Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 20

This page 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.

Doc James nominated for adminship

Doc James is running for adminship, so cast your vote to support, oppose or be neutral, if you are interested. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to all those who voted and clarified issue involving my edit history.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Subcats of Category:People by medical or psychological condition

In looking at the contents of Category:People by medical or psychological condition, is there a method to the madness (pun intended :) of the naming of the subcategories? There are "People diagnosed with Foo", "People with Foo", "Foo people", "Fooers", "Foo patients". Comments on a consistent naming style are welcomed. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not able to speak for the group, but I am much more interested in the diseases / conditions and consider those affected ( beyond one or two historical significant cases ) trivia. We could have people affected by the common cold but the list would include everyone. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Image correction?

I think File:Scrotal epidermoid cysts.jpg may be a photo of idiopathic scrotal calcinosis, NOT epidermoid cysts. You can see here for additional examples of idiopathic scrotal calcinosis. If the community agrees, perhaps someone could rename the file and add it to the correct article? ---kilbad (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

And here are pictures of scrotal epidermoid cysts per google [1]. They appear to look remarkably similar. I guess the deciding factor would be if they are solid of fluid filled? This however is beyond my experience. Have emailed the user. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Medical sounds

I have a new stethoscope a Lippmann 3200 which can record. Here is my first uploaded sound. I still have some playing around to do to improve sound quality.

Normal heart sounds

Problems playing this file? See media help.

Wondering how best we wish to format these?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Citing an entire journal

I would like to cite the entire issue of a journal, specifically, this journal issue. Could someone help me with this? Thanks in advance! ---kilbad (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not usually recommended to cite a whole book since it is hard to verify the info it supports, thus the need of saying the specific pages. I would say that similarly it is not a good idea to cite a whole issue: I would cite the specific article or articles supporting your claim and if you want to point that there is a whole issue on a related theme put it in the further reading section of the article as an external link. Citing a whole issue is most probably too general.--Garrondo (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, although I can see some uses. Why exactly do you need to cite the whole issue?

For 5-HT3 antagonist, I used the following format for a similar citation: See Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1989; 25 Suppl 1. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I want to put it in a further reading section. ---kilbad (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

dashes

I just moved Frank-Starling law of the heart (with a hyphen rather than a dash) to Frank–Starling law of the heart (with a dash). Then, as always, I clicked on "what links here". I fixed the double redirects. I found a huge number of articles linking to the incorrect (i.e. former) title and very few to the title with the dash. I have long suspected that there are some subject-matter communities within Wikipedia that this particular standard hasn't reached yet, even today. (See WP:MOS on dashes and hyphens. Dashes are used in ranges of numbers including years, pages, etc., and in contexts like the title of this article, and also for parenthetical offsets. Hyphens are to be used in certain other kinds of contexts.) The lopsided results on "what links here" make me suspect what one of those communities is. Could others help fix those links? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Many of the links arise from from Template:Cardiovascular physiology - just fixing that now. --RexxS (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

When you click on "what links here", I think links arising from templates may not be up to date until maybe about 24 hours later. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach Test (2010)

The RFC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach Test (2010) has been filed concerning "Is publishing the Rorschach test images and responses in keeping with Wikipedia's long-term mission and purpose? Does doing so make the article more useful or less useful? What do sources tell us?". Your input is solicited. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Buerger's Image

Forgive my errors I'm new at this. I'm not even sure if this is the correct place to post this, if it is wrong please direct me and I'll repost. Thanks. I was looking at the image in the Beurger's Disease page and I'm not sure it is relevant to the disease. If it is relevant, there should be some text that explains why it is relevant. Don't get me wrong, it's a terrific image, I just don't see what it has to do with that disease. I don't want to delete it without some other opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bstrockb (talk • contribs) 21:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It shows complete occlusion of the right and stenosis of the left femoral artery which can occur in Buerger's disease as described in the text. It could do with a better caption. --WS (talk) 09:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

ALS and NYT

In a classic example of why we need WP:MEDRS, the NYT gets it all wrong, and editors are inserting misinfo at ALS-- more eyes needed at Talk:Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis#Misdiagnosis of some traumatic brain injury as ALS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Similar occurring of course at Lou Gehrig. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes why it is always best to go most of the way to the source and reference a review article... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This is such a great example, that perhaps we should reference it at WP:MEDRS to illustrate why we don't trust even pubications like The New York Times to get medical info correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oddly, while PubMed still shows PMID 20720505 as an epub ahead of print, the authors listed include all but one author of a related 2009 review PMID 19535999 with the exception being Santini VE. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, perhaps you could weigh in at Talk:Statin, where the reliability of newspaper journalism is under discussion. JFW | T@lk 19:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be more than welcome. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

HIV exceptionalism

There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HIV exceptionalism about what to do with the stub HIV exceptionalism. I think it would benefit from the involvement of people who know more than I do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a fairly limited subset, and one that I'm not sure I belong to, but I will take a look anyway. :) MastCell ^Talk 19:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Bolognia Push update

We have made a lot of progress with the Bolognia Push, and I want to thank all of you who have contributed. I completed the letter "M" today, and suspect we are over halfway done. However, we still need more help! If you are interested in this effort, and would like to help with a letter, please contact me for details. ---kilbad (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Great project, hadn't noticed it before. Perhaps also a good moment to point out some of the other lists with missing articles: diseases, cancer dictionary, genome glossary and books on the history of medicine. --WS (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

'disease' vs 'defect'

Hi, I've noticed a bit of vagueness and confusion between articles dealing with diseases and those dealing with congenital defects. I'm wondering if there's any consensus on whether a disease generally means something acquired after birth and a defect is something someone is born with? Particularly in reference to the heart-related articles. Thanks very much.--TyrS (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is consensus here. A defect is a chemical or physical abnormality that may or may not cause any particular symptoms, while the disease may be caused by such a defect but is almost by definition symptomatic. Cleft palate, for instance, is regarded as a defect. An atrial septum defect is often asymptomatic. Then there is "syndrome", which is another story. JFW | T@lk 19:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we find any source at all for that? I'd like to expand Disease#Terminology. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"Disease is the aggregate of those conditions which, judged by the prevailing culture, are deemed painful, or disabling, and which, at the same time, deviate from either the statistical norm or from some idealized status." This is from: King, L.S. What Is Disease? Philosophy of Science 21, 193-203 (1954). It was an interesting read on how our values shape what the idealized state is, for example foot binding in China or seers with hallucinations being regarded as prized members of society. But I agree, there is no "real" definition and the concept of disease is debated. Defect on the other hand would probably be the latter half of the disease and would therefore be less specific than disease and perhaps therefore less ethereal: a deviation from the statistical norm or from some idealized status. Give me your email on my talkpage if you want a copy of the article. Kallimachus (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Check it out...

User:Anomie has created an automatically updating graph of dermatology-related artlce and redirect creation. I think it is very cool and wanted to show off his work. ---kilbad (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice! Wonder what caused the jump? Kallimachus (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Gee, could it be this? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to edit

A little while ago I started this project page but have been too busy to do anything with it. I've been thinking about it though, and now have some time, so would like to run a trial. The plan at present is to run it over 20 diverse articles, but it's become clear to me that the "mini-tutorial" needs to be tailored to the article type (medical, BLP, etc). I've asked for someone with BLP experience to adapt a mini-tutorial for that genre, but no one has yet. What I'd like to do is run a 1 month trial on 20 medical articles. Your thoughts would be appreciated at the proposal's talk page. Anthony (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for a list of the medical articles most frequently edited by new users at Database reports, and they have asked for a list of medical articles. Is there such a list? Anthony (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no list, because it would be enormous, but you can get an idea by looking at the table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment#Statistics. 10,000 stubs anyone? JFW | T@lk 19:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have pointed MZMcBride at Database reports to that page to see if he can work from it. Anthony (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

MZMcBride provided the number of unique IP editors for the last 12 months for the C, B, GA, and FA class articles on that page, and I have proposed a list of 20 to trial Wikipedia:Invitation to edit at the project's talk page. Anthony (talk) 09:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There is this page.—Wavelength (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Synonyms

I can verify that the following terms are synonymous: Acrodynia, Calomel disease, Erythredemic polyneuropathy, Pink disease. However, are they synonymous with mercury poisoning, the article they currently redirect to? ---kilbad (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen this article? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is another reference. I think that doubt arose because of the delay between the "epidemic" of pink disease and the much later recognition of the causative factor. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Viewing recent changes to certain articles types

Anyway to view recent changes to all GAs / FAs within our project? Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:FA-Class medicine articles and Category:GA-Class medicine articles. — MrDolomite • Talk 19:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I was more thinking of something like this [2] but limited to GAs and FAs.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggested here. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have built on work by WAID and created this User:Jmh649/Medical GAs with links behind each to the revision history.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Naming convention

We are having a debate about naming here at Talk:Crab louse. The article is about Pediculosis pubis to which I attempted to move it however have been reverted three times now. Outside input would be appreciated. Here is our guideline [3].Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

A vote on if we should keep "pending changes" is going on here [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

On my mind

Two thoughts:

Syphilis has been semi-protected since May, and it's been great. We used to be reverting libelous vandalism frequently, and there's only been one bit of (non-libelous) vandalism since then.
I've proposed an WP:Editnotice at Talk:Bedbug. If you've got an article with a recurring, subject-specific "problem" from good-faith newbies, then a brief edit notice might be a useful educational tool. I doubt that it would be helpful for vandalism, but it could educate new editors about how-to issues, the value of sources, charity spam, fringe views, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Almost everything related to sex gets endless vandalism thus most of these pages need semi protection.

I created on feedback template here which I use frequently.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, that's a great idea. Would you mind if I had a go at polishing the text a little? I'd like to see this gain widespread use. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes feel free. We should create a few. Maybe one for people who try to add HOWTOINFO.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Medical GAs

We have had a couple of GA that have been degraded over time, Concussion and Traumatic brain injury. I have reverted the changes which have occurred over the last few months. June 17th a bunch of stuff was removed [5] and not reverted. It was replaced by a different IP with less good content [6] This would be a GREAT use for flagged revisions. All GA/FA in this project IMO should be either under flagged revisions or semi protection. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone get hold of Delldot the great! JFW | T@lk 21:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the reasons I am generous with semiprotection...Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes we seriously need "pending changes" for this project. A vote to keep it or not is currently ongoing.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

September collaboration of the month: Asthma!

Asthma has been chosen as the collaboration of the month in September. A former featured article, which has recently been reviewed by one of the Google reviewers, and there is a long list of potential improvements on the talk page. Any help is appreciated! --WS (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes will join in tonight.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but as luck would have it the next month is going to be mayhem. JFW | T@lk 22:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hospital articles

I've noticed that there are many hospitals that are at least somewhat notable (no less than high schools) that are either not covered in the encyclopedia, or we only have stubs on, and I'm contemplating as to whether it would be more appropriate to start a task force within Wikiproject Medicine or to create a WikiProject from scratch. We find the facilities notable enough to compile lists such as List of hospitals in Florida, yet many well known trauma centers are covered only by stubs as with Allegheny General Hospital and Bayfront Medical Center, and many only have redlinks like Lee Memorial Hospital and Lakeland Regional Medical Center. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

We here mostly work on disease content. If you feel strongly though about moving this forwards feel free. Not sure how much help you need / will get?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If you did want to go ahead with it, you might consider a new task force at [[./Task forces]]. I can see some basic notability discussion would be worth having in any case. I think you'll find virtually any teaching hospital will be easy to support, though for sheer interest factor I'd want to focus on the oldest (for history, e.g. Guy's Hospital) and on the obscure (e.g. isolated third-world hospitals). Large, first-world urban hospitals have a certain sameness about them. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Category rename

I am proposing a fairly straightforward category rename; however, I wanted to post a link to it here so the thread did not get overlooked. If you have a moment, perhaps you could briefly comment there? Thanks in advance. ---kilbad (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This is eligible for speedy renaming under CSD C2c. I'll do it, no need for discussion. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Eye neoplasm - incorrect article title?

The article is currently at Eye neoplasm. The first words in the article which is normally the title are ocular oncology. Eye cancer is also in the lead and is probably the most common laymans term. This article should probably be moved to ocular oncology, eye cancer or ocular cancer. Eye neoplasm does not appear in the article at all! Exxolon (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

ICD 10 term is Neoplasm of eye and adnexa thus suggest we move it to that.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Anything wrong with eye tumour? JFW | T@lk 13:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking for free dermatology-related review articles you like

I am looking for citations of any and all free dermatology-related review articles that you like. I do know how to search pubmed, but specifically want to know what you all are reading. I ask because I am looking to expand the further reading section on a few wikipedia articles. Post any citations here and I will check them out. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance! ---kilbad (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Injection (medicine)

Can anyone think of a better lead image? I don't think this was the best choice (and I'm not even sure it was an injection—looks like a phlebotomy/venipuncture). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, much better. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 16:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There is this one. The angle might be a bit better for a thumbnail.--DO11.10 (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, well, well... who do we have here? I haven't heard your squeaking in a while, Ms. transgenic mouse ;) That does look better as a thumbnail.

By the way, I believe I owe you something. Check your inbox. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding pending changes to ALL GAs and FAs

The first trial of PCs has ending with greater than 65% supporting it continued use. What do people think about using PC on all GAs and FAs? This would help use keep an eye on this content and thus keep its quality high. Unless people have objections I would be happy to add them.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the applicability of pending changes overlaps exactly with that of semi-protection, so it cannot be used preemptively. A change like this requires wider discussion. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is what I am hoping we can have here. As GAs and FAs are some what peer reviewed to keep them sort of peer reviewed requires a system like PC. Now as not everyone is convinced PC is a good thing I think running a trial on the 100 GA would be useful. Do nothing to 50 and add PC to 50 than tabulated the affects after 1 month.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to propose a trial to determine the effectiveness of PC. Would appreciate feedback on the design here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this should solely be discussed and decided upon here. If you want to make a formal proposal for a large project such as this then I'd recommend putting it forward at the Village Pump. If you want to discuss it first, I suppose you could get some basic ideas here and then put it forward at the Idea Lab. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 16:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been proposed on the pending changes page as a trial to develop quantitative results regarding the effectiveness of PC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not support blanket application of "Pending changes" to GAs & FAs. The "Pending changes" system is supposed to reduce vandalism on frequently attacked articles. If an editor thinks that a specific article is such a candidate, it should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Otherwise, anonymous IPs and newly-registered editors would not be able to view their edits, and might be discouraged from contributing. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It is unfortunate to find vandalism of many months duration in some of our best articles. We need some mechanism to make watching all the GAs and FAs easier.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes has been kept. Should we have a discussion regarding what type of pages we wish to apply it too? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding template

This user [8] has added this template to many many articles.

What do people think? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Doc, I am not a spambot and although I disagree that I did this to "way too many articles" (they are all disability-related), I will follow your directive until directed otherwise by WP:MED. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Huh. Well, I'd have expected such a template to be around already, but apparently it's new. The only problem here is size—it's much too wide. (The wording could also be improved, e.g. "Inclusion · Freak show" sort of jumps out at you—and not in a good way). At any rate, this appears to have been added with the best of intentions, and it's basically a very good idea. I'd support its inclusion (no pun intended) after some polishing—I wouldn't view this as spam. A horizontal navbox version may also be a good idea (not as a replacement but an alternative). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes,I do not consider it spam just inappropriately placed and formatted. It should IMO be placed at the bottom of the page in a horizontal fashion similar to other such templates. It is definitely needed I agree so kudos for creating it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A normal-sized horizontal template at the bottom of articles would work, but this enormous vertical template is unsightly in the leads of articles and doesn't conform with WP:LEAD on all articles it's being placed at. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A skinnier version (like this) could also work. I'm not entirely against vertical templates (such as the old {{Diabetes}}), as long as they're used with caution. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I like the version by this guy. I encourage anyone with the energy (probably not me) to incorporate that version into disability-related articles, including the ones to which I added the original that I made. And YES this Disability Template should have long ago existed. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE DISABLED, WORLD. WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN!!! ;) Kikodawgzzz (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A vertical template isn't appropriate everywhere it's being added, like at Multiple sclerosis, a featured article. The lead should be a summary of the article and contain an image relevant to the article or, in place of an image, a template related tightly to the topic of MS specifically-- not a big template with links marginally related to MS. This would be appropriate as a horizontal collapsed table at the bottom of MS, but not as a vertical template in the lead. It might be an appropriate vertical template in other articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Just as an example, Paralympic Games could have a footer (horizontal navbox) and articles such as Inclusion (disability rights) could have {{Disability}} in lieu of a lead image. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) There should really be a central place to discuss such templates, whether they should be used at all, what they should look like, etc. Is there such a place? The most annoying one, because of its gawdy appearance, is Template:Labor IMO. --Hordaland (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all the above comments. Hordaland: I think Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates would be the place for discussion. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Good advice! They've just been discussing this sort of thing over there. I've now read Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates where categories and lists are covered pretty well, including their advantages and disadvantages. The section on navboxes/templates is poorer, but I believe the Disability Project should stick to lists, see also or possibly a horizontal navbox at the bottom of articles, if for this reason alone: "If the navigation template appears prominently in the top-right corner of articles (...), the collection of articles should be fairly tightly related...." It also says "The subject of the template [Disability] should be mentioned in every article."

