Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 66

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 60 ← Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68 → Archive 70

Another analysis of Cochrane reviews

Have people seen this one yet? PMID 25988604: Another study of publication bias, with a different statistical approach. Positive findings were on average 27% (95% CI: 18% to 36%) more likely to be included in the meta-analyses of efficacy than other findings. Outcomes showing no evidence of adverse effects had on average a 78% (95% CI: 51% to 113%) higher probability to enter the meta-analyses of safety than results showing that adverse effects existed. (The pubmed commons comment is also interesting.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

In the largest study on publication bias in meta-analyses to date, we found evidence of publication bias in Cochrane systematic reviews. In general, publication bias is smaller in meta-analyses of more recent studies, indicating their better reliability and supporting the effectiveness of the measures used to reduce publication bias in clinical trials [1]...interesting...for my part,i use textbooks, position statements and journal articles you can count on...however my opinion runs along the same lines as "PubMed commons" (same link )... These authors used a scraper they have made available on Github to extract meta-analyses from Cochrane reviews. They looked at reviews with placebo or "no treatment" control groups and 10 or more included studies. Whether or not these results are applicable to interventions with active or usual care control groups is unknown --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming research newsletter (May 2015): new papers open for review

Hi everybody,

We’re preparing for the May 2015 research newsletter and looking for contributors.
Please take a look at: WRN201505 and add your name next to any paper you are interested in covering.
As usual, short notes and one-paragraph reviews are most welcome.

Highlights from this month:

If you have any question about the format or process feel free to get in touch off-list.

Masssly, Tilman Bayer and Dario Taraborelli

Research:Newsletter

—M@sssly✉ 14:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

good information--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks User:Masssly. I am surprised regarding this one about pharmaceuticals. That our accuracy is 99.7% and our completeness in 83.8% in En and De as compared to standard textbooks I find amazing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
It accords with my own experience. These are precisely the sort of articles that Wikipedia handles best: articles that can be written in a more or less stereotyped way without requiring mastery of a large body of literature. Actually I would expect that our coverage of individual drugs is considerably better than any textbook's. It's in articles such as pharmaceutical drug that Wikipedia fails to impress. Looie496 (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
As the textbook is deemed the gold standard we cannot by the study design be better. Even though we likely do contain some content textbooks don't. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
We're better in the sense that we include detailed information about far more drugs than any textbook. Incidentally I've written a review of the paper, at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-05-27/Recent research. Comments or revisions are welcome. Looie496 (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
benzodiazepine article...the latter article contains a lot of good information but is poorly organized. Our article pharmaceutical drug shows this flaw to an even greater degree. The general take-home message, supported by the German study, is that our medical articles can be very useful to people who are looking for specific facts, but tend to be less useful to people who are trying to understand broad principles. [2] ...your comment only confirms that wikipedia is a "work-in-progress" we must all give 100% effort--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I think perhaps it's in the nature of the beast. When I was growing up my family had a set of the Encyclopedia Britannica, which was divided into two parts, the Macropedia, which contained large articles covering broad topic areas, and the Micropedia, which contained many small articles about specific things. Wikipedia is, in a sense, the ultimate Micropedia. Nobody can beat us for breadth of coverage, and our articles about small things are often quite good. But on the whole we don't do a very good job of being a Macropedia, and I have doubts that we ever will. But also I don't think we need to in order to be valuable. Looie496 (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@Looie496: Just glancing at the benzodiazepine article, the organization doesn't appear to be that bad. Are you referring to the organization of the entire article or the organization within certain sections, and if so, which sections? Boghog (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not that bad, really not bad at all, but some of the most important facts are buried. A reader who comes to the article not knowing anything about these drugs is going to have difficulty grasping that (a) these are some of the most widely prescribed drugs; (b) they are most commonly prescribed for anxiety and insomnia; (c) their great advantage over other drugs is the extremely low risk of fatal overdose; (d) they are only available by prescription. Looie496 (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Excellent points that should be included in the lead as part of the "big picture". I will try to work on this. Boghog (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I will give the references a "look"--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Non-MEDRS example why MEDRS is essential

So, I've just flagged a news item at Talk:Reproducibility#New_analysis_in_Nature. In this article Monya Baker explains the ongoing scientific catastrophe (I don't think the term is too strong) with inconsistent antibody testing materials, earlier commented on in this item from Andrew Bradbury and Andreas Plückthun in February. The scale of the work invalidated (or at least called into question) is huge, going back for many years. Essentially, if a paper relied on commercial antibodies and has not been independently reproduced, it can not be trusted, no matter how sterling the reputation of the researchers. This is as clear an example as I've seen for why we should not trust primary sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

(Well, that was a fun string of Edit conflicts...) LeadSongDog come howl! 16:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with your statement, MEDRS is very important--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the accidental reversion (the danger of reading your watch list on a cell phone). Just to play the devils advocate: It has long been recognized that many antibodies are unselective. Nevertheless, what if everyone is using the same unselective antibody to immunostain a particular protein and comes to the same erroneous conclusions? A review is later published that says the results are reproducible and hence implies that the conclusions reliable. This review is in turn cited in a Wikipedia article. Everything is hunky-dory, right? Boghog (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
No problem, it might have started with a caching problem at this end. Of course it would not be "hunky-dory", but at least we can say that the published expert reviewer overlooked a systematic weakness in the primary works reviewed, rather than a pseudonymous Wikipedian. It might argue for an even tighter standard, but of course that's a difficult idea to advance. I expect we'll see a flurry of retractions over the next year or two based on this. If there's any discipline left in science, we should. Retraction Watch may be our new best friend. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I had not seen this site before to be honest, it seems ideal,also it shows the "not-so-good side" of science The blog argues that retractions provide a window into the self-correcting nature of science, and can provide insight into cases of scientific fraud.[7] Its operators say that as science journalists, they have "found retractions to be the source of great stories that say a lot about how science is conducted."[3] [4]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree that Retraction Watch is enormously useful, although it should be pointed out that this blog mainly deals with why a publication has been retracted rather than simply documenting that a retraction has occurred. PubMed itself does a good job with the later. Perhaps what we need is a bot that scans PubMed for newly retracted papers and adds {{Retracted}} if appropriate. Boghog (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Yep, not to be a party pooper but my first reaction was the same as Boghog's. This is a big mess but not one that has much to do with how Wikipedia articles are written. There is no WP:OMGWTFBBQ sourcing guideline that will prevent articles from being wrong when the whole scientific field is wrong. Annotating retracted papers is a good idea, though. (Hey, a use for citation metadata!) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
There is already some discussion in MEDRS of the reproducibility problem, warning against using PRIMARY sources, at the bottom of the Basic advice section. I've added a link to Nature's reproducibility initiative (here) to that section, which links to this stuff about antibodies as well as other content. Jytdog (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
It is true that antibody producers have very low standards - I remember a case something like 20 years ago where reportedly a certain antibody from Santa Cruz didn't work because it had been made up from a nucleotide sequence with a frameshift in it. Which gives you an idea of how closely they check. But compensating for such problems isn't rocket science either: You use a positive control, a negative control, and reproduce everything with two separate antibody products recognizing the same target protein. But the caveat-emptor quality of scientific papers is exactly the reason why we should cite primary data. Because you never really know what to think of reported results until you look at them yourself. Anybody can do a meta-study and work statistics to make a review that 3 people got one result and 2 got another, but how many of those papers have you ever seen mention which antibody suppliers the 3 and the 2 were using? Wnt (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
that is a good point(in regards to antibody suppliers)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • irreproducibility of work with mAbs is not just an academic problem. this is a slightly different angle, but one of the reasons why Cetuximab (Erbitux) stumbled in clinical trials, was that they were conducted using a mAb-based diagnostic. Turned out that different labs used 5 different mAbs that bound to different epitopes (some were even intracellular vs extracellular!) and used different sample prep methods -- and the different epitopes and preps mattered. See comments by David Rimm in the discussion here and if you care enough to hear/listen, you can watch this video (shows data) starting at 25 minutes and going to 30 minutes. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Meh. Don't get me wrong, it's a big problem, but the fact that someone finally got around to writing about it in Nature doesn't mean that scientists (the experienced, competent ones) weren't already aware that there were some pretty dodgy antibodies out there in the catalogs. It's bad, in that it wastes substantial time and resources, but it's not catastrophic. Robust conclusions are those supported by more than one line of evidence (and certainly by more than one antibody). MEDRS, if anything, will have insulated us from at least some of the problem.

