Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 148

Archive 145

Archive 146

Archive 147

Archive 148

Archive 149

Archive 150

→

Archive 155

Help tracking down two literature reviews for a genetic disorder

I'm hoping to fill in a redlink that's been on Template:Chromosomal abnormalities since I was...double-checking the edit history, eleven years old. The condition's rarity means the literature is overwhelmingly case studies, with extremely few lit reviews. Two of the reviews are impossible for me to track down from any source, and the sourcing elsewhere doesn't exist for me to write the article without them. Accordingly, I'd be deeply grateful if anyone could help me find:

Mazauric-Stüker M, Kordt G, Broderson D (Jan 1992), "Y aneuploidy: a further case of a male patient with a 48,XYYY karyotype and literature review", Annales de Genetique, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 237-240, PMID 1296523

Teyssier M, Pousett G (Jan 1994), "46,XY/48,XYYY mosaicism case report and review of the literature", Genetic Counseling (Geneva, Switzerland), vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 357-361, PMID 7888137

Thanks in advance. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Those are both really old papers. Is there nothing more recent? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Correct, I'm afraid. (There are <20 total cases.) I do have some other sources, but they don't combine to 'sufficient for an article', and I want to at least check out if these have anything of further interest. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Have you looked for books? [1][2] It's not a lot, but we're not confined only to the academic literature. GARD has a few links, too.[3]

If you don't feel like you have enough to write >10 sentences, then another option is to add information to Wikipedia as part of a list or larger section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Check out OMIM. There are several references for XYYY here:. They seem to be different than the ones you already have. Jaredroach (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, leverage the resources at PubMed. For example, if you click on the PubMed links that you provided for your original two references, PubMed will give you a webpage that includes "links to similar articles". One of these for your second article is:. Which seems to be exactly what you are looking for: a recent review, and it is freely accessible / open source. Also try Google Scholar. Jaredroach (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, although I'm already aware of all of those. (The accessible lit review is difficult to call a lit review in a useful sense -- it doesn't discuss any details of cases except the focal one, even on the most basic demographic levels, and barely even addresses the focal one.) The most useful-for-Wikipedia thing I have so far is the Unique report, and I'm generally cautious to build articles around those because they're somewhat easier to challenge than direct studies. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

To clarify a bit, the issue is that I have read every single paper on this condition that has a DOI. (There aren't many of them.) The two that don't have DOIs are also the two with the most promise. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Finasteride and penile curvature

It's just been pointed-out on the Talk page that this edit[4] made on April 1, had stood for the good part of a year. I, for one, missed it and I know other clueful editors watch this page. Alexbrn (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

unfortunately it happens--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Chelsea Pinnix

Hello all. I did some pruning of this biography, including one potentially controversial removal, and was just looking for some feedback. I'm not particularly fussed and don't know a lot about things like these awards and her posts as regards their prestige and status, but when I looked at what was left with my layman's understanding, I was wondering if it really even rises to the level of justifying a Wikipedia entry? The elephant in the room being that as a black women, she may, or may not, depending on your point of view, warrant special consideration. Nobility Six (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I suspect the subject fails notability (WP:ACADEMIC) guidelines and the article needs to be deleted. Did it go through WP:AFC? Jaredroach (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree that the content suggests that Pinnix doesn't reach WP:NACADEMIC notability, nor notability by any other criteria. It was created by a user (Jesswade88) on a cause to upload the biographies of women, black and minority ethnic and LGBTQ+ scientists who are contributing/ have contributed hugely to science and engineering but haven't had the attention that they deserve, but seems to have over-reached on this noble aim. Klbrain (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I've proposed it for deletion, given the above comments and the lack of any dissent, and since I have also only just noticed that the piece had previously been tagged for notability concerns by another editor too. I didn't notice that, because the author apparently removed it without explaining why. Nobility Six (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It's probably more pointful to ask this kind of question of someone who is interested in NPROF, such as David Eppstein. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Worth pointing out that this account is one day old and has almost exclusively edited three biographies that were created by Jesswade88. Enwebb (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC) And now the account is blocked as a sockpuppet. Enwebb (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Emergency management, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Ovulatory shift hypothesis

A student editing article ... appears to be quite a synthesis of primary studies, with a POV endorsed in the final section by analyzing the analyses; needs expert attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it's a WP:GA from only 3 years ago, with much work from MountainRose, who is not a student, and reviewed by Chiswick Chap, who does much editing in biology. There is nothing about student editing on the talk page. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry you missed this; the age of the GA is irrelevant, what secondary sources say is more relevant. Also, for a hypothesis (an article based largely on primarily sources), to leave out primary sources after 2018 is a problem (there are considerable). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Regardless, it's a WP:GA, so your description here was highly misleading. The WP:BURDEN of proof that more recent reviews exist is on you. WP:Drive-by tagging is disruptive, and so is edit warring in your tags. [5][6] WP:MEDDATE states clearly, "These instructions...may need to be relaxed in areas...where few reviews are published." These reviews are from 2014, so not even old really. As for allegedly needing primary sources after 2018, this is not based on any policy or guideline, so we are not tagging the article on that basis. We should be based on WP:Secondary sources due to known flaws common to primary sources. By that same logic you need to tag every GA and FA, or even every article, that lacks post-2018 primary sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

We don't need to argue about whether more recent reviews exist; they do. There's a review at https://www-annualreviews-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103408 (if you login via OAuth at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ first, that link should get you past the paywall). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

That’s not the biggest problem in this article by any means (and I can only do so much when typing from an ipad).

First, there are a mere handful of sources on the topic, and yet the article lists well over a hundred sources. If you start actually looking at those sources, you will see how many of them never mention this “ovulatory shift hypothesis”; that is, we have classic SYNTH. It’s an explanation for why our guideline said, cite reviews, don’t write them.

But it gets better ... fast forward to the final sections of the article, that discuss two meta-analyses. One of those meta-analyses is from UCLA Psych Dept; the school that hosted the student editor. And don’t miss the POV in how the final conclusions— to one long SYNTHY article— are presented in favor of UCLA researchers in plainly POV-constructed sentences. The article actually comes to a quasi-conclusion in its final sentence in favor of ... the psychology department that hosted the student editor.

And yet, Crossroads keeps removing maintenance tags, and appears to think that a very brief GA review gives this article immunity from SYNTH, OR, and POV or maintenance tags. The article needs to be stripped of OR/SYNTH, reduced to what reviews and articles actually about the topic say, incorporate newer published results, and rewritten in a way that is not biased towards researchers from the school and geographical area that hosted the student editor. It’s a pretty sad situation. This article is constructed in such a way as to convince the reader. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Medicine Assessment Finished

I have finished assessing the articles that had no rating for importance or class. Prairie Astronomer ^Talk 05:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

awesome!, thank you Prairie Astronomer--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Move mental disorder page to mental illness?

At Talk:Mental disorder#Requested move 4 March 2021, there are some people who want to move this page to "mental illness". Do users here agree? Disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandoBanks (talk • contribs) 22:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

List of notable infectious disease societies and advisory organizations

Specifically, ones that publish clinical practice guidelines for infectious diseases, like the IDSA and the CDC's HICPAC in the US.

Do we have such a list article? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

we've got this [7] maybe it could be turned into a list(I was unable to find one)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Page kidney

Student editor here. I have submitted a draft for submission for an article on Page kidney[8]. Wanted to get the approval process started so have only written the intro, but will continue to write other sections quickly. Plan to include sections on: causes, signs & symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, and history. Will have particular focus on conditions in patients with kidney allograft or one functioning kidney. Although the majority of published research is case reports, there are at least two review papers on the topic (1991 and 2009). Will also post to the Nephrology Task Force talk page as well.

Walkermangin (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

see[9] Pubmed and read Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Impedance phlebography

should anyone be able to improve this article it would be appreciated(as it has no refs),thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Iztwoz thanks[10]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Rehab edits

Hi, it appears that there may be a class editing some rehabitation-related articles and sections of articles. If you have time may be worth helping and supporting these keen new Wikipedia volunteers with a warm welcome. They are leaving nice edit summaries :) These are the ones that happened to be on my watchlist. It appears the group is editing live right now!

• Physical therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy‎
• Spinal manipulation
• Osteoporosis
• Rheumatoid arthritis

Can someone help here? I need to step away so could only read the abstract: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rheumatoid_arthritis#Cryotherapy

• Parkinson's disease
• Ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction

JenOttawa (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ian (Wiki Ed): just flagging you here as well. Thanks!JenOttawa (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Ian, I just flagged this above on articles we just unprotected. See above, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 RFC on lab leaks

Please see Talk:COVID-19 misinformation#rfc D692FF6 about how to describe the idea that SARS-CoV-2 might have been present in a lab in Wuhan before the pandemic started.

This RFC is likely to affect multiple articles. I've not been wild about the approach this last year to making 'global' decisions via RFC about COVID-19, although there is a certain amount of efficiency to it, especially when you're trying to coordinate across many very similar pages. I hope that we won't turn it into a habit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Menstrual cycle Featured article review

I have nominated Menstrual cycle for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Could other editors please put this on their watchlist? It is looking like Graham Beards will be able to salvage this Featured article, and after he has had about another week at it, perhaps others will weigh in? WhatamIdoing and I are in there, but we could use the FA experience from @Colin, Ajpolino, and Spicy:, the anatomy experience from Tom (LT), and general help from anyone! Not just yet though, as Graham is still working ... just watchlist for now, and participate on talk? I am always doing a happy dance when we are saving an old, deteriorated Featured article! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Poke :). Tom (LT) has been through, and the article is ready for further evaluation, after the heavy lifting done by Graham Beards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC) This is something I can look at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApproximateLand (talk • contribs) 00:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:MDPI#RfC: Controversies section of article

Since this is a publisher that comes often in MEDRS discussion, many here might have an opinion on our coverage of MDPI. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

It's closed now. I would have voted "no." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApproximateLand (talk • contribs) 01:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Karyotypes and copyright

