Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 78

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 75 Archive 76 Archive 77 Archive 78 Archive 79 Archive 80 → Archive 85

Reliable sources for drug pricing?

are Walmart's pricelist and Target's pricelist reliable sources for drug pricing? Am asking because of this dif. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The two best sources available for the cost of prescription and over-the-counter drugs (that I am aware of) are Red Book Online and the International Drug Price Indicator Guide. I have done some work with Red Book in the past, and even for drugs that are widely available as cheap generics, you will see that prices vary a lot (just search ibuprofen to get an example). And the average wholesale price listed can sometimes be substantially higher than the $10 for a 90-day supply that you can get at discount mail-order pharmacies. NW (Talk) 02:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, so if everyday people read WP and make comments like the one in the dif, the right answer is.... Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 67#Prices for information about finding the average US costs. In the specific instance, I think the right answer is "see how much the price has changed since this article was last updated". (Or even "check for typos", since one of those sources seems to say 5 cents, not 50.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog See WP:Prices. I think the policy is not developed enough to give clear guidance on how to manage prices. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, where do you see the 5 cents? I don't see that at the drugs.com site, where the lowest price is over a dollar per pill (ignoring the different dosage forms, which include a solution) The other source at that article is micromedex, a proprietary database that i don't have access to. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I was looking at this source, which gives the 2014 "buyer price" in South Africa as US $ "0.0553/tab-cap" or approximately five cents per pill. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I see. thanks for answering. Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
If you want US prices specifically, then Medicare says that they're running around 10 or 11 cents per pill this week. I don't know whether that's wholesale or retail, but presumably there is a relatively fixed cost for just filling the prescription. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
just fyi, per this, the NADAC is the average cost for pharmacies in the US to acquire the drug. This remains a thorny issue. If that is what we are going to report in articles, then the content should say "the average cost for a pharmacy in the US to acquire the drug on X date was Y" We need to careful naming what we report.... Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Trascon Pharmacopoeia gives the rough price for a course of treatment. US is generally more than many other places in the world. While some expensive meds are only available in the USA at least initially.
Would prefer to stick with more general rather than retail specific sources especially with more generic sources being available. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I think I'd be happy to use NADAC numbers and call it "wholesale price" (when US-specific numbers are wanted). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes I am happy with the NADAC price and calling it wholesale. By the way the drug.com site[1] if you click on 400mg you see that it is 0.41 USD per dose (when buying 50 doses a typical course of treatment). Which makes a course of treatment 21USD or in the range of what Tarascon states. This is about the same as 0.50 USD per dose as we stated in our article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

this makes sense to me. i feel like i am being a dick about this, but it kills me to have someone be able to so easily show our content to be unreliable based on their actual experience of buying drugs (like the dif in my OP), and tons of people get prescriptions filled at places like target and walmart. Jytdog (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Here [2] it appears to be saying that 90 tabs is 10 USD. But these are the 200s and you need to take two for a single dose. So 10 for 45 doses which is 0.22 USD per dose or 11 USD for a 10 day, 5 doses per day course of treatment. IMO saying less than 25 USD per course of treatment is better but either way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
thanks that math is helpful! part of what is complicated in the cost for treatment is that we get into dosing to calculate that, and per MEDMOS we don't go there. i don't know the origin of that prohibition as I wasn't around and haven't done my homework, but i understand we keep a firm line on that. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Access to a couple journal articles for the wiki article "self-disorder"

I am trying to get these 2 articles here, or at least a summary of them, so that I may add a neuroscience section to "self-disorder" and have it backed up by sources. Does anyone have a copy of each they can send me or at least can anybody summarize them? The articles are [3] and [4]. --Beneficii (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

[5]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Self-disorders, ipseity disturbance, disturbance of minimal self, etc., in schizophrenia

On PubMed, I have been seeing lots of articles lately relating to a rediscovered phenomenon in schizophrenia spectrum disorders that has been variously referred to as self-disorders, ipseity disturbance, and disturbance of basic or minimal self. A manual for a semi-structured interview that assesses self-disorders was published in the journal Psychopathology in 2005 called the Examination of Anomalous Self-Experience (EASE).There are some review articles and books I have seen that reference this phenomenon, but they are hard to access. The research I've seen has found that the EASE can distinguish patients with schizophrenia and schizotypal personality disorder from patients with psychotic bipolar disorder, non-schizophrenic psychotic disorders, or borderline personality disorder.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any article or even section on Wikipedia that addresses this issue. The lack of reference to this phenomenon in Wikipedia is I think evident in the article Center for Subjectivity Research, about an interdisciplinary research center located at the University of Copenhagen. If you look at the lead, every one of the phenomena you see that they study has a wiki-link, except for self-disorders, which is kinda strange. The only reference to self-disorders, and it is a rather oblique reference, is in this article about the causes of schizophrenia. It is only one sentence long and doesn't really impress upon the reader what it is.

Now, I believe there are going to be issues of WP:NOTABILITY as well as organizing an article or section on the phenomenon. I would like assistance on organizing an article or section as well as assembling references for it to achieve WP:NPOV. --Beneficii (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

[6]review--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll try starting an article. I should use the sandbox first, right? --Beneficii (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
If you haven't worked on medical articles before you should probably read WP:MEDRS, but other than that, given your overall experience level, you should use whatever approach seems appropriate to you (creating a draft is another possible approach). Looie496 (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I have done work on the sex reassignment therapy article, removing the "for" and "against" sections (which I believe are inappropriate for a medical article) and creating an effectiveness section that looks at the literature, as guided by secondary sources. For the views of it outside the medical field, another user helped with that.--Beneficii (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It's very stubby, but how does this look? What kind of direction could we take from this point, such as creating sections? --Beneficii (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

it looks great, Self-disorder--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Using the word child maltreatment instead of child abuse at the Child abuse article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Child abuse#Using the word child maltreatment instead of child abuse, and the Definitions section. Specifically, this issue, which originally concerned whether or not to use the term child maltreatment instead of child abuse, and now concerns whether the term child neglect should be included when stating "the definitions of child abuse or child maltreatment can vary across the sectors of society which deal with the issue" and that, because of this, "communication across disciplines can be limited, hampering efforts to identify, assess, track, treat, and prevent such abuse." Opinions on either aspect (use of the term child maltreatment instead of child abuse, or whether to include the term child neglect when relaying the aforementioned "can vary" and "communication across disciplines can be limited" aspects) would be fine.

Doc James or Jytdog, willing to add an opinion on this and/or mediate? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

They are synonymous from what I understand. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe that different sources use those terms differently. For some sources, maltreatment = (abuse+neglect), and for others, maltreatment = abuse. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines for article structure for infectious disease related articles

Are there or has there been discussion about guidelines for recommended article structure for diseases and agents of disease and consistency between disease and agent, and recommendations for what to include in each (and detail), beyond what might be obvious. I just came across Ascaris lumbricoides for example and see it needs to be reorganized some. juanTamad (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent efforts to write about the Zika virus outbreaks. We have some advice at WP:MEDMOS#Sections. Please remember that it's a rule of thumb, not an absolute requirement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Students...

So there is a class getting to work on neuro stuff. here is their activity feed. would be great to have eyes on these for a bit. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

[7]will keep eye on(as many as possible)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Request review of HIV posters in Commons

example poster which is not copyrightable due to containing only simple text and shapes

Currently there is a deletion review in Wikimedia Commons of 2600 educational posters from the 1980s-90s giving HIV/AIDS information. I am posting to request that anyone please go into Commons, browse through the posters, and if you see one that does not contain copyrighted art, then please make a post that it should not be deleted. The issue is lack of copyright. However, if a poster contains only text and geometric shapes, then it is considered to be in the public domain.

