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 75.152.109.249 (talk) at 21:49, 5 March 2017 (→Relevance of secondary sources to chiropractic article: reply to WAID). 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


    Featured article candidates

    β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid

    HMB FAC

    Round 2

    Cross-posted at WT:WikiProject Pharmacology and WT:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology

    The beta-hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid article has been renominated for FA status. at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/archive2. It still needs at least 1 more reviewer. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)

    November 2016 update: The article now has enough medical reviewers; the pharmacology content still needs reviewers though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)

    Third time through the meat grinder

    January 2017 nomination: See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/archive3. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)

    Acne vulgaris FAC

    Acne vulgaris on a very oily skin

    See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acne vulgaris/archive1. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)

    January 2017 nomination: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acne vulgaris/archive2. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
    • need more opinions at above FA's,thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) [Timestamped at 15:59 on 12 Jan 2017 (UTC)]
    @Ozzie10aaaa: I've edited your timestamp to prevent the bot from archiving this thread. This is the reason I've been signing my posts with 3 tildes instead of 4 in this thread. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)
    cool ;-)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk)

    Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide

    Could use more eyes, likewise Nicotinamide riboside

    See: Talk:Nicotinamide_adenine_dinucleotide#new_content -- Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    will keep on both(and commented[1])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Two weeks ago I tried to make a meaningful contribution to the NAD article on Wikipedia. It was labeled as «promotional garbage» by user:Jytdog. The last part of his edit summary was also pure and intended nonsense, and had nothing to do with the content of my original edit.

    Within a couple of hours or so I was «edit warring», guilty of «sock puppetry» and given a free, one week sabbatical from Wikipedia. My original edit, a short passage, is now on display at the NAD talk page.

    Feedback from other users is appreciated. Thank you. Clowns und Kinder (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Competent editor needed

    To merge Draft:Oroantral fistula into Oroantral fistula please. Two broadly similar drafts were submitted to AFC at about the same time (by different editors). One got accepted and the author of the other was advised to merge their draft into the accepted article. However it seems that neither of the original authors are comfortable with this task. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    They both need a lot of work. Have done some. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this still being worked on? The merge still needs to be completed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Relevance of secondary sources to chiropractic article

    Chiropractic spinal adjustment

    Two secondary sources have been removed from the chiropractic article, suggesting in the edit summary that This is not really relevant. Chiros don't do knees. The sources are reviews of manual therapy and exercise for knee arthritis: [2] & [3].

    • It has been noted that 30% of chiropractic visits are for musculoskeletal problems besides the neck and back [4] and that reliable medical organizations, such as the NHS, describe chiropractic treatments as “often used for musculoskeletal conditions (which affect the muscles, bones and joints). These conditions include: [...] pain or problems with hip, knee, ankle and foot joints” [5].
    • It has also been noted that chiropractors employ “a combination of therapies such as spinal manipulation, massage, heat and cold therapies, electrotherapies, the use of mechanical devices, exercise programs, nutritional advice, orthotics, lifestyle modification and patient education.” [6]
    • One of the sources that was removed explicitly mentioned in the introduction how it was relevant to chiropractors: “Management [of knee OA] aims to control pain and reduce disability...Manual therapy is a physical treatment used by physiotherapists, chiropractors, osteopaths and other practitioners to treat musculoskeletal pain and disability, and includes massage therapy, joint mobilisation and manipulation.".[7]

