Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 113

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 110 Archive 111 Archive 112 Archive 113 Archive 114 Archive 115 → Archive 120

Health care ratings tagged as medical expert required, but that seems a misuse of the tag

The tag says " The specific problem is: Neutrality of the article concerning the financial incentives linked to funding qualifications of healthcare institutes based on greater positive ratings."

I don't think the tag is appropriate, but as I've already been struggling to explain to this editor that adding NPOV tags without specifics is a bad idea (please do see if you can make sense of Talk:Steven Emerson#Consistent total-reversion by a particular ECU . I'm not a medical expert, I'm not going to touch this one! Doug Weller talk 08:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

i worked it over. Yes the tag was bogus. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
It's my experience that many of these tags have been placed inappropriately, and that almost none of them result in any practical improvements to an article. For example, Criticism of fast food#Food poisoning risk doesn't need an expert, and it's been patiently waiting for someone to fix it for more than five years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and it's been suffering from {{POV}} for six years. But we have it easy: there's an article in Category:Articles needing expert attention from March 2006 for the experts at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing to sort out. --RexxS (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Although, I just spotted Caplan's syndrome ... --RexxS (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I pulled the tag off that one: the article looks reasonable at a first glance, and there's no way to know what the tagger wanted.
A lot of Category:Medicine articles needing expert attention probably needs the same treatment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Young blood transfusion 2

This page could use the attention of experienced medical editors. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Not only is the article debate a mess, but the topic of young blood transfusion itself is. Natureium (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Carolina Reaper

There is a disagreement regarding this set of edits [1] to article as per the discussion: [2] as to whether or not MEDRS applies to the case/claims. Falconjh (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

PubMed reviews are always a good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
This is an interesting dispute for medical editors and WP content because the topic concerns ingestion of a particularly hot (high capsaicin content) chili pepper that resulted in hospitalization of the consumer experiencing "thunderclap" headaches, concurrent with vasospasm of major intracerebral arteries, shown in CT images here as a single BMJ case report. Dispute issues: 1) the pepper is among the hottest known chilis, raising its profile about what might happen in chili-eating contests, but the actual mechanism of arterial spasm is unknown and contrary to what one might expect of capsaicin as a vasodilator, 2) one person eating it experienced a severe medical emergency, 3) which generated news hype and an entry in the Carolina Reaper article of a section entitled, "Health effects" here, 4) Talk page consensus among non-medical editors is that this one case, sensationalized news story is article-worthy, ignoring OR (inferred by the defending editors insisting this one event is encyclopedic), NOTNEWS, RECENTISM, notability and weight, WP:V, MEDRS confirmation, etc. --Zefr (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The key point of the issue is the inference that eating a chilli pepper caused reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome. The plural of anecdote is not data, and a single incident is certainly far too little for it to imply a medical fact. If the article can dispassionately summarise the actual facts (a man ate a very hot chilli pepper in a contest; a few days later he was hospitalised with thunderclap headaches; the neurologists eventually diagnosed RCVS, "probably as a result of eating the chilli"; this was sensationally reported in the popular press), then an argument can be made that it's sufficiently of interest to merit mention in the article. But I find it very difficult to find a form of words that doesn't leave the reader with the impression that eating a chilli caused RCVS, for which there is no significant medical evidence as far as I can see. In fact, the active chemicals are normally considered vasodilators, so any suggestion of causality must be very questionable. --RexxS (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Note that despite its name (reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome), our article states that the condition can be caused by vasodilation as well as vasoconstriction. Looie496 (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Indeed it does, although it never mentions the word 'vasodilation'. But the actual sources it cites are not so certain. The first source,pmid:25138149, is clear that the symptoms are of vasoconstriction, and that "Many conditions and exposures have been linked to RCVS, including vasoactive drugs ...". The other source is equally clear that "The pathophysiology of reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome is unknown." I still think we're better off not giving the impression that there's any respectable evidence that eating a chilli can cause RCVS. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Nice writeup on editing to Circadian rhythm and Circadian clock in journal

Was cited in the signpost at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2018-05-24/Recent_research. Mentions @Looie496:.

  • Benjakob, O; Aviram, R (June 2018). "A Clockwork Wikipedia: From a Broad Perspective to a Case Study". Journal of Biological Rhythms. 33 (3): 233–244. doi:10.1177/0748730418768120. PMID 29665713. Open access icon Published April 17, 2018.

-- Jytdog (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The authors of the paper were interested in feedback here. Boghog (talk) 07:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
They really only mentioned me because my identity is public knowledge. My activities in this article have pretty much been confined to maintaining it. Looie496 (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
In my view maintaining pages is vital work. And one of the things that the paper focused on, was what a good job you all have done over time, updating the article as our knowledge of these systems has grown. It is so great that you all have done that, and also great that it was recognized by the authors of the paper. So thanks for that work! Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
And I will add, that this is a particular ax of mine. In my view WMF marketing people generally, especially with regard to outreach, puts way too much emphasis on new page creation and not enough on maintenance, which is SO IMPORTANT but gets none of glamour that people put on new pages. It is one reason I am delighted that this paper a) focused on maintenance and b) found us not wanting. (We got lucky on the latter, as there are topics where we would be found very wanting, if anybody analyzed them this way.) Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, you don't see these articles pop up on google news... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
This paper unfortunately contains very sad news about a key editor in that area. I'm updating the relevant pages now.[3] WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I actually contacted arbcom about that before i posted anything as it is an OUTING thing but they said it is fine. I still wasn't going to mention it. But i am glad you did. Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata now showing more "appropriately" in watchlists

Change on Wikidata
Wikidata showing up in the watchlist on EN WP

The way changes to Wikidata show up in your watchlist on English Wikipedia has recently been improved. Previously if a Wikidata property was used within a Wikipedia page any change to any property in the entire item on Wikidata would create a line in your watchlist.

Now only if changes occur to that specific property used (or the aliases) will a line appear in your watch list. In my opinion this is a significant step forwards so congrats to the Wikidata team. I have requested the option not to show changes to "aliases". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

very good change!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Still no way to tell, in that image, if the edit is constructive or not. Having to go to a different site with a different UI to figure out whether the infobox has been made inaccurate, or vandalized, is far from ideal. To me, it's against the spirit of this wiki, where changes that are made to the article are recorded here. Outriggr (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, you have to change the default of OFF for "Show Wikidata edits in your watchlist" at Preferences, Watchlist. I'd bet very, very few normal editors have that turned on - I certainly didn't. I've now turned it on, but with a watchlist of over 24k articles, I'm rather dreading the result. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
There are still improvements needed. It still shows some stuff it shouldn't. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, but it's better than it was. I'm working on our templates and Lua modules to minimise the number of different items that an article reads from Wikidata, which will allow the watchlist to be more specific. We also have very good relations with the folks doing development on this part of the MediaWiki software, and I'm optimistic that further improvements are possible in the near future. --RexxS (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Just picked up my first bit of WD vandalism via this new watchlist.[4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
therefore it is useful--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Monomelic amyotrophy

I have completely revised Monomelic amyotrophy in my sandbox:

revised Monomelic amyotrophy.

In about 36 hours I'll replace the old page with my revision, as the new page -- and duck. In the meantime, I appreciate your feedback either on the talk page Talk:MMA Revised or alternately MY talk page User_talk:GeeBee60.

Thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

commented at user/talk--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I've placed a Peer Review request. I think the article is good, in part because it has been further edited by 4 experienced editors. My dilemma is that I haven't figured out how best to cut and paste the revision from my sandbox (see above) without loosing all the history attributions of the work of the other editors. GeeBee60 (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I think you might want to talk to an admin about a WP:HISTMERGE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks User talk:WhatamIdoing. I posted a summary and request for this in the Teahouse. Maybe not the right place, but it will at least break up their routine.

peer review needed

Wikipedia:Peer review/Monomelic amyotrophy/archive1 have done a few edits as well, needs someone else to look at it, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Criticisms of medicine

This article/essay came up in the new pages queue. Thoughts? Natureium (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I smell a sock. Hm. This will take some looking into. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah and it's not a real topic (too vague/general for RS) - the article is full of WP:OR/WP:SYN; needs deleting. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree it's quite vague.. it seems like all the subheadings would really be better as their own pages (with better wording of course). For instance, he included a "Scandals" heading and included a handful of scandals, but if we had a "Scandals in medicine" article we could populate it with millions of bytes of information. How did they choose those specific examples? It reads more like an essay because the examples are seemingly arbitrary. The sources are pretty good, it looks like he's interfaced about this article with many members of this WP, as evident through his talk page. I don't think deletion is in order until we figure out which direction to take the article in. I also think each section needs to have a "main article" to direct to if they are going to remain brief. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
There's some good material here. I'm not certain it all fits together under that WP:FORKy title. Better to integrate this content into other articles, I'd've thought. Bondegezou (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
The article is unfortunately all over the place. It also fails to recognize that there is no such thing as "mainstream medicine", but only "medicine". Carl Fredrik talk 15:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
That's one POV, and it is not universally shared. And you know, there is actually value in being able to differentiate between different types of legally regulated behavior, e.g., the kind that involves setting broken bones vs. the kind that involves physicians prescribing cough syrup for a cold. I'm not sure what that POV calls prescribing useless stuff, but the law calls it "practicing medicine". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The page was renamed, so i have fixed the header. It was deleted per this AFD. That decision was overturned at DRV, here. There is now another AFD running. here. Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Electrotherapy - Medical device problem - electricity or EMR in medicine

SIS Electromagnetic therapy

This will not interest folks mostly interested in drugs, but we have a bit of a problem with our article structures about use of electrical or electromagnetic radiation (EMR) used therapeutically (this is not getting into the whole imaging thing)

There are multiple branchings. Electricity or EMR can be used to stimulate or ablate, for therapeutic purposes.