Also, the organization which provided these images would recognize feedback and I would appreciate any positive comments about their attempt at

Previously I had shared this poster project as follows -

Here is a recap - Wellcome Trust is one of the largest medical nonprofit foundations in the world. They have a large archive including public health materials, and they have shared more than a million health media files in Wikimedia Commons at Commons:Category:Wellcome Collection. Among the files they have provided, they shared these 2600 historical HIV/AIDS educational posters. This was an unprecedented donation because the art came from 2000+ organizations and artists, and I think Wikimedia projects have never before had an organization claim to have managed so many relationships including copyright claims. In the end, Wellcome presumed too much. On reflection they have announced that in fact, they did not control the copyright to these HIV posters, and that they spoke incorrectly when they said that they did. Right now they are saying that their copyright agreement with the organizations is that the original copyright holders are demanding CC-By-NC-ND. At this point, my perspective is that everyone involved is confused about copyright. The big lesson that I take away from this is that the most respected librarians and archivists at the best funded archives in the world have a different understanding of copyright than an average Wikipedia contributor. It surprises me a little that many organizations are not conscious of the copyright of the content they hold. I encourage Wikipedians who try to negotiate with institutions to have clear discussions with staff about the meaning of copyright and what it means to share content on Wikipedia. I really appreciate the Wellcome Trust taking initiative to try to share good content with Wikimedia projects. They were the first to attempt an innovative sharing model. In the end, they realized that they tried to donate something that was not theirs to share. Because the HIV posters were never theirs, all of the posters that are not in the public domain will need to be deleted from Commons in the next week or so. The posters will remain on the Wellcome Trust website as CC-By-NC-ND.

The Wellcome Library participants in this are the best. I appreciate their enthusiasm, support, and willingness to try new things.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This is just simple geometric shapes, but I'm pretty sure that it was copyrightable for until 70 years after the author's death.
give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm dubious about the claim that a work that contains "only text and geometric shapes" is not eligible for copyright. If that were true, then a great deal of modern art, including Piet Mondrian's most famous works, would not be copyrightable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
For reference, this is a logo which is not copyrightable due to lack of originality. According to the US Copyright Office anyway; it's not the equivalent to a court ruling but one can generally trust their decisions to stand.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The US Copyright Office interprets that logo (which was submitted sans company name) as merely an irregular blue pentagon and the letter "W". The artist who drew a "W" to look like a crown (from the old logo) probably disagrees with their decision, and I would not be surprised if the W/crown had been submitted by itself, and labeled as artwork, that it would have been accepted.
What we don't see in that ruling is any assertion that all works containing only text and geometric shapes, regardless of arrangement, color, amount of text, originality, etc., are ineligible for copyright – and we never will, because such a rule would make it impossible to hold a copyright on a poem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


Dotage

Dotage is currently a soft redirect to Wiktionary, which seems odd for a normal term describing a medical condition. Would it be better as a redirect to Dementia perhaps (I thought to redirect it to Senility, but that's a redirect to Dementia), or is there a better target, or is the current setup the best of all worlds (to make a Voltaire allusion) at the moment? Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The second definition at Wiktionary would give me pause: "Fondness or attentiveness, especially to an excessive degree", since this is at least as common as the senility usage in common day use. --Izno (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Writing Articles Like How-to Guides

That might be a misleading title. I don't want to do that, but I was reading the article on "abdominal examination" as I was adding a source, and it reads almost like a how-to on performing an abdominal exam.

Is that encyclopedic, does that have value, is that the goal of this project?

I'm just curious, because before I go in and try to change too many things, I'd like to have a better idea of the approach that's taken toward this sort of article.

Thanks, PiousCorn (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Go right in and try to improve it.
That kind of article can be pretty hard to write well, so a lot of people end up straying into "how to" territory. For example, they'll write "First, press here" instead of "A typical exam starts by pressing here". And most people don't actually know enough to write interesting encyclopedic things, such as "In Europe and the Americas, they usually start by pressing here, but in Asia, they usually start in this other spot".
If you can clean it up (even a little bit), that would be very helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that was kind of what I thought, I'll go and try and touch it up, I'll appreciate any follow-up that people can do to check on it. PiousCorn (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, one of the things Wikipedia is WP:NOT is a how-to guide (WP:NOTHOWTO), so improvements as suggested are needed. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment requested

Your thoughts are requested at WP:Village pump (idea lab)#BLPCAT, mental illnesses, and learning disabilities. --Izno (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Responded at the appropriate venue. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and please consider commenting there as well. Not trying to hijack this thread, but they’re closely related and a few months ago Kudpung started a similar AFD for a list with a slightly different spelling of ADHD (note the hyphen-- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder) that Doc James and others from this project participated in where the decision was to delete with “overwhelming consensus,” but the consensus building is not going as smoothly this time. Permstrump (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


Editing Hepatitis Article Prevention section - Comments requested

Hello,

I'm working on the Hepatitis Article as a part of the Wiki elective at UCSF. Please leave edits, comments or suggestions to help me continue to improve my contribution.

Thank you! Aliciadcadams (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

[9][10] for prevention section--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent move of Category:Physicians

Category:Physicians was recently moved to Category:Physician without discussion. Since there is no easy way to revert category moves, I created a CFR to generate discussion on the matter. Please comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 20#Category:Physician. --Scott Alter (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment requested

Your thoughts are requested at WP:Village pump (idea lab)#BLPCAT, mental illnesses, and learning disabilities. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hah Izno beat you to it, see 2 comments up. Permstrump (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
@Permstrump: Lol, whoops! Well, thank you, Izno! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: Did you coincidentally word it the exact same way? --Izno (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@Izno: Hah! Didn't even notice that. I used the wording from WT:DISABILITY which liked used the wording from here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 12:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Homotaurine‎

More eyes would be useful on this article. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

[11]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

"Plasma"

The usage and primary topic of "plasma" is under discussion, see talk:plasma (physics) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


Our medical app

We have recently added anatomy topics to the medical app. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

looks great--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Some kind of vogue in nootropics

I have been seeing a kind of spurt i bad editing going on articles about drugs that are considered nootropics, about their availability on the internet, and how to use them to enhance cognition, including how shall i say, scientific-dilettante "information" on which receptors they are acting on etc. This seems to be undergoing an uptick.

here is a list of such drugs, in a typical sort of forum. here is a reddit thread. Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes have waded into that aswell. People are very positive about the possibility. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Post for Wikimania

poster used in 2014

Hey All Opportunity is open to make a poster for Wikimania. User:BlueRasberry I think you did this last year yes? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if we had these last year, but I made at least 3 in 2014. CFCF 💌 📧 18:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
So far as I know, posters were last updated in 2014. It seems like all of them are at wm2014:Project Leaflets, and only a few were copied to Wikimedia Commons at Commons:Category:Wikimania 2014 leaflets. That page on the 2014 Wikimania wiki seems like the best documentation for how these were designed. Here are some issues with the 2014 poster design -
  • It uses the meta:Wiki Project Med logo to advertise this page, the English Wikipedia WikiProject Medicine page. The two are not the same.
  • It invites people to sign up for the Wikimedia Medicine mailing list maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation for the Wikimedia community. Actually, this mailing list is not so active, and most discussion happens either here in English Wikipedia or on meta at Wiki Project Med's page.
  • It gives a mission statement. That may or may not be useful. It looks nice but the card could be designed with practical information.
I am not sure what is best. Reprinting the card as-is is a default option that works. I cannot commit to develop it further. Anyone else may. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
All good points. I do not have a problem with the WPMEDF logo being used. We want to make this as global as possible and all the language based wikiproject medicines are linked from the meta page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Have put together a draft here Please feel free to edit further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Zika fever/Zika virus

Blog post published here about our work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has become the default website for knowledge... During a crisis like this, people want to know the latest progress and setbacks as fast as they happen,[12]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Further comments here

Talk:Ibuprofen#Heart_problems appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


more opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Glycidamide

This new article, about a carcinogenic metabolite of acrylamide, could use a few eyes -- it relies almost entirely on primary sources and as a consequence has some balance issues. Looie496 (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment on medical diagnosis of TV character

There is a request for comment about whether a popular TV character should be diagnosed with a "psychosomatic" condition based on a source that is not reliable for medical diagnosis. See Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity#Request for comment. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

May need reviewing. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Requesting comments and advice on self-disorder article

I have started the self-disorder article and am looking for comments and advice on what I've done and what else we can do with this article. There is a thread on the article's talk page. Thank you. --Beneficii (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

BTW, does anyone have access to this meta-analysis dealing with disturbances of minimal self? [13] --Beneficii (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

[14]request submitted--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


Beneficii (and anyone else who's made 500+ edits and doesn't have an expensive research library available through work or school), please look into Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Databases#Medical. We might be able to get free access to some good sources for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Everything is going to break

Just a note for those who don't follow the tech stuff: Ops will be upgrading the servers in about two weeks (tentatively, Tuesday, 22 March). One result is that you will not be able to edit pages for 15 to 30 minutes. You will still be able to read, but not save pages. This will affect all the wikis and some non-wiki services, such as Tool Labs. I have two requests:

  • If you happen to be online then and see an error message that "This wiki is in read-only mode", then just try again in half an hour. Ops believes that you'll be able to save your changes then (but do please copy them to a doc or something just in case).
  • If you are active at other wikis, then please share the news with your friends. The more editors who know about this, the less worried people will be.