    It is still being argued that the sources are not relevant for the chiropractic article, on the basis that "They relate to the puzzling (to the reader) knee, they are weak evidence and not in any way compelling, and the sources themselves don't even mention chiropractic in the abstract or categories. It gives the storng impression of a standard SCAM tactic of using a positive study on a closely related practice, to imply validity." Further, it has been suggested that "we need reliable independent secondary sources that say chiropractic, (not arbitrary manipulation therapy) has a significant effect on knees that is clearly not down to bias." Any additional comments would be helpful. Here is a link to the talk page discussion. 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:441:A41B:9784:50F1 (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies Jytdog, but can you please show me where I said that PMID 21402325 contains the word chiropractic? In my last bullet point, and at the chiropractic talk page, I quote text from the other one of the two sources that was removed, which is on the same topic, and which does mention chiropractic (as I quoted) in the first paragraph of it's introduction. Here is the full text of the source I have been quoting [8]. Please correct me if I am wrong, or if you have just misunderstood my comment.2001:56A:75B7:9B00:441:A41B:9784:50F1 (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't, but you are arguing that it should be used in the chiropractic article. Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Another relevant source demonstrating that chiropractors treat knees. The Canadian Chiropractic Association has published treatment guidelines regarding manipulation of the knees. The guidelines, last updated in 2009 (prior to the research we're discussing) say: There is a level of B or fair evidence for manipulative therapy of the knee and/or full kinetic chain, and of the ankle and/or foot, combined with multimodal or exercise therapy for knee osteoarthritis, patellofemoral pain syndrome, and ankle inversion sprain. [9] You can also read a summary of the guidelines directly from the CCA's website hereJmg873 (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Two studies showing weak evidence for effect of manipulation therapy for knee pain, which do not mention chiropractic in either their abstracts or their keywords, are being used to argue that chiropractic is effective for knee pain, based on the assertion that chiropractors perform manipulation on knees. To the reader, this will be puzzling: the links go to abstracts which don't mention chiropractic at all, so why are they even in there? To the more knowledgeable reader familiar with alt-med and the techniques used to claim legitimacy, it's a rather obvious bait-and-switch. There is an intersect between chiro and manipulation therapy on knees, and there is weak evidence that manipulation therapy on knees is beneficial, but to use that evidence to support any claim for legitimacy of chiropractic in the absence of any source that explicitly makes that claim is both WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE.
    Inclusion rests on the assumption that manipulation therapy and chiropractic are identical. They are not.
    The Jansen source does not mention the word chiropractic at all, anywhere in the article. The French article says that two of the studies used chiropractic manipulation but (explicitly) does not separate effect by type of manipulation used. Using either of these two studies to support claims for the efficacy of chiropractic seems to me to be a pretty blatant breach of WP:V/WP:NOR. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you still retaining the argument that chiropractors don't treat knees directly? I have some additional research-based stats on extremity adjusting if you are, if not I won't waste the space.
    You're now saying that chiropractic manipulation of the joint is different. Can you cite somewhere that chiropractic manipulation of joints (other than the spine) is different from any other practitioner's joint manipulation?
    To be clear: Is part of your point that because the study which mentioned chiropractic, did not separate manipulation done by chiropractors, from other practitioners, that it should be excluded? I'm not insinuating anything with this question, I'm genuinely asking to confirm that I understand your argument.
    If your primary argument is that one of the two sources doesn't contain mention of chiropractic, I've read the study and agree that it could be [WP:SYN]. As for the source that did contain mention of chiropractic, you stated that two of the studies were studies on chiropractic manipulation. This demonstrates the relevance of this study on the chiropractic page. It means that the studies specifically on chiropractic manipulation of the knee were taken into account during the writing of the conclusion.Jmg873 (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
    Chiropractors are known for back-cracking. Reference to anything else is going to be puzzling to the reader, so needs context. The context in this case is two studies, one of which does not mention chiropractic and one which references it only for a subset of the included data and does not separate effect size out by type of therapy.
    These sources are being used to make claims of efficacy for chiropractic, but they do not substantiate it. Perhaps that's why most chiros stick to back-cracking. Guy (Help!) 18:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Is this a violation of WP:5P4? Or is this a joke I don't get? Either way please stay on topic and avoid personal attacks.
    Perhaps that's why most chiros stick to back-cracking. Most chiropractors don't just stick to back-cracking. This is discussed in a 2012 review on the literature pertaining to manipulative therapy for the lower extremity: According to Christensen et al,4 extremity treatment is the second most frequently applied procedure within the chiropractic profession with 76.1% reportedly using spinal and extremity procedures as compared with 18.7% who limit their practice to the spine only[10]Full Text Which further demonstrates the relevance of research pertaining to extremity adjusting.
    Do you have any contradictory evidence that most chiropractors adjust only the spine? rather than a minority? You continue to ignore repeated requests for substantiation of your statements. That literature review also states There is a level of B for MT of the knee and/or full kinetic chain and of the ankle and/or foot, combined with multimodal or exercise therapy for short-term treatment of knee OA, patellofemoral pain syndrome [...] and a level of C for MT of the knee and/or full kinetic chain and of the ankle and/or foot, combined with multimodal or exercise therapy for long-term treatment of knee OA, patellofemoral pain syndrome..., which we can add to the article as well.Jmg873 (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jmg873: It seems Guy forgot to wikilink Have you stopped beating your wife for you. He was ironically pointing out that you asked an apparently loaded question. Many people have trouble recognizing irony, but it does not constitute any kind of personal attack.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What part of the spine are the knees? Guy (Help!) 11:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    At this point, this is how I see the arguments. I've separated out each argument, with the evidence presented supporting exclusion and inclusion of the articles into the chiropractic page. Please correct me if I miss, or mis-represent something.

    Argument: Chiropractors don't treat knees

    Evidence Supporting exclusion: no evidence cited
    • That is a lie. The edit summary is brief, I expanded my position on Talk in significant detail. The issue is the principle of least astonishment. The text said chiropractic is effective for osteoarthritis, the studies refer to manual therapy for knee pain, which is not what chiros are known for, and neither abstract nor categorisations make any reference to chiropractic, so a reader seeking to verify the claim that chiropractic is effecteive for osteoarthritis will find instead a discussion of a different, albeit related, therapy, for an area of the body most readers won't associate with chiropractic. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidence Supporting inclusion Chiropractors do treat knees [11][12]

    Argument: Chiropractors are known for back cracking. It would be confusing to the reader.