I agree with SandyGeorgia and Fvasconcellos above. --Hordaland (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with H above except that "see also" sections are discouraged by WP:MEDMOS. Ideally the significance of the disability should be described in the text either in the "prognosis" or "signs and symptoms" sections.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines in this area are already clear enough; horizontal navigational templates at the bottom of the page are more appropriate. Imagine the mess we would have in leads of articles if every editor wanting to add every remotely related template to the lead did so-- the lead would be longer than the article. Unless the template is specifically the topic of the article, or is used in place of the lead image, these templates should be horizontal and added to the bottom-- please stop adding it to Multiple sclerosis. There are too many potentially related templates to add them all to the lead, and this templates is not integral to the MS topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this template should be in the form of a horizontal navigational template at the bottom of articles. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 12:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, I responded to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates comments by Hordaland and Noleander thus: I am the creator of the Disability template and I can tell you that my adding of it to distinctly disability-related articles does mean that the adding is anything but indiscriminate. I do agree with both of you that there should definitely be a central location at which to discuss the appropriateness or inappropriateness of templates — it would make life for Wikipedians a whole lot easier, including myself. For instance, I have had zero idea of whether to paste it into just articles that refer strictly to disability culture and organizations, or whether to also paste it into articles about conditions that are widely recognized by humanity to be definitive disabilities, such as cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis and muscular dystrophy. So I've largely done both. That does not mean my major "tagging" job has been indiscriminate or that I am trying to make trouble by defending my case. I just wish that this could all remain open to discussion by as many different people as possible, and I also hope that mass reverts won't occur in an effort to purge most of these without discussions as to their appropriateness within each individual article's Talk page (for the most part anyhow). Lastly, again, I hope that some kind of discussion area for the specific guidelines' for sidebars could be started, or better yet, an official Wikipedia page detailing a policy on them. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a good example of the problem; three templates-- only one directly related-- added to the lead of an article. Where does it end? Templates will become longer than the article-- the marginally related templates belong at the bottom of the article, as horizontal navigational templates. This problem has an easy fix-- design a horizontal template that complements the vertical one, and use them depending on the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If you insist on putting this template in the lead section of articles, please make it auto-collapse by default, for screen reader users like myself. I would have no problem with a disability template at the bottom of the page that is initially collapsed. Graham87 14:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem with navigation boxes is that they have a tendency to replicate but flatten our hierarchical category scheme. So unless you have a set of articles that all naturally fit at the same level in some grouping hierarchy (or can be neatly grouped within the box), it doesn't work. This looks like a fairly limited and loose collection of topics related to disability. I wonder if our reader is better served simply by reading our articles on disability and following the hyperlinks to topics that interest them. I'm pretty strongly opposed to the box as it stands and would only accept a horizontal box on explicitly disability-related topics that are included in any such box. BTW: cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis and muscular dystrophy are not disabilities, they are medical conditions that cause disability. The difference is important. Colin°^Talk 14:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
FYI. Never having made a navbox before, I've a suggestion for a horizontal one (presently) at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability. --Hordaland (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Colin about the difference between a disease and a disability, and I generally oppose adding this type of template to articles about medical conditions. Many people with MS, for example, do not consider themselves to be disabled. (These are not the sort of MS patients that one sees on television.) One rule of thumb to consider: If the article doesn't contain at least one section primarily about disabilities (e.g., a section whose heading contains the word 'disabilities'), then this template is probably inappropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Synonyms

(1) Are Adrenocortical carcinoma and Adrenal carcinoma synonymous? (2) Are Adrenal hyperplasia and Congenital adrenal hyperplasia synonymous? If not, should adrenal carcinoma and/or adrenal hyperplasia have its own stub? ---kilbad (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

1) Yes, these are synonyms, as medullary tumours of the adrenals are invariably phaeochromocytomas.

2) No, adrenal hyperplasia is not always congenital. JFW | T@lk 22:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Eyes on Haloperidol

I think this page may need to be checked for some misleading OR, so it would be good if some more editors could take a look at it. Please see fuller discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology#Haloperidol article kind of written like a conspiracy theory. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:MEDRS

See Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Academic and media sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Oncology related articles

Confusing variety of related articles... do we need separate articles for oncogenesis and carcinogenesis? Are the definitions given in the article leads of those 2 generally agreed upon? Neither looks quite right to me.

The caretaker gene article could use some love. Richiez (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have a single source that gives clean basic and distinct definitions of carcinogenesis and oncogenesis? Otherwise I would strongly suggest to treat them as synonyms and merge the 2 articles... and possibly more. Richiez (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent controversial edits

Unreliable chiropractic literature failed RS

Note: Please see discussion at Talk:Chiropractic#Recent controversial edits under the appropriate sections before commenting on the reliability of the references.

This sourced sentence was deleted from the Effectiveness section: "A 2010 systematic review found there is no good evidence to assume that chiropractic neck manipulation is effective for any medical condition.<ref name=Ernst-death/>"

Without explanation for the second time an editor removed the above sentence, added duplicate material about risk-benefit that is from the Risk-benefit section, and added an unreliable source from ChiroACCESS. This unreliable article is not a response from a peer-reviewed journal or from an expert researcher on the subject of chiropractic.

Trying to "balance" Ernst's study like this is not good editing: "A 2010 review by Edzard Ernst focusing on deaths after chiropractic care stated that the risks of spinal manipulation "far outweigh its benefit".[23] The study received criticism in chiropractic literature, with one review calling it "blatantly misleading", citing a lack of risk-benefit analysis and the inclusion of deaths that were not related to chiropractic care.[114]" We shouldn't juxtapose peer reviewed literature with the opinions of chiropracters or chiropractic promotional articles. Of course chiropracters won't like a study that says that their practice may not be so safe. The reference is not even peer-reviewed or from a journal. References like this were removed a long time ago from this article. They were replaced with peer-reviewed literature per WP:MEDASSESS. Chiroaccess cannot possibly be considered a reliable source, and not even for the opinions of the author of the article, because they don't meet WP:SPS. See Talk:Chiropractic#Unreliable chiropractic literature failed RS. QuackGuru (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable references against MEDRS

The extensive recent literature from reliable references currently used in the Chiropractic page supports the fact that there has been progress in terms of research per MEDRS.

Clin J Pain. 2006 Mar-Apr;22(3):278-85.

Are manual therapies effective in reducing pain from tension-type headache?: a systematic review. Fernández-de-Las-Peñas C, Alonso-Blanco C, Cuadrado ML, Miangolarra JC, Barriga FJ, Pareja JA.

Department of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (URJC), Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain. cesarfdlp@yahoo.es

Abstract OBJECTIVES: A systematic review was performed to establish whether manual therapies have specific efficacy in reducing pain from tension-type headache (TTH).

METHODS: Computerized literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, MANTIS, CINAHL, PEDro, and Cochrane databases. Papers were included if they described clinical (open noncontrolled studies) or randomized controlled trials in which any form of manual therapy was used for TTH, and if they were published after 1994 in the English language. The methodologic quality of the trials was assessed using the PEDro scale. Levels of scientific evidence, based on the quality and the outcomes of the studies, were established for each manual therapy: strong, moderate, limited, and inconclusive evidence.

RESULTS: Only six studies met the inclusion criteria. These trials evaluated different manual therapy modalities: spinal manipulation (three trials), classic massage (one trial), connective tissue manipulation (two trials), soft tissue massage (one trial), Dr. Cyriax's vertebral mobilization (one trial), manual traction (one trial), and CV-4 craniosacral technique (one trial). Methodologic PEDro quality scores ranged from 2 to 8 points out of a theoretical maximum of 10 points (mean=5.8+/-2.1). Analysis of the quality and the outcomes of all trials did not provide rigorous evidence that manual therapies have a positive effect in reducing pain from TTH: spinal manipulative therapy showed inconclusive evidence of effectiveness (level 4), whereas soft tissue techniques showed limited evidence (level 3).

CONCLUSIONS: The authors found no rigorous evidence that manual therapies have a positive effect in the evolution of TTH. The most urgent need for further research is to establish the efficacy beyond placebo of the different manual therapies currently applied in patients with TTH.

The text "A 2006 review found no rigorous evidence supporting SM or other manual therapies for tension headache." is supported by Fernández-de-las-Peñas C, Alonso-Blanco C, Cuadrado ML, Miangolarra JC, Barriga FJ, Pareja JA (2006). "Are manual therapies effective in reducing pain from tension-type headache?: a systematic review". Clin J Pain. 22 (3): 278–85. doi:10.1097/01.ajp.0000173017.64741.86. PMID 16514329.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Headache. 2005 Jun;45(6):738-46.

Physical treatments for headache: a structured review. Biondi DM.

Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Primary headache disorders, especially migraine, are commonly accompanied by neck pain or other symptoms. Because of this, physical therapy (PT) and other physical treatments are often prescribed. This review updates and synthesizes published clinical trial evidence, systematic reviews, and case series regarding the efficacy of selected physical modalities in the treatment of primary headache disorders.

METHODS: The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE), The Cochrane Library, and other sources of information were searched through June 2004 to identify clinical studies, systematic reviews, case series, or other information published in English that assessed the treatment of headache or migraine with chiropractic, osteopathic, PT, or massage interventions.

RESULTS: PT is more effective than massage therapy or acupuncture for the treatment of TTH and appears to be most beneficial for patients with a high frequency of headache episodes. PT is most effective for the treatment of migraine when combined with other treatments such as thermal biofeedback, relaxation training, and exercise. Chiropractic manipulation demonstrated a trend toward benefit in the treatment of TTH, but evidence is weak. Chiropractic manipulation is probably more effective in the treatment of tension-type headache (TTH) than it is in the treatment of migraine. Evidence is lacking regarding the efficacy of these treatments in reducing headache frequency, intensity, duration, and disability in many commonly encountered clinical situations. Many of the published case series and controlled studies are of low quality.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Further studies of improved quality are necessary to more firmly establish the place of physical modalities in the treatment of primary headache disorders. With the exception of high velocity chiropractic manipulation of the neck, the treatments are unlikely to be physically dangerous, although the financial costs and lost treatment opportunity by prescribing potentially ineffective treatment may not be insignificant. In the absence of clear evidence regarding their role in treatment, physicians and patients are advised to make cautious and individualized judgments about the utility of physical treatments for headache management; in most cases, the use of these modalities should complement rather than supplant better-validated forms of therapy.

The text "A 2005 review found that the evidence was weak for effectiveness of chiropractic manipulation for tension headache, and that it was probably more effective for tension headache than for migraine." is supported by Biondi DM (2005). "Physical treatments for headache: a structured review". Headache. 45 (6): 738–46. doi:10.1111/j.1526-4610.2005.05141.x. PMID 15953306.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(3):CD001878.

Non-invasive physical treatments for chronic/recurrent headache. Bronfort G, Nilsson N, Haas M, Evans R, Goldsmith CH, Assendelft WJ, Bouter LM.

Wolfe-Harris Center for Clinical Studies, Northwestern Health Sciences University, 2501 W 84th St, Bloomington, MN 55431, USA. gbronfort@nwhealth.edu

Abstract BACKGROUND: Non-invasive physical treatments are often used to treat common types of chronic/recurrent headache.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify and compare the magnitude of short- and long-term effects of non-invasive physical treatments for chronic/recurrent headaches.

SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following databases from their inception to November 2002: MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, CINAHL, Science Citation Index, Dissertation Abstracts, CENTRAL, and the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Pain, Palliative Care and Supportive Care review group. Selected complementary medicine reference systems were searched as well. We also performed citation tracking and hand searching of potentially relevant journals.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing non-invasive physical treatments for chronic/recurrent headaches to any type of control.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers abstracted trial information and scored trials for methodological quality. Outcomes data were standardized into percentage point and effect size scores wherever possible. The strength of the evidence of effectiveness was assessed using pre-specified rules.

MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-two studies with a total of 2628 patients (age 12 to 78 years) met the inclusion criteria. Five types of headache were studied: migraine, tension-type, cervicogenic, a mix of migraine and tension-type, and post-traumatic headache. Ten studies had methodological quality scores of 50 or more (out of a possible 100 points), but many limitations were identified. We were unable to pool data because of study heterogeneity. For the prophylactic treatment of migraine headache, there is evidence that spinal manipulation may be an effective treatment option with a short-term effect similar to that of a commonly used, effective drug (amitriptyline). Other possible treatment options with weaker evidence of effectiveness are pulsating electromagnetic fields and a combination of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation [TENS] and electrical neurotransmitter modulation. For the prophylactic treatment of chronic tension-type headache, amitriptyline is more effective than spinal manipulation during treatment. However, spinal manipulation is superior in the short term after cessation of both treatments. Other possible treatment options with weaker evidence of effectiveness are therapeutic touch; cranial electrotherapy; a combination of TENS and electrical neurotransmitter modulation; and a regimen of auto-massage, TENS, and stretching. For episodic tension-type headache, there is evidence that adding spinal manipulation to massage is not effective. For the prophylactic treatment of cervicogenic headache, there is evidence that both neck exercise (low-intensity endurance training) and spinal manipulation are effective in the short and long term when compared to no treatment. There is also evidence that spinal manipulation is effective in the short term when compared to massage or placebo spinal manipulation, and weaker evidence when compared to spinal mobilization. There is weaker evidence that spinal mobilization is more effective in the short term than cold packs in the treatment of post-traumatic headache.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: A few non-invasive physical treatments may be effective as prophylactic treatments for chronic/recurrent headaches. Based on trial results, these treatments appear to be associated with little risk of serious adverse effects. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of non-invasive physical treatments require further research using scientifically rigorous methods. The heterogeneity of the studies included in this review means that the results of a few additional high-quality trials in the future could easily change the conclusions of our review.

The text "A 2004 review found that SM may be effective for migraine and tension headache, and SM and neck exercises may be effective for cervicogenic headache." is supported by Bronfort G, Nilsson N, Haas M; et al. (2004). "Non-invasive physical treatments for chronic/recurrent headache". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3): CD001878. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001878.pub2. PMID 15266458. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

J R Soc Med. 2006 Apr;99(4):192-6.

A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation. Ernst E, Canter PH.

Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter & Plymouth, 25 Victoria Park Road, Exeter EX2 4NT, UK. Edzard.Ernst@pms.ac.uk

Comment in:

J R Soc Med. 2007 Oct;100(10):444; author reply 447. J R Soc Med. 2006 Jun;99(6):278; author reply 279-80. J R Soc Med. 2006 Jun;99(6):278-9; author reply 279-80. J R Soc Med. 2006 Jun;99(6):277-8, author reply 279-80. J R Soc Med. 2006 Jun;99(6):277; author reply 279-80.

Abstract OBJECTIVES: To systematically collate and evaluate the evidence from recent systematic reviews of clinical trials of spinal manipulation.

DESIGN: Literature searches were carried out in four electronic databases for all systematic reviews of the effectiveness of spinal manipulation in any indication, published between 2000 and May 2005. Reviews were defined as systematic if they included an explicit and repeatable inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies.

RESULTS: Sixteen papers were included relating to the following conditions: back pain (n=3), neck pain (n=2), lower back pain and neck pain (n=1), headache (n=3), non-spinal pain (n=1), primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea (n=1), infantile colic (n=1), asthma (n=1), allergy (n=1), cervicogenic dizziness (n=1), and any medical problem (n=1). The conclusions of these reviews were largely negative, except for back pain where spinal manipulation was considered superior to sham manipulation but not better than conventional treatments.

CONCLUSIONS: Collectively these data do not demonstrate that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for any condition. Given the possibility of adverse effects, this review does not suggest that spinal manipulation is a recommendable treatment.

The text "Two other systematic reviews published between 2000 and May 2005 did not find conclusive evidence in favor of SM." is supported by Ernst E, Canter PH (2006). "A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation". J R Soc Med. 99 (4): 192–6. doi:10.1258/jrsm.99.4.192. PMC 1420782. PMID 16574972. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

Newer references and text from Chiropractic#Effectiveness under Headache:

"A 2006 review found no rigorous evidence supporting SM or other manual therapies for tension headache.[131] A 2005 review found that the evidence was weak for effectiveness of chiropractic manipulation for tension headache, and that it was probably more effective for tension headache than for migraine.[132] A 2004 review found that SM may be effective for migraine and tension headache, and SM and neck exercises may be effective for cervicogenic headache.[133] Two other systematic reviews published between 2000 and May 2005 did not find conclusive evidence in favor of SM.[108]"

This edit added more unreliable references. References from 1978 are not reliable because we have newer sources currently used in the article. These old references do not pass Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Use up-to-date evidence.

Per MEDRS: * Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years. The range of reviews examined should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies.

Per MEDRS: "These guidelines are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews, and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made and few reviews are being published".

We should not relax the reference selection because there are currently plenty of sources on the topic of hand. There has not been little progress and there has not been a few reviews being published. In fact, there has been a lot of progress and there has been more than a few reviews on the topic. MEDRS is not a policy but for alternative medicine articles like Chiropractic editors have followed MEDRS.

Using dated unreliable references to argue against much newer high quality references like the 2004 Cochrane Database Syst Rev is against MEDRS. See Talk:Chiropractic#Unreliable references against MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes reviewed the situation and agree with your interpretation. All health care questions need to follow WP:MEDRS even alternative medicine.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Cephalexin?

A bit of a war brewing between myself and an IP over at Talk:Cefalexin. Apparently, the user is confused by the fact that the Australian and U.S. spelling are the same, while the INN (and new UK spelling) differ. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Move the article to ce(fǀph)alexin. That will make everyone happy. At least, everyone who understands regular expressions. :P OK, I will try to have some helpful input now. MastCell ^Talk 21:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Short Course Immune Induction

While rummaging through Google to see if Short Course Immune Induction Therapy was properly hyphenated and capitalized, I discovered that the only uses of the term seem to be wikimirrors and other content scrapers. The article (such as it is) does seem to be well-referenced, although a brief glance through some of the abstracts of the references doesn't reveal very much that's prima facie pertinent to the topic. All in all, this feels more like a literature review, possibly a violation of WP:SYNTH -- but then, this isn't my field. Any opinions on whether there's something salvageable here? DS (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes definitely needs to be rewritten along the lines of Wikipedia usual style.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The concept appears to have been invented (perhaps a poor choice of words on my part) by Tolera Therapeutics. I am not familiar with the term and can't find any evidence to suggest it is an established practice. WP:AFD, anyone? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes the term does not get a single google scholar hit when in quotes. Immune induction therapy or Immunotherapy however has many reviews and scholar hits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

On further investigation the first reference does not support the existence of this concept. ie failed WP:V Therefore Proded.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the term "Short course immune induction therapy" does not have reliable sources. However some of the content of the article could be salvaged; perhaps you would consider merging the content into "Immunotherapy"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Medline linking

I have only be able to figure out how to link medline encyclopedia articles in the disease box. Is it possible to link other content such as this page on bed bugs [9]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The {{Infobox disease}} is designed to take a parameter '| MedlinePlus =' because it's a common requirement. On the other hand, Bedbugs uses the {{Taxobox}} template, a hugely complex template that is already up against Wikipedia:Template limits (see Template talk:Taxobox). I'm not hopeful that any suggestion to add further parameters to it would meet with much support. The simplest suggestion I can make would be to include an entry in Further reading or External links to articles such as Bedbugs, using a {{Cite web}} template without ref tags:

"Bed bugs". MedlinePlus. U.S. National Library of Medicine. Retrieved 15 September 2010.