If you want reminders about this, then you probably want to subscribe to m:Tech/News. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

WAID thanks for the info--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes thanks for the heads up. Much appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: There will be a five-minute test of read-only mode in about 14 hours, at 07:00 UTC (3:00 a.m. for US East Coast).

The purpose of this test is literally to put all the wikis into read-only mode, wait five minutes, resume normal operations, and make sure that this step alone (without all of the complicated server switching) doesn't break something horribly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 Strategy/Draft WMF Strategy

I encourage folks to have a look at the draft strategy and comment there, is you haven't. I've started tuning into WMF stuff more and this is a window for community input on how WMF is going to expend resources over the next year. Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Safety_of_Nicotine

If you like, please comment. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


Throat lozenge

Earlier we worked on merging brand name instances of drugs into the article on the generic version, unless there was something NOTABLE about the brand per se. I just came across Throat lozenge which has a bunch of brands linked to it each of which has its own article, such as this one Strepsils which is a big nothing and should be deleted in my view. Thoughts on doing the same kind of thing here that we did with drugs? Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Merged. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. If you want to expand the ==History== section, then there should be some material and sources at Candy that discusses the historical overlap between the pharmacists and the candymakers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Chiropractic Biophysics

A very promotional article: Chiropractic Biophysics. More eyes needed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
A massive bit of it was a copyright violation which I have cleaned up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
There do not appear to be secondary sources in journal articles on the topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Celebrity doctor

am wondering if an article or category on this kind of person would be interesting or useful. was working via COIN on Travis Lane Stork‎ today. An ER doc just like our own doc james. Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

maybe as category--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Legitimus might be interested in such an article. See User:Legitimus/Media Personality "Doctors" and their real credentials. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Ruthenium anti-cancer drugs and MEDRS

The article Ruthenium anti-cancer drugs has multiple sections making biomedical claims for efficacy against cancer, as well as stating modes of action, that are unsupported by secondary sources. I've left a note on the talk page that WP:MEDRS applies in these cases and proposed deleting those sections in the absence of good-quality secondary sources. I've also left a note at WP PHARM, but any further thoughts would be welcome before I take an axe to the article.

I've also excised most of a section from Ruthenium diamine complexes for the same reasons. --RexxS (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

[15] from [16]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

IBD

Cryptitis high mag

Further opinions regarding recent reverted edits on details of diagnosis in Inflammatory Bowel Disease#Diagnosis, the cited references and details would be appreciated. Thanks! Jrfw51 (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

commented article/talk--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Replied. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)



Talk:Inflammatory bowel disease#recent reverts/post wikiproject Med

What's going on with SUDs?

Right now there are at least 4 separate articles on essentially the same topic: Substance abuse, Substance dependence, Substance-related disorder and Substance use disorder. All of them have old banners that link to closed merge proposals, but I can't tell what went down and why none of the merges ever happened. The discussions are hard to follow, because they don't really correspond with the proposed merges either. For example, in June 2015, there was a merge proposed between the articles called Substance-related disorder and Substance dependence , but the conversation is all over the place. It starts off strong. Then derails into someone suggesting a merger of 6 articles (the 4 I mentioned above plus Substance intoxication and Substance abuse prevention) to someone suggesting a merge with the article on general Dependence, which triggered vehement opposition. Somehow the conclusion (of the proposed merge between Substance-related disorder and Substance dependence) was to merge Substance-related disorder with Substance abuse prevention and Substance intoxication, and to leave Substance dependence as a stand-alone article. IMHO that was a less than ideal outcome, but none of those merges ever happened anyway. And then at some point, the lead to Substance-related disorder was made to be identical to the lead of Substance abuse (including the bolded words), even though the original proposal was for it to be merged with Substance dependence.

There was also a proposed merge between Substance abuse and Substance use disorder and the conversation goes like this:

IP editor1: "It would be foolish to group these together, as substance abuse is usually, though not limited to, factors other than mental illness. This is a subtopic for substance abuse purely relate to mental illness, so the grouping would be, in my view, abhorrent and completely incorrect." Wuh??
Doc James: Concise and logical argument for merging in less than 3 sentences
IP editor2: ":I strongly disagree too against merge with Substance abuse article... anyhow is a broad situation, so there are more relate; while for example a simple one time substance abuse (although important, and endangering health and even life, so even so encyclopaedic topic) may be not a broad situation as a substance use disorder. More simply; how you can surely say that every substance abuse is a substance use disorder as set and delimited in DSM?" The end. No more comments. No merge.

What the heck? Should I bother trying again? PermStrump(talk) 07:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah... those articles need a lot of attention. I was considering merging some of those a while back, but I never really got around to it because of the amount of work involved. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm willing to work on it (with help ideally), but I don't know the best way to go about it. If it were up to me, these would the articles:
I know that's wishful thinking, but just throwing it out there. BTW I'm running late for a conference on substance use disorders... shoot. (Seriously) PermStrump(talk) 12:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Am supportive of merging very closely related articles. Would go with "X user disorder" for most of these. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, these articles need significant clean-up. Is the proposed terminology standard? Sizeofint (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Sizeofint, yes, that's the official terminology in the DSM-5. Technically, if you were making a formal diagnosis, you'd rate the severity -- mild/moderate/severe (e.g. alcohol use disorder, moderate) based on the # of symptoms and/or qualify it with: intoxication, withdrawal, [X]-induced disorder (e.g. alcohol-induced anxiety disorder). But "substance use disorder"/"[X] use disorder" is the standard catchall term at least in the US. I'm pretty sure that's how it's worded in research articles I've read that were published in Europe, but maybe someone else can weigh in on that. It looks like the ICD-10 still lists "abuse" and "dependence," and WHO refers to "psychoactive substance use disorders," which consists of abuse, dependence, intoxication, withdrawal, etc. I'm almost positive though that in the majority of the world, practitioners and researchers refer to it as "[X] use disorder" now, even if the publications haven't caught up yet. We'd been using that terminology for a while before the DSM 5th edition came out in 2013. I think that's usually how it happens (like, we completely stopped saying "mentally retarded" out loud a long time before they finally took it out the DSM in 2013). I'm less sure about how common it is to say "psychoactive substance use disorder" vs "substance use disorder" outside of the US though. If "psychoactive..." is more common internationally, I'm cool with that. Colloquially, I think people have different connotations for different words even within the same country, and half the time they're talking nonsense (like when people argue there's a difference between addiction and dependency... addiction was never a clinical word, so I have no idea what they think the difference is). My point is... it makes the most sense to go with the medical terminology IMHO. (Sorry if that was more than you ever wanted to know.)
Doc James, where do you think makes sense to start? Like, should I start by posting new proposals to merge/redirect/rename articles or does it makes sense to start by cleaning up the articles that seem like they'd be keepers and defer worrying about getting consensus to merge after that? Also, is there ever a way when articles are so messy and redundant like this that there can be an executive decision made about which ones to keep/merge without getting consensus? :) PermStrump(talk) 02:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I have moved the opioid one to opioid use disorder. The only one that should IMO stay with its common name is alcoholism.
I have also adjusted the cannabis one. The benzo one requires merging and than moving to benzo misuse disorder. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Substance dependence needs to be split apart to separate the diagnostic concept (which would be merged) from the neuropsychological concept (which would need to be moved to a new name, e.g., something like "drug dependence" or "stimulus dependence") if you intend to go ahead with a merge of that article and substance abuse into SUD. The current dependence article currently covers both concepts, but doesn't really do a good job differentiating between the two in the text. Other than that, I don't really see any issues with this proposal. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Doc James: Sweet, thanks! Here's something weird though... when I type cannabis abuse into the search bar, it correctly redirects me to cannabis use disorder, but when I start to type in "cannabis use..." the only prompt I get is for cannabis use disorders," which redirects to plain old cannabis. Seppi333: What do you mean by "stimulus dependence"? My only guess is that it might be what the DSM refers to as, "non-substance related disorders." Gambling is the only one recognized in the DSM, which I'm sure that has and deserves its own article. Is that the kind of thing you're talking about though, like video games, gambling, shopping, etc? PermStrump(talk) 03:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

