Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 88

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 85 Archive 86 Archive 87 Archive 88 Archive 89 Archive 90 → Archive 95

Osteopathic medicine "task force"

Hi all,

How many in here would favor the creation of an osteopathic medicine task force? I noticed that topics regarding osteopathy are not thoroughly covered on Wikipedia and rather than creating another WikiProject, starting a task force under our existing WikiProject would make more sense. I would appreciate any comments and suggestions. NJ (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments may be left here or on my talk page. Please indicate whether you are in support or against the proposal, as well as your reasoning. NJ (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Probably already covered by the folk at WP:FT/N. No point in creating projects without a good collection of people. Alexbrn (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
There are geographical differences in perception of osteopathic medicine as legit versus WP:FRINGE. Note how the articles osteopathic medicine and osteopathy address quite different training and practice. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 21:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but the American meaning (where it effectively means "MD-like doctor, just with a bit of embarrassing woo in their training") is well covered in our Osteopathic medicine in the United States and Osteopathic medicine in Canada articles. So I assume the OP is talking about the fringe stuff? Perhaps they could clarify. Alexbrn (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Much of what most practice is medicine and thus they are more than welcome to join us here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
US DO in training here, I'd love to join an osteopathy task force, my classmates and I have found lots of content gaps. Now if we have time to work on them is another story... Keilana (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
NJ, I think that Alex is right when he says there's no point in creating a separate page for this unless there's a group of people who want to work together. Step one is forming the group, not making the pages.
That said, if you've found a group, then Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces has some advice on creating the relevant pages. (So far, we've found a lot of enthusiasm for making pages, but only a couple had much conversation (ever) and none remained active for more than a year or two.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Draft at AFC contains medical claims

Please apply your snake-oil detector to Draft:Laser vacuum therapy, thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Was it the sentence that says "Outside Russia, the technique is used only for cosmetic purposes" that made you skeptical of the claims?  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
That statement does rather stick out like a carbuncle - one that needs lancing! I don't have access to any of the cited sources so cannot evaluate them at all. Can I safely decline it for failing MEDRS or would you mind doing the honours. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
AFC isn't a MEDRS enforcement mechanism. Do you think that the procedure is WP:Notable, (even as cosmetic procedure)? If so, then it should be moved to the mainspace (and perhaps tagged for inappropriately sourced medical claims). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Hard to say if it's notable or not. A lot of those references are to publications by the same author (S.V. Moskvin), plus three thesis abstracts...hmm. Not a lot of independent work in the last five years, either. While we don't necessarily demand that drafts be fully MEDRS-compliant before they move to mainspace, it's not unreasonable to ask if any such sources even exist. If this thing is just going to sit in mainspace decorated with a bunch of {refimprove} and {npov} tags for several years before someone gets around to deleting it, we're not doing AFC right.
On a more meta level, if Wikipedia should cover this topic at all, does it actually belong as a short section within a parent article on the bogus Low level laser therapy or the bogus Intermittent vacuum therapy? (The latter article, in particular, needs attention wrt MEDRS and sourcing, by the way.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
At the immediate AFC Review level - what do we do with the draft as it stands? If it is accepted AFC gets beaten up for accepting rubbish, if it's declined we get bashed for being too strict and obstructive. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Of course, because everybody's a critic, and if "I" think you did it wrong, then I won't stop to wonder whether a reasonable person (e.g., you) would have made a different choice. And "I" will spend an hour complaining at you and about you, but I'm certainly too busy to spend ten minutes helping you. We have a stupid and destructive dynamic going on around NPP and AFC.
So, what do you think about TenOfAllTrades's idea of merging it to one of the existing, broader articles? We could move the draft to the mainspace and immediately do a quick-and-dirty merge to make a new section in one of those articles (with the redirect going straight to the relevant section). Someone will eventually (perhaps years from now, but eventually) clean up those articles, and it would get cleaned up in the process, without the editor needing to deal with multiple separate articles. Does that sound like a reasonable plan to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing & TenOfAllTrades It seems to me like a reasonable solution. I will do the acceptance into mainspace, but I don't have the subject expertise to handle the merge, so I will only place a merge tag on it and leave the rest up to whoever... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Chiang Rayleigh Ping-Ying

Does the subject get over the threshold of notability as a medical professional? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's a {{db-g4}} candidate. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Warning templates do not appear on mobile, including for medical articles

A wet floor sign gives notice of a temporary problem.

At Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Make_certain_warning_templates_visible_on_mobile, McGeddon comments that warnings which appear on desktop versions of medical articles do not appear on mobile versions. Since Wikipedia's traffic is about 50% mobile, this user proposes that warnings appear the same on all versions.

If anyone has comments please go to that discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

To clarify: Those aren't "warnings". They're "clean-up tags" and notices about internal processes such as AFD. We have WP:No disclaimers in articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
And IMO most of them shouldn't as it is to hard to fix most of the stuff on mobile. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to support this as long as it concerns issues that are very important for non-editors, such as {{hoax}}, {{medref}}. It should be pretty straight-forward to make these display on mobile actually, al we have to do is use something other than {{ambox}}. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Move request

Hey All. We are having a discussion of which article the term astigmatism should go to. Please join here Made a bold move and was reverted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Roller coasters for kidney stones

A urologist has discovered that patients with kidney stones can have them removed by riding roller coasters.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

That's awesome. It sounds worthy of the Christmas issue of the BMJ.
I doubt that it's useful as a source, but I suppose one might be able to get away with something like "Many different methods for causing stones to pass have been researched, including dietary changes, drinking water,[1] and even riding roller coasters[2]..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Very likely candidate for next years Ig Nobel Prize. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
[3]unusual--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a model, not even a real cohort study. Cruft, do not cite. JFW | T@lk 08:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Neglected tropical diseases major rewrite

@Akweaver32: has left a note on WP Sanitation relating to a major rewrite of NTD. I'm reposting it below as others may be interested. JMWt (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello all, just wanted to let you know that I am going to be starting to edit the article Neglected tropical diseases soon. I am currently working as a part of the Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities class at Rice University. My question is this: Do you have any suggestions for how to reorganize the order? In my opinion, the flow of the article is not great. I am going to be posting my plan soon on my own pages. Thanks! Akweaver32 (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Update: This is the link to the full proposal. https://docs.google.com/a/rice.edu/document/d/1GjMAVcSkGDW2rM1ECM6BoeU8jK46i2HuCsJ60-ZxPjk/edit?usp=sharing Akweaver32 (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for posting! can't access that googledoc Jytdog (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I have to say that I couldn't either but then I also thought that maybe posting here would encourage Akweaver32 to discuss before making a major change. JMWt (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Akweaver32 — This is definitely needed as the first sentence is blatantly false. NTDs include some non-infectious diseases such as podoconiosis, so claiming they are tropical infections is wrong.
As I've done some work on these types of diseases before I would definitely like to help out in any way I can (unfortunately I'm pretty busy right now). If nothing else I could lend a hand with sourcing and review of your work Akweaver32. One good point is that we should try to get the lede to adhere to WP:GLEDE — which would mean that we could get the article translated through the Translation Taskforce. (As for good article/feature article status, it really isn't worth it.)
Best, Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Just FYI, Akweaver32 has some more information about his plans for the page in a sandbox of his userpage: User:Akweaver32/sandbox JMWt (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

All of this help is greatly appreciated. I have shared the google doc with the two users that requested access. Because my google account is through Rice, I am having some trouble with sharing settings. I'll try to approve as quickly as possible. Akweaver32 (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Copying Wikipedia

File:Ecig USB charger.jpg
Electronic cig

A new 2016 review states, "ECs have been listed as drug delivery devices in several countries because they contain nicotine; their advertising has thus been monetarily restricted until safety and efficacy clinical trials are conclusive [62, 63]."[4] The same 2016 review also states, "Their role in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear."[5]

