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 17:22, 15 October 2014 (→Health statistics: US vs global). 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
 100  1,070  11,568  38,959  19,843 1,290  72,830 
List overview · Lists updated: 2015-07-15 · This box:


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]
I think this could be a really good opportunity. The comments that follow the blog post indicate that — despite a few voices of frustration and dissent — some in the Mad in America website community are interested in learning our policies and contributing quality psychiatry and mental healthcare content to Wikipedia. Although some disagreement over MEDRS sources is likely, I think we can work through those differences if we remember to WP:AGF and WP:DONTBITE. This is my particular area of interest/advocacy. So, I'm willing to take the lead if folks here are interested in being intentional about some sort of informal collaboration. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 02:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The key is a willingness to follow WP:MEDRS. And a willingness to discuss changes that may be controversial. Happy to have more editors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Historically, activists of one sort or another have turned Wikipedia's psychiatry and psychopharmacology drugs into some of the most unbalanced and difficult to maintain articles on the site. When I started editing Wikipedia 2 years ago, the SSRI article contained 25 lines describing the drugs' uses (mainly quoting Kirch's controversial claim that they don't do anything at all in depression), 250 lines on adverse effects and drug-drug interactions, 100 lines of mechanistic speculation based on primary in vitro studies, and a 50 line Criticism section mainly describing the views of those who don't believe psychiatry is a legitimate field of medicine. Peter Breggin, David Healy, and Joanna Moncreif's views were extensively discussed, but no mention made of the treatment guidelines issued by NICE or the APA. If folks recruited from an anti-psychiatry website can be convinced to follow the rules and add content that is NPOV, I'm all for it. But it brings to mind the TV show "Walking Dead" and its episode on efforts to train zombies to be good citizens and to not to eat people. I think it will be very challenging at best. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
to that, i say "amen". Do we really want to invite a bunch of WP:ADVOCATEs? Advocacy is one of most devilish problems here and as Formerly said many drug articles already are in bad shape due to people who think drugs should be perfect magic bullets and are angry that they are not. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Computer-generated audio files of articles

hi all, Ex-nimh-researcher has posted 'text-to-speech" captures of articles - audio files -- on article pages here and here. Ex-nimh-researcher explained the rationale here. a bit of discussion is here Talk:Major_depressive_disorder#Audio_files. (briefly, seems like a good idea (doc james), seems like a bad idea (me) should not have any background noise so people with hearing problems can hear it, should have time-stamp, perhaps should be automated and updated monthly (?) thoughts, before exnimhresearcher spends boatloads of time on this? Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time that people have done something like this. Wikipedia:Spoken articles. Seems like a good idea. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best place to put it would be to have a tab beside "read" at the top that says "listen". Than have new ones produced on a monthly basis or just have it read the article in real time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I last listened to a machine-read article a few years ago. It was a rather unpleasant, grating voice. The current machine voice, while still not pleasant, is an improvement. Also, I am disappointed that the sound file opens with the tedious list of medical codes.
I am unconvinced that an embedded real-time machine reader is an improvement over browser-specific screen readers. I am particularly interested to know if people, especially visually impaired, find this feature useful. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably an embedded reader could be optimised for Wikipedia. For example, it could be taught not to read out links to references, and to properly deal with pronunciation information (cf File:Schizophrenia_intro.ogg). Surely this is something Wikimedia Foundation would support? Propose at the Village Pump? Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think a proposal at the Village pump would be great. We should create a mock-up of what it would look like first though. Should be fairly easy to do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I last listened to a machine-read article a few years ago. It was a rather unpleasant, grating voice." - For some reason, computer-generated voices have progressed more further in artificial singing voices, rather than text-to-speech technology for reading words aloud. Most T2S software voices that I've come across still feel very cold and inhuman. I guess there's more profit to be made in the music industry, than people with disabilities. --benlisquareT•C•E 08:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Torpor and Lethargy

Hello there, I just want to let you know that it looks like the interwiki links of Torpor and Lethargy (es:Letargo) are messed. A number of articles are linked to Torpor but they should probably be linked to Lethargy, since it's the same word: ca:Letargia - eo:Letargio - eu:Letargia - fr:Léthargie - pt:Letargia. I would like to ask those who have enough medical knowledge and can read those languages to take a look at this. Thanks. —  Ark25  (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what's with the Lethargy (a redirect to wiktionary) anyways? Shouldn't it be a redirect to another Wikipedia article? —  Ark25  (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes what do you propose? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmh649: Sorry, somehow I forgot about this topic. I propose to take a look at ca:Letargia for example, and move it into wikidata:Q15637420 if it better fits there. The same with the other 4 articles mentioned above. —  Ark25  (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barium meal, swallow, follow through

