Jump to content

User talk:Truebreath

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jfdwolff (talk | contribs) at 18:10, 7 May 2014 (→Some stroopwafels for you!: new WikiLove message). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Truebreath, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! JFW | T@lk 10:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dabigatran

I am concerned that some of your additions to dabigatran are extrapolations from monitoring data that do not imply causality. Without stronger sources, one would not want to see this included in a general encyclopedia article. Could you respond to my message on Talk:Dabigatran before making further changes? Thank you. JFW | T@lk 10:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Teahouse logo

Hi Truebreath! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dabigatran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fungal infections (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed this itemTruebreath (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Medicine!

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Medicine! We're a group of interested editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles, and it's great to have a new interested editor on board! In your wiki-travels, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:

  • Firstly, thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time here (talk page), or if interested, join the project yourself! (participant list). We are always interested in improving the quality of articles and collaborating, so feel free to give us a shout if you have any problems, suggestions, would like some review, need some more articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
  • Secondly, us Wikiproject:Medicine editors are vigilant about using sources, particularly for medical articles. For an introduction to sources, and a guideline for medical sources can be found here: WP:MEDRS. We almost always try and use recent secondary sources to support information. We almost never use primary sources, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
  • Thirdly, Wikipedia is a kingdom full of a wide variety of Wikipedia:WikiFauna, including trolls (WP:TROLL), hardened knights (WP:Knight) and other horrible megafauna. We all manage to get along, but this is only through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, edit, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it on an article's talk page or post a message on WP:Med for help here (talk page).

Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any problems. I wish you all the best on your wikitravels! --LT910001 (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation suggestion

Hi. Thanks for your contributions to the Dabigatran article. In case you haven't seen this yet, please check out User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool (instructions). Given a PubMed ID, one can quickly produce a full citation that can be copied and pasted into a Wikipedia article. This tool can save you a lot of work and ensure that the citations are displayed in a consistent manner. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source selection

Hello Truebreath, I was wondering if I could draw your attention to an issue that affects your contributions to the NOAC articles. On Wikipedia, health-related articles are governed by a manual of style (which includes guidance on articles about medicines) and a sourcing guideline. You rely quite heavily on primary sources in your additions (e.g. the Bloch et al paper recently added to dabigatran), which effectively contravenes existing guidance. You are trying to write a huge comprehensive review of everything that can be said about these agents; that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia and I worry about introducing information that hasn't been reproduced or verified and may eventually be disproved. There is a risk that I will need to personally remove information that contravenes WP:MEDRS, but I prefer to give you an opportunity to fix this yourself. JFW | T@lk 12:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've been editing since I left my message. Can you acknowledge that you have received it? JFW | T@lk 22:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added a review about the woundproblems. I deleted the whole section about cost effectiveness; because most were original studies. I deleted things in dosing. So i am changing the references of original studies to references of secondary sources. --Truebreath (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are still lots of primary sources in the dabigatran article, such as doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.12.005 (a cohort study). JFW | T@lk 11:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i know, but it confirms the association between dabigatran and myocard infarction in real life. So it is important. Systematic reviews of real life dabigatran events are lacking. We will not see any post approval trial in the near future that will show this.

I looked at the "good wiki article " about warfarin. adverse effects: osteoporosis; look at the extremely poor references. I think you should remove the whole section, because there is no reference to high level secondary source. Only original retrospective and prospective studies. Moreover a systematic review didn't find a relation between warfarin and osteoporosis, but this is not mentioned in the article. " Changes in bone density after exposure to oral anticoagulants: a meta-analysis PJ Caraballo, SE Gabriel, MR Castro… - Osteoporosis …, 1999 -" Look at the purple toe syndrome based on a study with 1 case. Look at the section interactions: almost all references don't come from high level secondary sources. Look at haemorrhages ref 18 is a prospective study; intracranial haemorrhages are lacking...which should be their biggest problem, according the new anticoagulant studies.

I looked at the "good wiki article " about bromazepam: side effects; references 6 to 22 are small trials, primary sources; half of the side effects part has no references.

I looked for "featured articles" about medecines; i didn't find any.

The problem is that harms are not so popular in trials; a systematic review states "in anticoagulant trials there are limited data about harms (exclusive bleedings) " .The harms have to be deducted from post approval, cheaper, phase 4 studies, that are almost always prospective or registry studies, with the good known biases. Maybe we should make a new heading for new potential dangerous medecines: "real world studies" and include all important studies about extern validity (generalisability). I agree that idealiter they should come from systematic reviews. The reason why there were serious doubts about warfarine in older people was the lack of studies about their generalisability. This is important for clinicians and for the patients. Could also Boghog give some input?

--Truebreath (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines on Wikipedia

Please have a read of WP:MEDMOS. It provides some guidelines on writing style, wording and section headings. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extern validity; generalisability

So i see that all elements of extern validity were removed;"real world experiences""Pharmacovigilance" Cochrane should be disappointed.

So where do i put these things also found in other systematic reviews:

In the literature, reports of excess bleeding with dabigatran in elderly patients with renal dysfunction[40] raise doubts regarding whether the superior safety profile observed with dabigatran in clinical trials will be generalisable to clinical practice.