    That said, getting anything "immuno-" (that is, "-blots", "-histochemistry", "-fluorescence", "-therapy") right is something that is hard. It takes care and caution. (See also all the dodgy ELISAs and bad technique that are used to support the primary fringe literature on so-called chronic Lyme and Morgellons.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

amen. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

High fructose corn syrup

D-Fructose vs. D-Glucose Structural Formulae V.1

I had been watching some bad things happening to this article for a while, with content about health based on PRIMARY sources getting loaded into this. I worked this over today (and ending up merging a subarticle on health effects back into the main article). Would appreciate review of the article as it stands, and eyes on it going forward. People get intense about food. Jytdog (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The merge from High fructose corn syrup and health looks like an improvement to me. While more concise and with a neutral tone, it still leaves all of the controversy there. Mamyles (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
the merge does look good and more concise...will keep an eye on it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
so really. need eyes on this. the anticipated pushback has begun. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
yes, im there (left message on your talk), I got caught up in beta thalassemia--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Beta thalassemia

working on this article,any help would be appreciated .thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding PLLR (US, pregnancy) to Drugbox

I am proposing to add |PLLR= to {{Drugbox}}. PLLR is the new US FDA drug labeling rule regarding pregnancy and more. Discussed at Infobox drug talk. -DePiep (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Trivia

I have trimmed some unreffed trivia here Talk:Osteogenesis imperfecta#Long list of unreffed trivia. Wondering what others thoughts are? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

give opinion (I gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Images

I have been in discussion with the National Eye Institute. "Their" flickr stream [5] is inproperly tagged. I however have an email both from them and from a CC lawyer stating that these are truly in the public domain and the license listed on flickr is wrong. I asked them if they can correct this. If these images are being deleted let me know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

yes it does seem that it is not tagged correctly--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes but they are okay for us to use. They are just mislabelled on flickr. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Link addition to access clinical cases of certain invasive fungal infections

I would like your opinion about adding an external link to pages of invasive fungal infections (mucormycosis, fusarium, yeast). It would be deep-linking directly to the respective fungus cases in FungiQuest, biggest database of invasive fungal infections cases, not available through Pubmed. Thank you. LuisaDG (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

it seems like a good idea, their introduction offers a lot...FungiScope® is a global research project of the German Mycological Society, the ISHAM, the ECMM, and other international mycological societies. We collect clinical characteristics, culture and tissue samples of patients with rare fungal diseases[6]...therefore I would support an external link to these 3 articles (BTW only the web address says FungiQuest).--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I not sure what good it is. I am not seeing anything particularly useful here [7] so I would say no. What does this ofter than if these articles were FA they would not contain? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
By the way User:LuisaDG what is your relationship with the site. Agree with other admin here [User_talk:Ohnoitsjamie#User:LuisaDG_Link_removal]. We are here to write an encyclopdia not to be a collection of links.
If you want to work on collecting links to different information sources these people are involved in this https://www.dmoz.org/ Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You have already brought it here [8] and [9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I was unaware of this (therefore retract my support)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I tried clicking through to the "Fusarium" section linked from the home page. As far as I can tell, this is simply a list of cases with a brief description of each case. The links to "Rhizopus", "Scedosporium" and "Trichosporon" have similar tables. These pages are not appropriate as external links for Wikipedia articles. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The links suggested fail WP:ELNO numbers 1, 2, 4, 9. These are searches in a database of primary sources and are particularly inappropriate for Wikipedia where our medical information is based upon secondary sourcing. In addition, LuisaDG is forum-shopping - see:

I've left a warning on their talk page. --RexxS (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

"TMD"

Opinions requested regarding the most appropriate title for the WP article on the condition typically referred to as "TMD" (temporomandibular disorder) in North America and "TMJ-PDS" (temporomandibular joint pain-dysfunciton syndrome" in the EU; characterized by pain and dysfunction of the TMJ.

Temporomandibular disorder would seem more widely used, however pubmed, google books and google websearch results give a different picture. One thing I am almost sure of is that the current title, Temporomandibular joint dysfunction (a hybrid of both US and UK terms), is not as commonly used.

This is coming up again because I want to write an article covering pathology of the TMJ generally and not necessarily confined to this vaguely defined syndrome. Because not all disorders which affect this joint might cause pain and/or dysfunction. thoughts? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

perhaps, Temporomandibular joint pain disorder-dysfunction (even though both disorder and dysfunction have similar meanings)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I feel a hybridized term should be avoided. I have not seen the above used in the literature. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
In this context, dysfunction = the normal function of the joint is not present, i.e. altered/restricted jaw movement. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
This source sounds useful for this discussion, but I am paywalled out. [10]. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@Matthew Ferguson 57: I have access to this paper; do you want it? (It has a couple of paragraphs on historical terminology and essentially settles on TMD for the remaining discussion.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis, yes please wouldn't mind a read if it can be used to improve the article and as you say help determine the title. Thank you. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Matthew Ferguson 57: Can you send me an email? It's only available as a PDF. Can't send attachments through the wikipedia email system, and I can't copy the text out of the PDF without mangling it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Regression Therapy draft - curing asthma and autoimmune disorder with healing modularities

User:Andy Tomlinson/sandbox is (or will be) a Draft article submitted to Articles for Creation, intended to exist alongside and separately from the existing Past life regression article. The reasons for this are explained in this posting at the Articles for Creation help desk by its author. Also some further discussion here on the talk page of a reviewer who declined the Draft. The proposed article contains text such as "psychiatrists and medical doctors have found it resolves blackouts [46] insomnia[47] migraine and unexplainable pain [48] asthma [49], and autoimmune disorder [50]", with citations to books by a publisher that I don't recognise. The Draft author also apparently cites work by himself in the Draft. Feedback on the Draft would be helpful at the help desk thread linked above (or here if that's easier). Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

it had already been declined...(almost none of the 66 references were MEDRS compliant...even if just standard WP:RS, the article creator cites him/herself?)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
So many red flags... Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:SELFCITEd sources are okay, under some circumstances. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

One needs an excellent source for "A wide range of emotional problems have been resolved with regression therapy". Good to see it was declined. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Foot health practitioners?

I was dealing with some expired prods last week and came upon the article foot health practitioner, which was in a sorry state but seemed worth sending to AfD. The discussion hasn't seen much activity and there are comments about poor medical content on the talk page. I cleaned up some of the worst of it, but could anyone familiar with this practice take a look? It it is apparently a UK/Ireland thing and there seems to be a history of weird turf wars with podiatry. Thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

the references that are needed (missing) have been tagged ,( I did find this [11] ? --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Why WP:MEDRS is important

Probably preaching to the choir but here's an interesting read: I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here's How. --NeilN talk to me 15:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

very good example...Slim by Chocolate!” the headlines blared. A team of German researchers had found that people on a low-carb diet lost weight 10 percent faster if they ate a chocolate bar every day. It made the front page of Bild, Europe’s largest daily newspaper, just beneath their update about the Germanwings crash. From there, it ricocheted around the internet and beyond, making news in more than 20 countries and half a dozen languages. It was discussed on television news shows. It appeared in glossy print, most recently in the June issue of Shape magazine (“Why You Must Eat Chocolate Daily,” page 128). Not only does chocolate accelerate weight loss, the study found, but it leads to healthier cholesterol levels and overall increased well-being. The Bild story quotes the study’s lead author, Johannes Bohannon, Ph.D., research director of the Institute of Diet and Health: “The best part is you can buy chocolate everywhere[12].--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
And as always, there's a significant related XKCD! Zad68 18:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
But Beall's List (linked from Bohannon's article) is pure gold. Can we get a permanent link to it placed at the top of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, please? --RexxS (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