We have Barium follow-through, Barium meal and Barium swallow. The first is completely unsourced, the second very poorly sourced and the sources for the third are not exactly medrs either. In any case two articles too many for the same procedure imo. Ochiwar (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge the articles if there are no objections. Ochiwar (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. What name should we go with for the final article? I'm in favor of Barium swallow. Cannolis (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of merging the above named articles together with Barium enema and double contrast barium enema under the title Barium contrast imaging. Ochiwar (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC) I had started a draft along those line in my sandbox, hoping to present it here for approval when it stands on solid feet. Feel free to expand and edit. Ochiwar (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm perhaps. Although the swallow looks at the upper GI while the enema looks at the lower Cannolis (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that and the route of application of the contrast medium are the major differences between the enema and the swallow. Medical uses, indications, contraindications, adverse effects, mechanism, interpretation, accuracy and specificity are largely similar and in most cases identical for all. A sub-section on each under the heading "Types of Barium contrast imaging" should high light the differences. The terms Barium swallow, meal, and follow through are used somewhat ambiguously or interchangeably in the literature, but most authors use the term swallow for studies of the pharynx, larynx and esophagus,(and sometimes stomach) while the terms meal and follow through are most frequently used for examinations of the stomach and small intestine. Ochiwar (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ochiwar These are different studies used for different indications. I am unsure if a merger is definitely the way to go. A "barium swallow" looks at the swallowing mechanism in real time and may identify problems with the oesophagus. A "barium meal" is a longer contrast investigation under fluoroscopy that has effectively been replaced by the upper GI endoscopy. A follow-through study is generally used to look for abnormalities in the small bowel and requires a number of fluoroscopic exposures to identify strictures and fistulae.
The "barium enema" studies examine the large bowel, and could be merged into one. JFW | T@lk 19:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jfdwolff, I am also unsure if a merger is definitely the way to go, that is why I am mentioning it here for discussion. I am aware that swallow, meal, follow through and enema examine different areas of the anatomy. After having gone through the available literature it also appears that the terms are often used ambiguously (at least as far as the first 3 are concerned) which complicates the issue. When you say fluoroscopy has been largely replaced by endoscopy, you are certainly right if you are considering only the part of the world you live in but in many other parts of the world this may not apply yet. While I am not sure of the definitive way to go, I had hoped to be able to combine all these terms and terminologies, similarities and differences in one single well referenced article leaving redirects, because at the end of the day there are more similarities than differences between these procedures. And as you have pointed out, they are being replaced by more advanced technologies as we speak. I have started a draft along this line of thinking (I have not gone very far yet) in my sandox and would appreciate if you could take a brief look at it. Let me know please if you think a merger along these lines is useful to the encyclopedia or rather not. I would not want to be wasting my time. In any case I feel the present state of the named articles is not up to encyclopedia standard and updating each one individually would entail unnecessary duplication. I will put my draft on hold until I get some feedback and face other projects. Ochiwar (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ochiwar I agree that I was exhibiting systemic bias by presuming that some barium studies are now almost obsolete. You are also correct that the terminology is confused - in the UK the studies called "barium swallow" and "barium meal" are typically combined, although "meal" is also used for small bowel follow-through. As such I am willing to support a merge of all the "proximal" studies, but I would leave the large bowel studies separate. JFW | T@lk 21:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. In that case I would suggest "Upper Gastrointestinal Series" as the title for the new merged article of proximal procedures. Ochiwar (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paris syndrome

Someone please review Paris syndrome for advanced acute hoaxitus. EllenCT (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC and Guardian sources seem legitimate, though I'm not entirely convinced that one could describe it as a "psychological disorder". AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The sources look okay, and none of them seemed to be published on April Fool's Day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are news secondaries okay for a "syndrome" but not the health effects of fracking? EllenCT (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to be asking whether this is a hoax. It appears not to be. As to whether it is a genuine "psychological disorder", and thus comes under the remit of WP:MEDRS, that is another question entirely. The article cites one source from a medical journal, [1] but I'm not sure that is sufficient in of itself to answer the question. I suspect that this might possibly be one of those edge cases that medical anthropology likes to look at - a culturally-bound medical condition. Which one could argue is "only in people's heads", and thus not a real condition. Except of course that one could say the same thing about posttraumatic stress disorder. The fact of the matter is that people do frequently exhibit 'real' symptoms as a consequence of psychological stress - though whether the mismatch between the 'real' Paris and a Japanese 'idealised' Paris is enough to stress unfortunate Japanese tourists to the extent that medical intervention is likely to be needed is likely to remain open to question - not something one is likely to be able to do conclusive research on, given the variables involved, and the ethical problems one would face in trying to conduct some sort of organised trial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually a fair number of sources. I however do not find it in the DSM5. Maybe next edition :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do we allow descriptions of "psychological disorders" in Wikipedia's voice without MEDRS secondary sources? EllenCT (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it was making claims to be a "psychiatric disorder" than we would have more of an issue. Psychology / pop psychology is not really medicine. I am not entirely comfortable with this article and agree it could use better refs. There is also Jerusalem syndrome. As a cultural entity they appear to "exist" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a local version of Stendhal syndrome, which has no MED tag. Jerusalem syndrome is similar but overlaps with more serious & permanent conditions. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Would any passing admin please move CCPDMA to its spelled-out title, Complete circumferential peripheral and deep margin assessment? Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See you need to become an admin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of OD symptoms

A reviewer at the FAC wanted me to convert the text covering the symptoms in Amphetamine#Overdose into a wikitable format due to the long chain of wikilinks in the current version (WP:SEAOFBLUE issue). That said, I'm not 100% certain that I categorized all these symptoms appropriately by system, so I figured I'd paste the table here for feedback on the table before pasting it into the section. I've added the current section beneath it just for comparison.

