Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 8

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Childhood obesity

I've just merged a redundant article into childhood obesity. It contained some unreferenced medical claims. The studies cited in the existing text may also confuse correlation and causation. It would be very helpful if someone familiar with the state of scientific consensus on these issue reviewed the article for accuracy. Thanks, Beland (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm, spammy

But there's still value, so I'm throwing this before the court of medical opinion. Special:Contributions/LearnAnatomy, latest round is adding a link to a website. There's value, perhaps as an EL, but is it enough? Hm... Advise, guide, delete, block, I'm throwing this in the lap of whoever's in the lounge. WLU (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The images seem copyrighted and are watermarked, I would be inclined to delete them and revert for spamming. Don't believe the 3D effect adds enough to deserve external link, because it lacks a general educational context. Wouldn't directly block, just engage in discussion -it's probably well intended. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Linking WikiProject Medicine to Wikisurgery

I am an editor of Wikisurgery - a free wiki with a focus on operative detail.

The detail takes the form of operative scripts.

A script consists of an unlimited number of very small operative steps, each backed up by an unlimited amount of expert information.

A script may contain 10 times or more the information in an operative textbook or in a "How I do it" article. http://www.wikisurgery.com/index.php?title=Aortic-aneurysm-graft-Operationscript

The scripts may form an experience equivalent for the trainee.

For the trained surgeon, they should provoke discussion, argument and ultimately, progress in operative technique.

Surgeons can produce their own variants of the scripts to suit their exact preferences.

Derivatives of the Wikisurgery scripts include operative training programs for basic surgical skills and basic laparoscopy. http://www.wikisurgery.com/index.php?title=Scalpel_07_How_to_use_a_scalpel

http://www.wikisurgery.com/index.php?title=Basic_laparoscopy:_Cholecystectomy_07.08.00_On-patient_equipment_preparation_and_checks

There is also detailed customisable information for patients undergoing the operations described in Wikisurgery scripts. http://www.wikisurgery.com/index.php?title=Aortic-aneurysm-graft-PatientInformation

I think that your users would benefit from this new, very detailed, but loosely formatted and ever changing information.

One problem is how to connect with the precise, referenced style of WikiProject Medicine.

Rather than constraining Wikisurgery information into the WikiProject Medicine format, I suggest that simple links between the two

systems would be beneficial to both.

The content of Wikisurgery is to be peer reviewed and articles (over 1000 at present) are to be "Approved" as in Citizendium.

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/DNA.

Wikisurgery and its sister publication, the International Journal of Surgery, have editorial boards of very high surgical standing.

Would WikiProject Medicine consider treating Wikisurgery as a reliable source of information suitable for linking?

Michael Harpur Edwards (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging in a general discussion over these links, vs just inserting into multiple articles. Generally Wikipedia is not a directory nor collections of external links, and we certainly do not give instruction to readers or specifically advise looking off site as per this edit. However a few external links are used in such templates as {{Infobox Disease}} & {{Infobox Symptom}}, but there is no infobox (yet) used on articles to do with operations or procedures. Perhaps other project members might like to comment on that too.
You state "is to be peer reviewed", does that mean that they are not yet peer reviewed, if so then that IMHO is problematic:
David Ruben Talk 14:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I just had a look around your Wikisurgery website. I'm not a surgeon, but I see that it could become very useful for trainee surgeons, and potentially even senior surgeons. At the moment, the quality is rather variable, with some pages containing long blocks of text. This makes difficult reading. Similarly, the referencing is variable. At present, I do not consider the site to be sufficiently reliable for Wikipedia's standards. I wish your contributors good luck with your endeavour. Axl (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Had a look at the Aortic-aneurysm-graft-Operationscript link that you suggested above - huge amount of detail and clearly shows potential for Wikisurgery as a tool for surgeons. That level of detail though is not appropriate to link to for a general readership from Wikipedia (in similar vein to Wikipedia not having links for a particular car to its online garage maintenance manual). The Aortic-aneurysm-graft-PatientInformation.pdf link though seems better, although information is very specific as an info sheet for one hospital
  • eg the how to complain gives details for that one hospital
  • clinical information also seems very specific - is time in ITU, maintenance on epidural analgesia, stay in hospital etc fairly uniform between hospitals or is there considerable variation that the hospital-specific infosheet might mislead patients due to be operated at other hospitals ?
Final query, you mentioned script generated material, but the wikisurgey links I've seen all have empty wikipages with links to fixed PDF format documents - could you clarify this :-)
I applaud the wikisurgery concept and the willingness for specialists to offer their expertise in a freely accessible wiki format with logical hierarchical & comprehensive layout... I'm just not sure of appropriateness to cross link (certainly not for surgeon's material, and as for patient infosheets... see Wikipedia:General disclaimer "Not professional advice -- If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial, or risk management) please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area." and the wording of theWikipedia:Medical disclaimer) - lets see what others think. David Ruben Talk 21:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why we couldn't link to Wikisurgery from articles on surgical procedures if the article on Wikisurgery is of good quality. I would treat this on a case-by-case basis. The questions is also: how could Wikipedia benefit from a collaboration with Wikisurgery, apart from just links? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
MHE asks, Would WikiProject Medicine consider treating Wikisurgery as a reliable source of information suitable for linking?
"Reliable source" is used here as a term of the art, and I thinnk that the question here is actually just about external links, not about using it as a reference in an article. Generally, I could imagine a link to some Wikisurgery pages in articles about techniques, but not probably not so much in articles about diseases and conditions. So "How to hold a scalpel" might be an interesting external link with encyclopedic value in Scalpel, but I probably wouldn't link "How to remove a gallbladder" to Cholecystectomy, because I don't think it will have encyclopedic value (e.g., of interest to non-professionals and non-patients).
Other editors might make other choices, however, and I don't think we want to make a general rule at this time.
What you might do: Please don't add links to the articles yourself, because you technically have a WP:COI problem. Please pick a couple of your best articles (the ones with the most "encyclopedic" information), and propose them, one by one, on the talk pages for relevant articles. If any regular editor agrees with you, then s/he will add it to the article for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments and suggestions about links between wikipedia and Wikisurgery. I'll make a reply later today.

Michael Harpur Edwards (talk) 07.35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)



ANI

WP:ANI#Da Costa's, just under the 3rr threshold may interest some editors here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done user blocked again for edit warring and warned re incivility to other editors. David Ruben Talk 00:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

List of open tasks

Does anyone here ever look at our official "list of open tasks" and try to address them? I've been wondering for some time whether we should replace it with a suggestion to post a note on this talk page instead. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I look at it sometimes, and I have even tried adding a few pet tasks to the list, but I have not found it very useful. To use the list requires I visit the article's talk page to see what exactly is needed, which is an extra step and often does not reveal what exactly is needed. I prefer to read and often respond to the thoughtful, to-the-point appeals for help posted here on this talk page. --Una Smith (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

TBI

Is there a radiation oncologist or other interested party in the house? For some reason, I've decided to work on total body irradiation, an unloved and neglected stub, and could use some more expert input. MastCell Talk 20:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

We used to have Brim (talk · contribs) - but he's been doing the textbook on Wikibooks and I haven't seem him around for ages. JFW | T@lk 21:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I forgot, there's User:Djma12 - I left a note on his talk page. I was also thinking we should have articles on radiation pneumonitis and fractionation (radiotherapy) - I've put them on my to-do list. MastCell Talk 17:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

TOC

Please let us have the TOC closer to the top of the page. Put the assessments infobox lower down? Also, is it possible to put the caption on the "mess" next to it rather than below it? The TOC is the navigational aid I use most often and at this time I have to scroll down 2 or 3 window lengths to read the bottom of it. --Una Smith (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course; I've had a go, just be bold. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 08:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

myocardial infarction: signs and symptoms

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.

I want to make sure the article is as accurate as possible. Please see my comments on Talk:heart attack.

69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal : clinical journal club

Hi all,

one of the things I find interesting about editing Wikipedia is that you can learn about new developments in medicine and write an article about them at the same time. I'd like others to share in this experience, and I'd like to set up a kind of journal club for this.

The idea is that anyone can suggest Wikipedia articles on current 'hot topics', or subjects you believe that some of your colleagues might find interesting or may not have heard of yet. The article should be of a reasonably good standard and length and it should be well referenced, so that others could also retrieve any relevant articles.

Participants in this journal club would get regular suggestions of topics they might be interested in. We might also have a discussion about this topic, although this might end up in comments which might be more useful in a designated WikiProject subpage. It might become our regular virtual teaching moment.

To prove the topic is hot, there would have to be some references from recent articles (although the definition of 'recent' might vary according to the subject; it could be a concept that only emerged during the last 10 years, and is still gaining momentum slowly). These references could also be used to improve the article. I imagine it to be something more dynamic than could supplement the current Collaboration. Of course, it's also a way to attract others to your articles and get them to copy-edit.

Some of these ideas might be integrated with Wikiversity's School of Medicine, although I fear that this might deter some of you from participating. As an example of journal club articles which are possibly relevant to many doctors but haven't received much attention from others yet, I would suggest two articles I recently worked on: healthcare-associated pneumonia and cystatin C. I could imagine that other articles such as Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors or coronary artery calcium might also be developed into useful learning activities for many of us.

Thoughts?

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. I would volunteer to handle various physical medicine articles; that is my area of specialization. It would great if we could get a multidisciplinary approach as well, incorporating the best evidence of each so all POV are covered and add overall depth and breath to the material. Thoughts? CorticoSpinal (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


Hello. I'm not a member here and am not medically trained, but self-taught in the area of Circadian rhythms because of my own disorder. Sleep medicine seems to be a stepchild, with all too many doctors unable to diagnose (or even guess, in order to be able to suggest an appropriate specialist) beyond depression, apnea and narcolepsy. There have been tremendous advances the last years, but I don't know if the subject is "hot" enough for you, or perhaps it's too wide a field?
Anyway, for my own use in trying to work on related articles, I've created a Sandbox page which just might be of interest to others wanting to coordinate some of the material on Wikipedia. (And competent people are welcome to fix any misunderstandings I may have introduced into pertinent articles!) --Hordaland (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Steven, I'm unclear on the nature of the beast. How is this different from MCOTW (for group work) and posting current projects or interesting links here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Posting interesting links per se is not promoted here (unless for GA review and such). It differs from MCOTW in that the accent is not on editing but on learning and maybe editing in the process. The idea is to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for keeping up to date with new evolutions and hot topics in medicine. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Need help finding cites for Blood Donation

I have cites for most of the text, but I need some help with the following:

  1. Link between risk of hypovolemic shock and cardiac problems (is it cardiogenic shock that's the problem?)
  2. Rates of arterial sticks and nerve damage from phlebotomy phoul-ups.

Any comments or review are helpful, trying to get this article in shape by the WHOliday and I'm leaving for a business trip on Monday.Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I did some of this work for blood transfusion back in 2007, though it should probably be merged. Actually, it looks like someone removed it from the article - bastards! :) Anyhow, take a look at this historical version: [1]. Relevant refs are PMID 11778059, PMID 16202053, PMID 12702180. Hope that helps, and apologies if you've already seen and used these refs. MastCell Talk 20:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The LGBTProject and its relation to HIVAIDS

A debate is going here which could use input from editors from outside our project. If any editors can voice an opinion there, please do so. Thankyou. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration Dashboard

Is your Collaboration Dashboard automated by a bot or do you do it manually. I would like to do the same thing at WP:CHICAGO--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's updated by us. I mean we edit it manually. Let me know if you have problems while creating the same template for your project. NCurse work 18:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Synaptogenomics

Anyone heard of this Up for deletion. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Article list on this page

The grid on the top-right shows top, high, and mid importance Neurology articles, not Medicine articles. Not sure how to fix it. Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like someone miscategorized the neurology importance categories into Category:Medicine articles by importance, and the WP 1.0 bot picked up the wrong importance categories. I fixed the neurology categories, and the table should correct itself the next time the WP 1.0 bot comes across the category (probably in a few days). --Scott Alter 04:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Fresh eyes

I have been working hard on Heterochromia, Tapetum lucidum, and Red-eye effect, and also cataloging related images on Commons and tweaking the content of many links. At this point it would help to have some fresh eyes look over the articles. Heterochromia may need to be broken up (and part of it merged with Odd-eyed cat); several unrelated phenomena are described. --Una Smith (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Cite journal now has PubMed Central parameter

{{cite journal}} now has a pmc parameter to link to PubMed Central's repository of free full-text versions of articles.

See discussion at Template talk:Cite journal#Pubmed Central, I'm still in favour of linking a paper's title using the pmc where no url is yet specified - but after doi linking dispute (and doi is not always to full article but often just an abstract like pmid) also apparently a view of not linking huge amount to single website, which I can sort of understand.

Hence:

{{cite journal |author=Viollet B, Andreelli F, Jørgensen SB, ''et al'' |title=The AMP-activated protein kinase alpha2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity |journal=J. Clin. Invest. |volume=111 |issue=1 |pages=91–8 |year=2003 |month=January |pmid=12511592 |pmc=151837 |doi=10.1172/JCI16567 |url=http://www.jci.org/articles/view/16567 }}
→ Viollet B, Andreelli F, Jørgensen SB; et al. (2003). "The AMP-activated protein kinase alpha2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity". J. Clin. Invest. 111 (1): 91–8. doi:10.1172/JCI16567. PMC 151837. PMID 12511592. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Been suggested that the pmid format is odd as would better in keeping shown perhaps as PMID:12511592 rather than PMID 12511592 -what do others think ? David Ruben Talk 21:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I have asked User:Diberri whether his great template filler tool can complete this new parameter too... David Ruben Talk 22:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a link to PMID would be quite nice. Shouldn't there be a space between the colon and the accession number, though? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a gap in the underlining with the ":" for doi & pmc currently, I don't mind whether we add a space or not (my preference is not) just that need a consensus of some form to move away from PMID 1234 type display :-) David Ruben Talk 00:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this out, David. Now we need a bot (the DOI bot, perhaps) to change all instances of {{PMC}}. JFW | T@lk 08:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Can PubMed Central be mined in the same way that PMID can be to get all the xml information to fill in a full {{cite journal}} template ? Do we need ask Diberri whether to provide a new PubMed Central option, as well as the PubMed PMID, for filling out the cite journal template ?
Finally, I for one have used PMC up until now as an extra within ref tags, hence "<ref>{{cite journal | ..... }} - {{PMC|123456}}</ref>" - could a bot find and edit these or is this a manual job ? David Ruben Talk 23:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Diberri has kindly upgraded his tool to use pmc article numbers to generate full cite journal markups too (see example) :-) David Ruben Talk 22:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Perianal Hematoma's treatment

Dear docs, I was sitting in a hard/uncomfortable chair for 5 hours straight and after I reached home, I felt a pain around my anus. After checking in the mirror, I saw a blueish round sac with just near my anus. When I touch it, it hurts (not that much) and it seems that it contains a solid thing (clot?) I've checked the sites and googled and reached to the Perianal Hematoma page. The photo is same as my case. What should I do? wait a couple of days? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.215.194 (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We cannot offer medical advice. Please see the medical disclaimer. Contact your General Practitioner. -Optigan13 (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Chest trauma?

Can anyone comment on this template I was thinking of making? I'd like to add it as a navbox to chest trauma articles, but I kind of don't know what I'm doing. Can anyone see anything on there that does not belong or anything not on there that does? Any ideas for the name of the last group? Anyone want to comment on the advisability of such a template to begin with? delldot on a public computer talk 02:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, it's created now, any input still of course welcome. delldot talk 06:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sprained ankle

I believe the article Sprained ankle needs attention from an expert - see the tags I've left. --Dbutler1986 (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

ganglioside

i added WPMED template to ganglioside since ganglioside degredation is the mechanism involved in Tay-Sachs disease —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.232.3 (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

C-ANCA positive (Wegener's) granulomatosis

Copy-paste move from Wegener's granulomatosis with no further edit history, which I am about to delete... should we be thinking about a proper move? I realize eponyms with negative associations are a significant point of contention (e.g. Reiter syndrome vs. reactive arthritis) so this is, IMHO, a valid concern and not just some misguided editor. Any thoughts, here or over at Talk:Wegener's granulomatosis? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if anyone's interested, here's the BMJ feature that gave rise to the controversy, with some interesting arguments against eponyms :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Support returning name to Wegener's granulomatosis.
  • While indeed such a proposal, likewise similar suggestion for removing possessive "'s" from say Grave's Disease, Parkinsom's disease (these were not the diseases afflicting these doctors themselves), yet wikipedia uses the 's in most instances (vs Parkinson disease).
  • Similarly BMJ paper's proposal not been subsequently widely accepted.
  • Even if one agreed to the renaming, the mixed form of "C-ANCA positive (Wegener's) granulomatosis" is never going to be what a reader types in to look for the article
  • Finally I've never heard anyone refer to "C-ANCA positive granulomatosis", but every medical student (and most GPs if they have not entirely forgotton what was taught at medical school) has heard of Wegener's.David Ruben Talk 19:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Arguments aside, the guidelines suggest that we should be using recognized names, not "correct names." Common usage is a moving target, and my guess is that if there's an unresolvable dispute between an eponym and a description we should probably go with the description, but given that the sources seem to agree on calling it Wegener's, we should follow their lead. Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There has been no formal decision with regards to Wegener, and much of the evidence of his misbehaviour is circumstantial. The article covers the controversy quite well. Most articles appearing on the condition (e.g. PMID 18512707) continue to use the eponym. JFW | T@lk 11:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

All right then. I've recreated the above as a redirect on the (really, really) off chance someone comes searching for it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor job for an admin

Could someone semi-protect Rare disease for me? There's an anon who persistently adds a "unique social networking" website to this article. I've left talk page messages, hidden notes in the ==EL== section -- nothing seems to get through to this person. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Arcadian (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Medicine Collaboration of the Forthnight: Ascending cholangitis

The current Medicine Collaboration of the Week is Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Last week's collaboration was Physiotherapy.

