Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 109.153.156.71 (talk) at 11:39, 4 October 2014 (→First peer reviewed Wikipedia article published, Dengue fever). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

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.

List of archives
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine
Recent changes in WP:Medicine
Articles and their talkpages:

Not mainspace:

 Top  High  Mid  Low  NA  ??? Total
 101  1,072  11,574  38,978  8,622 1,295  61,642 
List overview · Lists updated: 2015-07-15 · This box:


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

Regarding the discussion at Talk:Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing#WP:WEIGHT of new study: "Proximity to Natural Gas Wells and Reported Health Status" (2014), I believe [1] (PMID 24413211) is a WP:MEDRS which may establish the noteworthyness of secondary news source coverage of [2]. If this is incorrect, please explain why.

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

i don't understand what the section header means. As for specific questions... Your link 5 is not an article about health, it is about lobbying/politics/jurisprudence and is indexed that way by medline as you can see here. Your link 6 is a WP:PRIMARY source and not what MEDRS calls for (and notewothyness has nothing to do with MEDRS). your link 7 is a blank search page. your link 8 is WP:PRIMARY and not what MEDRS calls for. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The medline link says the article is a "Review" in Reviews on environmental health and its abstract says "money can buy favors and determine policies that are often counter to the public interest and can even lead to failure to protect the health of the public" (emphasis added.) Is the article about health and lobbying/politics/jurisprudence both? EllenCT (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yes medline reports the title of the article. it doesn't classify it as health-related review - the classifications are jurisprudence, etc as I mentioned above. Jytdog (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To what extent does the subject matter of the journal bear on the question? EllenCT (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Primary studies should rarely be used in articles because we need secondary sources to establish their significance. (You have not provided secondary sources.) Remember the warning for opinion polls, "these numbers are accurate within 5% 19 out of 20 times?" Primary studies have similar problems and need corroboration before they become accepted or rejected. Sometimes too they are attacked on methodology. TFD (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Link 8 appears to me to report the results of a survey of 108 individuals (p 59), though referring to many other studies. That's very primary. Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, its discussion of these references is its most secondary part:
14. T. Colborn et al., “Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective," Human & Ecological Risk Assessment 17 (5) (2011): 1039-1056, doi: 10.1080/10807039.2011.605662.
15. L. M. McKenzie et al., “Human Health Risk Assessment of Air Emissions from Development of Unconventional Natural Gas Resources,” Science of the Total Environment 1 (424) (2012): 79-87, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.02.018.
16. M. Bamberger and R. E. Oswald, “Impacts of Gas Drilling on Human and Animal Health,” New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy 22 (1) (2012): 51-77, doi: 10.2190/NS.22.1.e.
The only question that remains is which of these articles are literature reviews, or better yet, we could summarize all of their secondary sections, right? EllenCT (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm not seeing any of these articles as review articles. And we can not take the finding of each review and combine them to create our own review. There is more to high quality reviews than the summary of findings. They do a vigorous review of data sets looking for similarities, biases, and COI among other things. And then base the results on the combination of factors. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them have more substantial review sections than others. What is the proper course of action to take when articles about both policy and health are unlikely to be incorporated in a systematic review? E.g. if we wanted to adapt the data from [3] depicted in [4]? Does WP:OI ("so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments") allow that? EllenCT (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