    Evidence supporting exclusion: No evidence cited
    • None needed. Chiropractors are known as back-crackers, that's the public perception. The entirety of the article makes it clear, and the cult was founded on Palmer's notions of the flow of innate in the spine. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidence supporting inclusion: 76.1% of chiropractors use extremity adjusting in their practice [13]
    30% of problems people see chiropractors for are no related to the neck or back. [14]

    Argument: Using the Jansen article would be WP:SYN/WP:OR

    Evidence supporting exclusion: The Jansen study does not have the word chiropractic mentioned [15] and could be considered a violation of WP:SYN/WP:OR
    Evidence supporting inclusion: It is relevant, and not a violation of WP:SYN/WP:OR. A similar discussion was had years ago pertaining to Chiropractic spinal manipulation vs. spinal manipulation. The determination was that spinal manipulation is something that chiropractors perform frequently; it is relevant even if the word "chiropractor" is not mentioned in the article. Talk:Chiropractic/Archive_28#Closing_the_RFC.

    Argument: The source that uses the word chiropractic, doesn't separate effects from the studies done by chiropractors, from the studies that were not.

    Evidence supporting exclusion: 2 of the 4 sources used in the review were done by chiropractors. The study does not separate the results in the abstract or conclusion [16]
    Evidence supporting inclusion: 2/4 studies in the review were on chiropractic manipulation specifically. The study is WP:MEDRS compliant, and relevant for the reasons listed above.
    • But again you miss the point. You want to make a broad claim that chiropractic works for osteoarthritis based on two sources, one of which does not mention chiropractic at all and the other is about manual therapy with, explicitly, no segregation. These would be acceptable sources for the statement that manual therapy shows some signs of effect in knee osteoarthritis, in an article on manual therapy or knee osteoarthritis, but they absolutely do not substantiate the claim that chiropractic is effective for this condition. There's nothing there to distinguish chiropractic joint mobilisation from the reality-based kind, for a start. Chiropractic is founded on the treatment of the nonexistent subluxation complex, and do feel free to provide canonical sources but I see no evidence that this is even claimed to exist anywhere other than the spine. I understand that mixers also engage in garden variety manual therapies, but that does not make them chiropractic therapies. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's this last line of argument that I'm finding unconvincing. 'Chiropractic' is presumably whatever chiropractors are licensed to do/could be sued for malpractice if they do wrong. But you seem to be proposing that even if something is legally within the scope of practice for a chiropractor, and even if most or all chiropractors do it, it still isn't really The One True Chiropractic™ unless they're thinking about innate-subluxation-somethings while they perform the procedure. I'm not buying this story. Also, that narrow definition puts editors in the position of trying to write an article about what actual chiropractors do without including all the things they do (and probably without mentioning anything that some of them do). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe WAID has a point,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing: The bit I'm not buying is the synthesis: "manual therapy is more effective than exercise for those with hip OA" followed by "70% of patients specified back and neck problems as their health problem for which they sought chiropractic care."; therefore some chiropractors may use manual therapy to treat hip/knee OA; therefore chiropractic is effective for hip/knee OA, QED. If a chiropractor stuck a plaster on a paper cut on a patient's hand, would that make chiropractic effective for treating wounds? --RexxS (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If applying sticking plasters were part of their scope of practice (which is beyond my knowledge), and if that were actually an effective treatment (which is not my personal experience), then yes: chiropractors would be effectively treating paper cuts (not all types of wounds).
    In the instant case, I think precision in wording could address your concerns. Rather than "Chiropractic cures everything", it could be phrased as something like "People receiving manual therapy reported reductions in hip and knee pain due to osteoarthritis" (or whatever the exact details are from the sources). That removes the implication that innate-subluxation-whatever is relevant and also removes the idea that chiropractic is the only profession that can do this type of treatment. Do you think you could find a way to phrase that fact in the article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WAID, your comment is logical, but... That is exactly why Guy's objections are so unwarranted, the text that he removed said "A 2011 systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that the addition of manual mobilizations to an exercise program for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis resulted in better pain relief then a supervised exercise program alone and suggested that manual therapists consider adding manual mobilisation to optimise supervised active exercise programs." and "There is silver level evidence that manual therapy is more effective than exercise for the treatment of hip osteoarthritis, however this evidence could be considered to be inconclusive." It was not saying that "chiropractic can cure things", which would be silly anyways because chiropractic is a profession, not a modality. Guy has also removed text saying that cervical mobilization was effective for lateral epicondylitis because it is his opinion that chiropractors don't do the therapies in that review either (mobilization with movement and mills manipulation...fundamental approaches used by chiropractors every day). 75.152.109.249 (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, if I missed anything or you think I was unfair about my representation of anything here, please correct it.Jmg873 (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You missed: the papers do not support the claim. And that is the only bit that matters. One does not mention chirporactic, the other says that *some* but an unknown proportion of inteventions were carried out by chiropractors. Only in the topsy-turvy world of SCAM does this in any way validate the claim that chiropractic is effective for knee pain. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Surgical procedures and instruments: Electrosurgery and Radiofrequency ablation

    RFA- CT scan showing radiofrequency ablation of a liver lesion

    i have been kind of thinking about this for the past year or so. In my view the two articles above are about the same thing and should be merged. The content tries to draw a distinction that electrosurgery is high frequency and RF ablation is medium frequency but i don't think this is true or meaningful. Both involve using instruments with electrodes that need to touch tissue, that run electrical current through tissue. (different from Microwave ablation which transmits energy via an antenna). (While you are thinking about this, what do you all think of Radiofrequency ablation (thyroid)?) Putting notices of this on the relevant talk pages.

    Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Radiofrequency_ablation_(thyroid) has no references and does not exactly follow MEDMOS...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 07:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved that one to Draft:Radiofrequency ablation (thyroid). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think they should be merged, although the underlying technique is the same, the applications that each term is referring to are very different. --WS (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Misleading information on Wikidata

    Quite recently, there were threads here concerning the compiling of information on Wikidata with the property drug or therapy used for treatment (P2176) (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 92 #Wikidata for pneumonia (failed experiment maybe) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 93 #Bot glitch replaced descriptions at Wikidata). In an effort to explain to the editors over at Wikidata the problems caused by creating such broad property as one that has for its description "drug, procedure, or therapy that can be used to treat this medical condition (this isn't a statement about its effectiveness)" - which I regard as an oxymoron - I posted my concerns on the talk page of the property d:Property talk:P2176. As I might have expected, there's now a reply that seeks to justify the use of the property for just about any drug for just about any condition. I regard the current position as both misleading and irresponsible and I've said so. Jytdog commented there earlier, but unless there are others who comment, we'll be left with no change to the status quo. --RexxS (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    more opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    What this example shows is, as ever, how undesirable and misleading "data" is without context and evaluation. Unfortunately more and more information from Wikidata is being imported automatically, without even a consideration of consensus here. (As an example from a different topic area, consider the addition of {{taxonbar}} to organism articles. The editor who adds the template may or may not have reviewed it as it was added, but when extra Wikidata properties are added globally, they certainly won't.) I suspect that only action at quite a high level in the Wikipedia hierarchy can do anything about this creeping expansion. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Anybody want $200?

    If you'd like to do something useful for Wikipedia while earning $200 during March, then please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#.24100 in cash to any editor who can break my record in March. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    thanks WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Biox

    Dear medical experts: Here's an unassessed article about a company that made medical devices. There appear to be lots of sources available for information about the company, and I have added a couple of references and removed some promotional language. However, there is also information about the company's products which would better be improved by someone with medical knowledge.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    maybe merge to Pulse oximetry--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably notable, and if we decide against keeping it as a stand-alone article, then it'd make more sense to merge it to the company that bought it. A mention (and link to the article) in Pulse oximetry would be reasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Sidebar}}

    Hey All We have a new sidebar. Have placed it in the external links section of a couple of articles. One example can be seen here Gout#External_links just below the box linking to media on Commons. Peoples thoughts on placing this in a few articles? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It isn't visible in mobile view. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed the issue, but it still doesn't look entirely satisfactory. Can't really figure out why/how {{Commons category}} shows up, seeing as it is also based off {{side box}} — which seems to be filtered out… Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Shows on mobile but agree the formating is not perfect yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay improved the formating on mobile. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    looks good--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't this a WP:SELFREF issue? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Consensus should be gained in the appropriate manner before something like this is implemented into articles, especially when similar things have proven contentious. Yet: The sidebar was added to Gout and HIV/AIDS here and here; I reverted the additions here and here; they were subsequently re-added here and here. No link to consensus was provided, and the bold, revert, and discuss cycle was shirked. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    No. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. See WP:CON for an explanation of how editing can generate consensus. That's policy and WP:BRD is an essay. If you're that convinced by the importance of essays, you might like to read WP:DRNC. --RexxS (talk) 03:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If a controversial addition is made to an article, then the addition is reverted two days later with a reasonable edit summary, re-adding the addition without consensus is edit warring. That is policy. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you'll find that it's a bit more complicated than that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, as is the history of attempts by proponents of this app to advertise it despite objections and without gaining consensus. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Godsy, Why do you oppose it, and who else opposes it? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Has been discussed here. A request was made to use a sidebar similar to the commons one instead the noticebar, thus the creation of this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pbsouthwood: Aspects of the sidebar have garnered some opposition at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/App#Sidebar. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Godsy The only person I've seen claiming that the addition of the sidebar link is controversial is you. And "the addition is reverted two days later with a reasonable edit summary, re-adding the addition without consensus is edit warring" is complete nonsense. Do you think the folks here can't read WP:EW? An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts. - that's the policy. You reverted an editor's good-faith contribution with no other reason than that you wanted the editor to get consensus before editing. Well, that's no reason, and I'd have restored myself if Doc James hadn't beaten me to it. If you disagree with an edit, you supply cogent reasons, and if every edit had to have consensus before being made, we'd never have made an encyclopedia. No wonder we are losing editors year-on-year if they are faced with that sort of stonewalling. --RexxS (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it does seem unencyclopedic. What direct relation does this link to download an app have to the encyclopedia topic? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Pbsouthwood and RexxS: There has been a large amount of disagreement over how this app should be advertised in articles. An mfd about the banner was closed as "Keep, but not to be inserted into articles without obtaining consensus to do so." Consensus was not gained, yet it is still present at the top of five articles, against consensus at the mfd. Proponents of the app create advertisements for the banner, insert them into articles, and insist on keeping them there without consensus and despite objections (and against consensus in the case of the banner). Now the sidebar has been created, and inserted into articles, despite objection. All I'm asking is that consensus is gained for it[, in the appropriate manner ("Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."; the sidebar template does not comply with the template section, and may also conflict with the what to link section, of the external links guideline; I made similar points in discussions about the banner, e.g. here), especially before a widespread rollout]. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Matthew Ferguson: The app contains a copy of the article that can be accessed offline. In many parts of the world internet access is intermittent or unavailable other than in limited places, and the app seeks to make medical articles permanently available for those people who do not enjoy permanent connections. It fits perfectly well with the WMF vision: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." The app helps our commitment to ensure that "every single human being" has access to our medical information. I see nothing unencyclopedic about that.
    @Godsy: If you have objections to the app and our attempts to increase access to medical knowledge for those who don't have a reliable online connection, let's hear them. All I've heard from you so far is secondhand repetition of other people's opinions. This discreet sidebar box is not the banner and you need to adduce some genuine arguments to support your position, not strawmen and red herrings. "Now the sidebar has been created, and inserted into articles, despite objection" - what objection? Your "get consensus before making an edit" objection? If that's all you can come up with, then it's time you dropped the stick and left the discussion to those who understand what a valid objection is. Please review WP:NOT if you're having a problem in trying to find a reasoned objection - if you can't find "didn't get consensus first", there's probably a reason for that. --RexxS (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But isn't this functionality something that is readily achievable by just downloading a print page version of the article as a document to a device? There is already a link in the mediawiki software that provides the option to create an offline version. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOT starts by telling us "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia". One advantage of our digital encyclopedia is the ability to follow a hyperlink within an article to a related article. In our article HIV/AIDS it's easy to click on the link to Management of HIV/AIDS, and the offline app preserves that functionality. If you took the time to get all 37,492 medical articles printed out (paper or pdf), how feasible do you think it would be to search through those to get to a linked article? --RexxS (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Can just save as PDF, don't need paper. But yes I understand that the app can have working hyperlinks to other offline articles. Remain unconvinced that link to download an app is appropriate for encyclopedia articles, but then this seems to want to go in external links alongside commons links etc. So it's not too intrusive. Shame we can't get rid of the link to a store that wikimedia put in the side bar without consensus. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We need to do more for those who are only partly online. We in the developed world take our connectivity for granted. In much of the developing world internet only works for a few hours a day (regardless of how much money you are willing to spend). You typically do not know what articles you are going to need before hand as it depends on what a person presents with. Offline is key for billions of people which is partly why we have seen more than 100K downloads of this 1.2 Gb app.
    Would like to see a link to the app download in the left-hand column for medical articles. Would fit well besides "Download as PDF" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    NNT graphics