The findings based on clinical trial populations may not be generalisable to clinical practice where patients tend to be older and have more comorbidities.

Current and New Oral Antithrombotics in Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation A Network Meta-analysis of 79 808 Patients Ariel Dogliotti, Ernesto Paolasso, Robert P Giugliano http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/820832_6

--Truebreath (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the best place to bring this up is on the talk page of the article in question. Exactly what content are you hoping to see returned? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This "In the literature, reports of excess bleeding with dabigatran in elderly patients with renal dysfunction[40] raise doubts regarding whether the superior safety profile observed with dabigatran in clinical trials will be generalisable to clinical practice." should go in the section on adverse effects if based on a review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hello there. I just wanted to thank you for your efforts to contribute to Wikipedia in a way that follows our guidelines. I helped write DVT, for what it's worth, although I could probably use some new oral anticoagulant information. Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; i loved yours on DVT to.--Truebreath (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cite web

Template:Cite web is good for webpages rather than [1]. See Wikipedia:RefToolbar/2.0 of WP:MEDHOW. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am very concerned by this edit. Surely you would not ever open an encyclopedia to find a blatant recruitment message for class action legislation? Please rethink your strategy on how you present this kind of information.

You should also have noticed that your edits still need fixing by other editors. Currently your contributions to the thiazolidinedione articles are being tidied up by someone else. JFW | T@lk 18:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do my best.--Truebreath (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! JFW | T@lk 20:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Angiotensin II receptor antagonist, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ARB (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 9 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oseltamivir

No offense intended on the revert. But I think the CDC and meta analysis authors already considered the funding issue, and for us to add the funding source of the trials as a way of discrediting the research is probably WP:OR. Best Formerly 98 (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: User:Truebreath/sandbox (April 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste issues

In this edit [2] you copied and pasted this text "Claims about the effectiveness of Tamiflu against complications were a key factor in decisions made by governments around the world to stockpile these drugs in case of a pandemic. The US has spent more than $1.3 billion buying a strategic reserve of antivirals, while in the UK the government has spent almost £424 million for a stockpile of about 40 million doses" This is not allowed and I have reverted all you edits to this page as they all must now be checked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to rewrite some parts, but my English is poor. I find the last rewriting of oseltamivir good quality. Thanks--Truebreath (talk) 08:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No worries. We must paraphrase else we run into copyright issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources

You continue to use some primary sources such as here [3]. Wondering why you do not use secondary sources as recommended at WP:MEDRS? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to delete text from other authors; this part was not mine; i added 15 meta analyses and systematic reviews in the part efficacy of ace inhibitors; i left this primary source not added by me. So now it is deleted

--Truebreath (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generic names

Please use the generic rather than the brand / trade name. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did it happen? --Truebreath (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is not appropriate for references for medical content per WP:MEDRS. Thus trimmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep adding popular press sources? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The whole Japanese text was already there previously. By mistake i deleted it and restored it. So don't shoot on me. --Truebreath (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you continue to add it here [4] which means I need to continue removing it. If you are unclear what a high quality secondary source is would be happy to explain in greater detail. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i added it after i deleted it myself by error. I completely agree with removing it. --Truebreath (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oseltamivir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NNT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and pasting

In this edit [5] you added "the US has spent more than $1.3 billion buying a strategic reserve of antivirals, while in the UK the government has spent almost £424 million for a stockpile of about 40 million doses." which has already been published before? What is up? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters cited "The United States has spent more than $1.3 billion buying a strategic reserve of antivirals including Tamiflu, while the British government has spent almost 424 million pounds ($703 million) on a stockpile of some 40 million Tamiflu doses." Press release bmj: The US has spent more than $1.3 billion buying a strategic reserve of antivirals, while in the UK the government has spent almost £424 million for a stockpile of about 40 million doses.

should i cite the quote like Reuters? "The United States has spent more than $1.3 billion buying a strategic reserve of antivirals including Tamiflu, while the British government has spent almost 424 million pounds ($703 million) on a stockpile of some 40 million Tamiflu doses."

Or like this? Buying a strategic reserve of Tamiflu the US has spent more than $1.3 billion. The British government has spent almost 424 million pounds ($703 million) on a stockpile of some 40 million Tamiflu doses. --Truebreath (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers are allowed "fair use" of text. Thus they often use text word for word from sources. As we are under a CC BY SA license we are not allowed fair use. Thus we must paraphrase all ideas we use. There should never be more than a couple of words the same as the source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Swine flu

Hi there, I see you have been doing a lot of good work on the vaccine section of the 2009 flu article. I just now pared it down, deleting out of date stuff and main article stuff, but it needs more work. Rather than plow into the recent information which you have clearly already done and already have a great deal of knowledge about (which I sure don't!), could you please attempt to bring the section up to date by paring down some more old stuff (and perhaps updating the main 2009 flu vaccine article as well)? It is so good to meet one of those rare individuals willing to take the time to update medical articles with rather mundane information. Gandydancer (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

Well done for improving the quality of your sourcing over the last few months. You are a very prolific editor, and I am sure that your contributions have an enduring positive impact on the articles. JFW | T@lk 18:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Truebreath&oldid=607512935"