When MEDRS reviews are unavailable

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

you will find a range of opinions on that. some say if there are no reviews at all then the subject shouldn't be discussed in WP at all. others would reach for something like a review of the literature found in the discussion of introduction section of a WP:PRIMARY source but even in that case most would say that strong statements should not be made based on such weak sources. i would tend to agree with the position that WP should be silent if there are no MEDRS quality reviews at all but cannot judge without more details. Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who are the "some" that say that topics on which there are no reviews should not be discussed? EllenCT (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, one of the initial authors of MEDRS, pretty much takes that stance. it goes deep. the underlying notion is that our goal is to provide reliable information to the public, and if there are no secondary sources that comply with MEDRS then there is nothing reliable that can be said; so we say nothing. it makes sense.Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see anything in MEDRS that prohibits it. Often writers of original studies will summarize the existing literature before explaining their own research. I do not see anything wrong with using these, particularly when review studies have not been written or are outdated. The same source can be both a primary and secondary source depending on its use. TFD (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, MEDRS technically doesn't "prohibit" anything, and WP:IAR is still a policy. But on the assumption that the goal is to have the best possible material supported by the best possible sources, then MEDRS does strongly discourage this, because these mini-reviews tend to be biased. It's not always the case that the authors deliberately include only sources they agree with, but they've got limited space, so they focus on the prior work that explains or justifies their own work. The incompleteness results in (varying degrees of) bias. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
that is, as usual, perfectly stated WAID. this is what i meant by "weak". Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Yep. QuackGuru (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! What search term did you use to get that URL? EllenCT (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this source above. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24119661 See to the right: Related citations in PubMed. Click on See reviews.... I can find anything to get what you want in any article. It takes about two to five minutes. It takes another two minutes to format any ref.
[1]
[2]
  1. ^ Finkel, M.L.; Hays, J. (2013). "The implications of unconventional drilling for natural gas: a global public health concern". Public Health. 127 (10): 889–893. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2013.07.005. ISSN 0033-3506. PMID 24119661.
  2. ^ Eaton, Timothy T. (2013). "Science-based decision-making on complex issues: Marcellus shale gas hydrofracking and New York City water supply". Science of The Total Environment. 461–462: 158–169. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.04.093. ISSN 0048-9697. PMID 23722091.
There are sources that might work for economic inequality. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?linkname=pubmed_pubmed_reviews&from_uid=25076771 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?linkname=pubmed_pubmed_reviews&from_uid=25041736 QuackGuru (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is "confidentiality requirements dictated by legal investigations ... are substantial impediments to peer-reviewed research into environmental impacts." (from this 2013 MEDRS-class review in Science) consistent with "we don't yet know the health implications"? Under such conditions, what are we supposed to infer about the reliability of sources indicating that such nondisclosure is occuring?
And what about "with increasing numbers of drilling sites, more people are at risk from accidents and exposure to harmful substances used at fractured wells" (from this other 2013 MEDRS review)?
And what, do you suppose the "implications for pediatric nursing" are?
Or, the plain language, "shale gas extraction can affect water safety" from this 2013 MEDRS review citing [5] as the first time the US Federal Government admitted health affects from groundwater contamination. All completely consistent with the studies objected to on the original article talk page, and all in the MEDRS reviews linked by QuackGuru. EllenCT (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the Science article is about environment, not health ("We review the current understanding of environmental issues associated with unconventional gas extraction.") The Resources Policy article is not a review of health effects of fracking. It is an article advocating more public disclosure of chemicals used in fracking. Neither are relevant to MEDRS. The Journal of Pediatric Nursing is more interesting. It is not an article reviewing health effects of fracking. It does provide an overview of chemicals used in fracking and potential risks but is quite clear that "The effects of these agents on the water supply and subsequent human health are not well known and require further investigation" and says that "When applied to children, the health consequences associated with ongoing contact with these and other gas exploitation toxic substances, although not presently known, at the very least, constitute a threat to children's health now and in the future." (emphasis added) - in other words - what Alexbrn said above "we don't yet know the health implications of frac'ing but there is concern, data is being collected, and in time we likely will know more". The article from Energy Policy is not relevant to MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the Energy Policy article not relevant to MEDRS? The bulk of its Section 2 is all about health and safety. EllenCT (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just be careful not to jump on these references as validating edits designed to promote a single view of this subject. The statement that "shale gas extraction can affect water safety" is not equivalent to "shale gas is currently having a negative effect on water safety all across the country". In fact it doesn't really say anything at all. Radioactive materials from meteorites "can" affect the safety of water from above ground reservoirs too, but its contingent on said meteor falling in or near the reservoir. The author encourages better tracking and transperancy of extraction efforts, and points out that gas is a good transitional fuel as we move to more renewable sources.
It always worries me when people use the word "admit" to describe statements or reports by government agencies. Most of these people are just bureaucrats with no axe to grind and no conspiracy to carry out. Most are trying to do their job, and not there for the purpose of frustrating activists. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been politically active on the issue of fracking ever, but I'm looking for evidence of how obvious and widely-reported COI breaches (such as mandatory nondisclosure laws) off-wiki materialize on-wiki and affect articles here.
How about, "Although potential benefits of Marcellus natural gas exploitation are large for transition to a clean energy economy, at present the regulatory framework in New York State is inadequate to prevent potentially irreversible threats to the local environment and New York City water supply. Major investments in state and federal regulatory enforcement will be required to avoid these environmental consequences, and a ban on drilling within the NYC water supply watersheds is appropriate" (emphasis added) from the MEDRS PMID 23722091? EllenCT (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How that relevant to MEDRS? If you're here "looking for evidence of how obvious and widely-reported COI breaches ... affect articles here" then there's a danger that's a species of WP:NOTHERE. We have strong MEDRS on this topic as I said above; simply use them for health content. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a MEDRS, with a half dozen cites already. Understanding systematic biases brought about by the factors described in the very first MEDRS I cited above is essential for improving article quality while avoiding COI censorship. EllenCT (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
i would not use PMID 23722091 to source anything health related in WP's voice. It is an advocacy piece. if the author is notable you could use it to say "X says Y"..... Jytdog (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PubMed says that PMID 23722091 is a review, not an advocacy or opinion piece. We do not have a rule against using reviews if the author has ideas about what the world should do with scientific information. If we did, we'd have to stop using all position statements, all analyses of cost-effectiveness, and every Cochrane review that said to stop doing something because there was no evidence behind it.
Having said that, Jytdog's formulation of "X says Y" is a good choice, and I would use it unless most relevant "Xes" saying the same "Y". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thank you WAID, i agree with all that. Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's very important for Wikipedia to cover current research. Often the progress of research is tentative, but it is still notable and important to cover. Wikipedia simply should present research as research rather than as established medical practice. But definitely not to remain silent. Wnt (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further activity