I recall a conversation here quite recently, which I think is now archived, discussing the application of copyright to the results of medical tests. The conclusion was that any tests that don't involve creativity on behalf of the performer (such as X-ray images) would fall under the public domain in the US, though I'm paraphrasing and may be paraphrasing too much -- either way, they seemed to be categorized as appropriate images. Would this apply to images of karyotypes? Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. With a karotype, you could choose a certain amount of spacing or be more or less precise about lining up the elements, or decide to put the chromosome in a different number of rows. I don't think it's directly analogous, but I don't know whether it's sufficiently different to be copyrightable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I could see that the numerical results of a medical test might not be copyrightable. But photographs? News to me. That would seem to imply that most photographs (e.g., all photographs of nature) are not copyrightable. There doesn't seem to be an important difference between a photograph of a karyotype and a photograph of a lion in the jungle. Jaredroach (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Previous discussion was here. I think a reasonable person could argue that a photograph of a lion in the jungle includes more "substantial creativity or originality" in the sweat of the brow sense than a photograph of a karyotype, though copyright law isn't designed by reasonable people, so who knows? Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Collapse_(medical)

I suggested replacing Collapse (medical) with a Medicine section (including different medical uses of collapse) in Collapse (disambiguation), but there is relatively little input and some difficulty reaching consensus. Please say what you think at the link above. NikosGouliaros (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted for a third time, so any input is still welcome. NikosGouliaros (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Eddie891, I honor your optimism, but maybe if we haven't sorted it out during the last four weeks, we should assume that we're not going to get a clear consensus. Today is the third time I've looked at that AFD (I haven't checked the article recently), and I still don't know what the best solution is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean, posts were still being made on the page in the days shortly before relisting (and have been made after)--suggesting that the discussion hasn't necessarily died out yet-- and my thinking was there's nothing bad that could come from relisting and there could be a consensus that emerges. If your assumption was always true, WP:THIRDRELIST wouldn't be a thing at all. Worst case, it's closed as nc and there doesn't seem to be harm in the fact that it is remaining open a little longer. With that said, there is certainly a case to be made for closing it so I'd be open to reverting my relisting if ya'll really object to it. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Melioidosis

I was reading melioidosis, and the first sentence of the first paragraph under acute sounds self-contradictory, "Most people exposed to B. pseudomallei experience no symptoms.[2] About 85% of infected people experience acute melioidosis.[5]". Later on in the same paragraph, there's a sentence that doesn't make sense, "Nevertheless, symptoms of melioidosis can appear in 24 hours for those experienced near drowning in water.[5]" I'd fix it myself, but it's rated as a good article and infectious disease is not an area I am specialised in. Red Fiona (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not contradictory. An acute infection need not display symptoms - it simply means that it isn't chronic. For that matter, one can also have a chronic infection but never display symptoms of that infection. A slight contradiction which I feel likely comes from a rounding error or difference in measure is that the lead says 10% "develop symptoms that last longer than two months, termed 'chronic melioidosis'", but the sentence you reference says "85%" have acute. Is the other 5% asymptomatic chronic, symptomatic acute, a combination, or is it instead that it should simply be differentiating length of infection, and not display of symptoms? I have, while I'm not confident enough to make large changes to sentences about the statistics or acute/chronic differentiation of this disease, made a change to clarify the sentence that didn't make sense prior. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

How would you feel about, ""Most people exposed to B. pseudomallei experience no symptoms.[2] About 85% of infected people experience acute melioidosis[5], but acute melioidosis can range from severe fulminant disease to asymptomatic (reference 2 again)"? Red Fiona (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm currently traveling and am limited on access to sources because I don't feel comfortable accessing some paywalled sources on public internet (and for some reason the link on pubmed won't load for me... must be some kind of blocker or something). If source 2 fully supports that distinction in acute, I think adding it would be a good idea as it would clarify that acute refers to both asymptomatic infections which are quickly cleared, and symptomatic infections which are either quickly cleared or result in death. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Source two pretty much says what I've added. (It's odd that sometimes something that's opening fine under open access for one person, isn't opening at all for someone else.) I'll change it to "Acute melioidosis can refer to both asymptomatic infections which are quickly cleared, and symptomatic infections which are either quickly cleared or may result in serious illness and death. About 85% of people infected with B. pseudomallei experience acute melioidosis[5], but most people exposed to B. pseudomallei experience no symptoms.[2]."

Thanks for all your help. Red Fiona (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I do happen to be on a US based airline right now, yet apparently my IP geolocates to jumping between San Francisco and Amsterdam (neither of those cities touch my itinerary at all, and this is simply based on one app I used and noticed that oddity), so it wouldn’t surprise me if a .au address was blocked for some random reason. I have no problems with your edits regardless, but it’s possible someone else may come condense it - I can’t see how right now but that’s the beauty of a collaborative project. :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my comments on acute/chronic are general comments about definitions of acute/chronic in medicine - it's entirely possible that it could be different here (though I consider it extremely unlikely). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The current phrasing of the paragraph is potentially inaccurate. It's obvious from the sources that exposure refers to seroconversion without clinical infection; serological tests are not very specific anyway, and the prevalence of seropositivity is high in SE Asia. Is seroconversion included in infection? Maybe theoretically. Importantly, a percentage follows ("About 85% of infected people experience acute melioidosis"), which I'm not sure where it comes from (maybe Cerevisae can help us): it's not in , and I have no access to. Another source though does cite that acute signs of infection appear in 85% of clinical infections (chronic infection occurs in 11%, and latent infection in 4%). Latent infection is a recognized problem, pretty much like in tuberculosis, and the a reason why the phrase "quickly cleared" for acute infections may be problematic. It is clear, therefore, that referring to asymptomatic seroconversion as asymptomatic infection still confuses things, as it is incompatible with the sentence right after it. I propose instead: "Exposure to B. pseudomallei may commonly cause antibodies to be produced against it, without experiencing symptoms. Of the patients who do develop clinical infection, 85% experience acute symptoms." Note that my way of phrasing it makes any reference to "asymptomatic infection" redundant. By the way, asymptomatic seroconversion, with additional information from the above sources, is probably worth mentioning in Epidemiology as well. NikosGouliaros (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Just my understanding, obviously I'm not a RS: seroconversion and infection are apples and oranges - seroconversion implies (past or current) infection - but it is not the same thing. One can be infected but not seroconvert, and technically speaking seroconversion can occur without ever having come in contact been infected with an antigen (ex: vaccination). Maybe that's where the confusion is coming from - the definitions of "infection" and "seroconversion". To me, it makes no sense to say "Exposure to B. pseudomallei may commonly cause antibodies to be produced against it" - this is basically saying "people exposed to it are exposed to it and infected enough to produce antibodies"... but in reality, we produce antibodies every day to "new" things we are exposed to. The real kicker is whether someone producing antibodies to something qualifies their exposure as an "infection" - my understanding in my professional circles is that we would consider having antibodies to a pathogen (i.e. virus/bacteria/etc) after exposure to mean someone was, at some point, and for some length of time, infected. If someone could do me a favor and ping me back to this article on Sunday North American time I will do my best to attend to this in greater depth then as I should have an hour or two free then (and to be frank, this has gotten quite interesting to me quite fast). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I think I'm answering your objection if I remove that wrong comma: "Exposure to B. pseudomallei may commonly cause antibodies to be produced against it without any symptoms. Of the patients who do develop clinical infection, 85% experience acute symptoms." This article does not need to get into what seroconversion and infection mean. (I wish my English were good enough to rephrase this without the jargon term "clinical infection".) It just needs to make clear what this bacterium causes to people, and how often; and if any percentages are mentioned, what exactly they refer to. NikosGouliaros (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Waiting for User:Berchanhimez to get back with more, I've found the source of that 85%. It's clear that it refers to how many clinical cases of acute melioidosis account for total patients diagnosed with the disease (which, other than acute, can be chronic, or relapsing). For the time being, I'm therefore boldly changing the phrasing to something close to my proposal above. NikosGouliaros (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get to this on Sunday... real life has gotten in the way. I had a chance to review the changes NikosGouliaros made and I agree with the changes made to clarify. Unfortunately, I don't think I will have time to investigate this article further right now as my days off for the next week or so have vanished as has been typical in the past few months. I agree that anything more than the current likely would be too "into the weeds" as Nikos suggests - thus I think the detail right now is a decent balance between too much detail and not enough. That being said, it likely could be improved more if anyone else has time to do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Your version works for me. Red Fiona (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

In case useful, there is additional discussion of this article here. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 00:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Trans awareness day coming up

Wednesday, March 31st is the annual International Transgender Day of Visibility. I haven't heard of any editing events related to this, but it wouldn't be surprising if there was some activity, and of course it's always a good idea to keep the main articles in good shape. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• yes International Transgender Day of Visibility is very important--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Fluvoxamine / COVID-19

Fluvoxamine

• Fluvoxamine (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I have attempted clean-up, but The Sceptical Chymist has been very insistent[11][12][13][14] about re-adding a bunch of material on Fluvoxamine and COVID-19 based on primary sources. Could use further input from medical editors. The Talk page section is at: Talk:Fluvoxamine#Information on use for treating COVID. Alexbrn (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The crux of the disagreement is whether a JAMA editorial written by three JAMA editors is a reliable source. Appreciate the feedback The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

It is in fact an "Editor's note" and classified by JAMA/PUBMED as a "Comment". Editorials are labelled in JAMA as "Editorial". In any case, if we relax MEDRS to allow Editorial (or Editor's notes) + primary sources for statements about treatment efficacy, especially on COVID-19 for which super-strong sourcing is meant to be required, then we might as well all pack up and go home. Alexbrn (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it isn't so much an "editorial" as a sort of blurb half advertising / half apologising about some preliminary research that is published in this month's magazine. It doesn't add any of the merits of a "literature review", never mind "systematic review" that we gain from secondary sources examining primary research at a distance. And the authors couldn't be more explicit that the research doesn't advance clinical decision making at all. I think therefore WP:WEIGHT demands more evidence that the medical community find this study to be important (such as influencing clinical guidelines). This note isn't enough. -- Colin°^Talk 17:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

An editor's comment, now matter how notable the journal, on research published in the same issue, does not qualify as secondary source. Moreover, all the details and disclaimers on "more research needed" mentioned in the text proposed by The Sceptical Chymist prove why the evidence is trivial and how including it in the article is giving it undue weight. NikosGouliaros (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Dental dam points to sexual page? Should this subject be two pages?