When I say "stimulus dependence", I'm not referring to a diagnostic model. "Dependence" is not a diagnostic label, but "substance dependence" is. The neuropsychological concept of dependence is defined in the glossary in substance dependence, whereas the diagnostic concept of a "substance dependence" (as of the DSM-IV) is defined at the end of the lead in that article. If it helps to clarify the difference, both addiction and dependence (i.e., psychological dependence and physical dependence) refer to actual diseases; "substance dependence" and "substance use disorder" refer to diagnostic models that group both addiction and dependence together under one diagnosis. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that "stimulus" dependence and "psychological" dependence are synonymous? I'm having a really hard time following what you're saying and I don't see what you're talking about in the article or the glossary. There are no hits if I do ctrl F "stimulus dependence" in the article Substance dependence. That phrase isn't in the glossary. There are references to stimuli, but it doesn't help me understand what you're terming "stimulus dependence." Can you please explain like I'm 5? PermStrump(talk) 05:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that we use an article titled "stimulus dependence" to cover "dependence", i.e., an article that covers both physical and psychological dependence. The ideal title would just be "dependence", but there's no consensus to move the disambiguation page to cover the concept there. The only reason I suggested the term "stimulus dependence" is that dependence is a disambiguation page and withdrawal syndromes aren't unique to drugs. It's not the only suitable title in which to cover the topic; e.g., dependence (medicine) would be another candidate IMO.
To make it easier on you, just let me know when you merge the substance dependence article into the SUD article and I'll create the page that I have in mind using some of the existing content from the substance dependence article (only the first 3 sections are relevant). Some of the redirects to the substance dependence article will need to be adjusted as well, but I can handle that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Doc James: Sorry to bug you again, and actually anyone can feel free to respond, but as far as merging benzo articles goes... Is the first step proposing a merge and letting people discuss it or is it cleaning up the articles? Would it help garner consensus if I made a draft in a separate userspace of what I think a merge should look like or would that be a waste of time until there's consensus? PermStrump(talk) 13:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
It's probably not necessary to create a draft. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay I have moved Benzodiazepine misuse to Benzodiazepine misuse disorder. Organized the article per WP:MEDMOS and proposed a merge from Benzodiazepine dependence Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Gah. This article is more or less using primary sources from 30 years ago and petree dish studies to say flumazenil is okay for benzodiazepine dependence.[17]. Am cleaning up the worst of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you mean to move it to Benzodiazepine use disorder, as opposed to misuse? When do we get to nuke articles and start fresh? How bad does it have it be? I'm totally willing to rewrite the worst of them from scratch (one at a time). I keep getting overwhelmed every time I open one to try to clean it up, so then I try another substance thinking I'll work on some easy ones first and save the worst ones for last, but they're really all atrocious. They all have some kind of POV pushing, either a drug company or super pro-drug people who don't want anyone to say anything bad about any drug. I had in mind all day yesterday to go back to the cannabis use disorder article to edit out the part of the lead that said something like, "Research has never conclusively shown that it's possible to have a physical dependence to cannabis." But when I got there, I couldn't find it anymore. I assumed Doc James took it out b/c I saw he'd made some recent edits. Thank you to whoever it was. :) PermStrump(talk) 00:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks I did and fixed. I typically go through them section by section, cleaning out primary sources and adding new content based on reviews keeping the little bit that was good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
One section at a time often works. Also, if you check the history and see that nobody's edited for a month or three, then there's probably nobody sitting on the article and waiting to repel boarders.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Two articles on the same topic

Veterinary chiropractic and Animal chiropractic are the same topic. After an editor was reverted at Veterinary chiropractic the editor created Animal chiropractic. Animal chiropractic appears to be a POV Fork. QuackGuru (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree and redirected. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment requested regarding ProMED-mail as source

Your thoughts are requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#04:03:47.2C 18 March 2016 review of submission by Jtamad regarding the use of ProMED-mail as a source in Draft:2016 yellow fever outbreak in Angola. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

[18][19]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I see refs to WHO and the CDC aswell. Pro-MED-mail is from the "International Society for Infectious Diseases" which is a reputable organization. So I would like say fine.
User:333-blue the outbreak is commented on by the CDC[20] and WHO [21]. That makes it notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

BPA

Bisphenol

So a friend phones up full of concern about BPA; I look on Wikipedia for The Facts but find our article is quite full of non-WP:MEDRS (where sourced at all) and has something of a slant, for example in using a letter to "however" secondary sources (however is a popular word in this piece), or asserting that "Exposure during pregnancy has effects on both mother and offspring later in life" (without source). I'll have a go at the worst of this but this article could use eyes. It gets ~1,750 daily views on average so it's an important one to get right. Alexbrn (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

the Obesity sub-section needs particular help w/ referencing ([22] good general reference)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
yes that article is a nightmare of primary sources driven by advocacy editing. i tried to fix it and gave up. its badness was noted here last spring and elsewhere. Jytdog (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm working on it (slowly). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


Planned Parenthood promoted to Good Article

Although a 1RR and controversial article, after 30 days of plugging away we got Planned Parenthood promoted to Good Article (GA) status. Yay! It now qualifies and has thereby been nominated for a did you know (DYK) slot and and it is going through the DYK comment and vetting process to appear as a snippet on the Wikipedia main page soon. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

[23]Congrats!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Human growth and development

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Adolescence#Template:Human growth and development. A WP:Permalink for it is here. It concerns whether or not we should keep Template:Human growth and development and Template:Human development, or either one at the top of the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Good ledes — for translation!

I would like to present the idea of good-lede articles to you. This is a simpler step towards getting content translated into many different languages. As of the last year we've refocused much of the Translation Task Force work towards translating shorter summary articles. This has allowed us to grow the number of articles and the number of languages we reach immensely.

As of now all articles pass by our own Dr. James Heilman prior to translation as a part of quality-control. But the way we've chosen which articles are prepared is not entirely transparent — so I've devised a set of criteria similar to the Good Article Criteria which can help even more people to help 'write for translation.

We're currently focusing which articles to translate on a number of important topics:

A full list of summaries we've prepared so far can be found here!

Check out the guide at: Wikipedia:Good lede (keep in mind, it's still only a draft)
Comments and constructive criticism is more than welcome – here or on the talk page! :)

Thanks, CFCF 💌 📧 15:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good_lede looks good--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi CFCF. Good lede is not a good name for this.
Define:lede (from the dictionary):

The opening sentence or paragraph of a news article, summarizing the most important aspects of the story.

We already have a WP essay called WP:LEADCREATE
The project needs a new name, IMHO. It is neither an opening sentence, or an opening paragraph of a news article summarizing the most important aspects of the story. It is not a story. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
That is not at all the same thing — nor is that the common reading of lede on Wikipedia. CFCF 💌 📧 09:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
There's no magic in the words here. Lede is only a deliberate misspelling of lead from the heyday of the Linotype machine. The spelling change was created so that the difference between comments on the opening words and comments on the leading (line spacing created by putting strips of blank Pb-based metal alloys between rows of type) would be more obvious to typesetters. There isn't any absolute length limitation; it just happens that the lead for a news article is most commonly a single-sentence paragraph. Other dictionaries, e.g., wikt:lede#Etymology 2 and Merriam-Webster, do not mention the number of sentences at all.
If you wanted to avoid any possible confusion, then call it an "introduction". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Portal:Anatomy needs TLC

Hi y'all. Portal:Anatomy has been dormant for about 2.5 years and never really got off the ground. Anybody up for giving it some TLC? I added a portal thumbnail image but it is not ideal. Click on the image to see a better rendition and click on the portal link to see the portal. Scroll down to see the redlinks and missing stuff. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