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

I welcome further scrutiny. The section was entitled "Health issues" when Alexbrn posted the above, and he also misrepresented that the report was replaced because it is consistent with the MEDRS expressing conclusions stronger than "more research is needed" as stated at Talk:Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing#Edits contrary to MEDRS conclusions where he has not replied for several hours. The edit and its summary say nothing even remotely similar to suggesting that the survey is a MEDRS. EllenCT (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
copied with edits for localization from here:
I understand that you would like to exclude jurisprudence articles and policy journals from discussion here, but require the strictest adherence to MEDRS for those sources when you have an axe to grind. I do not believe that represents a consensus view, so I invite further comment and scrutiny at dispute resolution: WP:RSN#Health effects of fracking. EllenCT (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another article in need

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

TylerDurden8823 and I have made a start, but it could do with some solid secondary sources and further sections - Diagnosis, Screening, Management, Epidemiology, History are the obvious ones. I've dropped 3 secondary sources onto the talk page if anybody cares to do a little more work on the article. --RexxS (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to help, but I do have some questions: what kind of reference would these links http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/pontocerebellar-hypoplasia http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9673/ and MedlinePlus be? Primary, secondary? Are they good enough so I can read them and start building the Diagnosis section? Should I add the sections suggested above me, adding the section needs work box? thanks Chibs007 (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is probably secondary, but might be tertiary (the lines are fuzzy between categories) but it's pretty much a FAQ. The second is great. MedlinePlus is generally okay for more basic material, but it occasionally contains some material that is seriously outdated or otherwise wrong. (I suppose, though, that's not too different from anything else.)
Here's a pre-formatted citation for the second one, to save you a little time:
Namavar, Yasmin; Eggens, Veerle RC; Barth, Peter G.; Baas, Frank (1993). TSEN54-Related Pontocerebellar Hypoplasia. Seattle (WA): University of Washington, Seattle. Retrieved 2014-09-26.
Just open this section (as if to add a comment) and copy it. Then you can paste it into the wikitext editor (with <ref>...</ref> tags) wherever you want.
If anyone's following along for the upcoming auto-filling citation system for WP:VisualEditor, it took just two clicks to make this from the URL: click once to choose the item in the Cite menu, paste the URL into the blank, and then click on the "Insert" button. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! thanks! I am still a rookie and code the old style. Hope I will learn fast. I will work on the diagnosis section and add the others the upcoming week. Chibs007 (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia

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

Some well-sourced compare-and-contrast material could be very interesting to some readers and help educate them about the differences. Should it be its own page, or small part of each article? Hmm, I could go either way with that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support merging any decent content with the other articles. Noone is going to read this article as its title is too unusual. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it gets a {{Main}} link and a short summary in the related articles, then people will read it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against using these too much, because when the main article is updated the summary won't be (most of the time). Thus we end up with up to date content in one place, and old content somewhere else. It isn't immediately obvious either even to an experience editor where the best/most up to date content is. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't already, go have a look at Bipolar disorder § Differential diagnosis and Schizophrenia § Differential. Each mentions the other as one of a handful of conditions (most wikilinked) that should be considered in a differential diagnosis. It's not the sort of content that tends to change quickly. I'm more concerned that moving content into these articles would give undue weight to these conditions in those sections. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 01:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The existing content has a lot of rough edges, but I think it could be developed into a useful article. The four journal sources are comparisons of brain structure between the two. but they're all primary sources. Gonna see if I can mine any useful secondary sources from the intro/background sections. Let me tinker a couple days before proposing merges or anything, okay? —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 15:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck, Shelley. Please let us all know how it goes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mining those four sources was quite productive; added a section to the article's talk page with the resulting list of MEDRS sources (and a brief explanation). The article itself is still in the messy middle, but getting better. Cas Liber will probably be glad to see there's already a bit more about schizoaffective disorder. Haven't touched the lead section yet, planning to rewrite it once things are further along. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 13:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Corneal Inlay

