Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 159

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 155

←

Archive 157

→

Pooling study on low carb diets

As WP:MEDRS is not specific about pooling studies I would like to get some feedback about this study that I added here and which was removed by user Alexbrn. I think the study is important because unlike meta-studies including RCTs the study looks at the long-term effects of low carb diets and gives balance to the Cochrane review that only looked into short-term effects. Can the study be included in Low-carbohydrate diet? CarlFromVienna (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It's novel research (Conclusion: "Our study suggests ...") and so not MEDRS. For the topic in question, low-carb dieting, there is ample secondary sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I have found two other studies that touch on the long-term effects. The problem is that so far most meta-studies focus on RCTs and thus cannot come up with conclusions about the long-term effects. That is why I think the above mentioned pooling study of prospective studies is in this case an appropriate source for the long-term effects and in line with MEDRS, which allows primary sources if there are no secondary sources available. CarlFromVienna (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't use unreliable sources. MEDRS does not "allow primary sources if there are no secondary sources available" - that would open the door to a whole flood of crap. The new (secondary) sources are Nutrients and Plos ONE journals, neither of which is great. Alexbrn (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

If this is a Pooled analysis, then it's a secondary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not what is described in that Wikipedia article, since it is not drawing on "studies" but drawing directly on data to arrive at a novel analysis. Alexbrn (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks WAID, I wasn‘t sure, if this counts as secondary source. Alex, drawing exactly from the data is what pooling analysis do. The difference to a meta-analysis is that the subgroups/studies/datasets are not weighted. CarlFromVienna (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, especially since the piece is not simply a "pooled analysis" anyway but "a population-based cohort study and pooling of prospective studies" and seems entirely novel. Are pooled analyses sometimes categorized as reviews by publishers/PUBMED? This one isn't. Alexbrn (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:, you seem the most experienced, can you please have a look if the study in question matches the criteria of MEDRS? CarlFromVienna (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

From the paper, the authors say "we prospectively examined the relation between LCD and all-cause and cause-specific (CVD, stroke, and cancer) mortality in a large and nationally representative US cohort." They also claim they aim to do a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of other research, and indeed there is a section discussion the work of others. But the main thrust of the paper - and what you want to include - is their novel statistical analysis (which is heavily caveated, BTW, in a way which your proposal edit does not relay).

That said, they do say their findings are "somewhat" in alignment with the existing literature, which seems to make their claims unexceptional. Alexbrn (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

A pooled analysis is a secondary source. The problem on wiki is that "secondary" is not another way to spell "good" source, but it's too often mistaken for being a synonym. This could be a secondary source and still not a good source (depending especially on what, exactly, was proposed for the text in the article).

Carl, the most useful question you could explore is whether this source is truly necessary to support the point. There's been a lot of research on this subject. If this is the only source that supports that claim, then it's WP:UNDUE even if we thought it was the best source in the world. If it's not – then why bother fighting to get this specific source in?

(One of these days, Blueboar is going to get tired of me nagging him and will write WP:Let the Wookiee win.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

As Alex has pointed out, their claims are unexceptional. All health authorities recommend a relatively high carbohydrate intake. It also is a secondary source. Currently the reader is left under the wrong impression that a low-carb diet is heart healthy in the long run. It is needed to balance the short-term weight-loss diets that the Cochrane review in the same section positively reviewed. We had several studies in there about negative long-term effects. This is simply a better and newer source for the statements that have been in the article since long. CarlFromVienna (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Its conclusions are not about "long term effects" of the diet. (One day I must write something about how often Wikipedia fails to control undue implications of causality in its medical content!). Re-reading the source in the cold light of morning I am however going to change my mind and drop my objection to it, so long as we are careful to use the literature review bit and not the novel statistical analysis bit - it's a weird composite of the two. Ideally, I'd prefer a more straightforward source. Alexbrn (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Good morning from Vienna. In my case the kids got me up early. How would you summarize the literature review part? Drawing from the Discussion, Conclusion and the Low-carbohydrate diet and mortality literature review part I would suggest something like: A 2019 study acknowledges short-term benefits of low-carbohyrdate diets to improve weight, blood-pressure and gluco-lipid parameters. Looking at the long-term effects the study suggest a potentially unfavorable association of low-carbohydrate diets with overall and cause-specific mortality. The authors found a significant association between the low-carbohydrate diet score and cardiovascular disease mortality. CarlFromVienna (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I realize this style has been spreading, but to the extent that we can, we should follow MEDMOS's advice: Cite sources, don't describe them. Perhaps we could write something closer to "following a low-carb diet for many years is associated with dying from heart disease"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: thanks, I wasn't aware of the style guide. I'll read through it, before I continue. Good, that I came here. In this particular case we have a Cochrane review with 3 RCTs of 18 month duration looking at CVD markers VS prospective cohort studies looking at CVD end points with a follow-up of 6-16 years. Both sources don't contradict each other but rather complement each other. So we have to align the whole section according to the style guide. This could be done by something like "less than 2 years VS for many years". I'll get on it as soon as I've finished reading the style guide. CarlFromVienna (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Tubular carcinoma

Could someone with the relevant expertise take a look at the newly-created Tubular carcinoma article? There are obvious issues with the writing ("It also has a good prognosis rate with survival rate being at about 100%"), and I have my doubts about sourcing too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It took me all of 5 minutes to confirm that claims of a 100% survival rate were dependent on treatment etc, so I've removed them as the utterly misleading and possibly dangerous claims they are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump, why didn't you just add the missing caveat that survival is around 100% "with treatment"? Or just stubbify it to a quick definition and ask for someone here to look it over? I bet you could have done that in less time than it took you to cuss out the author on his talk page. (And you're right: it's dubious to say that it has a "good prognosis", because the prognosis would be more correctly described as "excellent".)

As it stands, HitroMilanese stuffed the page back in draftspace (a proven-by-research bad approach to getting any article improved), and the creator responded to your actions by having the page speedy-deleted. I don't feel like anyone was helped by any of this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Why didn't I add a caveat? For a start, I didn't have MEDRS-compliant sources to back it up. And I don't consider myself qualified to make such assertions without such sources. All I could legitimately do was to confirm my suspicions that the (questionable) sources cited didn't support the claim, and remove it. As for the cussing, and the competence or otherwise of the article creator, that is being discussed at ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

When you encounter a statement that you know is wrong and you know the correct answer, then it is very unlikely that anyone will complain if you fix it and slap {{medical citation needed}} at the end of it.

Alternatively, you could also have removed the sentence from the article, ideally explaining in the edit summary that you don't think it was explained quite correctly.

These are both quick and easy approaches to content you're concerned about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I did remove the sentence(s) from the article, as I stated above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I saw this discussion, and decided to try recreating it from sources. This is my first creation in the MEDRS space, so if someone could review it and adjust as needed, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Moving the portion of the discussion relevant to the new article per suggestion, to its talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for creating that. It looks like flat epithelial atypia is another thing Wikipedia should have at least a paragraph about (but maybe part of a larger article?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Tubular carcinoma

Question for the MEDRS folks: if a paper identifies itself as having performed a "retrospective analysis", does that make it WP:SECONDARY? I'm looking at Tubular Carcinoma of the Breast: Further Evidence to Support Its Excellent Prognosis; does this qualify for use as a source at Tubular carcinoma? Mathglot (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Not a MEDRS person, and it may be a secondary source for other reasons, but no, retrospective means they've used data that they had previously collected, not newly collected data e.g. 5 years ago we measured analyte x in serum, these are the results vs prospective - we made the hypothesis then tested x in all the samples that came to us. (Very rough and ready explanation) Red Fiona (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

That's a primary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

FA Review: Hippocrates

I have nominated Hippocrates 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. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Need a particular E-book on infectious disease surveillance

Does anyone, by chance, have access to a DRM-free copy of Concepts and Methods in Infectious Disease Surveillance? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I have access to it through my hospital. I just checked, and I can read the whole book on my screen but it doesn't let me download it. If you need to look up anything specific I can have a look for you. Dr. Vogel (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, no, there's nothing in particular I need to look up. My company is about to begin co-developing (with BugSeq Bioinformatics) a real-time automated, IVD device-integrated infectious disease reporting system that transmits pertinent results from our IVD tests to any local, national, or international surveillance system that operates on the HL7 standards and tracks pathogens (ID'd via both whole metagenome alignment and assembly methods), their subtypes (ID'd by MLST), and/or their antimicrobial resistances (ID'd by multiple sequence alignment of all AMR genes to all aligned/assembled genomes). We intend to file a provisional patent on our reporting system within a month of filing our full/nonprovisional patent on our IVD device instrumentation and IVD test protocols (i.e., between 15-45 days from now), so I figured I'd just read that book from cover to cover to fill in any knowledge gaps I might have before we iron out the high-level design.

I don't actually have a problem with paying for the textbook; I just find it really annoying when I can't freely share media that I've paid for with my team when it's subject to DRM restrictions. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I just read all this and then realised you were asking for your own business, not Wikipedia article sourcing. This would seem to more an appropriate question for one's social media followers and friends, than WP:MED. -- Colin°^Talk 15:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Since when has my personal life not been conflated with Wikipedia? I don't know how you decide what topics to write about on Wikipedia, but virtually all my past editing has stemmed from reading whatever literature topics I was interested in at the time, then writing Wikipedia as a way to integrate my knowledge/understanding within a relevant context. I can't even count the number of times I've requested a paywalled article/book from here or WP:RX merely due to my curiosity about the subject matter, in the absence of a specific intent/purpose to write something on Wikipedia. The fact that I am on Wikibreak and requesting a comprehensive source for the purpose of educating myself on a new subject area is not at all out of character for me and does not mean I won't come back and edit relevant articles. In fact, there's a fairly narrow range of other biomedical topics about which I've read a mountain of pertinent scientific research over the past 1.5 years and, unless those topics somehow lose salience to me in the interim, you can be damn sure I'm going to overhaul a number of Wikipedia articles when I finally have a work-life balance again. Perhaps your motivations are different than mine, but this is exactly the kind of request that would otherwise guide my editing behavior were it not for the fact that I don't have time for editing Wikipedia right now.

In any event, I ended up buying https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N4RUQVY and https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01BM7XVWS, so it's a moot point to discuss. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no interest in your company or whether you are on wikibreak or how you fill your brain, but I can be sure that next time you ask for access to a resource at WP:MED, you've just ensured the first reaction will be to ignore it. Well done. You explained that the real reason you want a DRM free copy is so that you can break the law and save your company some money instead of buying a copy for each team member in your company. This is illegal, Seppi, and very much not anything that Wikipedia can support editors asking for. Please don't do that again. -- Colin°^Talk 12:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Lol. I have hundreds of thousands of dollars; that you think I think $50 is something is laughable, but it's even funnier how butthurt you are over finances, which is something I never even brought up. I'll continue doing as I've always done Colin; you will not change that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Vaccines at Wikidata

I don't know if anyone's interested in Wikidata, but there seems to be a page at d:Wikidata:WikiProject Medicine/Data models/Vaccines about how to add information correctly about vaccines. It'd be handy to have that expanded and to make other helpful pages for similar subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

[1] ...vaccine information is very important--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Rockefeller University edits

WikiProject Medicine members are invited to review my request at Talk:Rockefeller University. I'm proposing to turn a list of discoveries into a narrative (in order to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines recommending the use of prose over bullet points) and add sources to items that currently do not have any. I welcome any suggestions to improve the proposed language. I'm an employee of Rockefeller University so I have a conflict of interest. I am happy to answer questions on the article's talk page. Thanks! KFenzRockefeller (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

you may want to add COI template on your user page, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Families USA COI edit requests

Hi! I've posted some COI edit requests at Talk:Families USA. Sharing in case anyone here is interested in taking a look. Thank you for any help or feedback! Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

you may want to post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations which is on that articles talk,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Connatal cyst

Hello friends! Long time no see. I bring to you today this small orphan: Connatal cyst. Can it be upmerged somewhere? If left standalone, where can I link it from? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

There's an impenetrable article for you. Radiopedia says there are two other names: "coarctation of the lateral ventricles" and "frontal horn cysts".