The new version of the text with the wikitable I'd like feedback on
An amphetamine overdose can lead to many different symptoms, but is rarely fatal with appropriate care.[1][2] The severity of overdose symptoms vary positively with dosage and inversely with drug tolerance to amphetamine.[3][1] Tolerant individuals have been known to take as much as 5 grams of amphetamine, roughly 100 times the maximum daily therapeutic dose, in a day.[1] Symptoms of a moderate and extremely large overdose are listed below; fatal amphetamine poisoning usually also involves convulsions and coma.[4][3]

Template:Amphetamine overdose

The current version of the text (being replaced)
An amphetamine overdose can lead to many different symptoms, but is rarely fatal with appropriate care.[1][2] A moderate overdose may induce symptoms including brisk reflexes, confusion, high or low blood pressure, hyperthermia (elevated body temperature), inability to urinate, involuntary muscle twitching, irregular heartbeat, muscle pain, painful urination, rapid breathing, and severe agitation.[4][3][1] An extremely large overdose may produce symptoms such as amphetamine psychosis, bleeding in the brain, cardiogenic shock, circulatory collapse, compulsive and repetitive behavior, elevated blood potassium or low blood potassium, extreme fever, fluid accumulation in the lungs, high lung arterial blood pressure, kidney failure, metabolic acidosis (excessively acidic bodily fluids), no urine production, rapid muscle breakdown, respiratory alkalosis (reduced partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the blood), serotonin toxidrome (excessive neuronal serotoninergic activity), and sympathomimetic toxidrome (excessive neuronal adrenergic activity).[sources 1] Fatal amphetamine poisoning usually involves convulsions and coma.[4][3]

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Borked reflist

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference International was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c Spiller HA, Hays HL, Aleguas A (June 2013). "Overdose of drugs for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: clinical presentation, mechanisms of toxicity, and management". CNS Drugs. 27 (7): 531–543. doi:10.1007/s40263-013-0084-8. PMID 23757186. Amphetamine, dextroamphetamine, and methylphenidate act as substrates for the cellular monoamine transporter, especially the dopamine transporter (DAT) and less so the norepinephrine (NET) and serotonin transporter. The mechanism of toxicity is primarily related to excessive extracellular dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference Westfall was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference FDA Abuse & OD was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Greene SL, Kerr F, Braitberg G (October 2008). "Review article: amphetamines and related drugs of abuse". Emerg. Med. Australas. 20 (5): 391–402. doi:10.1111/j.1742-6723.2008.01114.x. PMID 18973636.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ^ Albertson TE (2011). "Amphetamines". In Olson KR, Anderson IB, Benowitz NL, Blanc PD, Kearney TE, Kim-Katz SY, Wu AHB (ed.). Poisoning & Drug Overdose (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Medical. pp. 77–79. ISBN 9780071668330.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
I like the table. Did the same thing with obesity. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Simplified / corrected a couple I think. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help! I've pasted your revised version into the article... I actually had to put the wikitable in a template (Template:Amphetamine overdose) because wikitables don't parse correctly inside the #ifeq function, which is used to transclude most of the overdose section to dextroamphetamine, Adderall, and lisdexamfetamine. Apparently transcluding the table works though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's much better, but I don't like the 2 main columns being so wide, which makes it harder to read. I'd about halve their width, as only the header text is at all long. This may appear differently in my wide screen to how others see it, I'm not sure. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's not a lot that we can do about that right now. If you set a width, you're going to have problems on mobile devices, which represent a third of all page views these days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love summary tables. One concern that I have about this one as well as all others is that they are prone to corruption if anyone changes something. My preferred solution to this is having a citation after every information item in the table. Many people for stylistic purposes oppose this, but in my opinion, preserving data quality outweighs style concerns and there is a real threat here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or at least put them in as hidden refs using <!-- --> Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like the tables and their implementation, and I could get over the fact they are full width on my screen. My only concern is about "extremely large overdose". The word extremely doesn't feel professional enough for an encyclopedia, and if this is to be an example we can use in other articles I suggest it be changed. It retracts from what you really mean - "Very large" or even just "Large" would suffice. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the forced 100% width and centered the table. The current table is roughly the best I can make it look without the two symptom columns being unequal in size or specifying a px width (which would cause problems in some browsers). It looks ok on my laptop; looks better on my phone. Edit: The main reason I used the term "extreme" here as opposed to "very" is to emphasize that those effects require a much larger dose than that taken to produce symptoms of a moderate overdose (an order of magnitude usually - therapeutic doses range in the tens of mg with a max of 60 mg (per the FDA and INCHEM); recreational doses typically range from 500mg to 5g). Another minor reason I worded it that way is that the symptoms of a moderate OD may occur at idiosyncratically low doses - extreme OD symptoms do not (most of them are medical emergencies). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, is there anything preventing you from having a >xxmg or something similar in the box? Also, I understand the need to differentiate, but extreme isn't the proper word. Maybe major? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After pubmed searching "Extreme overdose" without a filter, I see your point. I've used the scale in PMID 9656975 and changed the headings accordingly. Let me know if that works for you. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 17:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page move of caregiver

