Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 138

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 135 Archive 136 Archive 137 Archive 138 Archive 139 Archive 140 → Archive 145

Proposed merge of hepatic support articles

Hello, WikiProject Medicine. You have new messages at Talk:Liver dialysis.
Message added 14:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi all, I have put up a merge proposal for the liver dialysis, Liver support system, Artificial extracorporeal liver support and Bioartificial liver device articles. The discussion is at Talk:Liver dialysis#Merge discussion; any input appreciated! Thanks SalopianJames (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Access to the British National Formulary (BNF) ?

Can someone with access to the British National Formulary (BNF) verify this change in Insulin glargine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Insulin_glargine&diff=965686745&oldid=958351370

Thanks. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe that Colin has access to that source, and Berchanhimez knows the general subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Whywhenwhohow, I can read the current BNF online. This page mostly has general repeated stuff about all insulins. There are two specific boxes about Insulin glargine:
  • Prescribing and dispensing information
Insulin glargine is a biological medicine. Biological medicines must be prescribed and dispensed by brand name, see Biological medicines and Biosimilar medicines, under Guidance on prescribing. Dose adjustments and close metabolic monitoring is recommended if switching between insulin glargine preparations. [Btw, the linked page contains too much text for me to copy/paste here, but I can email it if required, and it explains the reason why the prescription should be for one brand].
  • National funding/access decisions
    • Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) Decisions
The Scottish Medicines Consortium has advised that Lantus® preparations (April 2013) and Toujeo® (August 2015) are accepted for restricted use within NHS Scotland for the treatment of type 1 diabetes:
in those who are at risk of or experience unacceptable frequency or severity of nocturnal hypoglycaemia on attempting to achieve better hypoglycaemic control during treatment with other insulins
as a once daily insulin therapy for patients who require a carer to administer their insulin
It is not recommended for routine use in patients with type 2 diabetes unless they suffer from recurrent episodes of hypoglycaemia or require assistance with their insulin injections.
Therefore it appears that it is true in NHS Scotland that this insulin is not the routine form recommended for patients. England and Wales have their own body (NICE) and there's nothing here from them (which I'd expect there to be, the BNF-online being hosted by NICE!) It should be possible to find the Scottish guidelines at their own website, which is more globally accessible than the BNF. I can look later but don't have time right now. The NICE guidelines are also accessible internationally.
Btw, if you want to access the BNF, you can use a free VPN. I had a similar problem trying to access GoodRX.com, which blocks access outside of the US. I installed Windscribe into Chrome (I normally use Firefox) and set it up for me to appear to be in the USA. I reckon you could do the same and pop up in London. You can always disable that extension when you don't need it. -- Colin°Talk 07:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Whywhenwhohow, I misread the statement in the article vs the BNF page and this because I'm ignorant about insulin. The Insulin glargine article currency says "It is typically the recommended long acting insulin in the United Kingdom" (previous said "not") but I didn't spot the "long acting" qualifier. So it appears we are comparing insulin glargine with insulin detemir and ultralong acting insulin degludec (are there others?), and not specifically making a point about whether a long-acting insulin should be used. Here are the NICE guidelines:

The BNF for Insulin detemir does not contain any "National funding/access decisions" comments. The BNF for Insulin degludec contains a funding decision comment for Wales, which you can read here (restricted access for adults, not recommended for children).

Corresponding to the NICE guidelines for type 1 and 2, there are general guidance pages in the BNF: Type 1 and Type 2. These follow the same pattern as the NICE guidelines (naturally) which prefer detemir as first choice over glargine for type 1, but hold both equal for type 2.

So it appears the statement in Insulin glargine is inadequate regardless of whether we have "not" in it: it is more complicated and really should be summarised by someone with the first clue about insulin and diabetes (i.e. not me). -- Colin°Talk 17:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Colin: I'm happy to take a look at it and try to improve the wording, but unfortunately I cannot access the BNF pages - I definitely have a clue about insulin/diabetes though. If you could shoot me an email with the pages/articles I'd be happy to use them and improve the verbiage to be accurate. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@Colin: Thank you for investigating and summarizing. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Done, archive?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Overanxiousness

I found Overanxiousness at NPP and am not sure what to do with it. Apparently "overanxious disorder" was a diagnosis in the DSM III that was later merged into general anxiety disorder, but the article conflates overanxious disorder with general anxiety disorder and the emotion of anxiety. It is poorly written and some of the sources are passing mentions, e.g. [1]. I have half a mind to just redirect it to anxiety, but thought I would check in here first to see if there's anything worth salvaging, since psychology isn't an area I know much about. Spicy (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Overanxious disorder was eliminated in the 1994 DSM-IV, but it does still get passing mention in literature. And it was once a valid diagnosis. What is there now is a wreck that can be reliably knocked down to one real paragraph, explaining what it was and what it became. But ... I don’t know if the term “overanxious” warrants an article. We don’t have obsessive, but we do have fixation (psychology). Is overanxious a trait or behavior worthy of it’s own article? Separate from the former disorder? If so, it could be named something like overanxious (trait). Then what to do about the former disorder.
I see three options, after coming up with the one-paragraph summary:
  1. Create overanxious disorder (With or without overanxious trait?)
  2. Add summary to History section of generalized anxiety disorder and redirect there.
  3. Start a History section at anxiety disorder, add there and redirect.
I am unsure which I prefer. My concern is that Asperger syndrome is no longer a DSM diagnosis, but we don’t merge it away. Let’s see what Casliber and Eyoungstrom think. Hinges on whether there is a notable behavioral trait, independent from the former disorder. Sorry, iPad typing, formatting issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
It should be redirected to GAD as it is clearly the predecessor. We just need some scholarly discussion discussing same to reference. And there should be mention of it in the history of GAD Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I found a few articles that can be used, but I just put a priority to-do list on my talk page because I am so far behind :( We only need a brief para to add to GAD history, and there are reviews from the transition from DSM-III to IV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Just looked at it, and it's not conceptually coherent. It blends overanxious disorder (the DSM and ICD predecessor to GAD) and overanxiousness as a dimension or subjective experience. There is no need for a page about the dimension, as that is already covered by the anxiety page on the series on Emotions. If the page were clearly about the DSM disorder, then the redirect to the GAD page and history section would be the clear winner. Is it possible to do a disambiguation and have two redirects, "overanxiousness" --> anxiety page, "overanxious disorder" --> GAD page? Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
PS, kudos on Spicy for continuing at New Page Patrol, which is killer hard work. Same user created nondepressive disorder (???) which warrants a look?? Is that a thing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Agree, nondepressive disorder is not a consistent construct or definition, and definitely not in the DSM or ICD. Here's what I wrote on the talk page, too. Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I am determined to catch up with other (FAC) work today! I can't remember how to support (endorse) a prod ... could someone teach Eyoungstrom? Spicy, if you want to redirect to GAD, I can later add a section to History describing what happened to Overanxious disorder. IF someone reminds me :0 It just doesn't seem we need two pages (one about the dimension)-- just a redirect to GAD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I see you've created the OAD redirect already, looks good. I like Youngstrom's suggestion of redirecting overanxiousness to anxiety instead - search results show it's used as a colloquial term for excessive anxiety, not as a synonym for overanxious disorder. Thanks everyone. Spicy (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Whatever y'all decide; I Must Catch Up On Other Things :0 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Found it! @Eyoungstrom: if you just endorse the prod by adding the Template:Proposed deletion endorsed to the page, under my prod, it will go away in seven days. If someone removes the prod tag, then we have to go to WP:AFD. This is a good thing to learn, and admins feel better about prodding an article when more eyes have seen it (and endorsed). I have it watchlisted in case you have problems with the syntax. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I've made a note about notability requiring secondary sources at Talk:Nondepressive disorder, and it's now on my watchlist. I'll repeat my comment at AfD if needed. --RexxS (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
You all are faster than me! The page already has the redirect in place, and looks like it may already have been Prodded (I don't see the exact entry for that in the history). I was primed to drop the Template:Proposed deletion endorsed after where Spicy put it, but also not evident where it would go in the current versions. I have a bunch of meetings stacked up today and tomorrow; likely to be a bit more agile on Wednesday. I will continue following things and trying to learn next steps. (Feels a bit like playing volleyball and watching the more experienced teammates do the setting and spiking while I try to figure out jumping in. Funny, but apt, metaphor, since I am short, too!). LMK if anything else helpful from me here. Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@Eyoungstrom: We are converting you to a full Wikipedian as well as instructor :) Hooray! I may have confused you by mixing the two articles here: overanxiousness and nondepressive disorder. Prods have to last seven days, so nondepressive disorder is there still. Anyone can challenge (remove a prod), in which case the alternative is to propose it for deletion, since It Is Not A Thing. But overanxiousness is sorta/kinda a thing, misnamed, so it was redirected. If someone were to challenge that, we'd have to start a merge discussion. You are learning ... it is this sort of work that keeps us busy! Keep on ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, you are right -- I was confusing the discussion of the two pages. I went back to nondepressive disorder and figured out how to add my endorsement. :-) Let me know what the equivalent to the |nom is for that template. I used that and it didn't throw an error. My intuition is that it is a way of tagging which account made the endorsement without using the ~~~~ signature. Thanks again for the coaching and opportunities - I am learning several things every day, and I am looking forward to really digesting the VMI talk page later this week. Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I have never used the prod endorsed template, and the documentation is poor. It seems like it should be signed. RexxS ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia and Eyoungstrom: it's just a "me too" for the PROD, and you can just add {{Proposed deletion endorsed}} if you simply want to agree with the reason given in the original PROD. Optionally, you can add a comment as Eric did ("See talk page") which shows up in addition. There's no way to sign it that will show up, but it's obvious from the page history who added the endorsement if anybody needs to check. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks-- that is simple and easy. Glad that I wasn't missing something. Happy Wednesday to you both!Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hydroxychloroquine and Hinokitiol

This, and associated edits at hinokitiol, need more eyes. In fact hinokitiol may need a rewrite. [2] And I am uncertain if the See also is warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Also ionophore and chloroquine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Also this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
And this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, well ... typing up an ANI now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Done, [3]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, RexxS [4] (I fear there is more, though). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Government statistics and MEDRS

Hello all,

I am working on introducing MEDRS on Chinese Wikipedia and a user there has a question regarding MEDRS. The Ministry of Health and Welfare routinely publishes statistics on causes of death. Although those are epidemiology data, they do not form a hypothesis per se. Is this type of statistics a primary source under MEDRS or a primary source in general? -Mys_721tx (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Mys 721tx. A plain statistical report, or a database full of numbers, is a primary source. A report that talks about the statistics for example, "Cancer deaths have gone up this year" or "The top 10 causes of death are..." is probably a secondary source.
A primary source can be a good source. We sometimes joke that "secondary source" is not a fancy way to spell the word "good source". It's okay to use a small number of primary sources. You do have to be careful with them, to stop people turning "Killed cancer cells in a lab" into "Cures all cancer in humans", but the risk for that is low with the MOHW database. If you all agree that this source is appropriate for the material, then perhaps your version of MEDRS will say something like "Primary sources should normally be avoided. Some primary sources can be used appropriately. For example, MOHW's statistics database on causes of death, although technically a primary source, can be used to make a simple, straightforward statement about how many people died from a disease in a given year." WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation! I will see what changes can be made there. -Mys_721tx (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Virus article organization

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Viruses#Separate virus and disease pages?, especially if your username is User:Graham Beards and/or you have useful information or ideas about how to organize some articles. About 75 articles could be affected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I have commented there.Graham Beards (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Flat closure after mastectomy

I just accepted this from a draft after significantly rewriting. It appears to be a notable topic, but the article still needs significant work. Is anyone interested in pitching in? Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Calliopejen1, seems to me that it would be better placed on the Mastectomy page.--Iztwoz (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Iztwoz. Notable doesn't necessarily mean we must have an article, if the topic fits better within another article. An article of that type could become a commercial-interest magnet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that. There are so many kinds of mastectomies, with different indications and outcomes, that if we "only" wrote 500 words about each, we'd have a very unwieldy article. I could probably source 500 words on "going flat" and not get past the history (reconstruction wasn't available until recent times) and social considerations (it's the first choice for a segment of LGBT breast cancer patients). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
OK, scratch that. Happy to report I know nothing of the topic ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Oral and maxillofacial surgery