It's possible that it belongs in the list at Central nervous system cyst#Originating from the central nervous system tissue (but I'm not sure that's the right section). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It could be linked from Lateral ventricles#Anterior horns of lateral ventricle as a normal variant, but more importantly I think that Connatal cyst should be moved to Frontal horn cyst, the more common name used on pubmed.^[1] Klbrain (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay in responding! I've moved it and linked it now, thank you both. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

References

^ Chang, CL; Chiu, NC; Ho, CS; Li, ST (August 2006). "Frontal horn cysts in normal neonates". Brain & Development. 28 (7): 426–30. doi:10.1016/j.braindev.2006.01.002. PMC 7125929. PMID 16503391.

UK Biobank study on meat

Please see the section I started on the meat talk-page [2]. The Wikipedia article cites a Biobank study [3] used 475,000 men and women which is an impressive figure but the data came from questionnaires. As I understand it we usually remove primary sources from Wikipedia. The content has been added in the "health" section. In the same section is also a large cohort study. Should we be citing primary sources like this? I think they should be removed but guidance needed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing discussion in village pump: "In general, are animal and in vitro studies acceptable sources to support toxicology statements?"

There is a medical sourcing discussion related to toxicology at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#In_general,_are_animal_and_in_vitro_studies_acceptable_sources_to_support_toxicology_statements?. MarshallKe (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

also posted atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Toxicology task force--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:PCM" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:PCM and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 11#Wikipedia:PCM until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Suicide in Guyana

Was alerted to the article and had to clean up a lot of WP:SYNTH. Written like it was a student essay or something. It could use someone interested in the topic to flesh it out or see if it has enough for a standalone article. KoA (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

There are almost certainly enough reliable sources to discuss suicide and suicide prevention efforts in every country. The main problem will be finding the sources.

BTW, there is some relatively new advice at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Suicide and self-harm, and if anyone wants to take it out for a "test drive" on this (or any other) article, please feel free, and let us know what needs to be improved or what additional content might be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Clearly a notable topic, given that there have been whole newspaper articles dedicated to it [4] seems to be enough academic sources to write a MEDRS compliant article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't surprise me that it's notable, just that it wasn't a very solid article after cleanup to the point to the point I'd consider looking for a potential merge somewhere if it wasn't fleshed out some day. No rush obviously. KoA (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Tumeric and black pepper for COVID-related anosmia?

In Ageusia#COVID-19, a case study is linked (n=2). It's from Sep 8 2021, so I assume it was just chance. Can we chuck this, unless there are better sources to replace it with? I'd just do it, but this is a high-interest area at the moment, so expertise welcome. HLHJ (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Primary source in dodgy journal, about as unreliable as it gets - especially for the claim made. Alexbrn (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

That would explain why almost no-one has cited it. If it's a dodgy source too... and the editor is probably not experienced at evaluating MEDRS. I've commented it out. HLHJ (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if it's related conceptually to Smell training. If so, then the mechanism would not be pharmacological; any strongly flavored food could have the same effect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Macfarlane Burnet Featured article review

I have nominated Macfarlane Burnet 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) 01:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Relevant discussion: How should we include allegations of China undercounting COVID-19 cases and deaths

You are invited to join in at Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19 § RFC: How should we include allegations of undercounting?. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 13:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

AK-47 (cannabis)

Can some people here check whether the medical advice or information given at AK-47 (cannabis) confirms to the MEDRS guidelines (contentwise and wrt sourcing)? I have my doubts, or I wouldn't have come here, but I'm not familiar enough with what is expected and allowed. Fram (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, none of the sources themselves are MEDRS compliant - they seem to be cannabis-dedicated magazines. Nor do they seem to refer to actually MEDRS compliant sources. So I think not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow, in a heavily-contest field that's the worst article I've seen this year so far. I have blanked and re-directed.[5] Is it just me, or is it ridiculous to have an article for every stupidly-named cannabis "strain" (more likely, "brand") out there? Alexbrn (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

And reverted, obviously. You didn't even leave an edit reason, let alone a good faith discussion, before blanking an hour-old article. Don't worry, strains and brands are different, and one that has won multiple awards is notable. Can you and the whole medical community can throw your anti-cannabis bias in the trash, where it and your prejudiced edits belong. How an experienced editor can think that immediate unexplained blanking is appropriate concerns me more than any new article does. Kingsif (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

How a trivial article entirely based on shit sources touting medical misinformation is worthy of Wikipedia concerns me. This and the DYK just looks spammy to boot. The moronic assumption of bad faith shown by the miscreant here is also a concern. Alexbrn (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It is just a promotional article, and the AK47 growers will be very happy. I've never tried this strain. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Tobacco product pages

I've noticed that smokeless tobacco product pages (e.g. Skoal are written in an NPOV style but excluding any information about addictiveness or carcinogenicity. The consequence is that the pages tend toward product promotion by users and/or tobacco companies. In the case of the Copenhagen brand, there was pushback against including anything about cancer on the talk page (Talk:Copenhagen (tobacco)). Only one product in the Category:Chewing tobacco brands even mentions cancer, and it does so briefly (U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company). A similar problem exists for the numerous smoking tobacco products (e.g. Lucky Strike, which has no mention of cancer causation and only mentions addiction in a reference title). A similar argument could be made for alcoholic beverage products (which are also on the list of IARC group 1 human carcinogens), that they are simple product promotion.

Ideally, I think that the tobacco product pages that do not discuss addition or cancer should be summarily deleted for being product promotion. I don't expect that outcome to be likely. Another possibility would be to require a boilerplate health warning at the top of each of the product pages as a matter of policy. If there could be a policy agreement about this, it would circumvent having to make the same argument on each and every page. THSlone (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Carcinogenicity is not in question (with regard to these articles), however, boilerplate health warning at the top of each of the product page may be too much...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it's typical for a "brand" page to include only information that is specific to the brand, and not about the general type of product. One does not expect, e.g., for Driscoll's to provide nutritional information about Strawberries or for Tylenol (brand) to list the side effects of Paracetamol, or for Ford F-Series to contain information about the expected effects of fossil fuel use on human health (which include cancer. I believe that something on the order of 2,000 premature deaths per year in the US alone could be fairly attributed to the air pollution produced by this one brand – and that's just based on how many of them exist, not based on any thing specific to the brand). I'm not sure why tobacco and alcoholic beverages should be treated differently from all other products. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, these are not comparable examples, since the example you gave have clear benefits (strawberries: nutrition; Paracetamol: medical risk-benefit analyses have been published; Ford F-Series: benefits of transportation). The benefits of tobacco use are negligible at best. THSlone (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Although I think that tobacco is terrible overall and that alcohol's primary purpose is for cooking (I recommend Marcella Hazan's Penne al Cardinale, if you want a decadent example of this), I understand that some people who use it believe that they're receiving some benefits out of it. That's why we talk about using nicotine and alcohol to "self-medicate". Additionally, there could be some social benefits in some cultures, e.g., the benefits of "fitting in" if smoking is popular in your social circles (or social harms, if you live in a better culture).

For myself, in my culture, I happen to evaluate the overall picture the same way that you do: it's destructive and ought to be banned. But my POV isn't the only valid one. To use one of the other examples, in my culture, any kid with the money can buy a large tub of paracetamol, no questions asked. In the UK, retail sales a restricted to small packages and limited amounts. This is because that culture totted up their risks and benefits, and concluded that the harms were pretty substantial. They're not wrong. But we put that information Paracetamol, not in every article about every brand that contains paracetamol. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Disagreement at Talk:Artemisinin

Hi all, we have a deadlocked disagreement at Talk:Artemisinin#Cell_differentiation that would benefit from others' opinions. Any thoughts shared would be much appreciated. Ajpolino (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

MED Welcome and other project templates targeted by Unused templates task force

The Unused Templates Task Force is trying to clean up a large backlog of unused templates. One list is here, where you can see template {{MedWelcome-reg}} currently listed at #1159. This template has been edited by Doc James and other editors. If you wish to save it, either use it on a couple of user talk pages, or move it to Draft space, or a User subpage. If you search that index page for the string 'Medicine', there are six results, including four that are direct subpages of WP:WikiProject Medicine that may be at risk for removal. They would all go through Tfd and are not summarily removed, but you won't necessarily get a notification about it. Mathglot (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot, that's been used on hundreds of user talk pages. Why are you calling it "unused"? Do you mean "template that nobody has felt any need to change in the last few months" instead of "unused"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I was unclear. What I meant was, "showing up on the list driving the Unused Templates Task Force". One problem with using "what links here" to discover template usage, is that it doesn't see templates that have been subst'ed. I'm not sure how that list was created, or how substed templates are being dealt with, but for better or worse, that template is on the list. Maybe there's another list or test that excludes subst'ed templates from consideration before the Task Force submits a template to Tfd, but I thought I'd better mention it just in case. Mathglot (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I've "fixed" this one, as their talk page suggests that they automatically exclude subst:d templates. That should address the one template. As for the rest, theoretically, TFD regulars know that welcome templates are normally subst-only, but mistakes will probably happen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

MEDRS double check request for Bisphenol A

Over the last few months I've been gradually rewritting Bisphenol A . My background is in chemistry which is good for the bulk of it, but I've finally gotten around to the thorny matter of its health effects. I've done my best, but I would appreciate someone checking my work. There's also a section on its pharmacology that I lack the skills to properly interpret... --Project Osprey (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Great work on this article! I reviewed part of the reference list and commented on the talk page. JenOttawa (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor

There’s been a lot written about the cost of the Cystic fibrosis drug Trikafta. Its list price is US$311,000 per year. This has made the drug currently unavailable to non compassionate care patients in New Zealand and many other countries. I think there is far more to write about the cost, the reasons for it, and the global availability of the drug. Currently, there is a debate in New Zealand about funding the drug so it will be available to all who need it. I am certain that those in government there and the general public would benefit greatly from this articles expansion. I have not done much work regarding medicine related articles. I would appreciate any help from those with experience. Thriley (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Thriley, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33331662/ is probably going to be the most useful source for efficacy. Why don't you boldly have a go at improving it, and let us know if you run into problems? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Thank your for your response. I am more referring to the section "Society and culture". I think an expansion of the paragraph discussing the cost of the drug would be appropriate. I think it should also detail the origins of the funding for the drug and the reasoning for Vertex Pharmaceuticals to charge so much for it. I understand there are severely ill children and adults in countries where Trikafta is currently unavailable whose disease would basically cease progressing if they had access to the drug. Vertex is unwilling to mark the majority of them as compassionate care patients, only ones who are a few steps away from death receive the drug. Thriley (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

There is more about the costs involved on the article of one of the components: Ivacaftor#Economics. I suggest a {{Further}} template link to that section from the Trikafta article. MrOllie (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. That's much more detail, though it gets a bit tricky as Trikafta itself was released in the US in 2019, but some of its components were available for a few years before that. Thriley (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Capitalization in tooltips in med templates

See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Current_tooltip_capping_practice where some of this project's templates are mentioned as examples where tooltip text is in "dictionary case". The discussion in the enclosing section is converging on a recommendation of "sentence case" for tooltip text. If you care, comment there. Dicklyon (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Flavan-3-ol has an RFC

Flavan-3-ol has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Magnesium sulfate (medical use)#Requested move 28 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Magnesium sulfate (medical use)#Requested move 28 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 00:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Request to Proofread Edits

Dear whomever this may concern,

This is Tri, a student working on the Dell Med Wikipedia Project with Dr. Ring. I made a few edits on the "Tendinitis, Bursitis, Impingement Syndrome, and Rotator Cuff Tears" section of the "Shoulder Problem" page that showcases our current understanding of editing a variety of edits (such as relocation of material, addition of material with evidence, and removal of inaccurate material). Would you mind taking a look at these few edits and giving us a bit of feedback on what we could do better to improve our edit justifications? Thank you so much for your time and help while we try to build our understanding and experience with Wikipedia.