Hello, I am requesting comment about a move. I started this discussion about 6 weeks ago and it is slow going. "Caregiver" and "Caregiving" are Wikipedia articles on completely unrelated concepts. I am proposing that "Caregiving" be the article about caring for a person with an impairment and get both of these titles, and the academic concept currently at "caregiving" be disambiguated with a qualifier. I would appreciate comment at Talk:Caregiver#Requested_moves. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-wiki infoboxes

Category:Templates using data from Wikidata has some templates that we (meaning people more technically adept than I) might want to look over. It should, in theory, be possible to use this to automagically fill in a parameter (e.g., an ICD code) based on Wikidata if the parameter isn't specified in the article itself.

The documentation is at Wikipedia:Wikidata#Infoboxes (Phase 2), and it's not completely up to date. I believe that if we figured out how to do this, and then ported the changes to the other Wikipedias, then this would work everywhere, which might be very convenient for translators. I may be wrong, of course, but I believe that it might make it possible to type just {{infobox disease}} at the top of the page, and have the entire infobox filled in, without needing to have a dozen lines of confusing, case-sensitive code at the start of every lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing Yes, what you say is correct, and this is already done in some places. As I understand, we are waiting for any community member to trial this and trialing this would take a non-programmer only hours to set up. Anticipated problems include making infoxes thereafter incomprehensible and increasing page load time by seconds for when 100 data pieces are called.
There will be an IRC meetup on this 16 October hosted by Fabrice Florin (WMF).
Here are some medicine-specific past discussions.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a great idea, especially for things like the ongoing translation project this would probably be of great value. I am however a bit concerned with editing those data; if you look at the cross-language interwiki links, it has already become incredibly hard to do anything other than adding one language link (which can still be done with the wikipedia interface, anything more takes you to wikidata and beware if two different wikidata items exist linking to the same topic in different languages, things start getting ugly very quickly then). It would be nice if wikidata's interface could be improved a bit before this. Alternatively (but less optimally), the locally specified values could overrule wikidata values, so if you put in an infobox it would take all data from wikidata but you could still enter different data in the article itself. --WS (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wouterstomp To start I think the hope is to minimize need for anyone to localize data. Propagating things like links to WHO pages would be a good start. Numerical data which is widely accepted is another option. I do not think Wikidata's interface will be improved without a trial of this, and a trial of this is not going to be easy until Wikidata's interface is improved. This is why we have halted. I would love for someone to apply for a grant at the meta:Grants:IdeaLab space to get the resources necessary to prototype a model for this so that discussion and development can continue. The project will only be messy and problematic in the beginning. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we pretty much need one or two advance scouts to go figure it out and report back, so we'll have a clearer idea of what to do. ICD numbers seem like a good place to start, since they're the same all over the world, or maybe OMIMs would be good.
@Scottalter:, do you think you could figure out how to adapt the infobox to read something from Wikidata (only if the item were blank in the article)? The en.wp template side of the matter seems more accessible to me than the Wikidata side. If someone else could figure out how to get the Wikidata record fixed (just for one article; I'll suggest the incredibly low-traffic ODDD as a target), then we could try a test run to see if it works. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the challenge. I think I've figured it out. The ODDD article now has its infobox data at wikidata:Q17148148 and the article uses Template:Infobox disease/sandbox. The sandbox infobox just draws the data right from Wikidata and ignores any parameters passed to the template from the article itself. But another if statement could be added for each variable to use existing data piped to the template if the Wikidata does not exist, or vice-versa. (Which data should take priority - info from Wikidata, or info in the local Wikipedia passed directly to the template?) Also, if any of you guys are admins, any chance I could get the template editor right? Template:Infobox disease is protected to that level. Thanks. --Scott Alter (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A while ago I wrote a module, Module:Wikidata, that I intended to be usable for getting data from Wikidata into infoboxes. It takes a parameter which can be either a locally provided value or "FETCH_WIKIDATA" - in the former case it just returns the parameter (even if it's ""); in the latter case it returns the data from Wikidata or nothing if the data does not exist. If it is invoked from within a template using e.g. | data1 = {{#invoke:Wikidata |getRawValue |p494 |{{{ICD-10|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}} }}, then having a local parameter called 'ICD-10' in the infobox takes precedence; otherwise it attempts to fetch the data from Wikidata. You may be able to understand from the module documentation how you can use it, or examine some working examples at {{infobox person/Wikidata}} or {{infobox video game series/Wikidata}}. --RexxS (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the first NICU?

