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 86.186.168.226 (talk) at 23:22, 31 October 2016 (→Sensory motor amnesia: new section). 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


Antibiotic chart

I'm wondering how useful people find this. It is a list of the most common antibiotics (albeit in Sweden, but most of them are common elsewhere as well), and the most common bacterial infections — showing which antibiotics work for which infections. I like it because it helps you use narrow antibiotics.

Antibiotic
G+ aerobic
G+
anaerobic
G- aerobic
G-
anaerobic
Elimination











Administration
Indications
Warnings
ß‑streptococcus
(group A, C & G)
Phenoxymethylpenicillin, PcV PO 1,2
Benzylpenicillin, PcG IV 1,2
Pivmecillinam PO 3 3 3 3,4 3
Amoxicillin/Ampicillin PO / IV 2
Amoxicillin & clavulanic acid PO
Flucloxacillin/Cloxacillin IV
Piperacillin & tazobactam IV 4
Cefadroxil PO 4
Ceftibuten PO 4
Cefuroxim IV 4
Cefotaxim IV 4 1
Ceftriaxone IV 4 1
Ceftazidim IV 4
Imipenem IV
Meropenem IV
Ertapenem IV
Aztreonam IV 4
Erythromycin PO& IV
Azithromycin PO& IV
Clindamycin PO& IV
Doxycycline PO Dental toxicity 1 1
Metronidazole PO& IV
Ciprofloxacin PO& IV 2
Moxifloxacin PO& IV 2
Trimethoprim PO 2
Trimethoprim/sulfa PO& IV 2 2
Nitrofurantoin PO 3 3 3
Amikacin, Gentamycin, Tobramycin IV
File:Kidneys noun 524431 cc Solid red.svg Vancomycin PO& IV
Efficacy: = Effective = Uncertain effect     = No effect/natural resistance  —  Adverse effects: = Medium effect = Severe effect = Reversible effect  —  Other considerations: Drug of last resort= Drug of last resort
1. High dosage 2. 15-20% resistance 3. Only lower urinary tract infection 4. Inducible resistance
For licence (icons, images, layout) see the template documentation.

It isn't finished — ideally it would include some simple icons for no use in children, cardiac toxicity etc., basically the most important points of consideration for each antibiotic. I've used a simpler version quite a lot in my clinical practice, and it saves time because you can go directly to look up the dosage of a certain antibiotic. It's based off the Swedish: [1] — (so it might not be accurate with regards to resistance percentages in other countries), but I think this is a good start.

If people are interested I may take to creating one for harder to treat infections such as VRE, MRSA, ESBL, Acinetobacter, (possibly Tuberculosis and MDRTB, XDRTB, TDR-TB) etc... This is the type of thing that I would be willing to collaborate on to publish in the Wikiversity Journal of Medicine as well (if we find any good way to cram in references in the tables).

Thanks in advance for any comments and suggestions!
Also, if you don't really get what it is, or find something is difficult to understand in the chart, please ask and I will try to clarify.
Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say very useful I'm certain it could be put to use in several articles (great work CF!)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to get it on a single screen and it is a disaster on mobile with respect to formatting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Doc James. Ignoring the formatting for a while, do you think it's useful at all? Formatting can be changed, but if it isn't potentially useful I don't want to waste too much time. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They can also be displayed as images, having them on Wikipedia is primarily to make them editable by everyone.