It's not much help, James, but it's the best I can come up with. --RexxS (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

We have {{MedlinePlusEncyclopedia}}, as well as some other templates for Medline sections (see Category:Medical external link templates), additional standardised tools to other parts of Medline can always be created if a need. David Ruben ^Talk 21:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

RSN query

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sources for nutrition issue: Monosodium glutamate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Laetrile and amygdalin

Ernst_T._Krebs could probably use some attention from editors here. It's a NPOV and MEDRS nightmare. Yobol (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't really get involved with editing about people. The biography project might get you more of a response.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I will look at it. This looks like the usual pattern: editor cannot get his way on one article, so they move on to a related biography and turn it into a WP:COATRACK. The recent history of our laetrile article supports the first half of this pattern. MastCell ^Talk 06:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Advice on ambiguous classification in template?

Noticed that in Template:Diseases of the breast duct ectasia is classified as benign mammary dysplasia aka fibrocystic disease. In the literature duct ectasia is used as

synonym or subclass of non-puerperal mastitis
synonym to mastalgia or fibrocystic disease
the original meaning of duct ectasia

How should that be handled in a template? Richiez (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal carcinogenesis and oncogenesis

Please discuss here. Richiez (talk) 11:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge away... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

So the name of resulting page is the only question left, any more opinions? Carcinogenesis seems more common, otoh may induce the wrong association of dealing with carcinoma and not other types of cancers. Oncogenesis has a cleaner etymology (and could induce wrong associations only for those fluent in greek:) Richiez (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

MedFriendly

This site has questionable notability at this point. Have tagged it with numerous issues. Two editors however keeps removing these tags and adding this site as an external link [10] and [11]. Comments? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Cough, splutter - Spam! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 23:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree and tried to PROD it. Now up for AFD.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Radioactive tracer

This article has been undergoing a major revision recently, and it still requires additional expansion of the medical applications of radioactive tracers. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Dac04 (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Medicine articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Medicine articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Pharma industry steering group

Hi all,

I received this message through LinkedIn, maybe someone here is interested? Let me know.

cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Michaël I hope you don't mind my contacting you.

I understand you are a Wikipedia expert. I work for a medical communications company that works with a lot of global pharma companies. Our clients are increasingly concerned about inaccurate and out-of-date information on Wikipedia about medicines, but in many cases they are not permitted to correct the problems due to perceived or real issues with either Wikipedia's own rules, the industry regulations they are bound by, or both.

I am convinced we could come up with a process to correct these inaccuracies, that pharma could sponsor but not necessarily be a hands-on participant in, much like clinical publications or CME. I'm looking for professionals to join a steering group to scrutinise this process as it develops, to ensure it represents the best interests of all stakeholders.

Would you be interested in joining this steering group? Please let me know. Thanks very much

Kind regards xxxx

I think you should respond that people are certainly allowed to make edits in the face of a COI, as long as the content is verifiable and they declare the COI from the start. I think the concerns are quite correct, but I can't imagine any of us wanting to act as a proxy for a commercial company. JFW | T@lk 20:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with JFD. As long as the content is appropriate and verifiable, there really shouldn't be an issue. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes agree. They need to follow. WP:MEDRS to the letter. Reference to peer reviewed review articles and not be found to be removing verifiable content that the company they work for might disagree with. Otherwise I do not see a problem with them editing.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps this is common enough for a FAQ or similar to be made (a subpage here?) giving guidance to medical industry contributors in the same way that WP:GLAM is a guide for the cultural sector. Essentially, it could make clear our conventions on COI and recommend posting proposals on Talk pages with suitable references. Learning how to find references meeting WP:MEDRS might be a better use of time for "stakeholders" than setting up steering groups to examine the processes. --RexxS (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Agree with JFD, Tyrol and doc james. In addition to editing articles, pharm companies could do something similar to the google sponsored experts; performing a review of an article and posting issues and references on the talk page.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

LG, I respectfully—and strenuously—disagree. It would turn into an industry-sponsored-data lovefest. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a little extra caution is due. Google isn't editing, the Google Foundation is funding third-party reviewer/editors. There is no COI in those cases and they, like we, clearly want to produce quality information. With pharma (or other) industrys' editors working on articles pertinent to their products, many subtle forms of content manipulation are possible, from the marketing of novel syndromes (excess perspiration, ED, restless leg, etc.) onward through reference selection bias. Even short term manipulation timed around major anouncements could create problems. The advice in wp:COI on how to edit in the face of a COI should be very carefully observed, and until there is a solid reputation established it is highly advisable to stick to the talk pages. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I would be much more comfortable instructing this "group" to leave concerns at article Talk pages, where they can be assessed by experienced Wikipedians and acted upon if and only if action is really warranted. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If we do indeed allow them to edit, we must insure that they are familiar with our NPOV, COI, and other relevant content policies. Tyrol5 [Talk] 22:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

<Shudder> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Mostly agree with Fvasconellos' idea, perhaps it would be handier if this group would use a central talk page which is easier to keep an eye on. Richiez (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The thing is this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, there is nothing to stop them editing articles or talk pages as long as the edits are not disruptive or harmful. When I made my posting I was thinking of the wide array of pharmacology articles which are littered with uncited amateurish original research, articles which often lack entirely from contradinications, drug interactions info and so forth and saw this as potentially having more benefits than negatives. However, rereading Steven's message my view now is this may be a return of the prulifloxacin content dispute with regard to whether a primary sourced preclinical trial can be used to state the drug has a safety profile similar to placebo in place of known class effects of the drug sourced to recent reviews and also whether the self published source from a drug company conference should be used to describe safety and efficacy information. I suspect that this request is going to be limited to only a very small number of articles, probably just one article; we are not going to be over-run by drug companies and wikipedians will be too busy to "join their cause". Really I think the first thing that should be established is; what public relations company are they from? What article(s) do they want to edit/change/update? And advise them just like any other editor to raise concerns on article talk pages and to just like any other editor to use existing wiki projects and noticeboards to raise disagreements. They are bound by the same editing guidelines such as WP:MEDRS, WP:V etc etc. I could say more but ugh it is getting close to WP:TLDR.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As a point of fact, WP:COI doesn't require people to declare their conflicts of interest. It is "strongly encouraged", but not required.

Where outright errors and vandalism exist ("This antibiotic kills viruses"), I think that we would welcome anyone to fix the problems. Beyond that, though, I think that we'd do well to encourage them to leave a note on the article's talk page, here, or at WT:PHARM about the problem. A note that says, e.g., 'This article says X, and all the recent reviews, such as PMID 123 and doi:123 say not-X" would be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. That sounds sensible.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I responded to the email copy I received (setting out issues of WP:COI and not forming a cabal), not had feedback since. By way of comparison, Maitri Shah, PharmD, GSK (talk · contribs) has been very open and has left suggestions on Talk:Cervarix for others to look at. David Ruben ^Talk 21:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As I am sure everyone is aware we have serious issues with a lack of editors. There are 23,000 article in our topic areas. Most of us are simply volunteers and we are few. If this person would wish to make suggestions in the format of please replace this currently poor unreffed section with this fully properly source to high quality reviews section I would be happy to review stuff in this form and add it if appropraiate. I agree a central page would be useful anyone wish to create it?

A secondary review by one of us I think would protect the company from undesirable media attention which I assume is why the pharma industry does not wish to edit directly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Interesting David. Maybe it is not connected to prulifloxacin then. The mystery deepens. :) Agree with what you are saying Doc James in principle but we still don't know anything much about this pharma group so I think setting up a page for them at this point would be premature.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this would be a good venue for dealing with all people with COI which present information pertaining to medical topics. Would give people who attempt to add stuff like this WikiProject_Medicine#Short_Course_Immune_Induction a place to go for questions, etc.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that the e-mail I got referred to "perceived or real issues with either Wikipedia's own rules, the industry regulations they are bound by, or both". They are essentially seeking advice in the matter of how to deal with this process, not in us becoming their editors per se. I think it would be good if someone took more time and discussed different possibilities with them in more detail, because I agree that this is a problem that I can image many big pharma companies face. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Steven, they would get helpful feedback here on wikipedia. Why not suggest to these people to create accounts on wikipedia and post either here on this project talk page or on wiki pharm talk or on the talk pages of the articles in question?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Help with article split

Hi. A large change has been committed to Androgen insensitivity syndrome, adding what seems to me to be some very quality work. The author of the change has noted that a good end state for the article would be as a summary of a number of as-yet uncreated subsidiary articles. Can some subject matter experts drop by and leave a comment on the talk page as to the best possible breakdown for the various articles? Thanks. Protonk (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose Addition of Fluarix and Flulaval Articles

Hi, I work for GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in the United States as a Medical Information Scientist. I have been engaging on the Cervarix talk page with the intent to provide information to the editors of Wikipedia for their use in the article. I would like to propose the addition of articles for the GlaxoSmithKline influenza vaccines, Fluarix and Flulaval. I believe that it is important to provide safety and clinical information about the vaccines for this upcoming flu season. Additionally, I have noted that many of the other influenza vaccines have a dedicated article. If article stubs are created, I can provide information about the products in accordance with the Wikipedia Manual of Style for Medicine Related Articles. Thank you. Maitri Shah, PharmD, GSK (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

We use generic names usually. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Vaccines don't have official generic names as such. The closest thing to a generic name is usually just something along the lines of "XXXX vaccine, strain Y, live/attenuated/etc." In this case, trade names would be most adequate if the articles are created, as the articles would refer to these specific trademarked preparations of influenza vaccine. For instance, we have articles on Advil and Tylenol as well as ibuprofen and paracetamol, as the brand-name drugs are notable in their own right. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Great work everyone!

I want to thank everyone who helped with the preparation of this paper. ---kilbad (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Congrats! :) Don't forget to add it to Wikipedia:Academic studies of Wikipedia. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Would someone mind adding that to the Wikipedia:Academic studies of Wikipedia list? ---kilbad (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well done Kilbad and everyone else who was involved! It would be interesting if any dermatologists join wikipedia as a result of reading that paper. I have added the academic paper to the list here. It is a bit late here so did not have time to dwell too long on the wording, so if you spot anything wrong such as poor wording or grammar errors please feel welcome to tweak my edit accordingly.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Made a fix.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Fantom ICD disorders?

Fibrosclerosis multiple has been created according to http://web.ilds.org/cms/index.php?page=icd10_list&VIEW=2&START_DIAGNOSIS=Fibrofolliculomas%2C+multiple however google spits out 0 hits appart from WP. Should we invent new disorders like this? Richiez (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That's because it should be multiple fibrosclerosis. The ICD entry is missing a comma; it's fibrosclerosis, multiple, not fibrosclerosis multiple. Furthermore, the usual name is multifocal fibrosclerosis, so you'd be hard pressed to find ghits for multiple.... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've just checked the actual ICD and the accepted name is indeed multifocal, not multiple, fibrosclerosis. Looks like the ILDS needs to improve their fact-checking. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to move or delete that redirect I created. Sorry about the confusion. ---kilbad (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Redirects are cheap :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Opinion?

Peter DeMarco seems to... kind of assert notability... sort of. Except the name is much too common for Google to produce anything useful, and when I add "gangrene" as a search term I get almost nothing -- and what there is doesn't really meet reliability criteria. But as I've said before, this isn't my field. Could someone have a look? DS (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well that was disappointing. He seems to be mostly notable for losing his license as a purveyor of unlicensed adulterated drugs, if the NYT or Philadelphia Inquirer are correct. Though a small new Cuban trial, if it holds up, does suggest the stuff might have some value. Revised, needs more attention.LeadSongDog come howl! 00:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist: Involuntary commitment

I've just done some basic POV clean up at Involuntary commitment, and it looks like the article could use both more work, and a handful of people to put it on their watchlists to keep the worst of the garbage out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Chiropractor/Singh edits

Please check out the activities of Bettinoir. They may be kosher, but could someone check? --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears the other edits are all continuations on the idea of the first one. Given that the editor didn't provide a source to support the assertion in the edit comment, there is no justification provided for the deletion of the source. Given that the topic is a discussion of censorship as a legal strategy, the irony is rather rich. If nature.com has left the "The Great Beyond" blog entry in place, I think we're still safe using it as a ref, though I would prefer something more solid. The contributor is a well known science writer, "Lucas Laursen". I would suggest the edits should be reverted unless better justification is provided. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Influenza-like illness

...isn't very well. It certainly made me nauseous. Can we get it cleaned up a bit before the season rolls around in the northern hemisphere? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The most common cause of "influenza-like illness" is, of course, influenza. Particularly during flu season. This should probably be redirected to our article on influenza, and merged into the sections on differential diagnosis and symptoms. MastCell ^Talk 16:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes agree summarize into a paragraph or two and merge / redirect to influenza.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW influenza does not seem to have a section on diagnosis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The CDC says the majority of ILI cases are not caused by influenza but "other viruses (e.g., rhinoviruses and respiratory syncytial virus [RSV]), adenoviruses, and parainfluenza viruses). ", although the source (#2 in the article) is more concerned about anthrax they did pay close attention to this detail for obvious reasons. Richiez (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

St. Vitus Dance

I did not notice the problem here until I archived the FAC after the nominator requested withdrawal. Medical eyes needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a rename is a good idea at all, as St. Vitus's dance is a common name for Sydenham's chorea, an established clinical condition rather than a historical event of dubious origin. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed Saint Vitus' dance (disambiguation), and redirected all other spellings to Sydenham's chorea, with a dab redirect hatnote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Photographs

Could we add photographs from Photographic illustrations of skin diseases (1886) to articles?Smallman12q (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The quality is not the good though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The photos should be uploaded to WikiMedia Commons. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Smallman12q (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)-See Commons:Category:Photographic illustrations of skin diseases 1886 book. Please add better descriptions as you see fit.Smallman12q (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There's also another book, A Compend of diseases of the skin (1898) which has some images....Smallman12q (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

SSRI

Could someone with a greater expertise than I in Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, help this edit out by adding a source for it, please? --RexxS (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The edit is currently POV worded. The term SSRI can be misleading in that it sounds like it selectively targets certain serotonin sites and it could be argued SRI is more accurate and it is quite possible the name was chosen for marketing reasons. I think it would be difficult to find a reliable source for this though. I think it should probably be deleted and the editor asked to find a reliable source if it is to be added back in, or else if someone here as you have requested finds a source.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That strikes me as a sea lawyer's explanation. Any biochemist would automatically understand the name as meaning that it doesn't inhibit uptake of non-serotonin chemicals. If the average person has a different guess about the meaning, then this is merely another data point indicating that science education is inadequate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not heard the sea lawyer expression before, but I take it that it is not a good thing. :) I think it can be read either way. Not everyone is a biochemist though, a lot of doctors as well as lay people take nonbenzodiazepine literally for example as meaning it does not work on benzodiazepine receptors. Also drugs which selectively block the reuptake of other neurotransmitters are not called selective reuptake inhibitors. Maybe this is a sea lawyer explaination but I am not a biochemist and was only expressing my viewpoint, which may be wrong. Anyhow as it is not sourced and POV it should be deleted.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The serotonin hypothesis of depression is poorly supported by evidence. Some say it is little more than marketing [12] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, VetMed?

It looks like WP:VET has been wished on us. Does anyone have an opinion on this?

I'm not really sure what these changes do, or what's happened to the VetMed articles. The bot found 750 VetMed articles in March, 500 in April, and just sixteen today.[13] WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. I don't think the changes User:Jj98 made to {{WikiProject Veterinary medicine}} represent that project, and his changes have a large, probably unwanted effect on this project. VetMed was previously tagged as inactive, so the number of tagged articles was at 0 before September 19, and is gradually re-populating. The changes this user made puts all pages tagged as VetMed also within WPMED. I don't think we want this, and the changes to {{WikiProject Veterinary medicine}} should be reverted. Pages that are within both projects can be tagged with both banners, but I don't think we want to cover all of VetMed's articles. --Scott Alter (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's been reverted. I've also updated the VetMed page to suggest that WP:WikiProject Animals is the putative 'parent'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Qadir's test

Perhaps someone with some knowledge of oncology could have a look at this article. It needs overhaul, but I am not sure that it actually is notable. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Infrared mammography

I read some controversy about the way Infrared mammography has been promoted in an NZ paper recently (and from a search I'm seeing similar things in the Australia). Taking a look at the article I think it needs attention. For what I understand is technique who's efficacy is still in much doubt the article seems rather positive to me. Nil Einne (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely, looks like too many marketing buzzwords. Richiez (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Photos

Could someone help get more photos of lichen planus and/or any of the other lichenoid eruptions? ---kilbad (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There are a few of them in Commons:Category:Photographic illustrations of skin diseases 1886 book, albeit a bit old. --WS (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Also Commons:Category:An introduction to dermatology (1905) book which I also recently uploaded.Smallman12q (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency

We are currently discussing if pilot studies and newpapers should be discussed in the treatment section [14] [15] to contradict review articles. Or should the treatment section be limited to review articles and currently approved practices? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

October collaboration of the month!

The Medical Collaboration of the Month for October 2010 is Trauma (medicine). The previous collaboration was Asthma. We welcome your help!

--WS (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Tropical eosinophilia

Just thought I'd bring this to the project's attention. I've templated the talk page, but there are MOS issues. Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Bladder

Does Bladder have a primary topic and if so then what is it? Please comment on Talk:Bladder (disambiguation)#Requested move 2. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Transcranial magnetic stimulation

Greetings participants,

I'd like to draw upon your experience for some outside input. An anonymous editor has been doing some quite good work on transcranial magnetic stimulation, but is also advocating for the inclusion of a single, recent, primary source on the page. After several weeks of edit summary-based communication and reverts, there is finally a discussion on the talk page (here). A diff in question is here and the paper itself is here. I'm of the opinion that we're better off waiting for a secondary source per MEDRS#Secondary but anon believes it is sufficiently noteworthy to include now. There has been an editorial published that I'm not able to read which may provide context, and it has apparently been the subject of a symposium.