Can people lay eyes on this article. It wasn't great to start but an IP editor has come in since March 27 and made very heavy, US-centric, off med-mos changes. My plan was to let the dust settle a bit then clean it up again but the changes are constant for the last 2 months. User: Materialscientist and User:RandomCanadian did some reverts and left notes on their talk page but no response. The references are now a mess too and I'm not exactly sure where to start. Ian Furst (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The version before the IP's edits is this. It is quite easy to restore that version, either using WP:Twinkle or by editing that version and saving it. You can compare the two versions at this diff. Is there anything that the IP added that's worth preserving? --RexxS (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
i'm not really sure tbh. Someone is obviously putting a lot of work into the changes (and is persistent about it) so I'm reluctant to do a mass roll-back. That's why I was hoping to have another set of eyes. The changes appear to have a political flavour to them (around licencing bodies for the profession) and all the 'history' relates to US stuff. Ian Furst (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Do you think it could support a WP:SPLIT, to create Oral and maxillofacial surgery in the United States? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
No. I'll wait it out a bit then improve. Ian Furst (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
It seems like the wait is gonna be a long one. Tbh I am of the opinion that the editing behavior can be considered disruptive, especially when you take a look at the talk page. I would not be opposed to someone sending the IP to WP:AIV.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 04:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
That would be inappropriate. The first "vandalism" warning is about the IP removing hatnote templates and the image from the infobox. New editors frequently don't understand what they're doing when they remove all that "unnecessary" stuff. If you'd block someone over that, then you'd have blocked me years ago, for thinking that navboxes and categories with the same name must be redundant.
The other identified "vandalism" edit is because the IP knows that it's called "free flap [[microsurgery]] reconstruction" instead of "[[microsurgery]] reconstruction with free flap", and Killarnee apparently prefers the older name.
None of that is vandalism. Please read the very first sentence of Wikipedia:Vandalism: "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia". The word deliberately is bolded and italicized in the original. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess WP:AIV is the wrong venue. But other than that, I specifically mentioned disruptive editing, which is different from vandalism.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 00:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

If it were actually disruptive, then I'd expect someone to have started a discussion on the article's talk page about something specific that (a) needed to be changed and (b) was more serious than the refs not being perfectly formattted on the first try. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
IMO, WP:SPLIT may not be a bad idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Navigation of articles on pharmaceuticals

Hello, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/List of ATC navboxes for a list of navbox templates you can add to articles based on their ATC classification. In short, the ATC system classifies medicines with similar medicines, and these navboxes help readers find similar articles based on the classification, which is itself based on things such as type of medicine, mechanism of action, and/or route of administration. The list can also be transcluded with {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/List of ATC navboxes}} if there are other "template compilation" pages you think it would help if added to. Hopefully this will make it easier to ensure all articles on products with an ATC code have their appropriate navbox added to them if one exists. Thanks bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez, thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

MEDPOP help

There's a discussion at Talk:George_Floyd#arbitrary_nav_section about whether MEDPOP applies, and I think we could use someone expert in interpreting MEDPOP. The main question is the interpretation of the George Floyd ME's report, which includes a section on 'other significant conditions' and whether we can use that, plus a story in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune (that's behind a paywall but the relevant passages are quoted at the discussion), and (if necessary to remove doubt among editors) page 14 of Physicians' Handbook on Medical Certification of Death to write the medical examiner noted fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use as significantly contributory to his death, though not the cause; or whether that violates MEDPOP (or constitutes OR). Thanks for any help, and sorry for the convoluted question! —valereee (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I twisted "significant" and "contribution" into an adverbed adjective simply because it was easier to fit into the previous revision's setup. No objection to a more standard wording which means as much. Strangely enough, that link is not paywalled for me, so Val and I are likely coming at this from two opposite planets. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
IH, the source wasn't paywalled for me the first time I visited, so maybe I've reached my # of free articles since. The ME didn't say 'significant contribution,' they said 'significant condition.' The handbook says "other significant conditions" is for important diseases or conditions that were present at the time of death and that may have contributed to the death. My argument has always been that we can't then call these conditions "significantly contributory" to the death until some medical expert has said something similar, even though the MN Star-Trib did, because MEDPOP. —valereee (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Aye, and I keep telling you the Hennepin County Medical Examiner's Office is the highest authority in the land (for pathology, not law) and has already said something very similar, which is where many reporters who relayed it read it, not just this Minneapolis guy. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
And I won't even go to that article, because of the combination of legal and medical issues, in which we haven't even heard from the defense. My personal view (irrelevant) is that Floyd was murdered in a city long known for rampant racism in the police force, but until there has been a trial and we hear from the defense, Wikipedia has already gone too far in this article. We should be not judge and jury. We don't know if Floyd's other conditions matter until a judge rules on that, but that most likely will not be admitted as evidence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Alpha-gal allergy article

Alpha-gal allergy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Any thoughts on this edit by M4t3uz to the article? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The cited source (a rather middling journal) recommends that "Patients over the age of 5 years with an apparent new onset milk allergy should be investigated for the alpha-gal allergy", so there's probably some clinical relevance to the fact that alpha-gal is present in milk. The cited source doesn't mention gelatin directly, but the first source cited in the paper is PMID 22480538, which does mention gelatin, so it's probably true, and it is verifiable, even though the inclusion of gelatin in that sentence is not directly supported by the cited source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a dubious "allergy" allegedly first reported in 2009, the article claims it is the first allergy with a delayed reaction, and with no diagnostic code except "unspecified allergy". The ICD-11 ignores it. PMID 22480538 is primary research which doesn't even connect me at allergy with Lyme infection. It may be better in alternative views or possibly Pseudoscience, if it's worth keeping that is. It may be sensitization rather than allergy. Gelatin is not present in dairy and the sourcing is poor and mostly primary sources. MEDRS states secondary sources are needed. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Redirect somewhere ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that any of those are the right choices. First of all, redirecting away the whole page assumes that one editor's negative opinion of a 2009 primary source means that the whole thing is "dubious". Looking at sources that have a chance of passing MEDRS, such as these textbooks:
  • Goddard, Jerome (2018). Infectious diseases and arthropods (3rd ed.). Cham: Humana Press. pp. 140–142. ISBN 978-3-319-75874-9. OCLC 1034985129.
  • Gupta, Ruchi S., ed. (2020). Pediatric Food Allergy: A Clinical Guide. Springer Nature Switzerland. pp. 19, 22, 28. ISBN 978-3-030-33292-1. OCLC 1143618122.
  • Allergy and asthma : practical diagnosis and management. Mahmoudi, Massoud (2nd ed.). Switzerland: Springer. 2016. pp. 656–657. ISBN 978-3-319-30835-7. OCLC 951217553.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  • Freeman, Theodore M. and Tracy, James M., ed. (2017). Stinging Insect Allergy. Springer. p. 264. ISBN 978-3-319-46192-2. OCLC 992436862.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
I think there's a more than fair chance that (a) this allergy exists, (b) it's mainstream, conventional medicine, and (c) the sensitization process probably does involve a tick bite.
Separately, Meat allergy redirects there, and I don't think that's appropriate. Meat allergies could be expected to include the category of Poultry meat allergy, which is unrelated, and presumably there are other ways to become allergic to beef, pork, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Idiopathic hypoglycemia

I'm going through a list of >1800 articles that contain {{infobox medical condition}}, but not {{medical resources}},[5] and came across idiopathic hypoglycemia. I can't see why it would be a separate article to hypoglycemia other than perhaps the unreffed claim that it can be a synonym for reactive hypoglycemia. It's supported by a single reference from 1957. Could someone take a look, please? Little pob (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Little pob, I think it's meant to be a separate thing, mostly in newborn babies, although some people with the (relatively common) reactive type might get an "I dunno" label at some point. See [6][7][8][9] as possible sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19

COVID-19 information seems to get added to articles before it meets WP:MEDRS standards. A recent example is Nitric_oxide#Covid-19. What is the consensus about the dissemination of ongoing COVID-19 research and speculation in articles? Should that kind of content be reserved for the COVID-19 drug repurposing research article instead? Thoughts? Whywhenwhohow (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem is a lack of experienced editors prepared to struggle with numerous enthusiastic editors who think that we have to keep up with every piece of breaking news or speculative research connected to COVID-19. If you want to make a stand for MEDRS, you should simply remove any biomedical claims supported by primary sources. If you're sick of the unpleasantness thrown at you when trying to uphold the standards, you can simply side-track the offending content into a "Research" section as I've just done at Nitric oxide. --RexxS (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Exactly the problem that led to G4 EA H1N1; everyone's a Dr. on the internet now, and wants the "scoop". In a few years, we'll be going through deleting all that stuff getting added to Research :) I wish we could more aggressively nip this whole thing in the bud, but I'm afraid that bud has well blossomed already. I'd love to see COVID moved OFF of the mainpage, to discourage this WP:NOTNEWS -but-it-is editing. But that won't happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: Thanks for making the edit and the suggested technique. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I also think RexxS's approach is a sound one. Enthusiasm should be supported (to a reasonable point), but the tentative nature of recent results should be made clear. Also, as a purely practical matter, if it's mentioned somewhere on the page – even if it's as bland as "X is being researched", then inexperienced editors will quit trying to force it onlt the page. That's also one situation (i.e., when we say little about exciting news) in which readers will actually read the sources, so feel free to add several sources that will suit a variety of readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

June popular pages

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages for June. COVID, COVID, more COVID, Floyd, suicide, sex ... and Lele!! Glad I was not wasting my time cleaning up the intersection of Venezuela and TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Contradiction?

Perhaps some clarification is needed here. In Magnesium sulfate (medical use) we say "Common side effects include low blood pressure, skin flushing, and low blood calcium." Low blood calcium redirects to Hypocalcaemia which says "Initial treatment for severe disease is with intravenous calcium chloride and possibly magnesium sulfate. Other treatments may include vitamin D, magnesium, and calcium supplements." Is the difference between long term and short term effects? Cavrdg (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe it depends upon the cause? UpToDate says "Hypomagnesemia is often associated with hypokalemia (due to urinary potassium wasting) and hypocalcemia (due both to lower parathyroid hormone secretion and end-organ resistance to its effect)." I believe these mineral levels can interact, or that something that throws one off might throw another off, with the end result that you test all three and treat as many problems as you find. I don't have access to the cited source, but perhaps that's what was meant? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Two proposals regarding WP:MEDMOS

Opinions are needed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Proposal to change "Medical uses" to just "Uses" and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#"Impact" section. A permalink for them is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not in favor of a piecemeal approach to repairing MEDMOS, which has gone out of whack over the last five years. it needs a top-to-bottom rewrite, with rationalization of how it relates to broader guidelines. It was written originally to interpret broader guidelines as they applied to medicine, but has gotten away from that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
The proposals weren't made because of the viewpoint that MEDMOS is in need of repair. I don't know what you mean about "how it relates to broader guidelines" and it now being out of whack. Maybe "before" and "after" links would help me see where you are coming from. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree that it's due for a re-write, but I think the first proposal is minor and can proceed, and the second may be possible.
The "out of whack" situation happens both because of changes to MEDMOS that might not ultimately be desirable (e.g., someone removed the recommendation not to write whole articles at a reading level suitable for average 12 year olds; someone else removed the recommendation to consider ==Management== instead of ==Treatment== for chronic conditions) and because of changes to the other MOS pages that haven't been reflected in MEDMOS. There are other subjects that may be relevant for editors that aren't covered. For example, I recently reverted a well-intentioned effort to re-write a women's health article to use gender-neutral language, because 80% of 'women' isn't the same as 80% of 'individuals', nor is it even the same as 80% of 'people who menstruate'. How Wikipedia should handle sex/gender in sex-specific medical conditions is not mentioned in MEDMOS; maybe it should be.
All that said, I don't see any serious likelihood of that re-write happening soon. I wouldn't want to stop all proposals in the meantime. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Kala azar in India

Quick question - should this be retitled to Visceral leishmaniasis in India to be in line with the parent article being Visceral leishmaniasis? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

per WHO its synonymous(therefore IMO its fine as is)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I mean yeah, I know they're the same disease, but the question was more about consistency in titling. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Kala azar is the common name in India; I prefer it. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Sex reassignment images and one penile fracture image

Metoidioplasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Penile injury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sex reassignment surgery (female-to-male) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As seen here, here and here, EnigmaofAzoth (talk · contribs) removed images from these articles. Opinions are needed at Talk:Metoidioplasty#Reconsider appropriateness of images?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Body integrity dysphoria article

Body integrity dysphoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editors here might want to review the latest editing there. I haven't yet looked at the sources, but will do so later. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Graphics and text related to women and COVID-19 released by UN Women under open license

Hi all

UN Women have released a batch of graphics related to women and COVID-19. They've also released some text information about the impact of the pandemic on women under open license so can be copied from their website

You can find instructions of how to use open license text at Help:Adding open license text to Wikipedia, please make sure to use the template described so I can let them know where their content is used.

Many thanks


John Cummings (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @John Cummings. Are any of these available in vector formats, so they can be edited and translated? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: I've asked but not yet, I need to show these images are useful and seen by people to prove value to the people who would say yes to more content being released. John Cummings (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@John Cummings: would you mind collapsing the images for readability of this page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
These are great! Thanks very much for sharing them. We will add to the "coping with Covid" and other related projects on Wikiversity. Cheers! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd rather not have the images collapsed. That means people either won't see them, or they have to click an extra time. If you're on a desktop system, the up/down arrows that CFCF added in the bottom cornerrr will let you skip past them to the end of the page. (I don't know if they work on the mobile site.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Apparently not, because I do not seem to see them ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Found them, thanks!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Used them [here].... Thanks again! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Meige lymphedema

I recently corrected some layout errors in Meige lymphedema, to which Meige disease redirects, but I'm not a medic and I'd appreciate an expert casting their eye over it to check I haven't inadvertently changed the meaning. Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Shhhnotsoloud, thanks for improving that article. Your changes look alright to me :) Dr. Vogel (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Physical differences between boys and girls before puberty

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Puberty#Prepubertal differences in sexes. A permalink for it is here. Right now, the content being discussed is the "only major difference in physical appearance between prepubescent boys and girls are the external sex organs" wording. I've also alerted WP:Anatomy to the discussion for wider input. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Medicine articles with notability tags

Hi all, Boleyn is spearheading a push to reduce the backlog of articles with notability tags. Currently there are over 4,000 articles that have held a tag questioning notability for over 10 years! The full list of ~65,000 articles with notability tags is at Category:All articles with topics of unclear notability, and you can search that backlog for keywords of interest by searching "[keyword(s) of interest] incategory:All_articles_with_topics_of_unclear_notability". 257 articles currently have both the WP:MED tag on their talk pages, and notability tags. The full list is here (and is updated weekly by Bamyers99's CleanupWorklistBot). I'm posting the ones that have held a tag for at least 10 years below. If we can run through them fairly quickly, I'll add the ones in the 5-year club. Feel free to mark-up the list as you take a look. Some just need the tag removed; others will need a PROD or a trip to AfD:

Thanks all! Ajpolino (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hm, it looks like something is wrong with CleanupWorklistBot's judgement of how old the tags are, and some of these haven't had notability tags for quite that long. Suffice to say each of these articles is >10 years old and now has a tag questioning its notability. Mea culpa for the confusion. Ajpolino (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Where should muscle destruction go?