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

Since no-one else has looked into it (pun intended), I have done so. There are 44 papers in Pubmed that mention "corneal inlay". Although only two of these papers (Lindstrom and Sweeney) are review papers, I think that overall, there is enough third-party coverage to support notability of the topic.
15 references are provided in the draft article:-
  1. The first paper (Chang, "Novel Approaches to Treating Presbyopia", Review of Cornea & Contact Lenses) is not listed in Pubmed.
  2. Seyeddain (1) is said to be a cohort study but is really a case series—a primary study.
  3. Dexl (1) is another case series by the same group in Salzburg.
  4. Yilmaz is a larger case series (39 patients).
  5. Tabernero (1) is a small case series in Murcia, Spain.
  6. Waring is a larger study of 507 patients.
  7. Dexl (2) is another case series from the Salzburg group (24 patients). [The draft misidentifies and misspells the first author as "Taberno".]
  8. Tabernero (2) is a primary source describing a series of 16 models (Murcia group).
  9. Dexl (3) is another case series from Salzburg. (The draft misidentifies the primary author as Seyeddain.)
  10. Dexl (4) is more of the same, again with the primary author misidentified.
  11. Gatinel is a case series of two patients.
  12. Seyeddain (2) is a letter.
  13. Tomita is a bigger study of 180 patients.
  14. Ocular Surgery News seems to be a news website. There are several relevant articles on that website. The reference used looks suitable.
  15. The journal named "Cataract and Refractive Surgery" is not listed in Pubmed, although it is unclear if this should be the "Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery". Either way, the article title given is not listed in Pubmed, although Waring has similar papers listed. The most similar paper is Corneal inlays for the treatment of presbyopia. This is a "historical article".
In summary, all but one of the references are inappropriate. The draft needs to be re-written from scratch with carefully chosen references and in-line citations. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Axl, you really looked into that! Okay; I have removed all of those sources except for the one you liked, and found book and article sources for replacement. I also rewrote the first part to be more readable by non-scientists (for example, people like me with bad eyesight). However, having no previous knowledge of this topic except for one lecture at my local computer and technology club, I may have mangled it, so I hope that you or anyone else who is more knowledgeable will adjust as necessary. It'd be good to get this into mainspace at some point. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your re-write is a big improvement over the previous draft. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Axl, (or anyone else?) should it move to mainspace now to be improved there? Or are there still policy problems? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is reasonable to move it into mainspace. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Axl; it's now at Corneal inlay. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow. Their position is a lot more positive than mine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The line about “low readability” sounds like a challenge, doesn't it? But it looks like they only compared readability scores for German Wikipedia. I wonder if readability analysis for their sample of English articles would look much different. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 23:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Totally awesome findings. Not too surprising about problems with readability. I bet that they didn't check to see if the references were outdated which is one of the main problems that plagues our medical articles. But compared to textbooks it would likely be comparable. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥

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

Dont see the need to mention it. what is your grounds for possible inclusion.Docsim (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lines of argument are that:
  • FGM is "medical" because it's safer to do it in sterile medical facilities than in dusty village streets (and in Egypt, you can get it done in medical facilities for exactly that reason). It's also "traditional" and "African" (both undisputed), and therefore it's "Traditional African medicine".
  • FGM is cultural, not "medical", because it meets none of the basic definitions of "medicine", i.e., "the science that deals with preventing, curing, and treating diseases".[6]
As for sources, there are a few that mention both terms, but few that equate the two and significantly more that mention "cultural practice" in relationship to female genital mutilation.
If you've got an opinion, then it would probably be helpful to post it on that page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a very neutral summary - it is of course a "cultural practice", like male circumscision in the West. It is also a medical procedure, with hygene claimed as one of the benefits, as well as the prevention of sexual appetites considered unacceptable. There is no dichotomy there, any more than for other aspects of cosmetic surgery or many other areas of medicine such as psychiatry. The WHO and similar bodies think it falls under them, and take a great interest, as searches will show. I'm very puzzled as to why anyone would think it does not fall under that subject, unless they share the somewhat hippy-ish "all traditional and alternative medical ideas must be great" perspective that seems to dominate the current article and its sources, using an artificial definition of Traditional African medicine that excludes all the questionable stuff to leave altruistic grannies doling out herbal remedies. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod - Your accusatory comments of motivations such as the above and these replies accusing of "white washing" [7] is starting to get insulting and culturally offensive. Your accusations fall flat when you look at the TAM Category itself and see pages like Infant oral mutilation and Murder for body parts, (of which I have personally contributed [8]) both which are most definitely don't cover your accusations of whitewashing. Your justification is being questioned for adding it to the TAM category, not because of whitewashing or stone-walling, but because you have not providing any reliable references for the view that FGM is practised for healing purposes under TAM (like divination, herbalism, shamanic practices are) and not specifically as a cultural practice. If you do, as WAID has suggested [9], add a sentence or 2. Mycelium101 (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a health organization is interested in a subject does not mean that the subject is a medical one. Health organizations are interested in skateboarding, too, but that doesn't mean that skateboarding is a medical subject. The WHO is interested in FGM because it causes medical problems (just like skateboarding). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The WHO is almost totally uninterested in skateboarding, and the few mentions seem rather in favour of it. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The WHO is interested in smoking too, but that doesn't mean that smoking is necessarily a medical intervention (even though sometimes it may have been used as such historically, and in certain settings). 86.164.164.123 (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spammy or not

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

This user is adding external links to World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). The organization is as reputable as can be presented. Some of the links are directly relevant, and others are to general disease information. I might prefer that only the single most relevant link to this organization be added, because the tendency on Wikipedia is to try to minimize the number of external links especially if multiple links go to one organization's content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many of them take you to a page with no information on the disease in question. I agree one link is fine if it goes to the right page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
i had some interaction with the new user on her talk page - seems well intentioned and teachable.Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Agree they are well intentioned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Electrostatic Spray Ionization

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

Hi Anne,
I think this is a chemistry thing. It's notable, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a chemistry topic. I'm not sure it is notable though. There are only 27 GScholar hits for "Electrostatic Spray Ionization" and in this recent review of mass spec ionization technologies, the method gets only a sentence. --Mark viking (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not, then. Electrospray ionization (the non-AFC article that the AFC version would have to be merged into) cites 68 sources, though, so I doubt that would get deleted at AFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the engineering aspect, it's routinely used for spray-painting cars. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mark viking, WhatamIdoing and Roger (Dodger67). I've postponed its deletion so there's time to look into this. It may be that the topic is not being studied much scientifically, but could still be notable if it's written about in publications about practical applications, or it may be that it should be merged with Electrospray ionization, but someone knowledgeable would have to do it. If none of these, I can revert my edit later and delete under db-g13. Sorry for posting in the wrong forum. Is Roger right about the cars? If so, someone such as Popular Mechanics should cover it. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Call for contributions to "Management of myocardial infarction"

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

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

Generation Rescue assessment

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

Images of people getting care

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

Wouldn't that be a vulnerable person? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Axl is teasing a bit because of the proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#Vulnerable_people.
I am working in health publishing these days and as a Wikipedian, I have come to realize that all health nonprofit organizations all have an endless demand for reusable photos of people getting health care in their illustrations. I am not sure of the focus of the demand, but at least I can say that everyone wants pictures of a doctor or caregiver talking with a person receiving care. The images have to represent as many mixes of ages and ethnicities as possible in both doctor and patient, and neither can look rich or poor. If I tried to imagine a photoshoot which would force every health organization in the world to use Wikimedia Commons images, it would probably be for us to maintain a pool of stock photos with cleared personality rights of a bunch of models who agreed to be depicted suffering from and treating every imaginable disease in health articles. Health organizations pay a lot of money for everything they publish to get images of the recycled fake patients from photo companies, and then when they want to republish something they have to clear the rights again. If the Wikimedia community could provide such pictures, they would practically be forced on the world.
Perhaps some of you remember that in the past few months Wellcome Trust donated 300 gigs of health photos to us. In this donation, they withheld the boring fake patient photos that make them so much in licensing, because this is still big business. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on this at CRUK, where we do lots of our own photos/videos, mostly of real patients, but in this area model release issues may prevent much progress, even for images made in the future. I agree it would be a promising area for a wiki event, if all the right paperwork was set up. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Might be, Axl, although a vulnerable adult is not a synonym for any adult who is vulnerable, and is even less a synonym for an old man getting shaved by someone else.
For our purposes, we would do everything Blue said, and also have photos with the people arranged to focus on the impersonal action rather than on their faces. Unlike an ad for a clinic, we're usually trying to illustrate something other than the interpersonal relationship. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Try the CDC's Public Health Image Library. You can limit the results to public domain images using the Advanced Search.Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 23:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Actually this was already on Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Research publications, so maybe already noted here (ahead of the Signpost). Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have access to the whole paper, John? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is the paper really as worthless as the abstract makes it appear? It looks as though the authors developed and applied a certain analysis to Wikipedia, but then failed to apply it to any other source, leaving their results meaningless. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Research on Images of boils