NCurse work 18:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking for a peer review

Blood donation just failed GA for reasons that remain extremely unclear to me. I am growing impatient with the reviewer and am disagreeing with many of the things that he/she wants to include since I feel they are incompatible with WP:SUMMARY and WP:NOTMANUAL. Mostly I'm looking to see if the article is clear, if there are any remaining unsourced statements, or any sourced statements that aren't correct.

The major sticking point right now is exactly what level of detail should go in the article. Blood donation practices have substantial variations globally, and I'm trying to limit the article to the intent of the practices rather than the details of the practices, which leads to questions of if the article is "too vague". I'll be wiki-less for a few days, so no rush. Somedumbyankee (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Medical instruments and implants

A huge part of the work needs to be done on this series on all sorts of instruments and implants used in modern medicine.

  • Done till now:
    • Near complete articles : 10 out of 31 fields
    • Stubs : 2 out of 31 fields
    • Navigation box : established
    • Page layout : not debated presently
  • Immediate to do:
    • Huge amount of data filling (fill in the blanks for a few)
    • Create the remaining pages in the series

sarindam7 (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability update: here's our current list

These articles have been tagged as having unclear notability:

If you know anything about any of these, or have an opinion one way or the other, I'm sure that your input would be welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Experimental cancer treatment and Unproven cancer therapy

There's a merge proposal to put Experimental cancer treatment into Unproven cancer therapy. I mention it here because many people might have relevant views, and I suspect that relatively few people are watching either page. All views are welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal - improve the Food poisoining articles and pathogens

I was looking at Bacillus_cereus and thought, wow, this could be easily improved. Almost every doctor is interested in food poisoning because we all eat. Any interest in improving the food poisoning articles and improve the articles on the pathogens related? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.42.22 (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal - add {{WPMED}} to ALL human pathogen articles

Most of the human pathogens do not have wpmed template on them. I believe they should be included in wp project med to be overseen by both our Infectious Disease Specialist, Pathologists, and Interested Medical students and other doctors.

If you choose to do this, please put {{WPMED|class=|importance=}} on the talk pages; having the class and importance parameters pre-listed is very helpful to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

request image template should appear on the medicine project page, not just a link

I think there should explanation on the project page on how to request a picture, not just a link to how to request an image. thank you. and I think we should place a greater project effort in getting images in more articles, possibly by identifying which articles need images by using this template "reqphoto|medical subjects}}" Thank you.

I tried to add {{reqphoto|medical subjects}}
However, when I did add it I tried using the tl| method, except then it cut out the |medical subjects, which is important to have in when using the template. If you figure out a way to do an inter-wiki link with outhe nowiki part, please edit it. I tried my best.
Thank you for trying. If you don't sign your messages on this page, the archiving bot will never take the note away properly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

more templates needed on our project page - even other projects templates (if involved in medicine)

I would propose adding the {{MedGen}} and {{WikiProject Neurology|class=|importance=}} on our main page (just say that they belong to a different project but OUR MEMBERS SHOULD ALSO BE TAGGING ARTICLES FOR THOSE PROJECTS. Since we are often coming across them in our searches. and everyone remembers wp:med but not the other shortcuts to projects they don't belong to.

Any editor is allowed to tag talk pages for any project, but it's important to remember that tagging articles is not as important a use of your time as improving the articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

can we get a list of people who actively work on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences/Medicine#L:

because things have been on that list for a while.

Most of the topics are... well... not always worth articles. Which articles need creating? JFW | T@lk 14:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing the list to our attention. I went through it last night and created a bunch of redirects. --Una Smith (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone interesting in history of condoms? Reviews and copyedits requested.

I obtained a book on condom history through interlibrary loan, and just finished a major expansion of the history section of the condom article. I'm sure some of the new text is somewhat raw and would benefit from copyediting and reviews offering improvement suggestions.

Unfortunately the book is due back at the library tomorrow (I already used up the single renewal allowed for interlibrary loan books). But I'm hoping that if there are any content/source issues, they will be caught soon, when hopefully having the material fresh in my mind will help resolve them.

Also, the expansion increased the size of the condom article by 73%. I think this is a bit much, and the history section probably needs to be spun out into its own article. Help with naming the new article, and doing the summary style in the main condom article, would both be appreciated. LyrlTalk C 01:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Eye

The many pages on eye anatomy lack a common infobox. Would someone here make one, please? I'd like one that uses an image like Image:Eye scheme mulitlingual.svg, which has numbers instead of names; the names can be wikilinked in a list below the image. This accomodates easy language localization: one image, many name lists. --Una Smith (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Tadaaaah: make way for the king of the infoboxes, King Arcadian the First. JFW | T@lk 19:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
{{Middle ear map}} makes excellent use of imagemap functionality (which is criminally underused IMHO). Perhaps something similar could be whipped up, with numbers linking to the articles on corresponding structures? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Golly, you're right! Perhaps we could entice the creator of that beautiful template (Selket) to perform the same feat for ocular anatomy. It is, after all, in the eye of the beholder. JFW | T@lk 22:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the ticket. Imagemap probably would be even better ... although the eye image I have in mind has 15 labels. Anyway, images with text in them are not the way to go; too non-portable. --Una Smith (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I've just realized we have {{Eye diagram}}. Does that fit what you're looking for, Una? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Project navigation template and project organization

Since this project has merged with Clinical medicine and Preclinical medicine, it has become increasingly unorganized. To help alleviate this, I just revised {{WPMED Navigation}}, which was previously only used on one page. I am in the process now of adding this to all of the project's pages. I also think the main Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine page could undergo some reorganization as well, but will save that for another time. Feel free to make changes to the template as you see fit. --Scott Alter 00:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Scott, I think that is immensely helpful. Please unleash your editorial powers on the WPMED page. It needs some TLC, methinks. JFW | T@lk 09:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Scott for the easy way of finding the "unaccessed" tagged articles. I often am tagging articles that don't have the wp:med template on the talk page but then never can figure out how to go back and rate them later. That second link is very helpful. Ari-ga-to (or however you say / spell thank you in Japanese). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.28.169 (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose a large reorganization of all the medicine-related WikiProjects. My idea is that rather than have separate projects for each specialty like we have now, we would convert them all to task forces of this project. All of the descendant projects are relatively small and most members are also members of this project - many of these projects even redirect to the WPMED member list. This would only apply to projects wholly within the scope of medicine. For example, this would include Gastroenterology and Nephrology, but not necessarily Anatomy and Dentistry...so there would still be some descendant projects.

By making these projects into task forces, we would consolidate all of the administrative functionings. This would centralize the article assessment department and FA review department. Template listings and todo lists would still be separated by task force, but there would also be a central page that lists them all together.

In terms of article assessments and talk page categorization, we could add task force designations to {{WPMED}}. So, rather than having a separate banner for each project, there would only be the WPMED banner with an indication that the page is in the scope of the specified task force(s). With some simple scripting, this would enable all articles to be listed in the quality stats for the combined WPMED project, in addition to still being listed in separate stats for the individual task forces.

The process of completing this proposal is relatively simple, as the descendant projects are not that complicated. The most difficult part would be appropriately tagging article talk pages - but this could probably be accomplished with a bot. The first step would be for this project to agree to the reorganization. Then, we would ask the descendant projects if they would like to go along. Even if only some of the descendant projects want to partake, I still think this reorganization will be valuable. I envision that this project could become large and organized similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy. What do others think? --Scott Alter 10:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we have quite enough active participants to have such a detailed level of organisation. This is exactly the reason why we formed WPMED recently from WPCLINMED, WP:PREMED and so on. Task forces are good, but also run the risk of being irregularly staffed. JFW | T@lk 14:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that any more participants would be needed to maintain the proposed organization. If anything, less people would be required. Having WPMED, WPCLINMED, and WPPREMED didn't work out because it required too many people for organization, and some people would only participate in one project and ignore the others. By converting current projects to task forces, there would be no new additional administrative overhead. I think there might even be less combined administrative overhead, since there wouldn't be duplication of efforts between the current projects. Once task forces are set up, everything would run the same as they run now, but there would be a central location for things. The additional pages required in WPMED would basically be the sum of the pages in the descendant projects. The problem of low staffing currently plagues the descendant projects, as most are or have recently been marked with an inactivity tag. By moving these projects to task forces, WPMED may gain some new members, and it would be easier for WPMED members to be aware of and contribute to the task forces. --Scott Alter 19:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone outright object to this proposal? If not, I will start asking the descendant projects if they would like to become task forces. --Scott Alter 05:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the added value, seems like just a name change to me. It will not cause more people to become involved in any articles. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the primary added value is to the WikiProject Council: If the tiniest ones are converted to task forces, then they can't end up in the (long) "dead projects" list.
Overall, I think this move is inevitable. It's just a question of whether we do it now or later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This is one of the impetuses for the proposal. I would rather see inactive projects be converted to task forces than sit around as inactive projects - even if it is just a simple name change. As for added value, I think that article assessments broken down by specialty (aka task force) would be useful for editors. Someone who specializes or has an interest in only one task force could easily focus on improving those articles, rather than wading through all of the WPMED articles. Currently, most of the descendant projects do not use assessments. By adding assessments, it would become apparent where assistance is needed within each specialty's task force. --Scott Alter 21:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
On a related topic, I would like to propose a task force on birth control. It would be nice to have a place to, say, decide what the correct order of sections should be, work out consistent naming of sections, coordinate article improvements, etc. It would also be nice to use the rating system WP:MED has already set up, so I'm thinking a task force would be nicer than a separate WikiProject. Any thoughts on a "birth control" task force under WP:MED? LyrlTalk C 00:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Ditto for Sleep, Sleep medicine, Sleep disorders and Circadian rhythms & disorders thereof, etc. I have no idea how such projects / task forces are formed. I've tried to organize my thoughts for myself (on my sandbox/soapbox page), but it would be good to have a group to turn to. --Hordaland (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Before creating a new task force, it is best to have a few other people interested in the topic. There should probably be a separate page to list task force proposals, since proposals on this page can get lost among other topics - maybe they could be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces. Similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals, there could be a section for each proposal, with intended scope and a list of interested people. I think a task force for "birth control" might be better suited for Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, but a work force for "reproductive medicine" would fit here better. "Sleep medicine" would make a good task force. But again, task forces are for collaboration, so they should only be created if there are other people interested in collaborating. --Scott Alter 01:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I've created the subpage you suggested, and ask that Lyrl and Hordaland please go to that page and write descriptions of their proposed projects. (I left the template in place under the suggested names.) I'm sure that many WPMED members will want to put that page on their watchlists. Also, if someone could add that page to a suitable place on the main page, or into the navigation template, or something like that, that would be great.

Bias in Breast cancer article?

The breast cancer article, like several other articles just got its monthly bias claim. That article always gets accused of bias against men. It has several issues, but I don't think under-representation of men is one of them. This article may also have some issues with fringe science slipping in (Thermology, and others). Any additional input would be appreciated. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggstion for the Tables that go under the picture of the muscle - showing innervation, blood supply, etc

I would suggest also adding Nerve Root.

This would be useful for say the foot drop in the Physical exam of walking on heels.

And it would tie it in to anatomy. You could look at a muscle, say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibialis_anterior and look at the nerve roots involved in the nerve supplying that muscle...

That way you could learn about nerve root injuries.


Thoughts? 207.151.226.68 (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

DOes anyone agree?
Signing this so the bot will be sure to notice it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
What does the bot notice? 76.174.42.22 (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a bot that archives talk pages (User:MiszaBot). It archives individual treads after they have been inactive for a specified number of days. It uses signatures to determine the date of last activity. --Scott Alter 21:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that nerve roots would be a good idea for the infobox? Tkjazzer (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I do like the idea of including nerve roots, but I think it is more of a topic for Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy or Template talk:Infobox Muscle is more appropriate than here (which I see that it has been brought up in those places). --Scott Alter 00:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Scott, I don't understand templates very well. Can I just add the category and people can slowly fill in the information over time? Or would that "look bad." Thanks. Tkjazzer (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
yikes, i thought it would be easy like a table is, but it's a little confusing because I have no background in color codes or what this stuff is in the template. Tkjazzer (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I just added the NerveRoot parameter. Try it out. --Scott Alter 02:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I will try to figure out what you did and will try to add "physical exam procedure" or something - and then wiki link to the PE test for that muscle, nerve, and/or spinal nerve roots. Thanks! Tkjazzer (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
So i don't know how templates work. when I went to the infobox on quadriceps femoris I did not see the nerve root section there. Do I have to type it in by hand on every infobox? Tkjazzer (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes - you need to add the new parameters to each individual article. If you set "NerveRoot=x" and "PhysicalExam = y", they should show up in the articles. --Scott Alter 06:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Seizure articles

A number of seizure-related articles have been moved, changed to/from redirects or re-focussed without discussion. A discussion of this is currently taking place on my talk page. I think we've got a solution but would appreciate other eyes. Thanks, Colin°Talk 17:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviews of Medical/Biological Biographies etc requested

I have recently contributed a series of articles on biodynamic field theory in (developmental) biomedical science around 1900, bringing articles from stub to start mostly. The articles include:

Comments on talk pages, added categories and see-alsos, recommendation of sources, will all be received with gratitude. Thanks Redheylin (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Very few of these biographies are actually about medical professionals. They are largely non-medical biologists (and two ideas proposed by them). Perhaps you should post this list to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Science_and_academia instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikiversity School of Medicine

Would anyone like to participate in the development of the Wikiversity School of Medicine? Please join our discussion regarding the content of our first curriculum. All opinions are welcome. 90.207.182.246 (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It would make the most sense to model this after the curriculum of a normal medical school rather than reinventing the wheel. JFW | T@lk 07:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles needing improvement

I have recognized certain articles to be in very bad condition, more so considering their relative importance in the medical field:

  • Lymphatic system and related articles. There are some factual inaccuracies, the articles are incoherent, need more images to become understandable by an average reader.
  • Childbirth and related articles. The part that particularly needs attention is the mechanism of labor, which only has a very small section when may be an entire article could have been dedicated to it. Also, the various labor-related complications that can occur have not got proper treatment (like dystocia and shoulder dystocia— the ones that I'd managed to go through).
  • Pancreas. The article does not discuss the anatomy, blood, nerve, lymphatic supply, etc. Also, it does not list the various disorders associated with it. Needless to say, this important organ deserves a better article.

I'm trying and planning to work on them, but the effort required is going to be immense. Would be nice if others also contribute.

Regards. —KetanPanchaltaLK 08:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There are hundreds of articles needing improvement. Anything in "stub"- or "start"-class needs working on. It is just that this WikiProject lacks manpower - all of us are already hard at work on their topics of interest. JFW | T@lk 09:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Take it one step at a time. Pick one article to work on, and fix one problem about it. Then take a break before you start work on another problem. --Una Smith (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Vasoarrhythmia

Has anyone looked at Vasoarrhythmia recently? It survived an AfD earlier this year for reasons I can't begin to fathom, except that perhaps nobody asked Mr Google about it (48 hits on Vasoarrhythmia -wikipedia -wiktionary -- yes, that's right: forty-eight). It's a single person's anti-vasectomy idea. Does anyone want to take it back to AfD, or should we live and let live? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It has an adequate source, so live and let live. --Una Smith (talk) 05:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd say relist it for AFD in a little while. This is not a mainstream concept in urology. This time it should be brought to the attention of this Wikiproject so we can have a proper look at it. Una, it is indeed verifiable but I am really worried about notability in this case. JFW | T@lk 06:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Apellous

Apellous is listed at Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year. (

) is a medical term meaning not covered by skin, such as having no foreskin; circumcised. Having no prepuce.[2]. If you think it is worth at least a stub, please create the article. If not, perhaps create a redirect to where it would be best directed. Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why an entry in Wiktionary would not be sufficient? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
An entry in Wiktionary and a soft redirect to it have been created. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Standard American Diet

The article Standard American Diet needs serious help. It has been tagged for months for problems with neutrality, original research, inadequate referencing, and being written like a personal essay. The phrase appears in 125 Medicine Google Scholar results, and a prior talk page commentator has said "I know that a 'standard diet' is something which is defined since the FDA does sampling of food products to examine interactions and aggregate effects of food in the US food supply, the Total Diet Study..." Is this repairable, or should someone just bite the bullet it propose deleting it? GRBerry 00:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's unify this discussion on the article's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

More about Scalpels on Wikisurgery

I have been in discussion with the Editors of WikiProject Medicine about a possible linkage between Wikipedia and Wikisurgery.

Wikisurgery contains an unrivalled amount of operative information in the shape of unique operative scripts and images.

The information is aimed primarily at the surgical trainee and other hospital staff, but is of great interest to the general Wipedian, judging by the hit rate when some of this information found its way, unofficially, onto Wikipedia for a short while.

The practical information greatly exceeds that in most surgical articles in Wikipedia. The scripts are detailed enough to include, not only the basic surgical information, but also the tips, hints, pearls and what ifs that make surgery an art as much as a science.

In the special field of surgery, the loose, flexible structure of Wikisurgery should form a valuable complementary information source to the disciplined, neutral approach of Wikipedia.

At the suggestion of a WikiProject Medicine Editor, I have an article called More about Scalpels in a Wikipedia format on the Talk page of the Wikipedia article titled Scalpel. The article is part of a basic surgical training program to be found on-line on Wikisurgery.com.