--Trit6611 (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's a diff of the recent changes, if anyone has time to review this today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I can take a peek and will post on the article talk page.JenOttawa (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Two orphans

Hello, like a magpie bringing shiny things, I have a pair of orphans to be evaluated: Nucleus ventralis posterior lateralis pars oralis and Subscapular aponeurosis. The usual question of merge vs. link from a parent article applies. Thank you guys in advance! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

as they are anatomical articles, should probably post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy as well, --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hm, not sure they're too active over there, but I'll try. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Merged Nucleus ventralis posterior lateralis pars oralis to Ventral posterolateral nucleus.--Iztwoz (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Subscapular aponeurosis has already been redirected to subscapularis muscle.--Iztwoz (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Can these multiple sources be used directly in articles?

For example can I use these articles directly in Wikipedia articles?

A short review of biological research on the development of sexual orientation - ScienceDirect

Homosexuality and scientific evidence: On suspect anecdotes, antiquated data, and broad generalizations - PubMed (nih.gov)

Reducing rates of preventable HIV/AIDS-associated mortality among people living with HIV who inject drugs - PubMed (nih.gov)

For more see my talk page. JackP111 (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Already replied to on WP:RSN. [6] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Let's centralize the discussion over there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Added two articles on climate change and health to WikiProject Medicine

There are two articles that I am currently involved with which didn't have the tag for WikiProject Medicine yet but should (I think). I've added the tag and am inviting anyone with an interest to come and join me to make them better articles: effects of climate change on human health, psychological impacts of global warming (in the process of potentially being renamed to Effects of climate change on mental health). EMsmile (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Stephen Hahn (oncologist)#Requested move 16 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Stephen Hahn (oncologist)#Requested move 16 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 07:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Rice water

Looking for a review of the material I just merged in to Rice water from "Rice Water for Health & Beauty". Basically everything from the end of the first paragraph is new material. May be some medical claims. Looks more palatable than hot dog water. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The article has now been gutted, and now only contains a single medical claim, concerning the benefits of said substance in the treatment of diarrhea. This probably could be better sourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Off-wiki discussion of Posttraumatic embitterment disorder

FYI to this noticeboard that there has been some off-Wiki discussion of posttraumatic embitterment disorder in recent weeks on Reddit. You can see relevant discussion in this /r/wikipedia thread here. The upshot is that some people are concerned that this article is based heavily on work done by just one psychologist, Michael Linden, and may be an attempt to promote a fringe theory/rare point of view within psychiatry. The article in question was largely created by an IP editor, 193.175.73.219 - they do not appear to be a SPA. It was nominated for deletion in 2014 and kept. Just a heads-up that there is some interest in Wikipedia's approach to this article so far. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be considered for deletion again, it by en large cites a singular author (Michael Linden), and although I do not think he's trying to promote a fringe theory I do not think that such an obscure theory which only has a single professional discussing it should have an article. Whilst the IP may not have been an SPA, what rules out the possibility that it could've been an associate of Linden's? Of course, I'm going to go with innocent until proven guilty, but I think the article should highly be reconsidered for deletion. X-750 _{I've made a mistake, haven't I?} 11:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I've read a bit of the PTED literature. It seems like the standard "multiple ways of describing similar things in terms of different psychological constructs", and this is a problem that turns up in new fields and fields with complicated causality. I get the impression that CPTSD, Moral injury and PTED all address a similar constellation of behaviour. I seem to remember finding some literature specifically comparing the different concepts, this could at least allow us to link PTED into the body of more studies theories. We should be cautious to make sure that this isn't just how they *do* moral injury in Germany. It's also worth noting that there is a treatment modality "Wisdom therapy" and a psychometric measure with tests associated with the idea. Also it could be the case (as hypothesized in literature( that reunification did present a genuine undermining to the values of many individuals such that PTED is describing a phenomenon that is more common in Germany and other post-soviet countries - so I would be interested to look at some of the literature from other similar countries in case we are imposing an anglocentric worldview. Unfortantely, given psychology's habit of giving the same thing different names with literatures that ignore one another. This consideration might all only exist in WP:OR territory. Talpedia (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that deletion is a realistic outcome. We'd probably have better success with Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers to Michael Linden, but even that might be difficult, since there are so many sources that aren't written by him.

The German-language Wikipedia article has more sources, including ~15 that aren't written by Linden. (I didn't check to see whether any of these are already used here.)

Talpedia, thanks for the context about different cultures having different names for the same/similar human experiences. One paper mentions: ICD-10 added “enduring personality change after catastrophic experience” (EPCACE)....Other possible trauma-related disorders that could be considered include “anaclitic depression”, “Stockholm syndrome”, “secondary traumatic stress” (including “vicarious traumatization,” “compassion fatigue,” “burnout”), “posttraumatic embitterment disorder”, and several culture-bound syndromes (e.g., ataques de nervios, trung gio, khyal cap), and we have an article on Hwabyeong and probably others. More recent articles connect the idea to COVID, occupational burnout in healthcare, and refugees. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps do you think it would be suitable that someone who knows an experienced German trauma psychologist themselves gave some input or someone who understood German fluently gave input on this matter? Like you said, if you could find the literature that directly compared the concepts, we could at least integrate it under the article of said concept. One result on EBSCO for searching PTED is that it's a potential comorbidity of anorexia, the aforementioned workplace conflict issue, there's even an article as far back as far back as 2003 from the Mirror that mentions the disorder, although it quotes research by Linden again. To me, it seems like an offshoot of post-traumatic stress disorder, & I think perhaps a section within that article giving light to PTED would be appropriate? As for Hwabyeong, there was an article on Sina.com discussing the similarities that some Chinese workplaces often experience. X-750 _{I've made a mistake, haven't I?} 23:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Yup, input from someone with experience of German mental health / academic psychology / the language would be useful. I think looking at prevalence (and diagnoses) across different countries might be quite interesting. It depends what you mean "offshoot". In the sense that it occurs after some sort of trauma, sure. An issue is that the "cluster" of trauma's effect on values and interaction with society doesn't necessarily cooccur with classic experiences of PTSD (flashbacks and physical arousal). I'd be more inclined to have all the various diagnoses (~~EBESCO~~EPCACE, CPTSD, PTSD, Moral injury, PTED, Hawbyeong) under Trauma, perhaps with a nice table of which symptoms apply to which (and perhaps the same for embitterment). Talpedia (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Also, EBSCO is a search engine haha, not psychology related. X-750 _{I've made a mistake, haven't I?} 10:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Lol, I mean EPCACE. Same number of letters.... I've found a nice review of moral injury and PTSD and linked to it from the Psychological trauma and PTSD pages.Talpedia (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

This source (primary) argues that PTED = Moral Injury and looks at the correlation between measures for both. The cynic in me thinks that now that this is affecting medics more, it will be researched more, the values and betrayal part will be emphasized and the anger, bitterness, revenge will be deemphasized (though probably still present) and PTED will be swallowed into moral injury (our heroes aren't embittered; they are betrayed!). I guess this might be a good change, my only reservation would be around how this interacts with personal agency in diagnosis and treatment. But this doesn't really help us now. Talpedia (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

now that this is affecting medics more, it will be researched more: Of course. See also Carpal tunnel syndrome, which was Very Big News when it affected journalists personally, and is barely mentioned now that it is primarily seen in low-paid workers at meat-packing plants. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your replies and the interesting discussion so far! Ganesha811 (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Suitable placement of resistance section?

Hi, I'm working on a section regarding resistance of ivermectin in nematodes, what section would it be under? I've looked in WP:MEDMOS but there's nothing there that really helps. Under the pharmacology section in its own subsection? Or under the veterinary use in its own subsection? X-750 _{I've made a mistake, haven't I?} 09:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

There's something already at Horse management#Parasite control. For the general article, I'd have thought the Worm section would be appropriate? Alexbrn (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you want to put it in the article about Ivermectin itself? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Yes sorry, I should've clarified that. @Alexbrn: I wanted to put it in the ivermectin article itself, although I suppose sections of it could be adapted to the horse article? If you want to, you can view it here at User:X750/sandbox 2, however I don't think it's quite ready for integration within an article yet. I wrote it for the purpose of being in the ivermectin article itself. Apologies for not clarifying that. X-750 _{I've made a mistake, haven't I?} 23:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd say that draft is too technical for our lay audience. If it could be simplified and reduced in size then I can't see any problem with having resistance content in the main ivermectin article. Alexbrn (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

You could follow the model in Penicillin#Resistance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

NeuroAiD

I came across the article NeuroAiD recently and I think it could use some more eyes from this project. This is a TCM supplement promoted for treating brain injuries. The article is fairly extensive but most of the content is based on non-WP:MEDRS primary sources (one of the few secondary sources essentially says that it doesn't work). My sense is that this could use a lot of trimming, but I'm not sure where to start. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I've edited this in the past, but since then it's been puffed-up with unreliable sources and the systematic review finding it's useless has been buried. Jamesdonalds is one of the main culprits. Smells of UPE. Alexbrn (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I popped over to the article to help but Alexbrn has already cleaned it up quite nicely. :0) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 17:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Article assessment help

If you want something a little different to do today, please consider pitching in at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment#Requesting an assessment or re-assessment. It's not difficult, and it's 100% okay to silently skip any that you're not sure about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Crystal-storing Histiocytosis

Hi, would anyone be willing to give this article a look-over before I submit it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Crystal-storing_histiocytosis? Red Fiona (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Source Clarification

Hello,

I saw from (WP:MEDRS) that ideal sources for biomedical information include review articles published in reputable medical journals. However, it says "especially systematic reviews," so I wanted to confirm if non-systematic review articles by experts would be accepted as well? Thank you for your help and time!

Trit6611 (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, non-systematic review articles are acceptable. The ideal source depends on what kind of content you're writing about. Wikipedia:Biomedical information#The best type of source might give you some ideas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I had one more quick clarification if you do not mind. Once we support our edits with a secondary source, would it be fine to also include primary data and citations as additional support?