Since it's a judgment call, I was hoping for your judgment. I'm open to being wrong, I just don't think I am. Any input would be welcome. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a judgement call, and you've done the right thing by asking for more editors to help you find consensus. It's very difficult to balance our need to ensure the highest quality sourcing against the desire not to exclude significant new information. I've commented, indicating a weak preference for including the primary for the moment, while looking for further sources. I could be way off-base there, so I'd strongly urge as many other contributors here as possible to have a look at the issue, and try to find a consensus that is acceptable to all. --RexxS (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Inheritance Diagrams on genetic disorder pages

Hey, I'm not a regular here or anything so I hope I am not breaking any rules or whatnot, just wanted to say that I've seen a bunch of pages like this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-Acetylglutamate_synthase_deficiency where an innane diagram of how an autosomal recessive disease is passed on. The fact is important but the diagram doesn't add to the page, and my suggestion would be to remove it on all such pages. Thanks, berban —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.81.102 (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. The image in question seems to be File:autorecessive.svg. While it doesn't communicate anything to me that I didn't already know, a drawing like that might be valued by students and people who don't speak English very well.

If you don't like the style of that particular image, then perhaps you'd prefer one of the others, like File:Autosomal recessive inheritance.gif, File:Autorecessive tay sachs.gif, File:Autorecessive.jpg, File:Autorecessive en 01.png (and probably more). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I laughed, I cried...

Pure genius. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 04:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Thanks for link. --Hordaland (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a hoax. No real Guardian article could be that free of spelling mistakes. --RexxS (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It does, however, have a misnomer wherein it refers to a graphic as a picture. Now can someone explain to me why I didn't write this? LeadSongDog come howl! 18:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely brilliant. The BBC is not the only news source guilty of such reporting. JFW | T@lk 02:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Medical research ethics eyes needed

I've been having some discussions with another user on whether it's appropriate to have unethical behavior in research as a page unto itself separate from the coverage of research in general. A few more eyes and keyboards would be welcome in the conversation at Talk:Human experimentation in the United States. SDY (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hemicorporectomy

There is a requested move at Talk:Hemicorporectomy#Requested move. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

CCSVI article - comments needed

In the CCSVI article I have added the following source: PMID 20881276. Such source in its final paragraph concludes: "Although CCSVI remains an interesting hypothesis, evidence linking it to increased iron in MS is lacking. Iron dysregulation in MS is apparently more complex than simply a matter of iron accumulation in the brain." The article is an editorial in neurology, which is one the few closest to secondary sources that we have.

I believe both conclussions are important and that only adding one is a POV while another editor believes that only the second sentence should be included in the article, being the reasons stated "keep it short".

Comments on whether it is best to include one or both conclussions would be most welcomed.

--Garrondo (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our honourable editor Garrondo is not neutral on the issue of CCSVI. He takes liberty to add biased statements not supported by the sources he quotes, for example this critique of "CCSVI defendants" which was nowhere in the source. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You're reading way too much into one syllable. Try rereading it with "CCSVI defenders". There's no need to abandon the assumption of good faith or wp:CIVILITY. From the same 29 September 2010 issue of Neurology, see PMID 20881272, which shows why hyperferritinemia doesn't hold up as an etiology for MS. Of course, this result still hasn't been reviewed, so it must be treated as primary too. Now can we get back to the article talkpage where this belongs, please? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I have made a proposal that tries to deblock the situation in this article. As a controverted article it would be great if editors gave their opinion on the neutrality, accordance to the 3 sources it uses, and ways to improve it.--Garrondo (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject First Aid

Wikiproject First Aid has been nearly devoid of activity for nearly two years. Would there be any objection to merging it into WP:MED as a task force? Organizing it as a task force under WP:MED may actually attract interested members of this project to reactivate the activities formerly carried out by Wikiproject First Aid. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Been there, done that, got the scars to prove it: We tried to revive that project as a task force in 2008, and the "owner" pitched a fit (eventually, when he finally noticed the discussion), using words like "highjacking" and "bludgeoning" the project. So the WP:EMS task force was created as a completely separate task force -- and as far as I'm concerned, the rude editor at "WikiProject First aid" can keep his inactive and useless page to himself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me, but that project hasn't budged in two years. And, might I suggest, that editor was arguably infringing on WP:OWN. Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

And the last activity 2 years ago was when it was briefly converted to WP:EMS. If you ignore that activity, the project hasn't been active as WP:First Aid since 2007. I, too, would prefer to see the project left inactive. The scope of the EM/EMS task force already covers all first aid. Reviving First Aid would not accomplish much, if anything, other than bothering its owner once he realizes the project was "hijacked" again. For discussion of the previous conversion, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Archive 3#Emergency Medical System, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject First aid#Change of project name and scope, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces/Archive 1#Emergency_medicine and EMS, User talk:Scottalter#Thanks for hijacking my first aid wikiproject, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject First aid#Name Change ... WTF???. --Scott Alter (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As I registered in Nov. 2008, I wouldn't have recalled these discussions; however, I can't say that I'm too surprised. I suspected something like this might have taken place after a perusal through the project's talk page. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Diberris

Resolved

– Order has been restored to the universe.

OH NOOOOooooooooooooooo!!!!! Diberri's tool is down!!!... --Garrondo (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I know. And using {{cite pmid}} generates some pretty awful output. Yooo Dave! We need you! JFW | T@lk 20:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hear hear. I have been adding unformatted references waiting for diberri to come back on line.----Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've considered writing a Javascript extension that you could attach to your vector.js file, that would provide an on-wiki way to do one-click ref formatting by PubMed ID. That would take the load off Diberri's server. Would there be interest? MastCell ^Talk 17:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. I think this will run up against the same origin policy no matter how I work it, so back to the drawing board. MastCell ^Talk 22:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is there any particular reason that this humongously useful tool is not hosted on the toolserver? - 2/0 (cont.) 22:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably should be. As an aside, inspired by my dependence on the tool, I created a small desktop application that will perform the same function on one's home computer. So as long as you personally have a connection to the Internet, you can retrieve and format citations by PubMed ID. It's not as fancy as Diberri's tool, but it also doesn't require third-party web servers. Next time Diberri's tool goes down (if there is a next time), let me know and I'll forward you the application or the source code (it's in Java so it should be reasonably portable). MastCell ^Talk 00:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

PLoS article

An article about Wikipedia in PLoS [16] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The JMIR article in press is quite a lot longer, but I think I will be quoting this paper to whoever is contemplating a Wikipedian career. It is very good! JFW | T@lk 09:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Why waste it?

I typed the following information in an email to our first year dermatology residents regarding gammopathy/paraproteinemia, and figured since I put the work in, why not share it with you all. I am fairly busy right now, but perhaps someone could integrate this information into some of our articles? I think it may help dispel some confusion on the topic.

DEFINITIONS:

1. Paraprotein - "A normal or abnormal plasma protein appearing in large quantities as a result of a pathological condition" [1]
2. Paraproteinemias - "A group of related diseases characterized by an unbalanced or disproportionate proliferation of immunoglobulin-producing cells, usually from a single clone. These cells frequently secrete a structurally homogeneous immunoglobulin and/or an abnormal immunoglobulin." [2]
3. Gammopathy - "a disorder characterized by a disturbance in the body's synthesis of antibodies" [3]

GENERAL COMMENTS:

1. Serum is composed of two general types of protein, (1) albumin, and (2) globulin.
2. There are many globulin proteins in the blood, of which one group is immunoglobulin.
3. The normal or abnormal plasma protein appearing in large quantities as a result of a pathological condition constituting paraprotein is usually (1) immunoglobulin, or (2) immunoglobulin-derived.
4. Immunoglobulin or immunoglobulin-derived paraprotein is produced by plasma cells.
5. Using the above definitions, the terms "gammopathy" and "paraproteinemia" are synonymous. [But see footnote 1 for nuance...]
6. If this paraprotein is produced by only one clone of plasma cell, it is considered a "monoclonal gammopathy" or alternatively a "monoclonal paraproteinemia."
7. If this paraprotein is produced by multiple clones of plasma cells, it is considered a "polyclonal gammopathy" or alternatively a "polyclonal paraproteinemia."
8. Immunoglobulin or immunoglobulin-derived paraprotein is usually composed of IgG or IgA, or pieces of those proteins
9. Individual immunoglobulin proteins are made up of heavy and light chains.
10. Immunoglobulin light chains may be one of two types, either lambda (λ) or kappa (κ)

GAMMOPATHY/PARAPROTEINEMIA AND CUTANEOUS CONDITIONS:

1. Many cutaneous conditions have been associated with a gammopathy/paraproteinemia (**SEE: Bolongia Table 119.2 for a near complete listing, and the ETAS study guide table 4-4 (pg138) for a high-yield listing)
2. With regard to the above definitions and general comments, here are some examples of usage from Bolognia:

"Some patients with Sneddon–Wilkinson disease have an associated IgA paraproteinemia."

"[The] monoclonal gammopathy of IgG paraprotein in those with scleromyxedema...is usually IgG with γ light chains."

"A hallmark feature of necrobiotic xanthogranuloma is the associated paraproteinemia, an IgG monoclonal gammopathy, which is found in at least 80% of cases, most often IgG with k light chains."

"[With the] neutrophilic dermatoses, Sweet's syndrome or pyoderma gangrenosum (particularly the atypical bullous form), approximately 10–20% of cases are associated with hematologic disorders such as acute myelogenous leukemia or IgA paraproteinemia."

"Primary systemic amyloidosis [is characterized by a] immunoglobulin light chain monoclonal gammopathy due to plasma cell dyscrasia >> multiple myeloma."

DETECTION AND MANAGEMENT:

1. Several tests can be used to detect paraprotein.
2. The most common test is serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP).
3. There is some nuance to interpreting SPEP results, and this is not always the most specific/sensitive test for evaluating a possible gammopathy/paraproteinemia (we can touch on this another time; see reference 4 for a good review of SPEP interpretation)
4. When evaluating a cutaneous condition that may have an associated gammopathy/paraproteinemia, you should order testing to evaluate for paraprotein.
5. When a monoclonal gammopathy is present, the possibility of underlying multiple myeloma needs to be considered. [Bolognia][4][5]
6. Monoclonal gammopathy is present in up to 8 percent of healthy geriatric patients. [4]
7. Patients with monoclonal gammopathy of "undetermined significance" require close follow-up because about 1 percent per year develop multiple myeloma or another malignant monoclonal gammopathy. [4]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Some authors define the term "paraproteinemias" in a more strict sense to mean only "a plasma cell disorder in which an abnormal amount of a **single** immunoglobulin is present in the serum." [2] If one holds to this definition, then the general terms "paraproteinemia" and "gammopathy" would NOT be synonyous. Rather, in this case, the terms "paraproteinemia" and "monoclonal gammopathy" would be synonymous.

REFERENCES:

[1] http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/paraprotein (taken from Dorland's Medical Dictionary)
[2] http://www.diseasesdatabase.com/umlsdef.asp?glngUserChoice=9614 (taken from MSH)
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/gammopathy
[4] http://www.aafp.org/afp/2005/0101/p105.html#afp20050101p105-b2
[5] http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/204369-overview

Thanks in advance!

---kilbad (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Very nice, and sharing is appreciated, though for WP-MED articles the references would not be my first choice as reliable sources. Also, a minor correction for future versions: in "...is usually IgG with γ light chains." above, there is no such thing as "γ light chains". My guess is that λ (lambda) was intended. -- Scray (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Lambda was intended. That error is straight out of Bolognia. Nice catch! ---kilbad (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I copied the above to Talk:Gamma globulin so it doesn't get lost in the archives here.LeadSongDog come howl! 03:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

New article

I've just started Cancer-related fatigue. If anyone would like to expand it, please feel free.

Also, symptom journal appears to be a redlink. Should that point to a new section in an existing article (maybe in Symptom), or be set up as its own article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I added a redirect. Please adjust as needed. ---kilbad (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Stack Exchange

http://stackexchange.com/ - Could we as a community use stack exchange to further our our wiki-based goals? Simply stated, I am loving SE lately. Any utility in creating a wiki forum on stack exchange at http://area51.stackexchange.com/? Just some thoughts. ---kilbad (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with just using this forum? What advantages are there in having an off-wiki forum about WP:MED? What is it you love about SE? As far as I can see, its just another username and password to remember. So, I'm unlikely to be bothered pursuing this unless I can see a clear advantage in doing so. Cheers! Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 03:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I really like Wiki syntax. We can create whatever we wish here we an easy ability to archive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie

Some of you might be familiar with Looie496 (talk · contribs) from work that he's done for WP:WikiProject Neuroscience. If you have an opinion, please feel free to respond at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Looie496. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Invitation to edit

I'm working on a project aimed at streamlining the transition from reader to editor. I was going to trial it on 20 articles, but a couple of real life events are severely monopolising my time and attention. Would anybody mind if I tried it on one article for now (I'm thinking Pain, an article I'm familiar with), just to get a feel for its impact (and any unforseen adverse effects)? Anthony (talk) 09:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've notified Talk:Pain. Anthony (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great. Is there any way of quantifying such effect? Could we count the number of ip editors month before and after insertion or something like that?--Garrondo (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There has been some discussion around study design on the project talk page. Anthony (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting here, though, is just testing the water on one article, to see if anything awful happens, while I get real life under control, and before inflicting it on 20 articles. The data mining and analysis will be done at that next stage. Anthony (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think that would be fine.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It's on Pain now. There was a minor glitch with table of contents, but that's sorted. Anthony (talk) 09:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

N = 1 fallacy

FYI, N = 1 fallacy has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Pediatric Cardiovascular Surgery

I just closed the AFD on this subject as "keep" and suggested that this project can be of assistance in expanding this subject. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge with cardiovascular surgery until there is content to deserve splitting off. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresents

Here: [17] the reference n.7 distorts the text of the abstract of Cochrane; hello from Italy.--OppidumNissenae (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Antimonial cup

Can someone look at this article for possible new ratings. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Y Done C/Low. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content

All 3 parts of the 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content are now available. Please read and contribute to the discussion on the talk pages. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge of Pharyngitis and Tonsillitis

These two terms are often discussed together and used interchangably. Should we discuss them together?[18] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes at Antiretroviral drug

The article Antiretroviral drug has been in disrepair for some time, but recent edits trouble me. I wonder if others could take a look and see what you think. Note the hidden comments embedded in the article. A neutral third party would be very helpful. -- Scray (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The humanity...

Well, this saddens me no end. What is wrong with medical schools these days? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 04:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

WTF? Somebody has a copy of Surgical Signs from the late 19th or early 20th century perhaps? Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 06:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Pretty close. See the inital cites at medical history (which btw needs some love).LeadSongDog come howl! 17:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps only in Tasmania. In Holland the word "anamnesis" is still in widespread use. I do find that few in UK use the term, and I suspect many medical students may not recognise the word. JFW | T@lk 19:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes redux

After some experience with it, I'm inclined to think that except in the case of BLPs, pending change protection is more trouble than it's worth -- it doesn't make reverting vandalism any easier, and generally just makes watching an article more difficult. My impression is that it probably shouldn't be used for medical articles. Any reactions? Looie496 (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not needed for medical or alternative medicine articles. But something still needs to be done about BLP problems. QuackGuru (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If the p.c. implementation actually worked for me, I might think this a more worthwile topic for discussion. As it is, I can't see the point of it. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree and feel that pending changes is something that is needed on many medical articles:

Concerns have been voiced both by academia and our readership regarding Wikipedia's reliability. Pending changes addresses some of these concerns. And thus there is a good chance that "pending changes" will not only increase our readership but the number of people who edit. No one wants to put in the work to create something good or excellent just to have it vandalized and left un-repaired. ( we have had a number of recent examples )
Vandals like to see their work go "live". Pending changes stops this and will thus potentially decrease the entire volume of vandalism.
We will have a tool to allow the world to seamlessly contribute to a greater part of Wikipedia. Instead of semi protecting some pages ( and thus making it difficult for IPs to contribution ). We can use PC making Wikipedia more open per our founding principles.