I should welcome your comments.

[[User:Michael Harpur Edwards|Michael Harpur EdwardsMichael Harpur Edwards (talk) 15.40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion thread got archived for 5days inactivity (seems very quick as bot set for 14days, but previous thread edit was 28th May and MHE's last posting on 13th June was just as the bot archived the same day -see 8&diff=219031499&oldid=218806634 this archiving). Anyway problem found on some pages as to inappropriate level of detail for general readership or conversely lacking in details. But some examples seemed very good (and have a name author, so not quite problem of wikipedia not citing tertiary sources of another wiki). Steven Fruitsmaak stated "I would treat this on a case-by-case basis. The questions is also: how could Wikipedia benefit from a collaboration with Wikisurgery, apart from just links?" and WhatamIdoing gave useful suggestions where links would be more or less helpful.
PS Thank you for observing COI issues and seeking help at Talk:Scalpel David Ruben Talk 22:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think surgical scripts, like cooking recipes, belong on Wikiversity, not Wikipedia. I have started in a very small way to write content on Wikiversity and I find the two cultures often go hand in hand. Wikiversity can focus on the training aspect and omit all encyclopedic content, if the relevant Wikipedia articles are well developed. Wikipedia can omit all "how to" in favor of a link to Wikiversity. Wikipedia can give the history of a technique, what conditions it addresses, and the whys of it (the science, as in why does the technique work); Wikiversity can teach the technique as currently practiced. --Una Smith (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Cooking recipes belong on Wikiversity? ;-) Otherwise I agree. Axl (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. Cooking schools are big and getting bigger. I have tried for years to learn how to make injera, which is amazingly hard. It involves some important points of food science and technique, which ordinary cookbook recipes do not cover. Some are fundamentally defective: eg, a recipe that omits any leavening agent. We could dispense with universities if only we could teach all there is to learn via a book; a university differs in that there is (or is supposed to be) a live instructor in the loop. --Una Smith (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Cooking recipes belong on Wikibooks in a cook book. Cooking lessons and learning activities related to cooking belong on Wikiversity -there's a difference. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Recommendation and a question

First, a recommendation: the wound article is in a bit of disarray and would make a great collaboration of the week. Second, I'm looking for resources on medicine (specifically transfusion medicine) in the developing world. Anyone have any ideas on where to look? Somedumbyankee (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. I'd say nominate it for WP:MCOTW.
  2. I'd stick closely with WHO and MSF publications.
JFW | T@lk 22:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Which way did it go

This WikiProject page has really degenerated into a mess; can someone tell me where the trophy box went? The main page needs a reorg. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The trophy box was not been transcluded on the project page since December. There is currently a link to it from the navigation template. I am slowly reorganizing the entire project page, with my next step to clean up the template section (possibly moving it to a sub page). Regarding the trophy box, I plan on reformatting it into columns, and putting it back on the project page as a "showcase" section. I don't think keeping it as one really long list in an isolated box would be good for the organization of the main project page. --Scott Alter 21:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
By the way, what exactly makes an article worthy of being formatted in bold? From reading the comments, is it that the article has been the "Today's featured article" on Wikipedia's Main Page? --Scott Alter 22:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes (main page bolding). Both the main page and the talk page have very inconsistent and unattractive formatting, and might be cleaned up sooner rather than later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Can this image be uploaded on Wikipedia?

Please tell me if this and other images from US National Institutes of Health can be uploaded on Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. —KetanPanchaltaLK 17:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think so. It's a US government publication. We are already using NIH images on cancer. JFW | T@lk 19:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I did upload it (and a few others, too) any way after some guidance from IRC. Wanted them for Polyclonal B cell response, which I've nominated for FA now. —KetanPanchaltaLK 21:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Coeliac disease

Concerned that some editors there are introducing new text based on non-reliable sources and content accorded undue weight, potentially causing deterioration to a featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree the talk page of this article has been receiving a large amount of attention, and some of this is now spilling over into the mainspace. Anyone familiar with the terminology is invited to join ongoing discussions on the talkpage. JFW | T@lk 06:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Progressive bulbar palsy, a contradiction in information about the prognosis?

In the section on epidemiology it says that "PBP is both progressive and slow, with symptoms lasting around 10 to 20 years until it reaches a fatal ending" quoting Collins, 1900. In the section on symptoms it says that "Death, which is often from pneumonia, usually occurs 1 to 3 years after the start of the disorder." Which is true? As far as I can tell from some rapid research, the latter is true of this disease, not the former. But this is not an area in which I have any expertise. Help anyone? Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it unhelpful that we have different articles on different forms of motor neurone disease. There tends to be an overlap with one system predominating. To my knowledge, prognosis is not determined by clinical subtype but rather by system affected. JFW | T@lk 16:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Possibly both statements may be true, depending on whether "usually" refers to incidence or prevalence. If most cases are rapidly progressive, and only a few arrest or progress slowly, there could still be more of the latter group around at any one time. Prognosis in conditions like these used to be self-fulfilling: before modern palliative care and active management of swallowing disorders, e.g. by thickening fluids or gastrostomy feeding, it might have seemed kinder to sedate a declining patient with morphine or the old "Brompton Cocktail," and avoid parenteral antibiotics and vigorous physiotherapy, thus accelerating the process by means of the double effect. NRPanikker (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 3610 articles assigned to this project, or 27.0%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a really good idea. --Una Smith (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I wonder whether we could get the list restricted to just Top-priority articles, or Top- and High-priority? Anything we rate as Top-priority is pretty much guaranteed to end up in the next WP1.0 release, so it'd be nice if they were in good shape. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I followed the directions and placed {{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription}} on Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. I don't like that it adds to the clutter of the page, but that looks like the only option at the present time. I think we could just limit it to Top-importance articles by using the wgcat parameter (as in {{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription|wgcat=Top-importance medicine articles}}, so it would use a category as the article source, rather than transclusions of {{WPMED}}. However, we would need this second cleanup listing to be the sub-page of a WPMED sub-page (the page name doesn't appear to be configurable, so a second template must be placed on a different page). --Scott Alter 17:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The cleanup listing has been generated now. I'm sorry but the bot currently does not have an option to display the top- and high-importance articles only; I might be looking into that as a future improvement. The workaround suggested above will work however. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S.: the box is hidden now. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Scott, my eyes glazed over halfway through your explanation. Can you make the page I want? Can you post a link here that's simple enough for a bear of very little brain to find? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC) (who must be in need of a nap)
Ok...If I did everything properly, the page you want should appear at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Cleanup listing/Cleanup listing once B. Wolterding runs the bot. The text describing what the listing is of will probably be awkward, but the list should be accurate. WhatamIdoing - you can tune out now. So B. Wolterding, could you please create this page? I placed {{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription}} on Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Cleanup listing via Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Cleanup listing/Header, using includeonly tags...so I believe the page that would be created is Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Cleanup listing/Cleanup listing. Thanks. --Scott Alter 17:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
There was a strange problem with the transclusion; I have configured the additional subscription manually on the bot side now. (No need for an extra subscription template while the workaround is in place.) In short: The listing of top-importance articles is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Cleanup listing/Cleanup listing. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on this. --Scott Alter 18:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
You may want to takea look at User:ClockworkSoul/Igor which has a bunch of project management facilities including sorting by priority and class. Right now the top priority articles that are still showing start class are; Anatomy, Diseases of poverty, Infection, Medication, Mental health, Physiology, Pregnancy test. -Optigan13 (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking for Translation from German Wikipedia page on REFLEXES

this is an amazing page = it even has tibialis posterior reflex!

Can someone please translate this in to english???

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigenreflex

Thank you!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.226.68 (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

keeping this from beign archived. (I hope). Tkjazzer (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I might be able to help you with this (slowly). What's your goal? Does it need to appear on en.wikipedia (under what name?), or is this just for personal use? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
It is for wikipedia. It has all the clinically useful reflexes - even ones that are hard to test and are rarely used. It is a brilliant german article. I wish I could read it. Tkjazzer (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
What is the name of it translated from German? That would help decide where to put it. I originally used google translator to sorta read it but that never works very well. Tkjazzer (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't know what the English word is for this. The German is "self-reflex," and it's all about whacking a tendon and seeing the response in the self-same tendon (or whatever you've just hit). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It appears, to me, to be an article explaining the Physical exam procedures that can be used by doctors in the Neurological part of the Physical Exam. We often call them deep tendon reflexes, but i'm not sure if all the reflexes listed are considered "deep." There are superficial reflexes too, like the umbilical reflex. I don't know if that helps any. Tkjazzer (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This is the closest article on the wikipedia (en) - it is quite awful: Reflex Tkjazzer (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
and reflex was not even tagged with wikiproject medicine (or any wikiproject for that matter). Tkjazzer (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} JFW | T@lk 18:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, same annonymous person as above. I wanted to let you guys know that one user has started the process of translating but needs help doing so. thank you. 128.125.28.232 (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

John Struthers (biologist)

John Struthers (biologist) doesn't correctly reflect his profession. Should this page be moved to John Struthers (Physician) or Sir John Struthers or something else. Regards—G716 <T·C> 22:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As per WP:NC, a title like Sir is not usually included. I would recommend John Struthers (anatomist), as his contributions generally seem to have been to anatomy. Also, I would make an attempt to disambiguate him from John Struthers. JFW | T@lk 23:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and made John Struthers (anatomist) and John Struthers (poet). Now I will make John Struthers a disambiguation page. --Una Smith (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!—G716 <T·C> 04:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please review Hyperhidrosis

The article on Hyperhidrosis has been the target of spammers for three years. The spammers have been interested in directly promoting external links to their anti-sweat products, but have also been changing the wording to help their SEO efforts. Please review this article to check that the appropriate language is being used, and the range of treatments are appropriate and given appropriate weight. The spammers efforts are typified by this edit. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just improved language / grammar / readability, removed some redundancies and weasel words, fixed some wikilinks. I'm noting this here so that no one may mistakenly think that the flurry of activity means that a quality review, as requested by zzuuzz, has been done. It hasn't. --Hordaland (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
And another anon came along and listed a brand-name drug at the top of the treatment list and asserted that it has no side effects. Zzuuzz, are most of your problem editors anonymous IPs? If so, it might qualify for semi-protection. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
There has been a mix of many unregistered and registered users. I have already semi-protected it for some months, but this is a longer term problem which I hope we can consign to the past before any more protection. Let me elaborate. There is one spammer in particular who has effectively owned the article for much of its history. I suspect they shaped some of the article around their product, and now we have blacklisted all their sites and clamped down on the spam they are still changing the article (the link above shows one example), in ways which can only be search engine optimisation. They appear to be removing keywords of value to them, which leads me to suspect there may be other things skewed in the article to affect search engine results. To be honest I don't really care what keywords they want to deprive us of or how our article affects their search results, as long as we have an article which is normal and neutral. Which I why I brought it here for an independent checkover by people familiar with the appropriate language. I'm hoping more eyes can iron out any existing biases, if there are any, now that we are otherwise on top of the spammers. Thanks for your time. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikiversity grand rounds

I'd like to invite you all to some continuing medical education over at Wikiversity:

  • New!Clinical case nr. 1 : a 30-year-old man with a rash on both legs, painful joints and abdominal pain
  • Clinical case nr. 2 : a 31-year-old primigravida with a fetus in transverse lie due to an ovarian cyst
  • New!Clinical case nr. 3 : a 17-year-old volleyball player presenting to his general practitioner for a cardiovascular pre-participation screening

I'd also like some feedback from anyone who has a look or takes these mini-courses, preferably at the talk page of Topic:Clinical cases or the case's talk page (thanks to User:Una Smith for already doing so). If anyone is interested in joining me in this effort, please do. We might couple this to the collaboration of the week?

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

ECGPedia

Dear all,

a while ago I contacted the founders of ECGPedia at the University of Amsterdam to see if they would be interested in a collaboration, and they replied asking what suggestions we have. Their ECG's and texts are available under a Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial Share-Alike license, which prevents us from using them.

So, how could WikiProject Medicine and ECGpedia benefit from collaboration with each other?

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Great idea! It would be absolutely great if we could ask their experts to check our articles for accuracy. They might also be able to get some uploaders to release images under a license we can use. As for how we could help them, I'm not sure, but we have a ton to offer. We have a lot of people who are skilled in mediawiki stuff and willing to do gruntwork. Maybe we can ask them what types of help they would especially like from us. delldot talk 19:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Images of rare diseases

For those of you who are wondering how I got those fabulous pictures for Tricho-hepato-enteric syndrome (please copy-edit, it's up for WP:DYK), there is an open source medical journal called the Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases which is licensed {{cc-by-2.0}} (see Orphanet). Commons currently has (at least) 88 pictures from this journal, mostly uploaded by one Polish Wikipedian with an interest in rare diseases. Many of these images don't even have an article on their condition yet! If anyone wants to help transfer images from this source, please mark them with clearly (with Orphanet) and join in!

Also, it might be a good idea to create a list of similar open source journals which could provide images as an alternative to directly uploading patient images on Commons. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if it does not already exist then on Commons we need Category:Medical images. --Una Smith (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Bronchodilators in pneumonia

are "...intended to help improve the breathing capacity of patients with emphysema, pneumonia and bronchitis." Anyone else feels that bronchodilators can only cause tachyarrhythmias in patients with pneumonia? Anyone have a good review or study on this? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Could pneumonia be a strange mistype of asthma, which is curiously absent from the list? --Una Smith (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Emphysema is not a restrictive lung disease. I'm deleting the second half of that sentence. Axl (talk) 07:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
If there is significant bronchoconstriction interfering with comfort and oxygenation I cannot see why bronchodilators cannot be used in pneumonia. Some suggest that beta-2 agonists are rubbish in COPD: PMID 17872838. JFW | T@lk 15:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Hypoxia seems to be a common reason for the initiation of bronchodilators (only relevant study I found on bronchodilators in pneumonia: PMID 17261202) but why would you expect bronchoconstriction? Do you give pneumonia patients a reversibility test? If there is bronchoconstriction, then they probably have COPD exacerbation or previously unrecognised asthma. In bronchiolitic babies they try it often but at least they check (clinically and by oxymetry) if it makes a difference. Also, you suggest they be used in pneumonia but on the other hand they're rubbish? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Bronchoconstriction is found on examination (wheeze) and may happen even in someone with pneumonia if they have associated infective bronchitis (it is not called "bronchopneumonia" for nothing). The main use is for symptomatic relief, although I would be reassured by improving oxygenation.
The study I cited talks very specifically at improving prognosis in COPD. Turns out that anticholinergics improve prognosis while beta-2 agonists only give symptomatic relief and worsen prognosis; the case is therefore for salbumatol-sparing use of ipra/tiotropium. One of the suspected problems with beta-2 agonists are its cardiovascular effects. JFW | T@lk 19:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Neither the British Thoracic Society guidelines nor the American Thoracic Society guidelines mention the use of bronchodilators in the treatment of pneumonia. There are no randomized controlled trials investigating the outcome of treating pneumonia with bronchodilators. JFW comments "If there is significant bronchoconstriction interfering with comfort and oxygenation I cannot see why bronchodilators cannot be used in pneumonia." Indeed this is exactly what we do in clinical practice. However there is no hard evidence to support this. Axl (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
JFW, the "study" that you cited is one half of a debate between two opposing physicians, both outlined in the same journal. Axl (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't wait to start setting up a study on this matter :-) --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright of radiographies revisited

commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Chest CT scan with lung metastatis 3.jpg is discussing if patients can upload their imaging or if the copyright belongs to the radiographer. Clearly this would create an important precedent. If anyone has arguments or knows about this from a legal POV, please join in. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

X-rays form part of the medical record, which is owned by the patient, at least in the UK. This is something best discussed on the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions page. JFW | T@lk 15:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Beg to differ JFW. My understanding was that NHS records are the property of the Secretary of State for Health and the British Department of Health, and are held and managed of their behalf by the NHS (see Medical records#Ownership). However the Data Protection Act grants the patient the right to see their notes (with a few provisos) (consider, if patients owned their own notes, there would be no need for patients to request to see their notes under the Data Protection Act). Likewise a patient may not have information removed from their notes, it not being "their" notes to do with as they please (having had right to see the notes and point out what they think are errors, if the doctor does not agree to make a correction then the doctor is obliged to insert a note of the patient's disagreement with the medical entry).
Hence the copyright in the UK would be the Department of Health vested in the Secretary of Health on behalf of teh crown, as I crudely understand things. Certainly in the UK the radiographer has no owbership issue here for NHS material. As patients generally have rights to see and have a copy of their notes, the issue for uploading images is of confidentiality & consent:
  • Is the person uploading the image the subject of the Xray test ? If so then they are de facto agree to diclosure and confidentiality is not an issue. That said, they still need provide suitable image tagging that they release the image under a free licence as is required in wikipedia.
  • If they are not the subject of the image, then their are big issues. A health professional has a duty of confidentiality to a patient and requires explicit informed consent to use an xray for any purpose other than for what it was initially intended. So if the radiographer is trying to upload an image, do they have legally valid consent to so use the image (required even if patient identification not disclosed by the image) and have they taken steps to hide the identity of the patient - e.g. is the patients name, date of birth and address present on the Xray film ?
We can't at wikipedia do as journals might of holding copies of signed consent forms for patient images, therefore we are the poorer for this and must rely on professional websites providing images under a free licence, or patient's kindly uploading their own images. But medical staff uploading images is very problematic unless the identity of the editor can be verified (which it can't) to allow a clear chain of consent David Ruben Talk 17:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In the US, there is an important distinction between the records (formerly physical folders of papers) and the copyright in those records. I know of no good source for this, but the common understanding within the health care community is that the records belong to the record administrator (individual physician, group practice, government health care system, or similar) but the copyright belongs to the patient. Outside of the health care community, there is a widespread belief that both copyright and the records themselves belong to the health care community, and along with that belief there is resentment. --Una Smith (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