Trit6611 (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, specific facts may be taken from primary sources with the support of reviews. Klbrain (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Though if the "fact" is not discussed in the review, WP:WEIGHT would be in doubt, and indeed it could be odd to highlight a "fact" a review avoided. In general, primary sources should not be used for biomedical content. What exactly does the OP have in mind? From their user page this looks like a team account, which is not allowed. Edits seem to have been made[7] to reference David Ring, which is a WP:COI/WP:REFSPAM problem. Alexbrn (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Deaths due to detox

Please chime in at Talk:Detoxification (alternative medicine)#Deaths due to detox. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

should post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicine as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Performance-enhancing substance Article Contributions

Hello there! As part of an undergraduate thesis course, I have made significant contributions to the Wikipedia page titled, Performance-enhancing substance. I would greatly appreciate it if another editor could review the contributions in the latest form of the article. Thank you! --NoThisIsPatrick3000 (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Welcome. With regards to the types section; I know some of the WP:BOLDFACE was there before you started, but it shouldn't have been. The list—with all its indents—is now confusing and would be better written in WP:PROSE. If you use each drug/substance as a sub-section title and go from there. However, bare in mind WP:CONTENTFORK in any conversion to a prose format. Little pob (talk) 09:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

NoThisIsPatrick3000 & Little pob, I've given the article a minor reshuffle, I'd like your thoughts on it. Your [Patrick] content has largely stayed the same, I've only made minor word substitutions, you can correct anything you don't see fit. It's very good quite frankly, and I've been meaning to get around to doing something similar with the anti-malarial medication article. Needs a dire update. X-750 _{I've made a mistake, haven't I?} 11:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. There were a couple of links to disambiguation pages, which I've retargeted (please check the new targets are appropriate). There is a tool that highlights internal links to DAB pages in yellow (rather than blue). You can find instructions on how to install that here: Wikipedia:Disambiguation detector. I also removed a duplicate link to WADA, per MOS:DL. Little pob (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Congenital bronchial atresia

Congenital bronchial atresia is a red link. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

yes, from Atresia...perhaps [8] or [9] would facilitate creating a stub....--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Health effects of Ramadan fasting

Could someone have a look at Talk:Fasting during Ramadan#Health effects? – Uanfala (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Is this "statistically significant" or significant meaning "strong"?

I'm literally unsure if the author was referring to statistical significance here or not. Let me paste the text below, with the text I'm unsure about in teal and underlined:

Three large RCTs of men from the general population were conducted in South Africa (N = 3 274), Uganda (N = 4 996) and Kenya (N = 2 784) between 2002 and 2006. All three trials were stopped early due to significant findings at interim analyses. We combined the survival estimates for all three trials at 12 months and also at 21 or 24 months in a meta-analysis using available case analyses using the random effects model. The resultant incidence risk ratio (IRR) was 0.50 at 12 months with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.34 to 0.72; and 0.46 at 21 or 24 months (95% CI: 0.34 to 0.62). These IRRs can be interpreted as a relative risk reduction of acquiring HIV of 50% at 12 months and 54% at 21 or 24 months following circumcision. There was little statistical heterogeneity between the trial results (chi(2) = 0.60; df = 2; p = 0.74 and chi(2) = 0.31; df = 2; p = 0.86) with the degree of heterogeneity quantified by the I(2) at 0% in both analyses. We investigated the sensitivity of the calculated IRRs and conducted meta-analyses of the reported IRRs, the reported per protocol IRRs, and reported full intention-to-treat analysis. The results obtained did not differ markedly from the available case meta-analysis, with circumcision displaying significant protective effects across all analyses. We conducted a meta-analysis of the secondary outcomes measuring sexual behaviour for the Kenyan and Ugandan trials and found no significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men. For the South African trial the mean number of sexual contacts at the 12-month visit was 5.9 in the circumcision group versus 5 in the control group, which was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). [10]

I'm so sorry to bring this topic back to this forum. Thanks for your help with your expertise.Stix1776 (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

It would be extremely clumsy to use the word significant in that context to refer to anything other than statistical significance. You do see terrible use of English in papers every now and again, particularly when the authors have a different native language, but it's probably not the case here. Dr. Vogel (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the word "significant" is best avoided in this sort of context (and not something a Wikipedia editor would do surely). But rather than puzzle over its meaning here, better just to look at the article's conclusion: "There is strong evidence that medical male circumcision reduces the acquisition of HIV by heterosexual men by between 38% and 66% over 24 months". That seems much clearer. Alexbrn (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm honestly quite OK with "strong evidence" or even the percent reduction. It's the "significant reduction" that a layperson would likely read as "strong reduction" in the text that worries me. Thank you both for your input. Stix1776 (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I always think relative risk percentages are a bad idea and tend to mislead lay readers (a theme David Spiegelhalter, who should know, keeps returning to). Luckily the Cochrane paper also gives a combined absolute figure which is easier to understand, of a prevention of 17 HIV infections per 1000 people over two years. Alexbrn (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The two kinds of "significant" that one usually encounters in journal articles are statistically significant and clinically significant. This finding seems to be both (they were measuring statistics for a group, and preventing HIV infection is always a clinically significant achievement for the individual). The think that I like about the Number needed to treat approach is that it sidesteps the question of whether this "significant" change is significant in the "dramatic" sense/according to any reader's personal, subjective viewpoint. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that the report fails to be explicit about what kind of "significance" was being claimed for the difference found, but looking at the figures it's clear that "statistical significance" was what they found. In other words, the difference between the two groups was large enough to say that it was not a quirk of sampling, but reflected a real difference between the behaviours of the two populations, of circumcised and uncircumcised men. At the same time it was not "clinically significant," which is the only thing worth looking for in the context of disease prevention. The bigger picture of this research is that it reflects American charities' bizarre promotion of circumcision over condoms as a means of preventing AIDS. There's nothing scientific about that. NRPanikker (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that preventing one HIV infection per 60 people over the course of two years is clinically significant. Mainstream medicine recommends many interventions with lower benefits. HPV vaccines prevent one cervical pre-cancerous condition per every 60 females vaccinated. Some years, the flu shot is around 1 case of influenza prevented per 60 healthy adults vaccinated. Even PrEP runs around 1 HIV infection prevented per 50 males treated for a year or two (worse numbers for IVDU). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Almost certain this means statistical significant. Another measure for large difference or important difference is Effect size (used in power analysis). The size of the difference is quite large, as there is a 95% chance that it decreases HIV infection by at least 28%, the also terminate the experiment early, presumably because the effects were so large so it was deemed unethical to continue the trial. So the effect seems statistically significant and large, but this is interpretation on my part (WP:OR), though it will be an interpretation that anyone familiar with statistics will make (though they might disagree about the quality of the trial, the causality, or the effect of the intervention over a longer period of time). Talpedia (talk)

I do appreciate everyone who took the time to give their input with this problem. This isn't my area of expertise, so your opinions are genuinely very valuable.

I'll try to summarize what's been said here. The "significant" was likely statistical significance and/or clinical significance, and this is probably confusing for the average reader. I will mention that | the medical manual of style recommends against confusing jargon, although it doesn't deal with this issue directly.

I think that Alexbrn's solution of 17 per 1000 is clear and easy. Honestly I think it's a bit too much detail for the article, especially the lead. But if it solves a tricky impasse, then I'm happy with the non-OR solution.Stix1776 (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The advice you are looking for is in the middle of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Careful language. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

PTI-609

Can some editors knowledgeable about the subject review whether the PTI-609 article, based on a primary source written by authors discussed in this NYT article, should be retained on wikipedia? Courtesy pinging the article creator, who I believe was acting in good faith. Abecedare (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I wonder whether Category:Mu-opioid receptor agonists should have a List of mu-opiod receptor agonists so that stubs could be merged and redirected to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

CDC or academic peer-reviewed journals

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic a consensus was reached (now archived) that we should improve the article by adding formally peer reviewed and cited academic journals in place of what CDC published. Now we have a new editor who seeks to reverse that position. We would be interested in your guidance. Dan88888 (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't involved but any decision to cite journal sources "in place of" the CDC seems weird. Why not both? Alexbrn (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Some editors (not me) were concerned that CDC was biased, given the controvery around the topic.Dan88888 (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Sounds covidiotic. But in any event putting "According to the CDC ..." or "The CDC says ..." would sidestep that, as their position is certainly due, at least in respect of the US. Alexbrn (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I cannot find the archived discussion but I would lean towards sharing with additional information that this is the CDCs viewpoint as Alexbrn suggests rather than omitting. JenOttawa (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion can be found at Talk:Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic#Danish study, and the edits in question are here. There are two interrelated concerns, and I would consider the discussion of how to handle the CDC source to be less pressing since it's in broad agreement with our highest quality peer reviewed meta-analysis (so we're not having to disentangle conflicting interpretations of the primary literature).

The actual editing conflict on the article is about whether we should directly cite the primary studies used in the meta-analysis, and if so how the article should be worded (are the primary study findings wikivoiced, or not). Bakkster Man (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Right. A good review article would be a lovely thing to cite either instead of or in addition to the US CDC (or similarly large and reputable health agencies). But my favorite clinical trial is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

... especially when it's an underpowered trial that has become a rallying-point for anti-mask campaigners. Alexbrn (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Well it's nice that Talic includes Bungaard in her meta-analysis, thereby *strengthening* the overall conclusion.

I thought more about CDC. I have no problem at all when CDC is the secondary source for peer reviewed journals. Where I am less convinced is where CDC is a secondary source for its own research (which itself is not subject to formal peer review). It seems to me what we have in that case is closer in quality to a peer reviewed primary source than a true secondary source. Dan88888 (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Some quick thoughts on this (partly for myself)

Guidelines and research are distinct. You are correct that guidelines often lack peer review, Wikipedia nevertheless consider them reasonable sources (though often inferior to systematic reviews).

People working for institutions citing their own research in a secondary source is a potential issue. You can get similar issues with cliques of academics as citing one another, or funding bodies tweaking what gets researched. Nevertheless, different papers with different authors and different aims still provides some protection even if they work for the same institution. I imagine similar things like this have been considered in the context of pharmaceutical funding and bias in papers.

There is a saying (which I don't entirely agree with - but has real effects) that Hard cases make bad law. Policies are designed for Wikipedia as a whole rather than the facts of a particular decision. One can hope that with time additional research will get done and sourcse can improve.

COVID is doing some nasty things to society and institutions, Wikipedia has the choice to bend to the effects of COVID or see if it can weather the storm. Talpedia (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not just COVID. I've been reading https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/social-media-democracy-trust-babel/629369/ by Jonathan Haidt, and he lays out a pretty compelling argument that when your business model is based on getting people to click on things/stick around long enough to view more advertisements, the end result is that you amplify "engaging" content, which just accidentally happens to be outrage-producing, society-dividing content.

I have never felt happier that I never joined Facebook or any of the other social media things. Once you are in one of those systems, it will send you content that keeps you clicking, no matter what that does to you and no matter whether the content is true. If you click on "Those horrible people are trying to take away your rights by making you wear a mask sometimes", it will fill your life with that content, to the exclusion of any other perspective. If you instead click on "Those horrible people are trying to kill your disabled child by breathing germs all over him", it will fill your life with that content, to the exclusion of any other perspective. Content that takes a middle ground, like saying "There are advantages and disadvantages. Having other people wear masks is difficult for my family member because he's hard of hearing, but having everyone wear a mask is important for my other family member, who has COPD. We're trying to balance everyone's needs, but no matter what we choose, some people will be helped and other people will be hurt", doesn't get amplified. When we take that algorithm-driven tendency to extremism, and add the all-too-human tendency towards tribalism, which means outraged people in your tribe will punish you for not just for expressing a different view but also for efforts to put things in perspective, then we end up with a mess.

Given that situation, is it any wonder that multiple editors turn up here, thinking that they already know The Truth™ about whatever medicine-related subject is buzzing around social media, only The Truth™ each editor received doesn't match The Truth™ that the next editor received?