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

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

Treatment of bipolar disorder by mood stabilizer

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

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

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

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

List of electronic cigarette bans

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

Article in need of checking over - Microtherapy

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

Good find. Seems like a non-topic. I have PROD'd it. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Yeah, that does look a bit problematic. The first source in the article, which waves vaguely at the definition, is just a PubMed search on 'microtherapy'. It turns up just 65 hits, which is awfully thin already. Further, most are not actually papers about the topic (or even mentioning the topic) but the work of a few scientists who have an institutional affiliation with one department of one university (Department of Radiology and Microtherapy, University of Witten/Herdecke). A small number of scientists seem to be trying very hard to make the word microtherapy (Mikro Therapie or Mikrotherapie, in German) into a thing; it's just a synonym for minimally-invasive surgery ([10], [11]). If the term stays around at all, we should probably just point it to our existing article.
If you filter the PubMed results to only include publications mentioning 'microtherapy' in their title or abstract, you're down to 13 hits (at least one of which is a false-positive because of an institutional affiliation in the abstract text). Three more papers refer to an apparent term of art (or possibly a nonce word) in speech pathology from about 30 years ago, and a couple of papers talk about an ocular drug delivery method from the same era.
Worse still, the article at microtherapy doesn't even deal with any of those topics. It actually appears to be describing microcurrent therapy. See Frequency Specific Microcurrent, Microcurrent electrical neuromuscular stimulator, and Electrotherapy (cosmetic), which are themselves in need of varying amounts of attention. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave the article in your collective capable hands, then. Thanks for taking a look! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've now gutted Frequency specific microcurrent as it was basing its claims on effectiveness on two primary refs. Microcurrent electrical neuromuscular stimulator is a more developed article, but need to be checked for medical claims based on primary studies. It looks pretty bad at first view. --RexxS (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


When hoaxes go wrong

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

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

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

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

I don't think of myself as someone who needs or wants to be led, but it would be helpful if you could relate these anecdotes to particular suggestions that you have about how to edit and improve Wikipedia.... I'm presuming that you're not suggesting we relax our sourcing policies and guidelines based on the false dichotomy in your second paragraph (our goal here should be both to avoid providing information that is wrong, and to provide information that is correct, not just either-or). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't have direct policy application, but my feeling is that we are likely to hear a lot about incidents like this, and what that means for social media, and we should start thinking about the philosophy involved - what is freedom of expression, what duties do people have to one another, and what principles really underlie our revulsion when things like this happen? Wnt (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
People have been scammed for years and years. It occurred long before computers existed. It used to be done in person through speech. No one is going to be banning people speaking to each other any time soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tell that to Erdogan. Wnt (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to forward my comments. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wnt, I don't see how this is relevant to WikiProject Medicine. Are you suggesting that our editors should be taking some sort of specific action? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, never mind then. Wnt (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ebola

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

the idea that a single case in dallas would change the article's importance is a few kinds of awful.Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Wow. I know Wikipedia has a Western bias, but when you really put it into numeric terms, something like 20000 to 1, it is impressive. Nonetheless, on account of events in Liberia, with substantial international involvement and the potential for a substantial increase in virulence being recognized, I think changing it to "mid" seems justified. Wnt (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with mid. Nothing to do with Dellas though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to raising the importance level a single western case is irrelevant. Wikipedia is supposed to cover the entire world. Projections of over 1 million infected in January are far more pressing, and may even justify high importance. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Someone already made the change to "mid importance". The event in Dallas is a major contributing factor to this Wikipedia article being one of the most popular medical articles on Wikipedia (currently ranked #2) and one of the most consulted sources of information on ebola in the world. If we really did up-to-date monitoring and response, or if there were software which automatically changed importance ratings in response to traffic, then I think this article could be top importance because so many people are studying this article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "importance", despite what the label says (it's too much trouble to change the parameter on 30,000+ talk pages, although we could change the description on the template); it's "priority", as in "Which articles should be put into the offline, limited-space collections of Wikipedia articles that the WP:1.0 team assembles first?"
We have a general rule that articles about events happening for a limited space in time (e.g., any article whose article contains a specific year) and/or in a limited geographical region (e.g., any US law about healthcare) are lower priority for inclusion than articles about general subjects, e.g., Cramps, which have affected people worldwide every day for millenia, or the main article for Ebola, which includes a good summary of this year's epidemic at Ebola virus disease#2014 outbreak. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It might have been once for the use of WP:1.0, but that's essentially historical now. The "importance" parameter is decided by the Wikiproject whose tag it exists in (and could easily be different between projects): that simply reflects the importance that the Wikiproject gives to its own efforts to improve the article. I agree completely that "priority" would be a much better name. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