See also this on Wikimedia Commons. This question needs an answer. --Una Smith (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is probably one of those perennial issues... maybe we should start a page on Commons discussing this and to facilitate discussion in the hope of finding a solution quickly and establishing other ground rules for images of patients, perhaps commons:Commons:Patient images ? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Interesting discussion now evolving at WT:MEDMOS. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Human anatomy

... is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded, per Wikipedia:Template limits, which causes some of that miserably ridiculous long list of templates at the end of the article to get dropped. (How I learned about this jolly little problem :-) Can someone figure out what to do with that miserable list of transcluded templates at the end of human anatomy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Much of it might need to be integrated with the article. That's the point in the templates. JFW | T@lk 07:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Jumping.

is it possible to replace the sesamoid bone in both knees with something bigger, so when you use the muscle you get better leverage. and if so, after muscle training, would you be able to jump higher or run faster. just a quick thought!

mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.111.27 (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please take it to the reference desk. This page is about ongoing collaborations on editing medical articles. But to answer your question... what makes you think that the patella provides any leverage? JFW | T@lk 12:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

MCOTW

It's that time of the month again:

We have a basic science topic for a change. Assistance from all members would be highly appreciated. JFW | T@lk 12:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking for an admin

Multiple chemical sensitivity could benefit from semi-protection again. We have another POV anon determined to quote her(?) favorite website instead of the original source, which doesn't quite say what the website claims. I'm at the 3RR limit and my eyes crossed when I saw the complicated form at the 3RR noticeboard. It's someone else's turn for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to give some backup on this. This IP editor, 99.230.235.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is consistently removing sourced material that disagrees with his or her position, is restructuring the article to give more prominence to the minority viewpoint by moving mainstream opinions to an "other theories" section, et cetera. Somedumbyankee (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 Done--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Missing article

There's an AfD on Bed Blockers (UK term for person stuck in the hospital due to lack of appropriate care/housing for legally and/or morally appropriate discharge) here that might interest some of you. What interests me is that I can't find any Wikipedia articles on discharge planning. Have I overlooked something? Is there an obvious name for this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No, because in the US a lack of appropriate care, housing, or ethical appropriateness are not contraindications to discharge. :) Boy, I've gotten cynical. Most of the terms in vernacular use among American house staff are a bit more... charged... than "bed blocker". In all seriousness, an article on discharge planning might be useful - there is a reasonably-sized literature on the topic. It might also be folded into an article title like length of stay or hospital bed management. MastCell Talk 19:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Chronic fatigue syndrome

Some expert eyes are needed at Chronic fatigue syndrome and on a big group of forks added since March. There has been great consensus there for months since the people editing and talking have a distinct shared POV and they want replace the name CFS with myalgic encephalopathy or myalgic encephalomyelitis.

Since March a bunch of forks using ME/CFS were made, ME/CFS nomenclatures, ME/CFS pathophysiology, ME/CFS hypotheses, ME/CFS descriptions, ME/CFS therapies, ME/CFS treatments, ME/CFS history, ME/CFS controversies, ME/CFS outbreaks, Cultural references, and Notable people with CFS.

These forks get made and edited almost exclusive by the same three editors from the main page

Ward20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jagra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Strangelv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I do not attacking these editors that are doing what they think is right to help patients and advocate their cause, I just think some balance can help from people with knowledge on medicine. Thanks! RetroS1mone talk 04:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have stepped away from that article but I was quite involved a few months ago. I tried to prevent forkage and was much more in favour of shortening the content to sources that didn't fail WP:MEDRS. Anyway, I don't think there's any consensus for removing the name "ME" from these article titles, however nonsensical that term is (many have no myalgia and there is no histological evidence of encephalomyelitis apart from nonspecific changes on SPECT scans - and then only by certain investigators).
I have noticed your recent edits and support all of them. Just follow the general consensus forming process and ask for community input if you cannot resolve particular issues. JFW | T@lk 06:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Solitary pulmonary nodule

Until a few days ago we didn't have this article and now it's coming up on the main page's T:DYK soon, so I would appreciate it if some of you could have a look and give it a good copy-edit. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

A discussion that seems to be going round in circles on WP:MEDRS. More eyes would probably be useful, although it has a significant potential of getting rather drawn out. JFW | T@lk 08:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Article rename for more medically correct title (Kidney stone)

Hi, there is currently a discussion underway at Talk:Kidney_stone#Rename_article_to_renal_calculi.3F regarding the potential renaming of kidney stone to renal calculi, kidney calculi etc. With reference to MEDMOS policy, "the article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name rather than the lay term". This would certainly qualify for this article, but there is concern that this would reduce accessibility too considerably. Where does this fit into the wider policy? Discussion specific to this proposed rename may be more suitable on the talk page itself, as you wish.78.86.59.175 (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. My input (which I've made there as well) is that nephrolithiasis is a condition of having stones in the kidneys. The article currently covers both the stones and the condition. There could be material for two articles here, both linking to one another. Antelantalk 15:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Further explanation of new assessment at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-23/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Liaison psychiatry

The Liaison psychiatry could really use some attention from the Medicine project. A new editor came through and did quite a bit of expansion, but he didn't really source any of it (he added a bunch of refs but they were all for "this book exists" rather than actually supporting any claims made about the field), and I suspect quite a bit of it may be his own research (which he has admitted to in the Editor help board). From a web search, if his user name is his real name, he's a professor in the UK who has an interest in Liaison psychiatry. I've tagged it for issues and cleaned up what I could, but an expert who knows more about the field should really give it a going over. From the earlier version, before he started editing[3], I also wonder if it shouldn't be redirected to psychosomatic medicine, as it was listed as an alternate name? Either way, if someone would like to tackle checking the article, and help make sure OR and personal theories aren't being added, it would be appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 10:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

He's also now made a second account in an attempt to "establish consensus" for his bad edits. Again, project help would be helpful. The article is currently protected but he's filling the talk page with a bunch stuff that shows he has no clue (like arguing the History of biology only lists books as refs with no page numbers), and accusing me of defamation for asking the project to come offer another view. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please fix error on wikipedia hematocele entry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hematocele assumes the condition only occurs on the testes and sounds like a result of personal experience rather than research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.119.62.12 (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy

Subarachnoid hemorrhage is up for featured article candidacy. This article has received significant attention from many members of WPMED and has now also been externally peer reviewed. Your comments are most appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Subarachnoid hemorrhage. Thank you. JFW | T@lk 23:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

More eyeballs needed at the FAC. Doing well at the moment. JFW | T@lk 08:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Help at Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura

Hello, The ITP page could really use a few citations. I've added two "fact" tags over the last few months and there are a number of others. I don't know enough to be comfortable with getting the right citations. Any help would be welcome. Hobit (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been on my list for awhile, but I haven't gotten around to it. Busy week coming up, but I'll try to look at it ASAP. MastCell Talk 17:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking for input

In the course of work I've run into an interesting phenomenon that is probably worthy of a wikipedia article: medical studies conducted under exemptions from informed consent. They're sometimes called 50.24 studies in the US after the regulation that allows them.

Obviously studies without consent have been conducted unethically, but attempts to do research of this fashion and comply with the spirit of the Declaration of Helsinki are a separate affair. It shouldn't be surprising that these are rare (I'm only aware of four), but one was a trial of Hemopure which is somewhat notorious.

Is anyone aware if these kinds of trials take place in other countries? If it's solely a US phenomenon, I'll just call the article 50.24 study and it can be moved if necessary. Otherwise I'm at a bit of a loss for a name. SDY (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I recall the trials of amiodarone during cardiac arrest: Amiodarone for Resuscitation after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Due to Ventricular Fibrillation. Of note: "This study was approved by the Human Subjects Review Committee at the University of Washington, with an exception from informed consent, in compliance with interpretation of the federal policy for the protection of human subjects in place at that time." Axl (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The ALIVE trial. This changed our clinical practice. Carried out in Toronto, "The human-subjects review committee of the University of Toronto approved the study, including its provisions for waiver of informed consent." Axl (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A 1996 FDA exemption to informed consent in trials involving out-of-hospital emergency care is at PMID 10161558. I don't think it has been superceded, though we should make sure. The trial of lorazepam vs diazepam for status epilepticus was another high-profile instance where informed consent was waived. A perspective on the issue of informed consent waivers from the New England Journal of Medicine is here (hopefully you can get the full text). A piece on the impracticibility of informed consent in a Canadian stroke-care network is here - interestingly, the requirement for informed consent in this setting biased patient recruitment such that the consented patients were not representative of the general population of stroke victims. There is probably a good article to be written in there somewhere. MastCell Talk 18:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Lyme disease

OK, I suspect this will not be a popular request, but I was asked by SandyGeorgia to look at Lyme disease, which had been delisted as a Good Article under the relentless pressure of advocacy for minoritarian viewpoints ("chronic" Lyme, Lyme disease as a biowarfare experiment gone awry, etc) overwhelming WP:WEIGHT. I'm working on it, but I think additional input from any interested editors from the project would be helpful in addressing some of the issues there. MastCell Talk 18:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm there. Antelantalk 19:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The recent paper in NEJM here should make a useful source to distinguish between real medicine and crankism. JFW | T@lk 20:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I originally thought it might be that simple - cite reputable sources and accurately represent their content. However, that was naive of me. These folks had the Infectious Diseases Society of America investigated for antitrust violations for producing guidelines which (in line with the weight of clinical evidence) discourage the use of long-term antibiotic treatment for "chronic" Lyme disease ([4], [5]). This is a new one for me - docs being accused of greedy profiteering for arguing against the use of risky and unecessary medication - but apparently they were in cahoots with the insurance industry, every physician's best friend. MastCell Talk 21:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, useful reading before you get involved: Stalking Dr. Steere Over Lyme Disease, from the New York Times. On the other hand, if you need motivation, the quality of Internet information on Lyme disease has officially been recognized as crappy by a reliable source (PMID 15626946). MastCell Talk 22:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Update

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive440 § Lyme_disease

I guess I'll start a summary here so I don't have to keep adding an AN/I thread. Recruiting here and here: also Grann, David (2001-06-17). "Stalking Dr. Steere Over Lyme Disease". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-06-30.

New

Dispatches: Sources in biology and medicine

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I cannot agree with the endorsement of journal impact factor. It is a measure of citation rate, not of good or bad article quality. Some notorious bad articles have very high citation rates. Many very good articles have low citation rates. --Una Smith (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Oooh, yes. I can think of a couple of examples. Just about anything AIDS-related by Peter Duesberg, for example. But the impact factor is about the journal, not the individual articles. It therefore is of limited use in evaluating any specific article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Virtual colonoscopy

Can anyone find wide support for today's anonymous edit that changed "2 mm" to "10 mm" at Virtual colonoscopy? It's not my field, so I don't want to weigh in, but this contradicts everything I've read. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. I know CT pneumocolon is not reliable for lesions less than 10 mm, but whether this extends to VC is not clear. If you're in doubt and have sources, just revert it. JFW | T@lk 21:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


Responses from Wikipedia editors to Wikisurgery-type article on Talk page of Wikipedia article How to use a scalpel

Here is the article and the first 2 responses:

Article 

This subsection has text and images from an interactive multimedia training program on 
[[Wikisurgery] for basic 
surgical skills, called PrimeSkills in Surgery.
You can use this subsection on its own or follow the whole program (further details at the end of 
this subsection).


How to use a scalpel


Introduction

A scalpel may appear alarming at first.

This is a useful safety reaction and should mean that you will learn carefully and steadily.

A small minority of trainees develop an aggressive gung-ho tendency when holding a scalpel.

This should be suppressed completely.

If it persists, the trainee should not continue with the program.


Holding a scalpel

For fine work with a No 15 blade, hold the scalpel like a pen.

This is the correct way of holding a pen, using a tripod grip.

Image:113000710-Hold-15-scalpel-l.jpg

The three parts of the tripod are the side of the middle finger and the tips of the index and thumb.

(Other ways of holding a pen, such as placing it between the sides of the thumb, index and ring finger, are unacceptable.)

This grip enables the surgeon to:

Flex and extend the digits, so that the scalpel moves in and out during delicate dissections.
Rotate the handle of the scalpel with the thumb, so the scalpel can cut small diameter curves.

The most usual grip with a No 10 or 22 blade is as if you are holding a table knife.

(This is the polite way of holding a table knife)

The handle rests in the palm of the hand.

Image:113000711-Hold-22-scalpel-l.jpg

The digits and hand are largely on top of the scalpel unlike with the pen grip.

This means that the scalpel can be held close to the surface of the tissues when cutting, without the digits and hand getting in the

way as in the pencil grip.

The grip is quite gentle.

For tougher tissues, such as the skin on the back, grip more firmly and place your index finger on the top of the handle rather than

on the side.

Image:113000712-Index-finger-on-b.jpg

This will let you increase the downward pressure of the blade on the tissue.

For more delicate tissue, hold the handle between the thumb on one side and the four fingertips on the other.

The handle does not touch the hand.

Image:113000713-Fingertips-on-han.jpg

Holding the scalpel in the fist or like a dagger is far too clumsy.

Image:113000714-Scalpel-like-a-fi.jpg

DO NOT dissect with the handle of the scalpel.

Image:113000716-DO-NOT-dissect-wi.jpg

You will be concentrating on the site of dissection and may accidentally cut your assistant.

DO NOT hold the scalpel in your hand while using another instrument.

Image:113000715-DO-NOT-Scalpel-+-.jpg

You may accidentally cut the patient as you concentrate on the dissection area.

ALWAYS pass the scalpel to someone else handle first.

Image:113000717-Hand-scalpel-hand.jpg

Preferrably, place the scalpel in a dish for the scrub nurse to pick out.

Image:113000900-Put-scalpel-in-a-.jpg

DO NOT throw the scalpel down onto the bench (or onto the patient.)

How to cut with a scalpel

The part of the blade that does the cutting is the curve and not the tip.

This means that you need to drag the curve of the blade across the tissue.

Scratching with the tip of the blade is a beginner's error.

(A scalpel with a straight blade should be reserved for stab incisions such as for a drain tube.)

You will feel the curved blade cutting into the tissue.

Go slowly and gently at first with repeated strokes in the same place, until you see how much the blade is cutting the tissue.

Brace your hands and fingers so that you make controlled movements without the blade suddenly slipping.

Image:113000721-Brace-fingers.jpg

Press harder at the beginnings and ends of incisions to allow for the less efficient cutting action at the tip and the back of the blade.

Image:A113000722-Press-harder.jpg

Rock the handle to enhance this effect.

Image:A13000720a.jpg

Image:A13000720b.jpg

Image:A13000720c.jpg

For a right handed surgeon, incisions are most easily made from left to right, cutting towards the surgeon.

Cutting from right to left is more difficult.

Curved incisions are made by rotating the scalpel.

Curves up to 4cm. radius or so are best made by rotating the scalpel between finger and thumb.

Image:A113000723c.jpg

Curves larger than 4cm. need rotation of the scalpel using the wrist, elbow, and finally the shoulder.

Image:A113000724-Rotate-wrist.jpg

Image:A113000724b.jpg

Image:A113000724c.jpg

For a right handed surgeon, clockwise curves are easier to do than anticlockwise ones.

Be prepared for a greater tendency to miss the planned track and more slips when cutting an anticlockwise curve.

Incisions need to be made with the blade perpendicular to the tissues to avoid slicing.

Slicing will devascularise the thinner side of the incision.

(NB. Slicing with the blade held at an angle to the tissues is done deliberately when dissecting with a scalpel.)

For gosh sakes, what is this? This is a Project talk page; please put this in a subpage if an illustrated guide is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Planning

As well learning HOW to cut with a scalpel, learning WHERE to cut is vitally important.

Each incision has a start point, a path, a depth and a finish point.

e.g. The positions of the start and finish points of an ellipse incision will determine the final line of the scar.

Image:113000855-Missing-the-apex.jpg

The path and the depth of the incision determine whether there is enough clearance around a tumour.

With real tissues, once an incision is made, there is no going back.

Mistakes are not acceptable.

On simulated tissue, learn to plan your incisions with this degree of precision. 

Next subsection, click on Scalpel 08 Exercises
Last subsection, click on  Scalpel 06 How scalpels work
Surgical Education and Training page, click on Surgical Education and Training
Whole program on WikiSurgery.com, click on PrimeSkills in Surgery
Whole program on CD-ROM, click on Michael Edwards

[[User:Michael Harpur Edwards|Michael Harpur EdwardsMichael Harpur Edwards (talk) (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)]] 14.40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Editor comments on above sections

As per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive 8#Linking WikiProject Medicine to Wikisurgery, an example where a useful external link. However directly hosting this is a problem as Wikipedia is not a how-to guide - an external link to your site describing this is clearly fine (by me). Otherwise change in approach is needed to move away from a guide to a more encyclopaedic coverage, eg last sentance of "On simulated tissue, learn to plan your incisions with this degree of precision." would perhaps come under "Surgeons now practice their technique on artificial simulated tissue"
There is really good material here, just question of how best to use/incorporate it :-) David Ruben Talk 22:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I also think that an external link to this page on Wikisurgery is a much preferable approach. Wikipedia is NOT a how-to guide; it is also not written for the convenience of medical students or the edification of surgeons (or other professionals). Please consider WP:MEDMOS#Audience as well, when you're trying to decide whether material is appropriate for this general encyclopedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would welcome further discussion about a possible linkage with Wikisurgery based on these very positive responses.