We have (listed roughly from most general to most specific)

Going down the stimulation with electricity pathway
going down the stimulation or other "therapy" with EMR pathway.
ablation with electricity
ablation with EMR
mess around Hyperthermia aka Heat therapy (two articles on the same thing?)

I am hanging my head over this thicket. This is not even all of it.

But to focus, what should we do with Electrotherapy? Jytdog (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC) (fixed "EMF" thing without redacting Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC))

Could I ask, please, for you to check what abbreviations you're using above, because I'm finding it confusing. EMF is 'electromotive force', i.e. voltage, which implies moving electrons through the body. EMR is 'electomagnetic radiation', which implies bombarding the body with photons of some wavelength. Magnetism is a different phenomenon again. Lasers won't be based on EMF, for example, nor is magnetic stimulation EMR. If the articles are that confused, they need taking to AfD. --RexxS (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure EMF is being used to mean "electromagnetic fields". Looie496 (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Which would add to the confusion as EMF would then be synonymous with EMR, and if so, then Electrosurgery, for example, wouldn't fit as it relies on an electric current, not an electromagnetic field. There is a huge difference in the mechanisms. But I don't suppose that worries the quacks who are looking for a novelty cure for everything. How long before mesmerism makes a comeback? --RexxS (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
i made it consistent, without redaction to avoid clutter.Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC))
I think I can resolve one of the smaller questions: Heat stroke is a type of Hyperthermia. The proper subject of the Hyperthermia article is a potentially fatal medical condition, not the treatment category that sometimes uses the same name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
good idea, more concise--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Was the article just moved or has it always been titled that way? It seems fine how it is now. Hyperthermia is a condition and heat therapy is a treatment. Natureium (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Now I think Jytdog may have meant to link to Hyperthermia therapy instead of Hyperthermia. As written, Hyperthermia therapy and Heat therapy are 2 different things. Hyperthermia therapy uses excessive heat to induce cell death, whereas heat therapy is using warmth to sooth sore muscles... or something like that. Natureium (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I merged magnetic hyperthermia into Hyperthermia therapy since it's been over a year since it was proposed and no one has given a good argument not to. Natureium (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the thoughts and work everybody! Quite a tangle, right? What should we do with Electrotherapy? Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
How about a broad-concept article? We could keep the history section by moving it to History of electrotherapy. Little pob (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I would first suggest removing the Muscle stimulation and Cancer treatment sections, as well everything from the Modern use up to, but not including, the Effectiveness for particular indications section. Those are stuffed full of biomedical claims without a MEDRS source, and in many cases without any source at all. Next rewrite the lead to accurately summarise the lack of evidence for any significant effects at all.
Then have a competition to find the worst bit of woo in the present version of the article and preserve it in formaldehyde somewhere on the talk page as a grisly reminder of the amount of complete bollocks there was in the article. My current favourite is "The free-radical (unpaired electron) containing active-site of enzyme Ribonucleotide Reductase, RnR—which controls the rate-limiting step in the synthesis of DNA—can be disabled by a stream of passing electrons." --RexxS (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a meta-editing, structural element to my question about Electrotherapy... i put that at the top because as near as I can tell, it is the closest thing we have to a "head" article in Wikipedia about "therapeutic use of electricity and EMR". (not even saying "medical use of electricity and EMR" because then we would have to pull in all the imaging). Should it just be a sort of disambig page and outline for the rest of our content about these things? Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
btw I went and looked at MESH headers on this stuff hoping I would use them as a guide... but they are woefully messy. I was going to present all that mess but it would have been just another bewildering pile for people to sort thru. Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Some sort of "Ways people use (and have used) electricity to treat diseases" articles could be encyclopedic. I'm not sure that would be called "electrotherapy", since presumably that article would include pacemakers and deep brain stimulation and defibrillators. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Honourable Mention

Seems that we've been noticed. http://www.cancernetwork.com/news/misinformation-rampant-among-cancer-patients LeadSongDog come howl! 17:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, its a good mention, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
*sigh* At least some people think that Wikipedia is somewhat reliable for medical information. (Thank you for posting the link, LeadSongDog.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Calcification

Cardiovascular calcification

Just came across the article calcification and was shocked at what a giant mess it is...definitely needs a lot of improvement. Every morning (there's a halo...) 13:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems like it used to be alright, albeit short. Oldid here. Maybe restore to this version and work from here? BazinD (talk · contribs) seems to have done some copyvio and then added the current content after being reverted. --Treetear (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
That lead! :O Natureium (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Permalink to that version, for those interested. --Treetear (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
will look[5]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

FA

Seppi's page is on the front page today. Congrats! Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

awesome!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Great to see med stuff on the front page... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I was out of town last week. Glad to see it went on the main page without issue. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Another textbook copy and pasting from Wikipedia

Per Talk:Akathisia#Copyright_issues

This case is interesting as the book is published by Academic Press / Elsevier in 2010. There was an effort to use the book as a reference to support the text. But we had the text first and it had changed over time on Wikipedia.

Found a few spots of copy and pasting. Have not looked at further articles this section may have lifted from. Book in question:

Encyclopedia of movement disorders (1st ed.). Oxford, UK: Academic Press. 2010. ISBN 9780123741059. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

And here it appears Cambridge University Press is copy and pasting from Wikipedia.
Talk:Alcohol_intoxication#Copy_and_paste
Zeller, Scott L.; Nordstrom, Kimberly D.; Wilson, Michael P. (2017). The Diagnosis and Management of Agitation. Cambridge University Press. p. 35. ISBN 9781107148123.
This one is notable as they are the oldest publisher in the world. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
See if you can get the primary author of the article to contact the publisher about copyright violations (assuming the primary author wrote most of the article content which was plagiarized - that author would be the copyright holder and would have the power/right to file a DMCA takedown notice and/or initiate legal action). When I did that for the plagiarized material from the amphetamine article that was republished without attribution in an OMICS journal, the authors and publisher were extremely responsive and rapidly corrected the copyright violation by adding the necessary attribution. In the case of the textbook, they'll probably have to republish a revised edition. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I can copy/paste the email here which I sent the OMICS journal staff about the copyvio in the event it'd help facilitate a correction to the textbook and address this issue. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Really Diabetes is risk factor for Acute cerebrovascular disease (stroke)?

I am medical doctor , a diabetes consultant . I and all doctors believe diabetes is risk factor for stroke . But recently I observed usa government statistics ….i recognized that diabetes is not risk factor for stroke. I want to start discussion in this subject to confirm the fact.

The above links from government of usa health statistics. To get the answer to my question we have to get answer for following questions

  1. IN one lack non-diabetic persons how much percent suffered with Stroke?
  2. IN one lack diabetic persons(Primary or secondary) how much percent suffered with Stroke?

The above 2 links can give answers to these questiongs
First link confirms the follows :

  1. Total hospital admissions for all diseases 32,371,800 ,
  2. Total hospital stays for diabetes 6,290,000 .
  3. Stroke diagnosis in these diabetic population is 153,800 (2.4%)

Second link confirms the follows :

  1. Total hospital admissions for all diseases 29,970,600
  2. Stroke diagnosis in this total hospital stays 892,300 (2.97%)

The statistics from usa government records. No chance to get errors. First link from 2004 december 2004 , 2nd link form 2005 …only just few months defference .
Diabetes reduces the risk of stroke ?
We recognize the point risk of chance to getting stroke….it is not releted to year of publication.
We can get same results in following 2018 links

(Subrahmanya preethamm (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC))

Is it not simply that diabetics are admitted to the hospital more often for non-stroke? Even if diabetics had the same risk of stroke, but increased risk of other diseases the data would show fewer strokes as a % of cause for hospitalization.
This says nothing about the increased or decreased risk of having a stroke, just that diabetics visit the hospital more often for reasons unrelated to stroke.
Put differently, there is nothing to indicate that one person could not account for 2+ discharges in that data — hence it can't answer your question. Carl Fredrik talk 13:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
You're also not comparing like-for-like cohorts. Since diabetes has a negative impact on life expectancy (something which isn't in dispute), and stroke primarily affects older people, than statistically there are fewer diabetics reaching the age when the risk of stroke becomes a major issue. By the same misuse of statistics, one can equally well prove that driving a motorcycle on the freeway while drunk statistically reduces your risk of developing dementia. This kind of thing is why we rely exclusively on peer-reviewed secondary sources for Wikipedia's medical content and don't engage in our own original research or analysis of data. ‑ Iridescent 14:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I compared the risk of Stroke in diabetic and general hospital stays. I given two links .First link confirms percentage of hospitals stays for stroke in diabetic population (2.4%). Second link confirms percentage of hospital stays for stroke in general population (2.97%)

I compare only numbers count. There is no any other alternative to measure risk factor. But in our medical books they clearly mentioned that diabetes is risk factor for stroke. How the authors confirmed the diabetes is risk factor for stroke? Most of book authors follows systemic reviews. Most systemic reviews based on co-morbid presents with Stroke patients. Commonly Stroke happened in after 60 years age , these people have co-morbid diabetes and hypertension..