[24]for Selected biography(Portal:Anatomy?) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
There is no sense wasting time on portals, particularly one that only draws 5 page views per day. The basic problem is that the Wikipedia system doesn't give any effective way of attracting the reader's attention to portals, so nobody is interested in maintaining them. Even Portal:Medicine, which draws about 190 page views per day, has not been edited since August 2015. Really the whole concept of portals as a landing page went out of date around the time Yahoo and AOL lost dominance of internet. Looie496 (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
After seeing this discussion, I visited the portal, and I edited the pane "Anatomy" and the pane "To do". Those revisions do not appear in the history of the portal.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I wonder whether we should propose the portal for deletion.
I've been told that many pages in the Portal: namespace were created back in the day (before my time), by admin wannabes. WP:RFA was going through a spate of rejecting people unless they had created featured content. It was hard to get WP:FA, but easy to get P:FP. (WP:FL didn't exist then.) I suspect that most FPs no longer meet the requirements, especially the requirement to be "well-maintained". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
In my view, a portal does not need to be deleted if it is doing no harm. Also, it might require little or no maintenance. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals and Wikipedia:Portal.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC) and 01:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Water fluoridation

Further comments appreciated here Talk:Water_fluoridation#Blatant_pro-fluoridation_bias Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Water fluoridation controversy

See this edit for "Opponents also object to the administration of a medication without individual consent, especially as the option to "opt out" is expensive (i.e., requires use of filters or bottled water).[7][8]" The sources used to verify the claim are the UK Green Party and the Civil Rights Violation Regarding Forced Medication. The article is a mess. QuackGuru (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The first source in the body seems to be a MEDRS violation. QuackGuru (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

commented article/talk--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Review article on agitated depression

I'm wanting to cite this review article on agitated depression on the page mixed affective state, but I don't have access to the full-text. Would anyone be able to provide it?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23881708 --Beneficii (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Ocaasi, is this publisher available through WP:TWL? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
📧CFCF 💌 📧 17:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey Beneficii and WhatamIdoing. I asked Nikkimaria to check into our partners. We don't yet have a fully integrated search/discovery feature (expected around December '16), so the best bet is really to just go to WP:RX for now. Good luck! Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey Beneficii and WhatamIdoing. I asked Nikkimaria to check into our partners, and she is incredible, so... here ya go!. Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Psychotherapeutic postural integration#Validation

I started a discussion at Talk:Psychotherapeutic postural integration#MEDRS needed for claims of scientific validity about using this website as a source for this statement, "Body psychotherapy has been scientifically validated by the European Association for Psychotherapy (E.A.P.) as have a number of the various modalities within this mainstream branch of Psychotherapy. One of these approaches or “modalities” within Body-Psychotherapy includes Psychotherapeutic Postural Integration which has been recognised as scientifically valid by the EAP." A few days ago I removed that statement on the grounds that the source wasn't WP:MEDRS, but it was reverted this morning with this edit summary, "this is a reliable referenced second source validation." I'm looking for some outside input before reverting it again. This article is one of a number of articles that all seem to cover essentially the same topic. I posted about it on WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Mind-body/Bodymind the other day, but haven't gotten any responses, so I figured I'd mention it here too while I'm at it. PermStrump(talk) 17:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Zero reviews or primary sources on the topic and books that cover it are created from Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The name sounds like "Stand up straight; you'll feel better". I've never heard of this, but Google Scholar finds a few sources written by "C Young" (the apparent owner of the website above). The link that Permstrump gives is listed in Google Scholar as being from the International Journal of Psychotherapy in 2007. His website also talks about Body psychotherapy; perhaps that's (basically) the same thing? Or bodymind? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, I do think it's the same thing as Body psychotherapy and Bodymind plus... Postural Integration, Bodymind (in meditation traditions) (not to be confused with other bodymind article), Bodywork (alternative medicine), Sensorimotor psychotherapy, Somatic psychology, Somatics, Embodied cognition, Somatherapy, Somatic Experiencing, Kinetic Awareness, Bioenergetic analysis, Rolfing, Vegetotherapy, and Trager approach. A lot of those are trademarked interventions and most say they're based off of vegetotherapy and/or rolfing. A panelists at a conference I went to the other day wanted clinicians to sign up for Sensorimotor Psychotherapy trainings through her company. (I figured out that the panel consisted of the vendors and was purely promotional, but I guess it paid for lunch.) Anyway, I had planned to spend my time cleaning up substance use disorder articles during the panel, but I googled Sensorimotor Psychotherapy and got sidetracked removing dubious claims of scientific validity from all of these articles. As far as I can tell, they're all essentially about the same topic or are closely-enough related FRINGE that they should share one article. They have such vague wording though, so it's hard to tell what any of them are really about and how similar/different they are to each other. I posted on WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Mind-body/Bodymind the other day to ask what is the best way to propose consolidating this many articles, also to get a sense if other people agree that they're all the same topic, but I still haven't gotten any response. Anyone here have a suggestion? PermStrump(talk) 21:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
A source that does some compare-and-contrast for these closely related things would be (as always) helpful here. Presumably the "original" ones would benefit from their own articles. Beyond that, an article about [[Rolfing-related treatments]] (or something like that, with another for vegetotherapy-related ones) might be a potential target for the merge.
In terms of the technical side of the process, if your "target" exists ("ThisPage"), then I think you'll want to tag "ThisPage" with {{Merge |OtherPage1 |OtherPage2 |OtherPage3 |discuss=Talk:ThisPage#Merge discussion |date=March 2016}}, tag all the targets with {{merge to|ThisPage |discuss=Talk:ThisPage#Merge discussion |date=March 2016}}, and then start the discussion. If your target page is new, then we should pick a page for the discussion (maybe this one, if nothing else seems appropriate), and adjust accordingly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

open.osmosis.org videos

Hey User:Doc James, looks like you are on a roll adding subject videos like here, here, and here etc. Do we have a new partner? THey seem great, btw. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes we are working with Osmosis. They are a new group that split from the Khan academy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

articles about pharma companies

There is a discussion here for anybody interested in how articles about pharma companies are structured. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Help expand an article?

Hi! I recently chose to redirect the article Postpartum confinement, as someone nominated it for deletion saying that it didn't expand on Postpartum_period#East_Asia. It looks like the section Postpartum_period#Cultures covers confinement, but I can see the merit in having a separate article that goes into this in greater detail across the various cultures and discussing this in more general detail on a cultural level.

Anyone interested in taking a crack at this to see if this is warranted? I know that this is more of an anthropological thing (I'm going to hit them up too) but I figured that it'd be worth mentioning here as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted that. The CSD nomination was facially invalid, because db-g10 is for near-exact duplicates of existing content, not for longer pages (or pages that could be redirected).
User:Gandydancer or the people at WP:WikiProject Women's health might also be interested in this subject. It's certainly possible to have an entire article here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Some sort of custom has been pretty traditional in most cultures. I'm sure the Jewish project have an article on their ones somewhere. In medieval Europe visitors weren't banned for as long, but the mother received them in bed, whether she felt like it or not. Elite Florentines served the visitors sweets on their Desco da parto. You won't I think manage to interest the gender imbalance taskforce in anything so mundane. Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Phenformin#Anticancer_properties

Phenformin

Input welcome in the section above. i replaced a train wreck section based on primary sources with one based on recent reviews (of which there are several) and have someone pushing to restore the train wreck. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


more opinions--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Duchenne muscular dystrophy

Duchenne-muscular-dystrophy

should any editor have the time, this important article needs referencing, thank you (below are some related articles to MD that are also needing a look over)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Google drugbox

Is this a new thing? Hadn't seen that before... Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know they've been rolling it out for a while now. At first it was a small box under the search bar with some info (link to a 2010 article from when they rolled that out, with screenshot), then they upped their game to the more aesthetically-appealing sidebar thing. Here's a post on the Google search blog about it marked 2012. The feature is part of their Knowledge Graph project which will just keep on getting larger (now they do nutrition facts, famous people, song lyrics, et al). If you see something on the infobar you think is incorrect you can report it to them by clicking "feedback" in the bottom right. Those folks at Google are always full of surprises. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Yup they are getting better and better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

New York City market research company presents health survey discussing Wikipedia

The takeaway of the data is that the survey respondents ranked Wikipedia as the least-trusted health information source. Wikipedia ranked #2 for accessibility, with 56% of people saying WebMD was accessible while 55% of respondents said that Wikipedia was. I think 55 and 56 are the same based on my feelings for the precision of New York commercial survey research, and it is fair to say Wikipedia ties for #1. The most interesting part of this to me is that the survey assumes that accessibility and accuracy are complementary aspects of health communication. The traditional criticism of Wikipedia is that its accuracy is poor and its accessibility is irrelevant, whereas the accuracy of traditional publishing is good and its inaccessibility is irrelevant.