Wikipedia's electronic cigarette page states, "E-cigarettes have been listed as drug delivery devices in several countries because they contain nicotine, and their advertising has been restricted until safety and efficacy clinical trials are conclusive.[218]" A previous version of the electronic cigarette page stated, "their role in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear."[6] What can be done to prevent this from happening again? QuackGuru (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, assuming that sentence in the diff was your original work, and assuming that they did not properly comply with the license, you can register the copyright (US $35) and file a DMCA takedown notice with any site that has copies of the article. Whether three clauses in an entire paper is enough to justify it is a different story.
Alternatively, you (or anyone else) could wikt:name and shame the authors and editors, e.g., on social media.
On the larger question of how to stop things, it'd be nice if academic journals used Turnitin or similar software. They might find it embarrassing to advertise that they use it, but actually ("secretly", if you will) using it should save them from a more public sort of embarrassment. Or, for that matter, a lot of people writing these articles have access to such software via teaching duties, and they might want to start using it themselves, pre-submission. It's easy enough to get mixed up about what's your own notes and what's a sentence you copied from somewhere, or (especially for people with a good memory for words) to just remember something that you read, and sincerely believe that it's your own sentence later. Double-checking your own submission could save you some embarrassment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
The WMF should have steps in place to deal with these type of situations. QuackGuru (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Why? You own the copyright to your work, not them. You are licensing it to the entire world, forever, not (just) to them. WP:DMCA (second paragraph) for a link to a form letter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
This is the WMF's website of their content. They are licensing it worldwide. They should take a little responsible to ensure work is not copied without the proper attribution. QuackGuru (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
No, it's the WMF's website of our (the editors and other contributors) content, and we are licensing it worldwide. The WMF owns the domain name and the trademarks. The WMF does not own or control the content. The creators of that content own it and control it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Technically it is the contributors that are licensing the content, not the WMF. The WMF just runs the platform. You're hitting against the greatest weakness of libre licenses: enforceability. Content owners can send take-down notices to license violators but content owners don't usually have the monetary resources to pursue them if they refuse. It also isn't clear what the monetary damages are since the content is generally free. Since the review is an academic work, name and shame is probably a better strategy since reputations are very important in academia. Sizeofint (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
It would be nice if the WMF developed a formal policy for these issues. Nothing I can do at this point. QuackGuru (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
The final version apparently has not been published yet. You could email the main author (his e-mail address is on the page) [7] and alert them. Sizeofint (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I have come cross 1000s of cases of copyright infringement. I typically only do something about it if 1) the sources is supposed to be of high quality 2) the amount of text copied is significant
The first thing I do is try to get them to attribute us. Many organizations do. Is it just those two sentences? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
There are a few other sentences that are similar. See "Although reliable data are limited, it is clear that e-cigarette emissions are not merely harmless water vapor as is clamed by manufacturers, and they can be a source of indoor air pollution."[8] Our Wikipedia article states "A 2014 review of limited data concluded this vapor can cause indoor air pollution and is not just water vapor as is frequently stated in the advertising of e-cigarettes." The original source states, "Although data are limited, it is clear that e-cigarette emissions are not merely “harmless water vapor,” as is frequently claimed, and can be a source of indoor air pollution."[9] They are not only copying Wikipedia. They are also copying a 2014 review.
The review might have false information See "Likewise, it was also found to release tetramethylpyrazine of which prolonged exposure is suspected to result in brain damage in human beings [23]."[10] Reference 23 is Caponnetto P, Campagna D, Cibella F, Morjaria JB, Caruso M, Russo C, Polosa R. Efficiency and safety of an electronic cigarette (eclat) as tobacco cigarettes substitute: A prospective 12-month randomized control design study. PLOS ONE. 2013;8:e66317.[11] The source they cited does not verify the claim or mention tetramethylpyrazine. I am unable to find a single study on tetramethylpyrazine related to e-cigarettes. QuackGuru (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Public comment is a great way (arguably the "right" way) to deal with this. My preferred tool is Pubmed Commons because it's so visible and durable. One can also write to the journal, though the impact of that will vary with the quality of the journal. I do think it's important to call out problems in the literature, but it must be a dialog - the authors must be able to respond, and we can't expect them to come - so this discussion here and meta-discussions on other sites are limited by the authors' absence. For these reasons, I prefer Pubmed Commons. — soupvector (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I prefer the authors be notified of this discussion rather than publicly discussing them on other websites. The journal can also be informed of this discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • so much drama. i sent an email to the author and the journal's executive editor pointing them to this section and asking them to look at copying from WP and possible issues with regard to tetramethylpyrazine. Jytdog (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
They wrote back and are looking at the issues. I just said thanks and will let it stand there. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I think QuackGuru's idea that authors/journal be notified of this discussion is good. However, this approach should be applied consistently in all other similar situations too. Maybe even as part of our policy.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't that action more or less reflect wp:Mirrors and forks and wp:REUSE, which are pursuant to the wikimedia:Terms of Use? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
WP content is free to use but the license requires attribution - see 7.1. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
This is not just about Wikipedia content. They also copied a 2014 review. The content "Although reliable data are limited, it is clear that e-cigarette emissions are not merely harmless water vapor as is clamed by manufacturers, and they can be a source of indoor air pollution."[12]" is almost identical to content from this review. QuackGuru (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
[13]i wonder if they'll give attribution--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Another good reason not to use secondary sources from low impact journals. Before you know it, we have completed citogenesis. JFW | T@lk 14:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  • User:QuackGuru i am a bit curious - did they change the early mss change at all? Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Note sure. The version I have was from 17 September 2016. The version online currently says "Accepted author version posted online: 16 Sep 2016"[14] The PDF file currently says "Accepted author version posted online: 16 Sep 2016. Published online: 16 Sep 2016."[15] It appears they have not updated the PDF file. Part of the conclusion says "Although reliable data are limited, it is clear that e-cigarette emissions are not merely harmless water vapor as is clamed by manufacturers, and they can be a source of indoor air pollution."[16] A 2014 review says "Although data are limited, it is clear that e-cigarette emissions are not merely “harmless water vapor,” as is frequently claimed, and can be a source of indoor air pollution."[17]
    • They wrote "Their role in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear."[18] I wrote back in November 2014 "their role in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear"[19] QuackGuru (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Female hysteria -- how doctors treated it

Opinions are needed on the following matter Talk:Female hysteria#It turns out that one of the central premises of this article is probably false. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The content concerns whether or not physicians and/or other doctors treated female hysteria by bringing or attempting to bring women to orgasm. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

meta-analyses as "secondary sources"

People who create these:

a) set up a method, and describe that method (set up search criteria, set up exclusion/inclusion criteria, data extraction and analysis methods)
b) gather data to create something that never existed before: the set of data extracted from all included trials (parentheses removed)
c) perform their own analysis on that set of data and get results that never existed before
d) generate their own conclusions based on those results which appear for the first time under their names as authors.
e) the only thing standing between readers and that paper is peer-review - we have no idea if the field will find their work ridiculous, interesting... or great.

This is exactly what happens in research papers; primary sources. This is bothering me. I will grant that papers that include meta-analyses often include literature review material as well, but they key aspect of them is the meta-analysis.

What I think would be reasonable, would be if we called a spade a spade, and identified this as primary, but said that we give them special WEIGHT or something, as we prize evidence is so highly. Hm.

How do folks here think about this? thanks and sorry, i realize this may be perennial Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC) (redacted Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC))