Simple logic:

1.100 people drive motor cycle on very nice road .

2.100 people drive motor cycle on bad road .

If 2.97% accidents in nice road and 2.4% accidents on good road . what is the meaning? My answer is bad road is not risk factor for accident.here the bad road is diabetes.even my links are support this .here age is risk factor for diabetes and non diabetes . frequent hospital stays happens in diabetic and non diabetics.it is not issue to take for consideration.

I have studied many reviews on this issue .i am analyzing the reviews ,i will submit high quality secondary source shortly. In every review their final conclusion is "Diabetes is risk factor for Stroke" . Here another point we have to think...every human being have risk to get stroke....we have to compare the risk with normal people.The authors unable to get information from normal healthy people .Normal healthy people not reach hospitals.In normal healthy people how much percent getting stroke?.If we get this answer we can compare . The authors simply reach stroke hospital and verify hundreds of records of stroke patients and conclusion is " Diabetes and hypertension" are risk factors for stroke. in old age people diabetes and hypertension are most common. so they are coming to conclusion. If the authors concludes like this no problem at all. But ever doctors must know the fact ....what happens really ?

(Subrahmanya preethamm (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC))

@Subrahmanya preethamm: That's an interesting observation you have made. Unfortunately, you need to get it published in a peer-reviewed medical journal before it becomes a suitable topic for inclusion on Wikipedia. We are not qualified peer reviewers (well, some editors are, but that's not the job they do here at Wikipedia). — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 17:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
You would need to get it published as a review article on the topic in question in a major journal for it to be included. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The analogy fails. You have no reason to believe that the "100 people who drive motorcycles" are similar. 100 people who ride motorcycles very fast on a crowded, well-maintained road will likely have more problems than 100 people who ride motorcycles slowly on a dirt road. That doesn't mean that the road has no effect; it means that the road isn't the only factor. Or, as someone else put it, habitual drunk driving "protects" against dementia. But dying in a car wreck isn't the same thing as truly preventing dementia. WhatamIdoing (talk)
That doesn't really hit the central point though...
It's more like saying that diabetes is protective against death, because fewer people with diabetes die than people without diabetes dying. (Mind no mention of premature death.) Carl Fredrik talk 12:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Some more interesting points supporting diabetes not increase stroke rate :
  1. Other health problems common in both diabetic and non diabetic . Life expectancy have no importance for this risk calculation . Non diabetic may be die with cancer at early age .
  2. We are counting only stroke rate . one person may get stroke many time, it may be happen in diabetic and non diabetic.
  3. We are counting only ,how many strokes for 100 hospital stays in diabetes and non diabetes.
  4. These are very surprising results. Stroke occurred in diabetic population 2.4 % and in non diabetics 2.97 % . We can conclude that diabetes not increasing stroke rate. Diabetes have protected effect in .57 % against stroke .
(Subrahmanya preethamm (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC))
No, "we" cannot conclude anything. That is exactly what WP:NOR tells us. There's no special dispensation for WP:MED on this, it is a fundamental policy of Wikipedia. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not only against Wikipedia's policies, but also just blatantly wrong and scientifically illiterate.
  1. I can not understand what this is supposed to mean.
  2. Yupp, exactly
  3. No, we can only conclude that of hospitalizations, diabetic patients are more likely to enter hospital for other reasons than stroke. It's not at all surprising.
It is at best — mildly interesting, telling us that at the ER we should not assume stroke simply because a patient has diabetes — which frankly no one was doing to start with. Carl Fredrik talk 15:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Carl Fredrik talk 15:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Again, you're comparing apples and oranges; you're looking at the fraction of diabetic patients presenting with stroke; what you want to look at is the fraction of stroke patients who have diabetes. To wit:
  • There were 32.3 million total hospital admissions considered;
  • There were 6.3 million hospital admissions of patients who had a diabetes diagnosis;
  • Therefore 6.3/32.3 = 19.5% of all hospital admissions involved patients with diabetes.
  • Among patients admitted with a principal diagnosis acute cerebrovascular disease (stroke) 28.2% had diabetes as a coexisting condition (Brief 17, your first link above, in line 8 of Table 2).
  • 19.5% of hospital admissions involve someone with diabetes; 28.2% of hospital admissions due to stroke involve someone with diabetes.
  • Diabetics are overrepresented among hospital admissions of patients diagnosed with stroke.
Now, there are a number of confounding and controlling factors that I've omitted (diabetics have additional diabetes-related hospital admissions, diabetics on average are a younger population at admission, hospital admissions don't necessarily capture very mild or very lethal disease, etc.) but if properly accounted for I suspect most of those factors would tend to make the trend more pronounced. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
^ This is the correct way to analyze it. The original was assuming that half the population was diabetic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Additional information for discussion : I am physican especially consultant of diabetes . I strongly believes diabetes is risk factor for stroke, already i mentioned the same before . But the USA statistics changed my opinion . diabetic hospitalizations are more . but stroke is same proportion with diabetic and non diabetic .
1.Patients with T2D are hospitalized at a considerably high rate for causes.But not stroke . Stroke risk same with non diabetic people.
  1. Renal failure
  2. Hyperglycemia
  3. Infections
  4. Eye complications
  5. Stroke proportion is very less.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5011894/
2.About co morbid conditions : stroke occurs most frequently to old age people only. Diabetes present nearly 30% old age people….even stroke patients or non stroke patients
3.I am looking at the fraction of diabetic patients presenting with stroke and fraction of non diabetic patients present with stroke .
(Subrahmanya preethamm (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC))
The one source you've linked to (PMC5011894) doesn't support the claims you're making about relative risk of stroke. Did you mean to link to a different paper? (Indeed, it explicitly describes cardio-cerebrovascular complications as chronic complications of diabetes, though the paper does not attempt to compare rates of complications between diabetic and non-diabetic patients.)
Look, to examine relative risk of stroke, ideally you want to look at two groups of patients that are as similar as possible to each other, except for the diagnosis of diabetes. Follow those patients for an extended period of time, and look at the incidence of stroke (and other complications) over time in the diabetic versus non-diabetic populations. In other words, you want to do a study like this one (PubMed link)—which reported "the incidence of stroke was 62% higher (P = .003)" among patients with diabetes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Don't look at the fraction of diabetic patients presenting with stroke versus the fraction of non-diabetic patients presenting with stroke. Look at the fraction of stroke patients that have diabetes (or not), versus the fraction of non-stroke people that have diabetes (or not). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Conclusion : I was submitted following sources .Primary source confirms stroke occurs in 2.4 % of hospital stays of diabetic people and 2.97 of hospital stays of non diabetic people. the following secondary source confirms the stroke percentage is very little in diabetic population hospital stays . The following third source is most reliable and especially it was published in March ,2018 . This source confirms that Stroke occupies in top ten positions of Non-diabetic people . But stroke Not occupies in top 10 positions of diabetic people.Diabetic people frequently admits in hospitals for specific complications Hyperglycemia ,infections ,eye compilations .

Primary source:

https://hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb17.pdf
https://hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb51.pdf

secondary source

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5011894/


2018 march secondary source. confirms the stroke most common in non diabetics than diabetics . please verify following link .

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/8/3/e020346.full.pdf

Please read 8th page ...cerebrovascular disease ( other names :cerebral infarct/transient ischemic attack ) listed in top 10 of non diabetic patients....cerebra vascular disease not listed in top 10 diseases. compare only diabetic and non diabetic. Impaired fasting glucose patients are UN related to our study .