Haidt refers to James Madison, which was an unlooked-for delight, because I've been proofreading s:Index:The Federalist (1818).djvu at WIkisource recently, but I recently looked up a paragraph by E. B. White, published 12 October 1935 in The New Yorker. Here it is:

"Statesmen and historians have long known that a common enemy is the most solidifying thing a nation can have, welding all the people into a happy, united mass. We saw how true that was in our own home last week when we discovered that the place we had moved into had cockroaches, or, as the cook calls them, cackaroachies. We discovered them late one night when we went down into the pantry and snapped on a light; since then, the household has warred against them with a high feeling of family unity and solidarity, sniping at them with a Flit gun, rubbing poisonous paste on bits of potatoes for them to eat, the house full of great singleness of purpose and accord. No wonder a dictator, when he feels uneasy, looks around for something for his people to squash."

Because of this environment in which everyone is united with their tribe in outrage, I think that when editors believe that they have already done so much "research" by reading the stories about medical research that others have posted on social media, watching YouTube videos, blogs that match your POV, etc., and that they already know The Truth™ about any contentious issue, one of the best things we can do is to start searching from the beginning, as if we didn't already know The Truth™. I particularly recommend that editors start at PubMed, which doesn't try to funnel you in a particular direction based on which subjects you keep you engaged/outraged. It helps you find a fuller picture of what's actually being said in the scientific journals. And if you feel like your purpose here at Wikipedia is to squash something that outrages your people – well, maybe you should think about that for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

well said--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I think these effects are definitely real. I find one of the nice things about Wikipedia (as compared to other fora) is that focusing on research and systematic reviews force you to engage with the literature (often quite broadly). This (now aging) video by CGP Gray echoes these ideas in an easy to digest form (though more from a biological / mathematical angle than a sociological one). [11]

I do have some faith in the ability of individuals within the social media space to learn, find nuance, find better sources; and for social media as a whole to learn to be a better system. People do find outrage boring after enough time and learn nuance, but perhaps there are enough people passing through the "outrage phase" of their lives (hopefully to be followed by an enlightened phase rather than a phase in a political cult) for this to be a problem.

I think it can also be hard to work out the degree to which outrage is serving a purpose for the individual (something they need to solve or understand, experiences they want to relive to overcome) rather than an individual being lead astray by outrage. It is unfortunate that certain important truths about the world are more readily available in politicized forms than the sanitized versions that show up in general schooling.

One effect I am quite aware of is that of "narrative" and "theories about why people think certain things" that can give you certainty where there is little and make it easy to dismiss other theories. Such theories need to be treated with care: it's not so much that I don't think that they are *true* some of the time, but more that they can be difficult to falsify at times, too applicable and subtle. I sometimes wonder if the narratives that hold people can be a stepping stone to a more general narrative. So "distrust in institution X" could instead be better replaced with distrust in all institutions (and a concern about how truth is even possible).

I wonder what the correspondence is between narratives (e.g. liberalism, anarchism, conservatism) and tribes and which of these are more causal to social processes.

I have to admit my aim at times is to make contentious distinctions as clear, sharp and free of assumption as possible. This is perhaps a more acceptable form of the desire to squash ideas which you disagree. One nice idea that I got out of watching too many Haidt videos on Youtube was that of having norms and rules in an institution such that regardless of motivations the institution still produces the outcome that it desired (and perhaps results in learning in the individual) Talpedia (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Phenol sulfur transferase deficiency

I came upon an orphan article, started in 2020, called Phenol sulfur transferase deficiency, which was allegedly identified by Rosemary Waring. It is a purported cause of Autism, and promoted papers by antivaccine activists and dubious autism treatments through diet and epsom salt baths. Can anyone help separate facts from unproven claims? ScienceFlyer (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS vs biomed research: citing of primary sources on medical topic pages.

I would like to suggest that on many medical topic pages where statements supported with primary sources need to be removed (if suitable secondary sources cannot be identified) we could generate sister pages that concern the research area instead of the medical topic. This would include an disambiguation statement at the top of the page along the lines of: This page concerns the scientific research topic meningitis research for the medical topic see:meningitis. That's is very clunky but give the idea.

Simon A Johnston (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

No. Many "medical" articles already include a Research section and for research to be due it generally needs to covered by secondary sources. If we Wikipedia editors start picking and choosing which "research" to include that would be a species of OR and at odds with the goal of encyclopedia which aims to summarize accepted knowledge about topics: as a tertiary source, why should Wikipedia pay attention to primary texts that have garnered no attention in secondary sources? Alexbrn (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Completely agree with this but most articles don't include a research section and if they do there are lots of 'research' statements that are outside of the research section. I'm coming from the direction of wikipedia already separating medical topics from a point of view of editing but this not being very clear from as a reader. Would I be right in thinking that your suggestion would be that the solution is better editing of medical topic articles? Simon A Johnston (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

You should probably look to a Governement or Supranational authority as a possible secondary source for the research. For example, https://www.who.int/initiatives/defeating-meningitis-by-2030 has a lot of content that might be relevant.Dan88888 (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Government or Supranational authority is vital for references of medical topics but I am not sure where this fits for discussing current research. As @Alexbrn says having primary research on Wikipedia doesn't fit with the aim to summarise accepted knowledge. In the example you have linked this about policy rather than research. Simon A Johnston (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Because research by its nature is generally preliminary, in an encyclopedic content the most one can usually say is "X is being investigated for ..." or "A large trial is being run to determine if ..." or "lab research has suggest it might be worth pursuing Y line of research ..." or somesuch – if some secondary source(s) exists to verify that. Alexbrn (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

It has a whole section on research priorities and lots of other mentions on research. I don't know what research you want to talk about. I just thought it might be there.Dan88888 (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Articles about future research priorities, from a large medical organization or a major agency can be useful. The most informative statements say something like "we have done enough research on ____ and we need more research on _____". Compare what you hear in statements like "Government Health Funder identified epidemiology as a research priority" vs "Government Health Funder identified translational research as a research priority". The first says we don't even know who gets this yet, and the second says we think we know the cause and are ready for treatment breakthroughs. Statements about research that is currently/recently prioritized are also helpful; for example, two decades ago, the research in myasthenia gravis was pretty much only epidemiology, with nobody researching causes, improved treatments, or potential cures. Statements about research that shouldn't be done any longer (e.g., any more research about whether the MMR vaccines cause autism; we already know the answer, thanks) are incredibly important.

OTOH, a generic Further research is needed statement or a "please fund more of the exact thing my lab is researching" plea at the end of a typical paper is not really useful. If that was the best source I could find on the subject, I'd probably leave out the section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Experience shows that keeping such fast-moving subjects up to date is normally beyond the capacity of our small group of medical editors. That's apart from the extreme difficulty of writing a neutral article with right balance in the first place. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm concerned that statements supported with primary sources need to be removed (if suitable secondary sources cannot be identified) may have gotten WP:MEDPRI a little backwards. The root issue is that primary sources are less trustworthy than secondary sources, full stop. With medical information, we take extra care because primary sources so often give results which are not-replicated, and/or their results are misintepreted. There are exceptional situations where primary studies can be used, but a separate article title doesn't resolve any of them. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm new and still learning. Simon A Johnston (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Radiation_hormesis#Effects_of_cobalt-60_exposure

Much of this section relies on a discredited study published in the nonsense Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. If someone could take a hacksaw and bring this in line with WP:DUE, that would be great. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The situation was mentioned in a couple of recent textbooks. I've added them to the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Some medical articles with suspect licensing history

I'd like to draw the attention of editors here to Wikipedia:VRT noticeboard#20 some odd old substed versions of Ticket confirmation where there are a half-dozen medical articles of interest. Izno (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

seems to have been archived[12]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I've de-archived it and put a pin in it for a few weeks. Izno (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Termination for medical reasons

The termination for medical reasons article is a real mess containing lots of editorializing and how-to information, and really not up to the standard required. I feel this is quite concerning, because this is a topic that is going to receive substantial attention because of the current U.S. abortion debate. Can anyone please take a look, and help clean this up? — The Anome (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

If anything, The Anome is understating the issues with that page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The article is now much improved, thanks to many constructive edits, so I've removed the tag templates from the head of the article. However, I'm sure it could still be improved further. Thanks to all involved. — The Anome (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiley journals now available at TWL

See WP:VPM#New Wikipedia Library Collections Available Now - April 2022 for the new collections that are now available via The Wikipedia Library. I suspect the Wiley journal collection will be of particular interest to WikiProject Medicine. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

That's great! Thanks very much for the update! Facts707 (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Template for medical articles on conditions that may require immediate treatment?

Hi all, given WP articles' typically very high ranking in internet search engines, I wonder if this is the time to create a WP medical template that can be placed at the top of articles warning that the condition may require immediate or urgent attention to avoid severe complications or even death. Some suggestions are myocardial infarction, necrotizing fasciitis, acute meningitis (particularly worsening severe pain in teenagers and young adults) and airway obstruction. Basic information such as baby aspirin or half an aspirin tablet could feature prominently in Myocardial infarction, for example. I have had a colleague with partial amputations due to necrotizing fasciitis not quickly treated, a young healthy acquaintance deceased due to undiagnosed or misdiagnosed acute meningitis, etc. Template:Current election shows a typical hatnote warning box.

Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Won't happen for many reasons, including that it shades into giving medical advice, which Wikipedia does not give. Of course if it's an important aspect of a condition that prompt treatment is recommended, then this will likely be mentioned in the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Maintenance templates are meant to be temporary (e.g., until the election is over, until someone adds sources, etc.), and this wouldn't be a temporary point.

Life-threatening and emergent conditions should have that mentioned in the lead. I wonder if something could also be done in the infobox (though I'm not sure what, exactly). Sources like https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK63506/ (2003 data) seem to offer systematic data for which common conditions require emergency treatment (pneumonia, followed by multiple heart and lung conditions). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

No simufilam article

This drug, while a relatively new and not-yet-approved treatment for the protein misfolding of Alzheimer's Disease, has been in the news for a while. Odd that nobody has taken on an article. Whether it works or not is immaterial. It appears to qualify as a subject of interest to Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Quisqualis, would you like to create an article at simufilam? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I would very much like to, but have no time nor energy to take on the endeavor.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment. Ah, that feeling when you come back only the next day, ready to roll up your sleeves, and you find that the WP:MED crowd have already done it! Dr. Vogel (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@Quisqualis, it looks like four editors have pitched in to start the article. Thanks for suggesting it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
This is most gratifying. It shouldn't prove terribly challenging, but thanks to all involved for the outpouring of energy and interest!--Quisqualis (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Some eyes on Simufilam would be welcome because of repeated IP edits that look very POVy to me. However, I don't have access to the relevant journals, and also quite frankly not the time to handle this. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

"Références" on and for French Neuro-oncologie article

Courtesy link: fr:Neuro-oncologie

How to create a reference which is acceptable? Example: "Margaret Wrensch et al.: Epidemiology of primary brain tumors: Current concepts and review of the literature. In: Neuro-Oncology. Jg. 4, Nr. 4, Oktober 2002, S. 278–299." how to show it on French part.

or this from German part "Zentrales Nervensystem. In: Krebs in Deutschland. Berlin 2019, S. 114–117". Wname1 (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if this is your problem, but I tend to use the visual editor, press the cite button and paste a URL, and it works most of the time. Talpedia (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Talpedia: Can you create the topic: "Margaret Wrensch et al.: Epidemiology of primary brain tumors: Current Concepts and Review of the Literature. In: Neuro-Oncology. Vol. 4, No. 4, October 2002, pp. 278-299". What is written in such a way that it is also accepted in French? Regards, Wname1 (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

what I normally do is:
1) find the pubmed URL of the paper I want to use as a source

2) use the URL in the article, wrapped in <ref> and </ref>

3) use the refill tool at the end, to deal with all the references in one go

does this help? Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The official rule here at the English Wikipedia is: "While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source. Others will improve the formatting if needed."