It's tough because in the real-world, I consider meta-analyses to be more reliable than literature reviews, but that's only when I can vet the study collection criteria. We can't do that here as editors though. Literature reviews are instead focusing on summarizing the field without novel conclusions (usually), so that's why I have a slight preference for them on Wikipedia. At the end of the day, it's good for editors to be cautious that both meta-analyses and literature reviews may not adequately include certain parts of the the relevant literature, and try to focus more in previous studies that are discussed by the secondary source. I think it's fine to say a statement like "Most studies reviewed show X." is indeed secondary, but editors should still be aware of the points you brought up. I don't think we can create any hard rule to guide editors through what to do with all that in mind though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Whether a lit review or a meta-analysis is better depends upon what you're writing. A good meta-anaylsis is better than a good lit review for statements about treatment efficacy. A good lit review is better than a meta-analysis for statements about what's done in the real world. And a good textbook trumps them both if the statement is about the names of things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Meta-analyses based on a solid statistical foundation can be more reliable than subjective, statistically uncontrolled, literature reviews like one finds in Cochrane and other sources. I say "can be" because it is of course possible to compromise meta-analyses through bad stats or conflict of interest. Best judged on a case by case basis. For me a good meta-analysis has the edge because it is statistically testing reproducibility of the results rather than just looking for qualitative agreement of conclusions. --Mark viking (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I can see where this is heading, but I think editorial judgement is going to have to be key. I agree with Kingofaces43 that it's the non-systematic reviews that carry the risk of anecdotal evidence, bias, and opinion. A systematic review is a review from the outset, looking at stuff that has already been published and deciding whether the methodology and the results fit into a larger framework of knowledge. The fact that they use (a) is laudable rather than original research as it enhances the quality of the review.
I disagree about (b) - the data was there but it needed to be placed in context, again using systematic review.
I partially agree with (c). Meta-analyses using different methodology will sometimes (but not invariably) get different results. I don't think that invalidates meta-analyses as secondary sources.
Most of the time (d) does not apply because all the authors do is summarise a dichotomy already outlined in the sources reviewed (treatment works/doesn't work).
As for (e), peer review depends largely on the nature of the peer. Good journals employ statistical editors who will actually review the methodology and analyses and will recommend rejection if the quality of the statistics leaves something to be desired. This is actually a reason why we should be ensuring that all secondary sources we use are from journals that explicitly use statistical editors in addition to "peer" reviewers. JFW | T@lk 21:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
There is no one perfect source. Meta analysis can be excellent sources. As can literature reviews, textbooks, and policy statements. Each however can also be not great.
With a meta analysis one comes up with a specific question, than finds all the studies that address that question and synthesize them. They are not doing the data collection themselves but basing the analysis off others research. So a secondary source.
(b) "gather data that never existed before" is not correct. One is collecting data that already exists. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
It's secondary because it's transforming prior work. So Alice and Bob and Chris publish papers on X, and David analyzes those studies, combines their data, and transforms it into something new. Combining, transforming, and analyzing other work are the hallmarks of a secondary source (which can be a WP:NOTGOODSOURCE: bad meta-analyses do happen). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing's logic is sound here, in that meta analyses are "transforming prior work" and therefore obviously classified as secondary sources. As far as WP goes and our articles, another important factor is whether studies have been confined to national data or international data. This is relevant to the generalization of findings. Jfdwolff also makes a good point suggesting we use sources from "journals that explicitly use statistical editors in addition to "peer" reviewers." I'm not sure what others think of this idea but it seems sensible for medical articles.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I find WAID's logic terrible.WAID I hear you on that - a historian reads a bunch of primary sources and comes up with the bigger story that no one ever had before. This is ~kind~ of like that but is really different. The set of gathered data never existed before the authors did their work - that is exactly analogous to doing experiments to generate a dataset that never existed before. the gathered dataset now becomes the object of fresh data analysis, and conclusion drawing. There is a resetting and starting over that a historian doesn't do. This is the magic of data.That dataset is not some pre-existing platonic Thing - the data in it (and left out) is entirely dependent on decisions made by the authors (like experimental decisions made by experimentors). Just the other day I came across two meta-analyses on the same topic that made radically different choices about what studies to include and exclude and of course had different results and came to different conclusions. something about paracetamol i think.. Anyway, that is the point of b) which I have clarified above Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC) (redact, re-aim Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC))
I'm hearing you Jytdog, but I think this ties into Jfdwolff's point. We also need to be mindful of the difference between a Systematic review and meta analyses. Out of the two, a peer reviewed journal published meta analysis, is superior for med articles in IMO, and for a number of reasons.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm puzzled - Jytdog are you saying that historians (and authors of biomedical textbook chapters) aren't selective in what they include in their summaries of the topic they are summarizing/analyzing? That they don't draw conclusions? A well-done meta-analysis is quite explicit and transparent about the criteria for inclusion of studies and datasets, which is a step up from the methods used by most historians and chapter authors. As has been said, there are no ideal sources, and I worry about amplification of publication bias by meta-analyses, but I think your criticism of the latter is specious. — soupvector (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
soupvector I think I remember you saying somewhere that writing review articles gives less prestige for the authors than doing original research, and that you felt that extraordinary primary research with compelling findings would be better to cite in some cases than review articles. I like the rubrics for judging quality here but I still wonder how to judge the sources more deeply. Sometimes I doubt the quality of review articles also but do not know how to articulate the difference from one to another. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
It's true that I have said that from the view of a biomedical researcher, strong primary pubs tend to be a greater asset than a review article or a chapter, in terms of academic promotion at many universities (just look at the structure of the CV format used for promotion - reviews and chapters are not listed up there with primary research). Chapters and reviews that don't follow PRISMA guidance (which is most of them) often display author bias, since they are basically a summary of expert opinion with selected references, and peer review only partially balances those biases (IMHO). I did not intend for those comments on academic currency to be conflated with the sourcing considerations on WP. I have great respect for MEDRS as a tool for WP editors, and the importance of excluding argument from authority by WP editors - I think MEDRS is a very useful guide that avoids problematic value judgments for WP editors (as well as problems of reproducibility to which primary publications are particularly prone). — soupvector (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Meta-analyses are considered the absolute best source for most statements within medicine — but they are nonetheless not perfect. Different protocols may be used when selecting sources, and the authors may be more or less explicit about which their inclusion/exclusion criteria were. At times these are things we need to take into account, and I've seen papers claiming to be meta-analyses or systematic reviews that didn't adhere to any protocol, simply calling themselves something they're not.
However, to the point of the discussion — it really doesn't matter if they are secondary or primary sources — if performed correctly they are the best possible source, which means we should use them as much as possible. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
That is a very big if and is a large part of the point. By calling them "secondary" we pretty much elevate them as a kind of study into the top drawer. I think we need to treat them like the primary sources they are and use them carefully. Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
[20]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
They are in the "top drawer" along with position statements, literature reviews, and major textbooks. They are not primary sources. The same care should be applied as with other "top drawer" sources. E.g. even the Oxford University Press sometimes copies and pastes from Wikipedia while changing the references supporting the content so that their medical textbook is less good than us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The data set the authors create never existed before, they treat that dataset like any researcher does, and the results and conclusions they draw are very much the author's own. In response to me saying this obvious set of facts, The Church of EBM is clamping their hands over their ears and loudly singing the "the meta-analyses are golden" chant. Which is boring, and I am done here. Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Meta analysis when properly done help deal with the issue of publication bias and small N sizes. No one is saying they are perfect / golden or solve all issues in EBM. Science is much messier than that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
of course science is messy. on that you are singing to the choir. what upsets me is the results-driven conclusions written by authors of meta-analyses being given status like a review when in fact they are equivalent to the statements made by authors of a paper describing a clinical trial. We have no idea how the field is going to receive them until we read about them in an actual review. Jytdog (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
But we do – just as much of an idea as we have about how the field is going to receive any individual review, at least. The field has said that these are (generally) wonderful sources of information, and that they're (always) secondary sources.
Perhaps, though, you'd be happier thinking about this instead: User:MastCell is largely responsible for MEDRS' focus on secondary sources, and even he is unhappy with the way it's been turned into "primary always bad, secondary always good" by some editors. A secondary source can be a WP:NOTGOODSOURCE, just like a self-published primary source can be the best possible source (depending, of course, upon what you're trying to write about). The main point to evaluate for a source is whether that source is reliable for that statement. The main point should never be whether that source is "secondary". WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
The dividing line between meta analysis and systematic review is often fuzzy. Meta analyses ideally should be based on systematic reviews (to decide which primary studies to include and how to interpret them) and systematic reviews often contain new meta analyses (as an integral part of the review). Also many of the potential shortcomings of meta analyses could equally apply to systematic reviews. They both draw conclusions from multiple studies and despite best practices it is difficult to completely eliminate subjectivity from those conclusions. Boghog (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
what bugs me is that the authority we give them is because they are epitome of evidence-driven conclusions, supposedly. but (sorry to beat this to death) those very conclusions are exactly what are brand new, and primary. if I were GodKing of WP we would treat meta-analyses like primary sources and wait for reviews that discuss them and contextualize them, just like we wait to see how the field treats any new finding that emerges. it is really obvious that is not going to happen. Jytdog (talk) 10:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Whether the meta analysis pulls in unpublished sources often affects the quality as one of the big issues is publication bias. Some meta analysis address this well others do not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Technically, if all the data used in the meta-analysis is readily available (which normally should be the case), it wouldn't be hard to verify the validity of the statistical model (assuming a meta-regression is used, I imagine that this could be done by most college graduates who have studied statistics or econometrics; I learned the fixed/mixed/random effects models in a 2nd semester econometrics course during my junior year), check/reproduce the data analysis (this is simple, provided that one has access to a statistical data analysis program that has these linear regression models hard-coded in the software, like Stata), and confirm that the statistical inference is accurate (anyone who can determine whether the use of a particular regression model for a given data set is valid can probably do this very easily). That's basically all the "new stuff" in a meta-analysis, and so long as the data is available, checking that this is correct isn't really any different than checking to see whether a claim cited by a given source is supported by that source. Unlike primary sources, meta-analyses don't generate new data sets; they use a collection of old output data to generate new/stronger statistical inference, similar to how reviews use a collection of old inference from that output data to draw a new/stronger conclusion (i.e., new inference). The methodology used in a meta-analysis and a review may be different (i.e., a quantitative vs qualitative approach), but the end result is basically the same: they both synthesize old/existing research to draw a new conclusion.

As for the challenges that arise with determining the right study selection criteria in a meta-analysis, systematic reviews face exactly the same issue. So, in a nutshell, I don't think there's really any difference between a meta-analysis and a systematic review besides the methodology that each uses for drawing a new, "stronger" conclusion using older studies. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

well said(part of what I indicated per [21] above)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Assisted suicide article

There have been big recent edits made to Assisted suicide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and I am noting the matter here for review. The article looks like it needs trimming. But then again, it also has a lot of unnecessary subheadings, which make the article look gigantic from the table of contents. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like it's about 86,000 bytes and 8900 words at the moment. It's definitely not a stub, but it's still smaller than this page.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction versus Tommy John surgery

IMO the technical name is better than the eponymous name. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

[22]...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Analogous to ALS vs. Lou Gehrig's disease. The technical name is accurately descriptive, although sports and public media – and possibly the majority of WP users – refer mostly to TJ surgery. Redirect situation. --Zefr (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
"Majority of WP users" - in one country perhaps, but not elsewhere in the world. I have no idea who Tommy John is. In general these cases where there's a culture-specific common name should try to use a name that makes sense to the whole English-speaking world, from the Falkland Islands to India. That doesn't necessarily rule out common names altogether, but they have to be global ones. Le Deluge (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
If Tommy John was the WP:COMMONNAME, as claimed on the move log at UCL reconstruction[23], shouldn't it be the first bold term in the lead? (Rather than as an aka.)Additionally, and for what it's worth, the term Tommy John surgery isn't listed in the eponyms section of the UK's procedural classification, OPCS-4. 12:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't really tell you much, as the convention is for the first bold term = pagename regardless of actual usage. OPCS-4 is far more relevant - on a separate note, I guess all eponyms in there should be set up as redirects.... Le Deluge (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Zefr, User:Ozzie10aaaa, User:Le Deluge Started move request [24] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what we should do about this if anything

80% of data in Chinese clinical trials have been fabricated Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

some reviews may have used clinical trials from [25]...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

So far there seems to be no indication which studies are implicated — other than it seems to be for drugs targeting the Chinese market (which we don't cover very much). We'll have to see how this unfolds… Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