Hello. I clicked on Dental dam, and it took me to a page about oral sex. At the top of the page, it says, "This article is about the use of dental dams for oral sex. For other uses, see Dental dam (dentistry)." OK. But I think most people, like me, would be looking for the dentistry meaning first. I know about the sexual meaning too. So I think it would be okay if both meanings are on the same page. I looked in the history of the dentistry page.[15] Apparently, someone split the page. Recently too. I wanted to know why it was split, and searched the website for information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_forking#Unacceptable_types_of_forking seems to suggest that this shouldn't be two pages, but one page instead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dental_dam_(dentistry) has "WikiProject Medicine" at the very top, so I clicked on it. Beneath that is "WikiProject Dentistry." Should I ask about this at "WikiProject Dentistry" instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApproximateLand (talk • contribs) 00:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

ApproximateLand, a decent point. But I googled it and all of the first page results are about the oral sex dental dam. So I guess that is the more common usage. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I've changed the redirect back to dentistry. The page was moved recently without discussion. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The entire article at Dental dam (oral sex) is WP:NOT (advice). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Why are these two separate articles to begin with? It's (virtually completely) the same device, used for virtually completely the same thing (just in different directions), and to be quite honest the articles should likely be merged, but I'm currently unable to dedicate the time to look further or perform such a merge. For that matter, I also think rectal douching should be merged back to enema, and I suspect there's a few more at least. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, I don't know how accurate that finding is, but we know what's the intended use for dental dams. The oral sex use is the additional use, like other uses for condoms reported on the Condom page.

SandyGeorgia, I don't know about that. Except for that picture on the page, there's a history section, a usage section and an efficacy section. The image should probably be removed because it's guiding readers, but the information in the sections seems okay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual,_guidebook,_textbook,_or_scientific_journal says, "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not. Such guides may be welcome at Wikibooks instead." I reworked the page a little.[16]. I didn't remove the image because I didn't want to step on the page creator's toes. I clicked on the image, and saw that the page creator uploaded it.[17] Maybe the user uploaded this image because there's an image at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom#Use showing how to use a condom. Before the split, there was also an image on the dental dam page showing how to turn a condom into a "dental dam." It's now on the split page about oral sex.

Berchanhimez, look in the history of the pages. The pages were one page until a few days ago, and SarahSV has confirmed it. ApproximateLand (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be two, and I've reverted the undiscussed, controversial move, so now it's back to one article again. The original user is welcome to pursue a proposed move by following the procedure at WP:RM#CM, if they wish. I'll be happy to comment at that proposal, but I'm busy just now breaking up Hammer, into Hammer (nailing tool), Hammer (paperweight), and Hammer (murder weapon), but I'll free up soon. Mathglot (talk) 05:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Surely you forgot Hammer (figure of speech)? Vaticidalprophet 09:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

CT Scan for Wp:GAN

I have put CT scan for Wp:GAN, if any editor is ready to help me in this process that will be really encouraged. In that case kindly left a message on my talk page. Iflaq ^(talk) 10:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like one that Spicy might be good for ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Need clarity around medical advice

I'm doing a GA review for Vaticidalprophet. I commented in a couple of places about not appearing to give medical advice, specifically where it's noted that "People with ring chromosome 22 are medically indicated to undergo regular MRI scans", and the entire Management section. Could somebody please look at the review and let me know if my concerns are legitimate or if I'm being overly paranoid on this point? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I was actually just about to reply with "Wow, you're super right and I have no idea how I screwed that up, I wasn't thinking about it" as to the MRI comment. Unsure about Management. Vaticidalprophet 20:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

This can be a complicated subject, especially since there are different understandings of exactly what constitutes medical advice. On one end, some definitions suggest that if you're talking about "people", then that already can't be medical advice, because the doctor–patient relationship is fundamentally a dyad of exactly one healthcare provider and one person seeking advice.

In Wikipedia articles, we usually try to rephrase. This isn't bad, but I think it could be improved. Maybe see if you can re-write it to not use the word indicated at all. For example, perhaps children "qualify for" or "benefit from" or "often receive" special education. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree it is complicated. I don't much like "medically indicated". The word "indicated" is medical jargon anyway, so I'm not sure "medically" is adding anything. The reader may be more familiar with "indicated" for treatment, rather than for preventative scans or interventions. I suggest you avoid it.

The main crime is to directly address the reader and give advice in Wikipedia's voice. While that is great writing for the NHS website, we have to be more passive about it. A problem is that if we only have one source and the source only says "it is recommended that children with ring 22 have [various checks]" we can't express that as "qualify for" or "benefit from" or "often receive". It might well be that they don't currently or often get the care that is recommended, and the supposed benefit is expert speculation rather than the result of some evidence-based medicine, albeit perhaps quite justified. This is why having more than one source for a point can be a great benefit in finding alternative wordings.

I don't think "it is recommended that ..." is a terrible crime, especially when one sources it directly to such a recommendation, rather than it appearing that some Wikipedian thought it was a good idea. But it leaves the reader wondering who is recommending it. If it is widespread advice, then you are on safer ground than if it is just one author's opinion in some charity website. In that case, it may be better to attribute the advice to that charity. When recommendations are made by a formal committee (e.g. Tuberous sclerosis cites the recommendations of the "2012 International Tuberous Sclerosis Complex Consensus Conference") or organisation (e.g., NICE), then naming them may help. This can be particularly useful if there is controversy such as if UK, US and European bodies all have different recommendations. -- Colin°^Talk 09:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Trisomies only survivable in mosaic form: title as "Trisomy #" or "Mosaic trisomy #"?

I've been doing some work in rare chromosomal disorders that lack articles lately. A few gaps we have are in mosaic trisomy conditions outside of trisomy 16 (which is a bit of an odd case, as MT16 often occurs only in amniotic/placental cells and is diagnosed prenatally on that basis -- our article mentions nothing about that, which is concerning considering that's a fact of quite strong interest to readers). For what little we have, articles about mosaic-only trisomies are often titled as "Trisomy #", which is what I suppose you could call the academic perspective -- it discusses the biological background, the fact the full trisomy isn't survivable, and then some discussion of the mosaic that is.

Our articles on chromosomal disorders that aren't Down syndrome are on the whole not great quality, though, and the overall trend is in the direction of the mosaic disorder getting very little description, even though it's the aspect that's of most clinical and personal interest (I am quite achingly conscious, when writing on these conditions, that much of my audience will be parents who've just landed in Holland). My thought is, if an article is going to be written to be 90% about mosaic trisomy (say) 14, what title is the reader better served with? Are we better to have a Trisomy 14 where 90% of the article is Trisomy 14#Mosaic or a Mosaic trisomy 14 where the lede mentions "full trisomy 14 is incompatible with life"? Vaticidalprophet 18:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I would guess (other people with more experience are likely to have a better handle on it that me) that "Trisomy x" would be a better title because the more commonly used name, and would be what people were looking for, but possibly make it very clear that what's referred to as "trisomy x" mostly refers to the mosaic form because. Red Fiona (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I think "Trisomy X" is the more common name, and if your mental audience is a distressed parent, then you probably want, above all else, for them to be certain that they have found the correct page by using whatever name their healthcare providers are using. You can then explain that if it's present in all cells, the result will be miscarriage, and if the baby survives, then the trisomy is only in some of them, and the rest of the cells are normal.

I wonder, though, if I could offer you a different mental audience: a friend or family member. This is someone who wants to be supportive and who needs basic information so they can avoid saying the wrong thing, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

In general I've heard them referred to as trisomy #, since everyone knows which ones are survivable as full trisomies and which ones aren't. For 13, 18, and 21, everyone clarifies mosaic vs full trisomy. (And - @Vaticidalprophet: - this sounds like a fun project, I may get involved!) Keilana (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

TFA heads up

Hey, all ... Ajpolino’s Buruli ulcer will be Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 24, 2021, running on the main page. Please watchlist the article now if you are able to help deal with mainpage day vandalism. Congrats, Ajpolino for the fine work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Poke, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Let the fun begin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Buruli_ulcers SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Eyes peeled 👀 Ajpolino (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Better head over to Talk:Main page where a lot of folks have apparently never been to a movie theatre or the doctor. See the FA section at the top, and the bottom of the page as well. This always happens, so not sure how much attention has to be paid to the complaints. I don’t get it at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I suppose I don't have much to add there. I think the images that lead the BU article illustrate the "regular" course of BU, and are not extreme in that regard. If folks think the mainpage should just never have images of open wounds, well I suppose I'm sympathetic to that, even if I personally am fine seeing them there. That said, if folks do wish to swap images, I'm not sure what the alternative should be. Perhaps the possum or the endemic site? Ajpolino (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

People love to complain on mainpage; happens all the time. But ... once it’s there, the decision to change has to be made there, in conjunction with either the admins who frequent ERRORS, or the TFA Coords. You would have to propose something in the discussion over there as I am not sure you should use your own tools to change it. Sorry this is happening after your fine work; it never crossed my mind anyone would object to that image. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at TFA talk; are we having fun yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic

could use a few more editors on this article, some editors have moved on to 'other' pandemic related articles, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

+1. Also, I have proposed an article split at COVID-19 testing, to put most of the large history section into an article specifically about the early development of the tests. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Prostaglandin-related articles: time for an overview?

I have started a discussion at WT:WikiProject Molecular Biology#Time for an overview? that you are invited to join. It uses prostaglandins as an example but highlights some generic problems with incomplete, duplicated and sometimes misleading sets of articles. Project groups should have a role in taking an overview and improving our overall coverage of topics that cross boundaries between medicine, molecular biology, pharmacology and chemistry. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Glucomannan

Can someone with WP:MEDRS experience please see Talk:Glucomannan#Weight_loss? There are multiple secondary sources showing positive effects, and explanations for why it works, and it's allowed to be marketed for these purposes by European Food Safety Authority, but an editor keeps editing the article to say there's no evidence at all, making it sound like a sham. — Omegatron (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Responded there; the problems are clear in the dates of the sources you are using (2005). I have added yet another recent MEDRS-compliant source to the one already added by Alexbrn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: The date of the source is 2020, no? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2451847620300968 Alexbrn's source is from 2015, says "little evidence", not "no evidence", and is mentioned as an earlier conflicting result by the more recent source. — Omegatron (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

After edit conflict: You mean "The official journal of the Shanghai Diabetes Institute" ? That sounds wonky to me. Have you answered Alexbrn's query about why that is not PubMed indexed? Obesity Medicine (journal) is a redlink. There is no need to ping me on a page I follow (unless I miss it and fail to respond). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The fresh source I added was PMID 30896252, which was published in 2019, not 2015. And in a top-tier nutrition journal, Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. Alexbrn (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Help with draft article about NYC chief medical advisor on COVID-19

I have prepared a draft article about Jay Varma Draft:Jay Varma who for the past year has helped lead New York City’s response to Covid-19 as the chief medical advisor to NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio. I am hoping for input and advice from members of this project about how to improve this draft. Since millions of New Yorkers rely on his decisions, including the closing/opening of the NYC public schools, I think it’s important there be an article about him now -- he is constantly quoted by the NY Times. I should disclose that I have a conflict of interest because I have a personal relationship with Varma, which is why I am seeking independent advice about how to make the article better. SugarSpice202112 (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

thank you for disclosing your COI--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Medical translation