X-ray computed tomography listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for X-ray computed tomography to be moved to CT scan. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

give opinion (I gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Iodine Controversy

Dear medical experts: Is this information about iodine levels covered in another article somewhere? Or is this a notable topic? The article is about to be deleted as a stale draft.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

while the references aren't numbered some could be used, however a possible merge to Iodine reveals these references already present,..therefore delete. thanks Anne.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes delete. We need inline refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree. I tagged this for deletion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone.—Anne Delong (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Article on Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase appears to need attention of medically informed editors

MTHFR active site

Hi, everyone,

An online discussion elsewhere in cyberspace made me aware of an external website run by a naturopath that appears to promote treatments for human disease based on patient testing for variants in the MTHFR (methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase) gene. There are patients who believe extraordinary claims regarding a gene × treatment (that is, gene × environment) interaction at that locus, which is not a replicated claim in the reliable sources on human genetics. I think it may be worthwhile for editors more informed than I am to take a look at the Wikipedia article Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase, which has had a rather quiet article talk page, to assess how well the better sources are reflected in that article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

have tagged Inline with article text references 2,4,6,13,14,16,17,20, (which are non-MEDRS compliant)...this particular article is also covered by WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology, therefore MEDRS does not apply to all references....in regards to the root question the MTHFR gene...The MTHFR gene provides instructions for making an enzyme called methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase. This enzyme plays a role in processing amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase is important for a chemical reaction involving forms of the vitamin folate (also called vitamin B9)[13]. --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ozzie providing a balanced analysis of the sourcing of this article. MEDRS only applies if medical claims are being made. In this particular article, relatively few medical claims are being made. The few claims that are medically related are very cautious (could be, may be, etc.). At the same time, SCIRS also prefers secondary sources and better sources could and should be supplied. Boghog (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC on consensus statement of relative safety of currently marketed GM food

See here Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(I gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_29#Template:Infestation_navs

A series of "embedded navboxes" are present within all medical navboxes. These provide links to templates within a relevant area -- for example, all cardiovascular disease-related templates are linked alongside cardiovascular anatomy and treatment templates. This is designed to help readers navigate a large amount of medically-related articles grouped by template. This was previously announced here. The set of templates are here: Template:Medicine navs and during editing many medical editors have provided feedback.

Deletion has been proposed for one such template {{Infestation navs}}, with a stated view to deleting the entire set. That discussion is here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_29#Template:Infestation_navs, please contribute. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

please give opinion,(i gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hyperplasia

did a few edits on this article, should anyone like to lend a hand, please do. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Industry funding and ghostwriting of sources

In case anyone here would like to comment, I've opened a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Industry funding and ghostwriting of sources, with a view to adding something to the guideline. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

give opinion,( gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Paternal age effect

Have trimmed a mass of primary sources from this article. Still more work needed if anyone wishes to help. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

will look (have trimmed...not only primary but also very dated references)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes we might need to allow up to 15 years for reviews as it is not an actively researched area. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

lung cancer screening/medicare coverage nejm

Lung cancer is the third most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Attention to lung cancer is especially relevant for the Medicare population, because the median age at diagnosis is 70 years. A suitable screening test has long been sought to accurately detect lung cancer at earlier stages, when treatments are more effective and survival is more likely. Currently, more than half of cases are diagnosed after the cancer has metastasized..i deem this a good read.[14]. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

This isn't really news. Our article's screening section already describes this. Although coverage in NEJM will help to inform more people (healthcare professionals) about it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Disorders of magnitude - POV question

I was wondering in regard to the extent to which articles labelled disorder may be expressing a negative POV.

I first raised related issues at Talk:Sadistic personality disorder#Possible moves: "Sadistic personality" or similar where it was noted by Mbcap who I think fairly expressed the view "this article may require the attention of a specialist, i.e. a psychiatrist"

Of similar concern are the articles:

  • Sexual masochism disorder described as being: "... the condition of experiencing recurring and intense sexual arousal in response to enduring extreme pain, suffering, or humiliation." and
  • Sexual sadism disorder described as being: "... the condition of experiencing sexual arousal in response to the extreme pain, suffering, or humiliation of others."

For me I think that, to some extent, this may simply be a case in which the phrase different strokes for different folks may have an extremely literal application. Some people may respond to the gentle caress of fingertips while for other people a more violent form of stroking may alternatively/also be desired. In modern society any man or woman may only find sexual stimulation in a person of either their own or of the opposite sex and yet people are no longer widely described as having a disorder if they have homosexual tendencies and I think that the same issues may logically apply to articles perhaps with similar themes to those mentioned.

Articles that are arguably questionably placed in Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders include:

  • Analloerotic, described as "...having no sexual interests in other persons"
  • Blanchard's transsexualism typology described as "...a psychological typology of male-to-female (MtF) transsexualism"
  • Gender identity disorder in children described as "...a formal diagnosis used by psychologists and physicians to describe children who experience significant discontent with their biological sex, assigned gender, or both."
  • Polymorphous perversity, described as "is a psychoanalytic concept proposing the ability to gain sexual gratification outside socially normative sexual behaviors."
  • Transvestic fetishism, described as "a psychiatric diagnosis applied to those who are thought to have an excessive sexual or erotic interest in cross-dressing;"

In many cases I think that there is little justification for placing the various topics into categories of disorder as, arguably, there may be circumstances in which problems may not universally be considered to be exhibited.

However see also:

  • Hybristophilia, described as "... a paraphilia in which sexual arousal, facilitation, and attainment of orgasm are responsive to and contingent upon being with a partner known to have committed an outrage, cheating, lying, known infidelities or crime, such as rape, murder, or armed robbery."

In some cases sexual drives may be considered to lead to generally undesired outcomes.