(They can also be sorted into two images by G+ and G-
Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an ER doc we treat everything empirically as we generally do not know the specific bug present. Useful I imagine for IM docs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. CFCF, what made you want to create the chart? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, in part I'm contemplating whether to get into IM, and in part because I read the book "Missing Microbes" by Martin Blaser, which brought back some of my interest in antibiotics. (It's a pretty good read, but nothing I would cite on WP).Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@CFCF fantastic work. Any where we can centralise discussion on this now and in the future to provide corrections/feedback other than the med page? Skiming through some small things - trimethoprim missing an "H"; ceftriaxone should be PO & IV, and I was under the impression most e faecalis is sensitive to it? I am wondering if it is better to separate vancomycin PO and IV given PO form has such limited oral absorption and so is mainly used for treatment of c diff? Great work in general though this chart must have taken quite a long time to prepare! --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And not to overwhelm you but I can't see the colouring for the severity of side-effects? And trimethoprim should be marked as teratogenic. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LT910001 — I'm very much willing to work on this if I know people will find it useful. However it is not finished, and there are currently lots of warnings missing (I intend on populating these fields soon, and the ear icon is sort of difficult because its hard to find an image that isn't just thin lines), — but I very much welcome any critique because it's difficult to get everything working at once (and I'm not overwhelmed).
Concerning ceftriaxone — it isn't licensed for PO use in Europe or the US and fass.se or drugs.org do not list it in PO form. Does Australia have a different drug administration that I could link to as a reference? If I have time I will try to give references for all the susceptibility data — right now it's just sourced from a clinical guidance document that doesn't give it's own respective sources (but however passes MEDRS).
For Vancomycin — absolutely, that wasn't something I had thought of. However I'm thinking I'd like to add a field of what % is absorbed when given orally and that it might fit better in a different chart (I'll have to think about it). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note Bluerasberry, Daniel Mietchen, & Tobias1984 — would it be possible to introduce all this data into Wikidata (especially MIC and resistance profiles) — to automate the creation of this type of table? It might be a bit complicated, since we need to cross-reference it with absorption and in vivo usage, but the data is out there, and I think it could be a very useful project to show off. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CFCF Yes of course Wikidata is supposed to be for things like this. No, I have never seen anyone demo this sort of application from Wikidata source material. I do not event recall seeing anything like this in English Wikipedia manually created. Where have you seen charts like this used? It would be a great idea to have Wikidata generate these sorts of things. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@CFCF: It would probably not be too difficult to import it into Wikidata. Can you start a thread about it here: d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Medicine? Since about 2 months we have items for 9675 Bacteria plus Bacdive ID, so the situation for both the medications their targets is well organized. We only need to work on the connection. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just started that thread there. Have to think about it a bit more, but my gut feeling is that the time may be ripe for doing this via Wikidata. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like the chart. My suggestions for improvement are to add the liver/kidneys pictures to the caption/legend and indicate that they indicate the liver/kidneys respectively. I'd also probably add {{abbr}} templates to every entry (PO / IV) in the route of administration column and use {{abbrlink}} in the first instance of the abbreviations (POTooltip oral administration / IVTooltip intravenous administration). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A slidder like this would work [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
agree it would--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a list of the most common antibiotics (albeit in Sweden, but most of them are common elsewhere as well) - an obvious thing to do would be to cross-reference to the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines#Antibacterials to catch all the internationally-important ones regardless of local licensing. I can see the odd discrepancy there.Le Deluge (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great charts. One remark about the kidney icon: it is rather weird and anatomically incorrect with the ureters originating far too high in both kidneys. --WS (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is an artifact owing to the small size of the image, however I'll go through all of them and see if I can find anything better.Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very useful - the spellings of the cephahosporins needs the ultimate "e".Graham Beards (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

I am wondering if these are acceptable RS [3], [4] for this [5]. I am using STiki and came across a related good faith edit which I reverted. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