  1. rhabdomyolysis
  2. strain_(injury)

Which one? --Deep humility (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Preferably to rhabdomyolysis.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 17:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Me, too! --Deep humility (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing:, can't speak for them, but the word rhabdomyolysis appears in google result snippets for a search for double-quote term "muscle destruction" in 7 out of the top 10 results, so that's a good, "whats-that-fancy-word-for-this-condition" type of search. Otoh, per Trends, the spikiness of the graph and occasional drops to zero imply it's a rare search term, although we don't have the actual numbers, just relative ones. On balance, seems like a good redirect. I don't have access to WMF server access logs, but if you do, what do they show? Mathglot (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't have access to server logs, nor would I know what to do with them if I did.
My search on "muscle destruction" only gives me results about rhabdo in two of the first 10 results. The first condition mentioned in my search results is Autoimmune necrotizing myopathy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Nobody reads the references

But when they do (about three in a thousand times at the English Wikipedia), the second of two presentations in today's mw:Research Showcase says they are more likely to click the refs when the article has certain characteristics:

  • The article is short/unsatisfying.
    • Speculation: Readers want to know more than we have, and think our refs will lead them to more information.
  • The citation is free online.
  • The content is about medicine, sports, or people (as opposed to, say, language, literature, or political science).
    • In BLPs, people are most interested in personal information such as weddings, children, and deaths, especially if these were relatively recent. The reader clicking the link in the ref may be looking for more pictures of the wedding rather than trying to figure out whether the article is correct.
  • The subject is narrow instead of general.
    • Speculation: People who are reading on a narrow subject are more motivated to find additional information. Imagine, for example, someone reading Heart disease vs someone reading about a specific heart disease: It seems to me that the person at the specific page is somewhat more likely know someone with that specific condition and to want more information, and the reader at the general article is more likely looking for a little bit of background information.

As a recommendation, if you're looking at a stub, try to add one reliable reference that is free to read and that provides readers with additional information.

BTW, the Research Showcase scheduled for 15 July 2020 is all about Wikipedia's medical content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Re narrow vs general, it could also be that someone at a general article who wants more information could follow links to our more narrow articles, whereas someone already at a narrow article is at the limit of what we provide. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 18:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing this. JenOttawa (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Benign Fasciculation Syndrome

Our article Benign fasciculation syndrome has lacked citations and borne a label saying so for half a decade. Experienced editors are hereby encouraged to improve the article with recent high-quality sources. GPinkerton (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC) The 1997 block quote seems a little dubious by its present prominence and two decades-old date. GPinkerton (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The {{refimprove}} tag goes back to when the article had just one or two refs in it. It has 13 now. While I'm sure that this, like most articles, would benefit from being updated, I have removed the old tags. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
How utterly odd that there is no mention that fasciculations must he distinguished from tics, nor how that distinction is made. On my list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is a dog with eight legs. Does anyone have access to a newer neurology textbook that could be helpful? I could spend days in here, and end up only spinning my wheels. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Did all I can do for now. Needs a neurologist, needs more eyes, and needs textbooks that I don't have. I will check the medical library next time I am at hospital, which is at least three weeks out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to remove ICD codes from templates

Hello all, I hope that you're well in this crazy time. Here is an example of a medicine navbox (found at the bottom of a page):

As you can see, there is some incomprehensible jargon at the end of the navbox name ("C44.L40–L68/D23.L15–49, 173/216"). Some things are clear about this jargon:

  • It is incomprehensible
  • It makes the name of the navbox longer and scarier
  • It occupies a significant amount of time for editors to insert them and then maintain them to ensure the links are accurate
  • It is out of date (the ICD9 portion; we already have ICD10)
  • The way we use navboxes to link articles does not match the scoring systems, and not should it (hence multiple codes are included from the same ICD)
  • It's arbitrary (why does ICD9 and 10 and not other systems get mentioned in the name?)

In my opinion there is no need for these to be visible. We are perfectly capable of organising our own encyclopedia and medical coders can use their own almanacs (See "WP:NOT")

I would like to propose that the codes are removed from the visible part of the templates. The information within the codes can be moved from the names into Wikidata associated with the templates or, as a poorer cousin of that suggestion, moved to a row at the bottom of the template. We did this in the anatomy space and in my opinion it's made it much easier to read the templates. Looking forward to hearing the opinion of other editors, --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this (or, 'should this be') more or less redundant with the {{Medical resources}} template, which is displayed right above it, like this (from Adnexal and skin appendage neoplasms, which I assume is the most relevant article)?
WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I refer here just to the codes that are contained within the names of navigation boxes (navboxes). I also agree with what you mention here, which is that if there is an article that is the primary article, these codes should be moved to the medical resources box. Not all navboxes have this primary article however, and the codes sometimes relate to things in the navbox not found in the articles. Perhaps we could start another topic in the next few months about moving things from the infoboxes to the medical resource boxes in bulk fashion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm inclined to remove those codes from the navbox title bar. It might be helpful to preserve them somewhere (in small type inside the navbox? in the template's /doc page?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Great to hear. I propose we preserve them within Wikidata. That removes the onus on local editors to waste time with formating, tweaking which codes reflect the template, etc.--Tom (LT) (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
A lot of the codes are already on WD. However, the medical resources template doesn't (yet) fully pull from WD. Whilst there is consensus for the link up (see template's talk page), there is an issue with the template that needs sorting. There are also the 1800+ articles that display the medical condition infobox but not the med resources template – I'm working through that list (slowly). Little pob (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@Little pob as a thankless repetitive task I sure hope you are using a bot for this. It sounds like you are doing it manually?? Over at WP:ANAT we requested a bot (WP:BOTREQ) which then performed a trial run, ironed out issues, then performed the rest of the run. In my opinion there's not much since with individual editors wasting their time doing repetitive tasks if a bot can. You'd be better off just checking over the list of edits by the bot (at least that would be faster).--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@Tom (LT): Unfortunately, yes manually. So as to not to just add a blank template, I'm also adding ICD-10 codes at the same time (where appropriate). Whilst the classification info could just be pulled from WD; I'm also double checking the article is using the correct medical infobox - and I'm not sure if that can be done by non-human means? Little pob (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Have posted on your talk page. Let's see if a bot can help you out. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I'll leave this thread open for two weeks from when I posted (2 July). Then, if there is consensus to continue, I'll see if we can get a bot to port the data to WD, then remove the terms from the navbox titles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok; with no objections I have made the bot request here: Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Request_for_bot_for_medical_templates_to_move_ICD_data_to_Wikidata,_and_remove_from_view. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Seeking input to MEDRS discussion

I added a description of this study [10] to the Research section of the article dexamethasone, but was reverted on primary source grounds. The discussion at Talk:Dexamethasone#Justification of revert has come to an impasse because of differing interpretations of WP:MEDRS. Any input to the discussion over there would be appreciated. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia Research Showcase on medical knowledge and Covid-19 on Wikipedia (July 15)

Hi all. My name is Martin Gerlach and I'm a research scientist in the Research team at the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm reaching out to you to let you know about an upcoming research showcase we're organizing that could be of interest to you:

This upcoming Wednesday, July 15, at 9:30 AM PDT/16:30 UTC the Wikimedia Research showcase will feature 2 talks around medical knowledge on Wikipedia: an overview by Denise Smith on the various ways users engage with Wikipedia’s health content in general as well as a timely study by Giovanni Colavizza on how editors are integrating knowledge on Covid-19 at an unprecedented pace. The talks will be live-streamed on (youtube) and there will also be time for audience questions during Q&A. More details, see here. --MGerlach (WMF) (talk) 09:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
This is happening now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIV26lWrD9c (recorded) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for this.

  • IMHO, Denise Smith's talk and Q&A session could provide really useful food for thought to anyone contemplating research into Wikipedia's health-related content.
    (And from an editorial perspective, she highlights once again the challenge of how the heck to combine accessibility with appropriate depth of content for the benefit of a broad usership of people with different backgrounds, who are consulting pages for a wide range of reasons.) 86.186.155.159 (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Templates for discussion

Hi all, I will be going through our template series (Category:Medicine_templates) as my own little project in the next little bit and proposing changes, splits, deletion or mergers of some templates within our project's scope at WP:TfD. It will be quite a lot of effort for me to notify this project at every turn, so I will not be doing that unless the template is particularly important or I want to initiate a discussion about a systematic change like above (this is consistent with most activity on articles under this project's scope not getting discussed or reported here).

I do anticipate involving quite a few templates so I will do my best to engage here where relevant. For the rest, I'd ask that anyone interested follow WP:TfD. I've made a few requests today, including one involving {{Inflammation}}. The link for those discussions is: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 16. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on a likely thankless task! Ajpolino (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Problem with figures formatting in N-localizer page.

Dear Ozzie10aaaa,

I added a third figure to the entry of N-localizers for stereotactic neurosurgery. The problem I have is that the aligment is not good on PCs or MACs, only nice in mobile phones.

Is there a way to put all three figures at the same horizontal level? Could you please help me?

Thanks,

LecuonaB — Preceding unsigned comment added by LecuonaB (talk • contribs) 18:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

will answer article/talk,thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
See N-localizer#Figures. On my screen, the arrangement of the three images is very strange, with one on the left (normal), one halfway between center and right (strange) and the third on a different row. What you see will very much be affected by your browser settings for zoom, window width, etc.
LecuonaB, I think that a proper gallery might be better than that. See Help:Gallery tag for some examples. If that's not appealing (galleries don't always look good with long captions), then I wonder whether a table might be better? RexxS will know more about whether that's appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Ayurveda RfC regarding "pseudoscience" in the lead sentence

More input is needed at the following RfC:

Talk:Ayurveda#RFC: pseudoscience in the opening sentence

Crossroads -talk- 00:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Is tumorogenesis distinct from carcinogenesis?

I'm working through some cancer biology publications and noticed that "tumorigenesis" redirects to carcinogenesis. Tumors aren't necessarily cancerous, though, so this struck me as something that might need to be changed. Elysia (AR) (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

it was done w/ this edit[11](however no explanation), your right Tumors aren't necessarily cancerous--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Standardised oncology template names

Hi all, I've been having a look at some of our oncology templates (Category:Oncology templates) and, although it's a minor issue, I was wondering what editors thought about a standardised name for most of our oncology templates. Currently we have tumor, neoplasia, malignancy and cancer used in a variety of templates. On the other hand, there might be unique reasons for each particular template. I'd like to ask what editors here think about a preferred standradised title? (another option would be Discuss each individually). Looking forward to hearing the opinion of other editors, --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  • My preferred option would be tumor, because it doesn't have the negative connotations associated with malignancy / cancer; and neoplasia is not readily understood). --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Template consistency and plain language doesn't seem particularly critical, given that the template names aren't reader-facing. Tumor doesn't work generally, as not all cancers form tumors, or if they do form tumors there are also many cells not in them; leukemias, for example. Also, WP:NOTCENSORED argues against the obfuscation of hiding cancer behind tumor. In other cases, neoplasia is more accurate. So, I'd leave the templates as they are and change on a case-by-case basis where there is a clear justification. Klbrain (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Some benign tumors are deadly, and some malignant cancers are so slow-growing that you'll die of old age before they become problems. I don't think I'd use "cancer" on a navbox that contains benign tumors. I might use it on all the others.
I think that most readers won't grasp the distinction between cancers being carcinomas and the non-carcinomas not being cancers. I think that distinction is only common for leukemias these days, and even there, writing "blood cancer" is not unusual in lay publications. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Articles with no sources

Would you like to add sources to articles that currently have no sources at all? Here are a few:

  • I agree, but can't find a source to use. And, it is only used in one article, where it is already defined, so the article really isn't needed and redirect is indicated. How about a redirect instead to hyperalgesia? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)  Done--Iztwoz (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • ALPSA lesion Done --Iztwoz (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Adenomere I sat down and read every single page on Gray's and Junqueira's about the salivary glands and they don't mention these at all. Ping to User:Iztwoz... any ideas? Dr. Vogel (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)  Done added to and refs - there must be more info available somewhere--Iztwoz (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Académie Nationale de Médecine  Done added 1 ref from the French National Library and 2 references from different parts of the French Government. Dr. Vogel (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

This problem is solved in two steps:

  1. Add at least one source somewhere in the article.
  2. Remove the tag from the top. (This tag is only supposed to be used when the article truly has zero sources.)