Part of the weirdness of these sorts of surveys is that despite the publication announcement, the survey is difficult to access unless one is with a firm that might purchase health media consulting. Here are discussions about the survey but I cannot find the actual survey.

I am fairly sure these discuss the same survey, despite their website saying this is the 5th annual survey and the press release calling it the 6th. I found out about this through

I know Makovsky (the research firm) has published about Wikipedia in the past. I forgot where I heard their name.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

similar/same[25]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd really love to know what people's reasons are for thinking the health information is untrustworthy. Don't get me wrong, I agree, but I wonder if most people would say it's because (a) it's factually inaccurate, outdated and/or contrary to expert opinion, (b) it doesn't confirm their biases or (c) they feel too much weight is given to fringe views even when multiple views are presented. I think we all know it's probably a combination of the 3, but I wonder how it would break down in a large survey. PermStrump(talk) 17:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Permstrump Like you said, there are multiple reasons why believe Wikipedia is untrustworthy. I think the most relevant reason is that the Wikimedia movement has not provided reasonable evidence to the contrary. "Reasonable evidence" could mean research on the order of a single graduate student's masters thesis on any aspect of Wikipedia quality. A great research project, regularly suggested by Doc James, would be to test 1st year medical students. Half of them get Wikipedia to help, and the other half get another source (perhaps the entire Internet minus Wikipedia). I think a study that had interested entry-level students try to use Wikipedia versus any other source in their field would be a provocative demonstration of Wikipedia's usefulness for answering questions. No such thing has gotten off the ground yet. The existing academic research is almost uniformly dubious, incomplete, or has fundamental misconceptions about Wikipedia that make the results weird. Routine research has not yet been done on Wikipedia, and if that research existed, then I think that would increase the public profile of Wikipedia.
Of the three points you raise, I hear (a) the most and (c) second. The usual comment about (c) is not usually complaints in terms of fringe views, but instead about perceived instability of Wikipedia's content and a tendency for Wikipedia articles to get worse over time. I wish that Wikipedia's public image could more closely match its actual strengths and weaknesses, so that people's judgement of it had more basis in reality.
I wrote more about the study on my blog at "Content accuracy versus accessibility". Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
(Drive-by comment) I'd say with pretty near certainty that for the overwhelming majority of those who believe Wikipedia's medical information is untrustworthy, it has nothing to do with the medical content per se, but with the fact that for the last decade we've been trying to hammer home "You should not trust Wikipedia" (or Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information. That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. if you want chapter and verse). That there are still people who do trust Wikipedia uncritically is what gives cause for concern, since even in the best-maintained areas like medicine and military history, dubious woo pops up with wearying regularity, especially when you get away from the high-profile hotspots with multiple watchers like cancer and homeopathy; just head on over to Category:Medicinal plants and pick an article at random. ‑ Iridescent 19:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Iridescent I agree - "it has nothing to do with the medical content per se".
I found the actual survey here.
  • Kelton (February 2016), Pulse of Online Search Survey: Initial Data (PDF), Makovsky PR, retrieved 25 March 2016
Here is the company's own post about the survey.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Coverage of Hospitals

Hello folks! Does WPM cover hospitals? I can't see that it does... if not, is there another project that might cover them? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 16:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

see WP:WikiProject Hospitals. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Bot now deploying "research" template in reference section

If you are not aware, Special:Contributions/Hazard-Bot. There does not seem to be consensus for this. Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The bot is putting this on what articles all together? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
It seems to be going project-by-project, and going though articles alphabetically - you can see this in its contribs here (i hope that is stable). it ran through a bunch of WP:MED articles starting with "a" - those are what what i saw. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
This is, I believe, third time this pilot study has been discussed just on this page since the time the editors of WikiProject Medicine approved it (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 74#Piloting TWL WP:Research help in Reference Sections) and since it was additionally approved at BOTREQ (see Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 68#Adding Template:Research help to batches of WP:WPMED and WP:MILHIST articles). I believe that you weren't editing that week, but there is evidence of an actual consensus to run this test. Have you read Wikipedia:Research help/Proposal yet? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for those links. - good to know this just expands the pilot to 10,000 articles - 5K in WP:MED. I noted this because they did indeed escalate the rollout, now with the bot. I do know that this was discussed once before - I wasn't aware of the November posting - thanks for linking to that! Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: Now the bot has been blocked, and the template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 8#Template:Research help. Could we actually be more hostile to research and efforts to get readers to understand Wikipedia's limitations if we tried? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

[26] closed no consensus--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

This is back again: See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#.22Research help.22 proposal for the latest effort to kill this research project. Since the template wasn't deleted via TFD, someone is now proposing to have it removed from all articles via blanking the template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

gave my opinion again[27]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments please on Vulva

You too, can prevent an edit war. I propose an encyclopedic image showing all external vulvar structures and my collaborator would prefer a collage of four images only showing some structures. Please be so kind as to leave your comments on the talk page. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
That diff... does not seem to be related to single-versus-four. Is the question about File:Pubic hair - Vulva unshaved.jpg vs File:Genital Diversity.jpg in the infobox? Or about a labeled photo vs a more complete labeled drawing under ==Structure==? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The discussion is here, and it's about the image in the infobox. The first half contains a pointless round of "who reverted first" (does it even matter? BRD is 100% optional anyway, and it's not even good practice for some situations), so please skip to the end and leave your two cents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Lysosomal acid lipase deficiency

this article could use some editor help, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I fixed it. I also merged Cholesteryl ester storage disease and Wolman disease into it since both of those articles were terrible too. Feel free to check my work.... Jytdog (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
looks great (well referenced)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Artificial ventilation article missing

Was working on an article about Dr, Edward George Fell, an early developer of methods of artificial ventilation[28] and noticed a problem with linking that term in Wikipedia:

  • By definition Artificial ventilation (synonymous with artificial respiration) is "any means of producing gas exchange mechanically or manually between the lungs and the surrounding air, which is not performed entirely by the person's own respiratory system"[29] (more defs), making mechanical ventilation[30] and rescue breathing sub-types of artificial ventilation.
  • In Wikipedia Artificial ventilation redirects to an article mainly about rescue breathing incorrectly titled artificial respiration (rescue breathing is just one type of artificial ventilation/respiration).

Artificial ventilation should be an over-all term/topic article and the article on rescue breathing should have a more correct name than artificial respiration. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you've identified a significant hole. Do you want to have a go at creating the article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I was just writing an article about poor Dr. Fell who seems to be missing in Wikipedia, only to find his field of study was also missing ;). Posting this, and your reply, made me see the solution, put an article up at the Artificial ventilation redirect. I'll take a whack at that. Artificial respiration should really be moved to a better title, should that get input? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
what (title) did you have in mind?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I think that replacing the redirect with an article on the general subject, and then moving artificial respiration to rescue breathing (which redirects there) would probably address this issue. WP:Requested moves has the process; it should probably be discussed, just to avoid surprising anyone, but the rationale seems pretty strong to me. Alternatively, most of the current contents of artificial respiration could be WP:SPLIT out to rescue breathing, with a proper {{Main}} WP:SUMMARY left in that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Asking readers directly for input on articles

One metric NIOSH uses to measure impact is the number of page views, including page views to Wikipedia articles. This tells us about the volume of traffic, but nothing about who is reading it, or where they are from, or what motivated them to look up the article (curiosity, affected worker, employer trying to improve workplace safety, etc). While we are good at getting feedback from editors, we don't have mechanisms that are as reliable for getting feedback from readers, and I would like to report more "impact" information to NIOSH. Has there been any thought in embedding optional reader surveys in very select groups of articles? I understand there was the article feedback tool many years ago, but it applied to too many articles (instead of a very select subset) and collected open-ended feedback rather than more useful, structured information. I ask this project because I imagine you all would have had a similar idea. If something like I am proposing has been tried I would like to hear more about it. If it hasn't, but you think it is a good idea, let me know and I can begin thinking about implementation. James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