I was submitted primary and secondary sources. all sources clearly tells stroke occurs in very limited percentage to diabetic people.(1 to 2.4%)

(Subrahmanya preethamm (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC))

I don't know if this is a language barrier or a competence issue, but those sources don't say what you think they say. The figures are for the proportion of hospitalizations for stroke, not the proportion of the population who suffer strokes. By definition, someone in poor health is going to make more hospital visits than someone in peak condition, and consequently even though diabetics have an increased incidence of stroke they have an even more increased incidence of other diabetic complications, and as a consequence the proportion of hospital visits for stroke is lower. What you've done is akin to proving that shooting yourself reduces your risk of cancer, on the grounds that your next hospital visit is increasingly likely to be for traumatic injury. ‑ Iridescent 22:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)



Conclusion : I was submitted following sources .Primary source confirms stroke occurs in 2.4 % of hospital stays of diabetic people and 2.97 of hospital stays of non diabetic people. the following third source confirms the stroke percentage is very little in diabetic population hospital stays . The following fourth source is more reliable and especially it was published in March ,2018 This source confirms that Stroke occupies in top ten positions of Non-diabetic people ,but stroke Not occupies in top 10 positions of diabetic people .Diabetic people frequently admits in hospitals for specific complications Hyperglycemia ,infections ,eye compilations . Prevalence and incidence have close relationship .prevalence is directly proportionately to incidence. If the factory produces more computers in specific time(Prevalence) , the availability of computers in computer shop automatically increases in that specific time (Incidence). In our situation if stoke happens more in society in particular period, automatically incidence increases in hospital stays on a particular period. Stroke means obstruction blood flow to particular are in brain .More glucose may be prevented this obstruction in diabetics ?.Further research requires in this particular point.

https://hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb17.pdf
https://hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb51.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5011894/
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/8/3/e020346.full.pdf


(Subrahmanya preethamm (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC))

Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it correct, unfortunately. (And your understanding of prevalence versus incidence is problematic as well.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Subrahmanya preethamm you were told these were not secondary sources before you posted here :-( Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


It really shouldn't continue anywhere, since article talk pages shouldn't be used as a forum to chat at length about one editor's mistaken interpretation of some primary sources. I suppose Subrahmanya preethamm could try taking his question to the Reference Desks, but please don't encourage him to persist on an article talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

This Review confirms Stroke, rates in patients with diabetes are similar to patients without diabetes. In this discussion many of them asking review secondary source. now i am submitting. this review 100% confirms diabetes is not risk factor for stroke. 

                                    Review of Prevalence and Outcome of Vascular Disease
                                                           
                                                 ''''' REVIEW '''''

                                     Review of Prevalence and Outcome of Vascular Disease 

                                                in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus

                                                     J.S. Weiss and B.E. Sumpio
                                  
                         Department of Vascular Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA



                                      https://www.ejves.com/article/S1078-5884(05)00529-0/pdf

(Subrahmanya preethamm (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC))

OK, enough. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but Subrahmanya preethamm, you are demonstrating such severe competence issues that this is a formal warning that if you either attempt to add your original research to Wikipedia articles, or continue disrupting Wikipedia talk pages, you are likely to be blocked for disruption. None of the sources you're citing say what you think they say; as TenOfAllTrades has explained in detail above, the issue is that you're misunderstanding what the figures you're citing represent. Wikipedia is not a source of original thought and only repeats what other reliable sources say, and we are not going to change our articles to go against a unanimous medical consensus on the basis of your misinterpretation of a data set. (If you'd actually taken the trouble to read the paper you link above, you'll see that it unequivocally states Patients with diabetes have been shown to have about 1.4–1.7 the relative risk of stroke; the "no increased risk" line you're misunderstanding relates specifically to there being no increased stroke risk as a complication following carotid endarterectomy in diabetics and non-diabetics.) ‑ Iridescent 18:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Big change of infant massage

There was a big change in the leading section of infant massage [6] in 2016. The "though the scientific evidence supporting its use is limited" is changed to "though the scientific evidence supporting its use is growing". And the description of the research result is also changed.

I would like to know whether there is any reliable medical source or scientific evidence supporting its use. Thanks

--Wolfch (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Rewrote to reflect the sources provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank for rewriting--Wolfch (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Sanofi Pasteur

I am an employee of Sanofi S.A., and I would like to ask for a Wikipedia volunteer's attention to the final sentence of the section Sanofi_Pasteur#Philippine_Dengue_Vaccination_Controversy. The full message is on the page Talk:Sanofi_Pasteur. Tlemagny (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

in the future please place {{Request edit}} on the article talk page and then a medical editor will review the request, thank you(commented as well[7])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

RSN - Bullet wounds

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Wound characteristics of military-style rifles might be interest to this community vis-a-vis WP:MEDRS and otherwise.Icewhiz (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

under the topic/article of wounds it would be of interest--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Brain positron emission tomography

PET brain

I rated this article (was formerly unrated and unclassified under any WikiProjects) and made a few edits. Would appreciate it if others took a look. It's a pretty important subject (e.g., it's linked from the infobox in addiction). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

ref[8]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

HIV/Aids (capitalization)

Resolved

If a news source has a title with HIV/Aids (lower case ids), should that be followed by {{sic}}?

It depends on if you are quoting or paraphrasing said news source. This is obviously wrong and makes the source suspect for most stuff. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
"Aids" is "British", not "wrong". In the model used by most British sources, pronounceable initialisms are spelled with title case. That means that the AcquiredAutoImmune Deficiency Syndrome is "Aids".
You should only add {{sic}} in that instance if you would similarly add {{sic}} if you quoted someone talking about the red "colour", rather than the "color", of the HIV awareness ribbon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Is that different than Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome? Natureium (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. Apparently I left my fingers typing on "auto" pilot.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing can you please give a source for Aids being preferred in Britain? I did a google on site:gov.uk for hiv/aids and of the first 50 hits, 47 were HIV/AIDS, 2 were HIV/Aids and 1 was oddly enough hiv/aids.Naraht (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Our article on acronyms is a rich source of trivia, including a section Acronym #Pronunciation-dependent style and case that does seem to support WAID's (should that be Waid's?) assertion. In particular the footnote number 67 pointing to the Guardian's styleguide suggests title case for pronounceable initialisms. I never trust anything HM Government says, so I wouldn't expect your Google search to be of much help. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
While I definitely don't want to uphold The New Zealand Herald as an example to be emulated, this search shows the "British English" pattern in common use. NZ typically follows UK patterns, with a smattering of US and some weird ones of our own. Basie (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
RexxS,Basie Thanx for the point out to the Guardian style guide and to the NZ irregular usage. I'll leave those I haven't changed alone, and in the future only change them if they are completely US usage. (for example if it is talking about the something in the State of California. WhatamIdoing, thanx for pointing out the British usage in the first place. Naraht (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

thank you for info--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 – I went through every article included in Portal:Medicine/Selected Article and removed every article which was not GA or FA class and revised the entries for most of them for standardization. Some of them have minor formatting issues, but the majority are correctly formatted. I didn't edit most of the excerpts, but every "selected article" on that page is a high-quality (GA-class or FA-class) medical article now. I spent an hour going through 95 article entries on May 14th in order to fix the problem – there's now only 36 selected articles since most of them were just low-quality (C-class and B-class + a handful of start-class) and/or former GA-class and FA-class articles. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I intend to pay no attention to this. I hope nothing bad happens (like some horrible article being "featured") and I hope this does not turn into yet another feather-in-one's-cap egofest timesucking thing. I do not want to see extra headers on the talk pages of articles if that is what [[9]] is about. Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of did you know..

Today I fell into creating Advanced Cell Therapeutics (no it is not Advanced Cell Technology)... Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

ref[10]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Please help review a draft at AFC

Draft:Hemolysis, Elevated Liver Enzymes, and Low Platelet Count (HELLP) Syndrome needs a subject specialist review, please. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

We already have it as HELLP syndrome. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Yup was about to say that aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Quick check

Could someone check https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gravidity_and_parity&diff=841259031&oldid=840076152 ? It seems plausible, but I don't know the correct answer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

[11]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

WebMD

Please look at the irresponsible (it seems to me) pro-CAM slant at "What is alternative medicine?".. When I search "alternative medicine," this comes up first, right before the Wikipedia article. If anyone knows RS that criticize WebMD for its coverage of CAM, perhaps that should be mentioned on WebMD#Criticism and in the lede. Nothing in the WebMD article, not even the one criticism mentioned, conveys to the reader that WebMD might not accurately reflect medical consensus. Thanks.NightHeron (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The first page mostly talks about acupuncture and chiropractic, and says that they work for some things (more things than I'd agree with, but not really an uncommon POV). The second page talks mostly about herbal drugs and energy therapy, and says that they either don't work or that they could be dangerous (e.g., lead contamination). I don't think that's unusually slanted. I doubt that you'd find much criticism except from anti-CAM sources, especially the kind of websites that say things that amount to "It doesn't matter if the patients get better, because the story they tell about the mechanism is utter nonsense". That story is just as disconnected from the patients' notion of "working" as the century-old line, "The surgery was a success, but the patient died". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, it says about Magnetic Field Therapy: "It’s also been found to help fractures heal faster." Presumably some of what they're reporting is the placebo effect. I just thought that some of the people here might want to look at it. I'd mentioned it before, in the context of wanting the alt med article here to reflect scientific consensus so that readers won't reject it as polemical and go to WebMD instead. I lost that battle, but at least it would be nice if there were something in the WebMD article that criticizes the site for being unreliable about CAM (if there's RS that makes that criticism). I have no problem with the article on WebMD being largely positive, if that reflects medical consensus, but there's already a template in WebMD#Criticism (from 2013!) saying that section needs expansion.NightHeron (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I think that the efficacy might depend on whether you think "magnetic field therapy" means wearing a bracelet with a little magnet attached to it, or something more like Transcranial magnetic stimulation.
Also, see PMID 21491410 for a 2011 Cochrane review on the subject of healing fractures (spoiler: electromagnetic therapy might actually be helpful). Bone growth stimulator redirects to Electrotherapy; given the number of reviews on the subject, it should probably be its own article (and what's currently there definitely shouldn't be referencing reviews that are older than the Cochrane paper). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Detrusor Underactivity