About 1% of WPMED-tagged articles are like this. Most of them are about organizations or people, but as you can see, there are also articles for medical and anatomy concepts. If this is an interesting area, then I can post some lists, and we can work through them together. Let me know what kind of article interests you the most, and I'll try to focus on those. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

This PetScan query pulls articles under Category:Medicine (to a depth of 5 sub-cats) that are both orphaned and unreferenced. Some are probably false hits (ie not medical at all; PetScan can be weird sometimes), but I'd guess many are good candidates for merge/redirect, or for deletion as OR/promo/neologism. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The giant megalist of all WP:MED-tagged articles flagged with problems avoids false-positives, though will miss untagged articles. Using the shortcut to unsourced articles (it may take several seconds for your browser to catch up), you can sort by importance, class or age, or look for combinations of tags. I can see there are 25 WP:MED-tagged unsourced orphans. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 01:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

MEDRS problems

Menstrual psychosis is a disputed, controversial diagnosis that has been described in case reports off and on for over a hundred years. It's not clear that it's "a disease" (i.e., a single clinical and etiological condition, as opposed to menstrual exacerbation of bipolar disorder, or any number of other ideas). An inexperienced editor has been trying to expand this article, but the sources aren't there, and what sources exist have been used expansively (e.g., a single case report involving one woman with amenorrhea gets turned into a statement that implies amenorrhea is common).

To be clear: This isn't pseudoscience. This isn't altmed. This is the routine case of conventional, mainstream medical science not yet having settled on an explanation for an uncommon situation. Nosology takes time.

What would be most helpful at this point is:

  • to have a couple of people who keep up with their watchlists to put this on your lists. The editor who wants to include all this information needs someone who will reply every time he posts something on the talk page.
  • to have a couple of editors steadily remove or fix the sourcing on any Wikipedia:Biomedical information (outside the ==History== section) that is currently sourced to the 20th century. Even with a very generous interpretation of MEDRS, I don't think we can justify sources older than the year 2000 for non-historical medical content. User:FloNight just tagged a bunch of uncited statements, and some of those may turn out to be verifiable. I don't believe that there is a single "good" version that could be reverted to.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It will be hard without having a copy of the book cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

“My book” ???? “My review”? We need a closer look here. [12]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Per the post I linked above, this situation needs closer attention. @RexxS, Casliber, Eyoungstrom, Guy Macon, and JZG: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
You probably want to ping JzG instead of JZG. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Darn ipad and its random uppercasedness ... @JzG: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Looks like the author/new editor is probably Ian Brockington -- found a single authored review paper in the journal mentioned [includes an open access PDF]. I don't know him. I smiled at how the "my book," and "my review in a top journal" looks very, very different from this side. Humbling for me to see. Glad you are giving me a fresh start. :-)
Addendum: He's an [accomplished scholar] in this area. Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Yup - he's written a large chunk of the literature as books, unfortunately only some of it is published by Cambridge University Press and he seems to have published the rest himself. He self-identified in several posts a while back. I'm not sure if he's still teaching at Birmingham University or if he's retired, but he is very invested in these topics and advocates for a support group. Nevertheless, he's shown himself receptive to feedback, but I'm now out of my depth in the topic, so I can't give much more help. Hopefully some of the folks here can. --RexxS (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I am not finding basic COI info on their talk ... just lots of declined drafts. Maybe someone who is better at it than I can write a COI message, since templates are so impersonal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
The issues have been discussed with Ian Brockington at Talk:Psychiatric disorders of childbirth and Talk:Menstrual psychosis - sorry there's so much to wade through there. I doubt that the usual CoI is actually the key point: it's more WP:SELFCITE as far as I can see. He's clearly a subject expert – probably too much of an expert to be a good fit for Wikipedia – but hasn't given up on us yet. The problem really is that such a large chunk of the literature I can find is authored by Prof Brockington, so it's hard to avoid citing it. --RexxS (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Yep - pretty much all this. The research into the area by anyone else is meagre. He has emailed me material as well, I needed a clear head and uninterrupted time to process. On the to-do list. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Well! I see I was late to the party :) Carry on :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, I am in touch with a couple of academic psychiatrists, I can ask if he is a crank or not. Guy (help!) 22:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: that might be helpful; the article/concept is mostly Brockington, with a lot of primary studies stuck in there, making the article/concept look better supported than it (possibly) is. I removed a ton of that just now, but there is more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

So, for how long is this going to go on? Do we not expect someone to know how to use Wikipedia when editing for over a decade? [13]. Combined with promotion (below), I suggest a better solution to this timesink is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

This needs to stop: [14]. This is now edit warring, and I am unwataching, since no one is helping. Reilly is the only decent source, and Son of is removing it to use ancient sources and continually introducing poor and uncited text. CIR. I'm out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
A partial block (blocking one person from editing two articles – it's a fairly new tool in the admins' toolbox) may turn out to be appropriate here.
If MP is really one person's idea, then merging it with the BLP article might be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Redirect?

I see FloNight did some repair there, and Brockington has responded;[15] noting that the only review used (Reilly) is only very briefing citing ... Brockington ... for the number of proposed cases, I have proposed a merge and redirect from menstrual psychosis to Ian Brockington. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I think a merger is the best option. I've had this article on my watchlist of over 5 years and there hasn't been any significant development of the literature beyond Brockington's own work. The sources cited in the article are synthesis of very very old case studies and a review article written by Brockington and his book. I've come to the conclusion that the current article is not reflecting a well established medical syndrome or condition but Brockington attempt to draw attention to his own views that there is something called "menstrual psychosis". Until Brockington's view gains more recognition in the field there should not be a stand alone article. Sydney Poore/FloNightUser talk:FloNight 01:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Five years ... ugh. That is dismal, and brings me to another point I have been wanting to raise here. Retention of content experts. It is very Very VERY difficult for researchers to grok Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but some show more promise than others. I don't see a lot of promise here; Brockington's only interest seems to be in promoting his concept. Alternately, I have been working with both Eyoungstrom and Memdmarti (psychology and gynecology) and they have both demonstrated an eager intent to learn, collaborate and participate. We need to feed their interest, not let them become too dejected at so much to learn, rather than wasting time on menstrual psychosis. Unless we have opposition from anyone, we should redirect menstrual psychosis to Ian Brockington in about a week ?? And give lots of encouragement to Eyoungstrom and Memdmarti-- these are editors who could make valued contributions, are eager to learn, and they're probably both tired already of dealing with all my typos and verbosity, so give them a hand if you can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, SandyGeorgia! Your “typos and verbosity” parallel mine so they are easy to accept.
Thank you for reminding me of the wonderful concept of grok.
As you have read Heinlein, let me be the semi-retired Jubal Harshaw trying to understand Valentine Michael Smith. My, and likely many or most scientific writers’, difficulties are more than the basic understanding of Wikipedia; they involve grokking grok (it is difficult, if possible for earth-born humans, to fully understand fair witnesses and sharing water), grokking the Wikipedia culture, and grokking the scientific publication culture simultaneously. The Wikipedia and scientific cultures are so different that it unlikely an individual can grok each culture separately and even less likely simultaneously. That said, I will keep trying, as least as separate cultures.
Thank you, SandyGeorgia! Memdmarti (talk)
Addendum: SandyGeorgia, your suggestion elsewhere that I edit nonmedical Wikipedia pages to learn editing is excellent. I will only watch the endometriosis page for egregious changes and use the"request edit" template on those. If you have COI for Kistner, I have COI for endometriosis as a provider with 49 or so years of studying it beginning in academic year 1970-71 while Kistner was still in his prime. Memdmarti (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@Memdmarti: on grokking grok, what do you think of menstrual psychosis? (At the intersection of your and Eyoungstrom’s professions)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia:
  1. I would need to go back and read the literature. That looks to be an explanation of a subset of stress-related psychoses. Hormonal stress is as bad as personal, environmental, dietary, etc. stresses. I would have thought that it would be at Stress-related disorders, but it is not. I am behind on editing two papers that I need to submit and will come back to menstrual psychosis and Stress-related disorders toward the end of next week.
  2. Question: I do not know if this is for you someone else. If not for you, please direct it to someone. Are medical providers whose income is or was influenced by a disease such as endometriosis considered to have COI? As an example, a friend of mine is preparing to submit a manuscript on the conflicts that IVF providers have between 1) doing comprehensive evaluation and treatment before IVF rather than 2) proceeding directly to IVF. The second is the most lucrative and there is evidence that it is commonly used. My 51 of the 52 PubMed citations at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=martin+d+endometriosis&sort=date reflect my focus and thus COI. Does Wikipedia agree with the last sentence that says I have COI for endometriosis? As a matter that parallels your international experience, the three most recent papers on PubMed come from seven countries on three continents. Thank you, Dan Memdmarti (talk)
  3. If I have COI, do I need to have someone review my edits on endometriosis? Memdmarti (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, WhatamIdoing! As you possibly could conclude from reading the 313 concepts with more than 400 references including 18 publishing in 2020 in https://www.danmartinmd.com/files/endotheory.pdf, you might reasonably conclude that I have no commitment to The Truth™. I have even referenced theories that I think are mostly bogus (bogus theories can include some reasonable concepts) but cannot disprove. Theories are just theories. Although some have evidence, many do not, some are dangerous (Tomato effect and Medical reversal), and they would not be theories if there was proof. Memdmarti (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC) / 17:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Menstrual psychosis redirected to Ian Brockington (which is a mess of another order); I suggest that watchlisting will help make sure the problems do not continue there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Ian Brockington

Ian Brockington also needs attention; have a look at how this article was cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Brockington founded the press that published his book? And is key to the organization that published his studies? And puffed up his own BLP? Why are we doing this? SandyGeorgia (Talk)

G4 EA H1N1

New article needing review: Graham Beards might you (along with others) have a look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The thing is a mess, the sourcing is poor, but I did what cleanup and tagging I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Now cleaned up, thanks to Graham ... can others watchlist as it is a WP:NOTNEWS magnet? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

If we ever need one, this is a short and simple example of exactly why we don't use the laypress, and what happens on Wikipedia with newsy-style reporting. WP:MEDRS and WP:NOTNEWS all in one. It is COVID on a smaller scale, where the gross distortions and inaccuracies that Wikipedia reported for several days got over 35,000 pageviews. At one point, the article actually had a chart indicating 35 known infections, which is utterly false. Among other utterly false things that stood in the article, with more added just this morning. I hope others are watching? I have left some of the laypress reporting out of necessity, to combat the scaremongering inaccuracies, furthered even by The New York Times with a NEW scary clickbait headline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, this must be the "new influenza strain in China worries researchers" headlines that I've been seeing. I'll leave I see that you already left a note at WT:COVID about it, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
WAID, it was quite dreadful, and only came to my attention via a notification that it linked to an article I created (White House Coronavirus Task Force per the mention of Fauci). Elsewise, when would we have known? Many pageviews of flat out inaccuracies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

Done, archive?

All done, archive ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Nope, that dead horse is still being beaten. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

2020 China hantavirus outbreak

More of same issue ... I do not have time to take on another one. Who wants it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Bubonic Plague of 2020

This was in the news earlier and someone made an article for it. Velayinosu (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I have proposed deletion, please comment there. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Posttraumatic stress disorder

Regions of the brain associated with PTSD

Seeking additional comment regarding move request Posttraumatic stress disorder -> Post-traumatic stress disorder here.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 23:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ozzie10aaaa: Thank you for your input. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 17:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


Done, archive? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Endometriosis article

Endometriosis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recent editing there by Memdmarti (talk · contribs) and Ksaxelrod (talk · contribs).

The article could use more eyes from this project. And it's very likely both editors need guidance on WP:MEDRS. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at this and referencing WP:MEDRS. I am confused about the definition of primary as it applies to published articles. In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endometriosis#Pathophysiology, the third section on “Retrograde menstruation theory” is the sentence “The theory of retrograde menstruation as a cause of endometriosis was first proposed by John A. Sampson.[42][56]” where 56 refers to Sampson’s 1927 sentinel article. Is that primary because Sampson wrote it or secondary because it is published. It is easy to replace as there are there are five or more recent reviews of Sampson not including my chronological annotated file with 400+ references at https://www.danmartinmd.com/files/endotheory.pdf. I know not to use my file witout using a COI request and the five recent publications cover all I need to add.
I am also confused as to whether I can communicate on this talk page. If I do not belong here, please let me know.
Memdmarti (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Memdmarti; anyone can post here, and you are welcome here. Posting to the talk page of WP:MED is just a way of getting more eyes on a topic than posting at an article talk page.
Some pages that may help you are WP:PSTS and WP:RS, in addition to the health specific WP:MEDRS.
In the example you give, 42 is PMID 9147102, a secondary review that is a MEDRS-compliant source. Although it is dated (and could be updated), it is not derelict sourcing for that kind of text (see WP:MEDDATE). It is sufficient to cite the text that Sampson first proposed the theory, but citation 56, PMID 19969738, which is Sampson's original paper, is added just as a courtesy (not necessary). Some editors do that, only as a courtesy. Sampson is a primary source, referenced by the secondary source-- both are provided, although only the first secondary source is needed.
PS, another thing to be aware of is to not guide your Wikipedia editing by things you encounter in articles, because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (Nice to see my dear Dr. Kistner in your notes ... without whom I would not have had children!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, SandyGeorgia! Most excellent suggestions. Wikipedia template filling is wonderful. (I am happy that you found Robert Kistner!) Memdmarti (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Robert Kistner needs cleaning up ... I have a most decided COI there, since the man achieved the impossible with me, so expect/hope someone to be watching my work ... adding it to my list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, SandyGeorgia!