content that is medical should follow MEDRS-[6]
Never hard of rxlist, but since we tend to discourage UptoDate: Rxlist is a no go as well.
Concerning drugs.com, I have a soft spot for that site. However, I would not use it for Wikipedia before we have had a discussion (and preferably strong consensus).
Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the content on those sites just a glorified copy of the FDA-approved prescriber's insert, similar to the PDR? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since I don't use FDAs prescriber inserts or PDR I can't speak for those (Swedish doctors use https://www.fass.se or http://janusinfo.se). The reason I like drugs.com is that it has the major benefit of covering medicines issued internationally (including those sold only in single countries, or under idiosyncratic names). Unfortunately both Sweden and the US (along with many other countries) lack nationally issued pharmacopeias — which means we are forced to allow commercial actors for this information. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I use drug labels all the time for sources for content about drugs. They are extremely vetted by regulatory authorities, in a way that a peer reviewed paper is not. They are very, very reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They can also be very, very out of date. See, e.g., the controversy over an Oklahoma law that required abortion drugs to be prescribed using the less-safe protocol on the label rather than the current one. Changes cost money, and some changes (e.g., removal of a side effect that is less common in reality than the original trial suggested) are actively opposed by the manufacturer. And they're "extremely vetted" only in the sense that the information provided by the manufacturer was carefully evaluated, but not in the sense that any information from any independent source was even glanced at (because at the time of approval, there is no completely independent research for any new drug). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's overly cynical. Most labels I used have been updated in the last five years - well within MEDDATE. Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we discourage people from citing UptoDate? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 23:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some people have complained about the paywall. Beyond that, I don't remember what the issues were the last time this was discussed, but I suspect that "single author + review committee" was considered less reliable than "single author + two or three peer reviewers". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So WhatamIdoing I assume that you are referring to UpToDate as having the "single author + review committee" model? I would assume that a review committee (presumably comprising more than 2-3 individuals) would have more pairs of eyes to vet any changes in information. As a medical student, I rely on UpToDate as the final authority on all things medicine! On another note, I agree that drug labels can be outdated, and often don't cite the most recent research. This is why UpToDate is more reliable. It would be great to have a discussion to evaluate the reliability of it as a source. NJ (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
UpToDate is a very good resource, but far from "the final authority" on anything medical. Critical clinical readers must examine supporting references and consider the specific context they're considering. As a medical school professor, I encourage students and residents to read UpToDate as a starting point, but would be disappointed if they stopped there. Of course, the topic on this page is an encyclopedia, not medical education. — soupvector (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remember Drotrecogin alfa for sepsis? When the Cochrane review came out stating that it resulted in greater harm than benefit for the $20K it cost I updated WP to reflect that. When I check Uptodate they had not updated. So I emailed them. Uptodate did not update itself until the drug was pulled globally 8 months latter. They stated they have a different method of determining what their articles say. I by the way no longer have a subscription.
Uptodate does not have a static version one can reference and is not indexed by internetarchives is part of the reason we do not encourage its use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of drugs.com are excellent such as these overviews from the AHFS [8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Craniopagus twins

[9] good ref for article (or those involved Dr.James T. Goodrich)...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Length of the small intestine

I was doing some research and found that we have some very confusing and contradictory statements about the average length of the human small intestine. I thought I should bring it to your attention.

First, in Small intestine we have a paragraph that is straightforward enough but which could likely be improved just because the transition is so jarring. I'll quote at length: "The average length of the small intestine in an adult human male is 6.9 m (22 ft 8 in), and 7.1 m (23 ft 4 in) in an adult female. It can vary greatly, from as short as 4.6 m (15 ft) to as long as 9.8 m (32 ft).[3][4] Recent studies indicate that small intestine may be shorter, around 3.5 m (11 ft 6 in), and that the length is less affected by age after childhood than expected.[5]" Hmm, the average in the first sentence is 22-23 feet or so, with a minimum ("as short as") 15 feet. But then the next sentence suggests that the average (? - not clear) could be 11.5 feet. Confusing, I would say.

Second, in Short bowel syndrome we have this claim, which appears to not match either of the above claims: "In healthy adults, the small intestine has an average length of approximately 6 meters (19.7 feet)." Although admirably precise, the claim is unsourced.