  • 80% seems a high enough % to put a hold on using Chinese studies for drugs in the Chinese market. I cant imagine that is a particularly high number of articles. Is there a list somewhere? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • AllTrials and Sense about Science are sort of friends of Wikipedia, but we have not connected entirely. They advocate for the registration of all clinical trials and the reporting of all data. If that ever happened, then Wikipedia's coverage of clinical trials could improve and citations could connect better to information about researchers.
Seemingly respectable studies can have really sleazy research around it that is instantly apparent when basic study metadata is available. Like for example, a lot of drug research that happens in the West also happens in China, and with metadata, the comparable studies in both places can be linked. Something unusual about China is that it will not approve any drug without locally conducted research. Other countries do not demand that, and for example the United States might accept German research in approving a drug.
Wikipedia should want more information about studies cited. The first steps for this are support for Wikidata, meta:WikiCite, and partner organizations which are demanding better quality publication in science research. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Strongly disagree that WP should get involved with collecting data from clinical trials. With regard to "locally conducted" clinical trials, every regulatory authority demands clinical trial data from subjects who represent the population to which the drug will be marketed. If you run a Ph III clinical trial in china and want to submit only that in your NDA to the FDA, it will be rejected unless you are seeking to market your drug only to Chinese.. maybe to other asians as well... people in the US. This is based on a recognition that different "races" sometimes metabolize drugs differently (as do people of ages, sexes, etc) Weird area of regulatory law. I don't know how different Chinese are from other asians, in terms of drug metabolism. Might just be protectionism but it isn't wholly without basis in science and what other regulatory agencies do Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree. WP should not be involved in collecting data about clinical trials with current technology. Without a technological miracle it would be beyond what humans could manage. Perhaps someday with Wikidata in a different world but not in the foreseeable future. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

For now lets just keep a heads up that specific studies may become implicated — and if anyone comes across such critique they can post here so that we can see whether this impacts any of our articles. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

"Collecting data": of course not, but "citing reports": yes, in spades. ClinicalTrials.gov is widely used to reflect a sense of what is being researched, yet the propensity to not publish negative results (as is visible there) remains is a real problem. If AllTrials can help fix that, we ought to be very supportive. WP is not engaged in distributing the "sum of all profitable knowledge". Whether "Big Pharma" or "Big Homeopathy" runs the trial, the negative results should come out too. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

New Medtronic device MiniMed 670G - first closed loop insulin pump

New article. Given Medtronic's history in WP more eyes would be great. I intend to flesh out this stub which is about a pretty exciting innovation. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Redirected to generic insulin pump Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Morgellons

I just carefully read our Morgellons article for the first time, and it is (in my view) embarrassingly badly sourced. I started to work on fixing it but as i worked i realized that I was turning the article into a duplicate of Delusional parasitosis and the reason for that is obvious - MEDRS sources treat it that way. So I stopped.

I think we should merge it into Delusional parasitosis and i wonder why that was not done already. Most of the "Morgellons" stuff would end up in the Society and Culture section of Delusional parasitosis, which is currently terrible (a list of TV mentions of Delusional parasitosis). I didn't find any discussion of that in the Morgellons' extensive Talk archive. Am considering starting a merge discussion at its Talk page but before I did, just wanted to get folks' thoughts on whether that is a stupid idea. Jytdog (talk) 06:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

A very interesting topic, I wonder if people have seen these photo galleries of what people believe is Morgellons? "Delusional parasitosis" seems maybe what most people think it is now, but should wikipedia reflect only public mainstream opinion? Even if it may be proven wrong in the future? Or at least lend some credibility to what many people are reporting? Which may actually really be something significant and worth investigating?
http://morgellonsdiseaseawareness.com/physicians_reference_guide
http://morgellonsdiseaseawareness.com/morgellons_photo_galleries/misc_plus_morg_artifacts
Probrooks (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Q: "should wikipedia reflect only public mainstream opinion? Even if it may be proven wrong in the future?"
A: Yes. See WP:NPOV, especially the parts about "tiny minority" viewpoints. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Its a conflict between MEDRS and general coverage of Morgellons. Numerous reliable sources cover 'Morgellons' however almost all the MEDRS coverage of it diagnose it as delusional parasitosis. Morgellons should not be merged, but any medical claims should be clearly pointed at DP. There is a whole article on the psychology of Morgellon's 'sufferers' out there waiting to be written. It might be worth just altering the scope of the article. Concentrate on its status as a notable non-existant condition, rather than treating it as an actual one. Its badly sourced from a medical diagnosis standpoint, if you want an article on how multiple people can suffer the same delusion, there are plenty. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Morgellons is a phenomenon and a story in itself, while also being a forum of delusional parasitosis. Two Wikipedia articles linking to each other seems appropriate to me. Some of the Morgellons article is going to be about the history of Morgellons, where standard RS criteria may fit better than MEDRS criteria. Some of the Morgellons article is going to be about the psychology of Morgellons, where MEDRS applies, but we're going to have to rely more on primary sources probably. Bondegezou (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Bondegezou no. Opening biomedical information in that article to be sourced from whatever primary sources are around is a recipe for disaster on that article. No and hell no. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Am I correct that this is the largest study on Morgellons that was carried out by the CDC?
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029908
It is worth reading for sure, and I was surprised this study only used the term "delusional parasitosis" once, and indeed the title "Clinical, Epidemiologic, Histopathologic and Molecular Features of an Unexplained Dermopathy" should tell you that the purely scientific view is more open ended, and less prone to conclusion than the present wikipedia article may suggest.
I was also surprised by what they found in people in the study. The conclusion appears to be that this disease is more unexplained and more a mystery than the present wikipedia suggests, therefore shouldn't its wording reflect that as well?
Probrooks (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I believe that "poorly characterized constellation of symptoms" (in the opening line) translates into plain English as "Morgellons isn't a recognized disease, with proper diagnostic criteria; it's just whatever any person claims it is".
Also, the study's report is a bit of an exercise in explaining that these people have something else (i.e., not some mysterious skin condition that can be diagnosed via a text description in an internet forum by anyone who has read a few advocacy websites, but not by trained dermatologists with access to laboratory equipment and the ability to look at the skin in person). It reports that more than half have dementia or related conditions, half are drug users (according to hair analysis), half have photoaging damage to their skin (according to skin biopsy), and most of them have signs of flea/mosquito/lice bites or chronic scratching. Something like dementia plus scratching could pretty easily explain why someone might go to the doctor to ask why this bit of lint is growing out of a scratch, instead of picking the lint off and deciding whether I ought to put a bandage on it.
I believe that the last sentence, "No common underlying medical condition or infectious source was identified, similar to more commonly recognized conditions such as delusional infestation", means "Yup, it's probably delusional infestation for most of these people" (and maybe worried well[26] for some). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm more than a little concerned about your simplification of this scientific study, which is actually completely inaccurate. You say "It reports that more than half have dementia or related conditions"
When the study DOES NOT use the word "dementia"!!!
"On cognitive testing, 59% (23/39) case-patients demonstrated impairment in at least one domain; attention (18%) and memory (16%) were the most common areas of impairment."
You say "half are drug users (according to hair analysis)", yes and that includes all drugs, not recreational drugs, but pharmaceutical difference. BIG DIFFERENCE!
It is not wikipedias job to interpret primary sources in a subjective way, which is what you are doing here.
Probrooks (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Hair analysis doesn't look for "all" drugs. It typically looks for cocaine, marijuana, opiates (e.g., heroin and Vicodin), meth, and PCP (generally during the last three months). A positive test for opiates could be triggered by prescription drugs, but as I understand it, even if we assumed that every single positive test were due strictly to properly prescribed opiates, this would still be more than an order of magnitude larger than typical rates. (In reality, I'd expect many, if not most, of the positive tests to probably due to marijuana use.)
NB that I said "dementia and related conditions". A certain percentage of amnestic cognitive impairment (=memory problems) would not be unexpected in a group with a median age of 50, and it's a fairly reliable predictor of Alzheimer's (the most common form of dementia). But you are right that it may not actually be memory and attention problems due to dementing conditions in all cases; people with plain old mood disorders show similar problems with memory and attention (aka "it's hard to focus on the test when you're distracted by anxiety"). Psychological problems is probably the most plausible explanation for the younger people with memory and attention issues. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Probooks yes that is the CDC study; while it is primary but would be OK to use since it comes from CDC ... even though it is primary and so must be used carefully. I would for example quote this from it: "The fibers and materials collected from case-patients' skin were largely consistent with skin fragments or materials such as cotton and were either entrapped in purulent crust or scabs, suggesting the materials were from environmental sources (e.g., clothing) or possibly artifacts introduced at the time of specimen collection and processing....We also did not find a pattern of clinical or epidemiologic abnormality that suggested any specific infectious etiology and, where data were available, the prevalence of specific parasitic infections in our population was no higher than that found in larger population-based studies." The study found no basis whatsoever for the claim that there is actually some kind of infestation. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely, and that is not a surprise, given that it exists solely because one woman refused to accept the medical diagnosis for her child's symptoms and set out instead to come up with something that was less hurtful to her feels. As with "chronic Lyme", it's a fake diagnosis that allows quacks to prey on the vulnerable, and also allows people to feel they control and ownership when medicine really has nothing for them (or at least nothing they will accept). I don't think we can say that it's always DP though. The evidence doesn't say that, it says that Morgellons is not a distinct condition, and it definitely says that some of the self-diagnosed Morgellons patients have DP, but it's entirely possible, given the grab bag of symptoms, that almost anybody could decide tyhey have Morgellons, especially if they don't like the idea of what they actually do have. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I am looking forward to hearing from experienced WP:MED editors who have actually looked at what we present as biomedical information in the Morgellons article and how it is sourced. WAID as you well know "Mainstream public opinion" is not biomedical information and my comments here are focused on biomedical information about Morgellons found in MEDRS sources. Again, if we are to have the typical MEDMOS sections, they 'will exactly replicate the Delusional parasitosis article and that makes no sense. It's just a WP:DUPLICATE; i do not think we can have the Morgellons article without discussing biomedical information, so.... the article should not exist separately. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The problem with this article is that the CDC took a very long time to conduct its investigation, during which time we were obliged by tireless advocacy to at least be open to the possibility that Morgellons is a real condition. We now know that it is not: everybody who has "Morgellons" actually has either a delusional disorder or some other condition. The symptoms are hopelessly vague and nonspecific, there are no diagnostic criteria, and the scientific consensus is that Morgellons does not represent an actual distinct condition. At this point it is quite reasonable to severely prune the article. I don't think we could delete it: yes it's bollocks, but it's notable bollocks as evidenced by the amount of independent coverage and the years-long CDC investigation. What we will not do is give in to the ever-morphing world of woo, with its incessant bait and switch. Morgellons refuted? Here, have a diagnosis of "chronic Lyme" instead! Never mind that there's no evidence it's anything to do with borrelia, we can give you long term antibiotics and get the law changed to stop this quackery being controlled by the medical boards, because legislators are experts in a way that medical boards are not. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
The CDC article uses very careful and open ended wording it seems to me. It is far from conclusively concluding Morgellons is a "delusional disorder", but it is worded in such a way that you could think it was such if that is your desire. OR if you were to read it without necessarily believing it was a delusional disorder, you could be open to seeing it was a mystery.
Also, the CDC is not one person, this article was written by many people, "The Unexplained Dermatology Team" is what they call themselves. 13 people to be precise. We cannot be sure they all had the same views on this matter.
"The x-files people" may say something like, "oh, they were forced to say what they said, because the plastic fibres comes from the nanobots in the chemtrails" etc. Needless to say, it would be interesting to talk to people in that team and ask them why it took them 3 years to study only 100 people and come up with an inconclusive conclusion? One inconclusive scientific study of a small sample size does not truth set in stone make. That is where we get into "appeal to authority" territory.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
Probrooks (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
You do not appear to understand the nature of the fallacious argument from authority. If I were to say "Morgellons is real because Dr. Oz says so" then that would be a fallacious appeal to authority. Here, we have a years-long investigation which finds no evidence that Morgellons is a condition distinct from already known conditions, specifically including delusional parasitosis, conducted by a body charged with exactly this kind of work and published by them as an official document. That's not an appeal to authority, that is an entirely appropriate reference to the body of scientific knowledge. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is an entirely appropriate reference, but it is not the only scientific study on this matter, and some other studies have shown more concrete evidence for Morgellons, but because it is the CDC this study is being highlighed as being more important or somehow definitive. This study User:Robert Walker referenced is of 122 people, which is still quite small, but I think it is worth reading.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3047951/
And this study seems more thorough, reporting people's symptoms and is less confusing to read. They are clearly saying "it is a thing". So do we just ignore them? and only take onboard what the CDC said, because they are the CDC?
Probrooks (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Biomedical information needs to be sourced per MEDRS. There are many reasons why we use reviews or statements by major scientific/bodies for biomedical content instead of primary sources. If you don't understand why we do that, please see the essay (which I started) WP:Why MEDRS? Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Jytdog, I explained myself poorly. I am not suggesting biomedical information in the Morgellons article should be "sourced from whatever primary sources are around". My point is that Morgellons is a social phenomenon: the Morgellons article should talk about the social history of the condition, how it was "discovered" and how it was popularised. How did one case of delusional parasitosis become the focus of so much media and patient attention and a years-long CDC investigation? The citations for that aren't going to be systematic reviews. As User:JzG says, "yes it's bollocks, but it's notable bollocks". To cover how it's "notable bollocks" requires looking to a broader literature with different epistemological perspectives. Bondegezou (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense, and could happen in the Society and Culture section in the Morgellons article, or merged into the delusional parasitosis article. I have taken care of the thing I was most concerned about which was how to handle the biomedical information in the existing article. Jytdog (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
might be best to place in Society and Culture section--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Research on the future of refs