    Way down at the bottom of this long article at ProPublica (which is totally worth the time to read or listen to), there's a chart that shows the Number needed to treat and Number needed to harm for a type of drug. I'm really happy with the way this conveys, at a glance, the value that a treatment does (or doesn't) provide. What do you all think about us creating a similar-ish template that would let us plug in the numbers for a given treatment and condition, and then use that template in the ==Treatment== sections and/or in articles about drugs? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Link does not work for me. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be cool. Would be a nice graphic for the cases were we have evidence to support its creation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You may have better luck with this link instead: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/02/when-evidence-says-no-but-doctors-say-yes/517368/ (it's the same article).
    I read the article in the Atlantic, but did not see any chart of NNT or NNH. I did find a link to this. Is it similar? Cheers,• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We should probably have the template support a caption (which could/should include a source as well as 'these numbers are only for older women' or whatever qualifiers are relevant), but ideally, this information would already be in the article, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Giving guidance about student assignments

    In a previous version of the WikiProject Medicine page you had some information and helpful links on the topic of using student assignments to improve Wikipedia. I couldn't find it anymore now, where is it? Back then I copied your lines of text to the WikiProject Sanitation. Meanwhile, I have improved it a bit (I think). It now looks like this for the WikiProject Sanitation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sanitation#Student_assignments. EvMsmile (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You mean Template:Student? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @EvMsmile: Anyone considering using Wikipedia for student assignments would do well to read through the guidance at outreach:Education. There are a lot of resources available as well at the outreach:Education/Resources page, and I strongly recommend anyone setting up a programme to make use of the meta:Programs & Events Dashboard to help organise the assignments. Means exist for putting organisers in touch with experienced Wikimedians, either locally or online. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, these are all useful links which I will study. However, my question was a bit different: Where on the WikiProject Medicine page are you pointing this option out to educators, i.e. that they can get students to edit Wikipedia articles and that there are prior examples for this? I think it should be highlighted clearly somewhere (it used to be there but got lost when you re-structured the page). Also I remember seeing in a powerpoint presentation some examples of the results achieved by medical students (like one saying "editing Wikipedia articles has helped me to improve my language and clarity when I speak to my patients!"). This kind of stuff should be easily findable, i.e. links to publications talking about how medical students edit Wikipedia articles, at which universities, which courses and how successful was it. I know it's available somewhere but does not seem easily accessible from the WikiProject Medicine page which is a pity.EvMsmile (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Current state of medical outreach to schools

    Wiki school outreach started in 2011. By around 2012 there was Wikipedia:Education noticeboard and outreach:Education/Resources, which many Wikipedians came to know. Now that education board is not used, and there is no education discussion forum on English Wikipedia. At Outreach wiki there is no discussion of English language programs, and so far as I know, that content has never been developed with volunteer community input and only ever has been for use by WMF staff in their own paid staff outreach outside the English-speaking world. Many of these resources are unsorted and have not been managed by anyone in particular, ever.