Do you need help at the French-language Wikipedia? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-08-01/Tips and tricks Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Wname1:, beyond the issue of citing sources, there is the even more important issue of providing proper author attribution for content translation that conforms to Wikipedia's licensing requirements for your translations from other Wikipedias. Please ensure that any translated content you add to English Wikipedia is properly attributed. I've explained this at your (English) talk page, here. I can also support you at French Wikipedia; please ping me from your French talk page if you need help there. Mathglot (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

w:fr:Wikipédia:Forum des nouveaux is also a good place to ask for help if you are having problems at the French Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The page on ALLO-715 May Need Your Attention

I have initiated a deletion discussion about the drug ALLO-715, which is under clinical trial as of now. Your participation will be highly appreciated since the discussion seemingly demands for editors having expertise in medicine domain. Cirton (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Update all pages to the new version of the 'Terminologia Anatomica' (TA2-2019)

Good evening,

The 'Terminologia Anatomica' has been re-edited in 2019 (https://ta2viewer.openanatomy.org/) and is much more logical than the first edition (https://taviewer.openanatomy.org/).

Since one year, I work full time to create an open source 3D atlas of anatomy (https://www.z-anatomy.com/) which includes this list of anatomical structures in several languages.

English and Latin are default, I translated the whole list in french (using the TA1 and adapting it) and the Portuguese version has also been corrected.

For this atlas, I adapt, copy-paste and create a definition for each of these anatomical structures (I have about 2700 on 7200) Most of them are the actual Wikipedia page, but the name has been adapted to the new nomenclature.

In order to be up-to-date, Wikipedia could take advantage of this work and adapt all these pages.

We are talking about >2500 pages and more will come (>7000).

Most of the sources are Wikipedia itself.

There are very few new anatomical terms, but many existing anatomical terms have a new name.

Many anatomical terms did not have their own page on Wikipedia.

The definitions created are copy-pasted parts of another wikipedia page (of the parent structure).

The other descriptions created are translations made from the 'Feneis' -which is the first reference for french anatomists- and contain the reference used in this book (page+number).

If you have any idea about how to update these pages (the atlas already takes all of my time), it is welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melodicpinpon (talk • contribs) 21:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Tom (LT), Bibeyjj, Ornithopsis, GBFEE, anyone else: What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing! As far as I see it, there are 2 queries raised here

The first query is article naming convention, and how changes to TA affect current Wikipedia articles. It is worth noting that most Wikipedia articles do match the term given by TA, but that they don't have to (as described by WP:MEDTITLE). It may be worth checking whether the TA list linked at WP:MEDMOS is still up to date - we could also put a link to the new list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy#Tools. This is ongoing work.
The second query is about whether some anatomy Wikipedia articles still need to be made. This points to general article improvement, as many anatomical structures do not have an article because they lack notability, or because no one has yet collected enough reliable sources to prove notability. There is not much action that needs to be taken regarding this unless there is a secret legion of editors we can unleash on increasing the number of anatomy articles! I imagine that most articles that do not exist are redirects to other pages, although I have no evidence of this.

I will link to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy. All the best! Bibeyjj (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I basically agree with what Bibeyjj says. We already provide TA2 identifiers in infoboxes if Wikidata is up to date (see e.g. Stapes). Your work on this atlas is fantastic and adds to existing anatomical ontologies that already exist. I would be wary of batch creating hundreds to thousands of stub articles in this sphere if they're just a dictionary definition particularly if you haven't had time to familiarise yourself with our existing articles. Usually the content can be found on bigger articles and the thousands of new articles just creates more work for editors to organise them, de duplicate them, merge and so forth down the track without meaningfully assisting readers. Perhaps at WP:ANAT you could post some lists of what articles you think are missing and you can get some extra hands and eyes to look through them to work out which need redirecting, additions to bigger articles, or creating.Tom (LT) (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not altogether sure what I was tagged for. My interest in anatomy is from the standpoint of paleontology, and I am of the opinion that we should separate human and non-human anatomy into separate pages when possible (e.g. create a new page titled Vertebrate maxilla and re-focus Maxilla to be specifically about the structure in humans, or conversely re-structure Maxilla to be less human-centric and create a new page Maxilla in human anatomy). If this were done, I would have no stake in what is done on human anatomy pages, and even as is, I only have a stake in those articles of paleontological interest. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tom (LT), Bibeyjj, and WhatamIdoing,

These are my very first steps posting and editing on wikipedia.

Two informations:

1)The University of Leiden (Holland) received about 100 000 euros (approximation) to continue developing the open source atlas of anatomy and I do not know at all how they will spend this money; I hope to get hired

https://www.surf.nl/nieuws/13-nieuwe-projecten-voor-open-en-online-onderwijs-gehonoreerd

https://www.surf.nl/open-anatomisch-3d-model-in-het-onderwijs

It may be the moment to try and put some people translating the TA2 and adapting the wikipedia pages of the anatomical structures.

2)If somebody has the time and skills to create a short python script to export the .txt files of all the definitions contained in the atlas (in Blender), they could then be used to create/rename the wikipedia pages of these anatomical structures.

I try to create bridges to coordinate my efforts with the contributors of wikipedia but, as I give all my time to the 3D atlas of anatomy (it is enough challenge for one man), I do not plan to integrate the content myself in wikipedia. I'd rather try and find a method to propose what I do to the contributors, and let them decide if they want to integrate it or not. Melodicpinpon (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Good luck with your job prospects. You might also want to talk to the Wikidata folks, as importing structured data is their specialty. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Heat stroke

Heat stroke looks to make several unsourced medical claims and uses low quality studies. MarshallKe (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

did a couple of edits[13] (however it needs more editor help)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Template deletion discussion

... at Template:Older med refs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Changes to articles on Factor Xa, thromboplastin, and new article on thrombokinase

I recently submitted a new article on the enzyme thrombokinase that was rejected by Robert McClenon because the word is contained in the article on thromboplastin. The reason for the submission is that thromboplastin is NOT an enzyme as stated in the wiki article, but rather acts on the enzyme thrombokinase, now popularly known as Factor Xa. I want to correct the thromboplastin article, make an addition to the Factor X article, and insert a new article about thrombokinase, as shown below. This should clear up some long-standing confusion about these terms. How should I proceed?

Thromboplastin (TPL) or thrombokinase is derived from cell membranes and is a mixture of both phospholipids and tissue factor, neither of which are enzymes. Thromboplastin acts on and accelerates the activity of the serine protease Factor Xa, aiding blood coagulation through the conversion of prothrombin to thrombin. Thromboplastin is found in brain, lung, and other tissues and especially in blood platelets. and that functions in the conversion of prothrombin to thrombin in the clotting of blood.

Proposed change: Thromboplastin (TPL) is derived from cell membranes and is a mixture of both phospholipids and tissue factor, neither of which are enzymes. Thromboplastin acts on and accelerates the activity of the serine protease Factor Xa, aiding blood coagulation through the conversion of prothrombin to thrombin. Thromboplastin is found in brain, lung, and other tissues and especially in blood platelets.

History: American and British scientists described deficiency of factor X independently in 1953 and 1956, respectively. As with some other coagulation factors, the factor was initially named after these patients, a Mr Rufus Stuart (1921) and a Miss Audrey Prower (1934). Factor X proposed History: American and British scientists described deficiency of factor X independently in 1953 and 1956, respectively. As with some other coagulation factors, the factor was initially named after these patients, a Mr Rufus Stuart (1921) and a Miss Audrey Prower (1934). At that time, those investigators could not know that the human genetic defect they had identified would be found in the previously characterized enzyme called thrombokinase. Thrombokinase was the name coined by Paul Morawitz in 1904 to describe the substance that converted prothrombin to thrombin and caused blood to clot[ref] . That name embodied an important new concept in understanding blood coagulation – that an enzyme was critically important in the activation of prothrombin. Morawitz believed that his enzyme came from cells such as platelets yet, in keeping with the state of knowledge about enzymes at that time, had no clear idea about the chemical nature of his thrombokinase or its mechanism of action. Those uncertainties led to decades during which the terms thrombokinase and thromboplastin were both used to describe the activator of prothrombin and led to controversy about its chemical nature and origin [ref 1952]. In 1947, J Haskell Milstone isolated a proenzyme from bovine plasma which, when activated, converted prothrombin to thrombin. Following Morawitz’s designation, he called it prothrombokinase [ref 1947] and by 1951 had purified the active enzyme, thrombokinase. Over the next several years he showed that thrombokinase was a proteolytic enzyme that, by itself, could activate prothrombin but whose activity was greatly enhanced by addition of calcium, tissue extracts and other serum factors [ref. 2021] In 1964 Milstone summarized his work and that of others: “There are many chemical reactions which are so slow that they would not be of physiological use if they were not accelerated by enzymes. We are now confronted with a reaction, catalyzed by an enzyme, which is still too slow unless aided by accessory factors.” [ref 1964]

Morawitz, P (1904). "Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Blutgerinnung". Deutsches Archiv fur Klinische Medizin. 79: 432-442. Milstone, J H (1952). "On the evolution of blood clotting theory". Medicine. 31: 411-447. doi:10.1097/00005792-195212000-00004. PMID 13012730. Milstone, J H (1947). "Prothrombokinase and the three stages of blood coagulation". Science. 10610.1126/science.106.2762.546-a: 546-547. PMID 17741228. Milstone, Leonard M (2021). "Factor Xa: Thrombokinase from Paul Morawitz to J Haskell Milstone". Journal Thrombosis and Thormbolysis. 52: 364-370. doi:10.1007/s11239-021-02387-6. PMID 33484373. Milstone, J H (1964). "Thrombokinase as prime activator of prothrombin: historical perspectives and present status". Federation Proceedings. 23: 742-748. doi:10.1085/jgp.47.2.315. PMID 14080818.

Thrombokinase new article: Thrombokinase, now commonly known as coagulation Factor Xa, is the pivotal proteolytic enzyme that converts prothrombin to thrombin. History: Thrombokinase was the name coined by Paul Morawitz in 1904 to describe the substance that converted prothrombin to thrombin and caused blood to clot[ref] . That name embodied an important new concept in understanding blood coagulation – that an enzyme was critically important in the activation of prothrombin. Morawitz believed that his enzyme came from cells such as platelets yet, in keeping with the state of knowledge about enzymes at that time, had no clear idea about the chemical nature of his thrombokinase or its mechanism of action. Those uncertainties led to decades during which the terms thrombokinase and thromboplastin were both used to describe the activator of prothrombin and led to controversy about its chemical nature and origin [ref 1952]. In 1947, J Haskell Milstone isolated a proenzyme from bovine plasma which, when activated, converted prothrombin to thrombin. Following Morawitz’s designation, he called it prothrombokinase [ref 1947] and by 1951 had purified the active enzyme, thrombokinase. Over the next several years he showed that thrombokinase was a proteolytic enzyme that, by itself, could activate prothrombin but whose activity was greatly enhanced by addition of calcium, tissue extracts and other serum factors [ref. 2021] In 1964 Milstone summarized his work and that of others: “There are many chemical reactions which are so slow that they would not be of physiological use if they were not accelerated by enzymes. We are now confronted with a reaction, catalyzed by an enzyme, which is still too slow unless aided by accessory factors.” [ref 1964] In the mid-1950s American and British physicians described an inherited deficiency of a coagulation factor in humans, which they named after their patients Rufus Stuart and Audrey Prower. By 1960 the Stuart-Prower factor was being called Factor X, and it soon became clear that activated Factor X, or Factor Xa, was equivalent to Milstone’s previously characterized bovine thrombokinase.