Should this be moved to mainspace? Left as a draft? Deleted? Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

it has some good text and second ref is a retrospective review, here is an additional ref/ review--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Bunch of it already put here Underactive bladder by the creator. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Metformin

Metformin

Need eyes, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

student?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Anabolic steroid

There have been some signficant additions to anabolic steroid by a new user recently. It could probably benefit from review by participants of this Wikiproject. Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Deli nk Have moved it to the students talk page so that they can work on it further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if that person is a student and in the same class as the Metformin person... Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Yah could be. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Brain cysts

Please comment on this MfD. Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


We already have Central nervous system cyst which is the same. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Agenesis of superior vena cava

Could someone from this project please take a look at this recently created article: Agenesis of superior vena cava? It is written and formatted poorly but I don't have the expertise to say whether the topic itself is worth including. Thanks. – Joe (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

editor who worked on that article[12] and several others is referencing source below on many articles...
  • Menkes, John H.; Sarnat, Harvey B.; Maria, Bernard L. (2006). "Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura and Hemolytic-Uremic Syndrome". Child Neurology (7th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 525.
and has a prior COI warning[13]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Joe Roe the entire thing was copied and pasted. Have deleted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Doc James. I was suspicious but nothing came up on the copyvio tool. – Joe (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Joe Roe which tool did you use? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Earwig's. Or maybe I'm thinking of a different article. – Joe (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay so this one https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hum. You are correct. I put the article here User:Doc James/test Put that page in here [14] And the tool did not look at the full text here Just the abstract. Have mentioned to the tools creator[15] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Chemical imbalance redirect

So I came upon an article using the internally linked Chemical imbalance and noticed that it is a redirect. I started to make some changes, but I'm not sure about which way to go with this? There are a lot of uses of the term on the project where it could be changed and I do not know of a good way to do that except one at a time. I guess I am thinking it could be a good idea to just red link Chemical imbalance? But I usually don't do edits that will affect a large number of articles so I'm looking for comments please. TeeVeeed (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

From the current what links here page, they seem to all be using the term in the context of the monoamine hypothesis in depression, and thus the redirect is appropriate. Natureium (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The term "chemical imbalance" was initially used for depression mostly but is now used for all mental disorders.
Could be redirected here Causes_of_mental_disorders#Chemical_imbalances aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
That is much better! The content that was at Chemical imbalance was really horrible ax-grinding stuff. We still have a SYNC issue on this stuff at the pages on the various conditions that needs to be addressed, and that stuff needs to be summarized there. But that is a much better and more general target for the redirect. I appreciate TeeVeed raising this. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Healthism

? Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

It is a genuine term of art on the tinfoil hat fringes of both right and left, and among the school of sociology led by Nikolas Rose, used to describe the belief that governments and politicians are using public health campaigns—and in countries with a state health service, "these disease-ridden people are costing you money" messages*—as a smokescreen for imposing their preferred moral codes. The article as it stands reads like someone's term paper, but it likely is a legitimate and notable enough concept for a stand-alone article; sociology has so much specialist jargon that articles on the topic always look faintly ridiculous to outsiders. I do not propose to be the one to write it. ‑ Iridescent 04:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
*If you don't believe "these disease-ridden people are costing you money" campaigns are a real thing in mainstream politics, do a google search on tremendous infectious disease is pouring across the border.
The article is about a legitimate concept, which is quite heavily debated in medical sociology. However the definition was made incoherent in February after additions by Mauroturrini. His paper is an interesting read, and is CC-BY, so it's unclear why Diannaa blanked his original edits. There is however some issue of COI here, which we hopefully can solve. I think the problem lies in the difficulty of writing a definition. Carl Fredrik talk 09:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
This wikiproject continually impresses me. Jytdog posted nothing but a question mark and got actual helpful responses. Natureium (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, people here are awesome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Was trying to post neutrally :) Somebody was trying to putting a lot of WEIGHT on a reference in Vaginal steaming, PMID 27719108, in which "healthism" means this: "The ideology dubbed ‘healthism’ situates the pursuit of not just of health, but health optimisation, as a moral obligation and vital to contemporary (neoliberal) selfhood. The subject seeks out, assesses and participates in, self-improvement strategies; without work, the body/self is incomplete, but the task is endless." This is kind of different from the "government coercion" angle and maybe more about corporate marketing messages and some weird shit that has crept into our culture (especially for women perhaps). This sense seems useful as a way to talk about the whole "pursuit of wellness thing" - not just that but the next step of intensity to the optimized self"/Quantified self thing ....
I hadn't heard of it but am glad to know it is has some grounding.
The page need work to become less academic and pomo-y and more plain English. Will try to work on it. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you know..

Food and Drug Administration

that the FDA keeps a "most wanted list"?

I didn't. :) Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Interesting. And the content would be PD. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Did you know that we now have an article on the FDA Most Wanted Fugitives? Natureium (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
And looking for sources led me to this gem: "The ace of spades of the FDA’s most wanted list this year is a lesser-known ingredient called fluoxetine."[16] A lesser-known extremely popular drug? Natureium (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Cochrane-Wikipedia Interns

Hello, I will be teaching a small course to 5 Cochrane interns, training them to edit Wikipedia over the next four weeks. The students will be working from their sandboxes first and then will be improving medical articles using Cochrane evidence (as appropriate per WP:MEDRS). I will be moderating the edits online and encouraging them to interact with the community. If you notice the student activity, please feel free to introduce yourselves and welcome them to WikiProject Med! If you have any feedback on this initiative, please do not hesitate to let me know. Our course dashboard is here: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Cochrane_UK/Cochrane_UK_Wikipedia_Editing_Course__June_2018

Thank you!

JenOttawa (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

thanks for posting, will watch--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:MED articles with templates

I was looking for a list of WP:MED articles with improvement templates and I'm running into problems. I tried to use PetScan with the categories Category:All WikiProject Medicine articles and Category:All articles that are too technical, and it gives me 0 articles, which I'm assuming is because the WP:MED category is on talk pages and maintenance categories are on article pages. When I used Category:Medicine instead, I got some of the appropriate articles, but also a whole bunch of irrelevant articles (analog television, cotton, guitar, squall...). Is there a better way to do this?

And I guess I should ask, are lists of WP:MED articles in maintenance categories available somewhere and I'm just duplicating effort? Natureium (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you looking for https://tools.wmflabs.org/bambots/cwb/bycat/Medicine.html (warning: large page). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
That works. Thanks! Natureium (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Authority control

Editors here may be interested in a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Authority control, which is about a template similar to {{Medical condition classification and resources}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

commented[17]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Causes of mental disorders Quality Score

WPMED had Causes of mental disorders rated as B-class, and WPPSYCH had it as Start-class. My assessment is C-class. I changed both ratings accordingly. If you disagree, let's discuss and reach consensus.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Academic articles about Wikipedia's medical content

If anyone ever sees academic articles about Wikipedia's medical content then please list them at

I was just looking and I noticed that there was nothing posted for 2018. I searched PubMed and found all the below, then I added them to that list.

We also have health information on Wikipedia, a Wikipedia article summarizing the sources listed on that page.

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

thank you, looks good--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Health IT

Do you all feel that health IT pages are within our project? I came across Crisis Text Line for example. Likewise Electronic health record.

This is becoming such a thing, and I don't think we have anywhere to put them, really. I wonder if we should have a task force, at least to classify them...

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a good question. EHR is a central part of, e.g., personalized medicine, hospital informatics, and patient privacy, which seems medical, or at least medical practices to me. On the other hand, traditional MEDRS sources typically don't have much to say on IT issues. --Mark viking (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I reckon MEDRS becomes relevant where claims are made regarding safety, at the least. For example, some medical devices (syringe pumps spring to mind) have been shown to be insecure, or completely without security (in software). If an article crops up which claims patients are dying as a result, that's going to need a pretty good source. Likewise, say, "patient morbidity/mortality is compromised by long data entry time for hospital EMR". That kind of thing seems to fall under the umbrella of both med and computing projects. But you don't want to be shepherding every EMR corporation article, either. Basie (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
These topics definitely fall within the purview of the project, but since their content is mainly not Wikipedia:Biomedical information, MEDRS does not apply to most of the information in them. I think these points really apply to the health care industry in general, not just health IT. Looie496 (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Crisis Text Line, no. I'm not sure about EHR. If it's more healthcare related than anything else, I would assume so, but maybe WP:HOSPITAL would be more appropriate? This is the distinction between medicine and healthcare. How much do we want to go into healthcare topics that aren't related to medical science? Natureium (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Missing article or section: Prosthetic testicle

Will also need redirects from Prosthetic testis, Artificial testicle, etc., and plurals.

There's a lot of material out there on the human version, as well as the strange and semi-recent market for veterinary ones (predicated mostly on a projective and anthropomorphizing folk belief, especially among dog fanciers, that castrated male pets or livestock may suffer psychological trauma, though it sometimes has to do with maintaining the appearance of show animals).