I was wondering whether, in some cases, terminologies such as Psychological typologies might be used as alternatives in categories or whether different titles might be adopted in cases such as when word such as "disorder" are used. GregKaye 11:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • From a medical point of view, I would say that if an entity is defined as a disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5) or the ICD, then it is desirable to have a "disorder" article. This certainly applies to sexual masochism disorder and sexual sadism disorder. If the standard authorities don't define something as a disorder, then the question is more complex -- it basically comes down to whether or not MEDRS-quality sources exist that label it as a disorder. Looie496 (talk) 11:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree...a disorder is defined as derangement or abnormality of function; a morbid physical or mental state.[15]...therefore the two articles in question fall under this category, Sexual masochism disorder is the condition of experiencing recurring and intense sexual arousal in response to enduring extreme pain, suffering, or humiliation[16] and Sexual sadism disorder, has a very similar introduction/meaning....IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This may be a simpler way to think about it: The English Wikipedia doesn't care whether something "should" be considered a disorder. It only cares whether it "is" (currently, subject to change) considered a disorder (by mainstream professionals).
    Also, categories don't define the subject. They're navigation aids. The idea is that if you're interested in reading about "Sexual and gender identity disorders", then you should be able to find most of the articles that you're interested in by looking at that category (including subcats). Putting a page in that category doesn't mean this "is" a disorder; it only means that a person who is interested in these disorders is probably going to be interested in this page, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Looie496, Ozzie10aaaa, WhatamIdoing Thank you all for your comments on this matter. I would be interested on your opinions on the potential applicability of other wording such as "(medical) condition" which (while, admitedly, reference may come from a wide range of books) seems to enjoy a lot of support in Ngrams. I can imagine that a certain individual may potentially have a very sadistic or masochistic (or both) physiological-psychological make up and yet have no desire to cause "hurt" (in the human suffering sense) to anyone.
In potential parallel to this topic, I personally consider that the high rate of news results on a search on homosexuality (cure OR illness OR disorder) may be cause for external concern and am wondering about parallels to content as presented in the article Homosexuality and psychology. I do not personally view "disorder" to be a neutral term but recognise that, in p & g on article titles, WP:AT#Use commonly recognizable names is given one step up in the content pecking order in comparison to WP:AT#Use commonly recognizable names. None the less, I think that if a word like "condition" might be applied then this may present greater neutrality. GregKaye 10:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
right...so medical condition is defined as A disease, illness or injury; any physiologic, mental or psychological condition or disorder (e.g., orthopaedic; visual, speech or hearing impairments; cerebral palsy; epilepsy; muscular dystrophy; multiple sclerosis; cancer; coronary artery disease; diabetes; mental retardation; emotional or mental illness; specific learning disabilities; HIV disease; TB; drug addiction; alcoholism). A biological or psychological state which is within the range of normal human variation is not a medical condition.[17]...what your indicating is that the article Homosexuality_and_psychology uses the term disorder in its place (and in so , give the example to [18] news link ) I think you could be correct that the article might use a more neutral tone, I for my part would support such a move (but not everyone might see it this way) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that WP should use whatever terminology reliable sources use regardless of what the common sense understanding of the term is. This might mean that there needs to be qualifications indicating that this term is a neutral descriptor and doesn't imply a negative judgment. But people interpret terms differently and I think we should be using the terms that medical and psychological studies use rather than preferred, more "neutral-sounding" words. Liz Read! Talk! 15:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Greg, the Wikipedia concept of "neutral" doesn't mean using the positive-sounding words for a negatively viewed subject. It means accurately and fairly representing the reliable sources. If the sources use negative-sounding words, then we should too. If they use positive-sounding words, then we should too. If the reliable sources consistently call something "a disorder", then we must follow their word choice. This is just a stick-to-the-sources issue. Individuals (including editors) might disagree with our sources' word choice, but individual opinion just don't matter. We can no more remove the potentially stigmatizing but very mainstream label of "disorder" from this subject than we can remove the definitely stigmatizing and equally mainstream labels of "massacre" and "rebellion", even if someone personally believes that "legitimate military action against military personnel illegally fighting without wearing their uniforms" and "freedom fighters" would be more neutral. (Also, because of the problem of overmedicalization, some individuals might disagree with calling it a "medical condition" at all.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: I commented about the matter on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again to all. As a potentially alternative route forward I was wondering if the content and presentation of the articles could be looked into so that, if they are labelled as disorders, they present disorders. I personally do not feel qualified to make appropriate changes or to assess whether they need to be made. In the American Psychiatric Association's The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (2013), the third page ref in this link presents the first part of a description on "Sexual Masochism Disorder", misses a page and then seems to present the second part of a description on "Sexual Sadism Disorder". In the first case "Diagnostic Criteria" are presented as "A" and "B". Do both of these need to be fulfilled for the definition "Disorder" to be correctly applied? Any other thoughts? GregKaye 06:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
in regards to the article it would be connected to ( Sexual masochism disorder), I think it best to cite both A and B (with link) so the reader can get a good idea of the criteria that must be met,(for the disorder)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Some positive press about our work

"Do you know why you can trust Wikipedia better than news sites? Because Wikipedia doesn’t obsess over the single most recent study. Are you starting to notice a theme?" [19] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

In a potential perspective I think that topics such as biology may be areas of particular excellence in Wikipedia in comparison to other areas of, for instance plumbing (also as per the Christopher Morley quote). However this is certainly good to see. GregKaye 06:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Efforts to address this are taking place at WP:Sanitation led by an engineer but yes agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
great article --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
TL,DR. Anyway, I am off to the confectioner. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
To pick up some of that weight loss chocolate I image :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Simplification of the lead

Further comments appreicated here Talk:Lassa_fever#Lead_should_be_simpler Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

opinions needed (gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Tagging old Cochrane reviews for which there is an updated version

I would like have created a bot that would check if Wikipedia is using old Cochrane reviews. The bot would go through all Cochrane reviews let's say every three months, it would pull the PMID from the citation template and put that number into Pubmed.

For example PMID 17943917 gives http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17943917

Than if the bot finds the heading "Update in" it would add to Wikipedia after that reference the Template:Update_inline. And than for "reason" it would add the PMID for the updated version of that review http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23990350

The bot would also created a page were all Cochrane reviews in need of updating are listed. Do people support this idea? If there is support I will try to have it built / get bot approval.

Support

  • Support as nominator Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support though the implementation might be simpler. A periodic data dump of all cites to cochrane, the associated pmid, and the corresponding wp articles could be batch checked for 'withdrawn' status, e.g. The XML report from this query includes a <CommentsCorrections RefType="UpdateIn"> field that identifies the update year, issue, and PMID. In this case Gabapentin needs update. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • support - might use this if it's a simple process. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support bot adding tags for editors to update. QuackGuru (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • support would be useful to add bot--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • support Very helpful indeed.   Bfpage |leave a message  13:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I support the idea. It would be a miracle to make it work. This is something we have wanted for a long time. Live flags for updated papers is one of the long-sought goals of science writing. Can this actually be done? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Sounds cool. JFW | T@lk 23:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Hope it works. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Just a passing comment: The most valuable "support" vote is always the one in which someone says something like, "If this existed, I personally would check the resulting category and update articles" (at least, when updates are actually appropriate; I suppose there might be situations in which the older is retained, maybe in a ==History== section). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree. There will be rare situations in which an old Cochrane review may be used but these should be the exception. I will personally check and update articles :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Will the bot replace or add the updated review to Wikipedia or just tag the review? There are different ways to do this. If the bot replaces the old review the new updated review may have a different conclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It will add [needs update] as am example. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I have a concern that bot notification will lead to "bot-like" updating, where editors change to the newer review without carefully checking that it fully supports all the statements it is used to reference. I'm not really worried about Doc James, but I have seen so many instances of editors "going botty" that I think it's something we need to keep an eye out for. Without careful checking, it's best to keep the reference that was actually used to write the article. Looie496 (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree this is something we will need to keep an eye on. All flags will be listed on a WPMED page so that we can review changes being made. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Is metadata being pulled somehow from PubMed or will the basis of this bot be a search for the text "Update in"? Is there some feed somewhere which announces updates? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is the XML from pubmed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16034857?report=xml&format=text it lists "UpdateIn" and provides a new PMID.
Sort of but I think the previous design is simplier. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I see, clever, so the system is designed in anticipation that projects like Wikipedia will be able to detect updates and then respond accordingly. That makes me even more comfortable supporting this update because we are responding to a government provided service which is intended to improve the quality of our sourcing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment Wondering about also having the bot add to some parameter within the ref something like "Most recent as of X" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Immune Cycle

The article Immune Cycle was recently created. I'm not sure if all the sources in the article are reliable per MEDRS. Some eyes would be appreciated. Everymorning talk 13:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

One ref suitable. Rest need work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference table

I just came across this page, which doesn't seem to be linked or transcluded anywhere. I didn't think we gave this kind of information, and I'm not sure if there are more of these pages. Can anyone shine some light on this? Sam Walton (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

according to the history page... (cur | prev) 17:58, 8 March 2008‎ UsaSatsui (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,390 bytes) (-778)‎ . . (Prod is contested, it shouldn't be re-added. I also don't think this should be deleted without discussion, this is an interesting page and should at least get an AFD.) (undo) [20]...it therefore could be considered for AfD...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Never seen this type of page before. Our articles frequently contain all this data anyway. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Tuberculous meningitis

have added a few edits any help would be appreciated--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Epidemiol/Etiol categories

Hum... I'm largely ignorant about WP categorization, but I rather suspect (broadly per WP:OVERCAT?) that "Category:Etiology" could usefully be a subcategory of "Category:Epidemiology". Given that medical etiology is a key aspect of epidemiological research, I find it hard to imagine a page that could reasonably be categorized under "Category:Etiology" but not under "Category:Epidemiology". Best, 109.146.70.40 (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