I note with interest this recent edit to Neonatal intensive care unit, sadly without source. Now I'm curious. Certainly Couney was instrumental in bringing the incubator to the US, but was Yale-New Haven the first NICU in the world? The article previously claimed that Vanderbilt University held that honour which I cannot find a source to support, although they do seem to have been the first to ventilate a neonate.

Anyone know of a better reference than Design for Pediatric and Neonatal Critical Care? Basie (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found one. Apparently it was actually in 1965, not 1960, and was opened by Dr. Louis Gluck. [2] Jinkinson talk to me 01:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Basie, you're back! I've missed you. It's great to see your name today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I recognised your name ;) Thanks! Hopefully I can help out a bit around the edges. Basie (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular pathological epidemiology

Dear medical experts: This article was accepted some time ago at AfC, but something strange has happened to the reference section since then. Can someone who understands the topic please take a look at it —Anne Delong (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Association of Primary Care

Dear medical experts: Here's another old AfC draft. By the time copyvio bits from

are removed, I'm not sure there will be enough left to make an article. Should the whole thing just be deleted? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a recent news article in an industry rag. It might be notable. But if there's not much left after the copyvio cleanup... I don't know if it would be worth it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Common name matter: Müllerian duct vs. paramesonephric duct

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Paramesonephric duct#Move Paramesonephric duct back to Müllerian duct?. A WP:Permalink to the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile pageviews have arrived

For those who are interested in readership. Percentage pageviews for our top medical articles by mobile are often around 50%.User:West.andrew.g/Popular_pages. This means our graph that assumes mobile of 30% is low. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At last! Will these be integrated into the project-specific popular pages listings? --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nirfast

Dear medical experts: I know this isn't directly a medical topic, but the Technology WikiProject appears to be inactive. Is there a better place to discuss this old AfC draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there would be, and this seems thoroughly promotional to me, it would likely be okay to delete. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Besides its a copy paste from here. and the nirfast website. Ochiwar (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, CFCF and Ochiwar. I have deleted it. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Non-melancholic depression

Hello again, medical experts. Here's another old AfC draft which may be of interest. Is this a notable topic? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of but not really as put across here as it is somewhat misleading. It will already be covered in major depressive disorder. I'd not use it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should that term redirect to atypical depression? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tempting...but I always took non-melancholic to be broader than atypical depression. The latter predates adjustment disorder with depressed mood really and harks back to days of endogenous vs reactive depression. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lead of atypical depression should probably be revised to reflect the distinction. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber,WhatamIdoing, Seppi333, there is already Melancholic depression. is this the opposite? Neither Major depressive disorder nor Atypical depression mention "Non-menancholic depression", so, for a reader, redirecting the term to one of these articles would be misleading, because that would indicate that it was a synonym. If this is a legitimate medical terrm, and if it's a type of Major depressive disorder, can that article be expanded with a short paragraph describing it? Then the draft can be turned into a redirect to the main article. Alternatively, if the topic is notable, but the article just has misleading information, maybe it could be stubbed, leaving a paragraph explaining (with a wikilink) that it's a kind of Major depressive disorder, which, I presume, doesn't include melancholic symptoms, and let the reader then follow the link to find out more about MDD. The second option seems better to me, because it would make it easier for someone to add sourced content in the future. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I was referring to was the 2nd sentence in the lead of atypical depression, "In contrast, people with melancholic depression generally do not experience an improved mood in response to normally pleasurable events." The fact a distinction is made with melancholic depression only makes it seem that this is "non-melancholic" depression. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 14:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa article

Briefly looking into the edit history of the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa article, I don't see any of our WP:Med editors watching that article (at least not typical WP:Med editors watching it). I think that it's a good idea that a few of us WP:Watchlist it, just like we are watching the Ebola virus and Ebola virus disease articles. I'll go ahead and WP:Watchlist it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've also gone ahead and WP:Watchlisted the Ebola virus article. I have yet to consistently WP:Watchlist the Ebola virus disease article; this is because I've seen that it's well-watched by WP:Med members. Flyer22 (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Flyer22. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It seems that CFCF is also now watching the article. And for documentation in this section, Dovikap moved the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa article to Ebola virus pandemic, and RockMFR rightfully reverted, as seen here. Flyer22 (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pine cone extract

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Pine_Cone_Extract

Dear medical experts: Is this old AfC submission about a notable topic? Should it be kept and improved, or deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If straight-up Google results for the term in quotes are any indication (which they might not be), then probably not, I would say. There are 15 results for the phrase on PubMed, none of which are MEDRS compliant, so it would probably become a quackfest if we accepted it through AFC. I found some results using Google Books but mostly just passing mentions, so I would conclude that it isn't notable, but I might be wrong. Jinkinson talk to me 01:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category for published articles

I propose a category (possibly Category:Published articles) for externally published Wikipedia articles, such as the article "Dengue fever". (Perhaps in the future, it can have subcategories.) The new category can be categorized in Category:Articles.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC) and 03:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To distinguish the articles from those published by VDM Publishing and similar companies, a better name for the new category might be "Category:Articles published in peer-reviewed literature", with allowance for medical articles and other articles.
—Wavelength (talk) 05:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like a reasonable proposition.Docsim (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How many articles do you believe would currently belong in the category? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
wise guy. :) but good point. Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extending or adding infoboxes