    The Wiki Education Foundation has been providing tools for education outreach in the US and Canada since 2014. Notably, they developed the meta:Programs & Events Dashboard, which I think is an essential tool for institutional partnerships of any kind from schools to any sort of Wiki editing meetup to museum partnerships. As of January 2017 in the dashboard there has been a training module available to the public for medical topics - see it at Editing Medical Topics. At this point Wiki Edu has managed several thousand classes with a high success rate and centralized research of outcomes, so I would suggest looking to them for a model of how to do things.

    Here are some points to consider -

    • I second RexxS when he says "I strongly recommend anyone setting up a programme to make use of the meta:Programs & Events Dashboard". See this program from 2015 for an example of a medical school group of students editing together. Personally, I do not think that I would give support to any program which did not use this tool just because it prevents so many problems.
    • As EvMsmile says, "I know it's available somewhere but does not seem easily accessible" is true for some of our resources
    • It is challenging in the wiki community to mark things as deprecated. Personally I think that the education noticeboard should be redesigned to be relevant for new uses and that English Wikipedia should not refer routinely refer to the outreach wiki's out of date materials, but I would need review from a few people to make sweeping changes.
    • To start, I made an update to the Wiki Project Medicine partner banner at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Partners. For some months the project has highlighted Cancer Research UK and Cochrane. Because of many partnerships and scarce real estate, I think that "partners" could be taken as a general concept and instead include categories, like "schools", "expert organizations", or whatever else.

    Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    the points you raise seem reasonable--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd add intentional communication/collaboration with related and overlapping WikiProjects (Anatomy, Nursing, Pharmacology, Psychology, et al.). The boundaries between academic disciplines can be very blurry on Wikipedia. Unless we recognize that, we could overlook many programs editing articles that fall within this project's scope. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
    credit    › 13:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    People who are interested in this will probably be interested in the video of yesterday's talk by Amin Azzam on his student-editing program at UCSF. Also, I'd recommend it to anyone who'd like a little extra boost. It's one of the most engaging presentations on why Wikipedia matters, and how much improving even one page matters, that I've seen. I think it's well worth the 46 minutes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The Azzam video is essential viewing for new and experienced WPMED editors. Inspiring. Excellent history and guide through the eyes of med students and faculty. The text editing software, Acrolinx, looks useful. Can we get a donated beta version to install via Preferences and test drive here? --Zefr (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging User:Ocaasi and User:Sadads: Do you think that TWL's scope could stretch as far as software that tells you whether you've written something understandable? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Access Help

    Any chance someone has access to this review [17]? If so, would someone please email me a copy (PDF, if possible). Thank you! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, no access. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for trying, James. Anyone else?? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't get access either. It looks like it's not in the common set of journals to say the least, and with an impact factor around 0.5, I'd say there's probably similar information somewhere in more accessible sources. You'd probably need someone with a subscription to this exact organization to get the pdf as opposed to general university access. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I just wanted to second that. I also have access to most journals through a research university and don't have access to that journal. It looks like many of their journals are in Italian, so maybe someone at an Italian university would have access? Unfortunately I don't know anyone who fits the bill to ask. Good luck! Ajpolino (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you tried sending an e-mail message to the author? The few times I've tried it, they've usually been remarkably helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I haven't tried that. I didn't think they would give me access but I suppose it's worth a try. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Malicious(?) edits on Lactobacillus

    Please review these 2 edits. I believe they are malicious. Thanks. Gzuufy (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think they are malicious, but merely misguided edits from a new editor. I've restored the text and references, as I believe they are relevant to an understanding of the topic. I've dropped a note on the editors' talk page explaining as best I can. --RexxS (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    [18]new editors do that sometimes--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Move of Female genital prolapse article

    Opinions on the following move issue would be greatly appreciated: Talk:Pelvic Organ Prolapse#Move of article. Permalink here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Alkaline diet – sources

    Opinions are needed at Talk:Alkaline diet § Ask Doctor K. about the reliability of different sources for general information about the topic of the alkaline diet – specifically this article by Anthony L. Komaroff and this article from Quackwatch. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    MFD discussion. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Sidebar. QuackGuru (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    more opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikidata again

    I just started noticing footnotes appearing in template:Infobox_gene like this one at Bruton's tyrosine kinase: "Drugs that physically interact with Bruton tyrosine kinase view/edit references on wikidata" How did this happen? (see discussion above Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Misleading_information_on_Wikidata and discussions linked there) This is some kind of whackamole. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    apparently few (if any)editors answer/respond at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Medicine--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Process of becoming allergic to something?