Pending changes forces someone to review all changes and thus keeps GAs/FAs sort of peer reviewed and IMO should be applied to these as a group ( at least the ones watched by only a few people ). It could definitely use some more speed though.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the points made by Doc James. I am a strong supporter of pending changes; while indefinite semi protection is the best way of making editing easier on articles which get a lot of vandalism, admins usually refuse to semi-protect due to policy and guidelines unless there is an exceptionally high level of vandalism. Pending changes is the next best thing. Like Doc James says vandals like to see their edits go live so it should have at least some effect in reducing vandalism levels as well as improving the article content for our readers.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both Dr James and litgeek. I seem to have been investing rather a lot of time lately reverting vandalism in medical articles I'm watching, and its a pain, quite frankly. I found it much easier to patrol the PC log and decline vandalism revisions. Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 11:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

They just need to make it faster with everything needing to be done occurring with a single click.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Strange

When I search Pubmed for "House G" I only get one non-medical article. Don't tell me the great man has never published even a single case report? JFW | T@lk 19:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Is that meant to be funny? I'm not sure Wikipedia is a forum for comedy. Especially bad comedy. NickCT (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a theatre for dullness, either. If it brightens the mood around this sorry place then so be it! Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 17:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Dead serious. Not even a commentary about the overdiagnosis of lupus. JFW | T@lk 21:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean the over differential diagnosis, not sure show ever had a confiremed case ? He has probably done more to increase awareness of lupus in my non-medical friends than anyone else, and all by its absence. David Ruben ^Talk 00:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Season 4, Episode 8. --RexxS (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, he strikes me as more of a reader than a writer of research. So the lack of articles makes sense to me. I expect he'd find all too tedious getting his work from the whiteboard onto paper. Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 11:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd imagine he should have a ridiculous number of case studies published by now, especially with so many fellows/junior faculty running around. Yobol (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

But would he be seen to demean himself by being associated with (to him) blazingly obvious conditions ? I'm sure he waivers his right, as head of team, to be included in any list of authors - I suggest we search out case reports by the names of his juniors :-) David Ruben ^Talk 15:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

... but true. By stroke of luck, BMJ Careers section has an article this week: Anna Mead-Robson (14 Oct 2010). "The real life Dr House". BMJ. {{cite journal}}: More than one of |work= and |journal= specified (help). This interviews Lisa Sanders, whose newspaper column was the inspiration for the series. David Ruben ^Talk 17:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to demean Dr Sanders' achievements (I love her column), but does no one remember the late great Berton Roueché anymore? Sheesh. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 04:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Radioactive Tracer

I have been working on revamping the Radioactive tracer article, and I would appreciate if anyone could contribute to the medical applications section. Thanks! Dac04 (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China" reassessment

Guys, we would benefit from some more opinions at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China/1. Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

*cough* Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Commented there. I'd still say we need more opinions as it's a touchy subject because of Falun Gong. James, LSD, WAID, et al. – any chance of a quick look? --RexxS (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:FA

There are no medical articles left to run as WP:TFA. What would it take to interest folks in bringing Jean-Martin Charcot to FA status? A bio of a dead person, about whom much has been written, might be easier than a medical condition, where every Tom Dick and Harry has to weigh in with primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been working hard at Parkinson's disease, and I was thinking of taking it to FAC in about a month or two, but with some help it could be much faster...(2 weeks?) Sourcing I believe its about the best we can get, and all sections have been fully rewriten with minor exceptions. If anybody is interested can ask at the talk page or me directly about whan is left to be done. To begin with I am horrible at the lead, and copy editing of the article would be most welcome. A bit more work is needed only in the pathophisiology section and society section.--Garrondo (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I will look when I have time, but it would help if you would first assure me that primary sources are not used unnecessarily, and the article relies heavily on secondary reviews. If not, I'll oppose at FAC :) We've got to get a handle on the use of primary sources in medical articles by making FAs an example (and in that vein, it's about time someone sent Schizophrenia to FAR, because I've been asking for it to be cleaned up for a very long time on the article talk page). Anyway, there is tons of good literature on Charcot if anyone wants to dig in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably less than 4 primary refs out ot the society and pathophisiology section (where some work has still to be done), most refs in first line journals and recent ones. It should not be difficult to pass FAC... take a look to refs and you will see what I mean. Only 50 refs for all the article, but every sentence sourced to them. That is why I say that with some work in about two weeks it could be in FAC.--Garrondo (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It needs a good deal of copyediting-- it would take a sustained effort to do that in a few weeks, so hopefully others will pitch in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I am in no hurry (I have been with it for more than a year), but if anybody is interested would be great if it is speeded up a bit. Thanks in advance for any help--Garrondo (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Obesity is nearly at FA. All we need is someone who can spell and is willing to do a grammar check. I care little about historical figures. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Obesity looks really good, and art images are very nice. Nice work.--Garrondo (talk) 06:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Stray Page in need of improvement

I happened across Rhombomere, which, while it could definitely use some improvement, is far beyond my personal area of expertise, so I figured I'd bring it up for y'all. Mokele (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really medicine but anatomy.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Nipple adenoma

New article! Come 'n' play!!! Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 05:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Persistent edema of rosacea

Could someone help add some well sourced additions to the above article? I would love to see the topic expanded a bit. ---kilbad (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Worried well

Worried well seems to be a redlink. It looks like the old code was "2008 ICD-9-CM Diagnosis Code V65.5, Person with feared complaint in whom no diagnosis was made". Is there a new name for it? Is there anything much to be said about it, beyond that it exists? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hypochondria, might be the alternative name perhaps.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I wouldn't paint the worried well and hypochondriacs with the same brush. I don't know if there's a more PC term to describe the worried well, but these people are the one who turn up to clinics with fairly innocent enquiries about something that's bothering them - and once reassured tend not to return with the same complaint. Hypochondriasis is a pathological variant of this behaviour. Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 05:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

What you say makes sense Matt. Perhaps worried well was removed from ICD because it was no longer judged to be a disorder by a subsequent panel of experts? If anyone has the interest and time, putting "worried well" into quotes and searching pubmed or google books should provide enough references to use to create a stub or maybe a C class article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Is not a medical condition per say but a common social phenomena. Is of importance though as it has a huge effects on ERs that are in areas in which significant health conditions occur.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

How do you code those visits these days? Maybe something in the Z range of the ICD-10? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There is this "Person with feared complaint in whom no diagnosis was made" V65.5 [19] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a somewhat politically loaded term in psychiatry probably best not discussed in a public forum. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Page for an incompetent pharmacist?

I was looking to see if we have a biography of the first president of the [20] (European Psychiatric Association), whose name is Leonard Singer, actually Léonard Singer. But we are informed that Leonard Ian Singer is an incompetent pharmacist [21]? Tijfo098 (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed now. The page had been vandalised. Physchim62 (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ross University School of Medicine

I've reverted edits from a couple new accounts lately at Ross University School of Medicine. Could someone else keep an eye on it too? An article in a Florida newspaper keeps getting removed. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Chief Medical Officer in US hospital administration

Could someone have a look. We have a CMO for the UK and Ireland, but for the US it redirects to "Surgeon General" !!! I don't know enough about the exact tasks to create a page myself. All I know is that the CMO is some "big cheese" in a hospital's administration and not the Surgeon General. Compare: [22], [23], [24], [25] 99.11.160.111 (talk) 05:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the redirect at Chief Medical Officer, United States was created by a Brit, presumably in the spirit of 'translation'. Perhaps the article on the position in hospital administration should be at Chief medical officer (hospital). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the UK term be "medical director" for the hospital post. At the moment, the medical director article describes a different sort of post with that name in the U.S. Physchim62 (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The article currently at medical director was mostly written by a person who focuses a lot of their contributions on models of care in different EMS systems. The content is good, but I don't think it belongs under the title of "medical director." This was briefly discussed a few years ago at Talk:Medical director#Disambiguation. In the US, a medical director is a licensed physician who provides medical oversight to a department consisting of allied-health providers (people who provide some sort of health care, but do not have independent licenses to practice medicine themselves). I believe the article at medical director should be re-focused to reflect this. There is a separate hospital position in the US called something like "chief medical officer" or "chief of medical staff," whose role is to be a part of the hospital administration and be a liaison from the staff physicians to the hospital administration. If this position is unique to the US, an article on this could be located at Chief medical officer (United States), otherwise, it could be at Chief medical officer (hospital). --Scott Alter (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Similar titles in Australia, Canada, and India are state/provincial government positions, particularly "Chief Medical Officer of Health" for the head of a public health organization. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Gonadal dysgenesis

This page is misleading and factually incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.16.41.7 (talk) 07:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to fix with reliable sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Migraine-associated vertigo

I happened across this complete trainwreck of an article, and pretty much gutted it, left review sources, and did all I could-- I'm at the limit of my medical knowledge if any one wants to review and take it from there. And watchlist it, considering its past history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Famous sufferers from ...

In several articles on diseases I've encountered sections or parts of See also that were lists of "famous sufferers from...", "people who died of..." or "notable cases". In article histories I've seen them completely deleted sometimes, and I don't disagree with such actions myself, but still, what it the general consensus about such entries? Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, found it in Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Notable_cases. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably me you are referring too? If I come across these large section and they are unreferenced I delete them. If they are referenced I do not. Doc James (talk · contribs · [[lk:WikiProject_Medicine&action=s) 04:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have found useful instead of directly deleting to move it to talk page stating that a secondary article could be created if reliable sources are found. That way it is usually less controverted. In addition I believe that a ref saying that they suffer that or that other disease is not enough for inclusion, the source should also state why they are "notable sufferers" as stated in MEDMOS (which is not the same to notable people, who in addition have the disease). For example I feel really proud of the notable sufferers section in the Parkinson's disease section, which I recently finished and only includes 3 names and at some point was like this.--Garrondo (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes good advice. I prefer not to use "suffers" though and prefer Notable cases. Some people with what we may consider horrible diseases suffer from them well others take it in strike and see it as a positive experience. There is a great book that discusses this point in depth called Stumbling on happiness.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point.--Garrondo (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Access to paywall articles

Is there a place on Wikipedia I can go to ask for someone to email me a copy of a journal article that I can't access - or at least check a fact? I'm pretty sure I've read that somewhere. Anthony (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What are you looking for? (PMID) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, many editors are willing to share access, but you may want to request that privtely from them, so they don't get into ... issues. Put up a list of what you need, and if someone e-mails it to you ... well ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Anthony's probably looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request‎. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What fact needs to be checked? Odds are good that someone here could do it for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everybody. I think it was Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request‎ I was trying to remember (thanks LSD). I'm going out and will check it later. The specific article is being discussed here. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. --Anthony (talk) 08:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: What fact needs to be checked? See: Talk:Major_depressive_disorder#Intact_monoamine_system. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Research directions

A discussion at Talk:Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency has raised the question of whether ClinicalTrials.gov is usable as a reference for sections on ongoing research that is not yet reporting results. The alternatives seem to be either relying on news media sources or else excluding such discussion entirely. Additional input would be helpful. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

From a different point of view: there are two questions: Is clinicaltrials reliable to cite trials?

Does it stablish notability of a trial or does it have to be inferred from other sources such as media reports?.--Garrondo (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to judge reliability without knowing what you want to say in the article. IMO that website is a reliable source for whether a trial exists, and even information about study design and (for completed trials) what the preliminary results were (although you should cite a proper paper whenever possible).

It is certainly not evidence that a given trial is WP:Notable (deserves its own article) or even necessarily WP:DUE (should be mentioned in another article). For those purposes, the media sources might be better. If, on the other hand, the goal is to say something like "Only look! People are doing research! Isn't it exciting/hopeful/etc", then I'd invoke the "not a directory of clinical trials" standard and exclude it all together. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

We had not discuss yet what to include, but I agree fully with your reasoning.--Garrondo (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

PERQ/HCI

Shouldn't these guys have a page? They seem to rate medical journals by readership, e.g. [26] A few journals boast their readership, e.g. [27], [28] which is somewhat orthogonal to the citation-based impact factor. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It turns out they are a Nielsen subsidiary now [29] [30]. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Biography question

I have been spending a lot of my time trying to help out new users. I welcomed a user recently and received this message. I don't think the article meets our notability requirements but am not sure of the exact standards of medical bios. Obviously given the circumstances please treat this person with kid gloves (as we should be doing with all non-vandal new users anyway), by that I mean no warning templates on the talk page. Personalized messages would be better. Thanks in advance to anyone who helps out. Quadzilla99 (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

At the moment it is very vague as to what his actual achievements were, and how he might have contributed to the field. You could ask the contributor this question directly. JFW | T@lk 20:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Some of the at WikiProject Chemistry are helping with the article. Quadzilla99 (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Plans for Breast cancer awareness

I'm plotting a new article at Breast cancer awareness. I haven't figured out whether it should subsume all of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month and Pink ribbon, or just the less specific elements. I've just picked up a few good history/society books from the library, and reading those will doubtless keep me busy for a couple of weeks.

In the bigger picture, we should also have an article at Disease awareness (coordinated with Awareness ribbons), and perhaps at Cancer awareness. They should cover history, advantages (people recognize symptoms and seek care), and disadvantages (e.g., these concerns) -- but I don't know how easy it will be to find sources on the general subject, rather than the individual diseases.

If you've got ideas, sources, or know of any relevant existing articles, please speak up! WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You'll need to take due measures to ensure such articles don't become wp:linkfarms, of course, but it sounds like a good plan, with the added benefit of forking much of this awareness- and fund-raising content out of the medical articles. You might find these useful for starters. Good luck! LeadSongDog come howl! 16:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Parkinson's disease to GAN

I have just nominated Parkinson's disease for good article, as a way of improving it before taking it to FAC. While I believe that sources and scope are a strong point of the article, I know that my prose is far from being as professional as it should. Any kind of comments or copy-editing would be most useful. A commited reviewer would also be great, since the article is quite long. Thanks to everybody.--Garrondo (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I was also thinking of an image for the symptoms section, and I thought of a writting by a PD patient with micrography. I do not have such kind of image, but maybe somebody from the project is capable of getting one directly from a patient. Best image would be a short text with some rule on it to show scale... --Garrondo (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Other articles in search of a reviewer at WP:GAN#MED are:

Edward William Archibald (Canadian surgeon, died 1945; short, and only 7 refs, so it should be quick)
Protein C (blood clotting and inflammation)
Haplogroup E1b1a (Y-DNA) (looks a bit technical and list-y)

So we need just four people who can read the actual criteria, and follow the simple directions. GA reviews aren't difficult, and if anyone is at all nervous about trying it out for the first time, then I'd be happy to help you learn the ropes.

BTW, there's always someone over at GA complaining about the backlog of unreviewed articles. I've always been proud of our group for staying on top of our section of the nominations list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Chiropractic fringiness

Two new chiropractic articles have been transferred from a user's sandbox. Not only are they not NPOV and are promotional, they are pushing unscientific BS as if it were reality, all without proper references. They are well within the rules for using WP:MEDRS, but utterly fail to do so. The articles need more eyes on them and some working over:

Bio-Geometric Integration

Potential Energy Theory of Subluxation

-- Brangifer (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Both have been deleted as copy vios. Brangifer (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential

Could someone take a look at this. Recent POV edits removed criticism from the lead (quite serious criticism from the AAP) and added all sorts of stuff that fail multiple policies and guidelines. I reverted with a talk page notice but it has now been restored. This article has a history of being edited by IAHP staff, relatives of the founders, etc. Thanks. Colin°^Talk 23:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have an edit war shaping up there. The new user seems interested in removing all well-sourced criticism from the lead, and downplaying it elsewhere, while spamming in basically every possible "endorsement" they've ever received. Three editors have opposed, and more eyes would be welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, WhatamIdoing, Yobol and MastCell. I appreciate having more people with this watchlisted as I don't want to give any impression of WP:OWN and I'm only prepared to revert someone once. Colin°^Talk 19:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

And we have another SPA. I may be taking my own trip to SPI before long. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I see our two SPAs have been briefly blocked. However, the article is currently at the "wrong version" IMO. I'd appreciate if someone uninvolved could take a look and fix as they see fit. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 18:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes in cases like this, it's worth stubbing the article down and starting fresh from whatever independent, reliable sources exist. I'm saying that without having looked at the disputed content in detail, though, so it's just a general observation. MastCell ^Talk 20:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that improving problematic article usually involves a complete rewrite. Actually, I've twice given this article an overhaul over the years I've been watch in it. I thought the pre-SPA-edit version was ok. Someone with better access to journal sources could probably do a better job. Regardless, the current version is unacceptable and I don't revert more than once. Colin°^Talk 10:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a good example

At Disease#Burdens_of_disease, I'd like to have a good example of disease burden that separates the economic costs from the estimated market value of years lost. That is, I'd like to be able to say that <example> costs $X (cash) plus Y years lived with disability plus Z years of potential life lost, rather than a single number. That is, I want "Tobacco costs the world $10 billion cash, plus 10 million person-years of disabled life, plus 20 million person-years of potential life lost, not "Tobacco costs the world US$100 billion a year".

I don't really care what the medical issue is, but I've never run across a source that is straightforward and reasonably accessible, which I think is preferable for this article.

If you've got a good source, please feel free to add it directly into the first paragraph at the above-linked section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

In this moment I do not have full access to the article, but in PMID 17702630 reviews different studies which quantify disease burden of Parkinson's disease, and I think that at some point it separates direct and indirect costs similarly to what you look for. It may serve you.--Garrondo (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Two cleft hand articles

We now have articles both on Ectrodactyly and cleft hand. I suspect that some form of refactoring/merging/splitting/renaming may be needed here, but lacking any knowledge of this field, I don't know how to proceed. I am therefore posting this here, in the hope that someone knowledgeable may be able to resolve this. -- The Anome (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree the articles should be merged. It seems to me the appropriate thing to do would be to merge cleft hand into ectrodactyly. I've put merge templates up on each article with discussion pointing to the ectrodactyly talk page. Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 07:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of cleanup...

I happened across Hirschsprung's_disease, and it seriously needs the jargon weeded out and some references planted.. Lovely day, perfect for gardening. Such a shame I'm @ work and can't right now - maybe someone could... Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 03:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"Chronic" Lyme disease controversy

In this section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lyme_disease#The_word_.22chronic.22_should_not_be_in_quotes

I have provided why I restored the scare quotes, but they have been removed. We need medical experts, besides myself, to look into this. Please see my comments there and the article's edit history. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not accusing the other editors of willingly promoting this medical scam and quackery. They are likely ignorant of the controversy over this matter. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

From reading over the article, it looks like the dominant view is that untreated lyme disease infection can be chronic. The fringey belief is claiming that the infection can remain chronic despite an adequate course(s) of antibiotics which the causative organism is sensitive to and the even more fringey and harmful belief is that people need to be on chronic antibiotics. I have no opinion on whether the quotes should be used as I don't know what the terms are used in the peer reviewed literature. I read the talk area and my advice is that you be more tactful when talking to some people on there. Presumably some of them have long-term "injury", a post infection syndrome of some sort and unfortunately have a belief in "bad science". Calling their belief a "criminal opinion" when some editors on that talk page may have lyme disease related disability, is only going to stir up a big hornet's nest which no or few uninvolved editors will want to go near.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that poorly worded phrase. I have fixed it. When I use the word "criminal", I am referring to those who are earning a livlihood by passing off substandard and ineffective treatments as if they were "cutting edge", a phrase sometimes used by those who push treatment of "chronic lyme disease". Occasionally they are prosecuted and lose their medical licenses, but far too many are practicing, placing people's health and livlihood at risk, since untreated lyme disease is no laughing matter and bleeding people of their last dime for ineffective "alternative" remedies is so wrong in so many ways.

"Untreated" is really the proper term, because the treatment these people receive isn't proper treatment, leading to them just continuing to have the disease and suffer its ravages of their health. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Mostly agree with what you write, a few points:

untreated lyme disease: here is one problem - perhaps 80-90% of infections are not noticed in acute stage and never adequately treated. Even though largely asymptomatic this is not enough to exclude a chronic course. Hence if untreated lyme can cause chronic lyme it is not unrealistic to assume a significant number of cases. Diagnosis of chronic cases, presumably becoming symptomatic several months or more likely a few years after first event practically never happens.
chronic lyme disease is poorly understood - just like acute lyme disease. There are rather confusing results of microbiological testing during diagnosis and treatment of all kinds of lyme disease.
adequate treatment is very poorly evaluated by controlled trials. We do not know what the best treatment of acute lyme disease is and how effective it is.