There might be enough info around for a stand-alone article, but definitely enough for a subsection at Prosthesis. I don't presently have access to HighBeam and the other journal search stuff; forgot to renew that through WP:LIBRARY.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

And we already have Neuticles! About time for the human equivalent. Boghog (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Today I learned a new word. Basie (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
​You have it in the bag. ‑ Iridescent 10:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
There is at least one recent reiew: PMID 27261793. Boghog (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Prosthetic testicle stub created. Boghog (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
And I've learned a new euphemism! "article or section", eh, is that what they call them now? --GRuban (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Nasal disambig

Nasal is currently a disambig page that lists partial name matches. This isn't appropriate for disambig pages per WP:PARTIAL. I propose redirecting Nasal to Nose. I didn't want to do it without discussion as this seems like something that someone might have oddly strong feelings about. Natureium (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

seems reasonable--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done. Easy enough to undo if someone has a good reason it should stay. Natureium (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Zeltiq Aesthetics

Sometimes, when I'm feeling lazy and unmotivated, I try patrolling a supposedly easy task like Category:CS1 errors: dates. Today I encountered Zeltiq Aesthetics which raised some questions I'm sure I don't know the answer to. The company is or was a medical device maker. In the references about the company, there are a variety of popular press squibs about the company's products and services that appear to offer health advice and at least verge on making health claims. How would MEDRS apply to this sort of situation? Do these low-quality sources slip under the radar because they are in an article about the company? — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

What a useful thing to do when you feel unmotivated, I mostly watch youtube... The answer to your question is: No — we try to police this. I'm a little strapped for time at the moment, and have no comments regarding the article, apart from that the major statement of "moderate efficacy" is based on a review. However Helen1023 seems to only have written articles about companies, and I would consider whether we should launch a WP:PAIDEDITING investigation at the very least, and a sockpuppet investigation at most. One does not write properly formated articles on 30+ companies without any learning period and this seems very odd. Carl Fredrik talk 07:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
could be WP:PAIDEDITING --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
No. See User:Uttsinghuajoint2014/Course Page. In any case, there is nothing to be done about an account that has not edited since 2014. Looie496 (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Plagiarism: "A very troubling thesis copied 9 out of 61 pages verbatim and without reference from one article in the Wikipedia"

-- Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I like how Germans call it "the Wikipedia". The plagiarism is probably from de-WP. Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
This line: "one chooses a page more or less at random and reads it. Does the tone change? Is one paragraph in perfect grammar, the next one full of spelling errors? Start googling the perfect grammar" reminds me of something User:MastCell said once, about there being a correlation between a well-written contribution by a logged-out editor, and the likelihood of the contents being copied and pasted out of a source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
This was a master thesis in public health that was copied and pasted from Wikipedia (more than 9 of the pages)
"Jackie Van Lant (2011), The Cost of Obesity, Master of Public Health, Master Thesis"
The University did rescind the persons masters after a newspaper reached out to them for comment. But they only took the matter seriously when that happened. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Comment. "Der Wikipedia" is everyday German usage, a proper noun usually gets the definite article. (Deutsch ist mir die zweite Sprache.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
And as a personal comment: IMO the acceptable standard of sourcing in German Wiki may be the lowest of any major European language. I've seen some shocking stuff. I know of dialects and regional variants which may have higher standards. Narky Blert (talk)
That's interesting - they always had a reputation as the highest quality wiki, and tended to rather look down on en:wp. I've had my doubts for some time about that. This was a Masters, but am I correct that the German system requires an actual thesis to be a Doctor of Medicine (as opposed to a qualified medical practicioner - a different thing), just like a Doctor of any other subject. But no-one expects any much of these, so no-one cares if it all comes from WP. Perhaps they should just stop the requirement. This seems to be what Doctor_of_Medicine#Germany is saying. Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation outreach

We've had an interesting offer at the Teahouse for possible outreach with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: see Wikipedia:Teahouse#Calling all Wiki Experts and User talk:Finnusertop#Calling all Wiki Experts.

User:DaP87, who works for the foundation, is interested in making health related statistics and other materials available for Wikimedia projects. One suggestion has been to use Wikidata. I'm referring this to WikiProject Medicine since you know what kind of materials would be beneficial and for your experience in such outreach projects. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: using Wikidata seems like an end-around certain en-wiki policies. Do these data materials from RWJF qualify as published? I'll grant that they may be independent and reliable, in their own way. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I know too little about either medicine or Wikidata to be much use there, but the Foundation is located in Princeton, not far from NYC, which suggests that my colleagues at WMNYC might be far more useful, particularly @Bluerasberry: and @Pharos:. Jim.henderson (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you all for assisting me and leading me in what looks like to be the right direction. I appreciate it and will make sure to consult those who know more than i do. thank you again DaP87 (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
User:DaP87 I would be happy to talk a bit, to help you understand what we do in WP and to hear the kind of resources you have available. You don't have email enabled, but if you would like to send me an email at jytdogwiki at gmail.com we can arrange the logistics. Everybody here, I will report what is discussed so everybody stays in the loop. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
User:DaP87 thanks. Yes we are happy to discuss possibilities. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
user:Jytdog thank you again i just sent you an email going into more depth about what i have. user:Doc James Thank you again for your interest and your help, once i have the information i need from the research dept i will speak to you through the talk page. Everyone thanks again it is really appreciated. DaP87 (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Assisted Death in the United States

An article that you have been involved in editing—Assisted Death in the United States—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

give opinion (gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Its looking like a merge will happen. I will require some assistance from someone with a medical background to do the merge as there are some issues with an editor attempting to insert their own POV on both pages. Please see the comment from Mramoeba in the merger discussion. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Contested image for cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome

Drunk or high? Natureium (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC) Or perhaps terribly ill? Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I've been known to take a nap on my bathroom floor every now and then. Perhaps a Seppi?(I kid) Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! The lead image for cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome has been contested, and we could use your opinion. Please see the discussion here.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 19:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Tangent: Carl has uploaded some drawings at c:Category:Symptoms of Ebola that might be useful for a number of articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I have a feeling MediaWiki:Bad image list is about to undergo an expansion not seen since we saw off Seedfeeder… ‑ Iridescent 20:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Images are hard. That person could have the flu or be dying from ectopic pregnancy. Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I think we have come to an agreement on a better one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Various Biology/Medicine drafts

Over on WP:WPM we been working on identifying draft which come under our project and reviewing them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages. Part of this process involved finding draft which had mathematical of chemical equations in them. Quite a few of them come under your project and we have listed them at Wikipedia:List of draft pages on science and engineering. You may wish to examine these and see if any should be promoted to main space. --Salix alba (talk): 07:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Natureium (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Pakistan Kidney and Liver Institute

sort of promotional?...any help/opinion appreciated, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The first section is a straight-up copy-paste from https://pkli.org.pk/our-story/. I presume that the other sections are similarly problematic, as they're all in the same style. Someone should roll back to the version before the text dump was added.
Incidentally, the Institute's FAQ page is just...weird. Like, the top ten frequently-asked questions are literally just the Institute defending itself from questions about whether or not they're corrupt, or mismanaged, or skimming funds, or bankrupt. This feels like a situation where independent sources might be particularly essential. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS sourcing at List of paraphilias article

Can we get some commentary on recent text/sourcing that Feliciapulo added to List of paraphilias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? The discussion is at Talk:List of paraphilias#WP:MEDRS. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the mention here, Flyer22 Reborn. Additionally, if anyone has better sources on this subject, we could use those instead. I noticed that Wikipedia does have another article on this subject, which leads me to assume it is not too obscure. Feliciapulo (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC at WikiProject Hospitals

A request for comments at WikiProject Hospitals might interest members of this WikiProject. I'm seeking comment to see if it is possible to make the rules clearer for how hospital reputation, rankings, ratings, and awards are handled on Wikipedia. What should the established standard be for how ratings and rankings are included on hospital Wikipedia articles? Read the ongoing discussion at WikiProject Hospitals. ClevelandClinicES (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

RFC on marketing claims

Various types of electronic cigarettes

There is an RfC at Marketing of electronic cigarettes on the question:

"Should articles that describe marketing claims also describe their accuracy, using WP:Reliable sources or WP:Reliable sources (medicine) as appropriate?"