I've started to work on rewriting old articles on my topics of interest, not just making new ones, and I've recently rewritten tetrasomy X from scratch. It has quite a few cross-language versions, which so far as I can tell are all translations of an old version that had much less information and poor sourcing. If we happen to have any polyglots here, I'd be interested in new translations, especially considering it's been done for quite a major set of languages (Arabic, Greek, Spanish, French, Korean, Indonesian, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, and Russian). I'm monolingual myself, unfortunately, so I'm just dropping the word that some of our articles (I suspect perhaps a growing list -- there's a lot in that sphere I plan to work on) have out-of-date translations. I wonder how many of the foreign language projects have WT:MED equivalents I could drop a line on? Vaticidalprophet 22:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

at least french and spanish--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Macrocephaly / Megalencephaly

MRI benign familial macrocephaly

I suspect some of the essential content on these two pages might benefit, if possible, from some expert attention (Macrocephaly at least seems to have been, at least in part, victim of some sort of an educational assignment). Just a rapid heads up, 86.172.7.203 (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Bald men and PCOS

The finasteride thing has reminded me of PMID 28711970 (2020 review article in a mid-range journal[18]) and PMID 28711970 (2018 review article in a better journal[19]). It seems that Polycystic ovary syndrome, despite the feminine name, is probably not a purely feminine condition, and in particular, may be the cause of androgenetic alopecia for some/many/all men who go bald at a younger age and may explain the other conditions associated with it, such as diabetes, prostate problems, heart disease, and hormonal problems.

(The reason that finasteride reminded me of this is that the "post-finasteride" side effects overlap considerably with the "PCOS in men" side effects, and men with PCOS-related balding are going to be more likely to take a hair-loss-prevention drug than men who don't go bald.)

The PCOS article doesn't mention (biological/non-trans) men at all, and I'm really not sure how to add this. Does anyone have any ideas? Or is it maybe too soon, and we should try again in a couple of years? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Easy way to help

If you're looking for a way to help, please consider signing up for the Wikipedia:Feedback request service (#Maths, science, and technology for RFCs or #Natural sciences for Good articles). If you add your name to the list, a bot will post a note on your talk page when there is a request for feedback on relevant articles. There is no obligation to respond to any given request, and if you want, you can limit the notices to just one or two a month. Having a variety of editors with different interest areas and different types of wiki-skills is really helpful, so please WP:Be bold and offer your help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Finasteride

A new article has appeared:

• Post-finasteride syndrome (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Long-time members here may remember a fuss about this some years ago, as the "syndrome" was at the centre of a legal claim against the drug manufacturer, and COI editing was taking place on Wikipedia seemingly to boost the case. The literature seems to have expanded, but this new article seems to be in danger of being a WP:POVFORK spin-off with some dodgy sourcing. I have tried to redirect it to the main Finasteride article but have been reverted by the article's creator, Sugarhouse90, a fresh account with an apparent COI[20] and a handful of edits. More eyes could help. Alexbrn (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The class-action litigation you are referring to has been settled so it is not relevant. As you acknowledged the literature has expanded. This is not a POV Fork. Recent in-depth literature reviews by andrologists and steroid biologists have concluded that the syndrome should be considered a distinct entity. Discussion of clinical findings in these patients and understanding of the pathophysiology would not be appropriate on the main finasteride article, especially as this is an active and increasing area of research, and evidence will evidently continue to increase as it is further investigated. Controversies have been addressed and given due weight, and the page reviewer was satisfied these had been satisfactorily addressed. As articles exist for post-drug adverse effects such as Benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome the same should apply here as there is discussion in medical literature that experienced symptoms do not resolve with time. In terms of sourcing, I was careful to include references that met Wikipedia's guidelines on using high-quality secondary sources. For example, I did not include a recent case-controlled study showing penile vascular abnormalities in the majority of Post-Finasteride Syndrome patients, reported by the now-President elect of the Sexual Medicine Society of North America, as this had not yet been referenced in further literature review of the subject. Can you please be specific regarding claims of "dodgy" sources? One of the sources cited is an Oxford University Press textbook on endocrine disruptors and the brain, that plainly states that finasteride has evidently harmful effects and that data suggests they can be irreversible. The tone of putting syndrome in quotes along with "dodgy sources" is a concerning approach to this topic given the majority conclusion of recent literature reviews. Sugarhouse90 (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

From a partial review of the article and its sources, I have not been convinced that post-finasteride syndrome doesn't merit to be mentioned in Wikipedia. After I acknowledge Sugarhouse90 for the work in this article, I must however mention some issues I encounter:

• Citations [1], [3], and [9] come from a journal that isn't listed in PubMed Medline-indexed and seems not to be peer-reviewed. Journals in citations [11] and [12] aren't Medline-indexed either. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm still inexperienced in selecting journal sources for Wikipedia, but in a relatively controversial issue as this these sources seem to be inappropriate.
• The fact that "Of 34 clinical trials assessing the safety of finasteride for use in androgenic alopecia, meta-analysis concluded that none were found to have had adequate safety reporting." is based on a primary source; it is not specifically connected in the source with post-finasteride syndrome (so mentioning might be thought of as synthesis of published material); and, most importantly, the study received funding from the Post-finasteride Syndrome Foundation, so there is a definite conflict of interest.
• Suicide is indeed mentioned in finasteride's SPCs that I find online. But is it mentioned as part of post-finasteride syndrome anywhere? (I'm not saying it isn't, I just don't remember seeing it).
• This syndrome seems to be unrefuted, yet not confirmed yet. A specific problem is that it has been based in patient-reported adverse effects. I haven't full access to the BMJ editorial, and though editorials are not usually not good enough sources, I must copy: "Post-finasteride syndrome is an ill defined and controversial syndrome".
• By the way: the Clinical findings section contains no clinical findings, only research results.

Given the above, I'm more inclined to see "Post-finasteride syndrome passingly mentioned in Finasteride. Or, even if it is decided to keep the article, it should be more balanced in its wording, and have its sources thoroughly cleansed. NikosGouliaros (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Corrections: NikosGouliaros (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Yes, and per WP:NOPAGE even if a topic is notable it can make better sense treated in a wider context. Alexbrn (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Doc James: Would you provide an opinion here please? Particularly whether this is still a controversial topic or does it deserve its own page, given the Reuters investigation and emergence of recent literature in the time since the last version was submitted? Sugarhouse90 (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Doc James is busy elsewhere and unlikely to respond. In any case, there is now a merger proposal (see below) where anybody can comment. Alexbrn (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, I have trimmed out the (copious) primary/unreliable sourcing, tried to ensure WP:V for what remains, and have proposed a merger: see Talk:Post-finasteride syndrome#Merger proposal. Alexbrn (talk) 08:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like a group advocacy effort

According to this tweet anyway. Sugarhouse90 could you explain what is going on? Alexbrn (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I do contribute to awareness projects for this and other patient groups, but this tweet was by someone there pleased it was published and not by me. I have stated to you on my Talk page already I am persistently affected following use of finasteride and deeply interested in research into the condition, as I've already declared. I am not involved in litigation and have no financial COI. Nothing I have submitted was advocacy - in fact one justification you used for removal of a line I submitted to the finasteride page was "copyright infringement", as it was considered by you to be too close to the wording of a textbook on endocrine disruption and the brain. I do not believe my contact or association with other patients, or awareness efforts elsewhere, have impaired my ability to edit in good faith. And as demonstrable by the chain of events in Talk:Post-finasteride syndrome the factual mistakes and editorialising have been on your part. Sugarhouse90 (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Right, so an advocate who given the change concealed the nature of their COI. Disappointing but not unexpected. These kinds of dishonourable antics waste so much good editors' time, when it can be ill afforded. Alexbrn (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

POV-driven approach

I am incredibly disappointed with what has occurred to this article, with specific regard to a single editor User:Alexbrn’s strong and consistent opposition to its existence despite erroneous engagement with the subject, and maneuvers to justify its removal or merging into the main finasteride article. Initially, the article was deleted and redirected without discussion, after it had been approved and judged to have given controversies due weight. At this point the article was deleted without discussion and redirected to the main finasteride article by this editor. Immediately after restoration, a vast amount of important content, particularly case-controlled scientific research in good quality secondary sources, was removed with vague reasoning. Additional citations were removed. I will concede that a couple of the edits were justifiably appropriate as they removed primary sources, but the edits went far beyond this. The assertion in WT:MED was that the sources did not meet guidelines because they were not peer-reviewed or listed on PubMed, which I subsequently demonstrated they were. After this, a new objection was made on the vague grounds that the citations, although peer-reviewed, still did not meet guidelines. A specific guideline was not referenced. Unbroken rules and Wikipedia terms were thrown around to justify an editorial approach and seek to reduce the quality of the article and information provided on the subject. I must point out no specific questions or objections to the substantive medical findings which were removed. As it stands, peer-reviewed case-controlled findings which are summarised in multiple peer-reviewed literature reviews have been completely and unjustifiably removed. This is a dramatic step considering their core relevance to the current understanding of the clinical problem. A clear approach has been to remove science and add opinion from the outset. The only single journal publication the editor expanded upon was a hair clinician with an undeclared financial COI making a hypothesis outside his medical area with no evidential basis. This was while removing secondary literature from well-renowned steroid biologists reporting the findings of case-controlled patient-focused investigations. Currently, further editorialising has left his rewrite of a line relating to an investigative report from Reuters factually mistaken and at best misleading. The words "allegations from plaintiffs" were edited into it was justified with a partial quote. The start of the line has been chopped off: "Citing internal documents,". The title of the article is "Court let Merck hide secrets about a popular drug’s risks", but to expand further: These documents were unsealed by Reuters and further reported again, this time more plainly: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-merck-propecia-suicide-exclusive-idUSKBN2A32XU. With reference to the aforementioned documents: "the 2009 risk management report also shows that the company was aware of reports that those sexual problems continued for some men after they stopped taking the drug." It is not even debatable that an at-the-time future lawsuit's "allegations" could form the substantive basis for this internal company report showing evidence of persistent sexual dysfunction at the trial stages, years beforehand. Removing this core content from the article, and misrepresenting what is left, served to reduce it significantly, supporting a straw poll for a renewed attempt to merge what little remains into the main finasteride article. I hope this chain of events stays well recorded here for the future, as it is disgraceful. Doctors interested in a condition will reference Wikipedia for what has been investigated and found in research, not the thoughts of a Wikipedia editor with cemented and out-of-date viewpoints. This is a discouraging experience for people familiar with a topic who are earnestly sharing plainly reported and uneditorialised information, in line with specified guidelines. Any objective observer can see the tone of the comments made, the mistakes made, the vague, constantly-shifting objections are not intended to improve available information in what is undeniably a topic in medical literature. Rather, a personal viewpoint held for many years seems to have been able to keep the state of understanding from Wikipedia. I will have to recuse myself now, as I have been asked by User:SlimVirgin, but as I am very familiar with the literature I will be happy to help any earnest editors in the future. Sugarhouse90 (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Physician (Assistant) Associate

Recently viewed the page - Physician Assistant

Without a long review of the multiple clinical, political, professional and there are others - the profession title (by degree in my case) should be / is Physician Associate.