We typically use "cause" rather than etiology
And we use epidemiology to mean prevalence more so
So adjusting is likely needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Um, those are WP style considerations you are referring to I think. The categories refer to established disciplines / fields of study (I wasn't suggesting they should be retitled - just that one could be a subcategory of the other). Cheers, 109.146.70.40 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
and therefore those are the "considerations" used for WP...however I see your point (though the result is the same)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
We're talking at cross purposes... A hypothetical "Category:Prevalence" would obviously not be the equivalent of Category:Epidemiology (though it could conceivably be a subcategor, I suppose). 109.146.70.40 (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
yes it could--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

  • What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
  • When? June 2015
  • How can you help?
    1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
    2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
    3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page. Thanks, and happy editing! User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

thank you very much, great information--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Proposal to revert article Psychiatry to version of 28 June 2012

Scottperry has suggested reverting the article Psychiatry to a revision of 28 June 2012. The editor argues that this is necessary to address issues of WP:UNDUE in the controversy section of the current version of the article. They also argue that the article has experienced a general degradation of wording and phrasing compared to the 28 June 2012 revision. Regardless of whether the proposed reversion is justified, in the interests of article stability, it might be worthwhile to solicit a wider spectrum of opinion before applying such wide-ranging changes. Hence, I've begun a RFC on this issue. A more detailed presentation of the arguments for this change can be found at the article talk page or in the following diffs [21] [22] [23]. Thank you. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

give opinion (gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes thanks. Rather than revert why not just move the content to a subapge? I have done this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you Doc James although some of the moved 'controversy' section might require re-integration at some point. I just thought that, in that specific context and given my perception of the determination of that editor to implement the article reversion regardless, it was important to establish consensus for or against the proposal and that doing so might actually save some time in the long-run. Thanks for taking the time to move the section and contribute to the RFC. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes agree it could be expanded some but should not be as big as it was before.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Probably best if there wasn't a 'controversy' section at all. But there probably should be a concise section on 'anti-psychiatry', etc. Criticism of ECT, where relevant, or acknowledgement that its use has been controversial in certain contexts, that it has in part shaped popular conceptions of psychiatry, could be included in the treatment section (subject to analysis of the relevant literature), etc. If the items are relevant and not undue they could be integrated into the article. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
yes a section on anti-psychiatry would serve the article well...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Two articles in need of work

Management of androgenic alopecia and Management of hair loss need massive trimming of primary sources and merging. Anyone interested in helping... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay Management of androgenic alopecia was basically created from Management of hair loss in Jan 2013. I have re merged. And am trying to clean up some of the primary research. We also have Experimental treatment of androgenic alopecia Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
It is amazing. There are hundreds of references and NONE of them evention meantion hair growth. My mind boggles. I have not seen anything this bad in a while. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
it does seem the article had quite a few,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

brave genome/nejm

[24] I deem this a good read, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

In silico clinical trials

Please see In silico clinical trials, also a DYK nomination.

Dame Etna (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

yes it apparently has multiple issues --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I was interested in this topic. I responded there and developed the article a bit. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
A proposal has been made to merge its contents with in silico medicine. Dame Etna (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
that would be a good merge..IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

IEG: Medical Translation Project

Hi everyone!

I've applied for a renewal of the IEG- (Individual Engagement Grant) I received last year as part of the Medical Translation Project. We had great success during those months, but I would like to keep working within the project, to make sure we can reach some of our long-term goals as well. I plan to dedicate my summer, and a large portion of my time this fall towards the project, and hope you think it's worthwhile. I'd be very happy if you took some of your time to take a look and to add your comments on the project – perhaps what could be improved and if you see anything you like.

Renewal request:

Some of the articles we translated last year:

My previous IEG final-report:

Best,

-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
P.S. There was recently a blog-post in the Wikimedia blog about our articles in Chinese and our collaboration with Wikimedia Taiwan: Medical articles in Chinese -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

CFCF ..I think you do a great job, with these articles...These efforts exemplify how chapters and thematic projects such as Wiki Project Med can effectively work together, each bringing their specific expertise to a joint initiative. We would love to see other groups emulate this promising model.[25]...during the coming summer weeks we should all feel inspired to help --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Ayurveda RFC

A Request for Comments is now in progress at Talk:Ayurveda concerning whether [[Category:Pseudoscience]] should be added to the article on Ayurveda. Participation in the RFC is encouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

give opinion (I gave mine)/this article has editing restrictions--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Investigation uses and research

Wondering if others can weight in here Talk:Amphetamine/Archive 5#Issues Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I've already said that I agree with you on putting that content in a research section. >.> Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks User:Seppi333 had not seen that. Will look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Urethraplasty

This is a long standing and poor redirect to Sex reassignment surgery. I have left a comment on the redirect target's talk page to that effect. I do not, however, have the required knowledge to create a useful article, even as a stub. Please will a member of this project take up the challenge? Fiddle Faddle 20:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Google suggests it might be a misspelling of Urethroplasty, but there is no mention of sex reassignment surgery at that article. Have now commented on sex reassignment surgery talk page. Little pob (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
what I did notice is PubMed has several reviews...however Google books, are limited [26] [27] (specifically looking under "sex reassignment surgery") --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Perfect. Thank you. I had, weirdly, never spelled it Urethroplasty, and have now made the correction to the redirect. It redirects to the 'o' article now. Fiddle Faddle 08:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Manufacturing of drugs