HLHJ (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Should the accuracy of marketing claims be described? What would be an example? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
For example, until recently, the article stated:

Some often implicit marketing claims and scientific facts expressed by the vaping industry made online.[2][not in citation given]

E-cigarettes are harmless, or even beneficial, to the user, compared with not smoking.[6][7]

E-cigarettes are harmless to others breathing the same air.[2][relevant? – discuss]

E-cigarettes help smokers quit.[8][relevant? – discuss]

E-cigarettes are marketed to non-smokers.[citation needed] [1] [9]

These were originally listed as marketing claims, and juxtaposed with MEDRS-supported statements about their accuracy. An IP dubbed them "scientific facts" and removed most of the content about their accuracy. QuackGuru argues that the claims should be listed, but information about their accuracy is off-topic. In the current article, the medical claims made for e-cigarettes are not listed. Medical claims are among the most common marketing claims made for e-cigarettes; see Grana 2014 for an overview.
Sorry I didn't give enough context in the first place. Blindspot. Copy/modded this from my own text on the article talk page RFC discussion. HLHJ (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
An example of discussing the claims and their accuracy would be Nicotine marketing, which needs some work, for balance and MEDRS. HLHJ (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
They of course are not scientific facts but yes marketing claims. They should be juxtaposed with the scientific position IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the question is. The devil is in the wording - several of these are close to what seems to be the medical evidence, if phrased more carefully. For example there is strong public health statistical evidence that "E-cigarettes help smokers quit", but inconclusive RCT evidence, even though the question is a good one for an RCT to test. But that costs money, and no good RCT on the matter has yet reported (the main one that has reported used Italian mental health patients who had not expressed a desire to quit smoking). Most of the reverses of these claims are not in accord with the scientific evidence either, eg "E-cigarettes do not help smokers quit". Whether "E-cigarettes are marketed to non-smokers" is not a matter for a medical/scientific "position". Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree that wording the statements well is critical. The (RfC, not medical) question is whether the article should try to discuss the truth of any marketing claims at all, in any wording. Should it say something like "Claims X, Y, and Z are made" or "Claims X, Y, and Z are made; X is true, Y is debatable, and Z is untrue"? More detailed reply, with examples, on talk page. HLHJ (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
agree(wording is vital)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yet more links to DAB pages

No matter how hard you stamp on them, new ones keep appearing, for the confusionment of readers. IMO these links too require expert attention (search for "disam" in main text, or for "{{dn" in edit mode):

As always: if you manage to solve a puzzle, take the {{dn}} tag off, and mark it here as {{done}}. Thanks in advance. Narky Blert (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

We apparently need a writeup on enterobacterial repetitive intergenic consensus (ERIC) and one on repetitive extragenic palindromic sequence PCR (REP-PCR). Delinked for now.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
"Mrs. Stephens's Medicine" was made from calcium and soap, taken orally, to dissolve or soften "the stone" in the bladder. An interesting view into small pharma in the 18th century: An Account of the Remedy for the Stone: Lately Published in England -- Richard Gem LeadSongDog come howl! 16:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Nervous tone

The concept of "tone" in neurology does not seem to have an article, though the term comes up in a few places such as Vagal tone. Anyone interested in writing it up? The best short description I could find online was: "Most organs have some basal level of stimulation called parasympathetic tone, or sympathetic tone, that establish basal levels of function that can be changed either by increasing or decreasing the tonic frequency of firing of efferent fibers. Thus, removal of parasympathetic output to the heart removes part of its brake on heart rate, and the heart rate increases. The same response would occur if sympathetic output to the heart were increased." -- Joseph Feher, in Quantitative Human Physiology, 2012 [19]

No doubt there are better sources I didn't find. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

When I saw this section heading, I was wondering whether we actually had an article on the vocal quality that is associated with anxiety. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Interesting topic (Subrahmanya preethamm (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC))
We have tonic (physiology), which basically is the same concept, although our article is very weak. Looie496 (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Readability

I posted a question at WT:MEDMOS about WP:MEDMOS#Writing for the wrong audience a little while ago. The question is whether MEDMOS should discourage writing styles that are intended for one, both or neither extreme on the readability scale, namely writing for typical children (i.e., at or under age 12) and/or writing for graduate students (e.g., medical school students). There have been some interesting and insightful comments so far – including links to two free web-based tools for scoring readability – but perhaps others would like to share an opinion as well, or just have a look to see some of the good advice and examples we've considered so far. Please add your advice there, not here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

thanks for posting WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment

here: Talk:Jordan_Peterson#Revert:_section_9. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

commented[20]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

ScienceSource

m:Grants:Project/ScienceSource was mentioned here in February, and now you can see a quick presentation about it at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFjo8wg4wKw (about halfway through, after the Black Lunch Table presentation about under-represented artists). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

good information--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Valuable and useful (Subrahmanya preethamm (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC))
Thanks for sharing this video!JenOttawa (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Drug titration

Insulin

Drug titration is a red link; dose titration is a redirect to an article that spends one sentence on it. Is there more that Wikipedia should say about this subject? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

On it! Natureium (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's a stub. In depth information on drug titration as a general concept is harder to find than I expected, but I'll keep looking. Natureium (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Under the term dosage titration, there are are about 9500 GBook hits, and may be worth checking out. --Mark viking (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I've been able to find plenty of information on the titration of individual drugs, but little information of the concept of titration. Natureium (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
[21]looks good--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
If it's hard to find good references for dose titration overall, a worked through example lithium is just as helpful and there's plenty of protocols on pubmedC to reference. Also carbemazepime or an MAOI. Ill put an example(s) section tonight or tomorrow hopefully Krb19 (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC: gendered nurse categories

Hello. I've asked the nursing wikiproject about gendered categories here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Nursing#Gendered_nursing_categories. Comments welcome. Cheers, Basie (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Glucose-responsive insulin

Another editor tagged the article Smart Insulin as spam, so I moved the article to Draft:Glucose-responsive insulin and tried to clean it up. I would be grateful if someone here could take a look at the draft. The topic is probably notable, but some editors might want to delete it and start over. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Adjusted some. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah that was me. It was spam and it is still spam. Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this is a patch that's responding to glucose levels by delivering normal insulin? It doesn't seem to be a drug, but a device. Natureium (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's more likely to get regulated as a drug than as a device (same with fentanyl patches), but it should get a more specific title. Natureium, I'm also curious why you've blanked a sentence saying that a product named MK-2640-001 (=named with Merck's code system) isn't being developed by Merck. Did you really think that's unlikely? A quick trip to my favorite web search engine immediately confirmed this. I think you should self-revert.
James, I believe that in the draftspace, it's considered inappropriate to blank plausible unsourced content. Blanking accurate content in a draft is really not helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
This is not plausible "A constant amount would be injected every so often and it would adapt to the user's blood sugar levels." The doses would not be as boluses but as a gradual infusion similar to an insulin pump. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Sensulin is specifically claiming a once-a-day injection, at breakfast time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Different sources appear to be claiming different things than. And this is why references are critical. If you wish to add it back please do so with a reference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I think that if I'm reading the article right and the subject is a patch that delivers insulin rather than a novel type of insulin, I'm skeptical that all 4 companies are working on this singular product. I'm even more confused after I went to the sensulin website because they seem to be talking about an encapsulated form of insulin, which isn't what the article is about, unless sensulin is developing more than 1 product and I just couldn't find it. I'm certain that Merck had at least some role in the development on MK-2640-001, as that's their prefix, but as far as I can tell from clinicaltrials.gov, that drug is another thing entirely. Essentially, I can't figure out what this article is actually about, because it seems to be about multiple things. Natureium (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I suppose it depends on whether you read "researching" as meaning "cooperatively researching the exact same product" or "researching separate competing products". I certainly read it as four companies investing research money in a general area, rather than having formed a partnership.
The claim that it's a transdermal patch was added by Doc James. It appears that's false and should be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that there is no "it". The page is a teratoma. Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
One of the references claimed it was a patch.
This says "The team has developed a microneedle array patch, a stamp-sized patch with eyelash-thick microneedles that delivers the glucose-responsive vesicles loaded with insulin and glucose oxidase intradermally."
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
We just need to pick something and kill the rest, and see if we can make something out of this. Or ignore it and let the thing get MfDed in six months. Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
There are reviews on the subject, including PMID 28159517 and PMID 28509691. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the article is worth saving. If one or more of the topics that this lumped-together article is on is notable, it's going to need to be started from scratch anyway. Slow code this draft. Natureium (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Its some what interesting topic...(Subrahmanya preethamm (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC))
Natureium I had started trying to fix it and ran into the same incompetent/confused promotional clusterfuck, which is why I threw up my hands and speedied it. Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • If the article ought to be split into four different articles, that's fine with me. I think the topic (or all four topics, if you prefer) is notable, which is why I tried to save the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
If there are reviews / other high quality sources and the content is referenced an article is fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Autoimmune encephalitis

I pulled the image. It's very easy to add images within ref tags (same syntax as any other image on the page). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
A one or two paragraph overview of each would be best IMO with the rest of the details moved to subpages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Is [22] a wikipedia mirror or is the article a copyvio? The author of 97.4% of the article was banned for copyright infringement. Natureium (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I admit that neurology makes my head spin, but how is "Neurological syndromes associated with autoimmune antibody" different from "Autoimmune antibodies associated neurological syndromes"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natureium (talk • contribs) 00:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Bunch was word for word from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17850170 Good catch User:Natureium. Reverted to before this person's edits. Not sure how much their other work requires clean up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Was this one copied from wikipedia or is it a copyvio? [23] And then there's this, and this. Natureium (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Parts of classification of sleep disorders is copied from [24] User:Hordaland anything worth keeping or should I just delete it?
More clean up to do. I am currently traveling.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think you're going to get an answer from him... Natureium (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh wow. I missed that :-( Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:JAMA_Network_Open

I request help with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:JAMA_Network_Open. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