My english isn't very good, but I'll try to explain what's on my mind...I'm sure this has been discussed before, but there are some things I miss here on Wikipedia. I was thinking that disease articles could've had additional infoboxes with general information like case fatality rate, laterality (e.g. unilateral in the case of pneumothorax, or bilateral testicular torsion, etc.), typical biological markers, incidence rates, affected sex (male, female, both), prognosis (poor, good, very good), typical symptoms, contraindications, etc. Perhaps even more technical information, like typical blood count values and so forth. Please provide a link if this has been discussed before. What do you think? Gautehuus (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, I'd say it's quite hard to come up with numbers that are useful because it all depends on context. For example, incidence--where? In the US? Worldwide? How long before those figures are out of date and become inaccurate? Blood values vary with age, and prognosis is tremendously dependent on all kinds of things (how prompt the diagnosis was, access to services, probably socioeconomic status, age, general health of the patient).Basie (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these are possible. Perhaps a different box under ==Diagnosis== would be good for blood tests. A box listing symptoms under ==Symptoms== is also possible. I wonder if that would tend to introduce editing problems. Some people might think that a box for symptoms needed to contain all the possible symptoms (and especially whichever symptoms they personally experienced). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we do decide on something like this we would need some firm guidance on where and how many items these contain. We should be trying to write in prose rather than list form IMO. And with more boxes things can get become poorly formatted / more confusing rather than less. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're interested, we could try collaborating on a dummy/sandbox article just to see how it would look, and to find out whether it will work or not. I imagine it will be hard to create a one universal infobox, but to start this off, I think we could make one that can be used in the larger articles on common diseases. Gautehuus (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gautehuus I am very supportive of this idea. For medicine there is less work in trying this than there is in economics. There are several issues to overcome. One is the creation of the infobox, another is deciding how to store the data which goes into the infobox, and another is deciding which datasets to present. For medicine deciding which data to present can be difficult as there are arguments about whom to trust.
For economics there is more consensus in many datasets, and at meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Global Economic Map there is a proposal to make an infobox for all regions which presents the economic data by year and updates automatically every year. This proposal is not being developed by anyone but I think if it were funded for economics then based on that precedent we could try something with medicine.
What you suggest is an excellent idea and it must be the future of Wikipedia. The biggest problem right now is finding someone who is able to apply for a grant to do the necessary development to make this happen. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Active surveillance of prostate cancer

Newly moved to specific title and tagged for the project. Needs some checking, if only for links and copvio. Long and expert. It was previously called just Active surveillance, previously a redirect to Watchful waiting, which I have restored. But the new article (only about prostate) distinguishes between the two, whereas Watchful waiting treats them as synomymous. Thoughts? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Health statistics: US vs global

When editing pages is it better to use US statistics, global statistics, or both? For example, many of the cancer pages only list a 5 year survival from a US perspective. Global stats seem more prudent to me, and I wouldn't be opposed to including both. Just wanted to get people's opinions on this. Thanks. Muscat Hoe (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should always use global statistics, whenever possible! We do have a US-bias, but only because many editors come from the US and are savvy about the situation there, and will more likely be interested in such numbers. Additionally we aren't limited to US or global statistics either, but should display UK, EU, Japan, China etc. etc. whenever they are notable (mentioning these as they are more likely to have statistics on a variety of diseases as opposed to say Rwanda).
US statistics aren't premiered in any way, and if for example industrialized countries have a certain incidence, which is the same as the US, we are safe to assume that readers can extrapolate that the US is an industrialized country and it would not need independent mention, unless on a more list-type epidemiology article. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with CFCF. Ideally, we would feature global statistics whenever possible. If there are significant differences in different areas of the world, different ages, or different gender, or specific occupations than it is important for us to use these statistics, too. We have a long way to go to do this in a consistent way in most health articles. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that we should use global statistics, but in some cases the U.S. data is collected and available and the global information is not. The CDC, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Healthcare Utilization Project, and other databases do provide much more epidemiology info than is sometimes available on a WW basis, and the EU has similarly detailed info on many topics. I'd hate to see useful local statistics that one can in many cases extrapolate from excluded in favor of non-existent stats of a more global nature. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I take the point as a general one, but for cancer, regulars here have at least 3 copies of World Cancer Report 2014 (World Health Organization. 2014. ISBN 9283204298), and CRUK's CancerStats sub-site has good global and UK figures. We are normally only giving the very top-level figures just as figures, and for more detail and explanation/interpretation should mostly be using normal MEDRS reviews etc. So both, as we all agree. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everyone else that worldwide is best, but anything (well, anything halfway decent) is better than nothing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that we too often use low hanging fruit of US stats when the other content is available with just a bit of effort. So, I would like to ask everyone to think broader and make the effort to look for global stats that give a more complete picture. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On this issue, as part of my training work, a Wikipedia:WikiProject_CRUK/Angel_training#Participants.2C_stats_team number of CRUK specialists from the stats team added basic UK stats to several cancer articles on October 3rd - eg this, with this note/disclosure on the talk page: "Hi, I'm from Cancer Research UK and going to add some UK stats to the epidemiology section complied from ONS, ISD Scotland, Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit and the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry as summarised on the Cancer Research UK website". They now plan to do the rest of the 35 cancer types they cover in the same way. At a later stage I hope we can add more on global figures and patterns, but this is a welcome start I think. I'm thinking a standard edit summary with a reference to a version of this explanation on the CRUK project page will be enough, without a talk page section each time. Do people agree with this? The figures will be sourced & referenced to the CRUK CancerStats sub-site, which they write. I expect most of you will be familiar with my pitch that for the UK stats these are the best source for us to use, as the figures published by the various official stats bodies are mostly in forms designed for professionals, so I won't repeat that. What is great is that they are keen to incorporate this into their standard updating procedures, so after I am gone from CRUK new figures will be updated on Wikipedia. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Global stats should be first if available. Sometimes they do not exist. I often than provide stats of large English speaking nations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
John, that sounds fine to me. I think it's reasonable to include stats from English-speaking countries even if we've got good global data, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel we should limit ourselves to English-speaking countries, seeing as it would be a major disservice to our readers from other countries, (of which we have very many). My fear is we could end up with list-type entries of all available statistics (even if we are far from that today), and I think we need to take the notability of a statistic into account. What I mean is that there is nothing inherently more notable about US-numbers as opposed to say Chinese statistics. Arguably the same holds when you compare US vs. Canada, with the only caveat being the difference in number of citizens. To many, US-state statistics are relevant, and Texas, Florida or California statistics cover more people than Canadian or even UK ones do.