More eyes on Psychosis probably warranted.

A new editor has been placing info of questionable sources and weight in to the lead of this article. Of greater concern, an IP on the talk page noted this page which appears to be a call for POV editing on this and other psychiatric related articles. More eyes would be appreciated. Yobol (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how successful we will be at turning them into good editors. People who live with a situation are often good at writing in plain English, or at least at identifying our frequent, and frequently needless, use of medical jargon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time,

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

if you are thinking of using it in Hitachi_Magic_Wand#Medical_applications please don't. That section is in bad shape - full of old, primary sources. oy. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Define old? And note the article cited above is from 2010. — Cirt (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone could help me with my original request, above, I'd really appreciate it. — Cirt (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
if you look at the section i linked to above, there are sources going back to 1979. It is written like a review article itself which is really WP:OR - it should all be sourced to secondary sources. Especially for the "medical" section, most of which should be under research, not medical/clinical. Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is one (1) source from 1979. Did you see the dates of the other sources? — Cirt (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
that is true. also a few from 2004, 2006.... the biggest problem from a ProjectMedicine and MEDRS standpoint is the all the primary sources and the label of the section as "medical" (as in actually used clinically). The Otolaryngology and dermatology sections are clinical research into ways to use it; the Proprioception and Postural sway sections, and the last bit of the Sexual dysfunction treatment section, are all about its use as a tool in research (not do to anything therapeutic-y), which should definitely not be listed under "medical". .. you have put a lot of work into this article, for sure! Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for acknowledging the work I put into this Quality improvement project, I appreciate that. — Cirt (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog, I've changed the title of the sect from "Medical applications" to "Academic research". Hopefully that is acceptable to you. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
waaaay better :) Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'm happy we could come to an acceptable compromise here while discussing in a collaborative fashion. Pleasure interacting with you, Jytdog. — Cirt (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Afamelanotide

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

Oy, indeed. I stripped the bit about the fansite having 50,000 posts, but it needs a lot more work, including someone willing to strip a lot of "According to a 2008 newspaper article in This Paper" and "A Phase II clinical trial involving X number of people" verbiage.
I've posted citations for three reviews to the talk page, but I think they're all behind paywalls. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
:) Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've followed this a little bit. The fansite data was quoted in a peer reviewed article (possibly even a review) somewhere at one point, though I don't know the reference. The concern is that there are dozens of garage labs making this stuff for body builders and the like who want to get tan, and there have been reports of melananoma like skin changes in some users. Might want to looks at [[12]] too, as it is a similar compound with some similarities in activity. I think Brem does not cause the tanning, but both compounds act on MC4 receptors to increase sexual appetite and induce weight loss. So an obvious candidate for abuse.
Its kind of an interesting compound for the porphyria indication, though it did not hit its primary endpoint in the second phase III trial. Formerly 98 (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disability in China

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


1 Prevalence
2 Trends
3 Law

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

4 Family
5 Education

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

6 Advocacy

  • 6.1 Deng Pufang

7 Organizations

  • 7.1 China Disabled Persons’ Federation

8 Sport

  • 8.1 Asian Para Games
  • 8.2 Paralympics

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

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

Addition of Malnutrition in Peru to WikiProject Medicine

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

Yes as long as it stays related to Peru. We need to make sure it does not simply overlap with the article on malnutrition generally. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it will need to overlap some, because otherwise someone who reads only the article Malnutrition in Peru won't have any idea what malnutrition is. But it should be mostly about Peru's specific situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some overlap is necessary, but one of the risks with summaries is that updates to the main article won't necessarily be made to the summary. A good idea is to try be short and concise and keep language broad: not going into specifics; not giving number etc. (which are susceptible to change). -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First peer reviewed Wikipedia article published, Dengue fever