The monthly m:Wikimedia Foundation metrics and activities meetings meeting is underway now. You can see the recording on YouTube here. At the moment, Dario (the data guy) is talking about the future of references for Wikipedia. If you're interested in things like being able to store citations in Wikidata, then you may want to see his presentation. The first half hour is mostly about fundraising, so you can skip to approximately the 30-minute mark to find Dario. (There's a shoutout for James Hare's work with NIOSH, too.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks WAID. Yes a number of us have been looking at getting references into Wikidata and how that would mesh with Wikipedia for a few years. Glad to hear there is movement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Can't watch YouTube from my work PC, but we basically need a repository of reference data, possibly with the DOI as a unique identifier. Hell, we could even get DOIs for WikiData entries themselves! JFW | T@lk 08:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, in theory you could have a DOI for those WD entries as of a certain time, but each edit to the entry would need a new DOI. Is there any additional value beyond the persistent URI that is already available? Anyhow, this really isn't the right venue for this discussion. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Recreational drug experiences

is classed as a GA. It's obviously got some serious sourcing problems for its medical content which need correcting, but more generally I wonder about the first hand accounts of "trips" experienced when using the drug. Are such accounts covered by MEDRS, or not? Alexbrn (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a tough question. In some cases a description of a trip could be biographical/historical content (e.g. Albert Hofmann's account of discovering the effects of LSD). On the other hand saying this drug will have this effect I think is biomedical content. Sizeofint (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Sizeofint - the subjective nature of a "trip" (i.e., an individual's firsthand experience) probably would only require WP:RS since drug-induced hallucinations are entirely subjective in nature (I can't imagine that drug-induced hallucinations can be well-characterized objectively); however, stating that a substance can induce hallucinations or causes a "trip" as a side effect requires WP:MEDRS. IMO, notability is the bigger issue in relation to covering an individual's firsthand experience with a substance. The article definitely needs better medical sourcing though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge suggestion: holistic health into integrative medicine

More voices needed: Talk:Integrative_medicine#Proposed_merger_with_Holistic_health. Thanks! Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Please prepare requests for Wikimedia Foundation technical development

In November the Wikimedia Foundation will begin receiving proposals for the meta:2016 Community Wishlist Survey. In the first part of the project, anyone submits ideas for software features which they would like WMF staff to provide. In the second part at the end of November, anyone may vote on the most desirable features. Then for the next year there is paid staff investment from the WMF in providing those features.

In the meta:2015 Community Wishlist Survey some features were proposed and provided which the WMF would never have provided otherwise. I see this program as a great way for the Wikimedia editing community to make requests for features and have the most popular proposals be serious targets for staff and financial investment of Wikimedia money.

I hope that WikiProject Medicine members participate in this process. It would be nice if a proposal could come from this board, and also, if members of this board could review and select proposals when the voting period starts. As of now, I am not aware of anyone anywhere who is preparing a proposal, so I am not sure what anyone will submit. If anyone has an idea, feel free to list it here on this board for early workshopping before the November opening of submissions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