Hi everyone, Jytdog and I have been discussing the utility of having manufacturing/administration safety data in various drug articles, and decided to ask for some wider input here. OSHA has set permissible exposure limits for workers who are involved in manufacturing certain drugs, and there are other health concerns for workers who may be exposed to drugs like chemotherapy drugs. Aspirin currently has an example of what I'd like to insert in several of these articles. I think this is relevant to include because it concerns the manufacture of the drug and it also concerns the health of the workers manufacturing it. But before including it in any more drug articles, it'd be nice to have some input. If its place isn't in the drug articles, is there another place where this important information could go? Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This? In general, I think that kind of information is great. Including "non-medical" information about drugs is necessary to make an article comprehensive. I might include it under a ==Manufacturing== (or similar) section, when the focus is mostly on exposure during manufacturing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Not a big fan of the Template:PGCH. "Cite web" is more consistent with what the rest of the article is using. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
the Aspirin article is better off with cite web...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
In general, it's encyclopedic information, even if somewhat US-centric, so I'd agree it's worth inclusion. There are some issues, though. In the aspirin article, it is stated that "OSHA has not set a legal permissible exposure limit", but OSHA did set a PEL for aspirin in 1989, which was overturned by a court decision in 1993. It's probably beyond the scope of the article to discuss this, but I don't think we do a service to our readers by stating untruths. A different form of words may avoid this problem, or perhaps a link to an article discussing the 1993 AFL-CIO v. OSHA decision? The other point is that we shouldn't leave our readers wondering what TWA means and ought to simply write 'time-weighted average' if that's the only occurrence. In passing, I'm left wondering why a limit which is an average over a 10-hour period is used for an explosive risk? --RexxS (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Doc James and Ozzie10aaaa: I've switched the citation in aspirin over to {{cite web}}. @RexxS: That's a good point - I've reworded that bit to say "In 1989, OSHA set a legal permissible exposure limit for aspirin of 5 mg/m3, but this was vacated by the AFL-CIO v. OSHA decision in 1993." I've also replaced TWA with time-weighted average. And, to answer your question, the TWA is for the inhalation risk to workers, the explosive risk is different and difficult to quantify. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
to be clear the original dif on the aspirin article was this, about the danger of aspirin powder exploding without any context. i reverted that - holy exploding aspirin batman! Not relevant to 99.9% of our readers, who do not work in places where they are exposed to aspirin powder. the current dif above is good and put it in context. I am glad to have all GLAM editors around, but adding occupational hazards related to manufacturing seems weird to me in health-related articles, as we rarely say anything about manufacturing drugs/devices/diagnostics (we do sometimes have content on benchtop lab synthesis of chemicals but that is not content about manufacturing). Likewise, our articles about drugs/devices/diagnostics and about disease management rarely discuss what doctors and nurses and technicians actually do, so again content about the occupational hazards faced by them seems strange. A point without a locus. Do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I do see what you mean, but it pre-supposes that an article about aspirin must focus on health-related content. Much of the information in any encyclopedia is not relevant to 99.9% of its readers, but that does not make it unencyclopedic. One could argue that an all-encompassing article about Manufacture of drugs or List of recommended exposure levels of substances might be a better place for them, but in the absence of such articles, I can't see any good reason why the REL for workers manufacturing aspirin shouldn't belong in the aspirin article. --RexxS (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with WAID that the manufacturing information could use its own section - 'chemical properties' seems like a slightly odd place to find information about a specific form of the bulk substance. I like the idea of including it in general, though - with a clear distinction of the difference between manufacturing safety and drug safety. I doubt anyone who lives on this planet and isn't currently wearing a tinfoil hat would suspect he was in danger from an exploding medicine cabinet, but other cases could have more plausibly generalizable occupational hazards.
I don't like the idea of defining articles about chemicals that happen to be used as drugs as "health-related articles" and excluding information not relevant to that specific use case. And to use Jytdog's example, if a device/diagnostic/etc. does produce a significant and interesting occupational hazard for the medical staff, surely that should be in the article too. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I take Jytdog's accurate statement that "we rarely say anything about manufacturing drugs/devices/diagnostics" to be a clear statement of a significant policy violation: We are not giving DUE weight to these things as being commercial products. Perhaps we should address this common omission in MEDMOS? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
i don't know if i would go so far as to say policy violation, WAID. From what i have seen, WP:MED is primarily concerned with health and biology and that is what folks here seem to write about. I am interested in the science/medicine/business aspects of bringing new medical products to market, so i often include that stuff in articles i work on, but i feel i am a bit of a freak in that in regard. i don't think anybody here cares much about how how things are actually manufactured (although i have written a bit about industrial fermentation and Pharming (genetics)) but that is about as far as that goes, that i have seen anyway. the kinds of sourcing for drug/device/diagnostic manufacturing are not pub-med things.. not generally in the wheelhouse of really any editors i have ever come across in WP... interested to hear what others have to say! Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll stick with policy violation. Most of our articles do not comply. This isn't the fault of any WP:VOLUNTEER, but our articles are not giving due weight to these aspects. Proposed solution: Let's find more "freaks" like you.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Know The Glow (eye diseases)

Know The Glow (http://knowtheglow.org) is a program to identify signs of eye diseases.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

very interesting information...“The Glow,” an abnormal red eye reflex, appears as a white or gold pupil in photographs. Its reflective shine is an indicator of several potentially devastating and preventable childhood eye diseases --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes Leukocoria. Something physicians should always look for when screening kids. Any specific proposal? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
At 20:03, 4 June 2015, I added to "Leukocoria" a link to http://knowtheglow.org. I had no specific proposal in mind when I started this discussion.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Not a big fan of linking to charities as their websites contain nothing more than our articles would when they reach high quality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
At 03:59, 5 June 2015, I removed that link from the article "Leukocoria".
—Wavelength (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. IMO we just need to make sure that article is good here :-) I will take a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The campaign is getting some attention in the press. Its existence could be mentioned as ==Society and culture== information. (The actual sign belongs in ==Signs and symptoms==, of course.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

nih/fungus

The National Institutes of Health has suspended all manufacturing of medical products after finding some were contaminated with fungus. [28]...Inspectors from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigated the NIH facility between 19 and 29 May in response to an anonymous complaint. In reports dated 29 May and 2 June, the FDA outlines numerous problems with quality control and staff training....dated June 5th [29] --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

At least it was not live anthrax Peter.C • talk • contribs 22:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
or Ebola [30]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on language

Another discussion on simplified language in the leads. Wondering if others have opinions.Talk:Cysticercosis#Simple_wording_in_the_lead Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(I gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I am wondering if we should have a wider discussion on this issue. For example WAID suggested we have:

People usually get cysticercosis after they eat food or drink water that has tapeworm eggs in it.

rather than

Cysticercosis is usually acquired by eating foods or water contaminated by tapeworm's eggs.

Do people feel this sort of general simplifying of our leads is positive?

I have run into resistance from a number of editors regarding this. Some have stated that this is "dumbing down" our content,[31], that if people do not understand our content they should simple use a dictionary,[32], and that people who want simpler content should just go to simple Wikipedia.[33] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that would be a useful change - there's little directly relevant at contamination in fact. Johnbod (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
WAID's idea is well thought,(in the prior discussion I went with DocJames version)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I favor simplicity, but I also favor correctness. The first version is actually wrong -- or at least, doesn't have the intended meaning. The first version is equivalent to, "After people eat or drink water that has tapeworm eggs in it, they usually get cysticercosis". Possibly that's true, but it isn't what the second version says. Complexity is bad, but ambiguity is worse. Looie496 (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes so this maybe better than?

Cysticercosis is usually acquired by eating food or drinking water that has tapeworm eggs in it.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You've gone back to passive voice and harder words.
I'm not sure how to put that simply. "There's a high likelihood of getting this, if you ever do X" and "If you got this, then there's a high likelihood that you got it by doing X" are importantly different, and I'm not sure how to make that distinction without using a complex sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes we are sort of left with a half way which is likely the best we can do. We want to use as simple of language as possible without it being wrong or having more than one meaning. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

People most often get cysticercosis because they have eaten food or drunk water that has tapeworm eggs in it.

Might be the meaning you're looking for? --RexxS (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

  • The most common cause of cysticercosis is tapeworm eggs in food or water.

Looie496 (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Or

  • The most common cause of cysticercosis is eating food or drinking water with tapeworm eggs in it.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice of an RFC regarding the E-Meter article

I have recently performed a major overhaul of the E-meter article in an effort to bring the article into what I see as "compliance with WP:Due and WP:Undue policies". While none of the other editors there have denied my concern about the article's aparent non-ccompliance with WP policy, no other editor there has yet endorsed my wholesale overhaul of the article. I have essentially restored the article to a "properly contemporized" 2007 edition of the article, in order to achieve this. The question there is whether or not to keep the major overhaul edition of the article, which I am calling the "restored" article, or to merely try to make gradual edits to the "pre-restored" version to bring about WP Policy compliance. Which path is best? The major overhaul path, or the incrimental path? Any input at the E-meter article's RFC from editors here would be most appreciated.

Thanks,

Scott P. (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

gave opinion(give yours/ please read ArbCOM information on talk page--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Ethically disputed practices

Concerned about this category. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

perhaps Sexual orientation change efforts should be removed from the "pages in category" [34]...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Given that the ethics of more or less any practice is liable to have been disputed by someone or other [35], I'd have to suggest that it is either useless (because everything belongs in it), or arbitrary (because everything isn't included in it). Delete because its use in an encyclopaedia is unethical... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Just in general I don't find categories very useful and think they're almost always used by editors with opinions about a topic to "tag" the topic. I saw the back-and-forth at Birth control over this, if I could turn AGF off I'd say add the cat was more intended to be point-y than an article improvement, but the content in the article does support the category as there's a bit of content related to ethics. Does anybody even see or use the cats? Can't say I'd burn a lot of energy over that one. Zad68 21:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually now I am reading WP:CATDEF and a category should be a defining characteristic of an article. I wouldn't say that birth control has ethical disputes as a "defining characteristic" so I'd argue against that cat. There's actually only a brief mention of ethics in the article, so probably not enough to meet WP:CATDEF. Zad68 22:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that whether an ethical dispute is a "defining characteristic" depends upon your point in history. For example, when fire insurance was a new idea, there were many debates about whether subscribing was ethical (or even moral). The same for anesthesia, especially during childbirth. We have ethical disputes over gene therapy now, but a millenium from now, they may look back at us and condemn us for not properly treating people. I'm therefore inclined to agree with Andy: this is either useless or arbitrary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
In general categories are extremely useful, but less so in this subjective kind of area. No doubt the contents will look rather different in 2115, but there we go. There's a case for just renaming it Category:American ethically disputed practices - just as the US has more weather than most places, it has more ethical disputes & maybe more "practices". Johnbod (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
as per WP:CATDEF...A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc...therefore to sexual orientation change efforts, I would also remove "birth control" as per Zad68 comments.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Protein Sparing Modified Fast