I would remove the quotes and treat all kinds of chronic antibiotics with great scepticism. Richiez (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your last line really means. Would you please tweak the grammar? -- Brangifer (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Some reliable sources use scare quotes to emphasize the dubious nature of "chronic" Lyme disease (e.g. PMID 17914043, from the New England Journal of Medicine). Other reliable sources don't use scare quotes. I lean towards not using quotes, because I think that's the more encyclopedic choice. I'm mostly concerned with how we present mainstream medical and scientific thought on the subject, and honestly I don't think it's worth fighting about the quotation marks one way or the other. MastCell ^Talk 17:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

November Collaboration of the Month

The WikiProject Medicine Collaboration of the Month for November 2010 is Hypercholesterolemia. The previous collaboration was Trauma (medicine). We welcome your help!

--WS (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Odd

For a couple of weeks, this user has been making good-faith edits to mental health articles, using clumsy expression and poor citations. Over the last day or so I've been through all edits I could find and reverted most but corrected a few. They blanked notes from Looie496 and Guerillero about citations, so are aware of user talk pages, and are aware there's a problem. I have left simplified citation instructions on each of their talk pages.

The contributions all seem to be in good faith and often useful, so I'm (weakly) hopeful that with firm but gentle handling they may become beneficial to the project. Anthony (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"This" user?

Perhaps a trip to WP:SPI is in order. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

He's not edit warring or voting; just being odd so far. Anthony (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason that we need to go as far as a SPI and ban them from wikipedia. They aren't spamming or removing content. --Guerillero | My Talk 10:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Since this continues, I have opened WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Lalora6 and blocked all except the purported master. Looie496 (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This resembles a sort of class project to me. I agree with your reasoning, but we ought to be careful not to be BITEy if there's a possible explanation. Does the SPI indicate an educational establishment? This WP:SPI/Lalora6 is still a redlink for me at the moment, btw. --RexxS (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the link above. Shortcuts don't work for subpages. Hans Adler 19:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As a status update, it appears that this is a class project being run at Dublin City University. I don't yet know what class or who is running it; I'm trying to get a fix on whether this group can be brought into line. Class project or not, we can't really accept a group of people making a large mass of unusable edits to important articles and not responding to feedback -- I'm hoping that with a few guidelines they will be able to contribute more productively. Looie496 (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping on top of this Looie. Although the lack of response to talk page notices is worrying (they must have seen the orange bars), the edits themselves seemed to me to be good faith, even if not always apposite. I'd like to think the editors could be helped to contribute productively. Perhaps we can find somebody with links to Dublin City University? Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Dublin City University might be a starting point. --RexxS (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Can I suggest, then, that they be unblocked while we attempt to sort this out; it would be a shame to bight this many valuable newbies. I'm going out now but I'm looking to see what textbooks they're citing in common, then I'll email the Dublin City University bookshop to see which courses are using them. This could take a couple of days. Anthony (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Class project or not, this type of editing behaviour is not beneficial to wikipedia. If it is an assignment then the teacher has essentially told their students to go and make numerous test edits in article mainspace. This is not acceptable whatever the intentions. We need assurance that any future edits will be inline with wikipedia policy. I can't see how this is possible if the users do not respond to talk page messages. Jdrewitt (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

People interested in cleaning up these articles should click here for the list (large sortable table) and here for the list divided by type of problem. So if, for example, you wanted to have a look at the 1600 (allegedly) unreferenced articles, then you'd click here to go to that subsection of the second page.

The previous /Cleanup listing pages haven't been updated since March, so perhaps these should replace those links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I've been going through the allegedly unreferenced articles, and I'm finding that almost a quarter of them shouldn't have the {{unref}} tag. A lot of times, it's because the tag was added years ago and nobody thought to remove it, but sometimes it shouldn't have been added in the first place.

"Unreferenced" is only appropriate if there are actually zero sources mentioned, in any form, anywhere on the page. It's not a substitute for {{Nofootnotes}} (=sources named at the bottom, but we'd like them inline, please) or {{Primarysources}} (=something better than the subject's website would be nice, please) or {{Refimprove}} (=we'd like more sources, please).

It looks like the bot will update the list over the weekend, so if you've got a little time, please feel free to have a look at these articles, and remove the templates from anything that actually contains some sort of reference. (I've done almost all of the articles starting with A and B, and hope to do C tomorrow.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Bravo. Attrition through stale tags is a bugbear of mine. JFW | T@lk 10:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I got "C" and "D" done. (You know, just in case something wants to take on "E" during the next few hours... ;-)

Another problem seen today is the use of {{unref}} when the editor clearly wanted {{unref|section}}. Just another detail to keep in mind if you're ever tagging articles... WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

How is the word autism used today?

I'm concerned about the clarity of the lead at Autism. It says only that autism is one of the autism spectrum disorders, but under Autism#Classification the article explains that "autism" can also refer to the spectrum conditions in general. If you have an interest or some expertise in this area, your advice would be welcome at Talk:Autism#autism_definition. Anthony (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Autism#Proposal_to_move_this_article_to_Autistic_disorder. Anthony (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking for reference

Would someone with access be willing to send me this article, PMID 19962029 ? Thanks in advance! ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the resource exchange is the place to go for this sort of request, though someone here might be able to help you. -- Scray (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is fine too. Done! --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Male lactation

The article male lactation could do with a few more competent eyes. It is getting a lot of attention from people who either think every man can lactate with a bit of manual stimulation, or that it's completely impossible except in transsexuals. If I read the sources correctly, the truth is somewhere in between. Sourcing could generally be improved. For such an attractive edutainment topic as galactorhhea in human males it would be good to have more than one research paper to be on the safe side. E.g., can someone locate a research article about lactation in starving males?

There is also significant overlap between male lactation and galactorrhea, with the first article concentrating on males and the second on humans. Maybe they could be merged? In any case it would be nice if an expert could have a look and clarify the relation between the two articles. Hans Adler 16:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

There is way too many articles about breastfeeding, lactation and related subjects:(. Richiez (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Richiez, your claim seems implausible unless both of the following are true:

- A large number of WP editors are fascinated by breasts

- Editors allow their fascinations to distort judgment regarding the value of content on WP

Now, do you want to retract your claim? Oh, and don't even think about citing facts from reliable sources to counter my concerns. -- Scray (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Quick Pubmed/Ovid search yielded very few results specifically discussing lactation in males; resuls were mostly in relation to galactorrhea in general with some discussion in their about males. Probably should merge the two articles. Yobol (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I realize that Scray's comments were meant in jest, but if anyone has a use for such a source, James Olson's Bathsheba's Breast ISBN 9780801869365 discusses the pop culture "breast obsession" in America after about WWII. I've got a copy in hand for Breast cancer awareness at the moment, but it's also searchable on Google Books. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I already paid my dues by cleaning up G-spot amplification; no way I'm going to be the sucker for this one! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think fascination of some people is taking this article far from reality.... one can see by reading MALE PREGNANCY IN HUMANS, that some people (I don't know why) are trying to make or you can say INVENT MEDICAL TERMS of their own. False claims from Hoax web-sites should not be a part of a genuine encyclopedia. Medical Terms should be noted as they are noted by professionals not mere stories written by some bloggers irrelevant to the field. I am a general medicine resident and will be appearing for step exam later....I will be very busy for a while...so can't help on this article for sometime. Please relevant people from medicine and related disciplines should come forward and address this situation and mend such articles so that they appear as informative yet concise as they appear in our medical encyclopedias and medical literature. I again say that GOSSIPS and material from unauthentic, hoax web-sites must not be taken! Thanks and peace be to all! §kam§119.153.69.5 (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore does any one from MEDICINE heard ECTOPIC PREGNANCY IN HUMAN MALES. The answer will obviously be NO. Even in human females, implantation of an embryo in abdominal cavity is never attempted,...because it will result in the death of such female..the embryo can not survive the harsh environment of abdominal cavity especially due to the ph AND OTHER FACTORS(environment in uterus is different). Then WHY INVENTING WORDS (these terms one can not find in medical encyclopedias) that damage reputation of wikipedia. Similarly We won't find term TEST TUBE PREGNANCY instead of TEST TUBE BABIES in medical literature (exception is hoax web-sites). ALL I WANT TO SAY IS BE CONCISE AND RELATE ONLY MEDICAL TERMS, ALSO SAY A BIG NO TO LINKING UNAUTHENTIC AND MEDICALLY INAPPROPRIATE SOURCES TO MEDICAL TERMS. §kam§119.153.69.5 (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're shouting things with which we (members of this wikiproject) generally agree. You may find that it's easier to convince with facts, calmly presented, in the long term. -- Scray (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have written some phrases in bold and capital letters IN ORDER TO EMPHASIZE THEM......this should in no case be considered as "shouting"...so please don't make such comments as it is not the case. Thanks and peace be to all. §kam§119.153.136.255 (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not easy to discuss male lactation without a definition. Does the lead sentence of lactation look correct to everyone? What is the difference to breastfeeding or nursing? For me the difference is mostly human vs non-human and lactation does not necessarily say "providing that milk to the young". Richiez (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Male lactation is not the word used in major medical encyclopedias and literature BECAUSE it is not a NORMAL PHYSIOLOGY in HUMAN MALES.......it is infact an abnormal functioning.....THE PROPER WORD FOR THIS IS "Galactorrhea" (Everyone will find this word in Medical encyclopedias and is the word referred to: 1:milk production in some new-born-witch's milk, 2:and in humans with metabolic disorder-as was the case with POWs-starvation is accompanied by metabolic liver disorder (here point should be noted: only some POWs develop this abnormality and their number as compared to others was very less), 3:AND due to some other DISEASES (PITUITARY CANCER etc.) and SYNDROMES (For example: Klinefelter Syndrome etc. are major ones); This CONDITION is so rare, only found in some hand-full of people with such disorders, BUT is present in medical literature). Also being concise is the key in making good articles that are medically correct, otherwise the article with inappropriate and unauthentic citations goes far from reality. Thank you very much. Well at the end I would like to say Its very hard job to maintain an encylcopedia ( especially where everyone, relevant or irrelevant to the field) is allowed to make and edit articles. Thanks again and a big clap to everyone who have strove hard for converting weak and scientifically poor articles into competent ones. PEACE BE TO ALL.§kam§119.153.136.255 (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the many things that you are obviously missing is that Wikipedia is not just a medical encyclopedia. It may sound bizarre to you, but it also happens to be a general encyclopedia on the side. You would never find entries on topics such as pipe organ, cuckoo clock or even Green Knight in a medical encyclopedia, yet here they are perfectly legitimate. Whether we should have a separate male lactation article or not is a perfectly legitimate question that needs to be discussed. But you are not contributing to this discussion. You are just generating noise.

And please, please, read WP:Shouting things loudly does not make them true and observe that you are the only person on this page using that particular technique. Maybe that's because you are so much more knowledgeable and intelligent than everybody else here? Hans Adler 09:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you are trying to prove,(I don't know), But one thing I know for certain is that wether it a medical encyclopedia or a general encyclopedia....majority of people here would agree that articles should have authentic sources otherwise no irrelevant source be cited and Medical terms be used as such.Thanks §kam§119.153.156.129 (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at the related articles in context:

mammary gland (mammals, biology) / breast (humans, culture, medicine)
milk (mammals, biology, agriculture, food) / breast milk (humans, culture, medicine)
lactation (humans, medicine) / breast feeding (humans, culture, medicine)
male lactation (mammals/humans, culture, medicine) / galactorrhea (human, medicine) [includes neonatal milk]
nipple discharge (human, medicine)
prolactinoma (human, medicine); galactogogue (human, medicine)

I think the separation in the first two items makes sense: A general biology article about mammals, and a specific human article with cultural and medical aspects. Perhaps we can follow the same pattern for the third and fourth article? This would entail the following:

Generalise lactation so that it deals with mammals in general. (That would be a job for WP:WikiProject Biology or WP:WikiProject Mammals.) Move the human medicine stuff to breast feeding, where mothers are more likely to read it.
Generalise male lactation so that it deals with atypical or abnormal lactation in mammals of both sexes; move the specific material about human male lactation and its cultural context to galactorrhea. Any ideas for a name for the resulting article? Hans Adler 09:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an excellent framework! Non-trivial milk production by humans (male or female) outside the normal physiology is "galactorrhea". Thus, I would support a simple redirect from "male lactation" to galactorrhea. -- Scray (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well there are some complications:

According to male lactation, male lactation does occur, with its usual function in reproduction, in Dayak fruit bats and goats -- although I have not checked the sources. Together with neonatal milk in mammals (assuming it occurs in non-humans) and lactation-like phenomena in non-mammals this would be enough material for an article about non-standard lactation. That's why I would not simply merge the article into galactorrhea. Prolactinomas, galactogogues and prolonging the nursing period (e.g. in humans and in cows) could also be covered there.
It's not OK to simply suppress the cultural material around male lactation. There is a tendency for primarily medical articles to censor non-medical content, but that's only acceptable if the non-medical content is covered elsewhere. The phenomenon of men trying to breastfeed is widely reported, whether it exists or not. That makes it notable, and Wikipedia is where readers expect to find accurate information that puts it into the correct context. Hans Adler 10:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If the consensus in reliable sources is to apply the term "male lactation" to humans, then I agree. If, as is my sense, "male lactation" is used in the context of other mammals and human male lactation is generally referred to as "galactorrhea", then we need to respect that distinction. I have a fair amount of experience in health-related matters, but I resist editing on the basis of my own opinions and I'll defer to the preponderance of evidence (which I have not recently reviewed). -- Scray (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I am personally not worried at all about the terminology so long as the information is organised sensibly. Please don't interpret anything I have written as insisting on a specific term. I don't know what the consensus in reliable sources is. I guess that depends on what kind of sources we read -- scientific papers, popular science, or newspapers/magazines. Hans Adler 13:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with sacry. Wether it a medical encyclopedia or a general encyclopedia....majority of people here would agree that articles should have authentic sources otherwise no irrelevant source be cited and Medical terms be used as such. Galactorrhea is the correct term....now "Hans alder" is offensive to medical articles by saying that "There is a tendency for primarily medical articles to censor non-medical content". Its only Hans alder who says that. Millions of people and medical doctors and medical educationists are using medical articles from text-books and medical encyclopedias. Such medical articles and terms are correct and authentic in nature because they don't contain incorrect sources. Who has given you the authority to over-ride these medical terms. If I would have enough time, I would certainly went to legitimate People here on Wikipedia (related to medicine) and report the whole case. Thanks §kam§

"Authentic sources" is not a technical term on Wikipedia, and I have no idea what it means. But it does seem to exclude articles in Scientific American [31], so I am very concerned. By the way, that edit has not been reverted yet, and since the IP is edit warring about it I think it would be ideal if an admin with a professional medical background did that, along with a warning. Hans Adler 11:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The IP has changed the post above since I responded [32], and is once more demonstrating a lack of reading comprehension. It's simply not reasonable to misunderstand "medical article" in the sentence in question ("There is a tendency for primarily medical articles to censor non-medical content, but that's only acceptable if the non-medical content is covered elsewhere.") as anything but medical articles in Wikipedia. Surely this jumping to conclusions about sources and me and then writing lengthy attacks about supposed incompetence has been going on on the talk page for long enough. Can an admin step in, please. Recently the IP has shown rudimentary signs of learning (such as finally ceasing the shouting), but the rate of this learning process is still not satisfactory. Hans Adler 11:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we do sometimes see social issues suppressed—just like some articles about social issues suppress medical issues—and we don't want either of those things to happen. In this case, perhaps men's efforts to breastfeed should go into a section on ==Deliberate induction== in Galactorrhea.

I'm not sure about the proposed division. Shouldn't abnormal lactation of either sex be covered in Lactation, rather than in a separate article named Male lactation? I'm also a little concerned about Galactorrhea inadvertently turning into abnormal male human lactation, rather than abnormal human lactation, which affects both males and females. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep changes and controversy contained in male lactation else we could end up adding a section "male breastfeeding" to breastfeeding. Is there any evidence of the term "male lactation" in pop culture? I am sceptical - http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=male%20lactation . If there isnt anything then we should create an article "male pregnancy fantasies and associated psychologic conditions" and treat it there. Richiez (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

ETAS - Dermatology In-Review

Most US dermatology residents use the above site for studying. The site is free, and is notable for a ~500 page study guide, as well as thousands of practice questions. I am thinking about adding this external link to the list. However, I wanted to get the community's opinion first. Is this an appropriate EL to add? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, while we are discussing EL's, what do you think about this one, which has many high quality images: http://www.merckmedicus.com/ppdocs/us/hcp/content/white/white.htm. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a reliable source in general, so could be used as a reference where relevant, although other secondary sources may be preferred by WP:MEDRS. I'd have no reluctance to use any page there as an external link for the relevant topic, as long as it was deep linked and annotated, e.g. Urticaria could have something like:

White, Gary M; Cox, Neil H (2006). "Urticaria and Related Disorders". Elsevier. – online textbook with illustrative images

I'd say WP:ELYES no.3 ("... cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues") applies, subject to WP:ELNO no.13 ("... that part of the site could be deep linked"). --RexxS (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

What about the ETAS - Dermatology In-Review link? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Fails WP:ELNO no.6: "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content". --RexxS (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a direct link to the study guide does not require a login. Can I include that link? If so, how would you format it? The link is http://dermatologyinreview.com/pdf/dermatology_study_guide.pdf. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Only my taste, of course, but I'd use something like:

Redbord, Kelley; Schalock, Peter; Strober, Bruce E (30 August 2010). "Basic Science and Structure of Skin" (PDF). Educational Testing and Assessment Systems. Retrieved 14 November 2010. – Dermatology Study Guide (PDF, 13.3 MB)

--RexxS (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I have added both those citations under the further reading section of the list. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Most popular WikiProjects

We have two new reports on WikiProjects, and both show that WPMED is one of the most popular and active WikiProjects in the encyclopedia. If you're interested, here's the links:

Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by changes, which totals the number of edits to any page in the project's space during the last 30 days. About 1200 WikiProjects are listed, and WPMED is #28 (top 3%).
Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProject watchers, which counts the number of editors watching the WikiProject's page (the main page, if there are multiple pages). The list appears to omit pages with fewer than 100 watchers; WPMED is #14.