So disclaimer first: This isn't my project, although one of my teammates runs the vote.
Last year was the first time they did this. Mostly everyone was happy with it. However, there are a couple of issues that some people would like to see addressed. One is that, with a strict "democratic vote" approach, the English Wikipedia editors can and will outvote all other 600+ wikis. As a result, people are hoping to get attention on requests that will improve Commons and Wikisource (to name two examples I've heard). Consequently, there's a chance that a project that benefits other wikis more than the English Wikipedia will get prioritized above its "vote". So if your goal works for everyone, or improves cross-wiki collaboration, then I recommend calling that out.
The other advice I'd give is to make sure that your project is "small". Big projects will be rejected (passed off to a more relevant team, which may or may not be interested). "Big" is defined by the team, and it depends upon what else gets chosen, but I think you can safely assume that anything over six man-months will be rejected out of hand by Community Tech, and anything over three will be dubious.
In terms of winning the vote: Be the first in the list. It's based on approval voting, and people tend to read, and therefore to vote, more for stuff at the top of the page. I've previously suggested that they randomize the options (e.g., change it every day), but I've heard of no plans to do that. So be prepared. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yay, lets vote for supporting DICOM-files. We could get so many donations! (Will write a proper proposal with link to technical details later.)Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
CFCF That sounds awesome. Following meta:Wikilegal/Copyright of X-ray Images, it seems like most medical images are not eligible for copyright and can be uploaded to Commons as public domain media. I see in the DICOM article the claim is made that this is a proprietary technical standard. Although Commons can accept the media, if we accepted those images and the metadata, we would need a converter to remove the DICOM media container if in fact it is a protected standard. At Commons:Commons:Requests for comment/MP4 Video this issue was recently addressed when the Wikimedia community confirmed that the popular proprietary mp4 video standard was not welcome in Wikimedia projects due to it being closed rather than open. I have questions about whether this project is legally possible, but if it is, it would be a coup to suddenly gain access to the ocean of medical images in the public domain.
support daikon and DICOM for Wikipedia contributors
Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I think we could pull of an exception — as there are NO other alternatives. Much like JPEG, DICOM is a ISO-standard which we cannot avoid. Without reading the arguments in the MP4 discussion, I think an essential detail there is that an alternative exists that is (nearly) equally good.
Also there are a number of open source projects that we could just build off:
Getting this support on Wikipedia and Commons could have a really big impact on how many doctors wanted to work on Wikipedia — it would show that we're really interested in supporting their needs.
P.S. Of course it also needs a function to strip all DICOM metadata (such as patient-ID) etc. like http://www.dicomlibrary.com/ does.
Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Sharing of medical imaging is tricky. For example, the human face can be recognized from 3D reconstruction using brain (head) MRI images. While there are candidate algorithms for de-identification, standards have not been established. As a clinician, I would not share head imaging (my first duty is to my patients). WPMED might want to develop some guidance on this. — soupvector (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
One just needs to get written consent if the person identifiable. Most people are excited to help other who may have something similar to them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I think that just being able to upload the files would be easy (on the technical side; on the social side, to upload them at Commons rather than locally, you'd have to convince the Commons community to permit a non-free file format, and I'm dubious about their willingness to permit that even though there are no free alternatives).
Beyond "just uploading", that could turn into a rather big project – or not, depending upon the details. Please post here when you've got your proposal sorted out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

We need captions working for videos. And we need videos how we treat videos changed for offline dumps. Ie this fixed [27] Our offline medical mobile apps are getting nearly a thousand downloads a day but cannot play video because of it. Osmosis has created more than 120 videos for us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

[28]apparently not yet --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Nevada State Medical Association - President's Award

What is the President's Award? History, purpose, criteria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.69.187.162 (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

should the article not address your question you therefore might need to add reference--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

articles related to Ageing

An editor, User:Plmokg22345, is replacing secondary sources with primary sources; just erases RSPlease and other notes on their talk page.

They keep making edits like this, replacing secondary sources with low quality primary sources, and revising the content based on the primary source.

They seem to want to be helpful and make some OK edits like this, so it would be better if others helped teach them, rather than me going to a drama board. Would be great to have more eyes on:

Thx Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: as stated on my talk page people the chat stated it was a secondary source and looked it over myself and came to that conclusion too. The source https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291337500_The_Aging_Male_Testofen_a_specialised_Trigonella_foenum-graecum_seed_extract_reduces_age-related_symptoms_of_androgen_decrease_increases_testosterone_levels_and_improves_sexual_function_in_healthy_agi is better suited there than https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000722.htm.
the same for the refs on the ageing article https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3746220/
I had check and was stated to be secondary and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25484268 was stated in the abstract and conclusion to be secondary as well.
I also did not replace any source on the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hypogonadism&diff=743202216&oldid=741724233 page I added one alongside the existing source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plmokg22345 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
translating that for folks here. Plmokg22345 is saying he asked folks at the chat help service to evaluate if PMID 26791805 is primary or secondary and they apparently told him it is secondary; I don't know how to access the IRC history so cannot see what was asked or told but in any case it is clearly primary per MEDRS. (I've explained MEDRS to Plmokg22345 several times to no avail) Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
@Plmokg22345:its primary (should follow MEDFRS)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: the user NotASpy on the chat help said in this context it is a secondary source I am more inclined to believe people there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plmokg22345 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 8 October 2016(UTC)

User:Nick/User:NotASpy would you please clarify? Per MEDRS, PMID 26791805 is very much a primary source. As you can see above, Plmokg22345 is replacing content sourced from secondary sources with content sourced to primary sources, which goes directly against WP:MEDREV which says "Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering any conclusions made by secondary sources". This is classic poor editing based on a refusal to learn how to classify sources per MEDRS. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, from the IRC help. @Jytdog: PMID 26791805 is absolutly, without a doubt in my mind, a primary source. The only source I said was okay was PMID 4190174. Looking back, PMID 4190174 is not a secondary source, and I got it mixed up with another article Plmokg22345 had linked, [29], which appears to be a secondary source. Sorry for the confusion. I don't know what NotASpy had said overnight, as I was away. (Note: There is no "IRC history," as the -en-help channel has a policy of no public logging.) -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 19:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that, and the "no history" explanation. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
btw User:AntiCompositeNumber. this PloS article is a primary source - it says "research article" right at the top. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I think it's a case of crossed wires for me too. I thought I knew what it is they're trying to do, but they're on IRC right now, and they've just given a different explanation, they are now talking about trying to replace a primary source they've identified with a secondary source. I'm desperately trying to get to the bottom of the situation but to be honest, I don't have great confidence that Plmokg22345 really knows what they're doing. Nick (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks User:Nick. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
It may be helpful to give the good-faith-but-inexpert people on IRC a link to MEDRS and to WP:USEPRIMARY. Or even to WP:Secondary does not mean independent, since I suspect that's their actual error (since it is a very common one). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
overly complicated. The definitions in MEDRS are clear. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, we tried (to make the definitions in MEDRS clear). But this is a very complicated topic for most editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure who you're thinking about when you use the phrase "good-faith-but-inexpert people on IRC" but regardless, I can assure you Plmokg22345 has been given links to the required reading material you have linked above, they claim to have read it, and in any case it has been explained, in some considerable detail, and at some length, by a number of editors who I would hesitate to describe as 'inexpert'. The fundamental problem is the IRC volunteers have yet to reach a clear understanding with Plmokg22345 what it is they're trying to do. They've variously told me that they wanted to replace primary sources with newly identified secondary sources, that they wanted to remove old sources and bring in new sources, that they wanted to remove pay-walled sources or that they've felt one source is 'better' than another source. Nick (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
me neither, Nick. Thanks very much for helping; there is improvement since the interaction you had with them. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Nick, at the risk of providing clarity rather than friendly feelings, I suspect that 100% of the editors on IRC qualify as "good faith but inexpert" on the specific and rather esoteric question of how to evaluate and classify medical journal articles. It's not an easy thing to do. Even healthcare professionals who have been talking about it on wiki for the last decade still screw up on occasion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Farmacotherapeutisch Kompas - MEDRS?

Farmacotherapeutisch Kompas. My attention was called to it by this dif by User: TaalVerbeteraar. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

not MEDRSWikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)...IMO(maybe [30])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Looks like an online book from a Dutch place. User:Jfdwolff, what can you tell us about it?  ::Also, the content looks correct. MEDRS is a means to an end, not an end in itself.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
It's the Dutch national drug database. Government-sanctioned and evidence-based. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for replyning, Taal. Is there some reliable source that describes the relationship with the government? (we want our claims about sources to be evidence-based too!) Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, the top of the cited webpage, for one thing. The "care institute" (nl:Zorginstituut Nederland) is a Dutch government agency. nl:Farmacotherapeutisch Kompas provides a description of the online book (although no independent sources). I don't know much about it, but it appears to be similar to the UK's NICE. We have a few Dutch editors; perhaps User:Debresser could tell us more about the agency (and maybe even help us find a few sources to create an article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
What is the question precisely? Debresser (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The diff above[31] is a correct translation of the Dutch material. The website is definitely a reliable source, see the large list of experts on the redaction. The website is managed by the Zorginstituut Nederland, which advises the Dutch government on issues related to medical insurance. Debresser (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Is this a MEDRS source, on par with say the electronic Medicines Compendium in the UK or NICE in the UK or is this just some company or nonprofit and spammy? It appears legit but am looking for confirmation; might be very useful it is OK.. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
It is the Dutch national formulary, equivalent to the BNF in the UK. Whether it requires an article on the English Wikipedia is moot. Is there a precedent? There's nothing particularly special about it compared to other national formularies. JFW | T@lk 08:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The forumlary itself should be listed at Formulary (pharmacy)#National formulary. The institute itself will certainly be notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
We already have an article on it: Farmacotherapeutisch Kompas. --WS (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be a top-quality source, and while we prefer English sources there is nothing that prohibits its use (as long as the editor can provide translations of the text upon request, see WP:Citingsources). Thanks for the good work TaalVerbeteraar! Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Vitamin B12

Would anyone be willing to take a look at this article, specifically the Vitamin B12#Interactions section? A new editor at Talk:Vitamin B12 is pushing for some changes. The article, and that section in particular, has a large amount of unsourced content so the editor is probably correct that changes should be made. Sizeofint (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Zefr excised most of it. Thanks! Sizeofint (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Issues at Medical uses of silver#Colloidal silver

Colloidal Silver

Having some issues where clear facts are being removed in favor of psuedoscience. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

will keep eye on[32]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
me too Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
they switched ips[33]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Grant notification Kiwix/Wikimed app

Hi people,

The Kiwix team is making a grant proposal to help improve the Wikimed app: endorsements can be made here.