Like many people, I turn to Wikipedia quite often when I want a high quality presentation of medical information. I know someone who just had 9 feet of small intestine removed, and I was wondering in an uninformed way if that's a lot or not. In Short bowel syndrome we say "Short bowel syndrome usually develops when there is less than 2 meters (6.6 feet) of the small intestine left to absorb sufficient nutrients.". So, if someone has lost 9 feet of 22-23 feet, that sounds ok. Of 19.7 feet, less good, but still well outside the minimum warned about. But if someone has lost 9 feet of 11.5 feet, that sounds pretty grim.

I haven't tried to dig further, but I would assume that we might very well have other claims in other related articles. I am hoping that someone can investigate and see what the general scientific consensus is, and update all the articles to be consistent.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, an interesting intersection of anatomy and medicine. Could also relate to Crohn's disease, Bowel resection, Jejunostomy. Most of the related articles are stubs, and unfortunately that is the status of surgery articles in general. Ping LT910001, one of the other more prolific anatomy editors, (and surgery resident?). As I'm doing my rotations I'll take a look and see if I can get any clarity.
Just a quick answer to your question though, yeah its a lot, however as you say it entirely depends on how much there was — which differs between men women, children, etc. Some people are able to function nearly normally without much of their small intestine, while others will be very much affected by removing a little bit. It can be difficult to tell before surgery. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A quick review shows that several of those source are poor. We shouldn't be citing a 1907 textbook for anything, nor should we promote a single 20 patient cohort study this much. Nice catch, the small intestine article needs some pruning. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jimbo Wales We have a 2016 textbook that gives a range of lengths of the small intestine of 2.75 to 10.49 m [10]. The length really depends on whether or not the intestines are stretched before measurement and the persons height. The recommendation is thus that after bowel resection the surgeons should refer to the remaining small bowel length rather than the amount removed. At less than 1 m one typically needs parenteral nutrition while less than 2 meters one needs specific medications and a special diet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Doc! I will pass that information along.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James, I'm sorry if this is common knowledge, but how does one measure the length in situ? To me it seems exceedingly difficult to tell how much there is left, in part because you don't know the length of the retroperitoneal parts? I guess you could do it with radiography, but it still seems to be rather ambiguous because the intestines can stretch and bend depending on how much contents they have... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CT post barium swallow. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To compare this to height the tallest men was 2.72M and the shortest women 0.55M (a 5 fold difference) which is similar to the range between longest and shortest small bowel. If one takes the middle of the two bowel length extremes one gets 21.7 feet.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This feels like one of those "how long is a piece of string" questions - which I have seen rationally explained but only with a massive margin for error and by narrowly defining all the terms (string is between x and y width because too thin is a thread and too thick is a rope etc). So it isn't entirely surprising there is a variety of ways to define it seen in wikipedia pages because the sources define it in different ways. I think that's all we're seeing in the first paragraph Jimbo quotes above. If we mix in that there is a massive variety of humans, then we're not going to get an answer which is precise even if the references are accurately sourced in the page, and thus it is going to be hard to determine which source is best to use to standardise the pages. JMWt (talk) 10:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we need a paragraph explaining the difficulties in determining "the One True Length". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
something along those lines would clarifySmall_intestine--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the articles in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doc, you stated, "The length really depends on whether or not the intestines are stretched before measurement and the persons height." That's been my experience as well. I remember, back in 2002, being confused about the length issue; I decided to read a lot of texts on the matter from my local library and then at a library in another state when I visited there and I came to the conclusion that reports on intestinal length really depends. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article on WikiProject Medicine

  • James, Richard (2016). "WikiProject Medicine: Creating Credibility in Consumer Health". Journal of Hospital Librarianship. 16 (4): 344–351. doi:10.1080/15323269.2016.1221284. ISSN 1532-3269.
  • The accessible version is self-archived on the author's website.