    Is there an article that covers the process of becoming allergic to something (by developing antibodies in response to a toxin such as beestings or Botox)? I'd like to link it from Management_of_cerebral_palsy#Medication, because one of the side effects of prolonged botulin toxin use is possible allergy. I tried looking up the allergy page, but couldn't find a clearly-written section on the mechanisms behind allergy. Thanks for any help! --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You may be looking for Sensitization (immunology). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Write up of the Cochrane Wikipedia partnership

    [19] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    great collaboration!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Steven M. Paul

    just created this. i have a bit of hero-worship so please review for NPOV. this guy is one of the drivers of the current flowering of interest in discovering CNS drugs at biotech/pharma/VC. thx Jytdog (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    was inspired by the creation by someone else of Phil Skolnick, who collaborated with Paul at NIMH. Jytdog (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Article cleanup needed on two neurology-related articles

    I encountered Chronic Effects of Neurotrauma Consortium and David Xavier Cifu. The article might have been edited by editors closely related to the subjects, like Dcifu. I hope those around here can look at the articles and trim down or copyedit the articles. --George Ho (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    will look (Chronic_Effects_of_Neurotrauma_Consortium)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:UNDUE at Anterior cruciate ligament?

    Knee diagram/Anterior cruciate ligament(left side)

    In amongst some useful information there is a lot of what looks like rubbish being inserted by what appears to be a WP:SPA.

    "Arthrometry is considered the most reliable technique of laximetry. The medical devices using arthrometry are called arthrometers and are used to put the Anterior Cruciate Ligament under stress in a controlled manner (this was not always the case as the first arthrometers required the user to use his own strength to run the tests). Over time, tests progressively evolved from static tests (single force applied on the tibia) to dynamic tests which are now considered much more precise (several forces applied on the tibia). The reason to this change is that dynamic tests allows the drawing of the ACL's stiffness curve which is a biomechanical parameter of knee ligaments. It is highly correlated with the clinical symptoms of instability. It is more accurate than laxity which is a numerical value without mechanical significance.[1]"
    1. ^ Rohman, Eric M.; Macalena, Jeffrey A. (2016-03-16). "Anterior cruciate ligament assessment using arthrometry and stress imaging". Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine. 9 (2): 130–138. doi:10.1007/s12178-016-9331-1. ISSN 1935-973X. PMC 4896874. PMID 26984335.

    Perhaps this is cutting edge but this is not something I have ever heard of. Seeking some advice from other editors. Is this cutting edge or WP:UNDUE to be placed on Anterior cruciate ligament? The pseudoscience gobbledegook and palindromic tautologous structure are what worry me most ("which is a biomechanical parameter of knee ligaments. It is highly correlated with the clinical symptoms of instability") Thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps a more general form of your question is, "Is cutting edge UNDUE?" (assuming that it's actually cutting edge, which is something that someone else will have to comment on). I think that the answer might be that it depends upon context – what else is in the article and where it's placed.
    I don't might the effort to explain things in plain English. But overall, I think it needs some copyediting. For example, I'd change the bit about "this was not always the case" to a plain statement of fact about the contrast between different device models over time: "Early arthrometers were mechanical devices operated by a person's own strength; some newer ones are electrical" (or whatever the actual facts boil down to). Is that a helpful approach to the more stylistic part of your question? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It does sound quite a lot like an advertisement. From my own experience laximetry is not common at all, and the being absolutely accurate (or even reliable ) isn't than important.
    Whether a knee is operated on depends on a number of factors, of which the exact degree of laxity seems arbitrary and of minor importance. The degree of symptoms and their severity seem far more relevant, especially considering the newer meta-analyses which show how ACL-reconstruction is no more effective than placebo.
    Now this is off the top of my head, and I could have something mixed up, but it seems like a good idea to check who wrote this and look into whether it actually belongs. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    They are trying to add the same content across 4 articles. Belongs some at ACL injury but not everywhere else.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Disease-modifying treatment?

    I came across this concept in the Management of MS article, and I was hoping to link to an article about the general concept in Management of cerebral palsy, because I found a good source saying that CP treatment is usually per-symptom, not disease-modifying. Is there a Wikipedia article which covers the concept of a disease-modifying treatment? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Relates to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, I'm not aware of any article with a broader scope. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! That article implies, without citations, that while 'disease-modifying' originated with antirheumatic treatment, drugs have been used as disease-modifying for other conditions (which gels with the Management of MS article). I guess I was hoping for a broader article, like the uncited stub that Citizendium has that I could link to as an explanation. Because there's a null result with CP (treatments modify the symptoms, not the underlying lesions), it's perhaps not as important, but d'you think it's worth creating a red link in the article in hopefulness? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Submission at Articles for Creation

    Hello, folks. We have a submission at Articles for Creation that is a biography of a now-deceased doctor. The subject's primary claim to notability is being a co-author of a 1943 paper on child-birthing techniques. My review of the sources suggests that this paper had no significant impact in the field, but it would be helpful to get some better-informed opinions on the matter. The draft is Draft:Louis A. Perrotta. The discussion is taking place on the draft's Talk page. Thank you for any assistance that you can provide. NewYorkActuary (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I tend to ignore specific notability criteria and just go by the general ones. Are there sources that specifically discuss him and feature him? If the 1973 New York Magazine article carries a bit about him that is enough for me. However if they only give his name and say he worked there and then only discuss the discovery then it isnt' enough — it has to be about him. The rest of the article needs trimming, and it may be that this will be a 3-4 paragraph article, but that should be fine — as long as it doesn't just list his various memberships like it does now (no-one reasonably cares about that). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Although full discussion of the draft will be taking place on the draft's Talk page, I'll briefly respond to one of your questions here. The 1973 article in New York is being used in the draft only to source that fact that Pelham Bay General Hospital exists, was founded in 1960, and has a certain number of beds. It doesn't mention the subject at all. NewYorkActuary (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Improperly sourced medical claims, or are they?

