes few days to 2 weeks to come back from hospitals), and must empiricallty treat whilst awaiting outcome of sputum cultures.
Medical topics are covered in a patchy manner. Hence however brilliant a featured article might be on the Aspartate transaminase liver blood test (with description of enzyme identidfication, structure, test development and interpretation), the article is not going to be included in WP 1.0 if the other LFTs enzymes articles, hepatitis or liver disease articles are poor (I doubt WP 1.0 will have an article on a Boeing 747's front wheel brake, if article on either the 747 or Boeing are not worthy of inclusion). David Ruben ^Talk 14:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-psychiatry

Hello - I was wondering if anyone associated with this WikiProject cared to take a look at Anti-psychiatry, which currently strikes me as a big pile of unsourced POV. It's not my area, though, so I feel limited in the amount of good I can do there. --Dcfleck 14:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to autism epidemic: hard to know where to start, but a lot of unsubstantiated POV. I wish I could help, but also feel limited in tackling either of these. Sandy 15:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaps & lasses, please have a look at the RFC on Psychiatry, specifically "cures are not expected in psychiatry". JFW | T@lk 20:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the anti-psychiatry page, I agree that is needs some work. Psychiatry is actually my field, but I wonder if that doesn't actually make me a bit unqualified, or over-qualified, or something, to edit an article about "anti-psychiatry". I'm actually quite glad to know more about the existence of this "movement," or at least this collection of ideas -- and given that psychiatrists are the only speciality of medicine which routinely treats patients against their will, I'm also quite glad to have a set of vocal, opinionated critics around to keep checks and balances robust. Unfortunately, they're going to shoot themselves in the foot and come off sounding like an angry fringe if they don't keep things factual, well-referenced, and NPOV. I'll have a look around it, and see what I think I can contribute, but I think that major changes or criticism of the page might be more well-received by thoughtful, more ostensibly psychiatry-neutral people (presumably such as you both, Dcfleck and Sandy). Scot ^→Talk 06:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

peer review please

Artificial_induction_of_immunity. David Ruben kindly made a number of suggestions, which I've largely not implemented in order not to have a huge string of Midgley in the edit trail, and he has also kindly improved it considerably. I'd be grateful for more views and more edits. It is not intended to be a huge heavy duty artilc on everything, more a quick (but encyclopedic) overview on one large aspect of preventing disease, and some context on it, leading to a set of existing articles that cover each part in encyclopedic detail. Midgley 17:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]