This was posted to the Wikipedia and Libraries mailing list. The author requested comment there in that list. I linked that thread to this online discussion because I thought this community here might have its own discussion, as the paper is about WikiProject Medicine. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comments on reading level required for our articles are interesting.
something we should keep in mind per WP:NOTJOURNAL: "A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead (and also maybe the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text."Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: We have an unexplored offer from Content Rules / Translators without Borders, which is a partner at WP:TTF.
A major problem with Simple English Wikipedia is endless squabbling over what constitutes "Simple English". There are a range of standards, like Voice of America's style, Basic English, any controlled vocabulary, or anyone else's promoted manual of style. Some people want 4th grade reading levels while others say 8th grade is fine, but also, no definition is accepted. I do not know how to sort this, but Content Rules has offered to donate a dictionary of medical terms to Wikimedia projects if some things could be negotiated. The dictionary has recommendations for word replacements for general use, and comes with a medical writing guide. Maybe a guide like this is or is not appropriate for either English or Simple English Wikipedia, but at least it is a freely licensed plausibly reputable guide for producing accessible medical content and it is more of a starting point than we have now. I would not want to dictate how anyone has to write, but if anyone wants suggestions of what to consider, a plain-language guide to medical writing from this partner might be useful.
Their guide includes a database dictionary and some writing suggestions. Part of what it would take for them to share it is having a plan to present it which preserves its integrity. They would not want it migrated into Wikimedia projects if it kept their brand on it and it was remixed into chaos, but it also is not easily accessible on their website. A middleground could be bringing parts of it here and linking to their database. More conversation would be necessary and so far this online community does not have point people who can negotiate exchanges like this.
Without a manual of style somewhere I am not sure how to promote standards in Wikipedia's medical content. It is difficult to adopt any standard. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
some missing or extraneous words? after English.,. --Jeremyb (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the Journal of Hospital Librarianship needs an editor.  ;-)
All mistakes in the pre-press version are mine! This was corrected in the final published version.Richardjames444 (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that you caught it. It's so easy to lose a couple of words in a word processing document – an accidental selection, an accidental key press, and everything's gone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bluerasberry, have you talked to Lydia with WMDE/Wikidata about this? She knows quite a lot about these kinds of issues. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have received training from Content Rules regarding simplification and they have done some degree of simplification for us through me. Simplification is very controversial within our community. Attempting to simply often results in a barrage of personal attacks and thus I would not be willing to ask people from Content Rules to become directly involved. We need to get greater support within our own communities that we want this done first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: What should I ask her? Is there any precedent of anyone importing a database glossary of technical terms into a Wikimedia project? Is that what you had in mind that I could ask?
I agree with James that we should not ask any institutional partner to get involved in onwiki policy discussions. Having anyone propose a manual of style would be controversial. Still, without enforcing anything, I wish that we could offer a manual of style if anyone choose to use one. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are discussions about changing Wiktionary into a structured database. It's possible that some of the ideas behind that would be useful for this. Also, if you don't want it on a typical project, then it's possible that it could be posted at outreach:, alongside some other resources for educators and GLAM professionals. Wikidata, of course, imports a lot of things, but they're not exactly a dictionary.
(It makes me sad when we say things that amount to "some of our editors are so badly behaved that we have to keep experts away from them". It may be true, but it makes me sad.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Category:Wikipedia articles that are too technical
and Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable
and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 18#Suggestion: readability test(s) for Wikipedia articles (January 2008)
and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 35#Easy as pi? (July 2008)
—Wavelength (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing simplification here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Phytotherapy to Herbalism

I think the following belong together. Phytotherapy seems to be a very small (mostly pseudoscientific) subset of herbalism. Any thoughts? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two topics are distinct. See Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_48#Phytotherapy.Dialectric (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That does not suggest it is not a minor subset that can be reduced to a paragraph of the herbalism article. As it stands it is a horrible article with lots of low quality MEDRS-non-compliant sources. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Low quality sources can be removed. As long as there are some high quality sources on the subject, there is a basis for a stand-alone article.Dialectric (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring issues at Phytotherapy / Naturopathy