(Thanks to Svick for producing the reports.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Since the first measure is not normalized to the number of pages of the projects it could only mean that we have more articles in our project than other projects which leads to a higher number of editions. Normalization would be more informative. --Garrondo (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I had not seen the words "in the project's space".--Garrondo (talk) 08:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Talk:Historical figures sometimes considered autistic#Requested move. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Admin for a move?

Juvenile Leukemia probably ought to be at Childhood leukemia (currently a redirect), and Childhood Leukemia ought to point to that, not to ALL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable and done... --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

With regard to the following sentence:

Parasitic infestations, stings, and bites in humans are caused by several groups of animals belonging to the following phyla: Annelida, Arthropoda, Bryozoa, Chordata, Cnidaria, Cyanobacteria, Echinodermata, Nemathelminthes, Platyhelminthes, and Protozoa.

Should it be Annelid or Annelida? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Annelida is correct in a listing of phyla. More problematic may be Nemathelminthes - is that term currently-accepted? -- Scray (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please also observe Scray's correct use of italics.LeadSongDog come howl! 05:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Should all of those phyla names be italicized? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk)

The guidance is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Article_titles. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Vocabulary quiz

Consider untreated, advanced breast cancer (e.g., in the medieval era):

The tumor eventually outgrows its blood supply, and the center necroses. A natural hole may form in the skin so that the putrid fluid can drain out of the body. Is this a fistula, or is there a more specific term? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ulcer? --WS (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You're thinking of fungating. MastCell ^Talk 17:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't the hole/tract be more of a fistula, though? I associate "fungating" more with the type of tumor/wound that is heaped up and breaks up through the skin, looking like a mushroom (thus "fung"-ating).Yobol (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

True, I suppose that to be precise, the lesion would be described as "fungating" while the drainage tract itself might be described as a "fistula", although I think "sinus" might be a more appropriate term. A fistula is typically a connection between two enclosed, epithelialized cavities, while a sinus is a tract that drains from an internal cavity to the surface. MastCell ^Talk 19:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ulcer is the right term. A fistula, by definition, connects two epithelium-lined cavities. A sinus tract is a connection to the skin that is longer than it is wide. A "fungating lesion" is a higher-level structure consisting of the mass and overlying changes on the ulcerating surface. -- Scray (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not know that a sinus had to have length > width. Learn something new every day. :) Actually, most days here I just become slightly more pessimistic about humanity in general, but today I learned something new. :) MastCell ^Talk 20:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The sinus is used in normal breast anatomy so there might be opportunity for confusion and there is also lactiferous fistula which develops when something goes wrong in that sinus. Necrosing tumor might be comedocarcinoma but unless it is specific ulcer is probably the most accurate term. Richiez (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the topic of the last issue of Nature was needs to be mentioned in the lead of articles?

I'm not sure where to raise this issue, but I've seen it happen and Schizophrenia, Psychiatry, etc. Seems a bad form of {{recentism}}. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Lachman test

Hi WPMED, it appears this article, tagged to your project, was merged to Anterior cruciate ligament injury in June. However, recently an IP has undone the redirect to create a stub with a non-reliable source (wikis are not RS). Any input on this would be welcome at Talk:Lachman test. Str Pby (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes and reverted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

What type of apostrophe?

Should the article be at Ross’ syndrome or Ross' syndrome? (notice the difference in apostrophes) ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Straight, not curly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Straight (Ross' syndrome), with a redirect from curly (Ross’ syndrome) and another from missing (Ross syndrome). The redirect pages should be tagged with {{R from other spelling}}. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Will someone then move the page to the staight one (Ross' syndrome)? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Pubmed has three articles with "Ross' syndrome" in the title and 61 articles with "Ross syndrome" in the title. Our article should be entitled "Ross syndrome". Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Our List of eponymous diseases article reflects the diversity of punctuation practice, which has a clear trans-Atlantic divide. See: Jana N, Barik S, Arora N (2009 Mar 9). "Current use of medical eponyms--a need for global uniformity in scientific publications". BMC Med Res Methodol 9: 18. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-18. PMID 19272131 —Preceding unsigned comment added by November 2010 LeadSongDog (talk • contribs) 19:47, 22

I was familiar with Victor McKusick's feelings on the matter (PMID 9465859) but had not seen the paper by Jana et al. Thanks for that! I hope it will be used to support WP guidance (at least for WP-MED) on use of eponyms. ~~Down's~~Down with possessive eponyms! -- Scray (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no audible difference between "Down's syndrome" and "Down syndrome", hence Americans, who like to drop letters they find no use for, have eliminated the possessive. The same cannot be said for "Parkinson's disease" or "Alzheimer's disease". I feel the author of that article might as well argue for consistency in the pronunciation of "ough". Language is inconsistent. Deal with it. Google does. Colin°^Talk 22:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the cited articles? The argument for the possessive form is not compelling, whereas we have cogent published arguments for the non-possessive. How many people know whether the namesake for hyperthyroidism was named Grave or Graves? A redirect for one of the possessives, Graves' disease or Grave's disease, is evidence of this confusion. When the possessive of an eponym ending in "s" is used, one cannot tell from hearing, and misspellings leave one in doubt. If the non-possessive form is used, the proper spelling is clear. I don't know of a prominent expert arguing in a peer-reviewed publication for retaining the possessive. Let's not set this up as a conflict between British and American speakers, unless the literature says that's what it is. -- Scray (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I no of no wise expert arguing in a peer-reviewed publication that the tide should not come in, either. It is all a rather pointless debate. People will say and write what they want to. Half the UK population shops at "Tesco's". But there never was a Mr Tesco, who might have owned a shop. Colin°^Talk 22:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Great references. Thank you. With that being said, do we have a actual policy, or can someone give me a succinct one-liner as to what our policy on Wikipedia is regarding the use of eponymous disease names in terms of the possessive and nonpossessive forms? I want to make a footnote in an article touching on this issues. Thanks in advance! ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that any attempt to have WP do more than follow the literature is doomed to flounder. Unless and until the ICMJE decides to standardiz(s)e, the most we can really do is take note of the division and treat it as we treat wp:ENGVAR. Bye the bye, Medical eponyms is in a sad state. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There are three guidelines but none specifically cover the apostrophe. WP:MEDMOS discusses naming conventions for diseases. There's also Wikipedia:Article titles. See specifically the "National varieties of English" section in the latter guideline. As for a footnote in an article, is this a WP article? If it is, Wikipedia doesn't generally refer to itself. (BTW, LeadSongDog, Flounder :-))Colin°^Talk 23:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Per MEDMOS, we follow ICD-10, and ICD-10 includes the apostrophes. --Arcadian (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the ICD instruction manual page 9 says "Eponymous terms are avoided since they are not self-descriptive; however, many of these names are in such widespread use (e.g. Hodgkin disease, Parkinson disease and Addison disease) that they must be retained." Which apostrophes in ICD-10 did you intend? Were you perhaps looking at one of the national versions rather than the current international version? In any case, I don't see any variation of "Ross syndrome" or "Ross' syndrome" in ICD-10. (Colin: wikt:flounder)LeadSongDog come howl! 17:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I note the recent updates show various additions, deletions, and revisions of xxx('(s)) syndrome. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What to name Trisomy 21 is a reliable way to waste time. People on either side firmly believe that whatever they're familiar with is the One True™ name. Its talk page should probably have a FAQ addressing it (and some wikignome with a few minutes on hand should definitely look into archiving that talk page; it's over 100 KB). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning the project page

We have a section of news and annoucements template and subsection in the project page that has not changed since 2009... If the last annoucement is from more than 2 years ago then we surely do not need this subsection and could eliminate it to clean up a bit the project page.--Garrondo (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If nobody is going to take ownership of the section we might as well get rid of it. JFW | T@lk 22:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Done WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Pathology images

I have found a collection of pathology images from Ed Uthman here on flicker [33] which are under a CC2.0 license. I emailed him regarding contributing to Wikipedia. More may be found here at his home page [34]. Are there people here interested in adding them to our pages once they are uploaded to commons? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

We already have a bunch of them here on commons [35]. They could however us better integration into Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

Winged scapula and Spinal cord injury are at peer review. --WS (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

100 GA milestone

We have 93 GA at the project right now and 5 more are nominated, 3 of them without a reviewer yet. Maybe the milestone of 100 possible GA could be used to try to encourage review of the ones at GAN and nominate other articles. How fast are we capable of reaching 100 GA? Any bets? --Garrondo (talk) 07:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hypercholesterolemia, the collaboration of the month, might be a good candidate with some more work. --WS (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Odds ratio

The question of whether it should be linked to this wikiproject is at talk:Odds ratio. Editors are encouraged to weigh in there.LeadSongDog come howl! 22:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Reactivation of WikiProject Veterinary Medicine

I am interested in re-activating WikiProject Veterinary Medicine, particularly when I saw another user recently post this same idea on the project page. If you're interested and/or you have a great idea for jump-starting the revitalization, stop by here. --Kleopatra (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"Biotype"

I note that the article Vibrio cholerae refers to "biotype", which is currently a redlink. I see that 48 other articles also use the term "biotype", and many are about topics other than microbiology.

Do we want to create a stub biotype?

Do we want to change "biotype" in Vibrio cholerae and other microbiology-related articles to "serotype"? (Or is this wrong?)

-- 187.67.203.186 (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Athletic trainer

Just noticed today that the article Athletic trainer doesn’t seem to be included in WikiProject Medicine and I would love to see it added. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it a medical condition or treatment? It looks like it might belong under a health & fitness WikiProject. JFW | T@lk 10:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As it clearly states at the top of the article, athletic training shouldn’t be confused with personal training. Athletic training is recognized by the American Medical Association as a medical profession which deals with the prevention, evaluation, treatment and rehabilitation of athletic injuries. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

We have sports medicine and rehabilitation here in Canada Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You also have Athletic therapists, the Canadian term for athletic trainer. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you consider moving the article to the Canadian (and perhaps elsewhere?) name for the job, since it's much less likely to confuse readers? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I just found this and am wondering what the best name for the article would be. Athletic trainers & therapists with redirects from athletic trainer and athletic therapist? ITasteLikePaint (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Apart from a few very specific exceptions, article titles are always singular. The current title is reasonable, as long as the synonyms are redirected to it. The only other possibility I might suggest would be to re-write the article to be about the activity (Athletic training or Athletic therapy), rather than the person. I suspect those would be just as liable to being misinterpreted as the current title though. --RexxS (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel at this point we have diverged from the topic at hand unless the name of the article needs to be changed before it can be included in WikiProject Medicine. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

While I have no problem if a consensus is formed to not include the article in WikiProject Medicine, I do have a problem with not having it included simply due to lack of discussion. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on article creation policy?

Here is a discussion and I think it would be good to have more opinions - both regarding the specific problems mentioned and the more general aspects. Richiez (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is a balance between having general articles and specific articles. One that has to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

New tool for recent changes

See Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Recent changes for a project-wide "watchlist". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This is great. I have been asking around for this exact thing for a long time. Well done WAID. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant. Thanks. Anthony (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks should be directed to User:FemtoBot's owner; all I did was respond to the advertised offer. (It's possible that the form of thanks he'd most appreciate is someone using the list regularly to thwart the vandals. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we get this for individual taskforces like WP:DERM? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

An interesting arrival

DPG1993 (talk · contribs) claims to be from the people at Cochrane. I think discussion of Cochrane reviews in articles should generally be welcomed. JFW | T@lk 11:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely. What they are adding is very interesting just needs to be properly formatted [36]. I have done a few but further word needs to be done such as: ref formatting and just stating the facts. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Except of course that per policy can't be an organisation of multiple people sharing an account, but individual people... Their (Cochrane) helping to highlight new reviews, which per WP:MEDRS we hold so highly, needs helping & fascilitating. 23:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

My impression is that this is one person. Of course if we encounter wide divergence in style and quality, we may need the account owner to shut down the shared setting. JFW | T@lk 23:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

He has answered in his talk page that he is a single user. I have directed him here for further questions.--Garrondo (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

File:MenstrualCycle.png: factual accuracy?

Please contribute your opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force#File:MenstrualCycle.png: factual accuracy? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Info about pediatrics in the Uk and other european countries

A personal question: My wife is an intern training to become a pediatrician in Spain. When she finishes we were thinking of staying for a year or two in the United Kingdom or other european country so I can do a post-Phd study, but we do not know how systems work in the different countries. Could anybody give me some hints? Do we have an article on the issue? Thanks.--Garrondo (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I can give some general clues about the UK. Please drop me an email. JFW | T@lk 22:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Garrondo, my sister is a pediatrician, recently qualified, so if you have any specific questions, I can find out without any trouble answers for you. Just hit me up on my talk page or else via email if you prefer.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Page move?

Can some admin move Wilson's syndrome to Wilson's temperature syndrome over the redirect? It'll readers figure out whether they want to be at the article about the thyroid "problem" or at Wilson's disease (the copper problem). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sleep deprivation

The WikiProject Medicine Collaboration of the Month for April 2024 is Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease! Head to its talk page to organize our efforts. Continue to nominate topics for future months at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Month#Nominations.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Gadodiamide

Hello! While wikifying articles for WikiPoject Wikify backlog elimination drive, I came across Gadodiamide. It is a chemical that is used as a contrast agent in MRI. I find that it is written in a confusing way, and I thought someone here might know more about it and fix the article so that it is more approachable. Thanks! --Tea with toast (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Any specific things you find unclear? I added a link to MRI contrast agent, which is probably useful for lay readers. --WS (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can we get a few more people to watch Leukemia, please? This probably appeared on a dozen screens in the two and a half minutes before we got it reverted. The article activity is something more than 90% vandalism, spam, and reversions of the same. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Enough vandalism to request semi-protection? Yobol (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Semi protected 3 months. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Outside opinion requested

I was hoping someone could comment over at Water fluoridation controversy about a recent change I made that has been reverted multiple times. I think my change more accurate reflects the summary of the position of the source (direct link here). The relevant section is about one page long, and if someone could please comment on which version (or if a 3rd) would be a more accurate summary, I would greatly appreciate it. Yobol (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I commented there, as has LeadSongDog. It looks like there's a reasonable degree of agreement at present, but if more input would be useful, feel free to ask me or come back here. MastCell ^Talk 18:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yours and LeadSongDog's input greatly appreciated. I think the immediate dispute is largely resolved. Yobol (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

An expert is needed

This is to note that an {{Expert-subject}} template has been added to the Lung volumes article in the Values section. Certain volume values have come into question as noted on the Lung volumes talk page. Thank you in advance for any help you can give, and I hope you all have the happiest of holidays this season!
— Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 07:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hydroxycut: request outside input

I'd like to request some outside input on Hydroxycut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is an article about a nutritional supplement which was linked to serious hepatotoxicity and death, and ultimately withdrawn from the market (although a "new formulation" has since reappeared). Reliable-source coverage has focused on serious adverse events caused by the supplement (Fong et al., 2010, PMID 20104221), dubious marketing and research practices by the manufacturer (New York Times 2003), lax oversight of dietary supplements contributing to the harms caused by Hydroxycut (Lobb 2009), and FDA warnings about the product (Associated Press 2009, U.S. FDA 2009).

I've tried to build it the article using these sources. Another editor has taken issue, questioning my motives and raising a concern about original research. They have added substantial links and content sourced from, among others, the Nutrition Business Journal, nutraingredients-usa.com, and Iron Man magazine, while mildly watering down the material sourced to the New York Times ([37]). The article does not appear to be heavily watchlisted, so in the interest of avoiding a back and forth I thought I'd ask for outside input from other editors. More can be found on the article talk page. MastCell ^Talk 18:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Getting the wind knocked out of you

While looking for a good link for Diaphragmatic spasm, I ended up with the best match being Getting the wind knocked out of you. It's in the scope of WPMED, and you can see from its talk page how many times the title has been debated. But really, it's just not a suitable title for an encyclopedia article. I've suggested a change of title to Diaphragmatic spasm, and called for comments on the talk page. Any thoughts welcome there. --RexxS (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

List of signs and symptoms of diving disorders

I created the list article List of signs and symptoms of diving disorders, as I became aware that scuba divers had no central page to get an overview of these. I know we frown upon "List of symptoms ..." in general, but I'm hoping that it's sufficiently different to warrant an exception. Anyway, it's at WP:FLC now, as a sort of test case for the new FL criteria for me, so please feel free to criticise, improve, or nominate for deletion. Thanks in advance: whatever your views are, they're appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Vertebral artery dissection

On vertebral artery dissection I am having a dispute with various editors about a paper by Edzard Ernst about the complications of chiropractic. Two editors (BullRangifer and Quackguru) think I am being unfair about its methodological limitations, while one editor (VAPhD) wants it gone. Could others take a look and say what they think? JFW | T@lk 23:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought it odd that JFW didn't specify a particular talk page section, so I went to take a look... The discussion during the last week comprises 50K out of the 52K on the talk page. There's a lot going on, and JFW needs help from several people here. Please pitch in, even if it's just to give a thumbs up/thumbs down whether statements like these: [38][39][40] based on PMID 20642715 (might be a systematic review of bad data?) seem like a "WP:WEIGHT problem". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't intend to spend more time arguing about Ernst's 2010 paper (PMID 20642715) after the time I already spent on the topic at Talk:Chiropractic. The paper meets WP:MEDRS in that it's recent, secondary, and a review (arguably systematic), published in IJCP. It carries all the authority of the editorial process of the IJCP, and it's not our place to introduce our our analysis of such a source - that's the job of the published literature, and if flaws emerge, they will be documented there. It is less relevant to VAD than to Chiropractic, but relevant nevertheless. It is true that Ernst is a controversial figure, but it is equally true that some chiropractors have a problem with his conclusions. The difference is that Ernst is published in top-quality publications, while rebuttals seem to have only been made on self-published websites, or parochial journals. In short, if I were to pitch in, it would be only to argue strongly for the inclusion of Ernst's conclusions from his 2010 study. --RexxS (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree should be included. But manipulation of the neck is still a minor cause of VAD. Therefor per WP:DUE should be discussed in the body of the text not the lead IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

We are already citing another paper from Ernst, and indeed I use it to source the objections from chiropractors. The 2010 paper does not add anything and is UNDUE. This has been my line, but I have the feeling that my arguments are falling on deaf ears, particularly with BullRangifer. JFW | T@lk 09:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The 2010 Ernst specifically examines deaths associated with CSM, while the 2007 review looks at all the adverse effects, so I don't agree it adds nothing. But even then, look at how the 2007 review is used: the review's conclusions are "In the majority of cases, spinal manipulation was deemed to be the probable cause of the adverse effect", and the review is only used in the article to support "the association is disputed by proponents of these treatment modalities" - in other words, there's nothing in the article drawn from Ernst's actual conclusions! --RexxS (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

RexxS is spot on. Jfdwolff, I'm not deaf, I just disagree and feel you're an immovable wall who isn't collaborating by accepting other's suggestions. This is a Wikipedia article we're writing, not a textbook. We must include many other types of details, both MEDRS and RS. Otherwise I value your skills and expertise. I've dealt with this subject for a couple decades now, as well as treated patients who have nearly died and still have deficits. It may not be the main cause, but a number of MEDRS sources refer to high cervical manipulation as a "major cause" and others a "leading cause" of VAD in those "under 45".