Michael Harpur Edwards (talk) 08.30: 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael, It's usually considered poor form to move discussions around until you get the answer you want. (We call it "asking the other parent".) You should pick one location or the other to have this conversation. Whichever you choose, you need to post a link to it at the other location. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


I seem to be in trouble all the time. Sorry. I am only trying to follow the advice of the editors. I am not familiar with the procedure when more than one location is involved. I do not know how to post a link between 2 locations.

How would you suggest I progress this exciting possibility of a link between Wikisurgery and Wikipedia? I am in your hands. Michael Harpur Edwards (talk) 21.08 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Harpur Edwards, by "link" do you mean something other than an ordinary external link on any article? --Una Smith (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Una, Thanks for the information about Wikiversity. Could you first help me sign this page? I am finding it very difficult. is this correct?Michael Harpur Edwards (talk) 21.36 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Una, I'll try again. Please look at item 25 and 37. These pages describe what Wikisurgery is, and how it might be a information source complementary to Wikipedia. The example article on How to use a scalpel produced a positive response from the editors. Unwittingly I seem to have transgressed some protocol by putting the article and comments on thisd talk page.

Can you suggest what I might do to progress the venture? Many thanks. Michael Harpur Edwards (talk) 21.54 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael, Your first discussion is at Talk:Scalpel#More about Scalpels on Wikisurgery. This discussion on this page is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Responses from Wikipedia editors to Wikisurgery-type article on Talk page of Wikipedia article How to use a scalpel. Pick one or the other, and paste its link into the other location (inside double square brackets) with an invitation for any interested editors to join the conversation there.
Una's question, in case it's not obvious, is whether you want to see just this:
in the ==External links== section at the end of the Scalpel article. If that's what you want, then I'll add it for you. If you want something else, please explain what you want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Several contributors here have suggested using external links from Wikipedia pages to Wikisurgery. To do that, you can simply do what is usually done, and add a plain link in the external links section. Or you can get a little fancier, a la links to Wikimedia Commons and Wikitravel. See for example Harpers Ferry, West Virginia: edit that page so you can see how its links to Wikimedia Commons and Wikitravel are achieved. A clue: {{wikitravel|Harpers Ferry}} uses Template:Wikitravel. Anyone can make a template. That said, MHE, the more I read the more I want to encourage you to relocate your project from Wikisurgery to Wikiversity; you seem to be rather alone on Wikisurgery. You are asking very basic questions about how to develop content in a wiki environment. --Una Smith (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, MHE has a conflict of interest, and so technically shouldn't add the links himself. But he could certainly propose them on the talk page, with a simple "I've been working on this page (link goes here), and does anyone else think that it would be a good addition to the external links for this article?" request. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there COI? The site is a wiki, and could perhaps be edited by a community much like Wikipedia. What if the content were on Wikiversity; would it be improper for contributors on either site to add links between Wikipedia and Wikiversity? Is there COI? What if the content were on Wikipedia; we encourage contributors to add links to and from articles here. Is there COI? Sometimes. Looking at this Wikisurgery site, it seems to be a one-man operation. (Pun intended. ;-) --Una Smith (talk) 05:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I would delete links like this from External links per WP:NOT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


Revived

Hi everyone,
In the last two weeks, the external link between

[Wikipedia scalpel] and [More about scalpel] has been deleted.

I guess that this is on the grounds per WP:NOT, that wikipedia is not a how to do it manual giving technical details.

However I note that many surgical articles in Wikipedia do contain explicit how to do it information, to the great enrichment of the texts.

Eg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalpel#Gripping_a_medical_scalpel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episiotomy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_needle_biopsy#Procedure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chest_tube
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seldinger_technique
[The thyroidectomy article] gives headings for the main steps of an operation to remove the thyroid gland, but these steps have been waiting for the how to do it information to be supplied by Wikipedians since December 2006. A link to Wikisurgery could provide the solution.
I note that the [External link of the Wikipedia Surgery articles] includes detailed how to do it information in the

[Manual of Surgery] However I think it is possible to improve on a surgical manual published in 1921, which recommends that surgical instruments be sterilised by boiling in a fish kettle or by soaking in carbolic solution. Up to date information could be easily provided by an external link to Wikisurgery

To give some increased credibility to the information on Wikisurgery, please note that the basic surgical skills program was published on CD-ROM as PrimeSkills in Surgery, ISBN 0-9536414-0-6.

©1999 Scalpel Information Systems, and the basic laparoscopy program was published as CurrentTechniques in Surgery - Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy , ISBN 1-57276-034-6 ©1997 SilverPlatter Education and Scalpel Information Systems.The program qualified the users Grade A Continuing Medical Education credits with the Americal Medical Association.

I have had a look at Wikiversity, but could not find a section covering surgery.
I hope I have not transgressed any protocols with this text.
I should be pleased to see whether the editors would like to request external links with Wikisurgery for any of the Surgical articles in Wikipedia (to overcome any conflict of interest issues).

Michael Harpur Edwards (Talk) 20:22, 06 June 2008 (UTC).Michael Harpur Edwards (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael, as far as I can tell, the link was never in the Scalpel article to begin with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Accepting offer from WhatamIdoing

I should be delighted to accept the offer from WhatamIdoing on 19 June 2008 to have
in the ==External links== section at the end of the Scalpel article. Michael Harpur Edwards (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 Done Note that this is not a guarantee that the normal editors of the article will approve, still subject to WP:EL rules, etc., etc. -- but it seems like a reasonable link to me, and it certainly is a "unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


Many thanks. Michael Harpur Edwards (talk)Michael Harpur Edwards (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Medical resource exchange

At Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange you can request sources if you can't access them: could we set up something similar for medical resource, e.g. full text articles you can't access? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent idea, but we must be careful not to run foul of copyright matters. Publishers will not be best pleased if we start happily trading PDFs that they would normally have sold for $$$$.
However, it should be possible to ask members with access to verify a citation without sending around PDFs or passwords. I would happily verify any citation for BMJ Group and AMA journals. JFW | T@lk 16:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure a "verification service" (e.g. "Could someone check PMID xxxxx and see if it actually supports statement Y in article Z") would be an excellent idea and certainly poses no copyright issues. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I have full-text access to a wide range of medical journals, and I'd be happy to verify specific claims, though iffy on emailing whole PDF's or otherwise skirting copyright. MastCell Talk 05:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have access to a wide range of journals as well, let's start a subpage for this! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Same here the CMA gives full access to a large number of journals as part of membership. Do not know what others get.Doc James (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Toxin theory of cancer

Because of Dressed to Kill (book), which claims that wearing brassieres causes breast cancer, I've started wondering what article(s) might cover the Toxin theory of cancer. This is the idea that the human body can't handle its own metabolic byproducts, which are "toxins", and if they build up, or concentrate in an area, then you get cancer. It's wildly popular in the alternative medicine press and is the idea that underlies all the recommendations for fasting, juicing, eating only organic vegetables, drinking distilled water, and more as ways of preventing or treating all forms of cancer. It's utterly unsubstantiated by any mainstream research of any kind. Do we have a page on this somewhere? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This is stuff very closely related to the whole concept of carcinogenesis. The fact that toxins cause cancer is obviously not controversial (see benzopyrenes and lung cancer, asbestos and lung cancer and mesothelioma) but the theory you are referring to is obviously untested. Is that what they call it, "toxin theory"? JFW | T@lk 19:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what it's called. I'm not sure it's really called anything. See this for an example. The focus was originally on metabolic byproducts, not benzene and asbestos. The "solution" is that you need to change your diet, "cleanse" your body with enemas and natural supplements, and so forth. This BMJ paper refers to "intestinal autointoxication" as one possible name from the 19th century. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for depressing me by pointing out our article on Dressed to Kill (book). Everyone knows that bras can detect and prevent cancer, not cause it (cf. PMID 9326908). Anyhoo... the problem is one of scope: like many alt-med concepts, this one is vague and means different things to different people. How would we delimit an article and choose sources? I foresee a battleground without much hope of building a solid, manageable article. But then, I'm a cynic (or, as I prefer, an informed realist) when it comes to Wikipedia. MastCell Talk 20:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Intestinal toxemia appears to be another interesting name for it. I think I'll put this on my "someday maybe I'll have some free time" list. (Thanks, MastCell, for the smile.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of intestinal autointoxication, there's always the perennial favorite mucoid plaque, currently in between SPA's... MastCell Talk 21:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

External link to Retractor (medical)

I have been referred here from the Retractor (medical) talk page Would the editors of this article consider an external link to Retractors (medical) from How retractors work in Wikisurgery? This article links to other articles in Wikisurgery, including those describing many different types of retractor with photographs of them in action. I hope I have signed this text correctly using 4 tildes at the end of the page. Michael Harpur Edwards (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Alarm bells

Probably because I'm paranoid, but this edit summary somewhat bothers me. Generally outside pushes on content (esp. unsourced content) don't make me happy but if the ASSH is legit it's less troublesome. Though still somewhat troublesome. Ever since I found out about wikipedia review I've been even more nervous of unsourced content. WLU (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is any trouble, the author needs to be reminded that he cannot appeal to authority and needs to adhere to policies and guidelines like everyone else. But I can't see any other issues apart from unsourced content there. JFW | T@lk 22:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks, that addresses my concern. Anyone monitoring hand and hand injury pages might see something similar but right now the editor has only one contribution. WLU (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Magnetic resonance neurography

This is a little out of my area of expertise - anyone more familiar with radiology wanna comment? i.e. widely used etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration

JFW | T@lk 06:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hyperhidrosis

Okay, I'm a little tired of this game. The anon (always a different IP) keeps adding the name of its favorite brand of antiperspirant and deleting the References section. Over and over and over. Can we get this page semi-protected? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Poeple can use a proxy server to effectly change there IP address. Therefore they will coming up as something differnt each time.

Doc James (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

True, which is why I'm suggesting semi-protection, which will prevents any anonymous IP from editing the article, instead of just blocking the ever-changing IP number. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 Done no sweat :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh no you did not just say that! Antelan 16:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
XD Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson

As per here, I would like some input on how to describe a page on posthumous diagnoses for Samuel Johnson's Tourette syndrome. Information, such as naming conventions, recommended patterns for page set up, etc, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

We need a name for the daughter article that encompasses all issues, and perhaps we can avoid the section heading "Depression and madness". (Also, there are additional sources on his Tourette syndrome; I added the two that provide free, full text.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I would have put the "madness" in quotes, but wiki always seems to have a fit when I do that. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking of an even more general section heading, since the descriptions then of his behaviors can be viewed in the context of current understanding. If he had TS/OCD, then "madness" is antiquated. The folks here will likely be able to come up with a contemporary, neutral, general heading. Also, I'm not sure on the separation of the issues by headings, since depression is often part and parcel with OCD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
That would make sense on the separate page about his Tourettes. However, it might lead to the unwanted conclusion that the contemporaries were leading up to that point, i.e. we should contextualize (somewhere) his actions in an 18th century setting. They didn't have the medical knowledge or the treatments that we have now, and there was a fear that Johnson would be locked away like Christopher Smart (which was why he defended Smart quite a few times). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think his contemporaries could have been leading to that point; they simply didn't know what TS was, the connection to OCD, or the link between OCD and depression (see History of Tourette syndrome). Johnson died in 1784. Jean Marc Gaspard Itard, reported the first case of Tourette syndrome, Marquise de Dampierre, in 1825. Georges Gilles de la Tourette published an account of nine patients (including Itard's Marquise de Dampierre) with Tourette's in 1885. Johnson's contemporaries had none of that knowledge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this discussion would be more appropriate on a talk page. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This will be a new article, and thats why we are adding this to this talk page to find out naming conventions, patterns, etc, for making a new article on this kind of subject. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's on three talk pages now, but it all should be at Talk:Samuel Johnson. At any rate, feedback is appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Charles Darwin's illness and Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness may provide useful comparisons. --Arcadian (talk) 03:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Thats exactly what I was looking for. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Does the scope of WikiProject Medicine include.....?

Does the scope of this wikiproject also include articles on medical professionals? Likewise, does it include articles on professional medical bodies and also on prizes and awards related to the medical profession?Kwib (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please ignore my question. I have answered it by simply looking at articles that would fit into the categories mentioned to see if they are part of the project scope.Kwib (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

WPMED scope

Is Human embryogenesis within the scope of WPMED? Or is it more of a biology topic? It's not really a medical condition or treatment, although of course every med student is required to learn about it. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Medicine can cover anything related to health. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
True, but perhaps too sweeping. Under that rule we could legitimately declare not just Water and Food, but also household furnaces, air conditioning, electricity, and roads to be within the scope of WPMED, since the absence of these things is frequently associated with health problems in susceptible persons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Embryology is a biolgy topic but relevant to medicine as any dysmorphia (inborn cardiac defects, cleft palate etc) has a basis in dysregulation of embryology. I thing this article is suitable for {{WPMED}} tagging. JFW | T@lk 18:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you provided the answer to your own question. IMHO, something that is a core part of medical school curricula certainly falls under WPMED scope; otherwise, what was the point of absorbing Wikipedia:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I think there should be a department in wikiproject medicine that soley focuses on tagging articles with WPMED template - mainly articles that lie in other wikiprojects but are TAUGHT in medical schools. All of those subjects are fair game. If it is a word in a medical dictionary it is, with some exceptions, fair game. If it is a topic on the USMLE or other basic science medical school exam, it's fair game. This is a huge project, and I would propose that it should be its own department within WP;med. Tkjazzer (talk) 04:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain the goal behind tagging the maximal number of articles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't include developmental biology, anatomy, physiology, or pharmacology within the scope of WPMED, and I have no interest in recapitulating the curriculum of any medical school. --Una Smith (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why they should be tagged, but I also don't see any reason why they couldn't be. My personal demon, the blood donation article, is marked as WP:MED, but it could also be seen as pharmaceutical manufacturing. If the wikimedia foundation wanted to create a paper copy of the encyclopedia targeted towards medical topics or somesuch it might be relevant, but I don't really see how it matters either way what the project flags. Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I would have not found wp;med if it were not for the template on a talk page. the more we spread out and open up in other disciplines we might recruit some health conscious people who edit in biochemistry and physiology. They may want to learn more about the relationship of a biochemical process in relation to medicine and it is nice for medical students to have a section that is catered for the health science community and not written by and for molecular biologists. the more eyes the better. since there is nothing wrong with tagging and since the templates can be expandable/hidden if it starts to get excessive, I see nothing wrong with tagging articles that aren't necessary topics on WebMD as different diseases, but involve proteins which are mutated in specific genetic diseases (both acquired and congenital). Tkjazzer (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure that is why citizendium.org uses "health sciences" instead of "medicine" in their equivalent of projects. Tkjazzer (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that its advertising value is an adequate justification for spamming all the articles that we can. Too many tags = way too much administrative overhead. I'm willing to include major articles on developmental biology (for example), but I don't think we want everything in those areas. The mere fact that it might possibly be relevant background material for a medical condition isn't a good enough justification for me.
I've been struggling recently with the number of anatomy articles. There are billions of little bits in the human body, and nearly everyone of them has a stub on Wikipedia. I haven't been removing WPMED tags from them, partly because of my suspicion that WP Anatomy is some day going to become a task force under WPMED. There are hundreds of WPMED-tagged articles that really belong to the Anatomy project, and the fact is that the WPMED members who aren't also WPANATOMY members are highly unlikely to improve these articles. We're not contributing anything to the encyclopedia by slapping our project banner on these pages.
Genetics is another area. It might be nice if your doc knows what a neutral mutation is, but are we really going to help that article, or the dozens like it? Don't you think that MCB and the newly formed Genetics projects are much more likely supporters for that article?
More than 60% of assessed "WPMED" articles are rated as low priority, and I expect this to hold true for the remaining 1300 or so that are currently tagged and need assessing. This disproportionate number of low priority articles is largely because we've (automatically, in many cases) tagged so many articles that are in the allied sciences.
I don't know what the solution is, but I'm not convinced that we're on the right track here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
If you let molecular biologists and geneticists write these articles without imput from the clincial standpoint, then the articles are lacking something. period. One major thing they are lacking is read-a-bility. so many articles start about specific gene mutations, which chromosome, etc before saying anything readable. Yes that information is great to the geneticist who wrote it, but if it is clinically relevant, than eventually we need to write clinical related stuff in the introduction - stuff that medical students, especially future medical students may need to have access too. I don't know how long you have been practicing and away from the academic center, but many many many many medical students utilize wikipedia to look stuff up. And in doing so, many add bits and pieces to the articles. But those articles are seriously lacking a solid workgroup to oversee them. Wikipedia is going to continue to grow, I see nothing wrong with the citizendium approach of tagging multiple workgroups to an article. Sorry, I meant wikiprojects - speaking in citizendium terms - get them mixed up. I don't know if that means anything. I hope there isn't some kind of vote that bans me from adding WPMED tags, because there are a lot of articles out there with no tag at all that fall in the medicine category. I don't seem much harm in tagging and I hope others do not either. 75.43.212.236 (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC) [same person as above]
I see no reason why a person writing for WikiProject Genetics can't produce an article that is readable, or reasonably complete. If you're running into that problem, then they need a note about the quality of their articles. Note, please, that many WPMED members are also Genetics members. We doubtless do not check our medical knowledge at the door of an article on genetics just because there's no WPMED tag on it. Furthermore, have you ever seen a study of patients' comprehension that indicates that physicians are good at communicating information? I haven't -- and I've seen many to the contrary.
Banner bloat is bad for Wikipedia. It increases our administrative overhead at the expense of writing articles. Having more than one banner provides no additional value to the 1.0 team. I have assessed about ten thousand articles for this project. I can assess simple articles at a sustainable rate of more than 100 articles per hour, which is much faster than the usual rate. However, every minute spent assessing articles is a minute not spent writing the encyclopedia. Slapping six project tags on an article because they're all kind of related to the article means that six editors have to assess the article. Every single article so tagged costs Wikipedia at least five minutes of editor attention -- and there are more than two million articles on the English Wikipedia.
By contrast, not adding our banner costs the WPMED project nothing: we are still allowed to improve articles that are not tagged for this project. So I'm increasingly inclined to be intelligent about what we tag. If WPMED is not clearly a major player for the article, then we should make room for those that are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course, it is possible and I'm sure many of the basic genetic articles like DNA, etc are written for a broad audience. But if you were to search for a gene or a protein, instead of putting clinical relevance anywhere in the introduction, they have specific genetic details. I think those details belong further down in the article, but it might only be my opinion. My point is, I don't think that it is excessive to tag articles that have clinical relevance with wpmed. we have a responsibility to oversee any article with clincial relevance. Just because there are not enough users yet to oversee it, doesn't mean that we can't tag it. You argue our time should be spent helping with editing, not tagging and I agree. However, for the people who enjoy tagging articles with WPMED, I see no reason in stopping them or countering their work by deleting the tag. If everyone focuses on doing what they enjoy, things will be great. 207.151.237.9 (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Question about PubMed as a source