So where do we draw the line? For a similar problem concerning regulation: Electronic cigarette was split into a daughter article Legal status of electronic cigarettes (more list-type). The main article mentions: US FDA regulation, EU regulation and Western Australia regulation, while the list article goes into much more depth with individual countries and US states. US, EU and Western Australia is hardly balanced, and maybe there is need to chisel out which statistics/regulations etc. are notably mentioned in the main article. Wikipedia:WORLDVIEW gives little info on how to solve these issues, and maybe this is something for WP:MEDMOS? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we don't want a long list, and US & UK are mostly broadly similar (as rates). On the other hand they are very high quality and of of interest to lots of readers. We could look at Euro figures too, and Canada and Australia where they are different from other English-speaking countries. The WHO has Asian figures, which are often considerably different, but I think raw numbers here won't convey too much, nor perhaps % of global cases/deaths. We'd need rates. Likewise Africa, though I think the figures there have more issues. I suggest we work up one or two cancer article sections as models. Maybe lung and esophagus, which both vary a good deal around the world? Ideally we want to concentrate on what broad rate differences reveal about the causes and different patterns of treatment, but of course this involves a good deal more work. And we should have more on age and gender incidence in many cases. Wiki CRUK John/ Johnbod (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with just about everybody (I think) that we should be aiming at a worldwide perspective, though as WAID points out anything decently reliable is better than nothing. Certainly, if our information on the distribution of malaria, say, were restricted to large, non-(sub)tropical English-speaking countries, then that would indeed be a concern... More generally, it's normal for the distribution of just about any disease to vary by geography, as well as age, gender, socioeconomic factors etc. It's also true that the common availability of official statistics for certain developed countries, including the USA, UK, etc, makes it tempting to give them extra weight. Ideally, I think it would be good to see members of organizations such as (and hopefully not limited to) CRUK using their expertise to help build a well-balanced global perspective, rather than focusing specifically on (for example) UK statistics. But I recognize that this is by no means straightforward, as organically conceived contributions require an ongoing familiarity with WP processes and etiquette that takes time (and regularity) to accrue. Fwiw, I'm happy to collaborate with CRUK and other editors on developing Esophageal cancer#Epidemiology, per John's suggestion above (though I won't be around much in the next few days). I've had useful tip off that an ideal source on the subject is due to be published tomorrow, so that should help considerably.
RE "...what broad rate differences reveal about the causes and different patterns of treatment": MEDMOS of course foresees a "Causes" section which implicitly covers that I think. As regards "treatment patterns", hum, now where does that go...? A relevant question, imo. 109.153.156.71 (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolph Tanzi needs eyes

Rudolph E. Tanzi, a medical BLP, is almost totally unsourced. BTW, Tanzi has been in the news lately for developing cell cultures that develop structures of Alzheimer's disease. [3] Jinkinson talk to me 15:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As so often with "unsourced" articles, it looks like a largely copyvio from the EL hospital bio. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marburg virus,,,Pros/Cons