Many in the profession have been making efforts for a number of years (going back into the 80's) to have the 'name' properly revised.

We are not 'mid-level' providers nor do we provide 'mid-level' care. The standard against which the care provided is the medical ;standard of care' which is not modified when a PA is under scrutiny.

One additional detail - a comment on a 'talk' page about the PA profession is inaccurate. There were civilian and military PAs who received classroom & clinical training and later sought a college degree. Since the 80's the majority of military PAs did obtain a degree from their program and many have gone on to obtain a graduate degree - often concurrently with advanced clinical training.

A great number (perhaps even a majority) of PAs attain a masters degree as their minimum certification.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter

<>< Al C 2603:7080:C443:AD00:31CE:D127:121C:D2A0 (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

This is the wrong forum for this discussion, which you should start by making a requested move discussion on the article's talk page. Note that requested moves require an argument be made that the proposed new title is a better fit for Wikipedia's article naming policies than the current title, the most preeminent such being that it's the most common/recognizable name for the article's subject, and "physician assistant" is a more common term than "physician associate" (to use a very rough measure, 14.5 million vs 370k hits on Google). Vaticidalprophet 22:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Vaticidalprophet's advice. I also think we should at least add "physician associate" to the lead, as that's what we call them in the UK. I think here it's a 2-year post-graduate degree. Dr. Vogel (talk) 10:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like the article could use an explanation about "mid-level" meaning that PAs deal with medical care up to a medium-level of complexity, rather than providing a mediocre quality of care. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS question: a popular magazine reviewing a single study

Does this US News article qualify as MEDRS in the article Sex reassignment therapy? Although U.S. News and World Report is a secondary source, when an entire popular magazine article covers a single academic study, such as this one about childhood gender dysphoria, it seems like just being a secondary source isn't enough. For the time being, I've left the US News article footnote #16 in the article (at Sex reassignment therapy#Eligibility of minors) and tagged it (and another citation) as {{Better source needed}}, but I wonder if I should just remove it. Mathglot (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Multiple issues here; blatant cut-and-paste copyvio from the U.S. News source (@Ajpolino:).

The US News report (lay press) talks about a 2014 Dutch study on a small (55) sample; it has been long enough for that to have been mentioned in a secondary (MEDRS, not lay press) review.

But you link to an entirely different primary study about childhood gender dysphoria, on a slightly larger sample, which is also so old (2013) it should have been mentioned in a secondary review by now.

Conclusion: even without the copyvio (which may mean re-evaluating and removing everything added by that editor), why would we use any of these sources? I must be missing something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I thought not, also; I'm just not as used to it, and needed the support, I guess. And yes, there were two primary sources, and I probably mixed up the links. Thanks for the response! Mathglot (talk) 05:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

You’re welcome; but you will have to go back and re-evaluate everything added by the same editor to see how much copyvio there is, and then if you can, list diffs here so Ajpolino can revdel the copyvio. I saw one cut-and-paste sentence, and didn’t check further; the rest needs checking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The copied portions appear to be within double quotes, and even though they're long and would probably require shortening or removal even if the sourcing were impeccable, nevertheless, doesn't including the quote marks insulate it from Copyvio revdel? Or does it need revdel anyway? The copying appears to amount to one paragraph plus two sentences. Mathglot (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Mathglot, I had already retired for the evening and was iPad editing. I am on a real computer now to help you out. Copyvio work is tedious, frustrating and infuriating (thank goodness for Ajpolino :)

• NOT quoted and direct cut-and-paste from this US News article. No patients expressed regret about the transition process, including puberty suppression.
• Ditto: De Vries nevertheless cautioned that the findings need to be confirmed by further research, and added that her study didn't set out to assess the side effects of puberty suppression.
• There is other extensive quoted material, which may be too much to avoid copyvio.

So, with just those two direct cut-and-paste, and not even looking further, we know the next step is to find which edit inserted that text, because that edit or editor may require admin attention.

• That text was inserted by Flower f5a9b8 on August 27, 2015; that is the edit that Ajpolino will have to deal with (not sure if he has to revdel, he knows that territory). But it looks like no one was paying attention there (copyvio almost always stands out as text that is too well written). That edit also shows you what primary sources the text originally came from. I think there is too much quoting, and considering the copyvio plus primary sources, plus laypress sources, you are probably justified to delete the entire thing. But there is no harm in waiting for Ajpolino to come along and look; it's already been there more than five years anyway :)
• But the next, and very time consuming thing, is to check all of this to see if there is more copyvio. Because there usually is. As an example, if you find copyvio in this edit, then there's more work to be done. It would be most helpful to Ajpolino, who works in copyvio, if you have to time to determine whether that editor has other problematic instances. Again, he knows better than I do, so you can wait until he weighs in, but fill in the pieces for him meanwhile.

I hope that gets you started; I'm off to bed now :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, i'm sorry to hear that my edits have caused problems. I've made very few in total and almost all of them were just fixing dead links or arguing in talk pages, so hopefully it won't be too tedious to resolve these issues. Going through the contributions page you linked I believe that the two edits already linked here are my only two relevant edits, although I'll understand if others want to confirm that. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help more. To explain a little of the context in my defence, when I attempted to make contributions here 5 years ago I faced a great deal of hostility and scrutiny (although apparently not for the things which should have been scrutinised). I had intended to do more work with these quotations as you can see from my last edit, but by that point I was too nervous to make any further edits to articles. — Flower f5a9b8 14:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Flower f5a9b8; glad to hear from you (I did not think you were still editing)! I am sorry to hear about the hostility you faced as a new editor; that's a tough editing area. On the chance that those two sentences are the only cut-and-paste, do you happen to know if there is any more among your edits? The answer to that could save Ajpolino a lot of time (I don't even know whether a Revdel is required for only two sentences). Welcome back, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, thank you, that's very kind of you. To be honest I still find being here surprisingly stressful even six years later, but that's reassuring. Here's everything I could find going through all my edits: One sentence I added in this edit seems to have been cobbled together from passages in one of the sources I added. I expanded on an existing quote (with attribution) here. This is another quote with attribution in the same style. This edit takes a couple of sentences and doesn't do much to paraphrase them. The worst one is definitely the one linked here originally, in addition to the two sentences you quoted there's also "By delaying the onset of puberty, those children who go on to gender reassignment..." and a few big quotes (albeit with attribution). Honestly even aside from this whole copyvio thing I made a mess of that section on eligibility of minors, it's all pretty disappointing. I hope this helps undo any issues I've caused.

As an aside on Mathglot's original question about the weak sources, I think this might be an improvement? It mentions the Dutch study along with a few others. I don't know if it's appropriate to suggest a replacement here, hope that's ok. — Flower f5a9b8 00:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all for bringing this up, and thanks Flower f5a9b8 for doing a bit of self-scrutinizing archaeology on those older edits. I'll get a chance to do the necessary cleaning this weekend at the latest. Other than that, no worries. All that is done can be undone; it's the beauty of a Wiki. Stay well. Ajpolino (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Flower f5a9b8; we all make mistakes when starting out, and as Ajpolino says, nothing that can't be undone. Your good-faith help makes the work easier! Hope you feel encouraged to stick around, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

That honestly means a lot to me, I really appreciate it. I love wikipedia and I'd love to do more for it (some day? or maybe soon). — Flower f5a9b8 00:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Stop in here any time you have questions! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Trimmed some material at Sex reassignment therapy. Offending material at Gender dysphoria had already been removed. Checked all other contributions. All clear. Flower f5a9b8 can live guilt-free again. Ajpolino (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine-Induced Prothrombotic Immune Thrombocytopenia

Can some neutral project members checkout X-Editor's article Vaccine-Induced Prothrombotic Immune Thrombocytopenia and determine it's status with regard to WP:MEDRS. Please note I have also removed a prominent link from the "See also" section added to Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and that may need to be reviewed also or incorporated into prose. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: The article I created was done entirely in good faith. If you want to delete the article, go right ahead, I wouldn't mind. X-Editor (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Every time I look at the headlines, some newspaper is alternately declaring that it's a thing, or that it's not a thing. It might therefore be too soon to be able to write (much of) an article about this concern. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree, totally inappropriate as-was with an assertion the condition is caused by the AZ vaccine sourced to non-WP:MEDRS. I have reduced the article to a single non-committal sentence for now. We really can't say much more yet. Alexbrn (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

(Add) I see the EMA has just issued an update.[21] which says there is no evidence of a causal link (though this remains a possibility) and that the reported rate of embolic and thrombotic events in AZ vaccine recipients "was lower than the rate of such events in the general population" overall but higher compared to the pre-pandemic population (if I read it right; it is not a model of written clarity). I have renamed the article to align it to this MEDRS source, and updated. But probably it shouldn't exist as a standalone and should just be a redirect. Needless to say, this is a topic where Wikipedia needs to be careful. Alexbrn (talk) 06:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Thanks for fixing the article. It looks way better now. X-Editor (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

While cooking supper I heard on the news there'd been more from the EMA on this, so more could probably be said. Still, I do think this would be better merged in to the parent article. Thanks for sparking this content into existence! Alexbrn (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: No problem. What new info did the EMA announce? Could you provide a link? If you want to merge the article, you could start that discussion and explain your rationale for merging. X-Editor (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

From what I gathered (I was a bit distracted by the pasta sauce) it was about evidence not justifying suspension of vaccine programmes. Maybe this?[22] Alexbrn (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Are there specific fair use guidelines for medical articles, thinking about including photos of well known people getting their COVID vaccine

Hi all

As the title says would it be within Wikipedia's fair use rules (not sure if there are specific ones for medical articles) to include images of well known people getting vaccinated with specific COVID vaccines. Eg a photo of Dolly Parton getting vaccinated with the vaccine she helped fund.