In working on WP:DEP, I came across Thyrotoxic crisis, which is a copypaste from this PubMed article. I know US Federal Government stuff isn't copyrighted. Are articles on PubMed considered a non-copyrighted government publication, or is it simply a reprint of a copyrighted (by the authors) work? Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected it to hyperthyroidism, as we've done with thyroid storm, thyrotoxicosis, and other generally synonymous terms. In general, the abstract you see on PubMed is often copyrighted to the publishing journal. The copyright to journal articles (including the abstracts indexed on PubMed) is generally held by the journal, not by the federal government. There's an increasing move toward open-source publishing, but even so we shouldn't be in the business of cut-and-pasting PubMed abstracts. Thanks for picking up on this instance. MastCell Talk 18:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
And thank you for a bit of education. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
This comment might be irrelevant now, but still trying my luck. But, isn't thyroid storm an emergency in the sense that it is a sudden increase in thyroxine level (say due to thyroid surgery) as against hyperthyroidism, which is chronic disorder? Hope my comment is noticed. —KetanPanchaltaLK 09:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty of scope for thyroid storm to be made into its own article, as it is indeed an endocrine emergency quite different from the non-acute setting. You are free to convert that redirect back to an article, with prominent linkage from the hyperthyroidism article. JFW | T@lk 09:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. May be we can have it as an MCOTW ;-) What say? —KetanPanchaltaLK 11:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Problematic venn diagram at Psychoactive_drug

ok folks, there is a venn diagram at Psychoactive drug#Subjective and behavioral effects which needs looking at. Question is , is it salvageable? For me the categories too arbitrary and the strucure such that it leaves MDMA and cannabis in the antipsychotic section (???) despite drug-induced psychosis etc. Anyway there is a chat on the discussion page. the diagram was deleted once lready a while ago as OR. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Reinserted against consensus, hence removed. Comments invited. JFW | T@lk 07:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Pulmonary contusion FAC

Pulmonary contusion is a "Featured Article candidate". Please comment here. Axl (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Direct_fluorescent_antibody - used for syphillis?

the article is pretty short. Is this the same fluorescent antibody test that is used for syphilis? what about chlamydiae? I know they use fluorescent antibody tests, but do they qualify as "direct fluorescent antibody tests"? 207.151.238.43 (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Website with APA licensing of DSM-IV

Can someone help out with Talk:Schizophrenia#Free full text DSM-IV on Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders; if it can be verified, it's great news. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Website hosting free full text of APA DSM-IV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone here be interested in taking a look at our updated User:Mindsite/DSM-IV_Proposal? I was hoping to get some input or feedback from the Medicine project. Mindsite (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Coronary thrombosis

Could somebody please make some sense of this article? It defines Coronary Thrombosis as "a form of thrombosis affecting the coronary circulation" - which doesn't tell me anything. I did find the Thrombosis article much more useful, but I think this one needs some work. Hardly anything has been done with it since its creation in 2004. Thanks Kristamaranatha (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No wonder. It is a very archaic term for acute coronary syndrome. I would not be opposed to redirecting it there. JFW | T@lk 05:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on deleting detoxification methods category

Feel free to provide your inputs on the deletion discussion for the detoxification methods category. It has only a 6 articles, and it is not likely to grow much. All of these articles are linked to from the detoxification article. I think putting it in a category of its own gives it undue weight, and is unnecessary. Others disagree; maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like some more input. II | (t - c) 16:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


Visual snow

The corresponding german article [10] has just been reduced by medical quality management because there is no information about visual snow in PubMed and there were no references. I do not think that the references provided here are sufficient. In my opinion the therapy-section contains quite dangerous information. --BenediktS (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

request: template for reflexes - an important part of the P.E. for all physicians and neuro / msk exam

A template with all relexes would be great.

One row could be commonly tested. The next row could be specialized reflexes mainly used by specialists the last row could be other reflexes that are not used as much, either for reliability or difficulty to perform. However, I think these are the most interesting.

Thank you. Tkjazzer (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Arcadian? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This aready exists: Template:Reflex. --Una Smith (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, but it is drastically limited to only the common ones. For example, the superficial umbilical reflex is not listed, yet that is in Bates Guide to Physical Exam. What about checking for sphincter tone - "anal wink" (i know it sounds funny or crude), but it is a reflex. There is another super rare reflex that also sounds vulgar, but i think it might be notable (brace yourself): you pinch the glans of the penis and there is a reflex contraction of the anal sphincter (also possible with the clitoris). The list goes on and on. I just used the two most SHOCKING reflex exams that I could think of to get your attention. What about the reflexes used in endocrinology? -eg. the one where you tap the facial nerve with hypocalcemia (I believe, not sure). What about all the reflexes listed in the german wikipedia article that has no english counterpart (yet). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive 8#Looking_for_Translation_from_German_Wikipedia_page_on_REFLEXES
or a direct link to the german article: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigenreflex
I really would like to see rare reflexes listed like tibialis posterior reflex which is in the german article. I hope that I did not cross any professional lines, but reflexes could be greatly improved. Also the articles could have more anatomy and neurology / neuroscience incorporation (nerve roots, muscles used in the reflex, etc etc). The reflex articles could list/link to other physical exam procedures that are used to test muscles when focusing on a problem in one region. I don't know if this makes sense to anyone else. Hope it does. 76.174.42.22 (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Why do I routinely get signed out of WP? 76.174.42.22 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Una's come up with a nice list of potential additions at Template talk:Reflex. It probably makes sense to add them to "other" for now, and then slowly figure out appropriate ways to classify them. --Arcadian (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I generated that list by searching (Search button, not Go button) for "reflex"; the list came from the first 2 pages of the result list. I didn't look farther than that. I notice also a list on Reflex. The template needs expansion, and to be used on more pages. --Una Smith (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Heart sounds

Nice article but not any sounds actually in it! Anyone have such a fancy stethoscope that allows recording even of your own, normal heart sounds? Anyone else can help get heart sounds? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, but I don't have the technology. This tends to be available in medical schools... JFW | T@lk 09:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sleep medicine

I've just started a section Sleep medicine in the USA within the article Sleep disorder. The goal is its own article, but it must at the very least be internationalized first. Help, suggestions, comments are welcome! --Hordaland (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is sleep medicine in the USA any different from sleep medicine elsewhere in the world? JFW | T@lk 09:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it isn't. (?) The US has a newly defined sub-spesialty. Do all countries have that? The timing of sleep-wake is a johnny-come-lately in the US - there are still "sleep doctors" and clinics which do narcolepsy and apnea but which know nothing about circadian rhythms (yes, that is OR). I think the Germans were early on the research, but I don't know about the practice. It may be that the Japanese and the Israelis have come far - looks like it by the amount of research in those countries. But I dunno, and would like to find out more. --Hordaland (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions to the editors of Retractor (medical)

On opening the Retractor (medical) talk page, I have been directed to the Doctor’s Mess to ask questions.

Would the editors of Retractor (medical) care to evaluate the article Parts of Retractors in Wikisurgery?

The Wikisurgery article describes surgical retractors from the simplest (the hand of an assistant) to the most complex (self retaining abdominal and thoracic retractors).

Internal links from Parts of a Retractor connect to other articles in Wikisurgery. These linked articles explain, for instance, how retractors work and also give details of 20 current retractors with action photographs from the operating theatre.

At present, Retractor (medical) appears to be a stub.

Might the editors consider the Parts of a Retractor article worthy of being an External Link to Retractor (medical)? Ie A unique resource beyond what the Wikipedia article would contain if it became a Featured article? As is the case for How to use a scalpel in the Wikipedia article Scalpel .Michael Harpur Edwards (talk) 06:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant! Many thanks.Michael Harpur Edwards (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: a missing article creation contest

Dear all,

as we roam around medical articles, all of us occasionally bump into unexpected redlinks. I'm talking about articles you would expect to be already existing for ages because they are prominent medical subjects (and after all, we have articles on the rarest of conditions and virtually all human genes).

To promote work on these essential but missing articles, I propose a new contest which could accompany the MCOTW. I haven't figured out a name that gives a proper acronym yet, but the idea is to try and find the most high-profile article that was missing, until you created it. Everyone could show off their most important recent creations, and every one or two weeks, myself or another cabal leader could declare a winner (or tied winners if there is no clear-cut winner). Once we get a proper name, I could also create a matching award.

If others have on occasion also been amazed by the stuff we're still completely missing, and think this might be a useful effort, I'll set up a page for this.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Perhaps a good scour of requested articles would yield some appropriate candidates. More worryingly, though, are the very important articles that are still stubs or class C. Are those to be included as well? JFW | T@lk 08:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
In my experience, most of those requested article redlinks can (and should) be fixed by creating redirects, or direct editing of the linking page. --Una Smith (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
That's my experience too, most should be redirected. On the other hand, some redirects deserve articles of their own. And indeed, Top priority stubs are more worrying. I just can't help to say how boring I find some of these general articles like medicine, disease, health, ... I'd prefer making a long effort on one article like cough.
Instead of a biweekly contest, I was thinking more along the lines of an exchange trophy, kinda 'world record' type, where one persons holds the trophy until someone else creates an even more amazingly missing article. Anyone else thinks this would be fun? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Okay, lets start low. I just created Acanthoma. --Una Smith (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

GO! Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Missing Article Trophy . -Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Macular degeneration

I am hoping to find someone to take a look at the recent addition made by User:Acudoc27, regarding acupuncture as a treatment. This is outside of my area of expertise, but it appears that this addition may be undue weight to a fringe study. Thanks for taking a look. --Leivick (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed said content and asked the contributor to provide secondary sources, in the absence of which I think there are no grounds for notability. JFW | T@lk 08:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't find any appropriate references. Although I found a couple of questionable references to acupuncture in other eye diseases: Clinical application of acupuncture in ophthalmology in Acupuncture & Electro-therapeutics Research and The use of acupuncture in ophthalmology in The American Journal of Chinese Medicine. Neither is of sufficient reliability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Axl (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Chronic Progressive External Ophthalmoplegia

Highlighting that there appears to be two distinct pages for this condition - Chronic Progressive External Ophthalmoplegia and Progressive external ophthalmoplegia. Whilst a sufferer I am not a medical practitioner so don't want to do anything personally that might upset a cunning plan here. Oneeye (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggest merging the relevant content from the former page, replacing it with "#REDIRECT: [[Progressive external ophthalmoplegia]]". JFW | T@lk 22:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Easy fun

Spermatorrhea would like to have a bored editor look at it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well that was easy. I just had to chop off the bottom 60%. =) Antelan 03:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Upper Airway Patency Maintenance Vagal Reflex (UAMPVR)

Dear all, A partially unknown upper airway reflex is documented here, it features quite the same firing pattern other pharyngeal reflexes (gag and cough) but with no ejective response, it features a smooth, unilateral, rythmic and chronic contraction elicited by airflow resistance vagal afferences, although the finding is not yet instrumentally validated clues of it's existance are easily collectable among existing literature concerning upper airway patency in vagal reset context, I'm working on it at WikiProject Posturology as it is supposed to be the etipathogenesys of the postural disorder, It's been baptized Upper Airway Patency Maintenance Vagal Reflex (UAPMVR), is someone interested in having discussion over it and collaborate in it's exact identification ?

--Paoloplatania (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds a lot like original research. --Una Smith (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It sounds a lot like original research. It also sounds like a reincarnation of Posturewriter (talk · contribs) who is presently involved in an RFC. JFW | T@lk 15:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Debunkage. 10 years old, still relevant. JFW | T@lk 15:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the web page has been written by someone whose first language is not English (actually Italian, right?). It's not helped by the frequent abbreviations. The mechanism itself looks plausible as a contributing factor in obstructive sleep apnoea. However you'll need to demonstrate publication in a peer-reviewed journal before we'll even consider adding it to Wikipedia. Axl (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, Axl, if by "consider adding it to Wikipedia", you mean "he's referenced himself in three articles so far", then I'll agree with you.  ;-) The short list of articles and redirects for vetting and watchlisting (and probably AfDing, in the case of Posturology) are here. There's also a new category called Category:Posturology.
JFW, Paolo's website is here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 Done Sent to AFD. Please vote. JFW | T@lk 00:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. I thought that Paolo was asking for collaboration with a potential new article. I had assumed good faith. Axl (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes Axl I'm in good faith, I agree that wikipedia is not meant to widespread one's own theories and I understand Jfdwolff reasons to send my articles to AFD, moreover I care not to be mistaken by some other users.
Nevertheless, all of the above may not prevent the discussion around an unpublished scientific hypothesys, further details about the material:
- although it presents evidences that fully legitimate the theory, it's stil at the hypothesis stage
- self financed research with only health care resources available
- is currently approaching the instrumental validation stage
- problematic instrumental validation without scientific research effort
- currently been presented as a research project to an Italian biomechanic institute
- I'm looking for interested research institues to support it's development
Would this discussion be off topic in this stage or wouldn't anyone be interested in, I will resubmit it in case my research will ever grow entitled to, thanks to all--Paoloplatania (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As said on the AFD, I think Paolo has provided us with plenty of evidence that this is a branch of either health science or complimentary medicine that is in its infancy. I withdraw my allegation that Paolo has anything to do with Posturewriter (talk · contribs), as nothing backs this up at present. JFW | T@lk 10:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Top priority

I didn't see anything in our "Top importance" category about addiction/drug abuse/alcoholism/etc. and I think that we ought to consider one or two such articles as reasonable candidates. Top importance articles are basically always included in the 1.0 Team's work, so it's important for us to have both a wide variety of articles and also to keep them in good shape. Can anyone recommend a particular article for this area? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend something like delirium tremens over something like alcoholism, because the latter term cannot be well defined from a medical context. --Arcadian (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
What about alcohol dependence, for example? Or alcohol abuse? I think this terms are well defined psychiatrically. Is tabacco addiction there, or health effects of smoking, etc? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Smoking is listed. I'd be happy with either of the artices Steven suggested. (The list is here and we have "room" for another dozen or two carefully selected articles.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

request article: coarse facial features

When was the last time you read about cretinism? Well, it's hard to look up something like coarse facial features in a medical dictionary. It's often referred to though. anyone up for an article like this? 128.125.28.232 (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that this is an encyclopedic topic. Axl (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
If there is no reference to support its relevance it will be extremely hard to write an encyclopedia article about. JFW | T@lk 08:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Apart from cretinism, coarse facial features may be due to adult myxoedema or a host of conditions including gargoylism, the derogatory term formerly applied to children with some forms of mucopolysaccharidosis such as Hurler syndrome and Hunter syndrome. NRPanikker (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
so what does it mean? can you describe it? 207.151.251.53 (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
How about acromegaly? Antelantalk 22:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

A disambiguation page may be needed here. There are many uses of "coarse facial features" on the web and in PubMed, and even in Wikipedia, on pages that list signs and symptoms of numerous diseases. However, what constitutes "coarse" is rarely defined and evidently varies considerably from disease to disease. --Una Smith (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Good to know. We should just go interview 25 teacher-doctors on what they think coarse facial features means, publish a website with their interview answers, then post it on wikipedia. I bet we'd get a good mixture of answers. 75.43.212.236 (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Please read no original research before undertaking such a project. Publishing it in a medical journal makes more sense. JFW | T@lk 06:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
did anyone find a medical journal article with it? 207.151.237.9 (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
continuing the request. Tkjazzer (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Article name: Medical research or Biomedical research?

Medical research currently redirects to Biomedical research, the first sentence of which is "Biomedical research (or experimental medicine), in general simply known as medical research"
If this topic is in general simply known as "medical research", then should this be the main article name, with Biomedical research as the redirect? -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer "biomedical research" as medical research is a subgroup of biomedical research, and many medical research studies also shed light on fundamental aspects of diseases and biology. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
To me, "medical research" is "clinical research". In the United States, NSF funds biomedical research and NIH funds clinical research. --Una Smith (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Note that clinical research is a separate stub. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
That's funny: I think of biomedical research as being a subtype of medical research. Steven, how do you classify an epidemiological survey for, say, the prevalence of a clinical symptom like fatigue or transient situational depression? I say that it's true medical research, but certainly not biomedical research, as "How tired do you feel today, on a scale of 1 to 10" is not even remotely biological. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I would think, from a naming conventions standpoint, that medical research is a better title. Not more accurate, but more commonly recognized. SDY (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any consensus to rename to Medical research?? -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No. It turns on the scope of the article. Given the current scope of Biomedical research, "Medical research" would be a better title. --Una Smith (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Prolactinoma

Prolactinoma is in dire need of some tender loving care and sourcing. Any takers? WLU (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not before I've finished hypopituitarism. In fact, prolactinomas are a common cause of hypopituitarism, so that will be a nice transition. I even had a recent review in hand. JFW | T@lk 21:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Come to think of it, could someone peer review the hypopituitarism article? I have based it almost entirely on a recent review, and it would be great if someone could show me the gaps, the convoluted wordings and other things that would prevent it from being a useful resource (or reaching GA). JFW | T@lk 23:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Not a good idea to use only a single review, best to take two or three to start with. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

DD vs ID: anyone from Australia?