I agree that PMID 9147102 is dated, but it is one of few articles that reviews theories in general rather than as an aside in a non-theory paper or focusing on a specific theory. PubMed has that cited by 13 articles. I will work through those. The first to Laganà et al. (2019) PMID 31717614 is OK, but I have COI as a co-author.

  1. From line 2 in this section, I am working with Ksaxelrod (talk · contribs), a 2{paid|employer=ASRM|article=Ricardo_Azziz}2 (COI). I am a paying, not paid, member of ASRM (COI). Do I need a different template than 2{request edit}2 to work with Ksaxelrod (talk · contribs) on Ricardo_Azziz, the ASRM CEO whom I have known since the 1990s (COI), on POV and Source issues?
  2. Is there a standard way to designate the request edit template (2{request edit}2) so it does not go live?
  3. Did the "u|" send you a message?
  4. When in a string, do I need to start a new section? Memdmarti (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello again, Memdmarti. (Where were your Milanese friends when I had to travel from Italy to Boston for treatment ? :) :) Please do tell them that in the 80s, my doctors in California, New York, Argentina and Venezuela told me there were no good endo docs in Italy, which I found to be true :) Yes, it is OK to use a dated source when it is the best available.
  1. Ksaxelrod's work at Ricardo Azziz has some issues; you would be well served to work with Flyer22 and other experienced Wikipedians. I have long avoided the Endometriosis article because of my own COI, and because it is the topic that first brought me to an understanding of how considerable is the problem of ascertainment and sample bias in medical topics. I do not want to engage editing there, but can see you are seeking help in earnest. I will watchlist and clean up Ricardo Azziz, but I need a few days to get to it. You can list any sources you want me to use in Further reading.
    I believe the request edit is the correct template, but I have little involvement with the template. If you can be patient, I will deal with Azziz, and you can watch my edits to see what sorts of things need fixing (see MOS:HONORIFICS for example). For specifics on Azziz, you can post directly to my talk page, as I am quite busy and may miss pings or article talk posts.
  2. Not that I know of. But if you know someone is watching the article and working with you, it should not be necessary to use it. That template calls admins to the article, who may not be knowledgeable in the topic, and sometimes just punt the queries back to here. Use it sparingly now that you are gaining experience? What would be more helpful at this point would be for you to learn how to thread conversations and start new sections ... see WP:TALK.
  3. No, I did not get a ping from your message, as you didn't use the template correctly. It should have been just {{u|SandyGeorgia}} ... instead of using just my username, you copied my entire signature in. (If you look at posts from other people in edit mode, you will see how they do it ... in this case, ignore the nowiki tags I added, to make it render without sending the ping.)
  4. When you say "string", I think you mean what we call a thread. In this instance (this page), no, you don't need to start a new section. On an article talk page, if you are starting an entirely different request, it is helpful to start a new section. Think in terms of how sections will be archived once they are addressed.
Generally, let's see who is following your edits at endometriosis, so we can get your own work properly added and cited where appropriate-- I would rather not be the person doing that, but am happy to help you in other areas. Flyer22 Frozen are you watching endometriosis? Anyone else? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you SandyGeorgiaI
Regarding <ascertainment and sample bias in medical topics>
Unfortunately, my sample bias, as well as that of most physicians who publish, was significant. I have a friend who published that an algorithm using GnRH could be used to predict endometriosis with 82% accuracy. The finding was largely accepted in 1999 until it was realized that his statistical analysis was naïve. He failed to note that his decision to enter women in the study had a predictive accuracy of 82%. He was measuring both the nature of his tertiary referral practice and his clinical ability to grasp when women potentially had endometriosis. The algorithm worked because of his tertiary practice and his clinical ability, but the GnRHa was likely irrelevant. Of note, 72% of women with no endometriosis improved; GnRHa is now recognized to treat any estrogen sensitive condition such as myoma and adenomyosis. By 2001, the story was discounted, but still lingers on in those who heard the first report, but not the second. I would add it to Medical reversal, but it would be an attack on a living person.
Regarding Robert Kistner, I have a book in storage that likly includes him. I will let you know. Memdmarti (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I need a few days to catch up on other articles, then will turn my attention to Kistner and Azziz (and will ping in other editors to review when finished per my COI at Kistner). The ascertainment bias furthered by the Endometriosis Association (and the founder effect) still guides my approach to editing Wikipedia; successful cases like mine were just not reflected in the literature, and things like this are why we take great care to use secondary reviews and avoid primary studies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Since PMID 9147102 is dated, then is there a textbook that covers the same material? Articles do not have to be cited purely to journal articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, WhatamIdoing! Laganà et al. (2019) PMID 31717614 covers some, but not all of what is in PMID 9147102. Can we use both? I have COI as a co-author. My 64-page, 300+ concepts and theories, and 400+ references file covers that and more at http://www.danmartinmd.com/files/endotheory.pdf. If either of those are OK, then good. If not, I can look at textbooks and recent articles. Please let me know. Memdmarti (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- - - - Addendum - - - -
Hi!, WhatamIdoing! This is a comprehensive textbook chapter
Nap AW. Theories on the Pathogenesis of Endometriosis. In Giudice LC, Evers JLH, Healy DL (editors). Endometriosis: ::Science and Practice. Wiley. West Sussex. Kindle Edition. 2012
ISBN-13: 978-1-4443-3213-1 (hardcover : alk. paper)
ISBN-10: 1-4443-3213-9 (hardcover : alk. paper)
Nap, AW (2012). "Theories on the Pathogenesis of Endometriosis". In Giudice, LC; Evers, JLH; Healy, DL (eds.). Endometriosis: Science and Practice (Kindle ed.). West Sussex: Wiley. ISBN 978-1-4443-3213-1.

Yes, Sandy, because I watch the article, I saw the latest edits there. I'm not heavily involved with the article, but I can assist and guide the new editors. I can tweak their additions. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Memdmarti created their account in 2008, but they are still essentially a new editor. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Ekem, Mikael Häggström, Phoebe: you've worked on the Endometriosis article before. It needs an update, and we've got a few newer editors who are willing to do most of the work. Can you lend a hand? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, WhatamIdoing, for thinking about me for improving the article, but unfortunately I do not have the time for it in a foreseeable future. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Kistner

Robert Kistner was my endo surgeon (COI); at the time, my overseas physicians sent me to him because he was number one in the field. (And they were personal friends, so Kistner agreed to schedule my surgery without having met me, as I was on assignment in Colombia and had a busy work schedule-- he took the word of my Venezuelan ob/gyn that I was Stage IV.) I cleaned up his article, and added inline citations. There was very little new that I could add (just his fellowship and memberships). I did encounter a COI problem, so am asking for other opinions. As his patient, one knew he was smitten with his TV personality former model wife. He committed suicide. One source (marginal- Boston Herald- which I can't access) claims she had filed for divorce. Original research had him committing suicide shortly after that. But Boston Globe has her as his wife, and Associated Press had them "estranged". So I removed the original research connecting his marriage to his suicide, as the sources conflict. No sources available online-- all through my local library access. Please check my work; version before I edited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Azziz

I have completely rewritten Ricardo Azziz, which was a walking advertisement for all the reasons paid editing is a bad idea. For the six average daily views it gets, was my two days of reading everything I could find to repair this article a good use of my time? I am still uncomfortable with the state the article is in, and would appreciate more eyes and opinions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Cerebriform nuclei

Hello, I'm back with another stubby orphan, this time Cerebriform nuclei. Can it be merged somewhere? Or should it be left standalone? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

This is unlikely to ever be anything more than a dicdef - it's just a term that's used to describe the appearance of cells, not a condition as such. Maybe PROD it and add an explanation of the term to the articles where it's mentioned. Spicy (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Maybe we need a Glossary of pathology terms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
That's an excellent idea, but it would have to be written by someone with extensive knowledge of the subject matter for it to be reasonably complete. I know very little about non-blood related pathology. Spicy (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Have redirected to Sézary disease as seems to be specific there - it only describes a shape.--Iztwoz (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC) And is characteritic of Sezary cells.--Iztwoz (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Was hesitant about doing that because it's sometimes used outside that context (albeit rarely), but the redirect is good enough IMO. Spicy (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing and Spicy Anatomical terms of microanatomy (micro) and Anatomical terms of neuroanatomy (gross) may be other options in this case. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Me-too compound

I was looking at Me-too compound and felt it should be renamed "Me-too drug" as this appears to be the common nomenclature. If in agreement, could somebody kindly amend. I tried but couldn't. Whispyhistory (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I listed this at WP:RM. (Non-admins can't move this article to that redirect because of the number of edits in the redirect's history.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand what that means but thanks. Whispyhistory (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
She's saying that she's tried to make the change that you asked for, but it won't let her, and an admin will have to do it. So she's placed a request for that. Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Anthony Appleyard patrols Wikipedia:Requested moves so that job is now done, but if you need an admin for these sort of obvious jobs, please just ping me and I'll be happy to oblige. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Myc gene

Could someone please review this reversion and restore it if you think it's correct? It seems to be a 'procedural' reversion, but I don't know much about the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Cleavage (breasts)

There are some parts in the article that deal with diseases and treatments. But, not being very oriented with medical sciences, I really can't put those parts in order on my own. Seriously need some help. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I've had a look and made some changes to the article. I've replied to the section you started at the WP Anatomy talk page, as I feel this belongs there more than here. Dr. Vogel (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on the article. I've posted about some sourcing issues on the talk page. I don't have a lot of time to dedicate to the article myself but I think it could use a closer look from other WP:MED contributors. Spicy (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Finding promising new editors

I've been experimenting with ways to identify promising new editors, and I've got an idea to pass along to anyone who's interested in trying it out, too. This uses the "new" (2017) filters on RecentChanges, which some old hands may have turned off. But if you've got it on, then try this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked?userExpLevel=learner&hidebots=1&hidenewpages=1&hidecategorization=1&hideWikibase=1&hidelog=1&target=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Medicine%2FLists_of_pages%2FTop-%2C_High-importance_medicine_articles&namespace=0&limit=500&days=7&urlversion=2

This is a list of all edits made to Top-priority and High-priority WPMED articles. The key point is the ?userExpLevel=learner bit. This gives you a list of all edits by people who have made more than 10 edits (so there are very few spammers and vandals, and they're likely to stick around for a while) but less than 500 edits (so some encouragement and invitations to join us might turn the promising editor into a highly experienced one). If you click that and get a list with an average of about 10 edits per day, then you have the "new" filters enabled (and the page will look a bit like the top of this screenshot, but without the blue and green highlighting). I put this link in my bookmarks and checked it every day for a while. In my experience, almost all of these edits are good-faith and helpful. Some edits can be improved upon, and a few have been reverted (usually before I saw them), but most of them just need someone to click the 'thanks' button or to invite the editor to join us here.

If you want to see edits to all the WPMED articles by this group of editors, then this is the link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked?userExpLevel=learner&hidebots=1&hidenewpages=1&hidecategorization=1&hideWikibase=1&hidelog=1&target=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Medicine%2FLists_of_pages/Articles&namespace=0&limit=500&days=7&urlversion=2

This is a great opportunity for anyone who wants to encourage and recruit promising new editors. We can set up lists like this for any list of articles that interests you, so if you want, e.g., only articles about the pandemic, or only articles about cancer, or only articles that are currently mentioned on any page (seriously: all the links on any page), then let me know what interests you, and I'll help you set it up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Brain explodes. How to best use this wealth of info. And where to park the links for ease of use. The WP:MED page needs a complete rewrite, to put the most useful easily at hand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
For anyone who knows muscular dystrophy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lukelahood SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
New genetic and autism editor, [16] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Requesting for a journal on amyloid arthropathy

Skin features of amyloidosis cutis dyschromica.