There was the feedback tool. I was sad when it was disabled completely as I wanted to use it for this purpose. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Here is the link Wikipedia:Article feedback Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Consider Wikipedia:Batea, a research project designed to collect information from readers and editors of Wikipedia articles. Anyone who reads or edits Wikipedia using Google Chrome is invited to participate. The research especially is interested in how health science students engage with Wikipedia, but collects data about a range of Wikipedia interactions. The data set produced from this research will be open and in the end, could be used to give insights that would answer the questions you are asking. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Something like phab:T89970 might be useful for that. Unfortunately, it's vaporware.
Have you talked to anyone in the Analytics team? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
getting feedback is a good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Jimmie C. Holland

created this tonight, quickly, on my way to doing something else. Jytdog (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

<redact>--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that source! I removed the link per WP:ELNEVER - the source is PMID 11914437. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

YELLOW FEVER WARNING from ProMED mail

ProMED-mail has just issued a strongly worded warning on the threat of yellow fever, globally but most particularly in Asia/China (where imported cases have appeared in recent days).[1] I've added it to the page on the Angola outbreak but it might warrant more prominent attention. juanTamad (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Yellow fever - countries with dengue: alert 2016-03-28 20:39:56 Archive Number: Archive Number: 20160328.4123983". ProMED-mail. International Society for Infectious Diseases. Retrieved 29 March 2016.
From ProMED: "My concern is that with so many pressing demands on public health agencies in the dengue-endemic counties -- malaria in many, Chagas disease in some, schistosomiasis in others, hepatitis and other enteroviral diseases in most, to mention a few -- long-range planning and pre-outbreak preparation gets short shrift until an outbreak such as yellow fever hits. Vaccination of 70-80 percent of the population at potential risk is one obvious approach, but adequate supplies of the vaccine are necessary, and trained vaccination teams must be available for its administration. With vaccination, vector control and avoidance, the eternal question is: Who will pay for what is needed in the absence of a crisis? Prevention is cheaper than crisis response, as Angola health authorities are in the process of finding out. Gambling that yellow fever will never hit costs nothing -- until it does. - Mod.TY]" juanTamad (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
We have a vaccine that is effective for the condition in question which helps. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Right, but their point is that stockpiles are way too low for a large outbreak. WHO used up much of their stockpile in Angola. juanTamad (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Good business opportunity for some company. Hopefully someone will increase production. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Time to buy stock! juanTamad (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Please Review my Draft

I am a new editor I just made the page draft: Paula Method. Can somebody please review it thanks.

DPT DanDan (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:DPT DanDan reviewed. Made a few small changes. Otherwise looks good.
By the way it appears you class has received good instruction (or generally catch on quick). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Article is actually Paula method in case anyone was wondering why it was a redlink. I really wish there were more sourcing to support it as an independent article, right now it looks like it would risk getting deleted at AFD. Zad68

Hyperbaric medicine

I am expanding Hyperbaric medicine to include more on recompression therapy as discussed on the talk page. The lead has been changed and I will be working on technical aspects of chambers and may significantly re-organise the article structure as the need becomes apparent. Please feel welcome to chip in and help or make constructive suggestions. Take into account that it will be under construction for a while and odd things may occur temporarily. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Pinging RexxS. This is the sort of article that he might be interested in. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it on his watchlist. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I have done a bit. I would appreciate comment and suggestions regarding page layout and sections titles to fit in with WP:MEDMOS, Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Impact factor

Journal with an impact factor publishing content I wrote under someone elses names.[31]

Impact factor of the journal is 1.7. More emphasis that we need to stick with reputable, pubmed indexed journals with a high impact factor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

unethical bastards. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Depending upon the field, 1.7 actually would be a high impact factor. Instead of setting out such a variable and imperfect standard, maybe we should stick with journals that have enough sense to use plagiarism detection software. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
How do we determined if they are using plagiarism detection software though? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't know. Various people here have connections in that world; maybe we should try to encourage journals to publicly state that. After all, it's embarrassing to them to have to retract a paper over something that even a brand-new school teacher is likely to catch. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems a fake impact factor. fgnievinski (talk) 06:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you're right. I just searched Thomson Reuters citation reports, and there is no journal listed with the words "pharmaceutical" and "invention" in its title. — soupvector (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Isn't it too new a journal to establish an IF? Instead, they're using this nonsense. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
yes could be--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

On the use of Frontiers journals as sources

Gongwool (talk · contribs) appears to be on a mission to remove from all articles citations of articles from "predatory open access publishers". That might or might not be a good thing, but in the process he is removing citations to articles in Frontiers journals; see Frontiers Media. In my view that is wrong -- I have read dozens of high-quality review articles in Frontiers journals. The question I would like to open for discussion is (a) is it possible for Frontiers citations to meet WP:RS; (b) is is possible for citations of review papers in Frontiers journals to meet WP:MEDRS? Looie496 (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

As Frontiers Media states, they're listed in the Jeffrey Beall list of predatory journals but there seems to be a significant group who disagree with the designation [32] and others who agree [33].
It seems to me that the proper course of action is to be cautious about claims from Frontier journals (but then, it makes sense to be cautious about any claim made anywhere). As far as WP:MEDRS is concerned, AFAIU it, the emphasis is on reviews - and I don't know whether Frontier journals publish that kind of paper. If they did, I think I'd be very cautious about using it in isolation, given the various complaints about it. JMWt (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The publisher isn't the only thing that matters. Albert Einstein's publications on physics would be acceptable no matter who published them.
User:Gongwool is replacing these citations with {{fact}}, which is probably better than leaving the material completely uncited. Adding {{better source}} after the citation (and leaving the citation present) is another approach that might work better for some purposes, especially if the source might be generally acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Looie496 Could you provide an example of a citation which was removed but which you think might be worth keeping? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Sure: diff. Looie496 (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I like JMWt's idea of leaving Frontiers citations in place with the {{better source}} tag. Some of the stuff on Beall's list is just irrefutable trash, but this one sounds like it could be an exception, at least on a case by case basis (I haven't looked into it). But as long as Frontiers isn't being used to support a contentious statement or an idea that's expressed equally as well in a stronger source, I could see rare, hypothetical scenarios where removing those references could be detrimental to some articles (e.g. if the Frontiers piece pulled together several widely accepted concepts that otherwise couldn't be expressed without OR). PermStrump(talk) 01:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

This is more or less the only review on the topic.[34] What to do than? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless you have a specific concern about that particular review article, then I'd recommend keeping it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
It is not used as far as I am aware. I have suggested using it instead of primary sources though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, well that's at least a review which might suggest a more considered overview of the topic than a primary source. I think I'd be inclined to cite a book chapter, where it exists rather than the article Looie496 suggests above. I don't really know what to do about this instance; it seems to be a review, but I don't know how much confidence one can or should have in a publication which has been flagged as having issues. I think one has to ask questions about why academics would choose to publish in this kind of journal. JMWt (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
In general I suppose one would look to see how exceptional the claim being made is. If it is truly exceptional - say a claim of treatment efficacy that is not backed-up by any other reasonable secondary sources - then alarm bells should ring. Alexbrn (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
That's something to consider for any source. It depends upon context (one does not really expect multiple studies on the treatment efficacy for a rare disease or co-morbidities of uncommon ones), but information present in only one source is not necessarily WP:DUE even if it's in a highly respected publication. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
What WAID said. "It depends on the context" is the only right answer to this question and anyone running around blanket-removing or even blanket-tagging should stop. This is the kind of conversation that makes me think there was a wrong turn taken in trying to provide general guidance that centers on the perceived quality of the source rather than the type of information the source is being used for. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I generally avoid Frontiers journals. They often put out guest-edited issues, and those issues are often full of woo for pet theories and misrepresent what is actually seen by the field as "accepted knowledge". These issues often have crazy big woo (they fail WP:INDY). So if a Frontiers review is the only source on something, I look to see if it is from a guest-edited issue and read it carefully first to try to decide how even-handed it appears to be. if it appears to be woo-full I just don't bring it to Wikipedia at all. Even if it seems OK I use it gingerly. But generally I don't even click to read the abstract for reviews from Frontiers when looking for sources on pubmed, and just skip right over them. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC) (missed some nuance; added it Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC))
The Committee on Publication Ethics have no problems with Frontiers and Beall's list has been plenty criticised. Plenty of Frontiers journals are well-respected, AFAIK. COI declaration: I'm currently co-editing a Frontiers special issue. Bondegezou (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
:) i hope you bring in people with a real diversity of opinion on the topic! Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Seeing this thread was began about my actions, here's my penny's worth. The above COI working there said "Plenty of Frontiers journals are well-respected" which suggests that other Frontier journals are not well-respected prob due to lack of peer review. The internet is becoming a cesspool of crank science misinformation, is Wikipedia beginning to reflect this? Yes maybe it is if it uses non-peer reviewed articles as source in supporting scientific theory. So which Frontier journals does proper-science use, and how can we tell which ones are crank and non-crank? I guess if the paper is published elsewhere where peer-review can be guaranteed then it's OK. But scientific theory needs to toughen-up and avoid any link to crank otherwise Wikipedia continues to merge with that misinformation superhighway cesspool, and W.P. becomes untrusted (if it's not already viewed that way). (BTW I'm currently involved where non-scientists are pushing crank begun in that well respected science journal Rolling Stone magazine.) Others good editors, much more familiar with the science topic being discussed above will know where to find more solid respected cites to support text. I can't necessarily help with that. Thanks. Gongwool (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
[35]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Basic symptoms of schizophrenia