You would do better posting at WT:JOURNALS. This content would probably be best included in List of American Medical Association journals; not sure it can sustain its own page. Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I would agree with Jytdog in that this journal seems way too new to be considered notable per WP:NJOURNALS or any other guideline, though a redirect might be warranted. Everymorning talk to me 14:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll leave it in the list, where I already added it. (Hopefully still there...). I was expecting that a new OPEN journal from the AMA would be big news, so likely notable. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Medical history

Med history

So people have gone and created subarticles for the various aspects, most of which are unsourced and are kind of manual-ish:

Medical history
Chief complaint
History of the present illness
Past medical history
Review of systems
Family history (medicine)
Social history (medicine)

-merge into the big one, you think? Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

could be merged though Review of systems should be left alone (due to content)...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Those articles are rather old (mostly from 2006). We'd probably need someone with basic how-to-doctor-type med school textbooks to expand them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I think past medical history, family history, and social history could be merged. Or at the least, social history (which is basically a stub in terms of actual content) and family history could become family and social history. Natureium (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Bibliotherapy

yep. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

interesting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

And while we're considering nice-activities-that-have-been-rebranded-then-oversold as "therapy" I give you: Reminiscence therapy. Needs a major filleting. Alexbrn (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

When do these things cross into alt med? Natureium (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Placebo effect

Wait..what? the Placebo effect doesn't exist?[25][26][27][28] (Yes I did look for MEDRS sources, and didn't find anything, but I really suck at understanding <MEDRS sources....) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Here are some MEDRS-style sources to consider:
The last one is short, free to read, and appears to get cited a fair bit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
It's also - compared to the others - rather old and Kaptchuk is rather a controversial figure, so perhaps not a great WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I think linking MEDRS-compliant sources here misses the point, as I don't think Guy Macon is suggesting his sources should be used for Wikipedia. As an object of discussion, the articles make fascinating reading, especially the focus on Henry Knowles Beecher's potentially intentional deceit. There is also this:
I think the point we should be taking from this is that the placebo is a difficult concept and any article referencing it or treating it should take great care to avoid perpetuating falsehoods about it, and that a single source or definition may not be sufficient.
Edzard Ernst writes in his latest "More Harm than Good?", p. 176:

[…] the placebo effect certainly exists: if almost any form of attention is paid to patients, their self-reported symptoms will improve. […] it is well known that the placebo effect tends to be unreliable, short-lived and limited in magnitude— thus, claiming that a therapy works (only) as a placebo is in fact an admission of low effectiveness. [O]nly the most certifiably deluded can imagine that the placebo effect is able to bring about any significant improvements to the many fundamental pathologies that afflict humankind (and which myriad CAM therapies purport to treat), such as metastatic cancer, neurodegenerative conditions, or infectious disease. And finally, if CAM therapies work only on the basis of the placebo effect, there remains nothing to distinguish these therapies from each other— or from conventional therapies. Why would a patient choose (say) acupuncture, with all those uncomfortable needles, when they could simply choose one of many other alternative CAM therapies— or a conventional therapy?

Why I chose to include this, is because on the same premises as Novella, but a different definition of placebo Ernst comes to one very different conclusion: a. placebo exists — and one that is the same as Novella's: b. an appeal to placebo is unethical.
We might do well to cover this debate. Carl Fredrik talk 21:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree. I've been working on the article but am still at the cleaning-up stage (it was crammed full of iffy sources and off-topic content). Alexbrn (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
FYI, Kaptchuk is currently the leading proponent of the placebo effect as a real thing. His papers are typically small and routinely misrepresent the results. I am prepared to offer a small prize for anyone who can find one of his studies that shows any meaningful effect using objective measures rather than self-reported questionnaires. As to placebos "without deception"? Not so much. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for closing Simple English Wikipedia

Does the MED project use the Simple English Wikipedia (SEW) in any significant way? I know there has been discussion of it in the past as part of the language translations program. There is currently a proposal to close SEW at meta:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wikipedia (3). All are welcome to participate. --Mark viking (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Literally two days ago there was a discussion about this at WT:MEDMOS. Ping Doc James, LeadSongDog, SMcCandlish, WhatamIdoing, Bluerasberry. Carl Fredrik talk 20:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The medical translation efforts no longer use simple EN in any way. Looked at it years ago but limitations were to great. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

NPOV/N discussion

A discussion is underway at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Definition of "trans woman" that may be of interest to participants in this WikiProject. RivertorchFIREWATER 02:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that this discussion now exceeds 15,000 words. I think that the main points of contention are:
  • whether the article should begin with the words "A trans woman is a woman..." (rather than options such as "A trans woman is a person..."), and
  • whether the process that leads up to the words "it's a boy!" being spoken before or shortly after birth should be described as "assigning male sex". (I think the contrary POV is that the adults are usually 'objectively observing' a common anatomical pattern rather than 'assigning' anything, although it hasn't been put in those terms.)
It sounds like there may be at least one RFC about this sentence in the near future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Dahan syndrome

Is Dahan syndrome really a term? It seems to only be called that in publications by Dahan himself. Natureium (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

[29]not too much...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
And in quotes [30]. Natureium (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Neglected article in need of attention: In absentia health care

In absentia health care (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just discovered this article today, which is poorly integrated into the Wikipedia project (and was even less so before I edited it) and seems to be largely ignored. It was still primarily using a deprecated and unwieldy {{ref}}-and-{{note}} system (alongside a {{reflist}}; now fixed), a system that was deprecated in March 2006; it lacked any WikiProject templates (now fixed); it is almost an orphan article; it had only eight edits from six users since December 2015 before I showed up; it had a grand total of 43 edits from 27 editors before me; and it was apparently spun out from "Healthcare delivery" in February 2006 by a user account that has not edited since December 2006.

I may work on it later, though my focus is currently on other articles with much larger viewership. Regardless, I am alerting everyone here in case anyone wants to clean it up, since an article this neglected, obscure, and poorly integrated is bound to be rife with problems. Thanks. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

At a glance, it sounds like editors should consider merging this to Telemedicine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
That is what I noticed, too; it seems that this article is the lesser-known relative to eHealth, Telehealth, Telemedicine, Telecare, and the rest of the telemedical articles. What distinguishes this article from the rest is that it seems to place greater emphasis on the history of so-called in absentia health care, especially premodern history. The other articles are, unsurprisingly, primarily about such health care within the context of electronic telecommunications.
Moreover, this article seems to serve as a sort of hypernym for all these articles, just as eHealth can be a hypernym for mHealth. If any mergers occur, and it does not involve merging this article out of existence, it may actually be worthwhile to use In absentia health care as the central article that summarizes the rest, just as Telemedicine does now with the telemedical articles. Something as simple as summarizing the latter article in the former can accomplish that, at least for the telemedical articles.
It does not matter to me what happens to this article, though. Just so long as it is better integrated into the project, that alone is an improvement. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 06:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC: JAMA opinion piece at Trump-related article

There is a RfC at Presidency of Donald Trump about a sentence which cites an opinion article (i.e. not peer-reviewed) in JAMA. Several editors dispute that the JAMA piece is a WP:RS or dispute the quality of the analysis in the opinion article (e.g. "Sounds ridiculous", "a out there guess", "ridiculous, POV, unencyclopedic, opinion-based (rather than fact- and/or evidence-based) nonsense", "seriously lacks credibility").[31] The disputed text reads as follows: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

  • In a 2018 analysis, David Cutler and Francesca Dominici of Harvard University found that under the most conservative estimate, the Trump administration's rollbacks and proposed reversals of environmental rules would likely "cost the lives of over 80 000 US residents per decade and lead to respiratory problems for many more than 1 million people."[1]

References

  1. ^ Cutler, David; Dominici, Francesca (2018-06-12). "A Breath of Bad Air: Cost of the Trump Environmental Agenda May Lead to 80 000 Extra Deaths per Decade". JAMA. 319 (22): 2261. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.7351. ISSN 0098-7484. PMID 29896617.


Note: This was published in JAMA Forum, not JAMA proper. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Still contains the JAMA branding and thus would have some of JAMA's reputation associated with it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but let's not claim this has the same weight as a peer-reviewed JAMA piece. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Sure but still notable IMO. "Found" does need to be changed to "stated" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think this opinion article is RS/notable for inclusion. Natureium (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • please take your opinions to the RfC in question, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Oh boy, you've just sent me to step on a landmine, haven't you? Natureium (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Natureium, I voted 'oposed' as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Protandim

is a multi-level-marketed herbal supplement promoted with claims it can prevent cancer, reverse ageing, yadda yadda. After I filleted the article of its non-WP:MEDRS, there's been some disagreement about that - more eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Fertility testing

ovulation prediction kit

the following article is in need of significant referencing, any help is appreciated, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


WP:MEDRS and Cochrane review articles

Hi, quick question. Would someone help advise about WP:MEDRS relating in terms of this reversion, please? Keen to support a new editor to understand where the issue lies in terms of the sourcing here but this is not an area of Wiki I normally edit in. Any clarification would be gratefully rec'd. Many thanks, Stinglehammer (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

We really like Cochrane reviews. This edit does not use a Cochrane review however but simple makes reference to their register of control trials which is not a good source for anything. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_113"