I am interested to write amyloid arthropathy in the wikipage amyloidosis. Came across this reference https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29762107/ but cannot find a full text version online. Any help is very much appreciated. I requested on Resource exchange but no reply in a few days. Thank you.Cerevisae (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

That's the Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances, which seems to be a decent journal, but I don't remember anyone mentioning it before. A student, User:Hpot90, cited a different article from that journal, so perhaps it's available from some university libraries? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your reply but I don't have any access to university libraries. Cerevisae (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry that I could not be more helpful here. JenOttawa (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Difficult. I've got access to three universities' libraries but none granted access to this article. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Don't know if this Radiopaedia page might be helpful [17] --Iztwoz (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Yikes, I don't have access either. I just reached out to the corresponding author via email (though I imagine my email is likely to end up in his spam folder). Fingers crossed he sees the email and is willing to share a copy of the article. Ajpolino (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
not easy to find/get --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done The author emailed a PDF of the article! @Cerevisae: I just emailed you a copy. Thanks all, and thanks to the author for sharing! Ajpolino (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Ajpolino Cerevisae (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Hospitals

I would like to add the Wikiproject Hospitals to the list of related projects on the WikiProject Medicine main page. We have made a lot of progress in cleaning up the articles on hospitals and adding infoboxes, coordinates, and images. Hospital articles have been particularly popular during the COVID-19 pandemic. -- Talk to G Moore 11:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

(fixed typo)...seems like a good idea...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 Done The feed of related projects on the side of related projects is two years old and doesn't add much current value. -- Talk to G Moore 16:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome

Does someone want to have a look at new article Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome and check whether it leans too far into a manual/how-to direction for easy publication? Leaving unreviewed for now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Have had a look and commented on talk page - seems that it may be better merged into Opioid use disorder that has a withdrawal section.--Iztwoz (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
1300+ words is a lot to merge into a single section (and that's after User:QueensanditsCrazy cut a lot of how-to and background content out). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I absolutely do not feel that this article should be merged. What with oipiod use currently creating a national health emergency and causing untold pain and suffering with so many deaths that it is actually lowering the life expectancy figures in the U.S., it is more than reasonable to have several oipiod-related articles. Gandydancer (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • From a quick look, this seems pretty poor. Long lists of rat and monkey primary studies in the "Treatment and Management" section. When this is reduced to something based on RS a merge may be appropriate. Alexbrn (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    • There are a bunch of reviews at PubMed, many of them (as Iztwoz mentions on the talk page) specific to neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome. I think there's a potential for substantially upgrading the sourcing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I think they mean acute opioid withdrawal, the page is confused because they seem to think only those with an opioid use disorder can have this, that isn't really true. What they mean is where there is tolerance, then rapid withdrawal, the cellular adaptations mean that there can be a reflexive severe withdrawal. Generally the best source on all things Opioid dependence/use/disorder is Nora Volkow's studies (she currently heads up NIDA) PainProf (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
A merger was proposed: Opioid use disorder the topic is discussed here: Talk:Opioid_use_disorder#Merger_Proposal_(July_2020) PainProf (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Page has now been renamed to Opioid withdrawal.--Iztwoz (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Johann Lahodny

Folks here may remember back in May, the issue of this article, raised by Headbomb. see

I "solved" this by redirecting to Ozone therapy, but now Euphonie, the article's creator, has restored it to its former state. So the issue is back. While the article is obviously highly problematic as is, I wonder whether the subject is even sufficiently notable for an article at all. (I am also alerting WP:FT/N as there are fringe issues in play). Alexbrn (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Alexbrn. Thank you for your message.
Ozonotherapy, whose protocol Lahodny has modified, is in fact only part of his professional activity. He is better known as a gynecologist and obstetrician specialized in obstetric oncology as well as an inventor and designer of several restorative surgical interventions targeting gynecological pathologies more specifically related to the female reproductive system—including urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.
I understand the caution and reservations with respect to most alternative medicines.
For the record, I would like to make one thing clear: I myself am suspicious and reticent about many unconventional therapies, although I remain “open-mindedly” sceptical. In fact, I'm mostly interested in them from a sociological point of view.
Nevertheless, sometimes promising avenues are likely to emerge that could potentially bring together certain complementary methods. For example, a series of clinical studies in the USA would seem to show, against all expectations, that intensive targeted chemotherapy coupled with fasting under medical supervision would potentially allow the whole treatment not only to be significantly more effective in the curative eradication of certain tumors, but could even partially protect the patient against a certain number of side effects. It should be noted that this university study has even been officially funded by the pharmaceutical industry. The advantage being that this approach would even allow for increased doses of medication while minimizing the risks. The Franco-German channel Arte reported this study (in French) and can be consulted online via → this dedicated link (from 40:04) with an interview of Valter D. Longo.
This being said, I am quite open to reformulating the text in such a way as to make the content as neutral and compatible as possible with current Wikipedian requirements. Any advice and suggestions for improvement in this regard are welcome.
I look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards, — euphonie breviary 08:18, 08:30, 09:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Before getting to the content, Euphonie, could you please clarify: do you have any WP:COI for this subject? Alexbrn (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I can assure you that I have absolutely no conflict of interest whatsoever with the subject matter of this article. And the fact that you are a scientist yourself is of particular interest to me, as your expertise in the medical field would certainly allow for a substantial improvement of this textual content with regard to current requirements. Thank you for your help. Kind regards, — Euphonie (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay thanks. I am not a scientist (not that it's important). The problem with the article is that is has almost no suitable sourcing (where it is sourced) and is written in a terrible WP:PROMOtional way, making grand fringe claims. Whether it should be deleted or stubbified I'm not sure - and wait to hear the opinion of other medical editors. Alexbrn (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. I assume that you are implicitly referring, among other themes, to the alleged invigoration of stem cells that this specific process would induce. I have tried to express as much as possible what all of the sources currently available seem to emphasize. It is true that, unless I am mistaken, double-blind university clinical studies, including a placebo group, are still lacking. So I wrote the article with the means at hand. Therefore, any improvement, completion and neutralization of the content would be gratefully received. Yours sincerely, — euphonie breviary 09:34, 09:36, 10:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
It's almost everything about the article really. I mean: "tachyonic field therapy" – that sounds like something out of Star Trek, or a hoax! Alexbrn (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I've removed as much of the promotional blurb and unsubstantiated narrative as I could, but the article is very poor. Articles about proponents of fringe medical practices can't be written as if those practices were effective and can't ignore the real issues of safety surrounding many of them. I've proposed deletion as non-notable and I'll take it to AfD if that is challenged. On the meantime, there remains the usual problem that when sourcing is weak, the editor/promoter add multiple poor sources everywhere in a believe that lots of poor sources add up to a good one. They don't. More eyes would be welcome. --RexxS (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help as well as your contribution to the improvement and neutralization of the article.
I added the following sources:
Robert Jay Rowen, MD (July–August 2018). "Ozone therapy as a primary and sole treatment for acute bacterial infection: case report". Med Gas Res. 8 (3): 121–124. doi:10.4103/2045-9912.241078. PMC 6178636. PMID 30319768. Johann Lahodny, MD of Austria, has furthered the hyperbaric method (personal instruction) by repeating this treatment for 10 passes of 200 mL of blood with 200 mL of oxygen ozone gas at 70 μg/ml for a total delivery of ozone of 140,000 μg in one sitting.
Robert Jay Rowen, MD (July 3, 2018). "Ozone therapy in conjunction with oral antibiotics as a successful primary and sole treatment for chronic septic prosthetic joint: review and case report". Med Gas Res. 8 (2): 67–71. doi:10.4103/2045-9912.235139. PMC 6070838. PMID 30112169. Austrian physician Johann Lahodny, MD pioneered a higher dose method and termed it "ozone high dose therapy" or "OHT". The treatment is repeated 9 more times for a total of 10 "passes" and delivery of 140,000 μg ozone. OHT is commonly known as "10 pass" in the USA.
Sincerely yours, — euphonie breviary 19:26, 20:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I removed them. Case reports are primary studies and we don't use primary studies to made biomedical claims. WP:MEDRS is quite clear about that. --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Ah, okay, thank you for that information and for the additional link to WP:MEDRS that I thoroughly read with much interest. You are right. As a matter of fact, I was not aware (yet) that “case reports are primary studies”. I had ingeniously thought that → the two references above were acceptable secondary sources, since these articles had been published in a medical journal. That’s why, in the same vein, I had tried to neutralize and shorten as much as possible the section devoted to the OHT by reducing it to the strict informative purpose, cf. diff → 967214351.
This said, it is true that, → as described above, a series of double-blind clinical studies (with a placebo group) is still missing to allow the conclusion to be drawn about the alleged reliability—or, a contrario, the possible inefficiency—of this innovative approach which aims to sustain and assist other more conventional cures.
In this regard, a few years ago, I read a medical article on the use of OHT in combination with intensive chemotherapy in treating certain tumors. The content highlighted a potential synergistic benefit, arguing that OHT would improve the overall effectiveness of the treatment by allowing increased doses of chemotherapy while significantly reducing the risk of side effects. Unfortunately, I can no longer find this document. However, as far as I can remember, it was also a “case report” (written by a team of oncologists). Thus, according to the WP:MEDRS, this would still not be acceptable enough to allow its implementation under the current wording.
Thank you for your kind and valuable cooperation, your diligent assistance and your sound advice.
Kind regards, — euphonie breviary 23:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Update: your advice, help and guidance have enabled me to become more acquainted with the criteria which are specifically related to WP:MEDRS. I thank you for this cultural experience which allowed me to better scrutinize the content of several newly updated regulatory requirements. As a result, after careful consideration, I came to the conclusion that the proposal previously put forward by Alexbrn was eventually the most appropriate for the situation, as shown by diff → 958403287. I have therefore reinstated it. Of course, it may still become subsequently possible to transform this redirection into a possible newly updated article to be completed later, should a randomized clinical study occur in double-blind conditions with respect to 0HT. If so, this would thus grant an increased pragmatic reliability to the former textual content, providing all legitimaly expected scientific evidence and guarantees. Yours sincerely, — euphonie breviary 12:28, 12:44, 13:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Side note: Statements like "he has been focusing since 2010 on an innovative form of ozone therapy called OHT—“Ozonhochdosistherapie”" and "commonly known as “10 pass” in the USA" do not constitute Wikipedia:Biomedical information, and therefore MEDRS does not apply. I mention this merely for its possible long-term value; I think that the outcome here (redirecting the whole thing) is appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

No. Calling OHT "an innovative form of ozone therapy" is medical content and therefore WP:MEDRS ("This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article, including those on alternative medicine." does apply. In particular, "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content" is good guidance. The full sentence was "Self-funding his own work on the therapeutic effects of medical ozone with respect to its implications and related impacts on mitochondria and stem cells, he has been focusing on an innovative form of ozone therapy that he is still gradually developing and perfecting since 2010." If you don't see the first part of that sentence as making problematical claims, and the whole sentence as promotional, I'd like to see where you set the bar.
Moreover, how does redirecting Johann Lahodny to Ozone therapy represent an appropriate outcome when Lahodny is not mentioned once in the latter article? --RexxS (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The targeted sentence you mention has been revoked, thus helping to solve the issue you raised, cf. diff → 967215178.
You are right. Lahodny is currently not mentioned in the section relating to ozone therapy. What about adding it to the article?
Furthermore, I would even suggest that the following list could be included:
Ozonotherapy has been implemented all over Cuba for more than 50 years, including in hospital settings. The same goes for Italy and Greece where, unless I am mistaken, this approach is also officially recognized and validated by the Ministry of Health.
This technique is also commonly applied in Germany, notably by many Heilpraktiker.
On the other hand, I would also like to point out that each national school tends to favor a different approach... and sometimes even a somewhat contradictory one.
  • For example, the German technique mainly uses minimal quantities with restricted dosages.
  • Lahodny, through Ozonhochdosistherapie or OHT, advocates the opposite: he uses massive injections and high dosages.
  • In Cuba, rectal insufflation prevails.
  • Several dedicated medical associations exist in Italy. Their respective messages sometimes contradict each other on certain points as well.
According to what most practitioners say, this technique—provided that it is applied according to a rigorous protocol by an experienced and duly trained physician, using only medical grade certified equipment—would allegedly be free of undesirable side effects as well as having only few contraindications among which are glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency (in Italian: “favismo”), severe hyperthyroidism, epilepsy and pregnancy.
Nota bene: I would like to expressly state that I am writing all the above in the conditional tense because I am the first to admit that these are claims that are still not sufficiently substantiated at the scientific level. Randomized, double-blind clinical studies are still sorely lacking to confirm or disprove the above. This is why, since I became aware of WP:MEDRS, I no longer dare to add anything in an article on en.wp dealing with unconventional medicine, for fear of being symbolically “stoned” in case the introduction of a word, semantic unit or unusual expression could potentially constitute an accidental infringement with respect to the draconian requirements that are explicitly stipulated for this purpose.
Sincerely, — euphonie breviary 00:54, 01:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, are you objecting to his novel form of Ozone therapy being called 'innovative', or are you objecting to ozone therapy being called "therapy"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Ozone therapy is an alternative medical treatment that introduces ozone or ozonides to the body. In April 2003, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibited all medical uses of ozone, "In any medical condition for which there is no proof of safety and effectiveness", stating "Ozone is a toxic gas with no known useful medical application in specific, adjunctive, or preventive therapy. In order for ozone to be effective as a germicide, it must be present in a concentration far greater than that which can be safely tolerated by man and animals." Ozone therapy has been sold as an unproven treatment for various illnesses, including cancer. This has been characterized as "pure quackery". - Ozone therapy
I apologise for being unclear. I'm objecting to OHT being called therapy. Although now you mention it, WP:PEACOCK also applies. --RexxS (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
At that same period, a government notice from the Ministry of Health in Italy, dated 2 January 2003, stated the following (and I quote):
“… therapeutic indication in which ozone oxygen therapy can be used, experimentally and in ways identified by the CSS, is lumbar disc herniation with intradiscal injection. The Ministry also reiterates that the practice of ozone oxygen therapy can only be carried out in accredited public or private hospital.” → [20] → [21]
Sincerely, — euphonie breviary 21:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
The full press release:

The Minister of Health Girolamo Sirchia has ordered the sending to the Regional Health Departments and to the Carabinieri Command of the Nas of a circular containing the indications to the local health and hospital companies on the problem relating to the use of oxygen ozone therapy. The circular first of all reminds that this therapy has never been authorized for aesthetic purposes and that the entire problem connected with the use of oxygen ozone therapy has been repeatedly addressed by the Superior Health Council. The conclusion reached is that the only therapeutic indication in which oxygen ozone therapy can be used, experimentally and in ways identified by the CSS, is the lumbar disc herniation with intradiscal injection. The Ministry also reiterates that the practice of oxygen ozone therapy can only be carried out in accredited public or private hospitals. With this circular and thanks to the intense activity of the Carabinieri of the Nas who have checked the beauty centers throughout the national territory, Minister Sirchia intends to keep high attention on the safety of some therapies that, too often, are used improperly and by subjects without specific competence, putting at risk the health of unsuspecting citizens.