I'm looking for a specifically Australian perspective. Do health and/or education professionals in Australia regularly use the term intellectual disability to describe developmental disabilities that have no significant intellectual component, such as CP? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a question for Casliber (talk · contribs) JFW | T@lk 20:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Developmental Delay (DD) is the current term in most official material I have seen. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, hands up everyone who equates tumor with....

OK, Emmanuelm wants to change tumor back to a version where tumor equates swelling. I would say that usage is fairly historical or archaic (though absolutely should be mentioned in the evolution of the word into current usage)..can we get a show of hands on the talk page? Or am I missing something. I don't diagnose many of these in psychiatry...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's one of the cardinal signs, so I think it's reasonable for there to be a section on that page regarding this usage. I frequently spout off "calor, dolor, tumor, rubor" (and substantially less frequently, "functio laesa"). Antelan 21:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The older definition ("swelling") should be mentioned in the article body, but the focus of the article should be on the current usage, as in a neoplasm. That's what people will come to the page to read about, for the most part. MastCell Talk 21:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree majority of focus should be neoplastic, except "neoplasm" is not "what people will come to the page to read about", but rather to read about "cancer" and that needs be mentioned very prominantly - yes I know neoplasms are one particular solid-lump type of cancer vs. say leukaemia, and so that too needs explaining along lines of: "Tumours are any form of abnormal solid body swellings and whilst in modern usuage generally applied to solid cancers, known as neoplasms, the term may also apply to innocent (benign) growths, inflammatory swellings from infections and cysts." David Ruben Talk 22:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Neoplasm and cancer are not synonyms, if cancer is defined as malignant neoplasm. IMO, that is a problem with Cancer. Just a thought: perhaps Tumor should be a disambiguation page? --Una Smith (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Needs to address its meaning as "neoplasm" before briefly touching on the the stricter meaning of "swelling" which might hold true in Latin but not in English. JFW | T@lk 23:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Works in English, too, but I agree that it's less prominent a usage than as a synonym for "neoplasm". Antelan 02:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
That's a cool disambig page (pompous pride...cool)  :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Image links

I've created a number of templates used to support links to histology and anatomy images hosted at the websites of medical schools. These images are far more detailed than anything we have in Wikipedia now, or are likely to have any time soon. User:Selket is trying to systematically delete them. Your feedback at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#July_25 would be quite welcome. (I have no objection to the deletion of "Template:USCHistology" -- unfortunately, USC has now hidden their content behind a firewall. All the others are still freely available to the public, though not with a license allowing us to copy the content. For an example, see Corpora arenacea -- you will see the BC and OU links are live, and the USC link is dead.) --Arcadian (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Selket here. What we need is donation of more technical images on Commons. --Una Smith (talk) 02:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I agree with both Arcadian and Selket. We need donations of more technical images. Until that time, we need something. Antelan 02:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fatal hilarity

Could someone with the requisite medical expertise please take a look at the pathology section of the fatal hilarity article? We've been having trouble finding a good source to detail laughter as a contributing factor to the cause of death (discounting kuru) - the entire article may only have a basis in anecdotes. Thanks, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Several histology external link templates nominated for deletion

I have nominated several templates that are used in a number of anatomy articles for deletion. The relevent discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_25#Template:ViennaCrossSection et. seq. --Selket Talk 17:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC on MSM

There's an RfC at Talk:Men who have sex with men related to whether FtM transgendered persons count as "men" for MSM in terms of blood donation. It has somehow been declared to be a sociology-related issue instead of a medical one. Anyone with a thick skin and/or actual knowledge is invited to participate in the discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Public health works on that wonderful boundary between the two, unfortunately. Also, unfortunately, some of the editors have very strong opinions. The irony is that MSM was created to avoid dealing with what it means to be "gay", and the article is now wrestling with what it means to be "male". So much for avoiding controversy... SDY (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Diabetes, anyone?

Pulsatile insulin makes me itch, but I don't know enough about it to know whether this is real or not. Other eyes wanted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems at least reasonable at first blush. I don't know enough about it to know if it's legit, however. Antelan 02:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The term is real, but I have no idea if it's being used correctly. SDY (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Aquapsychosis ?

I found Aquapsychosis when referring someone to WP:HOAX and found it in that subcategory. I prodded it only to see that someone already contested a previous prod. A quick pubmed/google scholar search turned up nothing, but has someone either heard anything about this or go ahead and put it up for AFD. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Tumor

Tumor is totally messed up, to the point that a swollen ankle (due to a sprain) is called a tumor. Put this one on your watchlist? --Una Smith (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Its original meaning (swelling) needs to be covered. JFW | T@lk 07:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Tumor, rubor, calor, dolor, and functio laesa, anyone? Antelan 17:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
What? A redlink for functio laesa? We must tell Celsus. JFW | T@lk 18:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Celsus would have approved of the redlink, since functio laesa was not one of his cardinal signs, but was later added to his four cardinal signs by Galen. Oops, now it's a bluelink. MastCell Talk 20:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Simple - dump the lede into an etymology section. Just need to tweak def now...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Fascinating history of the article - looked alot different 7 months ago, and a year ago. I see Emanuelm moved most of it elsewhere. I guess this will be more complicated...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok folks, now I geddit - this is what happened. Emmanuelm moved technical overdetailed material, which is fine by me - but replaced it with an archaic (though strictly etymologically correct) meaning. I would advocate a potted succinct and easy to read bit on neoplasia in tumour - oh heck, we could start talking about placement and probabilities all over the place (groan...can of worms...) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
It might be worth reading the talk pages of the related articles. Emmanuelm has some... specific goals for them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks! --Una Smith (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The words 'cancer' and 'benign growths' are easily recognizable. Tumors, such as in soft tissue, can be benign or malignant. A wikipedia robot changing oversimplifying every variant word to 'tumor' has been making a mess. --nabster —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

PROD: Presenting

Presenting has been proposed for deletion. --Una Smith (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If this gets deleted, non-physicians will continue to think physicians are pretentious and foolish, every time they say something like "This is a 40 year old white male who presented with 2 days of hematemesis, etc". Just a word of advice. Physicians have enough trouble conveying that they are not intentionally trying to be obscure (although some are). Menelaus2 21:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Menelaus2 (talk • contribs)
That is hardly Wikipedia's task. We have a Wiki-dictionary that might be more suitable for this aim. JFW | T@lk 21:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

MCOTW

The current Medicine Collaboration of the Week is Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Last week's collaboration was Thrombosis.

JFW | T@lk 22:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Template for deletion

{{DartmouthAnatomy}} TfD

This template for anatomical external link is currently nominated for deletion - see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_28#Template:DartmouthAnatomy.

The template itself works, what has changed is that Dartmouth nolonger provide surface anatomy links, and the rest now have a regional major directory heading and a type of material (Xray, MRI etc) subdirectory structure (hence /elbow/ulna2 might become /Upperextremity/arm/radiology/lat-elbow). Either the parameter (for the directory subpage) given in articles need to be all changed in one concerted effort (?volunteers), or we add a second parameter to the template to define the region (then any use of the template giving just a single parameter, as present, can be flagged as needing to be checked and ammended) - discuss further at Template talk:DartmouthAnatomy, but note I'm about to go away for 10 days, so I'll come back to the template then to recode as per consensus of discussion had in the meantime :-) David Ruben Talk 00:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rename of Refractory depression to Treatment-resistant depression

I am proposing the move as this is what I always called it in my profession (psychiatry), and what I have seen it called and defined as in the literature. Please input vote opinion on the talk page of the article. All input welcome. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done

Request for comment about Scissors talk

I pasted a Talk:Scissors#Surgical_scissorscomment on Scissors on 14 July 2008, but have not received an editorial response yet.

I note that the most recent comment before this was recorded 7+ months ago on 23 December 2007.

Might the editors of Wikiproject Medicine be able to comment on behalf of the Scissors editors?Michael Harpur Edwards (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring, history of dentistry

The first paragraph of the History section, Dentistry, has been changed and reverted numerous times lately. An unsigned comment on the Talk page even calls the proponents of "ancient India" over "ancient Pakistan" islamophobes! (Islam didn't much figure in the lives of dental patients 9000 years ago, but whatever.) I have proposed a rewrite of that paragraph on the Talk page. I hope it will satisfy both/all parties. Support would be welcome. --Hordaland (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"Pestilential fever" in Sweating sickness and other articles

The article Sweating sickness says of that disease: "It was regarded as being quite distinct from the plague, the pestilential fever or other epidemics previously known..." A couple of other articles also mention "Pestilential fever" (or variations on that name), though without linking it. Is an article on this subject merited? -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a redirect to bubonic plague? JFW | T@lk 05:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
?? The quote I gave says that Sweating sickness, plague, and "Pestilential fever" were three different things. Redirecting Pestilential fever to bubonic plague doesn't seem obviously correct to me. -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

anyone think this is a good idea for this wikiproject?

Hi all, this - Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/bird articles by size is at WP:Birds, could anyone see a use for ranking med articles like this? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if such a list could be generated. I can't immediately see any specific uses but I'm sure there must be some. JFW | T@lk 05:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Doing a quick run through Special:LongPages I found Medical analysis of circumcision where sub-articles would really help. Not suprisingly it has a mish-mash of external links cites(166) and ref style cites(118). It would be interesting to see how many articles that need pruning/splitting off are out there. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Medical analysis of circumcision doesn't need subarticles. It is the result of a longstanding POV war, which tends to lead to huge horribly bloated articles that aim to satisfy everyone's POV demands. It needs pruning of material that is really unnecessary and reduntant (e.g. the long direct quotes in footnotes). JFW | T@lk 06:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I should have figured as much given the topic and the {{Round In Circles}} on the talk page. Actually looking at some of the other non-list long pages appear to have a similar problem, so I guess it would be helpful to have a list of those that are part of this project. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I think very few editors would venture into that neck of the woods unless they were wearing blast-proof underwear and carried a generous supply of depot flupenthixol. JFW | T@lk 10:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add a column showing the number of in-line citations? If so, that would be very useful. --Arcadian (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
(lightbulb moment) what a great idea! Must take that to the exisiting ones...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Little competition?

Would anyone be interested in having a little article improvement competition? We could select articles from WP:VITAL#Health and medicine or elsewhere that are in similar states of disrepair and hold a contest for a set period of time to see which team does the best job improving their article. I'm thinking we'd need at least two teams and at least one judge to select the articles and judge their improvement at the end: at least three people. We could design medals or barnstars or something for the winning team (or use regular barnstars). Just seems like a fun and engaging way to get some important articles up to a better standard and encourage collaboration. Anyone interested? delldot talk 13:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If it is a topic I can motivate myself for and I'm not on holiday, I'm in! We could also take articles assessed as Top- or high-importance and Start- or Stub-class. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Good idea! About the motivation thing, maybe the teams should select their own articles (the judge(s) would have to make sure they were comparable starting out though). delldot talk 15:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


By the way, we're still looking for other players at WP:MEDMAT. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There are currently nine articles listed at WP:VA of the 48 medicine topics that have cleanup tags. I think this would be a good place to start, and I also believe that MCOTW should select these nine even if we don't have an explicit competition. SDY (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Checkorphan

G'day all, a few of us have been musing on this website Checkorphan and I am bemused by all the non-independent google hits...and put a notaility tag on it. ANyone know anything. Tropical diseases ain't my thing really. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Paleolithic diet

Can someone remove the material added in the lead in this edit per WP:SS? I can't remove it per WP:3RR. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't revert, because I don't have the source for verification of the text (and I'm not sure you should solicit reverts), but I did issue a 3RR notice to the editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The removal of the material added in the lead is justified per WP:SS alone. I'm not asking for a complete revert, just the removal of the lead material. Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Re Phenylalanine's refactored question: SandyGeorgia didn't say you can't; she said she is not sure you should. Soliciting reverts is obeying the letter but violating the spirit of the 3RR. --Una Smith (talk) 04:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The lead statement that was added is verifiable, but it's too detailed. There's no reason to highlight this particular point compared to all the other pro-arguments covered in the body of the article, which is why I don't think it belongs in the lead. --Phenylalanine (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Well enough, but how about letting it be there for a while? Makes for more peaceful interactions with other editors. --Una Smith (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from the EMS Taskforce

  • We are currently doing a GA/article improvement on Emergency medical service it will be our first project as a task force and would love anyone's input and editing, Cheers! Medicellis (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Diabetes mellitus

Some eyes needed at diabetes mellitus, where I'd love some comments on the size of the lead and the need to mention rare monogenic forms in the introduction. JFW | T@lk 06:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are in the right here, JFW. Diabetes mellitus, as another editor has pointed out, is indeed in a bad state and the introduction is already long. Added information which is already covered by other articles shouldn't be there. —CyclonenimT@lk? 17:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Low carbohydrate diet is on peer review here. --Una Smith (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Medical Tattoo

I'm not a member of this project, but I think a lot could be added to Medical tattoo. I think the most important thing would be to first add a photograph of a medical tattoo, if anyone can get such. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 05:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Pool chlorine hypothesis

Given the huge numbers of people in the rich countries who have asthma, and whose children are at relatively high risk of having asthma, i'm curious why nobody before me happened to start the article on the pool chlorine hypothesis. Maybe because it's fairly recent and evidence only exists for it since after the wikipedia started? In any case, this potentially affects a huge number of people, so IMHO it's a pretty important part of knowledge that should have its place in the wikipedia. Anyway, i've started a stub. Anyone good at summarising the existing scientific literature feel free to help expand it. Disclaimer: i'm not a medical researcher, just an ordinary citizen. :). And i did wash my coffee cup. (On the other hand, the hygiene hypothesis would suggest that it would probably be better to drop a bit of dirt into what's left of my coffee and leave it to develop into something biologically interesting in order to help stimulate other wikipedians' children's immune systems...) Boud (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the hypothesis itself, even if true, contributes minimally to the burden of asthma in the United States. For example, it certainly doesn't explain why indigent, inner-city children in Baltimore are getting asthma at higher rates than in the past. That said, thanks for the link. Antelan 21:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Sound like you are probably right for this sector of the US population with asthma, though if the hypothesis is correct and if well-intentioned people recommend to indigent, inner-city children's caretakers (parents, schools) to encourage the children to take one of the most highly recommended forms of exercise - swimming - which does seem to be available in central Baltimore, then they might actually make it even worse. Anyway, detailed discussion should probably go to Talk:Pool_chlorine_hypothesis. Boud (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It's certainly biologically plausible, and the papers describing it are reliable sources. I did have the same reaction as Antelan: the burden of asthma in American inner cities is much more intense than in their suburbs, despite greater exposure to pool chlorine in the latter group. That said, it could certainly be one risk factor for asthma. The problem is that pool attendance is a surrogate marker for a billion other demographic, medical, environmental, and socioeconomic variables, any of which could be a confounder. I guess my gut feeling is that it's worth a mention in asthma, but I'd like to see it picked up and researched by more than a single group before creating a standalone article. But then, I'm a hardliner about that sort of thing. MastCell Talk 21:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Boud - if you can find a way to give inner-city Baltimore kids the chance to get to a swimming pool, I will hail you as a hero. Regarding this article, I am with MastCell on that hard line. Antelan 22:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "More than a single group": see Fjellbirkeland et al, Thickett et al, Jacobs et al. in pool chlorine hypothesis. Research so far seems to have been only done in Europe. Given the comments about inner-city kids in Baltimore, in the USA it might only be a priority for research if medical researchers or their funding agencies are interested in the wealthier children in the suburbs. In the parts of the world (especially South, East and South-East Asia) with rapidly growing middle classes, we probably could expect some interest from researchers there.
  • "a billion other demographic etc. variables": Please read how the Bernard et al. articles treat demographic and other markers. There's a section Relations to demographic and environmental variables where i attempted to summarise what they've done. You're welcome to improve the accuracy, NPOV, etc. of the summary. Bernard et al seem to have done a quite solid job on this, and condensing the key points of what they've done in either this section or other sections is not easy. \
  • BTW, the English language wikipedia is about knowledge of the World, so an article about asthma is not an article especially focussing on asthma in the USA. This article says that a third of Welsh 13 and 14 yr olds have asthma which is consistent with the referenced update i added to Asthma#Epidemiology. USA is towards the top of the asthma ranking, but it's not the topmost. Boud (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not my goal to debate the validity of the research; I think it's interesting stuff. But please recognize that controlling for potential confounding factors is not a black-and-white or infallible process - quite the opposite. In fact, both of Bernard et al.'s papers drew published commentary which was critical of their statistical methodology and suggested that the association, if any, between pool chlorine and asthma was not as strong as they had reported. See PMID 15090674 and PMID 17520032 - these are published letters responding to the Bernard articles, and I believe they are freely accessible through the PubMed links I've given. I would open the question of whether this published skepticism about some aspects of the statistical methodology should be incorporated into our article. I take your point about US-centrism - I didn't mean to imply that European research was irrelevant, only to point out that the finding is unlikely to be a universal key to asthma. MastCell Talk 19:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course, i agree that the statistical analysis is certainly not a trivial or perfect process. i myself have not tried to seriously judge the quality of the statistical analyses, and even if i did, that would not be publishable in the wikipedia article. Thanks for the links - somehow i don't always manage to get to the open access versions of certain potentially useful medical articles. Both of the ones you gave are open access. In the second case, i found a version including the Bernard group's response. Unfortunately, i also found that Eggleston seems to be a lobbyist for a rather wide range of chemical and pharmaceutical companies, which doesn't add a lot to the credibility of his criticisms. That doesn't make them wrong, but it does alert people to a possible bias. The good point is that it's presumably thanks to many years of citizens' groups' lobbying that medical researchers are now obliged to declare this sort of information. In any case, the info is there - readers will judge what they want from it. Boud (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Major headache at major depressive disorder

Folks, I bring this up now as I want to get this sorted here and now rather than at FAC. In psychiatry here in Oz we all use DSM IV, like the US, and as far as I can tell, there is a lot more written and researched using DSM IV criteria than ICD 10. Thus, we have major depressive disorder aka major depression, which has loads of epidemiological/treatment effectiveness etc. research, and MDD sorta fits somewhere between 'moderate' and 'severe' depression on ICD 10. Unfortunately, we have a naming convention using ICD 10...