Recently I found opposition to include the Marburg virus [4](filoviridae ,same as Ebola) in the "Ebola west Africa" article. Though it did NOT originate in west Africa, I though it would add to the article (Congo and its 71/43 CFR, is included, though it also has no connection to west Africas' current outbreak). So im asking for opinions, of whether to push the matter or drop it.thank you.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you have done good work per WP:BRD - you added it to the article, it was reverted, so you brought it up for discussion on the talk page where no one agreed, and now you are bringing it here to get more opinions, instead of edit warring over it. that is great. my read is that you offer no reason here why the content fits in the scope of the 2014 outbreak article; "i want to" is not a useful grounds to persuade others. There was debate in the Talk page about deleting the Congo strain content and another brief discussion here since it is not the same as the west african strain and is located far away, but a) to clarify that the outbreaks are currently different and b) due to the possibility of the two outbreaks eventually merging, the congo content has been retained (not a decision i agree with but that was local consensus). i don't see any way that the marburg outbreak on the other side of the continent falls in the scope and would also have said to leave it out. more generally, if consensus develops against, you, give up and move on per WP:STICK. Jytdog (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will therefore drop it,thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Disruptive editing at psychology articles, reported at WP:ANI

Opinions are needed from this WikiProject on the following matter: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Chesivoirzr regarding psychology articles or articles that include psychological perspectives. A WP:Permalink to that section is here. If Chesivoirzr continues to edit psychology articles, or Wikipedia in general, I am not confident that this WP:Disruptive behavior will stop. Flyer22 (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help wanted in improving the article William Pooley (Ebola patient) and ZMapp

Hi

I recently started the William Pooley (Ebola_patient) article which has now been nominated for deletion. I'm trying to find out more information about his treatment with ZMapp, he seems to be one of only a very small number of people who have been treated with the experimental drug with no new supplies of the treatment being available for months to come. I'd also very much like to include this information in the ZMapp article.

--Mrjohncummings (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

mrjohncummings, i believe that under privacy laws like HIPAA you are going to find very little detail published in reliable sources about his or any other individual's treatment. speaking generally, folks have wanted to add lots of information about specific patients treated with ZMapp and I have been trimming that. The reasons are a) the article is about the drug b) what happened with the individual cases tells us little about whether the drug is safe and effective, which we'll only know from aggregate data from testing or using the drug in many people c) the structure of the article is set by WP:MEDMOS which rightly doesn't have space for individual case studies; some content on these individual treatments has been retained in the History section since they were big news; d) little information about these individual treatments is available from WP:MEDRS compliant sources, so there is little we can say anyway (except that they happened) - in other words, these studies are History, which is OK to source from sources other than biomedical reviews and statements by major scientific and medical bodies (the kind of sources we use for actual health/medical content). Jytdog (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
projectmed members, i've been even keeping names out of the article - again, the identity of the patients is irrelevant with respect to the drug, and in my view there are privacy issues (I know that people's names were reported in the media, but we don't have to do that here as well). Thoughts on this, and what i wrote above, are very welcome.... Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regional function of the heart

New article: I don't even know where to begin. total rubbish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animalparty (talk • contribs)

What makes you say it's rubbish?. Currently it's lacking references, which I give you is a major issue, but as the author Naelosman seems knowledgable about the field we may be able to salvage some if the article. Preferably we would run the article through the copyvio-bot, move it to the sandbox and get in touch with the editor who wrote it and see if we can make it adhere to WP:MEDMOS, WP:MEDRS etc. I think the worst thing we can do is to write of a potential useful contribution as rubbish because someone isn't knowledgeable of our guidelines and reference style from the start. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The editor is also working on this page Strain Encoding MRI, and I think there may be some conflict of interest issues there. This account Nfosman seems to be related as well. — CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just started to write the articles. I am waiting for the 4 days period to start adding more material to the article. This is my field of my expertise and I would appreciate help to eliminate the weaknesses mentioned. I am going to add more references (scientific journal publications) to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naelosman (talk • contribs) 13:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC (UTC)
this account appears to be the same as Nfosman and there appear to be WP:COI issues here. hopefully the user will clarify on his Talk page or pages. these appear to be typical new editor mistakes; none are fatal and hopefully we can get things on track going forward. Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC regarding Epilepsy article

There has been a long and protracted discussion regarding if epilepsy should have a "mechanisms / pathophysiology" section. Or if this content should be combined into causes. Talk:Epilepsy#Should_the_article_on_epilepsy_have_a_mechanisms_section.3F Further comments appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word "outbreak"

Currently, the article title for Ebola virus disease in the United States (a better title, in my opinion), is Ebola virus outbreak in the United States. Is the use of the word outbreak overly sensationalistic? How many cases does it take before one gets an Ebola outbreak in a geographical region? Two, ten, twenty? I know the lay press might be using outbreak, but it seems obvious to me that its usage should be someting medical sources agree upon. I think our current article title hypes the situation, just going off of my first impression. Thoughts? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, outbreak is very sensational when compared to any meaningful statistics. As is the image at the top of the article with Texas in red. There have been 3 cases, it isn't an outbreak. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do reliable sources call it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The CDC calls them "cases" [5] Specifically "travel associated cases" [6], very fram from outbreak. WHO are of a similar stance [7] -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I placed a requested move template on the talk page. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well that might not be best. It requires 7 days of discussion. Maybe an admin could just lower the protection level and move it. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=sources> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=sources}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=629736964"