This http://schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/1/5.long discusses the basic symptom concept, which has been applied in Europe partly to assess people at high risk for schizophrenia (and it may be used in the States as well). But there isn't an article on it and any information on it is hard to find outside of the self-disorder article. Considering that self-disorders are a type of basic symptom, it would seem to make sense to create an organization of articles revolving around the basic symptom concept. Any feedback? --Beneficii (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

best to add to schizophrenia...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
As self-disorders are a subset of basic symptoms, what would happen to their article? Where in the schizophrenia article would all this go? --Beneficii (talk) 10:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Would go under the signs and symptoms heading. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Since it's a featured article, I'll bring that up on the talk page. --Beneficii (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Plague (disease) edit war

See Talk:Plague_(disease)#User:Debresser.27s_changes - comments welcome. Johnbod (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia cited

Our dengue fever article has been cited by three other journal articles to support dengue related content.[36]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Terrific, perhaps we are seeing the start of a new trend. We'll need to get more articles up to FA and published! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Great work! Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Great work as always!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Woo! Bondegezou (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Alternative names

Have started a discussion of the placement of alternative names of medications here at WT:PHARM. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Auto generation of citations

As our auto generator of citations in the WP:toolbar appears to not be working. And as these two other tools are also not working [37][38]

I would like to thank User:Nephron for keeping his tool functional at [39]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, and thanks for the info, but are we hassling the toolbar people to get that to work again, and are WP:MEDRS, our welcome template etc updated to link to things that currently work? There used to be several ways to do this, but it has been getting harder and harder to find one. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia template filling tool is currently working and has been for quite a while. Must have been a temporary glitch when you tried it. Boghog (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes good to have a number as they go down from time to time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The mw:citoid service is working, accepts URLs from PubMed, and has paid devs behind it if anything ever breaks. Click the pencil icon (in the upper right corner of the wikitext editing window) to jump into the visual editor if your usual tool is offline. The [[ ]] button (next to the Save button) will take you back when you're done with its automagic Cite button. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes thanks. Requires the use of visual editor though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Metrics

User:Keilana got a shout-out in the monthly Metrics and Activities meeting (about three or four minutes in), and Doc James is thanked for his help with a research project around the 22-minute mark. There's some interesting information about why teachers tell students not to use Wikipedia, and whether people realize that the content isn't produced by experts (mostly "no"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

informative video, thank you WAID --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
If you're interested in how people decide what information to trust on the internet, then you'll definitely want to see that last presentation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Patient

Category:Patient has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Scott Alter (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Fish oil drugs

Ethyl eicosapentaenoate

I completely worked over Omega-3 acid ethyl esters, Ethyl eicosapentaenoic acid, and Omega-3 carboxylic acids tonight, and made them into drug articles. It is not totally clear to me if they should remain separate or be combined into one. They are different molecules but so similar... down to having the exact same label indications (except for the first one which got broader coverage in the EU. The second is the one from which arose the 2012 court case about off-label marketing of drugs and I added a section on that.

Also we are still kind of stuck as what to do what health content in fish oil and omega-3 fatty acid - there is discussion at Talk:Omega-3 fatty acid. Would appreciate review of the 3 drug articles if anyone is interested. They were each very, very bad and clearly edited by company people. Jytdog (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

[40][41][42] all three articles look great(references too)...and commented further on omega-3 at [43]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking on that over-hyped subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome and Androgen insensitivity syndrome

An article of interest to WPMED—Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome —has been proposed for merging with Androgen insensitivity syndrome. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. As noted at the top of the discussion I started, the two pages seem to have the same scope (both cover partial, mild, and complete AIS) so the merger seems appropriate. — soupvector (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

(proposal withdrawn) — soupvector (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Addiction medicine

I'm not particularly interested in editing articles on medical specialties; since these refs (intended for Addiction#Epidemiology) seem to attribute a lot of significance to the establishment of a new ABMS-recognized specialty,[1][2] I figured I'd just mention it here in the event anyone is interested in updating the relevant specialty/organization articles. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Nora Volkow (31 March 2016). "A Major Step Forward for Addiction Medicine". National Institute on Drug Abuse. National Institutes of Health. Retrieved 3 April 2016. Only about 10 percent of the 21 million Americans who meet the need for care for an alcohol or drug use disorder receive any form of treatment, and much of the treatment available does not meet standards for evidence-based care. There are many attitudinal and systemic reasons for this treatment gap, including stigma against treating people with addictions and institutional barriers to providing or funding addiction treatment. ... A major milestone was reached on March 14, 2016, when the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) formally announced recognition of the field of Addiction Medicine as a medical subspecialty. ... In a statement issued to mark this milestone, ABAM President Robert J. Sokol summed up its significance: 'This landmark event, more than any other, recognizes addiction as a preventable and treatable disease, helping to shed the stigma that has long plagued it. It sends a strong message to the public that American medicine is committed to providing expert care for this disease and services designed to prevent the risky substance use that precedes it.'
  2. ^ "AMERICAN BOARD OF MEDICAL SPECIALTIES RECOGNIZES THE NEW SUBSPECIALTY OF ADDICTION MEDICINE" (PDF). American Board of Addiction Medicine. 14 March 2016. Retrieved 3 April 2016. Sixteen percent of the non-institutionalized U.S. population age 12 and over – more than 40 million Americans – meets medical criteria for addiction involving nicotine, alcohol or other drugs. This is more than the number of Americans with cancer, diabetes or heart conditions. In 2014, 22.5 million people in the United States needed treatment for addiction involving alcohol or drugs other than nicotine, but only 11.6 percent received any form of inpatient, residential, or outpatient treatment. Of those who do receive treatment, few receive evidence-based care. (There is no information available on how many individuals receive treatment for addiction involving nicotine.)
    Risky substance use and untreated addiction account for one-third of inpatient hospital costs and 20 percent of all deaths in the United States each year, and cause or contribute to more than 100 other conditions requiring medical care, as well as vehicular crashes, other fatal and non-fatal injuries, overdose deaths, suicides, homicides, domestic discord, the highest incarceration rate in the world and many other costly social consequences. The economic cost to society is greater than the cost of diabetes and all cancers combined. Despite these startling statistics on the prevalence and costs of addiction, few physicians have been trained to prevent or treat it.

Mifepristone

Mifepristone

This is the "abortion pill". Some discussion going on about how regulated use of this drug should fit in the article - under "medical use" or "society and culture/regulation". My view is that regulation goes into society and culture but views may differ of course. Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)



give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...

The Wikipedia Library

Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online: Premium collection" includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (like 60 minutes) and newsreels, music and theatre, speeches and lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. This collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, engineering, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more topics see their website.

There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to experienced Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

sounds great--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


  • please sign up, there are plenty of ASP subscriptions left--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_78"