Protein Sparing Modified Fast has recently been expanded with new content. It could probably benefit from input or review by knowledgeable editors from this project. Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 12:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

have tagged inline for references 3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,and 12 which are non-MEDRS compliant...there are books [36] or this [37]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Latest Cochrane evidence

Hi this is my first post on a talk page (hopefully there aren't to many errors), I have been updating the Wikipedia:Cochrane Collaboration/Cochrane UK/Cochrane Reviews page with the latest Cochrane evidence that might be of interest to the Wiki community. I have also added suggestions for pages that could be updated. Also any feedback on how to improve our project pages would be much appreciated. Thanks HMill88 (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

great work (I did notice some of the "suggested articles" column was left blank, particularly 40-75)[38]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

impalement to be split into impalement injuries

The article impalement talks about impalement as a torture "method". Should a another article impalement injuries be made?96.52.0.249 (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks like there are a number of review articles on this topic: Impalement injuries.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you go ahead and start it. I can help you with some of the wording and organization of the article. I've found a nice medical definition of "impalement" in a google search in a "powerpoint" file, but I've-lost-it/can't-find-it.96.52.0.249 (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
impalement injuries ..would be a good article,..due to the fact that some cases might be accidental while others intentional ("methods" section) from Impalement might be useful...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
So material from Impalement#Methods might go in impalement injuries. Just brainstorming here.96.52.0.249 (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Do we have a good definition of "impalement"? We could start the article from there.96.52.0.249 (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
[39] perhaps? --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
What separates an impalement from a penetrating trauma? Peter.C • talk • contribs 21:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I would venture that an impalement is a kind of penetrating trauma, but one that specifically involves an object penetrating the body that is solid for the length of the penetration. A bullet that goes in and out would be a penetrating trauma, but not an impalement. bd2412 T 22:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Referencing Rosen's (8th edition, online), in medical literature an impalement is simply a form of penetrating trauma, however the difference is when using the word impalement, it means the object is still present. For that reason, I propose a redirect from impalement injury to penetrating trauma. Peter.C • talk • contribs 22:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't an impalement injury be a trauma where the object is still in the body?96.52.0.249 (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I think simply interpreting impalement injuries as nothing more than penetrating trauma is to miss the essential part of this type of injury and that is the impaling object is present. A pubmed search reveals a number of articles on Implement injury. In these articles, the impaling object is the central focus, which is not covered in penetrating trauma. So, it looks to me that an article on Impalement injuries is a very good idea. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
In established medical practice, whether or not an object remains in the body between time of injury and point of removal is irrelevant to the best practices employed to treat either type of injury. I'll leave it up to others to decide whether splitting impalement into impalement injuries would be a WP:CONTENTFORK.96.52.0.249 (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

be it impalement injury or penetrating trauma , either could benefit with information from Impalement. it could be useful,due to the fact that some cases might be accidental while others intentional ("methods" section from Impalement might be useful...Impalement typically involves the body of a person being pierced through by a long stake, but sharp hooks, either fully penetrating the body, or becoming embedded in it, have also been used) [40]..in regards to this being a CONTENTFORK,Content forking can be unintentional or intentional. Although Wikipedia contributors are reminded to check to make sure there is not an existing article on the subject before they start a new article, there is always the chance they will forget, or that they will search in good faith but fail to find an existing article, or simply flesh out a derivative article rather than the main article on a topic. Wikipedia's principle of assume good faith should be kept in mind here. If you suspect a content fork, give the creator of a duplicate article the benefit of the doubt. Check with people who watch the respective articles and participate in talk page discussions to see if the fork was deliberate[41] I do not believe it meets this definition .IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Usually the article is made first, before something is decided. For example, if a tranche of prose on an article seems to be duplicative (WP:COATRACK), it may be removed due to the protocol.96.52.0.249 (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for comments about organization of some medical categories

This discussion has been going on too long. More opinions please. Many thanks. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

please give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Pls more opinions so this can be closed. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you to those who commented, the discussion is now closed with, imo, a logical and favorable result. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

cerebral palsy/university of Adelaide

University of Adelaide researchers have discovered cerebral palsy has an even stronger genetic cause than previously thought, leading them to call for an end to unnecessary caesareans and arbitrary litigation against obstetric staff. In an authoritative review published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, members of the Australian Cerebral Palsy Research Group, based at the University of Adelaide’s Robinson Research Institute, argue that up to 45% of cerebral palsy cases can have genetic causes. This builds on research published in February this year by the group which found at least 14% of cerebral palsy cases are likely to be caused by a genetic mutation. And the group expects the percentage of genetically caused cerebral palsy cases will continue to increase as genetic sequencing techniques evolve. The University of Adelaide’s Emeritus Professor Alastair MacLennan, leader of the research group, says the realisation by courts that many cases of cerebral palsy cannot be prevented by differences in labour management should reduce the adverse influence of obstetric litigation. “For many years it was assumed, without good evidence, cerebral palsy was caused by brain damage at birth through lack of oxygen.,” [43]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Doc James is on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation

Doc James, a contributor here at WikiProject Medicine, has been elected to the board of the Wikimedia Foundation. More information can be found in these places.

James announced his candidacy on this board.

James would comment about this whenever he wished to do so, but leaving aside anything that James has done, here are some possible implications of his being elected:

  • Health-related content on Wikimedia projects may get more attention and be taken more seriously in the greater health community
  • The Wikimedia Foundation, which has in the past been hesitant at times to acknowledge its contributors to health content, may begin a cultural change to consider itself a health organization along with everything else that it is.
  • WikiProjects related to health may get more contributors from this point.
  • More organizations external to Wikimedia communities may begin to consider investing in the development of the health content of Wikimedia projects.
  • More social movements external to Wikimedia communities but in the open knowledge / free culture space may begin to be more comfortable in making their content free and open to share and remix.

I list these things just as being possible outcomes of being able to say "the Wikimedia Foundation has a medical doctor on its board and this person endorses Wikipedia as a channel for distributing health information". I say this because in the past, certain demographics on Wikipedia have benefited from having board representation, even without actually interacting with the relevant board member.