Morawitz, P (1904). "Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Blutgerinnung". Deutsches Archiv fur Klinische Medizin. 79: 432-442. Milstone, J H (1952). "On the evolution of blood clotting theory". Medicine. 31: 411-447. doi:10.1097/00005792-195212000-00004. PMID 13012730. Milstone, J H (1947). "Prothrombokinase and the three stages of blood coagulation". Science. 10610.1126/science.106.2762.546-a: 546-547. PMID 17741228. Milstone, Leonard M (2021). "Factor Xa: Thrombokinase from Paul Morawitz to J Haskell Milstone". Journal Thrombosis and Thormbolysis. 52: 364-370. doi:10.1007/s11239-021-02387-6. PMID 33484373. Milstone, J H (1964). "Thrombokinase as prime activator of prothrombin: historical perspectives and present status". Federation Proceedings. 23: 742-748. doi:10.1085/jgp.47.2.315. PMID 14080818.

Leonard Milstone (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC) Leonard Milstone 5/13/2022

The article is at Draft:Thrombokinase. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

We also have an article at Factor Xa. @Leonard Milstone, is Factor Xa the same molecule as the one you're writing about? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Research result on biochemical SIDS marker — posted in Talk for the SIDS article

https://www.biospace.com/article/researchers-answer-how-and-why-infants-die-from-sids/

Excerpt:

“The theory was that if the infant stopped breathing during sleep, the defect would keep them from startling or waking up.

“The Sydney researchers were able to confirm this theory by analyzing dried blood samples taken from newborns who died from SIDS and other unknown causes. Each SIDS sample was then compared with blood taken from healthy babies. They found the activity of the enzyme butyrylcholinesterase (BChE) was significantly lower in babies who died of SIDS compared to living infants and other non-SIDS infant deaths. BChE plays a major role in the brain’s arousal pathway, explaining why SIDS typically occurs during sleep.

“Previously, parents were told SIDS could be prevented if they only took proper precautions: laying babies on their backs, not letting them overheat and keeping all toys and blankets out of the crib are a few of the most important preventative steps. Importantly, they still are, as there is still no test for this biomarker.”

—- Jo3sampl (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand that historically, most "SIDS" deaths were "suffocation due to unsafe sleeping practices, but we didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings, so we're calling it SIDS" deaths. That can make research into SIDS complicated. I wonder what the next round of research will turn up? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

GHK-Cu

An editor raised a concern about the article Copper peptide GHK-Cu, as claims about its use in anti-aging creams are heavily based on primary sources. See this FTN discussion for details. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Ideally, that kind of content will say something closer to "Consumers spend billions of dollars each year" than "It works" (which is a fashion-and-beauty-standards claim, not a biomedical one; wrinkles are not a disease). Also, it looks like this MEDMOS recommendation is relevant for this article (and many, many others): Cite sources, don't describe them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library access

If you don’t make 10+ edits a month, your library access is denied. It would be easy to game the system, but it suggests to me that if you decide to spend some time researching sources in the library without making active edits, that won’t be possible - even if you log in to wikipedia every day. CV9933 (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Medical conditions with no known cure

Category:Medical conditions with no known cure was created with no parent categories. I'm not knowledgeable about medicine so I'll just leave this here. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 23:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I've placed it in Category:Human diseases and disorders. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 23:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for putting it in a sensible place, ClaudineChionh.

I wonder if we should have such a category. Presumably everything in Category:Genetic disorders has "no known cure". It's not clear what really belongs there (e.g., Common cold? Teenage pregnancy? Amputation?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree this is a problematic category, implying medical conditions either have cures, or do not. For many "conditions" that's not applicable, or so simple. Alexbrn (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't see a use for it. There was a "List of" article that got deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of incurable diseases and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of incurable diseases (2nd nomination). A category is even worse, since it has sourcing issues on top of everything else. -- Colin°^Talk 07:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

And it's also misleading to the reader, who may be thinking of one of several meanings of the word "cure". For example, do we mean that we can get you to a point where it is as if you didn't have the condition, although you actually still have it? Or that we can make the condition properly go away permanantly? Or that we can make the condition go away and it'll be as if you've never had it in the first place? HIV would be a good example of this. Dr. Vogel (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

HIV appears to be curable. You just have to get Graft-versus-host disease once or twice first. (I think that sets a new standard for the cure being worse than the disease.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. I reacted out of a de-orphaning impulse, but now I see in the history that the category was linked to that deleted list, so maybe this should also go to CfD. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 12:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate you responding to that de-orphaning impulse.

I have listed this for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 18#Category:Medical conditions with no known cure. I hope that anyone with an opinion (including if you disagree with me!) will share your thoughts over there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing on effectiveness of Standard Days Method

I've started a discussion at Talk:Calendar-based contraceptive methods concerning sourcing problems for effectiveness claims for the Standard Days Method (SDM). Input from WikiProject Medicine editors would be very welcome. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 vaccine side effects AfD

Notice of a deletion discussion which may be of interest: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 vaccine side effects — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Current events 2022 monkeypox outbreak task force

Just alerting editors that the WikiProject of Current Events now has a task force to cover the ongoing 2022 monkeypox outbreak. Feel free to join if you want to help. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

thank you for posting (important current topic)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Please see

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#What MEDRS is NOT
Wikipedia:What MEDRS is not (new essay)

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

One result of this conversation is Wikipedia:Don't use today's news to contradict medical sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter

I hope the Newsletter gets back on track...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

As my editing waned around the end of last year, I let the newsletter go. WikiProject newsletters have a rich history of twinkling in and out of existence here; I suppose now I've added to that history. If anyone is interested in taking up the mantle, the newsletter is easy to assemble, and you can get a sense of the formula pretty quickly by looking at the archive. If there's sufficient clamor for the newsletter's return (i.e. more than just Ozzie) I can also take a crack at getting the presses running again -- though I make no guarantee of its regularity. All that said, thank you for the note Ozzie. I'm glad you enjoyed the newsletter's run. Ajpolino (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I did (as Im certain several more medical editors enjoyed it as well), thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Language question

Is "non-invasive surgery" actually an oxymoron, or is there a kind of surgery that doesn't cut or puncture anything? (I'm wondering if this phrase ought to be replaced with Minimally invasive surgery.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Where are you seeing that mentioned? We have Non-invasive procedure. -- Colin°^Talk 17:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

It's in a handful of articles.[14] WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a fun edge case, does it count as surgery Manipulation under anesthesia. Ironically it might be dangerous than many procedres that can be done without anaesthesia. Talpedia (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but is it surgery? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Who knows. It's done by surgeons in an operating theatre to permanently fix a problem. No cutting though. Talpedia (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Apparently surgery is defined as "removal, repair, or readjustment of organs and tissues," and invading/puncturing/cutting isn't required. A longer source here makes the same point. Subjectively, I can think of several procedures that aren't technically invasive but that I would consider surgery: most dental work, radiofrequency apoptosis, realigning broken bones, etc, as well as, of course, all the articles you mentioned. Minimally invasive still implies the procedure was invasive, if the term surgery doesn't work, I agree with Colin, in my opinion the phrase should be changed to non-invasive procedure. Cioriolio (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you burned out yet?

Because, dear medical editor, if you're not, you might want to head over to 2022 monkeypox outbreak to lend a hand. Oh boy. Alexbrn (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Some of this (among editors/edit summaries/not just article text) appears to be more panicky than seems warranted. If you don't happen to remember this one from microbio and you think you might be catching a bit of "Oh, no, another virus I've never heard of is spreading!" feeling, then I suggest glancing at the years listed in Monkeypox#Epidemiology. Monkeypox is endemic in parts of the world, and outbreaks in the rest of the world happen all the time (e.g., every single year since 2017). I don't think that the epidemiologists are looking at this as the likely next pandemic. I suggest approaching this topic the same way you would approach an article about the 2020–2021 influenza season, or maybe the Disneyland measles outbreak. It's happening, and it is affecting real people, but this is not that scary (especially for those of us old enough to have been vaccinated against smallpox, as it's believed to provide protection). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

This time there's the whole "It's the Gays what done it!" vibe that is particularly depressing. Alexbrn (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. Many public health professionals have raised the alarm about MSM community spread, all the mainstream coverage acknowledges it, currently the article is transparently downplaying it. There have been multiple attempts to fix this; while the text may not have been perfect, these did not look like attempts to stigmatize the group at risk. You have been completely reverting these contributions instead of improving them. I agree that someone else should step in. There is more discussion at Talk:2022_monkeypox_outbreak#Majority_of_cases_in_gay_and_bisexual_men_(MSM) Palpable (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The "vibe" I was referring to was on the world outside Wikipedia (though fuelled by some news reporting). Alexbrn (talk) 06:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPE. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I don't think the removal of text that is ultimately sourced to David L. Heymann via Associated Press "per MEDRS" was helpful. Nor do I think WAID's suggestion that this is treated like a bog standard flu season we don't even have an article for, is likely to fly. Remember, the last time some editors got all reverty over MEDRS was the Covid origins debate and I cannot repeat enough that they were wrong and nearly critically endangered MEDRS in the subsequent RFC. Choose your battles carefully and revert "per MEDRS" carefully or you are going to find it demoted to essay status or restricted to "medical advice". This is an ongoing notable current event and we have to cut our cloth appropriately, which means using the best sources and citing the best experts we can find. Of course we need to caveat that some of this is just expert speculation rather than consensus epidemiological "fact". The AP article says "Heymann hypothesized" and also cites Mike Skinner, a virologist at Imperial College London, who appears to be focusing more on the "close contact" that arises from sexual contacts, rather than it being literally sexually transmitted. If we are going to have this article (and it ain't going away) then we need to report this kind of expert speculation carefully. The article will evolve and better sources may come later. Here's The BMJ also reporting. The fundamental facts about the current cases involving many MSM does not appear to be at all controversial, though obviously needs to be handled sensitively. Bluntly "censoring" information that appears negative towards "the Gays", as you put it, because the sources aren't a review in the Lancet, is not helping. -- Colin°^Talk 07:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not controversial, and the the article already sourced the MSM aspect to the ECDC. My concern is that "sensitive" handling does not entail piling speculative weaker sources on. Alexbrn (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Well then a summary "We already cover this with better sources (Nature, ECDC)" would have been appropriate, and maybe some comment about WEIGHT. As it stands, your edits just look like you are removing the gay angle and using MEDRS as your tool. I'm just saying we need to be really careful if a edit summary is just "per MEDRS". If we didn't have the other text and didn't have features in Nature news, but all we had was a couple of proper experts interviewed by AP, then that would have been absolutely fine (today.. and then can be improved later). This topic, like covid, is going to attract editors who aren't familiar with medical articles, and who think (absolutely correctly) that this is a current affairs article, not a medical condition or disease (monkeypox) article. So if it attracts too much cruft, and needs pruning, then let's use the language of standard editing and policy, rather than always arguing the pruning is "per MEDRS". -- Colin°^Talk 10:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It's interesting that you mention the Covid origins debate. The current article for SARS-CoV-2 states flat out that it had a zoonotic origin, and on the talk page, Alexbrn and others are bullying someone who tried to make the language a little less dogmatic. Palpable (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The title of this thread made me laugh, as I live in a state of permanent burnout. I'm sure several of my colleagues here can relate to that. Also to be frank I live in constant fear of another bug coming along and the same thing happening again and again. So when I heard about this monkeypox thing the other day I felt almost anaphylactic. Dr. Vogel (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

As a general reminder to everyone: If you can pitch in, great. And if you can't, then please don't, and don't feel guilty about that.