Finally has been published here [13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have added some notation that links to the publication. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. Formerly 98 (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's great, congratulations! In the "Contributors" fine print we see "another 1369 people and bots made edits"—LOL, it would be interesting to classify that into positive/negative/trivia, but I guess that can be someone else's research project. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Inspiring!--Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)'[reply]

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

Congratulations from me too! Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was not one specific revision that was published. A revision was taken. Comment on it were made. The Wikipedia article was improved. Certain changes to the published version were not made to the Wikipedia version as they were request that were against our WP:MEDMOS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I'm a bit surprised the reviewers didn't request the Epidemiology section be repositioned earlier in the article (pace MEDMOS) and certainly before the Prevention section. Imo, this is an example of a page where it really doesn't make much sense to postpone information about the burden of the disease around the world right to the end. Great news anyway! 109.153.156.71 (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Translation Project Mention in Huffington Post

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

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

Expert needed on Morphogen

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

What you need is a developmental biologist. Check WP:MCB, I think this is a bit too far from clinical medicine for you to find anyone here. Possibly someone from WP:ANAT could help seeing it is very important to embryology. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's try that. It may be worth leaving this here in case someone else sees it! Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expert needed on Draft:Pacak-Zhuang Syndrome

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

It looks fine, Jodi.a.schneider. It might be nice to cite the new review at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24781045 but there's no chance of the article getting deleted. Please fix the capitalization to sentence case when you move it to the mainspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated @WhatamIdoing:! It's now published to Pacak-Zhuang syndrome and I've added the new review as a link (maybe someone will integrate it). Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP replacing secondary with primary sources

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

Template request

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

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

Myocardial infarction and Acute coronary syndrome

In wikipedia there is some occasional confusion between myocardial infarction (MI) and ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). For instance, the article on Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) has a link to MI right uder the STEMI subsection of the treatment section. More importantly, there is occasional confusion between MI and ACS. Currently, ACS is the general term encompassing the following acute conditions: STEMI, non ST elevation MI (NSTEMI), and unstable angina. Moreover, NSTEMI and unstable angina fall under the umbrella of non ST elevation ACS: both American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology and European Society of Cardiology guidelines refer to Non-ST elevation ACS rather than NSTEMI.[1][2] The major article is currently MI, in the sense that it contains most details on the ACS family of medical conditions. Accordingly, MI management is the only special article on the management of conditions of the ACS spectrum, and, indeed, is actually an article on management of ACS, as little distinction is made in current medical practice between management of NSTEMI and (confirmed) unstable angina. This perplexes what articles under each of the above titles must contain. I wonder:

  1. Should Myocardial infarction management be renamed Acute coronary syndrome management?
  2. Should, perhaps, two different articles be written on the management of STEMI and NST-ACS - which, despite significant overlap, have important differences (e.g. reperfusion)?
  3. Should, even, Myocardial infarction be renamed ST elevation MI, and all information that pertains both to STEMI and NSTEMI be directed to Acute coronary syndrome?
My opinion is:
  1. Agree. (Though not totally sure).
  2. Oppose, despite the great difficulties I have in improving the article on MI management. It would make the articles too technical for the general reader.
  3. Oppose. The term of the layman is "myocardial infarction". The article on ACS (which needs to be expanded) will just significantly overlap with the article on MI. (E.g., symptoms are basically the same).

References

  1. ^ Amsterdam, EA; et al. (2014). "2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines". Circulation. Published online September 23 2014. Retrieved 27 September 2014. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first= (help)CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
  2. ^ The Task Force for the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) (2011). "ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation" (PDF). European heart Journal. 32: 2999–3054. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr236.

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

Replies

Of the same opinions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, oppose, oppose, as well. Yobol (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, oppose, oppose. Although I would support the third point minus the renaming. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Side comment: The lay term is "heart attack". Nobody outside the healthcare profession says things like "Grandpa died from a myocardial infarction". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At least "heart attack" is a redir to "Myocardial infarction". - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, oppose, oppose too. On stylistic grounds, prefer "Management of acute coronary syndrome" to "Acute coronary syndrome management" (per usage in Nikos's excellent comment). 109.153.156.71 (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template editor right

Would a user with permissions be able to give me the template editor right? I'd like to be able to make changes to one or two of the protected Anatomy templates. I've currently made 321 edits to template namespace ([15]). --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative names for domestic violence (WP:Alternative title)

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=628196799"