The reason I'm asking is my sister is a vaccination nurse in the UK and less than half of the people who have appointments are showing up and when asked they've said 'I don't think its safe because Facebook'. Having photos of well know people being vaccinated would illustrate take up by people and show the process, which would hopefully help people to understand they're safe through example as well as facts. There are a few examples here of British people and some here of mostly Americans.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair use rules would suggest that given the amount of free imagery out there (both of vaccination in general and of celebrities in general) that the specific image desired would need to be the subject of significant commentary itself. In essence, we cannot use non-free images to "draw people in" unless there is reliably sourced, and due weight commentary about the image in the article's text. As an example, Dolly's "full circle" of funding, then receiving and advocating for a vaccine may cross that line, but the first step is to expand the prose of desired article(s) to include at least a paragraph of commentary on the image/situation - then a use case may be arguable. Note that none of our articles should be edited with the motive of "correcting" misinformation or encouraging vaccination - we are an encyclopedia that should simply report verifiable information. While it's unfortunate that many may be falling victim to incorrect information around the world, Wikipedia's way to solve that is by providing neutral and verifiable information to people - nothing more. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid fair use won't give us access to press photos of celebrities. The photographers and their agencies make their living through image sales, so wouldn't release them nor turn a blind eye to misuse. These have considerable commercial value and you can imagine that there are all sorts of current affairs or historical photos we'd love to use to illustrate articles. You might have more luck with a personal photo posted to social media, if you directly contacted the celebrity and asked for permission. For example Lenny Henry in the UK. It is important that the permission comes from whoever took the photo, and if that's Lenny's friend, rather than a professional, then they may be quite happy to see the image used. Many people, including celebrities, wrongly think they own the copyright to photographs of themselves, but taken by others. You need to get the photographer to release the photo with a free licence that permits commercial use (such as Creative Commons license CC BY-SA, and not CC BY-SA-NC for example), or to give away their copyright with something like CC0.

I'm surprised at your sister's report, as the government statistics so far show extremely high take-up generally (like 90%) dropping to 70 or 80% among ethnic minority groups. The government initially targeted the elderly and sick, who are more likely to fail to make an appointment due to being ill. Since appointments have to be made by the person (rather than you being told you have one), I'm a bit sceptical that over half of people made appointments for the coming week, and then decided not to bother on the day. And how would the vaccination nurse find out why -- it isn't like have you have to say. I wonder if that's actually just something someone read in the Daily Mail. There is certainly more a problem in some minority groups, the blood-clot scare in Europe can't be helping, and younger age groups are not only less likely to fall seriously ill but also think they are invincible. So I suspect take-up will fall as we go down the age bands. A number of people are just plain scared of needles. Celebrity endorsement appears on mainstream news and also on social media, which is probably more likely to influence the "because Facebook" crowd than getting Dolly Parton on to a Wikipedia page. I'm a leery of celebrity endorsement myself, given that they endorse fad diets and were pretty gullible during the MMR-autism period. -- Colin°^Talk 19:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

A near-total ban on non-free images of "living people" is the first item at WP:NFC#UUI. We might be able to find similar images taken by US government employees (e.g., showing a politician getting vaccinated).

Another way to approach this is to provide the numbers: the belief that "everybody else is doing it" affects more than just teenagers with FOMO. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Your intentions are good, but this is clearly way outside the boundaries of fair use. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much Orangemike, WhatamIdoing, Colin and Berchanhimez, perhaps one place to start is to have a small section on COVID-19 vaccine in the Society and culture section describing the fact that many famous people are encouraging other to get the vaccine by showing them getting it? John Cummings (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Given how draconian fair-use restrictions are, I fear this would not suffice. Such illustrations are decorative and encouraging, but in no way necessary to the project, and thus do not qualify for any of the fair-use exemptions. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think John's suggestion was a further attempt to use images, but an alternative with words. I think it a bit too much to describe images as you do, which isn't a criteria for non-free image use. -- Colin°^Talk 14:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I started a section here COVID-19_vaccine#Encouragement_by_public_figures_and_celebrities. John Cummings (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I need medical help

Hello, at User talk:Firestar464#Your GA nomination of Brie Larson, I believe I've been talking to myself. I'm seeking medical help per WP:IAR, as it would be a great help to the encyclopedia. Firestar464 (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Liver rupture

The entire article on liver injury is written from an external trauma / blunt force / stabbing point of view. From writing Death of Chaniece Wallace, I noticed that liver rupture is a red link, and I'm currently thinking it deserves an article of its own because of the following etiology: "Spontaneous hepatic rupture occurring during pregnancy, though rare, is a potentially fatal incident. It is almost always associated with preeclampsia, eclampsia, and/or HELLP syndrome which always carry an increased risk of both maternal and foetal morbidity and mortality that was reported to be as high as 40-80%."[23] Maybe there are other disease processes that are associated with liver rupture, but if so, I am currently ignorant of them. Any thoughts? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, I might not get around to it, but I believe the Death of Chaniece Wallace article is eligible to have a WP:DYK hook written about it if anyone is up to that task. Biosthmors (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that another rare cause of spontaneous liver rupture are tumors, like hepatocellular carcinoma and hepatic hemangioma. NikosGouliaros (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Are the treatments for pregnancy- and cancer-related liver rupture basically the same as for trauma? If so, then it might be better to expand the existing article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

They are, so good point. NikosGouliaros (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Biosthmors as the liver is a solid organ is it unlikely that it ruptures per se, but more likely the articles you refer to describe a ruptured liver capsule or something similar. For example, in the article you link to, it is used to describe a ruptured haematoma of the liver through the liver capsule. I think it would be better for such an article to redirect to a more accurate title. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Suicide methods article

Hi all, Just noticed the 4th most viewed medicine related article on Wikipedia is Suicide methods (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:West.andrew.g/Popular_medical_pages)... I find this quite concerning considering the pandemic's effect on mental health. Obviously we can't pull any conclusions between suicide rates and this article; however, any thoughts if we could perhaps add some kind of warning tag on the article inviting readers to reach out for help if needed? Spyder212 (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Project-wide consensus is against this sort of thing, though I think a small message at the top of articles related to suicide directing to a project-space page of suicide helplines and similar may be enough to get that put in as an exception. Regardless, a new project-level consensus would be required to add something like this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

If anyone's willing to work on that article, we've been generally trying to turn it into an actual encyclopedia article, i.e., one that describes the prevalence of different methods, method-specific prevention measures, how media covers different methods, etc. instead of just listing random factoids about individual methods. Also, pretty much all of the information on the individual methods is out of date and leaves out important information, like "most people survive" or "it's painful and you're conscious the whole time" or "it's unethical because it endangers other people". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, it is actually 6th most viewed ... this is the new page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages (the one you accessed is no longer kept up to date). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is worth worrying about whether 4th or 6th. Something odd with the table. Tasuku Honjo was briefly famous in Japan in April 2020 for something he didn't say, and since then continues to get a ridiculous number of page views. The actual article hasn't been edited this year and only a handful of minor edits since July 2020. How can it be getting more page views than COVID-19 pandemic? -- Colin°^Talk 10:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Image from predatory journal at Centrocyte

Flagging here so people can make a decision about whether or not this meets WP:MEDRS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Images don't have to have reliable sources. If it looks like the cell in question, then it's good enough even if they made it out of cupcakes and frosting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

In which case it kind of begs the question - if the image is only for illustration purposes, does it even need a citation? CV9933 (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The image doesn't need a citation (in the article; for license/attribution reasons, it probably needs the provenance on the file description page at Commons). The sentence(s) in the caption might need a citation, if they don't repeat content already included and cited elsewhere in the article; however, that citation could be any reliable source, and does not have to be the specific source that contains that image. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, there's also a concern with to the caption. But if licensing etc... is OK on Commons, then the source could probably removed from our article. Same for the two images sourced to doi:10.23937/2378-3516/1410035 (a ClinMed journal) in Composition of electronic cigarette aerosol. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Breakthrough device

I’m writing my first Q-submission to the FDA for this regulatory status. I noticed we have breakthrough therapy, although that’s probably because that program is a bit older.

Anyone care to flesh that out? There’s an interesting article in Nature about the program. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Is it actually new? Or is it basically just breakthrough therapy designation applied to medical devices. If it is the second, it may be better to move breakthrough therapy to Breakthrough (medicine) and to cover all forms of "breakthrough" designations around the world - be they for drugs, regimens, devices, etc. If it's something completely different and would not be similar at all, then maybe another article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The programs are indeed distinct. They're very similar in terms of what they provide, but the regulatory requirements and the forms of collaboration the FDA offers to companies that sponsor drugs/devices with that designation differ. E.g., the FDA trains its staff to keep up to date with the technology underlying breakthrough devices - both current and new. TBH, I have no idea what the breakthrough therapy program provides specifically for pharmaceutical company sponsors because I don't feel like reading yet another 30+ page "FDA Guidance for Industry" document. >.>

• This is the FDA summary page for the device program
• This is one of 7 inordinately long FDA guidance documents I've had to read to submit a 3-page request It's a detailed FDA guidance document on the Breakthrough Device program/regulations.
• Breakthrough therapy program started in 2012 https://www.cas.org/blog/breakthrough-therapy-destination
• Breakthrough device program started in 2016
• Apparently they've designated 300-some devices now https://www.medtechdive.com/news/fda-breakthrough-devices-orteq-archerdx-terumo-thermedical-helius-photopharmics/578562/
• This was the Nature article I mentioned: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I6zfgaWLTC-Po_wcpnP8t2V_Jmx4MR-9/view?usp=sharing

In a nutshell, the BDP is a program that - among other things - allows for expedited regulatory approval (i.e., decreased review times, priority review over other device submission for expedited assessment of submissions, and more flexibility in clinical trial design), increased access to and close collaboration with the FDA to facilitate clinical development, and access to senior FDA managers to help resolve complex regulatory challenges that arise for devices using novel technologies (or whenever the FDA review team assigned to the device and the device sponsor are at an impasse). The last point is actually becoming rather important nowadays with the frequency of new AI, cloud computing, and innovative biotechnologies for which there's no existing technical FDA guidance (e.g., like this for my company, which is only a draft guidance document) occurring in new medical devices. There are also cybersecurity issues for such devices that the FDA has to consider nowadays.