If anyone has thought of proposing any kind of project on-wiki related to health, or of encouraging any group or organization to develop Wikipedia's health content, now might be a good time to think more of doing that. The Wikipedia brand is a powerful thing that opens a lot of doors off-wiki. Speaking of the WMF board's connection to health could be useful also. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

this is great news, DocJames can only take us and wikiproject medicine to higher levels,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
in regards to an organization what about ...The Stowers Institute for Medical Research make a significant contribution to humanity through medical research by expanding our understanding of the secrets of life and by improving life’s quality through innovative approaches to the causes, treatment and prevention of diseases.
Our Founders The Stowers Institute for Medical Research was established through the extraordinary generosity of Kansas Citians Jim and Virginia Stowers, who dedicated their personal fortune to improving human health through basic research. The first laboratories opened in November of 2000.[44]....perhaps? --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Tremendous congrats to James. While health is obviously his main focus, I hope and expect he will not just concern himself with health-related angles to issues. The first thing that needs to happen, before the things Leigh lists can, is for the WMF to stop seeing itself as a software business, which it now does, and instead see itself as an online publishing business (as well). The WMF needs to start taking some responsibility for the content and its quality. That in itself will be a huge change for them, and not easily accomplished. I hope James can help this much needed change along. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
My primary efforts at least initially are going to be to try to improve WMF / communities relations. I see part of the issue being that the WMF sort of dose its own thing without getting input from those who are going to be using the software. This needs to change. For one the community needs access to tech resources to build tools that will help them build Wikipedia and two the communities needs a greater say and greater involvement during the entire development process. I see this change as benefiting not only those here but all editors.
Additionally while a lot of the work I do pertains to medicine I also do a fair bit with respect to copyright and issues surrounding undisclosed paid editing. We now have a bot that checks all edits over a certain size globally for copyright issues here. It is in serious need of people to follow up on the issues it has found. Plus it still needs further development. I would love to see it formated like Special:NewPagesFeed Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Robert Ira Lewy

I am wondering if Robert Ira Lewy would fall within the scope of this Wikiproject. The subject of the article, Lewy himself, created the article back in 2007 and has been editing off and on since then. However, he is now aware of WP:COI so he has stopped editing and moved to discussing things on Talk:Robert Ira Lewy instead. I and some others have been trying to help him out, but I do not have much experience with BLP's about medical doctors/researchers so I'm not sure how to best proceed. Any feedback or suggestions from the editors of this Wikiproject would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

he does have 17 PubMed indexed articles [45]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ozzie10aaaa for that link. To be totally honest, however, I am not sure exactly what that means. Does that mean they are all worthy of being mentioned in Wikipedia or only some? Any suggestions you may have on how to determine which articles should be mentioned in the article would be most appreciated. Could you please post then at Talk:Robert Ira Lewy if you do have any? The more experienced editors looking at this article, the better. Thanks again. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
the article in question lede indicates 1. heart/aspirin interaction research and 2. breast implant research... therefore you should choose (those PubMed articles) that deal with these two main points...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you.- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

how to categorize historic diagnoses?

This article made me want to categorize it in "category:outdated medical terms", or similar. Does such a category exist, and if no then should it be started? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

We appear to have both Category:Obsolete medical terms and Category:Obsolete medical theories. But perhaps it should be merged to the history section of Periodontitis instead? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Good to know, thanks. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

New Lancet Burden of Disease

Just published today [46] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this a secondary source? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
It's basically a meta-analysis, so I would say we should treat it as a secondary source. Looie496 (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I concur--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus

did a few edits, any help would be appreciated .thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Lower LDL cholesterol is better - nejm

[47] I deem this a good read, enjoy--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

An editorial. But interesting yes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Abstinence-only sex education

I am concerned about the use of this study in this article. It is cited several times, but it doesn't seem to meet MEDRS, so I think it should be removed. What do others think? Everymorning talk 00:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems to fall flat in terms of MEDRS in terms of being a primary source, so I'd remove it. That being said, I did find 3 reviews citing it on Web of Science:
  1. The effectiveness of group-based comprehensive risk-reduction and abstinence education interventions to prevent or reduce the risk of adolescent pregnancy, human immunodeficiency virus, and sexually transmitted infections: two systematic reviews for the Guide to Community Preventive Services. [48]
  2. A Sex-Positive Framework for Research on Adolescent Sexuality [49]
  3. Reproductive Rights and Informed Consent: Toward a More Inclusive Discourse [50]
I did not go through the reviews to see what they said, but WoS gave the first source 40 citations, while the second and third had one and none citations, respectively. If there is anything worth citing, it might be in the first source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Everymorning, there are WP:Med editors watching that article, including Doc James. If you address concerns on that talk page, you will get replies instead of dead silence. Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, I see that reference is only cited two times. Flyer22 (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Removed and updated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

heterogenous vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus (hVISA) looking for a good ref (definition) for this, opinions? (here or at article/talk page[51]) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Try http://cmr.asm.org/content/23/1/99.full, in the Definitions section. The first sentence of the definition says, "The definition and optimal laboratory detection of hVISA remain uncertain," but it may be the best you can do, and it's a MEDRS-compatible source. Looie496 (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Replied at article talk. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Coulrophobia

I've fixed, I think, an implied medical claim in the lead [52], but I have ongoing concerns about the appropriateness of Coulrophobia#Research. Thoughts? 109.146.70.40 (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS states five years or so for references Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) (although this has elements of wikiproject psychology) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a ==Research== section (of a *claimed* condition). WP:MEDMOS#Diseases or disorders or syndromes says "Include only if addressed by significant sources." PubMed currently does not seem to return any hit for the term "coulrophobia" [53]. Related studies mainly seem to regard hospital clowning (see [54] [55]). My query is basically: what to do with this "Research" section? 109.146.70.40 (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
It is claiming to be a medical condition? Can a child "abnormally scared of clowns" be really said to be an issue for medicine? It seems to me that this depends on the extent or notion of "abnormally", but I'm not convinced the papers in that page are suggesting that it is a medical condition, just that there is evidence that children in hospitals sometimes get scared of clowns - and so on. That seems to me to be more psychology than medicine, and a descriptive idea at that. I can't see that it is suggesting treatment nor really medically framed diagnosis. The references are rubbish and formatted badly, but I don't think WP:MEDRS can be used for subjects which are tangentially related to medicine, otherwise it would apply to almost all of wikipedia. But I am not a medic, so I might be a minority voice here. JMWt (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
That's interesting JMWt, thank you. The claim that it's "a type of specific phobia" has been removed by me. I agree the broader issues are nuanced (and also of some more general relevance, imo [56]). I'll try posting at WT:PSYCH to see if anyone there is interested in improving the content/framing. 109.146.70.40 (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Translation task force gets attention at Metrics and Activities meeting

CFCF's work on the WP:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force was mentioned early in the m:WMF Metrics and activities meetings (underway now; it's right after the brief report on the Lyon Hackathon). The link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skCBCYArUaA if you want to see it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

thank you WAID,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Cool. Some of the credit should have gone to User:Enrique Cavalitto who played an incredible role getting us to where we are. But great to get press for our work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Are Calluses really a type of Calcification?

The latter article does not seem to mention calcification is possible. 92.22.167.143 (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

the "symptom" section of the latter article has been marked with an inline citation needed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The term might apply better to "fracture callus" (partly discussed in Bone healing) rather than a callosity or tyloma, which has different etiology. If calluses are a type of calcification then so are keratoses and any number of skin growths. I suggest removing the item to avoid such confusion. Ian (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Neither keratosis or hyperkeratosis mention calcification (and presumably these processes define calluses). Matthew Ferguson (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Although calcium levels might have an effect on keratosis, I don't see any references linking calluses to calcification/malabsorption. Friction/pressure is really the only established etiology. Removed the item from Calcification#Symptoms. I think Callus#Other_meanings could be expanded, though, to mention the orthopedic use of the word. Ian (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Further input

Requested here Talk:Vitamin_D#Vitamin_D_and_Cancer Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

User also added this spammy link [57] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


please give opinion (gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Global burden of disease report

The Lancet has just published the new Global burden of disease report but looking at the Results section of the wiki page, I think the existing information is wrong. It is talking about the 2013 report, which as far as I can tell does not give the results to 2013 but 2010 (the one just published in 2015 is to 2013, they take some time to collate the information). The last edit was before the Lancet published this report (and the 2013 report just published in 2015 is not cited on the wiki page). I therefore think this section needs checking and rewriting - just a warning in case anyone is watching and wonders what I'm doing. JMWt (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

there is already a discussion on it (DocJames posted it 9 June 2015...its a few posts up, though the WP article was not discussed)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh yes, sorry. In fairness, I'm talking here about the accuracy of the existing wiki page. JMWt (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I think there are some legitimate concerns with regard to the WP article (I believe your correct)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Correction, it looks like the Results section is talking about some of the preliminary results released last year. The problem is a lack of cited reference. I will add the correct ref to what is there, but the substantial results also need to be included. JMWt (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_66"