Please see these articles, relating to the term "naturopathic doctor" among other things, not backed by sources. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also of interest Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Afterwriting_reported_by_User:CFCF_.28Result:_.29. Comments appreciated. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

benzodiazepine biosynthesis

Benzodiazepine Structure

send help to fill the section in page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minimobiler (talk • contribs) 14:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Minimobiler: Which article? What section? Create a new section? Based on what source? Please provide links and be more specific. Your post is decidedly not helpful. Also please keep in mind, {{sofixit}}. Boghog (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you thinking of PMID 17584616? It seems that we already have an article on anthramycin which is probably a much better article than benzodiazepine to discuss its biosynthesis. There may be other natural products that also contain the benzodiazepine substructure and their biosynthesis by definition differ. It would be better to state that there are natural products that contain the benzodiazepine substructure in the parent benzodiazepine article and leave the details of the synthesis to the specific natural product pages. Boghog (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add empty sections to articles again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates for the upcoming WPMEDF election

Hey All. We are looking for candidates here [11] Election will likely be latter this fall or spring. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American Medical Association needs eyes

Thank you, Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also issues at Phytotherapy where merge notices are being removed. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
commented at article/talk[12]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback - insomnia article

I'm new to posting, and recently made an update to Insomnia. Could somebody please comment or let me know if this is an appropriate edit?

JSaragossi (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks good. You cited a systematic review, which is a good type of source for information about prevalence, and you accurately reported the contents.
By the way, if you're interested in this subject, then you might want to read about the problem of delayed sleep phase syndrome being misdiagnosed as insomnia. It's the difference between "can't fall asleep before 1:00 a.m." (a problem whose prevalence peaks in late adolescence/early adulthood) and "can't fall asleep, no matter what time it is". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tubal branch of uterine artery

Dear medical experts: I came across the above article and found it (1) unreferenced and (b) not very informative. I added one wikilink, but I know little about anatomy, so perhaps someone here can add a reference or two or better explain what this thing is.—Anne Delong (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

its now reference[13]...in terms of the actual article there is a similar oneTubal_branches_of_ovarian_artery ...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2 discussions at WT:MEDRS

Would be useful to have more voices at

and

-- Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Submission at Articles for Creation

Hello, folks. We have a submission at Articles for Creation that addresses a topic within the scope of your project. We would greatly appreciate your input as to the acceptability of its sources, as well as on the accuracy and readability of the text. The submission is Draft:Distal Hereditary Motor Neuropathy Type V (dHMN V). Comments can be left on the talk page of the draft.

Thank you for any assistance that you can provide. NewYorkActuary (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

might help[14]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move of Intersex surgery to Intersex medical interventions

Following earlier discussion and subsequent changes to the Intersex surgery page, including the WP:SPLIT of some content from Intersex, I have proposed that Intersex surgery move to Intersex medical interventions. Comments are welcome at Talk:Intersex surgery#Requested move 29 October 2016. Trankuility (talk) 06:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A2 milk

A2 brand

I was overzealous here, but how much should we emphasise systematic reviews over narrative reviews? I'm unconvinced myself by the review cited to support this edit. Bondegezou (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