In the works: better video support, expandable images, and better indexing (meaning better search)! Stephane (Kiwix) (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks User:Stephane (Kiwix). And we have some significant upgrades in need of being made. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Fringe science in a fringe article

This isn't really related, but this really is the best place to find people who know anything about evolutionary biology. From Sex differences in humans there is a talk page note about: Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex

There are serious issues with that article, if anyone would take some time to look at them that would be very helpful. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Needs some more criticism in the lead section, I believe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Low level laser therapy 2

Gotta situation here. Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


need opinions(gave mine/article is protected[34])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Please vet change from in vivo to in vitro on Histone deacetylase inhibitor article

Someone please vet this this change to Histone deacetylase inhibitor. I am not astute enough to figure out what is appropriate, & although I am sure I could eventually figure it out, I figure it is more efficient to let someone with more expertise do it so I can get back to other page patrol activities.

Please let me know here what the proper term is for that context.

Peaceray (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems like in vitro is correct. They are working on isolated cells in tanks, not on a living body. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks! Peaceray (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Alcosynth

Unable to find any reliable refs. So proded. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

[35] nothing--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
A passing mention here. Sizeofint (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Nothing that discusses the stuff independent of the person. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Norepinephrine antagonist

created, now provide data for article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minimobiler (talk • contribs) 10:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The article already exists under a different name. Norepinephrine binds to adrenergic receptors, hence a norepinephrine antagonist is synonymous to an adrenergic antagonist. Boghog (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
[36] BTW what do you mean by created?..is there something you would like to add?[37]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
The artcile was created and then speedily deleted because it had little content. Per above, I have created a redirect from norepinephrine antagonist to adrenergic antagonist. Boghog (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Global burden of disease

Updated to 2015 [38] just when we had finally updating it all to 2013. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

fresh data[39]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Making something out of a copyrightvio...

I noticed one of my images on the WikiCommons in a medical textbook a little while back, and I noted it was there in violation of its copyright.

I talked with one of the authors about it and proposed the remedy of them uploading content to the WikiCommons as a remedy -- and they were agreeable. I think this may be a way to raise awareness about how Wikipedia works... and while I think it may not work in all circumstances, I think it is worth considering as a remedy. I don't think it is important to spell-out the details here -- but I will say that Doc James helped a good deal on this -- and kudos go to him. The result is WP has some new images. :0) Nephron  T|C 19:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Nephron I like that as a process and plan to use it going forwards :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Amazing and positive outcome! An equitable exchange to the mutual benefit of all involved! Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

List of neurofibromatosis clinics

What do you think about this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory (having said that, perhaps the EL of Neurofibromatosis could be useful for some [2 or 3] of them?)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
BTW, apparently [40] may apply to this as well... List_of_neurofibromatosis_charities??--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
These links look like they would be good on DMOZ Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Ice bath

Could probably use eyes - after a heavy trim (by me) there's some discussion about sourcing and verification, and currently primary sources are sneaking back into the text. More generally could some (all) of this be merged to Cryotherapy? Alexbrn (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources aren't banned completely, and some of those news-media-type sources are actually secondary (perhaps WP:NOTGOODSOURCE, or at least not "ideal" or "fancy" source, but secondary nonetheless), so perhaps some of them are okay.
As an off-the-cuff, insufficiently considered reaction, "ice bath" and "cryotherapy" feel like different subjects to me. (Also, I'd expect an article on ice baths to talk more about their pre-current-sports-craze (ab)uses, e.g., for mental illness, as they're not a new idea.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes we are aware of that, but as soon as statements are so much as potentially controversial — then they are banned. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
sometimes, yes--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I most definitely support a merge with cryotherapy. Not significantly different enough to warrant it's own article. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I've been looking at this and thinking that we need a Main/summary approach in that article, so that the disparate uses can get mentioned without any one taking over. (The current sections in Cryotherapy amount to: spam about a patented technique; freezing off warts; putting an ice pack on something as part of RICE; cold air on the whole body; cold air on most of the body.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Write up in the Lancet

By a number of us was just published [41] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Very nice work! This is just the visibility the project needs to engage a broader audience of biomedically-oriented editors. — soupvector (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
well done!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
A secondary right up here [42] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations on this outreach. From the secondary article, what is the WP technical status on these initiatives? 1) Simultaneously publishing peer-reviewed work in academic journals and in Wikipedia could benefit all participants. 2) This would include both putting existing entries through academic peer review, and 3) converting suitable journal articles into Wikipedia entries. 4) Official recognition of authors’ efforts through their citeable publications by scholarly journals is an important reward for time-pressed contributors. --Zefr (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
We have a number of journals interested in publishing Wikipedia articles follow formal peer review. This includes potentially PLOS medicine, Epilepsia, and International Journal of Audiology. Not sure what the costs would be and whether they would give authors discounts. Our inhouse [43] of course is free, peer reviewed, but not yet pubmed indexed.
Currently not many literature reviews are published under an open license Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism at Willem Einthoven

IPs keep adding dubious claims on page Willem Einthoven about "Jack the Ripper".

With no sources.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Here these spurious claims have zero evidence.

Please block 198.234.106.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 2600:1009:B103:6D94:458E:1A1F:FC7:81AA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for adding, then restoring, whole entire subsection of info with zero sources.

Thank you ! 173.225.249.194 (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Definitely vandalism. Compare with [44] and [45] which was reverted by FoCuSandLeArN. Help please? 173.225.249.194 (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I've notified 198.234.106.201 (which appears to carry out the bulk of editing) and sternly warned them, as this is not an isolated event. I do not think there are grounds as of yet for further action, both regarding blocks and/or page protection. We need to keep an eye on the matter, however. Thank you for noticing. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
There is socking. There is vandalism going back months. Same person vandalized at article Willem Einthoven to add HOAX BULLSHIT MATERIAL and then came back. Again. 6 October, 12 October, 18 October. This is sustained, ongoing, addition of vandalism of HOAX ADDITION OF BULLSHIT to an article about the biography of a scientist. Please, take action. Thank you ! 173.225.249.194 (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Protected for 6 months and blocked IP for three. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Also the sock at 2600:1009:B103:6D94:458E:1A1F:FC7:81AA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thank you ! 173.225.249.194 (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Page is protected. Will block that IP if they continue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay thanks. 173.225.249.194 (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Featured article nomination for beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid

beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid

Cross-posted at WT:PHARM#Featured article nomination for beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid

Would anyone be willing to take on this review?

I'm planning on immediately nominating it for featured article status after it passes GA since I've spent dozens of hours searching for medical reviews and monographs on this compound. I'm fairly certain that every known aspect of its clinical effects and pharmacological properties has been covered in the article, so it should pass the comprehensiveness criterion. Hopefully it won't take a full year of FA nominations like amphetamine did. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

  • need reviewers for this article,thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I've decided to skip the GA process altogether since it's taking too long. I'd really appreciate it if others from this project would review this article at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/archive1. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Still need 1–2 more reviewers to take on a review of the medical/pharmacological aspects of this compound; doing an image review won't take much time either if anyone here cares to take on a review of that aspect of the WP:FA criteria (there are no fair use images; all the images are either chemical structure drawings in the public domain or CC-BY-# graphs/diagrams from open access pubmed-indexed journal articles with both captions and WP:ALT text – this is easily verifiable). I expect that a few non-medical editors who regularly review FACs will take on a review of the prose and do WP:V checks, so it's not really necessary for anyone here to do a review of that.
If you're interested in doing a review of this article at FAC and are new to FAC reviews, you should read the instructions on the WP:FAC page under listed under the heading "Supporting and opposing" and read User:Nikkimaria/Reviewing featured article candidates for a primer on how to review an article at FAC. It might help to look at how reviews in other FA nominations are structured as well, but that isn't really necessary. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC); timestamp updated 17:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

There are about 2 weeks left before this nominee is either promoted or archived. If you're interested in commenting on or reviewing this nominee at FAC, you should probably do it soon. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The size of the quotes you use cause me concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Give me a reasonable size limit and I'll try to limit the quotes that I can to that amount. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
One or two sentences would be my rule of thumb, if you need quotes from the source. Anything more is stretching it. If the source is freely licensed, more is acceptable (I believe that the mention of the authors in the citation is enough to satisfy attribution requiring citations). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes two sentences of text seems reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

FAC round 2

Cross-posted at WT:WikiProject Pharmacology and WT:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology

This article has been renominated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/archive2. It still needs at least 1 more reviewer. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring issues at Phytotherapy / Naturopathy

Please see these articles, relating to the term "naturopathic doctor" among other things, not backed by sources. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Also of interest Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Afterwriting_reported_by_User:CFCF_.28Result:_.29. Comments appreciated. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Length of the small intestine

I was doing some research and found that we have some very confusing and contradictory statements about the average length of the human small intestine. I thought I should bring it to your attention.

First, in Small intestine we have a paragraph that is straightforward enough but which could likely be improved just because the transition is so jarring. I'll quote at length: "The average length of the small intestine in an adult human male is 6.9 m (22 ft 8 in), and 7.1 m (23 ft 4 in) in an adult female. It can vary greatly, from as short as 4.6 m (15 ft) to as long as 9.8 m (32 ft).[3][4] Recent studies indicate that small intestine may be shorter, around 3.5 m (11 ft 6 in), and that the length is less affected by age after childhood than expected.[5]" Hmm, the average in the first sentence is 22-23 feet or so, with a minimum ("as short as") 15 feet. But then the next sentence suggests that the average (? - not clear) could be 11.5 feet. Confusing, I would say.