In any event, the main reason they created that program is that most medical devices that are classified as "high-risk" are required to go through the premarket approval process, which takes years longer than the process for obtaining regulatory approval in most other countries. So, they created a program to expedite the process for devices that can are likely to reduce mortality in the event they perform as expected in a less-stringent pivotal trial.

As for the WP articles, there really shouldn't be any coverage of the breakthrough device program in the breakthrough therapy article and vice versa. They're two different programs. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not saying they're exactly the same program, but the "breakthrough therapy" designation was basically designed (and is used now) to signify a drug or treatment regimen that is "first in class" - i.e. is some new class of drug/regimen that hasn't been attempted before - and such new therapy/regimen has early data to suggest it's vastly superior to current things. If this bar is met, the drug/regimen is given "fast track" approval - maybe allowed smaller trial sizes, or allowed to be marketed with more side effects given the increased benefit, etc. Is this not what a "breakthrough device" is designed for? It appears to me that a "breakthrough device" is simply another form of "breakthrough designation" that allows novel therapeutic "things" (be they drugs, devices, regimens, techniques....) to get accelerated approval given that they're brand new and potentially game-changing. That's why I think it's likely best to have one article covering all kinds of breakthrough designations. But I'm just one opinion :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I suppose if you wanted to lump them together in an article titled "Breakthrough designation" and make the distinction that they're regulated separately, that'd be reasonable. I wouldn't suggest conflating the two programs if the two topics are covered in a single article though. That'd just be misleading. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Definitely not - it would be about the overall goal of "breakthrough programs" - which is why I suggested Breakthrough (medicine) at first but can also see Breakthrough designation. I agree that there's enough differences to matter, but I'm not sure there's enough differences for it to be independently notable. Regardless, if you or anyone creates an article at this point, it would help - we'd either see an amount of information that can be merged to a combined article, or we would see that it'll be too long on its own to merge reasonably, in which case it would stand alone. Given that this is borderline, I think it may be best to have a separate article, and then merge them all into one if it's appropriate once all individual articles are fleshed out - because if they're so long that merging would be too long, then it's probably best to have separate with a WP:SS article at Breakthrough designation. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Eh, I suppose I probably would be the best person for doing that job. =/ I'll see if I can spare some time to tackle that this weekend. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Origin of internal diseases

A new article that seems to me to have a whiff of quackery, though I'm no expert. Please evaluate. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be a nearly verbatim recreation of an article that was recently deleted at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Origin_of_Chronic_Diseases. I've tagged it accordingly. Spicy (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

People-first language

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Person-First Language that may benefit from input from editors on this project. -- Colin°^Talk 10:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 vaccine authorization type in the EU

Any thoughts on the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_COVID-19_vaccine_authorizations#European%20Commission%20CMA of the type of authorization for COVID-19 vaccines in the EU?

Thanks. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Automatic short description at Infobox medical condition

Feel free to contribute to the discussion about adding automatic short descriptions to {{Infobox military unit}} at Template talk:Infobox medical condition#Automatic short description. --Trialpears (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

English is the language of science

• Elnathan R (April 2021). "English is the language of science - but precision is tough as a non-native speaker". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-00899-y. PMID 33795862. S2CID 232763534.

An interesting article which does not name Tony1, who is the "language mentor" mentioned in this article (and was the language mentor when Tourette syndrome went to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tourette syndrome). Tony1 is excellent at this kind of work (as is Colin), and we could certainly make better use of his talents! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Ha, I don't deserve to be in the same sentence as Tony1, who does this for a living and ever so slightly more knowledgable about English writing than me! While writing good English is no doubt harder for non-native speakers, plenty natives struggle to express ideas clearly. As a collaborative editing project, Wikipedia has a huge advantage over those who are having to write alone. And, time zones permitting, we can get instant feedback. It is definitely best to work with others who complement our skills, provide a fresh pair of eyes, and complain when something isn't clear or is awkward.

One aspect where we deviate from a research scientist is that often we are not quite so confident in our knowledge of the topic that we could write an article on it without consulting the literature. I do recommend collecting a good pile of papers and locating textbooks on a subject to get a number of different voices as input. This helps with WP:WEIGHT, but also it is easier to write original text when one has seen an idea expressed several different ways. With only one source for a point, it is difficult to avoid changing the meaning when one changes the words. (I'm not suggesting we then need to cite multiple sources for one point). -- Colin°^Talk 08:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for new MED doc page: inclusion criteria

I think we should have a doc page as part of the Project which is aimed at the user coming to WP:MED with the question, "Is topic/article 'XYZ' subject to WP:MEDRS?" I checked the #Resources sidebar, the #Guidelines section, and the rest of the page, but I don't see anything that directly addresses that question. I'm envisioning a new project page, perhaps parallel to or a subpage of WP:MEDRS, which attempts to offer guidance on that question, which could then be linked from #Resources.

MEDRS styles itself as a content guideline, and I'm thinking the new page could either be a supplementary guideline attached to MEDRS (tag it with {{Supplement}}), an Info page, or even an essay to start. I'm sure there will be some gray areas or topics for which case-by-case evaluation might be needed which may end up in discussion at WT:MED anyway, but I think a new doc page could clear up the majority of such questions by listing some criteria which define articles that are subject to the guideline. Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that would be useful. If nothing else, for things like this Dr. Vogel (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this not the purpose of WP:Biomedical information ? Alexbrn talk) 20:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems that WP:PSMED and other guides at the bottom of the MEDRS page were intended for this purpose. Perhaps they could be reformed as a short primer, or the WP biomedical information box could be elevated to a more visible position near the top of the MEDRS article. Zefr (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn:, indeed! That was well hidden, I thought I looked everywhere. In that case, maybe it's only a question of increased visibility, and optionally expanding that page. Any objection to adding a link to BMI from the #Resources section to make it more visible, and adding a couple of prose references to it from the body? Unless I missed it, there are zero links currently from WP:MED to BMI from the body text (there's one in tiny font from a nav template), and it seems like that page is really a must-see. Mathglot (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

It is linked from the second sentence of WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, and in my experience, experienced editors don't read the introduction to any policy or guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Citing predatory sources at Talk:Tetracera sarmentosa

Further participation would be appreciated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: did you mean to comment? If so, you forgot to. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

thanks for bring this to my attention...commented[24]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Singular v plural on article titles

• Wikipedia:Article titles
  • WP:SINGULAR: Use the singular form: Article titles are generally singular in form, e.g. Horse, not Horses. Exceptions include nouns that are always in a plural form in English (e.g. scissors or trousers) and the names of classes of objects (e.g. Arabic numerals or Bantu languages). For more guidance, see WP:Naming conventions (plurals).

Examples

• Lewy body, but
• inclusion body was at the plural (I just moved it), while
• cerebral veins
• scalene muscles, are at the plural, and a bigger problem is
• Lewy body dementias (LBD) at the plural.--Iztwoz (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Lewy body dementia is a singular name, and should not be at the plural. I don't think the veins or muscles belong at plural either. We many have many such issues in article names, and need to sort some consensus on ths, as having LBD at such an odd place is causing issues related to those going all the way back to this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 144#Wikidata DLB LBD error.

Tom (LT) can you give us an example of something in anatomy that is always in a plural form in English (e.g. scissors) or provide any guidance? Lewy body dementia is almost never used in plural form, and Lewy body and inclusion body have singular usage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I think, based on my reading of the article titles policy, that the classes of objects applies to some here - ex: cerebral veins, scalene muscles - but not to Lewy/inclusion body. My reading of the guidance is that in general, if things are referred to more as the plural and there's a definite and common number of them referred to by the plural, then that is the title, whereas for things which can take on many numbers and/or a singular form, the singular is. It also bears looking at what the articles cover - whereas Lewy body covers any one Lewy body primarily, others such as scalene muscles cover the group of muscles referred to as scalene - thus making it a singular noun (describing the group or class of thing) not a plural, even though it appears that way. This probably can be worded better when applied to medicine but I'm likely not the one to be able to do that :P -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

P.S. - I know I wasn't the one pinged, but I've almost never heard of one Purkinje fiber being discussed, nor one glial cell as opposed to the class of cell as a whole. That being said, at the cellular level, it seems there's no rhyme/reason as to whether they are at the plural or singular - examples can be found of each on WP. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Berchan, I didn't intend to only ask Tom; I just know it's hard to get his (busy) attention without a ping. I guess there's a separate issue here: are there any medical oddities relative to WP:SINGULAR that should be spelled out at WP:MEDMOS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to get at - when an anatomical/medical feature exists in countable amounts (or 0) but not universal how many or if any one person has - then it is usually singular (ex: Lewy body), when there's only one it's obviously singular, and when everyone has multiple, it's either plural if a set number (or if usually referred to as the group - ex scalene muscles, glial cells) or can be singular if even though there's a set number, they are referred to as the singular often enough (ex kidney). I think this is a rough set of "general" rules from what I see as precedent - while some talk could be given to simplifying these, they're a start at least? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. I agree with Berchanhimez' thoughts. When something is not countable or referred to in a plural sense then it is usually a plural title, whereas something that is countable may be referred to in the singular. E.g. vasa recta (kidney), scalene muscles, carpal bones, ossicles, Vascular nerves. Articles about cells are generally named in the singular. My feeling is that our articles within the anatomy space generally reflect WP:PLURAL taking into account the nuances surrounding individual article titles. One reason as above is that anatomical things studied in relation to a disease (inclusion bodies), function (ossicles, vasa recta) or physiological process (purkenjie fibres, cerebral veins) might be studied in group form and therefore more often referred to in group form, whereas things that are macro or microscopically interesting from an anatomical basis generally seem to be in the singular. I don't think there is overall a greater issue that needs to be standardised, and I also don't think creating more prescriptive rules is going to be particularly helpful in this case because of the nuances. I do think there are probably some inconsistencies out there though, but think they should be discussed individually, and some titles I think fall into a grey zone where they could be named either way according to your interpretation of WP:PLURAL for each entity. Ping to Iztwoz who I think will also have a considered opinion on this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed a step. So Berchan agrees with me that Lewy body and Inclusion body belong at the singular, then Tom (LT) also agrees with Berchan, and yet Inclusion body was just moved back to the plural. Unless I am misreading, there is only one editor who thinks that article belongs at the plural. This has now happened at Lewy body dementia, and I wonder if Lewy body is next. Could we get this nailed down before articles continue moving ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Tom - I strongly favour the current usage of groupings of for example some nerves, muscles, veins, and arteries. In many cases these are the common names even if pluralised : cranial nerves, splanchnic nerves, cerebral veins, cerebral arteries; if middle cerebral veins was in the singular, for example, it would have to be a disambiguation page since there is a superficial middle cerebral vein and a deep middle cerebral vein. This is the same for most of the other ‘groupings’. Circular folds, gastric folds are clearly better as plurals than as singulars.