    At this edit to Worry, User:59.99.39.8 claims that their addition has nothing to do with WP:MEDRS. I've cut out the section twice and been reverted and I would now like to call for some additional attention from editors who may be better than I am at dealing with these sorts of situations. Tell me if I'm wrong or help me explain what needs to be done. Thanks. jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 15:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    per [20] should be MEDRS[21](have edited)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem pages, vibration therapy again

    Last month you guys took a good look at a page which was subsequently deleted: Cycloidal vibration therapy, particularly @RexxS: who looked at all the citations for MEDRS. Unfortunately there looks like a whole industry of pages out there usually being edited by the same editors, and I would appreciate if someone has the time to look at these two: Galileo (vibration training) (incidentally one of the editor's IP (217.92.49.4) is novotecmedical.de which you can probably guess what they make). And Whole body vibration which is again being edited by a bunch of single issue editors, like Samvesey, Rrawer, Belsius (to whom @DGG: has kindly given a final warning) and that same IP editor from the Galileo page. seems to me they could all be the same editor, or working as a team but i've no idea how you would find that out without looking into their accounts. I expect if you look through their edit histories there are more pages like this. Anyway, I appreciate it's a drag but if someone can look at these and check i'm not being paranoid, and see if these pages are giant adverts again, hopefully get rid of them, I would really appreciate your help. As an aside can you let me know if it's ok to bring things here to be checked for MEDRS or is there an piece of software I can use to save you having to check that aspect? I have no medical background although I have a BSc degree. Many thanks Mramoeba (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for following up on this.
    I'm going to guess that there's some demand for an article about the idea of vibration as a weight-loss or exercise tool. Sometimes, creating a half-decent article reduces spam. It could start with the Battle Creek Health Builder, which seems to be the original model, and progress up to the modern versions. What do you all think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree would be good to merge to one good overview article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure there is research out there that shows it doesn't work. I'll see if I can find anything that we can base a broad scope article off. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 02:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? I've found a systematic review on a possible utility of whole body vibration with cerebral palsy through the PubMed search template: Saquetto, M; Carvalho, V; Silva, C; Conceição, C; Gomes-Neto, M (June 2015). "The effects of whole body vibration on mobility and balance in children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review with meta-analysis". Journal of musculoskeletal & neuronal interactions. 15 (2): 137–144. PMC 5133716. PMID 26032205. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    impact factor?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    1.60, despite being open access.  :/ --122.108.141.214 (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    We have a Cochrane review here[22]. Lots of sources so definitely enough for an article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Efficacy depends upon the condition. It could be effective for certain sub-types of CP without being effective for (e.g.,) weight loss or frailty syndrome. A well-written article will point out both the nonsense ("Buy this belly-vibrating machine to lose weight without diet or exercise! Only $39.95 if you act now!") and the sense.
    Is everyone okay with Vibration therapy for the main article name? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Or more likely, more effective for those at more severe GMFCS levels (who are also more likely to have bone density issues) than those at milder levels - although the article doesn't say much about the variance in CP. I've currently got WBV in the optimistic 'other' section of the CP management article, rather than the 'alt med' section. :/ --122.108.141.214 (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Phalloplasty merge

    There is longstanding proposal to merge from No-touch surgical technique for penile prosthesis implantation to Phalloplasty which has some disagreement and could do with some expert eyes. Contributions welcome at Talk:Phalloplasty#Merger proposal. Klbrain (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked around a bit, and I've gathered that implanting a penile prosthesis is most commonly performed as a treatment for erectile dysfunction on cisgendered males (as contrasted with bottom surgery on transsexuals), and that sources talking about phalloplasty are almost always talking about bottom surgery on trans men. Both of the Wikipedia articles seem to conform to this distinction. I'm therefore dubious about this merge: it appears that some trans men may have prostheses inserted, but the insertion itself comes after the phalloplasty, rather than as part of it. But perhaps someone else knows more about this, and could share an opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    "efficacy" section for drug?

    Thoughts here please: Talk:Nivolumab#Efficacy Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    more opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sagliker Syndrome

    Is this a real condition, and if so, is it notable enough for a wiki article? (It doesn't currently have one).

    There are a lot of articles in various medical journals describing it, supposedly it involves "uglification of the face" resulting from renal failure and hyperthyroidism. All of the articles are written in a rather disjointed (almost word salad-like) manner, though this could be because of the authors not being native English speakers; it seems only Turks have written about this topic.

    I'm wondering if it's real or if it's some kind of elaborate hoax (like cello scrotum). Is there anyone here who can verify that? FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    [23][24][25]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=768801918"