So the Italian Minister of Health was concerned in 2003 about the unauthorised use of ozone and makes the point that the only use allowed was for one specific procedure for experimental purposes. Is there anything there of significance to either of the two articles? --RexxS (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
“So the Italian Minister of Health was concerned in 2003 about the unauthorised use of ozone” “for aesthetic purposes” “and makes the point that the only use allowed was for one specific procedure for experimental purposes” which refer to “lumbar disc herniation with intradiscal injection” to be only “carried out in accredited public or private hospitals”.
This was a legitimate government warning, all the more justified since any ozone injection must be carried out according to a precise protocol which should imperatively be performed by doctors who are highly qualified and specialised in this method, or even, ideally, in a hospital institution duly trained in this procedure, as previously describeb in → my former message above.
The above-mentioned government notice was precisely aimed at avoiding any fraudulent abuse, charlatanism of the “sorcerer's apprentice” type or, even more problematic, possible ill-considered uses that could potentially endanger the patient's health.
A few years later, in 2006, the Istituto Superiore di Sanità issued an additional vademecum, the content of which can be consulted on the ISS website via → this PDF link.
Sincerely, — euphonie breviary 03:30, 04:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Not wanting to refer to Ozone therapy by its acknowledged name sort of puts us in a bind with respect to WP:V. We do usually call things by their names. I don't share the belief that the average person would read "ozone therapy" and interpret it as "ozone that's proven to really work" (I think "therapy" sounds like talk therapy to most people), but even if I did, we can't avoid the name, and using the name doesn't turn the sentence into a biomedical claim of efficacy.
Separately, I wonder whether the first sentence of that article would really hold up under scrutiny. It appears that this is indeed widely marketed by quacks, but also that there is some conventional, evidence-based research going on. Consider this review in a top-quartile medical journal. Consider this review in a top-third medical journal. This review is from a middle-of-the-pack journal. Those don't look like altmed to me. Depending upon exactly what the sources actually say, that might need to be re-written, maybe to something like "frequently promoted by altmed sellers". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Maybe we need to first agree on what we mean by a "review", because this paper looks awfully like a report on a single case study to me. --RexxS (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Note that for PMID 32636631, the journal is listed at WP:CRAPWATCH (Dove Press, not MEDLINE indexed). Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
"Review and case study" is typical for rare diseases. For very rare conditions, there are no reviews that don't include a case study. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Although Complex regional pain syndrome may be uncommon, I don't accept that it qualifies as a rare disease. Our article has 76 sources and Google Scholar shows 41,300 hits for the phrase. I don't have a problem with reviews that include a case study; I do object to a paper consisting solely of a case study masquerading as a "review". More pertinently, I don't see that we should accept a "Review and case study" of a single patient as meeting our standards for a reliable medical source to support a claim of efficacy. Try writing "Ozone therapy is effective in treating CRPS. in Complex regional pain syndrome #Treatment sourced to your "Review and case study" and see how long it lasts. --RexxS (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Note: the second author mentioned in the aforesaid study, in this case H. R., is a strong supporter and promoter of an alternative method—DIV (Direct Intravenous Injection)— which is not recognized by the various international bodies using ozone in their practice because of the supposed risks of embolism and other induced problematic issues that, at least hypothetically speaking, could potentially occur.
In this regard, the American Academy of Ozonotherapy (AAO) has published →‎ a formal warning to all its members on its website.
As things stand, the only techniques officially in force and recognised as being free of side effects—on the sine qua non condition that they are performed by qualified practitioners (not sorcerer’s apprentices) who are duly accredited and exhaustively trained in this procedure by using certified equipments connected to a medical oxygen tank and, above all, who remain scrupulously aware of the appropriate dosages and posology which refer to each anamnesis—are strictly and exclusively limited to the following applications:
  1. Minor ozonated autohemotherapy
  2. Major ozonated autohemotherapy
    [in French : grande autohémothérapie — in German: Eigenbluttherapie — in English: Major Autohemotherapy or O3 AHT (MAT)]
  3. Rectal insufflation
  4. Vaginal insufflation
  5. Bladder insufflation → PDF
  6. Ear insufflation
  7. Subcutaneous/transcutaneous injections → PMC 3312702
  8. Intradiscal, intramuscular, paravertebral injections → doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a3c18d
  9. Intra-articular injections → PMC 5994782 possibly combined with simultaneous minor ozonated autohemotherapy → doi:10.4081/ozone.2019.8697 → PDF
  10. Ozonated saline → PMID 25586644
  11. Ozonated water → PMC 3539485
  12. Ozonated oil
In addition, a formal warning has also been issued in Italy in relation to a parallel approach, called “ozono senza aghi” (ozone without needles), which the SIOOT (Società Scientifica Italiana di Ossigeno-Ozono Terapia) reported on its website as being →‎ “una vera bufala, priva di ogni fondamento scientifico”, id est “a real hoax with no scientific basis whatsoever”.
Sincerely,
— euphonie breviary
01:12, 02:06, 02:08, 02,16, 03:18, 05:52, 15 July 2020
07:28, 18 July 2020 — 11:56, 17:44, 20:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The sentence in the summary that says (and I quote): “This has been characterized as “pure quackery” seems partially incomplete and oriented to me. In my opinion, mainly in order to respect an optimal neutrality, this textual segment should at least be completed by the author's credit to which it implicitly refers. For example, among other possible alternative formulations:

According to David H. Gorski, ozonotherapy, like most unconventional pseudomedicine, is “pure quackery”.

Sincerely, — euphonie breviary 04:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the above, I fully agree with WhatamIdoing in the sense that the use of the word “therapy” is not a guarantee of proven efficacy and even less a guarantee of assured healing.

The same is true for any form of chemotherapy, which sometimes proves conclusive, relieves and, ideally, cures... but, alas, can also fail in some cases for often mysterious reasons that are not always easy to identify.

Moreover, the fact that any unconventional curative approach is based on precepts that have not yet been sufficiently endorsed by higher authorities does not necessarily mean that there is no therapeutic potential.

For example, it is now commonly accepted that certain nosocomial infections with the dreaded bacterium called Clostridium difficile are sometimes resistant to all known antibiotics. However, at The Centre for Digestive Diseases in Sydney, a single fecal microbiota transplant (not FDA approved) might sometimes be enough to cure the patient in record time, whereas he/she has been suffering immoderately for years → PMID 23869970 → TV report in French.

The word therapy does not imply “we will heal you for sure”, but rather “we will try to help you as best we can to attempt to get you out of this rough patch”.

In the case of ozone, even if one agrees or is fervently opposed to its use other than exclusively aimed for water disinfection, the fact remains that the semantic unit “ozone therapy” (or “ozonotherapy”) prevails in all languages: ozonoterapia, ononothérapie, Ozontherapie, etc.

As → written above, the introductory sentence in this article would almost allusively suggest that a global consensus would currently stigmatize this use as a kind of unanimously condemned “hogwash”.

However, the reality is a bit different.

Admittedly, some renowned authors, including Dr. David Gorski, do indeed consider most curative approaches labelled homeopathy and other related streams of thought as a form of charlatanism. He is assuredly right in a certain amount of instances where the adjectives “natural”, “biological”, “organic”, “quantic”, “futuristic” and other synonyms (alas, even with ozone in a few rare cases of “black sheeps”) are from time to time (thankfully, not always) nothing more than false promises designed to abuse the despair of patients. Those, no longer knowing to which saint to devote themselves, could easily fall into the insidious trap set by a few opportunistic swindlers. These would make the victims believe unrealistic and abusive promises, whereas the primary intention would be to plunder their assets, even if it means shamelessly emptying their bank accounts... while no convincing curative effect would ever occur in the end. Sometimes it is even much worse when, instead of any hoped relief, occurs, as a cynical added bonus, a dramatic worsening of the state of health that otherwise diligent protocolary care could have helped to prevent and avoid.

Even if there are unfortunately regrettable exceptions with certain alleged physicians who, having sniffed out the right vein, allow themselves to charge exorbitant or even downright scandalous fees, there are also thousands of other doctors throughout the world who resort to “ozonotherapy” in a probing, honest, conscientious manner and primarily driven by the fervent Hippocratic oath which resolutely advocates the following vow: Primum, non nocere.

In Italy, hundreds of doctors are duly trained in this approach. These practitioners apply the reasonable and official rates in force. A complete session lasts about an hour to an hour and a half. It supposedly implies in most cases a session of MAT (Major Autohemotherapy), rectal insufflation, several subcutaneous, intradiscal and/or interarticular injections, the drinking of ozonated water and, sometimes the washing of the eyes and nose with this same liquid. The whole session generally costs between 60 and 120 euros. In some cases, this amount is even covered by indigenous (or open-minded private international) health insurances. This price scale cannot therefore be described as truly abusive.

Moreover, as → mentioned here, ozone for curative use has already been in full force for several decades in Cuba in most private and public hospitals. There, some of this type of care is even sometimes provided free of charge and on a voluntary basis.

Germany, for its part, has granted the authorization of this practice to doctors, clinics, hospitals and Heilpraktiker.

Sincerely, — Euphonie (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

This is all getting a bit off-topic, but limited, regional acceptance of a therapy is a hallmark of quackery (something I believe Ben Goldacre writes about elsewhere). If something actually worked, it would be accepted and used everywhere. Science is not regional. Some very dubious things still go in in Germany because of its Heilpraktiker hangover. In any case, since in RS ozone therapy has been characterized as quackery, Wikipedia is quite right to relay that. Alexbrn (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
If something actually works, it will eventually be accepted almost everywhere. One might notice, for example, that the US and France have very different, but equally scientific, approaches to treating ADHD in children. Or that Japan bans drugs that are widely used in the rest of the world.
More relevantly, this is a multi-axis situation. The opposite of alternative is conventional – not "scientific" or "evidence-based". There are all sorts of purely conventional medical practices that turned out to be very bad ideas. We could have a whole article about the 100% conventional medicine stupidity of trying to cure breast cancer with bone marrow transplants. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@Alexbrn
I think that we are at the heart of the problem.
Let me quote you:
“In any case, since in RS ozone therapy has been characterized as quackery, Wikipedia is quite right to relay that.”
Of course, I totally agree. WP definitely needs to relay this information. Have I ever written anything to the contrary? Not that I know of.
More specifically, → as I mentioned earlier, it should also be mentioned that the word “quackery” is the personal opinion expressed by David Gorski, especially if his “diagnosis” is implemented in the lead section. Otherwise, this introductory information would almost look like an attempt to “empoisonner le puits” as expressed by a French semantic unit (sorry, I couldn't find any equivalent in English), especially if Gorski’s name disappears behind a vague and allusive “It has been said”.
Thus, even if you have revoked—in my opinion a bit hastily—the “quotation needed” templates as well as other interpolations requiring additional references, the problem remains.
Moreover, ozone therapy is officially accepted in many countries: Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Germany, Greece, Cuba, Romania, Russia, Ukraine, etc. Thus, the use of the word “regional” (see your message above) seems a bit reductive, given that this unconventional technique refers to far more than just a few “departments”. Thus, “regional” becomes rather “continental”.
Specifically, reliable sources that condemn ozone must legitimately coexist with those that would take a more nuanced position. The only requirement is that all references included must be written by respectable and authoritative authors in their field.
This is obviously the case with David Gorski... but he is not the only one.
Sincerely, — euphonie breviary 07:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
You are falling into the WP:GEVAL trap. Wikipedia does not "balance" knowledge in this way, and has a requirement in fact to call out pseudoscientific/fringe ideas as being so with especial prominence. As to quackery, it is not just Gorski's view but rather a fact that he happens to mention; quackery is, by definition, charging money for unproven/ineffective treatments so this is obvious. Just to be clear: Ozone therapy does not cure cancer or HIV/AIDS, which is how it has been marketed. Are you really contending that selling ozone therapy for large sums of money as a cancer cure is not quackery? Checking QuackWatch I notice they say:

Autohemotherapy proponents refer to the widespread use of this treatment in Germany, implying that it is sanctioned by the German medical establishment. Dr. Barbara Burkhard of the Medical Office of Patients Insurance-Bavaria (Munich, Germany) writes, “Ozone therapy is not approved by the medical establishment in our country. [...]"