I'm only asking for mention of the vast (nearly 100%) underreporting problem. It's described in MEDRS and leaving it out leaves the reader with the false impression that the statistics you do include are somehow the whole story. They aren't. There is no WEIGHT problem because we're only talking about a sentence or two. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to jump in on the talk page, so I'll comment here. A detailed review of the chiropractic controversy doesn't really belong in vertebral artery dissection. It should be sufficient to say that chiropractic manipulation has been described as a cause of VAD, and that the exact incidence and risk are unclear because of (among other things) potential underreporting and the difficulty of establishing a cause-effect relationship with crappy data. It seems to me that we can do that in a couple of sentences, with good-quality MEDRS-compliant sources, but maybe I'm overlooking some of the subtleties. MastCell ^Talk 17:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The evidence of underreporting is very circumstantial. We already have a statistic if 16-28% cases being due to chiropractic. JFW | T@lk 20:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we do have that statistic of "reported" cases. It's the tip of an iceberg.

MastCell is pointing in the right direction. The evidence of underreporting is published in a MEDRS source. Speculations about "circumstantial" don't override its use. That's OR, or whatever else one wishes to call that policy violation. My concern is that risk and occurrence statistics are unreliable (and far too low) for several reasons, among them underreporting. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has deleted my contribution to vertebral artery dissection and ignored the discussion here. QuackGuru (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it while it was still being discussed on the talk page. Consensus above, anyway, is for a brief mention along the lines of what MastCell wrote ('chiropractic manipulation has been described as a cause of VAD, and that the exact incidence and risk are unclear because of (among other things) potential underreporting and the difficulty of establishing a cause-effect relationship with crappy data'). Please bring your consensus over to the article talk page. Ocaasi (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I did restore it because of the consensus and disccusion here that was no longer very active. You also deleted a survey from chiropractic. When will you stop deleting my contributions to Wikipedia? QuackGuru (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see the relevant talk page discussion regarding that edit. In response to a request for a critique of treatment techniques, you found one 2009 primary study which involved a survey of students at a chiropractic college, and the injuries they received as students (worked on by other students, presumably). This is not a good study for the 'treatment techniques' section, or really for any section, due to its primary nature, its limited scope, its self-reported methodology, the non-representative sample of students who are being worked on repeatedly by non-professionals, and its generally limited relevance to broader issue of techniques; also, it belongs in the 'safety' section if at all. I'll stop deleting your contributions when they follow the same standard of policy you reliably advocate. Ocaasi (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This discussion here does not yield consensus in any form. There are unresolved issues on the talkpage that need to be addressed before consensus is likely to emerge. I have now summarised them for everyone's benefit.

Could I ask everyone who was prepared to offer their opinion here to respond to my post on the talkpage, so we can concentrate the viewpoints? There are two problems with the source that we have labeled "Ernst-death". Both of them are essentially WP:WEIGHT issues, something that we have not really touched on in this thread. JFW | T@lk 10:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Editors already gave their opinions here. You started this thread for opinions from uninvolved editors. Now that consensus is for including the reference you want to ignore consensus. It is essentially a WP:WEIGHT violation to delete a recent systematic review. QuackGuru (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted on this one, but I will give my opinion as a previously uninvolved editor (in this dispute anyway). I'm conflicted because following wikipedia's policies, we should include this reference (perhaps baalanced by the much higher quality bone & joint decade 2010 reference). On the other hand, this study is of such low quality, seems deceptively described as a systematic review, and is authored by someone with a (huge) known bias. For those interested in quality issues, see this review With such quality issues, I really feel we are not improving the quality of WP by including this work. DigitalC (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Which policy actually mandates the inclusion of that study? JFW | T@lk 07:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing QG would argue that MEDRS and NPOV require us to mention the significant viewpoint and its status as a systematic review gives it all the weight it needs. I'd argue that its uniqueness as a MEDRS source in this situation as well as its proportionate relevance to the VBA article are up for debate. Ocaasi (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

MEDRS does not force the inclusion of anything. It simply sets standards for sources where there are multiple sources available. From a MEDRS perspective, the review shows that chiropractic has probably caused death, VAD being an important mechanism. It alludes to underreporting in the medical literature.

WEIGHT is a subsection of NPOV, and it does not demand that every viewpoint is included. This applies especially in extreme or marginal views. JFW | T@lk 15:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, JDW is correct about the relationship between MEDRS & WEIGHT. The relevant section is Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. However, it does say all significant viewpoints, so the base guidance is that if a viewpoint is relevant and published by reliable sources, then it should be included. WP:Weight guides us on how we treat the viewpoints of minorities, and how much prominence we give them (if any). Unless the argument is being made that Ernst's conclusions represent a minority viewpoint in the published, reliable literature, it needs to be fairly represented as the majority viewpoint. The fact is that his conclusions are not of huge relevance to VAD, but that is not what WEIGHT is about. As long as CSM is described as a cause or risk factor for VAD in the reliable literature, the article remains incomplete without mentioning it. If consensus can be gained that the following fairly represents Ernst's conclusions, then there is no problem:

Chiropractic and other forms of neck manipulation have been linked to vertebral artery dissection (16–28% of cases in hospital-based studies).^[1] Many of the reports have methodological flaws,^[2]^[3] and the association is disputed by proponents of these treatment modalities.^[4]

^ Kim YK, Schulman S (2009). "Cervical artery dissection: pathology, epidemiology and management". Thromb. Res. 123 (6): 810–21. doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2009.01.013. PMID 19269682. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
^ Rubinstein SM, Peerdeman SM, van Tulder MW, Riphagen I, Haldeman S (2005). "A systematic review of the risk factors for cervical artery dissection". Stroke. 36 (7): 1575–80. doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000169919.73219.30. PMID 15933263. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Miley ML, Wellik KE, Wingerchuk DM, Demaerschalk BM (2008). "Does cervical manipulative therapy cause vertebral artery dissection and stroke?". Neurologist. 14 (1): 66–73. doi:10.1097/NRL.0b013e318164e53d. PMID 18195663. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Ernst E (2007). "Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review". J R Soc Med. 100 (7): 330–8. doi:10.1258/jrsm.100.7.330. PMC 1905885. PMID 17606755. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Personally, I feel it gives insufficient weight to the majority viewpoint and excess weight to minority viewpoints. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that MEDRS does not force its inclusion, however once someone has included it, I don't see that its reliability can be used to remove it, even though from original research it is a study of extremely low quality. Why? According to MEDRS it comes from a reliable source. I disagree that the study shows that chiropractic has probably caused death (this study can't show cause of anything, and another study has given a much more plausible explanation for the correlation). DigitalC (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, PMID 20642715 is a study of extremely high quality. It's published by IJCP with all the authority of their editorial and peer review processes. That's the benchmark of quality here, not personal dislike, amateur analysis, or suggestions of bias of the author. If its conclusions were to be contended in the reliable literature, you would have a point, but the best anyone has come up with so far is a self-published rant from a website called "chiroaccess.com" - a very long way short of a reliable source. From what I've read about the forces involved in CSM, I might guess that VAD should only be a consequence if a condition pre-existed, but until we see that exposition in a source comparable to IJCP, there's no place for such speculation in Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No, the study is of low quality. I agree that it is published by IJCP, and therefore according to WP:MEDRS we give it the authority of their editorial and peer review processes. However, the study is not a systematic review, yet portrays itself as one. It is in reality a simple case series. A proper systematic review would have included all relevant study on the topic, including the research from the Bone and Joint Decade Task Force, which found a similar association between stroke after seeing a chiropractor and stroke after seeing a GP. This was explained by patients with "vertebrobasilar artery dissection-related neck pain or headache seeking care [either GP or DC] before having their stroke." The article on Chiroaccess.com should not be considered a self-published article anymore than something on medscape.com or webmd.com would be. Chiroaccess.com is a website for HealthIndex Inc, the group that created MANTIS (literature database). Of course, the article on chiroaccess.com would also be considered reliable by SPS, as it is published by a published expert in the field, Anthony Rosner. DigitalC (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No the study is high quality, and it doesn't matter how often either of us opine on it. It's not just MEDRS, but WP:RS that guarantees that, because of the quality of the publication process of ICJP, and stating otherwise doesn't make it so. The review has a stated methodology, and it's not up to you to suggest other inclusion criteria. You state that the research by the Bone and Joint Decade Task Force (where's the link?) was on stroke, and - tempting as it may be - to suggest that their conclusions apply to CSM is blatant WP:OR. Of course chiroaccess.com is self-published. It has no peer-review process or stated editorial policies and is run by chiropractors for chiropractors, and all the cautions in WP:SPS apply. Finally, Google Scholar indexes pretty much anything; the search for AL Rosner that you link shows where he's been published - top results are: cited in "The role of subluxation in chiropractic" - Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research; The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine; chiro.org. In fairness, he's had a paper in Seminars in oncology nursing and a letter published in Stroke, but nobody is seriously going to accept him as "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". --RexxS (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS does not, and cannot comment on the quality of a study, it can only ensure that there is an editorial process. Just as wikipedia cares about verifiability and not truth, wikipedia's policies prevent us from actually looking at whether a study is high quality or not. Stating that the Bone and Joint Decade Task Force [41] conclusions apply to spinal manipulation is not OR. "We found no evidence of excess risk of VBA stroke associated chiropractic care compared to primary care". A bias seems to show through when you then discount JACM, a peer-reviewed medical journal indexed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and MANTIS, and miss that he has been published in other peer-reviewed journals such as JMPT, The Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, Chiropractic & Osteopathy, and Pediatrics. DigitalC (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a little more complicated than that as there is WP:CONSENSUS to consider. :p--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly the point: a Wikipedian is not qualified to judge the quality of a source, so we rely on the published literature to make that judgement. Where's the RS that says PMID 20642715 is "extremely low quality"? Thanks for the link to Bone and Joint Decade Task Force, but I don't see your quote anywhere. The only conclusion they make about chiropractic is a result from a study they conducted themselves - making it a primary source for that conclusion. Please note that WP:MEDRS specifically warns against using primary sources to rebut the conclusions of secondary ones. You'd be better concentrating on what I'm saying, rather than leaping to accusations of bias, since I clearly stated top results when describing AL Rosner's publications in the relevant field. JACM is about computer science, not medicine. If you mean Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, then I flatly deny that it's relevant to VAD - which is the relevant field here. Rosner may be an expert on vertebral subluxation, but he's about as expert on the causes of VAD as I am. --RexxS (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Please point me in the direction of this consensus, and keep in mind that consensus can change. From the discussion that is currently going on, it certainly doesn't appear that there is consensus. The link I gave you for the Bone and Joint Decade Task for was one of many. In fact, here is another one, this time a secondary source that specifically mentions the primary source. This one is a "best evidence synthesis"[42]."Of specific concern are VBA strokes, which are extremely rare, but have been reported to be associated with chiropractic visits.20,54 However, the association between chiropractic visits (which frequently include cervical manipulation) and VBA stroke is similar to the association between physician visits and VBA stroke. This suggests that, on average, patients who seek chiropractic care for neck pain or headaches, and who then developed a VBA stroke may have actually been in the prodromal phase of a stroke when consulting the chiropractor; that is, the neck pain or headaches, which lead them to seek care were early symptoms of a VBA stroke.54/" and "because this increased risk is also seen in those seeking health care from their primary care physician, this association is likely due to patients with headache and neck pain from VBA dissection seeking care before their stroke.8,20". As for Rosner, some of his pulished works include topics such as etiology of cervical artery dissection, as well as adverse events associated with manipulation, as well as on Ernst's "misrepresentation of the literature". If he isn't a reiable source in this field, I don't know who is. DigitalC (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

People aren't reliable sources; relevant articles are. Nevertheless, I was quite impressed with Rosen's article on CAD, although he does conclude that "Despite the many risk factors that have been proposed as possible causes of CAD, it is still unknown which of them actually predispose patients to CAD after cervical spine manipulation", which is pretty much what I thought. You'd be much better off using that, with the authority of J Chiropr Med, than to try to build a case for treating Rosen as an expert on VAD, just to be able to quote a website. --RexxS (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, I have never suggested quoting chiroaccess in the article. As originally posted, I am conflicted in including Ernst, because of the low quality of the study, despite the fact that it bills itself as a systematic review. I agree that we shouldn't use OR to determine whether a study is good or not, but we have Rosner, who is able to point out the many problems for us. As it stands, WP:MEDRS would have us cast doubt on any study NOT mentioned by Ernst's review, even though his review failed to catch much of the literature on VAD/SMT. DigitalC (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The text was rewritten as suggested on the talk page and then was added to the appropriate section. A consensus formed from unvolved editors at this thread to include the systematic review but that was ignored. QuackGuru (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Instead of always claiming there's a consensus and making edits before the discussion is finished, how about ASKING if there's a consensus first, and only then making an edit? -- Brangifer (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that's good advice, Brangifer.

QuackGuru, I've noticed that on a large number of pages, you have asserted that a consensus exists, when every single other editor believes that the discussion remains unfinished. Let me advise you to behave as if no consensus exists unless and until someone other than you has directly and unambiguously told you something like "I believe we have a consensus to do ____ in this article". Until then, I think your track record indicates that you would be wise to assume that your personal belief in the existence of a consensus is probably wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggest a break

Someone has proposed banning QuackGuru at WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Community_ban_for_user:QuackGuru. I think it would be good for all of you to take a break from this particular dispute until that discussion is resolved one way or the other (usually 24 hours). WP:There is no deadline for resolving this content dispute: it can easily wait until tomorrow. Please consider working on something else for today, and getting back to this in a day or two, when there isn't a sword hanging over QG's head any longer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I also suggest that this thread here not be used to rehash the discussion over and over. I have already asked other contributors to post on the reliable sources noticeboard as well to discuss the reliability of "Ernst-death". JFW | T@lk 06:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

[Kim-1] Kim YK, Schulman S (2009). "Cervical artery dissection: pathology, epidemiology and management". Thromb. Res. 123 (6): 810–21. doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2009.01.013. PMID 19269682. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[Rubinstein-2] Rubinstein SM, Peerdeman SM, van Tulder MW, Riphagen I, Haldeman S (2005). "A systematic review of the risk factors for cervical artery dissection". Stroke. 36 (7): 1575–80. doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000169919.73219.30. PMID 15933263. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[3] Miley ML, Wellik KE, Wingerchuk DM, Demaerschalk BM (2008). "Does cervical manipulative therapy cause vertebral artery dissection and stroke?". Neurologist. 14 (1): 66–73. doi:10.1097/NRL.0b013e318164e53d. PMID 18195663. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[4] Ernst E (2007). "Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review". J R Soc Med. 100 (7): 330–8. doi:10.1258/jrsm.100.7.330. PMC 1905885. PMID 17606755. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 20

Doc James nominated for adminship

Subcats of Category:People by medical or psychological condition

Image correction?

Medical sounds

Citing an entire journal

dashes

Buerger's Image

ALS and NYT

HIV exceptionalism

'disease' vs 'defect'

Check it out...

Synonyms

Viewing recent changes to certain articles types

Naming convention

Pending changes

On my mind

Medical GAs

September collaboration of the month: Asthma!

Hospital articles

Category rename

Eye neoplasm - incorrect article title?

Looking for free dermatology-related review articles you like

See also section

Adding pending changes to ALL GAs and FAs

Adding template

Synonyms

Eyes on Haloperidol

WP:V and WP:MEDRS

Oncology related articles

Recent controversial edits

Unreliable chiropractic literature failed RS

Unreliable references against MEDRS

Cephalexin?

Short Course Immune Induction

Medline linking

RSN query

Laetrile and amygdalin

Advice on ambiguous classification in template?

Merger proposal carcinogenesis and oncogenesis

Medicine articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Pharma industry steering group

Help with article split

Propose Addition of Fluarix and Flulaval Articles

Great work everyone!

Fantom ICD disorders?

Opinion?

Watchlist: Involuntary commitment

Chiropractor/Singh edits

St. Vitus Dance

Photographs

SSRI

Um, VetMed?

Photos

October collaboration of the month!

Bladder

Inheritance Diagrams on genetic disorder pages

I laughed, I cried...

Medical research ethics eyes needed

Hemicorporectomy

CCSVI article - comments needed

Diberris

PLoS article

Why waste it?

New article

Regarding Stack Exchange

Looie

Misrepresents

2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content

Merge of Pharyngitis and Tonsillitis

Recent changes at Antiretroviral drug

The humanity...

Pending changes redux

Strange

Radioactive Tracer

"Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China" reassessment

Stray Page in need of improvement

Worried well

Page for an incompetent pharmacist?

Ross University School of Medicine