apparent edit war[15]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Systematic reviews are not inherently more reliable than narrative reviews. They each have their strengths and weaknesses. For example, if all else is equal, a systematic review might be better for a purely quantitative statement ("98% Oxygen saturation has better survival than 90%") but worse for a qualitative question ("Patients quit this drug because they hate the side effects"). NB that "all else" is rarely equal, and that the best practice is usually citing multiple sources of multiple types (especially if decent examples of the different types of sources disagree with each other). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"All else" can quite impossibly be equal because the systematic review takes into account far more sources, and a better selection — even for statements such as patients hating the side-effects. That said, a systematic review would not try to answer that unless it was part of or at least related to its original question. A systematic review is only better in so far it answers its specified question, and that it summarizes the conclusions from a large number of sources. I'd like to see a case where a systematic review strongly supports a statement that it didn't set out to find an answer to — otherwise we should be pretty clear that the systematic review is a stronger source nearly all the time. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 08:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming that the systematic review found any sources that met its criteria,[16] that it came to a conclusion, and overall that it was well-performed. You're also assuming that the Wikipedia editor is using the review only for its official conclusions (e.g., rather than an emphatic statement in a background section). I agree with you – but only to the extent that those assumptions are true in a given case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One can tackle qualitative questions systematically. The problem with narrative reviews is that they can be too biased in what material they include: that's true regardless of whether they're covering quant or qual work. Good narrative reviews can pick out answers and issues that systematic reviews have failed to consider, and there are flaws in modern systematic review approaches, but narrative reviews are also much more prone to bias. Bondegezou (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're not allowed to assess the quality of sources WhatamIdoing, per the recently reintroduced: Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#No_peer_review.
And of course you are right… Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFCs on citations templates and the flagging free-to-read sources

See

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll mention here that one of the aspects under debate is whether or not the ability to automatically create links to free identifiers (like is currently the case for article with a PMC identifier) should be extended to other free identifiers, restricted to PMC only, or removed entirely. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll mention here that the RFC doesn't offer the choice to entirely remove the identifiers for links to free content. More eyes needed. --RexxS (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why would that be a choice in the first place? No one has ever proposed that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's something that editors want and I'm astonished that you didn't consider it in your proposals. I believe that it's been the norm for years and my judgement is worth no less than yours. Free content needs no icon to warn readers that the content is free. Reduce the clutter and stick with notifying readers about non-free content. --RexxS (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What reader has ever proposed/desired the removal of free identifiers? In my ~10 years here, I've never once encountered that opinion, nor could I even start to begin to understand how such a removal could be seen as remotely positive. You're certainly free to propose that, but that's a SNOW not going to happen if I ever heard one. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is always a tradeoff between the amount of information displayed and the clarity and simplicity of the display. Some want less clutter, some want more information. Personally I'd rather not have icons at all. Why bother with tiny, hard to visually parse, far from universally understood icons in the first place? If the free status is important, why not indicate free status with clear, unambiguous text instead? --Mark viking (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Who proposed marking links to some types of article when they are non-free (and not marking free content), but marking links to other types of article only when they are free (and not marking non-free content)? Where's the consensus for that 'smart' idea? In my ~9 years here, I've seen plenty of icons/notes indicating non-free content over the years, but this useless clutter indicating free content has only shown up recently. I think you'll find your proposal to mark free doi links, but not non-free ones, is the one that has SNOW chance of acceptance. --RexxS (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First you're conflating many things. The removal of free identifiers means "removing |pmc=" support. That won't pass. Second, "marking links to some types of article when they are non-free (and not marking free content), but marking links to other types of article only when they are free (and not marking non-free content)" is not my idea. It is however, the current way of doing things, and the rationale behind it. It was implemented as the most closest thing to current editorial practice. I disagree with it personally, I think all locks should be allowed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Humpty Dumpty problem: it would help if you were to use English in the same way as everybody else. "The removal of free identifiers" to most folks is going to mean the removal of identifiers for free content, which is what needs to be done. Removing support for the |pmc= parameter is a very different thing and nobody has suggested that, except you, apparently. --RexxS (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one that suggested it. PMC is a free identifier, as are arxiv, SSRN, RFC, and many others. bibcodes, DOIs, etc.. are sometimes free identifiers. If anything, you're the one that should start using English in the same manner as the rest of us. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that RexxS is asking for this:

It doesn't seem too far from what some editors do now with the {{Subscription required}} template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to split testosterone into scientific and medical articles

A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog (talk) 11:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sensory motor amnesia

Please see: Muscle memory#Sensory motor amnesia. (I'd cut the entire section, but an ip editor is probably not the best person to do such things ;-) 86.186.168.226 (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=747189736"