If somebody is strongly in favour of singularising everything would that include meninx for meninges and gram-negative bacterium for gram-negative bacteria? And if not - why not?

As for Lewy body dementia being an entry page - like it or not it is an aka for Dementia with Lewy bodies - hence the confusion.--Iztwoz (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

No LBD is not an aka for DLB; where is that confusion coming from? LBD is an umbrella term encompassing two conditions: PDD and DLB. Dreadful terminology, but that’s the industry because the Parkinson’s people got their dibs on the terminology first, and there’s nothing we can do about the dreadful terminology.

Separately, do we have inclusion body correctly at the singular now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Lewy body dementia needs to go back to the singular; that is almost always how sources use it, and it is a term – it is used in the singular. Dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson's disease dementia are the two kinds of Lewy body dementia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

LBD v DLB

Further information: Lewy body dementia, Dementia with Lewy bodies, and Parkinson's disease dementia

LBD is being used as an aka for DLB on some major websites (accessed by the general reader) and also a link using this was left on the LBD talk page some days ago: For example Mayo Clinic site - "Lewy body dementia also known as dementia with Lewy bodies..." and NHS.UK - "Dementia with Lewy bodies also known as Lewy body dementia..."

LBD page states that it is an umbrella term. 3 million or so that are searching on google for this are surely not searching for an umbrella term but for DLB. Putting the page back to the singular would need other editing changes to avoid going back to confusion.

Perhaps a better option would be to rename the Dementia with Lewy bodies page as Lewy body dementia and incorporate the umbrella term and distinctions there. This is how it is treated on the NIA/NIH site. Also have come across other sites describing DLB as Lewy body disease as a new entity. Hope to make some edits to the pages soon. Another option - merge LBD into DLB since there is little to add re Parkinson's disease dementia. --Iztwoz (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

This is wrong on so many levels; I have sub-headed it and will respond later when not iPad editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple separate but related issues raised here and in the 11:50 post (above)-- a difficult topic because of the dreadful terminology. One issue is the term Lewy body dementia (LBD) relative to dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD). Another is the singular vs. plural of LBD. Another is confusion over Lewy body disease relative to all the other terms. And another is whether LBD should be merged to DLB.

There is considerable confusion above relative to what is stated in high-quality sources. (Of which Mayo is not, and in very particular ways on this topic.)

Some background. There are three preeminent groups of researchers of Lewy body diseases. Lewy body disease refers to Parkinson's disease (PD) and PDD and DLB, while LBD is an umbrella term for only DLB and PDD (not PD). All involve Lewy body pathology. The Japanese researchers have Kenji Kosaka, and this group has a prominent role in the terminology issues (see Dementia with Lewy bodies#History and Kosaka's book). The British group has Ian McKeith at Newcastle University and the lead author on most consensus reports. The United States has Bradley Boeve at Mayo. And the Mayo group would very much like for the terminology "damage" that is currently accepted by consensus of all three groups to be corrected, but there is opposition from the Parkinson's research people, who don't want THEIR terminology (named after THEIR guy) to be subsumed. Even though all of the conditions have underlying Lewy pathology. Hence, the problem with terminology we are stuck with, even as Mayo does not agree with the consensus terminology, and Lewy gets short-shift because the Parkinson people got their place in the marketing early on. So, please, let's not use Mayo's website as an authoritative source on the topic, as their website is neither a high-quality MEDRS source, nor a source without its own pony in this race. (I happen to agree with them, but the fact is still that for Wikipedia purposes, we are stuck with terminology driven by the Parkinson people, not the Lewy people.) High-quality peer-reviewed literature is more straightforward as to the definitions I list above. I hope that deals with the "aka" issue; please consult the consensus of high-quality peer-reviewed sources, not Mayo's website.

Sorry to break the flow - but the point is not whether I place any credence on Mayo's website's info but it's the fact that doing a search on Google leads a reader to these sites which use the aka.--Iztwoz (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

With that background, there is no, and never has been any, reason based either on Wikipedia naming or on real-world use and sources, for this move: [25]. Lewy body dementia is a singular term, and that move needs to be undone.

The page Dementia with Lewy bodies uses the plural term Lewy body dementias 14 times. References used on that page, Armstrong: "Lewy Body Dementias"; Gomperts: "Lewy body dementias"; Hansen: "Review: Clinical neuropathological and general features of Lewy body dementias";Velayudhan: "New therapeutic strategies for Lewy body dementias"; Walker: Lewy body dementias".

So do you really think that the simple use of plural in the title is not the best option? As varied comments on the use of singular v plural, when there is more than one type of an entity being referred to then it's more logical to use the plural. --Iztwoz (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Next, I don't know any factual basis for this statement: "LBD page states that it is an umbrella term. 3 million or so that are searching on google for this are surely not searching for an umbrella term but for DLB." In fact, almost every laypress mention (which drives traffic to Wikipedia, as I often verify by following daily the pageviews of all three articles and noticing spikes when someone is diagnosed or dies and that is reported in the press) is to Lewy body dementia, rather than dementia with Lewy bodies, because the family often does not know if their loved one had DLB or PDD. I even had a conversation recently with the son of someone who died of DLB and was the author of a popular book and had submitted an AFC on his father; when I queried the son on why the book was about LBD, and what did his father actually have, he told of exactly the same issue I am explaining here: I will have to look for that link if you want it. Typically, it seems, people are searching on LBD, and the first line of our article on LBD educates them and sends them in the right direction. We cannot help the fact that the terminology stinks, and people don't usually know that, including the laypress. We can educate in the first line.

So next, what to do about all of this logic: "... rename the Dementia with Lewy bodies page as Lewy body dementia and incorporate the umbrella term and distinctions there ... [or] ... merge LBD into DLB since there is little to add re Parkinson's disease dementia." First, as much can be written about PDD as has been written about DLB; just because I haven't written that article doesn't mean it can't be written. Sources have as much to say on PDD as they do on DLB. Renaming DLB to LBD would just be wrong; it is understandable that the NIH does not have separate articles for DLB and PDD, rather only treats the conglomerate, because they aim at the level of 12-yos. We don't; our articles reflect the underlying literature, and the highest-quality underlying peer-reviewed literature is clear on the current terminology and distinctions.

So, the remaining question is whether we should have an article at all on LBD, or just redirect that to DLB where we explain the umbrella. Where would that leave us if someone (like me) did write the full article on PDD? Oh, and then, where would be if the Lewy v Parkinson debate ever got resolved so that they all became the same thing (which they are, just depending on which symptoms appear first). Our articles are in the right place now according to both the high-quality sources AND Wikipedia naming guidelines. The only thing wrong is that LBD does not belong at the plural. There are scores of high-quality sources on precisely this topic and the terminology problem, and they are all used at DLB; our decisions should be based on them. We shouldn't be making up new words (Lewy body dementias) to try to solve what is a real-world unsolved problem. I wouldn't necessarily oppose simply redirecting LBD to DLB, but then we would have a whole 'nother issue to deal with. The bulk of LBD is about Society and culture, because most deaths are reported as LBD for the reasons I explained above. Then we would need a separate Sociological and cultural aspects of Lewy body dementia article ... which sumbuddy already made us delete, and that's a whole 'nother can of worms exactly as this one is.

Iztwoz, I hope you are taking this all this on board, and will not make other unilateral moves and changes without discussion and without basing reasoning on the highest quality sources (not Mayo). After three years of work to bring to DLB to where it is, we are now months from its intended mainpage date (July 21, 2021), and it would not be optimal for these articles to become unstable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I really do not know why you are taking issue with this after all this time? You could have easily reverted as quickly as you changed Inclusion bodies after I linked it into the DLB page.--Iztwoz (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thought to repeat here what I entered above - The page Dementia with Lewy bodies uses the plural term Lewy body dementias 14 times. References used on that page, Armstrong: "Lewy Body Dementias"; Gomperts: "Lewy body dementias"; Hansen: "Review: Clinical neuropathological and general features of Lewy body dementias";Velayudhan: "New therapeutic strategies for Lewy body dementias"; Walker: Lewy body dementias".

So do you really think that the simple use of plural in the title is not the best option? As varied comments on the use of singular v plural, when there is more than one type of an entity being referred to then it's more logical to use the plural.--Iztwoz (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Iztwoz, the reason I am bringing it up now is that the issues were not resolved by moving LBD to the plural, and it is important to hold a broader discussion. There is a real-world problem behind the terminology problems, as Kosaka's more sensible scheme has not been adopted, and is unlikely to be adopted, as the Parkinson's people prevail. I am unaware how much of this controversy you are familiar with. If we redirect LBD to DLB, do we then redirect PDD to PD? Because the reason we have the real world problem stems from one Lewy body disease (Parkinson's) having a different name. I don't think redirecting PDD to PD would solve the problems either. We have a problem that few Wikipedians are aware of or have paid attention to (along with confusion among the general public). We have lots of real world advocates for fixing the terminology, and no prospect in sight of that happening. We can't ignore the real world problem, and we still have Wikipedia naming guidelines that say LBD should be at the singular. I don't think we can solve the dilemma that comes from google searches, because the dreadful terminology is a real world (non-Wikipedia) problem. In other words, as DLB is likely going to run on the mainpage in a few months, I hope we can all put our heads together in a way that will not destabilize the suite of articles as DLB is on the mainpage. That is, let's sort this together in advance. My suggestion is that it is what it is, and there's nothing we can do about it, so let's respect Wikipedia naming conventions and leave LBD where it belongs, in the singular. We can't solve the google search problem, and the editing problem largely comes from students who want to add DLB content to LBD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

DBD and LBD? Boghog (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

They are all in the hatnote :) This is why it is so difficult. I will list them all again:

Lewy body dementia (LBD) includes

• Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD)
• Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB)

Lewy body disease (which would be another LBD if we were forced to an acronym) includes

• Parkinson's disease (PD)
• Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD)
• Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB)

They are all from Lewy body pathology. They start at different places, but pretty much converge to the same. If the Japanese had their way, the naming of the conditions would be related to which part of the brain they start in. But the Japanese haven’t had their way, the Parkinson’s people have, so the terminology is a mess. But this is the consensus terminology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)