Second, in Short bowel syndrome we have this claim, which appears to not match either of the above claims: "In healthy adults, the small intestine has an average length of approximately 6 meters (19.7 feet)." Although admirably precise, the claim is unsourced.

Like many people, I turn to Wikipedia quite often when I want a high quality presentation of medical information. I know someone who just had 9 feet of small intestine removed, and I was wondering in an uninformed way if that's a lot or not. In Short bowel syndrome we say "Short bowel syndrome usually develops when there is less than 2 meters (6.6 feet) of the small intestine left to absorb sufficient nutrients.". So, if someone has lost 9 feet of 22-23 feet, that sounds ok. Of 19.7 feet, less good, but still well outside the minimum warned about. But if someone has lost 9 feet of 11.5 feet, that sounds pretty grim.

I haven't tried to dig further, but I would assume that we might very well have other claims in other related articles. I am hoping that someone can investigate and see what the general scientific consensus is, and update all the articles to be consistent.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, an interesting intersection of anatomy and medicine. Could also relate to Crohn's disease, Bowel resection, Jejunostomy. Most of the related articles are stubs, and unfortunately that is the status of surgery articles in general. Ping LT910001, one of the other more prolific anatomy editors, (and surgery resident?). As I'm doing my rotations I'll take a look and see if I can get any clarity.
Just a quick answer to your question though, yeah its a lot, however as you say it entirely depends on how much there was — which differs between men women, children, etc. Some people are able to function nearly normally without much of their small intestine, while others will be very much affected by removing a little bit. It can be difficult to tell before surgery. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
A quick review shows that several of those source are poor. We shouldn't be citing a 1907 textbook for anything, nor should we promote a single 20 patient cohort study this much. Nice catch, the small intestine article needs some pruning. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Jimbo Wales We have a 2016 textbook that gives a range of lengths of the small intestine of 2.75 to 10.49 m [46]. The length really depends on whether or not the intestines are stretched before measurement and the persons height. The recommendation is thus that after bowel resection the surgeons should refer to the remaining small bowel length rather than the amount removed. At less than 1 m one typically needs parenteral nutrition while less than 2 meters one needs specific medications and a special diet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Doc! I will pass that information along.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Doc James, I'm sorry if this is common knowledge, but how does one measure the length in situ? To me it seems exceedingly difficult to tell how much there is left, in part because you don't know the length of the retroperitoneal parts? I guess you could do it with radiography, but it still seems to be rather ambiguous because the intestines can stretch and bend depending on how much contents they have... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
CT post barium swallow. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

To compare this to height the tallest men was 2.72M and the shortest women 0.55M (a 5 fold difference) which is similar to the range between longest and shortest small bowel. If one takes the middle of the two bowel length extremes one gets 21.7 feet.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

This feels like one of those "how long is a piece of string" questions - which I have seen rationally explained but only with a massive margin for error and by narrowly defining all the terms (string is between x and y width because too thin is a thread and too thick is a rope etc). So it isn't entirely surprising there is a variety of ways to define it seen in wikipedia pages because the sources define it in different ways. I think that's all we're seeing in the first paragraph Jimbo quotes above. If we mix in that there is a massive variety of humans, then we're not going to get an answer which is precise even if the references are accurately sourced in the page, and thus it is going to be hard to determine which source is best to use to standardise the pages. JMWt (talk) 10:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we need a paragraph explaining the difficulties in determining "the One True Length". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
something along those lines would clarifySmall_intestine--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Updated the articles in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Doc, you stated, "The length really depends on whether or not the intestines are stretched before measurement and the persons height." That's been my experience as well. I remember, back in 2002, being confused about the length issue; I decided to read a lot of texts on the matter from my local library and then at a library in another state when I visited there and I came to the conclusion that reports on intestinal length really depends. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Candidates for the upcoming WPMEDF election

Hey All. We are looking for candidates here [47] Election will likely be latter this fall or spring. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing

I am wondering if these are acceptable RS [48], [49] for this [50]. I am using STiki and came across a related good faith edit which I reverted. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

content that is medical should follow MEDRS-[51]
  • drugs.com (ref 17) can only be applied to non medical content,[52]
  • the same applies to rxlist (ref 16,39,61)...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Never hard of rxlist, but since we tend to discourage UptoDate: Rxlist is a no go as well.
Concerning drugs.com, I have a soft spot for that site. However, I would not use it for Wikipedia before we have had a discussion (and preferably strong consensus).
Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Isn't the content on those sites just a glorified copy of the FDA-approved prescriber's insert, similar to the PDR? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Since I don't use FDAs prescriber inserts or PDR I can't speak for those (Swedish doctors use https://www.fass.se or http://janusinfo.se). The reason I like drugs.com is that it has the major benefit of covering medicines issued internationally (including those sold only in single countries, or under idiosyncratic names). Unfortunately both Sweden and the US (along with many other countries) lack nationally issued pharmacopeias — which means we are forced to allow commercial actors for this information. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I use drug labels all the time for sources for content about drugs. They are extremely vetted by regulatory authorities, in a way that a peer reviewed paper is not. They are very, very reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
They can also be very, very out of date. See, e.g., the controversy over an Oklahoma law that required abortion drugs to be prescribed using the less-safe protocol on the label rather than the current one. Changes cost money, and some changes (e.g., removal of a side effect that is less common in reality than the original trial suggested) are actively opposed by the manufacturer. And they're "extremely vetted" only in the sense that the information provided by the manufacturer was carefully evaluated, but not in the sense that any information from any independent source was even glanced at (because at the time of approval, there is no completely independent research for any new drug). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
That's overly cynical. Most labels I used have been updated in the last five years - well within MEDDATE. Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Why would we discourage people from citing UptoDate? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 23:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Some people have complained about the paywall. Beyond that, I don't remember what the issues were the last time this was discussed, but I suspect that "single author + review committee" was considered less reliable than "single author + two or three peer reviewers". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
So WhatamIdoing I assume that you are referring to UpToDate as having the "single author + review committee" model? I would assume that a review committee (presumably comprising more than 2-3 individuals) would have more pairs of eyes to vet any changes in information. As a medical student, I rely on UpToDate as the final authority on all things medicine! On another note, I agree that drug labels can be outdated, and often don't cite the most recent research. This is why UpToDate is more reliable. It would be great to have a discussion to evaluate the reliability of it as a source. NJ (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
UpToDate is a very good resource, but far from "the final authority" on anything medical. Critical clinical readers must examine supporting references and consider the specific context they're considering. As a medical school professor, I encourage students and residents to read UpToDate as a starting point, but would be disappointed if they stopped there. Of course, the topic on this page is an encyclopedia, not medical education. — soupvector (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Remember Drotrecogin alfa for sepsis? When the Cochrane review came out stating that it resulted in greater harm than benefit for the $20K it cost I updated WP to reflect that. When I check Uptodate they had not updated. So I emailed them. Uptodate did not update itself until the drug was pulled globally 8 months latter. They stated they have a different method of determining what their articles say. I by the way no longer have a subscription.
Uptodate does not have a static version one can reference and is not indexed by internetarchives is part of the reason we do not encourage its use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Parts of drugs.com are excellent such as these overviews from the AHFS [53] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

American Medical Association needs eyes

Thank you, Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Also issues at Phytotherapy where merge notices are being removed. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
commented at article/talk[54]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge Phytotherapy to Herbalism

I think the following belong together. Phytotherapy seems to be a very small (mostly pseudoscientific) subset of herbalism. Any thoughts? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The two topics are distinct. See Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_48#Phytotherapy.Dialectric (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
That does not suggest it is not a minor subset that can be reduced to a paragraph of the herbalism article. As it stands it is a horrible article with lots of low quality MEDRS-non-compliant sources. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Low quality sources can be removed. As long as there are some high quality sources on the subject, there is a basis for a stand-alone article.Dialectric (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Craniopagus twins

[55] good ref for article (or those involved Dr.James T. Goodrich)...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  • BTW article could generally use editor help/edits, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Tubal branch of uterine artery

Dear medical experts: I came across the above article and found it (1) unreferenced and (b) not very informative. I added one wikilink, but I know little about anatomy, so perhaps someone here can add a reference or two or better explain what this thing is.—Anne Delong (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

its now reference[56]...in terms of the actual article there is a similar oneTubal_branches_of_ovarian_artery ...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

2 discussions at WT:MEDRS

Would be useful to have more voices at

and

-- Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Submission at Articles for Creation

Hello, folks. We have a submission at Articles for Creation that addresses a topic within the scope of your project. We would greatly appreciate your input as to the acceptability of its sources, as well as on the accuracy and readability of the text. The submission is Draft:Distal Hereditary Motor Neuropathy Type V (dHMN V). Comments can be left on the talk page of the draft.

Thank you for any assistance that you can provide. NewYorkActuary (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

might help[57]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed move of Intersex surgery to Intersex medical interventions

Following earlier discussion and subsequent changes to the Intersex surgery page, including the WP:SPLIT of some content from Intersex, I have proposed that Intersex surgery move to Intersex medical interventions. Comments are welcome at Talk:Intersex surgery#Requested move 29 October 2016. Trankuility (talk) 06:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to split testosterone into scientific and medical articles

A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog (talk) 11:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_88"