When an outbreak begins, we need help on the related articles. The English Wikipedia is a particularly popular destination for early information, and we'd like people to get good information. But we also need folks who deliberately turn the other way and keep an eye on the other articles that aren't the focus, to pick up the things that others are temporarily dropping. Some folks really enjoy the early days, and I can see the appeal. You get to learn about new things, most of the editing is pretty straightforward, there's a team of folks working together to get good stuff in and garbage out, and it's high-impact work. But there are folks who always hate that high-speed environment, and most of us are up for it only on occasion. If it isn't "your turn" – even if you think it's never going to be "your turn" – then you are still a very valuable contributor, and we need you to protect yourself and build the project in ways that are sustainable for you. We need good editors somewhere on wiki much more than we need them at any specific article.

So to all who help with these articles: Thank you. We need you. And to all who support the rest of the project: Thank you, equally. We need you, equally. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

MEDRS and current affairs

Perhaps MEDRS could do with better advice about breaking news stories, current affairs and handling the immediate need to document an unstable topic that has rolling tentative information breaking about it, vs the long-view that we take with medical articles sourced to reviews and books. We note that the popular press is generally not reliable, and indicate a couple of lay publications like New Scientist and Scientific American, but we don't really mention the medical current affairs aspects of journals and their publishers (e.g. Nature news, and BMJ) Possibly those have increased since MEDRS was written, especially due to Covid. I just deleted a Ben Goldacre link from MEDRS which indicates just how out-of-date that section is likely to be. Those new professional medical news publications are likely to be a better bet than The Telegraph and fairly up-to-date. I think there is still a temporary role for quality newspapers who have interviewed experts or are repeating statements from organisations where those experts/organisations are considered reliable. MEDRS asks us to use "use common sense" here, and perhaps we should give a little slack for information that is uncontentious and likely to be better sourced in coming days? -- Colin°^Talk 10:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of keeping good content and upgrading sources later. OTOH, I think the main source of disputes is contentious content? We're not generally seeing many disputes over "WHO said the cause is a virus"; it's more like "Scientists say it's a virus" and someone wants to add "But this guy disagrees, and I found a newspaper who quoted him, so we have to treat his POV as having equal validity to all the others". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

That certainly happens, but the above issue with sources that more or less said the same thing about a group of people who were notably affected in this outbreak and a handful of all respectable scientists clearly speculating about transmission. I think MEDRS isn't helping direct editors towards better sources of medical news reporting (e.g. the Nature news) and a lot of that section is really really old. MEDRS seems mostly designed to pick sources that have significant lag and determine that what we say is not likely to change for years. And that's not helpful for a topic that is days old, and readers are coming to find out "What are scientists saying about it now?" and are quite happy if next week scientists are saying something entirely different. What are the best sources for that? Cause it isn't meta analyses and textbooks. -- Colin°^Talk 06:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

This sounds a bit like the WP:N vs MEDRS dilemma: an experimental drug can be notable (e.g., as a commercial product whose success or failure will determine the fortunes of major corporations) but there might not be any sources that match MEDRS' ideal, because it's in early clinical trials.

OTOH, if we say "The goal is to use the best possible sources, even if those aren't ideal", then we're going to have someone trying to cite very bad sources because "this is the best possible source for my POV". I'm not sure how to write that in a way that doesn't make things worse. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Eye Disease article

Hello! I'm new to Wikipedia and wanted to ask before adding this to the mentioned article.

A condition- Blepharitis is a chronic condition- inflammation of the eyelid and according to WHO ICD-10, it is categorized as H01.0 Can this condition be added to the subsection H00-H06-Disorders of eyelid.. of the article?

Not sure if I have a correct and acceptable source either (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459305/ OR https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2005.tb06677.x) - but if anyone can check and make the edit (or not)- that would be great!

Thanks! Oluwa24 (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Are there organizational/foundational principles or medical framework that could be used to support removal of misinformation "supported" by a citation?

Hello, I had a question regarding justifying edits. I am trying to remove an edit that is misinformation, but these edits are "supported" by a citation so I have to find a secondary source counter-citation to a clearly wrong statement. For example, in the Tennis Elbow page under the "Differential diagnosis" section, there is a differential diagnosis of "Osteochondritis dissecans" for tennis elbow with a source that "supports" it because the source states "There are many pathological conditions that may mimic [tennis elbow] such as osteochondritis dissecans." However, osteochondritis dissecans is a pediatric disease while tennis elbow affects middle-aged adults. Therefore, there is a clear separation and reason that osteochondritis dissecans should not be there. Would I have to find a secondary source to justify every edit like this or are there some organizational/foundational medical framework that I can refer to as justification to save time? Thank you for your help and time!

Best, Trit6611 (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

To my non-expert eyes, I fail to see the issue. Differential diagnosis is a contrast with other similar conditions. Tennis elbow and Osteochondritis dissecans are both similar conditions. That one is an adult condition, and the other a pediatric one seems rather immaterial, especially if the pediatric condition remained untreated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello Headbomb,

I can see the point that you are making. I believe that my doctor had an issue with that because the age gap indicates no possibility for the two diseases to cross paths. It would be unhelpful for a middle-aged individual looking into tennis elbow to potentially worry about osteochondritis dissecans since it is a condition that has no possibility of affecting them. However, I can see the point that you are making as well since I was unable to see this opposing side of the debate. Aside from this controversial example, I would like to inquire whether a secondary source counter-citation is the only way to approach a counter-edit justification? Could I cite a Wikipedia page like "Correlation does not imply causation" or WP:MEDRS or any medical edit framework as a counter-edit justification for edits that is harder to find a secondary source citation for? Trit6611 (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll put this scenario forward. A 17 y.o. athlete complains about elbow pain getting worse. Says it makes playing racquet sports impossible/unpleasant. Goes into the doctor's office, and complains about having "tennis elbow or something".

Would either the teenager (or people from their entourage) or the physician be served by knowing that osteochondritis dissecans looks a lot like tennis elbow? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello Headbomb,

Yes that completely makes sense. There is definitely multiple point of views to this example so I apologize for using such a debatable example. However, my main goal of making this thread is to inquire whether a secondary source counter-citation is the only way to approach a counter-edit justification? Could I cite a Wikipedia page like "Correlation does not imply causation" or WP:MEDRS or any medical edit framework as a counter-edit justification for edits that is harder to find a secondary source citation for? Could I please get some guidance on this? Trit6611 (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

This particular example could be addressed by adding information: tennis elbow can happen in kids but is mostly seen in middle-age adults; OD is mostly seen in preteens and teens.

Another approach to articles is to re-write sections completely. I re-did a section in COVID-19 vaccine last week. You can see from the diff that I kept some and replaced or removed some, but the overall goal was to re-write the whole thing, and not specifically to keep or remove any particular sentence or source. I'm pretty happy with the way it turned out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello @WhatamIdoing,

Thank you for your mediation and suggestion. I wanted to clarify something from your statement. If I had a whole goal of rewriting a section, I would not have to find a source to justify the rewriting of material supported by a source or does all sourced material have to remain unchanged in the rewriting process? Trit6611 (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. I'd come back to this page because I realized (I thought) I hadn't made the connection clear, but you picked up on what I meant. Re-writing sections is generally a good thing, and when you re-write, it sometimes turns out that not everything belongs (and/or that missing things need to be added).

If you need some WP:SHORTCUTS to sling around in a discussion, then the main ones are WP:DUE and WP:BALASP. It is possible for something to be fully verifiable, MEDRS-compliant, and even uncontestably true – and just not relevant or important enough to mention in that article/section/paragraph.

The other thing I'd suggest that you keep in mind is: If you re-write and someone crams their favorite factoid back in ...let it go. Sometimes the relevance isn't obvious but it is actually appropriate; sometimes it's just somebody's favorite thing and not worth a fight (unless it's really horrible, in which case, you can ask for help here). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing,

Thank you very much for your help and guidance! I truly appreciate it! It made this process a lot clearer and easier for me!

Best, Trit6611 (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Rename article Gallium 68 PSMA-11

I proposed a rename of Gallium 68 PSMA-11 to Gallium Ga 68 gozetotide to use the INN instead of the brand name. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

[1] Chang, CL; Chiu, NC; Ho, CS; Li, ST (August 2006). "Frontal horn cysts in normal neonates". Brain & Development. 28 (7): 426–30. doi:10.1016/j.braindev.2006.01.002. PMC 7125929. PMID 16503391.

[1]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 159

Pooling study on low carb diets

Tubular carcinoma

FA Review: Hippocrates

Need a particular E-book on infectious disease surveillance

Vaccines at Wikidata

Rockefeller University edits

See also sections

Families USA COI edit requests

Connatal cyst

UK Biobank study on meat

Sourcing discussion in village pump: "In general, are animal and in vitro studies acceptable sources to support toxicology statements?"

"Wikipedia:PCM" listed at Redirects for discussion

Suicide in Guyana

Tumeric and black pepper for COVID-related anosmia?

Macfarlane Burnet Featured article review

Relevant discussion: How should we include allegations of China undercounting COVID-19 cases and deaths

AK-47 (cannabis)

Tobacco product pages

Disagreement at Talk:Artemisinin

MED Welcome and other project templates targeted by Unused templates task force

MEDRS double check request for Bisphenol A

Elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor

Capitalization in tooltips in med templates

Flavan-3-ol has an RFC

Requested move at Talk:Magnesium sulfate (medical use)#Requested move 28 March 2022

Request to Proofread Edits

Two orphans

Can these multiple sources be used directly in articles?

Added two articles on climate change and health to WikiProject Medicine

Requested move at Talk:Stephen Hahn (oncologist)#Requested move 16 March 2022

Rice water

Off-wiki discussion of Posttraumatic embitterment disorder

Suitable placement of resistance section?

NeuroAiD

Article assessment help

Crystal-storing Histiocytosis

Source Clarification

Deaths due to detox

Performance-enhancing substance Article Contributions

Congenital bronchial atresia

Health effects of Ramadan fasting

Is this "statistically significant" or significant meaning "strong"?

PTI-609

CDC or academic peer-reviewed journals

Phenol sulfur transferase deficiency

WP:MEDRS vs biomed research: citing of primary sources on medical topic pages.

Radiation_hormesis#Effects_of_cobalt-60_exposure

Some medical articles with suspect licensing history

Termination for medical reasons

Wiley journals now available at TWL

Template for medical articles on conditions that may require immediate treatment?

No simufilam article

"Références" on and for French Neuro-oncologie article

The page on ALLO-715 May Need Your Attention

Update all pages to the new version of the 'Terminologia Anatomica' (TA2-2019)

Heat stroke

Template deletion discussion

Changes to articles on Factor Xa, thromboplastin, and new article on thrombokinase

Research result on biochemical SIDS marker — posted in Talk for the SIDS article

GHK-Cu

Wikipedia Library access

Category:Medical conditions with no known cure

Sourcing on effectiveness of Standard Days Method

COVID-19 vaccine side effects AfD

WikiProject Current events 2022 monkeypox outbreak task force

Please see

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter

Language question

Are you burned out yet?

MEDRS and current affairs

Eye Disease article

Are there organizational/foundational principles or medical framework that could be used to support removal of misinformation "supported" by a citation?

Rename article Gallium 68 PSMA-11

Navigation menu

Search