  • Thus, options are:
leave as is and (a) ignore all rules or (b) look at addressing naming conventions by at least noting DSM IV-TR is internationally recognised.
change to depressive disorder, with a confusingly close title to depression which serves as a sort of disambiguation page which needs embellishing, and have an article with a huge chunk of details on epidemiology/treatment response etc. referring to MDD all through it and try to explain it.

Also, the situation is even more of an issue when we get to borderline personality disorder (DSM IVTR) vs the stubby ICD 10 article Emotionally unstable personality disorder - the former has a much higher profile and common usage. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be very comfortable invoking WP:IAR here. The principle from MEDMOS is that we use an appropriate name, not "the Black Dog" or "the blues." To quasi-comply, since they have different definitions, they could very well be considered different (albeit intrinsically related) diseases, and each would have their own article, well interlinked. SDY (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
DSM-IV basically outranks ICD-10 in the field of psychiatry. Just leave it. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree with ignore all rules (I believe I had similar with Tourette syndrome, where the ICD-10 name is some gosh-awful convoluted mess, F95.2 Combined vocal and multiple motor tic disorder (de la Tourette) ). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
ICD-9 shows 296.2 and 296.3 as major depressive disorder single and recurrent episode respectively. All of 296 is Episodic mood disorders with 296.0, .4,.5,.6,.7 as Bipolar I disorder varying on episode numbers; 296.1 as Manic disorder, recurrent episode; 296.8 as Other and unspecified bipolar disorders; and 296.9 as Other and unspecified episodic mood disorder. Not sure if any of this helps at all at this point, especially since I don't know mental health or icd9s that well. Also Tourette's(307.23) comes back as Tourette's disorder(Motor-verbal tic disorder). -Optigan13 (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

New article: Sleep medicine

I won't feel like my new article is complete before you people put your project label on its Talk page. Please? Thank you, Hordaland (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Duly added and rated OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 18:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! It's exciting to see that people have been there, correcting coding and spelling (oh, woe, I never make speling misteaks) and even adding a ref. Thanks, all. --Hordaland (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Constipation Controversy

Defecation in squatting position

According to Bockus Gastroenterology (p. 754 2nd ed. Saunders, Philadelphia and London, 1964)

"The ideal posture for defecation is the squatting position, with the thighs flexed upon the abdomen. In this way the capacity of the abdominal cavity is greatly diminished and intra-abdominal pressure increased, thus encouraging expulsion ..."

I tried adding this to the constipation article, but my edit was vetoed (for reasons I consider erroneous.) I protested on the talk page a few days ago, but no one has commented, so I thought I'd solicit comments here. --Jonathan108 (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I definitely learned from a text somewhere that squatting instead sitting reduces hemorrhoids. But man, I'll be darned if I can remember where I read that. Maybe do some research in African medical articles - I know they don't have hemorrhoids in communities where they squat and not sit. Maybe a reference like this will help you in your ideal defecating position article. And if you don't already see the connection, higher intra-abd. pressure = higher incidence of hemorrhoids. Tkjazzer (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I reviewed this a year or two ago because it was added to the hemorrhoids article. I found only 1 reference, and it was in the Journal of Medical Hypotheses. There is no good evidence for either of these theories, although there is considerable circumstantial evidence. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, squatting does prevent (and,in most cases, cure) hemorrhoids. See the hemorrhoids article for the research. Higher intra-abd. pressure is not the only effect of squatting. It also relaxes the puborectalis muscle and increases the anorectal angle. This opens the outlet valve and reduces the straining which is responsible for hemorrhoids. The squeezing action of the thighs on the cecum and the sigmoid colon fosters more complete evacuation in the 2 most common locations for colon cancer. --Jonathan108 (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I know. I'm just saying that it's all theory and epidemiology: there are no randomized or case-control or any other trials investigating the usefulness of squatting to prevent hemorrhoids/constipation/bowel cancer/whatever. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Since there's no good research directly on that subject, it is probably better to leave it out of Constipation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Just glancing at the article, I'm a little concerned that some of it borders on WP:NOTHOWTO issues, including what might be seen as medical advice. This possible inclusion is a symptom of what that article could easily become. SDY (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at Jonathan108's edit history should convince all involved that he has one single interest: squat toilets. Which prevent, amongst other things, cancer and the common cold. Sure. JFW | T@lk 22:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a rather limited summary. He also edits articles to promote the connection between wearing a brassiere and getting breast cancer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Alcohol withdrawal syndrome

I just started this very mucn needed page alcohol withdrawal syndrome. If anyone can help add relevant links/categories etc and better still help in the development of this article please join me in helping to develop this page.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist suggestion

Peptic ulcer and Varicose vein have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Posturewriter. It might be helpful to have a few editors keep an eye on them for the next few days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Blood chemistry

What should Blood chemistry redirect to? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Blood test? New article? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
One of the metabolic panels, perhaps? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd redirect to blood myself, but it might actually be an interesting article in its own right (i.e. discussing things like how the body controls concentrations of the things that the BMP tests for). The title "Blood Chemistry" can be used in a straight physiological sense that goes above and beyond medical interests. SDY (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci peer review

Any comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Leonardo da Vinci/archive3 would be most appreciated. It's a vital article, so it would be nice to get as many views as possible. Thanks. Papa November (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

MCOTW

The current Medicine Collaboration of the Week is Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency.
Last week's collaboration was Medicine.

JFW | T@lk 21:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

new category

Hi all, I made a new category - Category:Obsolete medical terms - which I have begun populating. I couldn't see anything like it already...or have I missed something...I did muse on adjective 'Historical' rather than 'obsolete'...all input welcomed. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just added this to Gay-related immune deficiency. -Optigan13 (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Your input requested!

Talk:Opposition to water fluoridation#RfC: Are sections 2 and 3 relevant to this article?. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Stroke

There is an ongoing dispute about the inclusion of arterial venous switching in the Stroke article. Dr. Soomeh has been contacting several project members who have opposed the inclusion. The debate has been conducted at my talk page, JFW's talk page and Soomeh's talkpage. If someone without WP:COI could take a look and comment, that'd be great. —CyclonenimT@lk? 14:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a conflict of interest (Axl). This is Soomeh's contribution to the article:-

The most recent intervention to treat the all forms of Stroke; embolic, thrombotic or hemorrhagic is a new modality under experimental research called "Arterial Venous Switching[1][2][3]. This solution is based on treating acute stroke through cerebral blood flow reversal. The ReviveFlow [4]A/V Switch technology “switches” blood flow between the arterial and venous blood supply systems – providing an “alternative pathway” for oxygenated blood to perfuse the brain during acute stroke. The A/V Switch can re-establish the supply of oxygen rich blood to oxygen starved brain tissue during the critical first hours of acute stroke.

— Soomeh
  1. ^ http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/ia.jsp?ia=US2008/051202
  2. ^ http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2008/0177245.html
  3. ^ http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=mesallum&OS=mesallum&RS=mesallum
  4. ^ http://www.reviveflow.com/SurgicalBoard.html

I found no reliable references for "arterial venous switch" with respect to stroke. In my opinion, this technology is in its infancy. It has not yet demonstrated efficacy. It should not be included in Wikipedia. [And don't dare tell me about "Board certification", or how I need to "read more".] Axl (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Axl. I think the contributor has a conflict of interest and there are no secondary sources. IMHO that completes the discussion. JFW | T@lk 18:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with JFW, but just want to add that given this technology is in the patent stage, it is not an infant, but a gleam in its father's eye. --Una Smith (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Very eloquently put, Una. JFW | T@lk 06:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Glad that's the end of it then. I think I'll consider what WLU has already contemplated and report the user to AIV if this disruption continues. —CyclonenimT@lk? 19:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

PubMed Clinical Q&A

Anyone know about this? Seems pretty useful... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. nice one. PS: Sorry, was a false dawn on clozapine...I have got a little sidetracked (again) :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
No worries :) Happens to all of us... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea what either of you are on about but thanks for the link anyway —CyclonenimT@lk? 00:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Clozapine. Casliber and I were sort of planning an unofficial collaboration to get Clozapine to GA/FA. There's no rush, of course :)Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review

I would highly appreciate if someone took up the task of doing a good article review on hypopituitarism. I've spent a lot of time on that one. In general, GAC has a backlog and everyone's input into any good article candidacy is welcomed. JFW | T@lk 23:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the first half of my review. I'll finish it off tomorrow. Pending no further issues and adequete fixes/explanations of my current points, I'll pass the article. —CyclonenimT@lk? 00:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
There were no further issues. —CyclonenimT@lk? 10:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Help: Low-Carb Diet

I am hoping to find a writing partner for the Low-carbohydrate diet article, specifically somebody with a more formal medical or nutritional background. Currently the references of the article are of non-uniform quality. There are two main reasons for this.

  1. My access to medical texts and journals is limited.
  2. The subject itself is very controversial and finding references that are viewed as authoritative and neutral, and which succinctly summarize the relevant points is difficult in some cases. Most sources that clearly elaborate on a relevant point are doctors who are low-carb advocates and, therefore, are perceived as biased. Most general texts only discuss the relevant physiological details in the context of a much broader discussion. As such it is difficult to cite them (i.e. combining bits and pieces from a whole chapter of a book smacks of "original research").

Any help is appreciated. Mind you, the help does not have to come from a low-carb advocate, only somebody who can be objective about something they might disagree with.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Try Jmh649 (talk · contribs), who has recently done some work on related topics. JFW | T@lk 20:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Breast article picture

My fellow editors and I have a dilemma. The breast article has a picture that some of us want changed (myself included) and several other editors want to keep it. We've reached a deadlock and more input would be appreciated. Thank you. Asarelah (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured topic project

Looking at Featured Topics, there are none to do with science, and none to do with medicine. I'd like to propose a project where we work together to get three or more medical articles (which must be related) up to featured article status so that we can have our first featured topic. Any ideas? —CyclonenimT@lk? 22:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's a few science Featured Topics, such as the Noble gases, the Solar System and all those hurricanes, but I agree that it would be great if there were more! :) It'd be great if we could work more closely together.
For this WikiProject, there's a lot of choices. How about infectious diseases (maybe subdivided into bacterial, viral and eukaryotic parasitic)? There's also cancer, diseases of metabolism, diseases of different organs and physiological systems (e.g., kidney diseases, congenital heart diseases, neurological disorders, etc.). I kind of like the infectious diseases: more colorful, more history, more funky angles, but I'm only one editor.
You might also consider making alliances with other WikiProjects, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. Willow (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Argh. We're having enough trouble keeping up MCOTW! There are some articles of HUGE importance that are just not getting the attention they need (diabetes, stroke, some psychiatry and paediatrics topics). The last think we need now is another diversion... But infectious diseases are interesting, with indeed lots of funky angles, and of major worldwide relevance (and therefore very suitable for major attention on our free encyclopedia with a potentially global readership). Thankfully tuberculosis is FA and malaria a GA. JFW | T@lk 22:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I appreciate it's hard to get everyone motivated to get articles up to FA quality, but you're right, infectious diseases is an area of significant research and diversity, and there's a topic for everyone to enjoy (seeing as infectious diseases span many, many specialties). Remember that a featured topic is 3 or more articles, so one more article on infectious diseases that is FA or GA then we're already at the minimum requirements. I'm all up for doing a project on infectious diseases if others are. I'll post a notice on some of the other WikiProjects tomorrow. Further comments are appreciated. —CyclonenimT@lk? 22:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This could be fun! :) But maybe we should our sights a little higher than the 3-article minimum? We'll have a mycobacterium and a parasite — how about adding one Gram-negative disease (Black Death or cholera?), one Gram-positive (e.g., Staphylococcus aureus), and one viral (smallpox or Ebola)? Plus we might consider bringing up drug resistance and public health, to round out the Topic? Immune system is already FA, too. But I guess we shouldn't get too ambitious. ;) Willow (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Are we talking about doing several subtopics of infectious diseases? That's a little ambitious, it'll take a long time to get one clearly defined set done. Also, the topic is supposed to be quite niché, so perhaps start off doing something like 'bacterial infections' and have a few, such as pneumonia (already FA), tuberculosis (already FA) etc. I agree though it should be more than 3 articles, perhaps 5 or 6? It's a little less ambitious than doing loads of different related topics under infectioius diseases, and it's more likely to be accepted. If we finish this task sucessfully, then maybe we could consider moving on to other subtopics. —CyclonenimT@lk? 23:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, Poliomyelitis has a well defined set of associated articles (Poliovirus, Polio vaccine, Post-polio syndrome, Poliomyelitis eradication, History of poliomyelitis and List of polio survivors). Two of these are already featured (Polio is an FA and List of polio survivors is a featured list). As the primary author of most of these articles, I'd like to think that perhaps most aren't that far off... It has always been my intention to get these article up to FA, and although I haven't had a lot of time to contribute lately I'd love to see polio as a featured topic.--DO11.10 (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the sort of thing I can imagine us doing. It's a clearly defined area, as required by the featured topic guidelines, and it's got a good starting point with two featured quality articles. I'm going to propose a new task force over at the talk page for task forces for a featured topic task force (FTTF?) where we can propose ideas more effectively and not clog up the WP:MED talk page. —CyclonenimT@lk? 13:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
A polio topic was actually the first thing that came to my mind when I read your message. I don't know how much time I'll be able to devote to this, but count me in as an unofficial participant :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The task force proposal has been set up here. Please show your support there if you are willing to participate. —CyclonenimT@lk? 13:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

New policy proposal and draft help

Wikipedia:Scientific standards

I have drafted a new proposal and would like help in clarifying, adjusting, adapting, and improving it. It is based on five years of work here at Wikipedia (not always the prettiest, I might add). I think it summarizes the opinions of a great majority of editors as to how to handle scientific situations. This proposal serves as a nexus between WP:NPOV and WP:RS for cases where we are dealing with observable reality. It is needed because there are a lot of editors who don't seem to understand what entails best-practices when writing a reliable reference work about observable reality. I don't pretend that this version is perfect, and would appreciate any and all additions, suggestions people may have for getting to some well-regarded scientific standards.

Note that these standards would apply only when discussing matters directly related to observable reality. These standards are inspired in part by WP:SPOV but avoid some of the major pitfalls of that particular proposal. In particular, the idea that SPOV even exists is a real problem. However, I think it is undeniable that we should have some standards for writing about scientific topics.

See also WP:SCI for another failed proposal that dovetails with this one. I hope this particular proposal is more in-line with the hole I see in policy/guidelines for dealing with these situations.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this partly in response to "Opposition to water fluoridation"? ;-) In principle, it looks good. Unfortunately the nature of "pseudo-controversial" is likely to be controversial, as proponents of the "fringe" may claim scientific evidence. Would you consider long-term antibiotic use in "chronic Lyme disease" controversial or pseudo-controversial? Axl (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
In part it's a response to that, but it's more in response to all my work over the last few years which involves a lot more than just that article. Yes, the nature of pseudo-controversial is likely to be controversial, but I think a standard of "Does the opposing side acknowledge the controversy exists when publishing within their communities?" is a very stringent one that will make it more clear for people trying to sift through babies and bathwater. So to answer your last question, I do the dishonorable thing of asking a question of my own, do people who object to long-term antibiotic use in "chronic Lyme disease" acknowledge a controversy within the medical community when writing about treatment of Lyme disease? If not, then it is pseudo-controversial. If yes, then it's controversial. Of course, something need not stay pseudo-controversial. For example, what causes stomach ulcers was for years a pseudo-controversy, but burst onto the scene and rapidly went from legitimate controversy to uncontroversial. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Ultimately we'll be citing individual opinions on what is controversial or not. One scientist will say "it is not controversial", another will say it is. Another will do a paper devoted to Many may not acknowledge it in their papers. Others may run whole papers devoted to the topic and conclude that there is a connection, or there is not. Almost all of these controversies have some peer-reviewed papers supporting them. The ones that don't, sure, those are complete pseudocontroversies. Your examples, evolution and global warming, are (based on what I've heard) pseudocontroversies, but as I'm no expert on the subject, I'm hesitant to make that statement. Anyway, I agree that certain things are pseudocontroversial, but we don't need an entire page on that point alone. It's a fine essay, but it's utterly superflous and possibly dangerous as policy. II | (t - c) 01:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_8"