[22]
Per WP:ASSERT we don't attribute statements of fact because that it has the non-neutral effect of making them seem like "just" a view. If you want we could simply assert that ozone therapy is the basis of a form of quackery, rather than the softer "has been considered" we currently use. Either would work in my view. Alexbrn (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Let me quote you:
“Ozone therapy does not cure cancer or HIV/AIDS.”
I agree.
“Are you really contending that selling ozone therapy for large sums of money as a cancer cure is not quackery.”
Of course not. Should the case arise, this would definitely be a quackery. I agree with you all the more as this is → exactly what my previous message above is about.
This said, breach of trust, unfortunately, might potentially arise everywhere, sometimes even in conventional medicine.
Cancer can sometimes be cured with conventional medicine, sometimes it cannot. Surgery can also help, sometimes it is not enough. All those treatments are extremely expensive, especially considering immunotherapy which is prohibitively expensive and not always successful..
Something needs to be clarified:
Most of the international organizations that oversee the use of ozone therapy give no credit or legitimacy to ozone as a cancer treatment. These same international bodies even vehemently condemn any reference that arbitrarily conveys what would clearly be considered false hope in this field.
Furthermore, if you re-read → one of my previous message, you will see that there are plenty of honest ozonotherapists doctors around the world who are not crooks, who are sincerely devoted to using the ozone procedure with integrity and probity, in the sole hope of helping their patients in their distress. Last but not least, they charge moderate and reasonable fees, under the strict supervision of local medical associations dedicated to ozone research.
The article dated 2001 that you provided me with the link to is interesting. I didn't know it yet. Thank you for having allowed me to discover its content.
Sincerely, — euphonie breviary 10:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
You keep asserting, without evidence, there is some kind of legitimacy to the sale of this "therapy" but I'm not seeing any sources for that; I'm seeing exactly the opposite. We cannot know the intent of the people selling this, whether it's greed or ignorance, or a mixture of the two, but some trivial googling shows that in the real world, "ozone therapy" is being actively sold as a cancer/AIDS treatment with a load of pseudoscientific marketing. Some examples:
  • From Latvia: "The benefits of ozone therapy for the treatment of cancer include: a proven boost of the immune system; halting the growth of bacteria, fungi, parasites; stimulating oxygen metabolism; reducing the amount of inflammation in the body." [23]
  • From Mexico: "Transdermal application of ozone combined with hyper thermic in the steam cabinet is the treatment of choice for most cancers (except brain cancer, which can be treated with ozone insufflation in the ear at 1/32 l/m)."[24]
  • From Italy: "Ozone has been used successfully around the world as integrative method for over 80 years to treat: Pain, Infections, AIDS, Diabetes, Stroke, Depression, Chronic Fatigue, Lupus, Fibromyalgia."[25]
  • From South Africa "Ozone has cured AIDS in over 300 cases."[26]
In this country (the UK) people making such claims about cancer would be guilty of a criminal offence. So far as I can see, this is (as our good sources say) about the rankest quackery imaginable, typically party of the quackery smörgåsbord that is naturopathy. Alexbrn (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Of course, I respect your position, your restraint, your reserve and your praiseworthy concern for prudence in the face of this approach which, indeed, has not yet been sufficiently endorsed by irrefutable clinical studies.
I agree with you that the statements contained in the hyperlinks you mentioned would probably be liable to disciplinary or even criminal sanctions if they were issued in the United Kingdom.
One question: you added in the introductory summary (and I quote): “The therapy can cause serious adverse effects, including death.” Then you linked the reference PMID 22957409 with that segment. However, its page only displays an abstract where there is nothing in the text that could refer to ozone. I finally managed to access the entire publication via → this alternative link. It says (and I quote): “Serious adverse effects and at least five fatalities associated with oxygen therapies have been reported”. However, link number → 26, which would allow one to read more details about such a weighty statement, has apparently become invalid.
Sincerely, — euphonie breviary 14:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Further details → here.

break

I think your referring to ozone therapy as something that has "not yet been sufficiently endorsed by irrefutable clinical studies" is so economical with the truth as to be WP:PROFRINGE, especially that "yet". This is a known, established quackery that is actively being used to defraud and harm vulnerable people, as our good sources tell us. As to the Cassileth citation, this is how citations are done on Wikipedia – whether readers will be able to progress beyond the abstract depends on many factors. The cited source's own cited web-based primary sources may well have disappeared (as sometimes happens), but this is not a problem since we are bound to respect good-quality secondary sources. If we could get updated figures on how many people these quacks are killing, that would be better to report. Alexbrn (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Please don’t lend me intentions that aren’t mine and don't make such hasty and arbitrary deductions about me. You are completely wrong. I make absolutely no claim to the alleged efficacy or possible ineffectiveness of this therapeutic procedure. I am merely expressing what a number of a priori reliable sources, since they are written by professional doctors, potentially suggest in their writings and in the publication of their results. That’s all. Nothing more.
Moreover, this approach has indeed not yet been sufficiently deciphered in the form of randomized double-blind studies to be either endorsed or officially invalidated as null and void. Please reread → one of my previous interventions above as well as → this one and → this one instead of allusively lending me WP:PROFRINGE propensities which are absolutely not mine, quite the contrary.
As far as I know, the practice of ozonotherapy has had only one and only accidental death in its history... and even then, it was due to a highly contested practice—the DIV—whose application has always been severely reproved and condemned by all international associative ozonotherapeutic bodies, → as described in detail in the correlated message above, because of the risks of embolism that could occur.
More recently, a side-effect would also have occurred with a booed therapist who, acting as a free electron, not only practices DIV but also promotes it.
As a reminder: → WP:V
Sincerely, — euphonie breviary 15:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
If is also a fringe gambit to suppose that a therapy being used needs to "officially invalidated" before Wikipedia says so, first because this is a reversed burden of evidence and secondly because it is nearly always logically impossible to "disprove" therapeutic effectiveness. The default assumption has to be that it does not work. But we do positively know some things about the therapy: it's sold for money with fucking evil marketing BS; it's illegal in some jurisdictions; it harms and kills people (and more than you claim). That's probably pretty much all that Wikipedia can say on the topic, in a neutral article. (BTW, I looked up your Shallenberger guy - aka "Dr. Ozone" - who it seems is a luminary in the field. It's not pretty.[27]) Alexbrn (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@Euphonie: You are going to have to accept that the presence or absence of "randomized double-blind studies" is irrelevant to a medical article in Wikipedia, which demands secondary sources. I find your repeated posting of the same pro-fringe material tendentious, and it's time you dropped the stick. --RexxS (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I would like to clarify an issue: if really at least 5 people have really and directely died as a result of this therapy, it would be perfectly legitimate to include this unfortunate aspect of things. However, such an accusation is serious enough to be at least matched by concrete and absolutely focused sources that leave absolutely no doubt or possibility of misinterpretation. These sources must not only be clear, complete, irrefutable but also not subject to possible misunderstanding or imprecision. The problem is that the sentence in the linked reference does not indicate whether these deaths were specifically due to ozone therapy, oxygen therapy (which is something different) or, maybe, other unconventional alternative approaches that are also disputed. Moreover, if dramatic side effects specifically attributable to ozone therapy have been identified, they should of course also be reported, with crystal-clear sources. I have only one concern: verifiability, especially when a legal dimension is at stake and a particularly meaningful imputation has to be made publicly. Once this has been achieved, I immediately bow down with respect and deference. Therefore, if you manage to find additional sources that can scrupulously confirm in extenso the entirety of the foregoing, it goes without saying that you have my anticipated grateful blessing.
Independently of the few questions mentioned above, I find that you are doing a remarkable job of improving and completing this article and I would like to congratulate you on this.
Please, kindly note that this is my last message in this section which has indeed taken up a lot of time and attention from all of us. Thank you for your contradictory arguments, which have caught my full attention. Even if we did not necessarily manage to agree on all points, I thank you for the quality of your enlightened answers.
Have a great day and good bye. Sincerely, — euphonie breviary 16:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Update

@WhatamIdoing — RexxS — Alexbrn:

Hello.

Following the interesting information that came out of → our previous dialogues, I went to take a look at the French version of the article (of which I am not the creator). As its state was still a bit embryonic, I started trying to rework it and complete its structure. So I introduced the perceptions expressed by Gorski and Green in an appropriate “zetetic” section. I did the same as what concern the “Risks and Precautions” as well as “Indications, Dosages and Contraindications”. I still have to work quite a bit on the different legislations in force, in view of the international case law which varies considerably from one country and continent to another.

I have also been checking the content of the statement made by Burkhard, in relation to autologous blood, reported by Saul Green, in his article originally published in 1997 in the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine. However, the author, in order to source this assertion, mentioned, via reference 58 (and I quote): “Burkhard, B. Personal communication to S. Green, 5/23/1995” [28]. It may have been so that German health insurances had not been concerned at that time, i.e. 25 years ago. However, consultation of the German website linked to current health insurances seems to suggest that, nowadays, at least 8 health insurance companies accept to reimburse this type of “treatment”: [29].

As for the alleged deaths which (potentially) would—specifically and exclusively (?)—be attributable to ozone therapy, I have not yet managed to find sufficiently precise and irrefutable sources to dare to add this type of insert. The reason for my principled caution is not only based on WP:V but also and above all on the fact that my criminal liability could potentially be engaged in case of missteps, as it has already happened for several European contributors who have been taken to court (one of them even had to pay 25’000 euros in damages) for similar reasons: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] among others.

Thus, should this “lethal” information appear in French, → as mentioned in my previous message, I absolutely must be able to consolidate and back it up with granite and 100% unassailable sources. I may have a still unconfirmed lead in relation to a reliable reference that would report a hypothetical death that might have possibly occurred during an ozonotherapy session some 20 years ago. The main interest of this medical source would lie in the fact that this unfortunate event would → not in this case be related to DIV (a practice that is disputed and even prohibited by most professional medical associations of ozonotherapists). However, access to the full article is subject to a charge. I managed to get part of the textual content. I am currently working on decrypting it.

Sincerely,

— euphonie breviary
08:20, 08:24, 18:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

We have multiple good sources referring to multiple deaths. Not sure why there's a problem with that? Just relay what those sources say, that is what we are meant to do here. What is specific to French Wikipedia is irrelevant here. If you want to follow-up on the misinformation about German insurance, maybe start here. Alexbrn (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much for providing me this informative hyperlink which I read carefully.
Moreover, here is the aforesaid reference to an autopsy relating to a possible accidental death that could be associated with the practise of the so-called autologous ozonated blood. This article was published in 2000 in The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. Access to the full and detailled *.PDF file is unfortunately subject to a (substantial) fee, but I was at least able to get a portion of the textual content. On the other hand, an overview of the abstract can be accessed for free via → this hyperlink:
Sincerely,
— euphonie breviary
17:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
What is the point of producing (partial) autopsies? We are bound to reflect what reliable sources say; revisiting/reinterpreting various bits of primary material is outside the scope of this Project. As I said, we have multiple reliable sources reporting multiple deaths from this particular species of health fraud. (Add: and, FWIW, the full text of this report of an actual death - not "possible death" - begins with the words "In February 1996, a 20-year-old woman suddenly lost consciousness during her 31st oxygen-ozone treatment by autohemotransfusion. Resuscitation was unsuccessful" and ends with the words "our case could be legally considered to be an incorrect medical ozone administration".)Alexbrn (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I should definitely have been more clear and precise by writing that this an actual (and accidental) death which, most obviously, in this specific case, is—only and exclusively—due to the sad sequels which, regrettably, have occurred during a session of “ozonotherapy” implying ozonated autologous blood all along its process. This article, which was published in June 2000, also mentioned that “several literature reviews exist dealing with gas embolism as a potential complication of medical and surgical treatment but, to our knowledge, it has never been reported in relation to O2 / O3 therapy by autohemotransfusion.” Anyway, I’ll try to do my best to apply as much as possible WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:RSUW. This is quite an interesting challenge. Have a great day. Best regards. Sincerely, — euphonie breviary
00:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm also not sure about your emphasis on "accidental". The killing could well be wrongful, as a result of negligence - that is something to leave to the sources. Alexbrn (talk) 06:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
If any editor – any editor – does not feel comfortable adding some content – any content – to an article, regardless of the editor's reason (or lack thereof), then that editor should not do so. We're WP:VOLUNTEERS. Editors who want that content should do so themselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing
I couldn’t agree with you more.
Here are three new and potentially interesting additional sources:
Jacobs M. (1982). "Untersuchung uber zwishenfalle und typische komplikationen in der ozon-sauerstofftherapie". OzoNachrichten (in German). 1 (5).
 Sincerely, — euphonie breviary
08:44, 08:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The first two are really too old to be usable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Archive ?

Even with aggressive archiving, this talk page consistently approaches 200 MB. Euphonie, you have not gained consensus. Might it be possible to confine discussion to article talk pages? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree and I thank you for your proposal. Indeed, since all this past discussion has been entirely focused on ozone therapy, I for one would be very much in favour of you transferring and archiving its content to the talk page relating to the article which is more specifically concerned by the aforesaid topic, in order to relieve this current page of the number of bytes that this interesting debate has generated. Sincerely, — euphonie breviary 08:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
On which article talk pages do you want this discussion linked after it is archived here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_138"