Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 97

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 90 ← Archive 95 Archive 96 Archive 97 Archive 98 Archive 99 Archive 100

Updates from two schools in New York City

Outcomes of Teaching Students to Edit Medical Content on Wikipedia

I wanted to share two recent publications from schools in NYC which have had student programs to develop medical information on Wikipedia.

I wish to especially point to Salubrious Toxin at Mount Sinai, who gave essential guidance to the Wikimedia chapter in New York about how to better serve student groups at universities and also about how Wikipedians in general can support projects for medical students and physicians to contribute to Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Lane do you think any of them would be interested in speaking about this work briefly at Wikimania?
The claim in the poster is that most medical editors are not health care providers. Both research by myself and Nusa show that about half of medical editors ARE health care providers.
I disagree that the makeup of our editors means our content is of variable quality. Our content is of variable quality because our editor numbers are few and the amount of content we work on is so great.
Cool to see such high editor retention after a month. Would be interesting to look at retention after 6 months and a year. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
They may be counting a different group, but even if you're looking at the same dataset, if ~49% of medical editors are healthcare professionals, then both statements are true: "most aren't" and "about half are". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks both of you. This poster is not robust research. Perhaps it is not phrased to be correct. While I will not say that it is presenting established facts I also do not recognize any part of it as an obvious mistake or misconception.
I do not know what the reality is about the source of most edits. James, in your research, I thought you interviewed highly active Wikipedia editors of medical content and found that they were health care professionals. The poster tells that most editors of the medical content are not medical professionals, and I am not aware of any research which gives insight into this. Do highly active editors make the majority of Wikipedia edits to Wikipedia's medical content? I think by the "recent changes in medicine feed" that we get about 1000 edits/day to medical articles. At a glance, I cannot confirm that most of these edits come from highly active users or users who identify as health professionals. Can you remind me what your research says?
Re: "the makeup of our editors means our content is of variable quality" I do not know how to find the truth, but in this poster, there is an interesting graph showing "bytes removed". This particular team found value in removing text from Wikipedia articles, and speculated that professionals would be comfortable deleting content while non-professionals are more likely add cruft and tolerate it staying in the article. The thought was that nonprofessionals add less important content over time which needs to be periodically pruned to essentials by professionals. It is just a theory but it seemed plausible to me. I am not aware of any other group reporting "bytes removed" as an outcome.
I want people to come to Wikimania. In NYC we are organizing a train from here to Montreal with room for 60 people. Either by train or on their own, we are doing whatever we can to encourage and assist people in getting to Wikimania. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

So in 2013 85% of the core medical editors had a college degree. 50.4% were from the healthcare field.[1]

This group made 185,529 edits out of a total of 1.1 million medical edits that year. We calculated bytes removed during the first few rounds of the UCSF class. Could need to dig for that data. My concern is that the popular press often emphasizes that WP is written by non experts. That is often not the case (even though it sometimes is). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Even if 50.4% of (the minority of) editors surveyed have ever held a healthcare job (what the question asked), that doesn't prove that we're experts. That question would have included a friend of mine who worked as an assistant at a nursing home when she was 18 years old. Even among the physicians and physician–researchers who edit, none of them are experts in everything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps we should consider what kind of data we need to describe the editing community, then consider whether we can get that data. It sounds like we know that 20% of edits to medical content in 2013 came from a community where 50% of people were healthcare professionals. I do not know what information we have about the other 80% of edits.
Part of the reason for sorting data could be for framing the conversation into understandable talking points. When students say "non experts edit Wikipedia", that could be interpreted to mean that students can edit and make a difference for their expert connections, or it could be taken as criticism. In this case I think it was a positive statement but perhaps we could develop a recommended way to phrase it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
That reminds me: have you talked to User:EGalvez (WMF), who studies Wikipedia editors? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
If you change "most" to "many" my concern would be address. We do not have solid evidence that "most editors are not medical professionals". WAID the content in the poster does not say "expert". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for review of Draft:WHO Model List of Essential Medicines for Children

Hello, folks. We've got the above-named draft at Articles for Creation. It appears to be the children's analogue of an already-existing list article for adult medicines. I'm inclined to accept it after some basic clean-up, but I'd like to get your opinions on it first. There is a separate section for comments on the Draft's talk page. Thank you for your assistance. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Please forgive my denseness, but does "sounds good" mean "okay to publish"? NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes it does mean okay to publish following some basic clean up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

New article needs help

Please look over Age-related mobility disability and help fix some of the tagged issues. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

commented[2]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Video game addiction

It strikes me that Video game addiction could use a combing over to comply with WP:MEDRS by an editor with more experience and inclination than I. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

not many[3]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Seppi333 has worked on addiction related articles. Maybe he'd be willing to take a look. Sizeofint (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
TBH, that article needs some medical [editor] attention, but I'm pretty busy with off-wiki stuff ATM. I'll take a look later when I have more time, but it may be a few weeks. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Using WikiProject Medicine for Internal Medicine residents scholarly activity

I am new to Wikipedia as an instructor responsible for facilitating the scholarly activity curriculum for an internal medicine residency program. Several residents would like to get involved by editing a WikiProject Medicine topic to meet one of the scholarly activity requirements. As adult learners, I want them to be able to pick a topic of interest to them and contribute the most to the community. Any suggestions on culling through the high need, stub or lower quality articles to give them a list relevant to general internal medicine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BMWilsonInstructor (talk • contribs) 17:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

You might want to look over Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages and User:SuggestBot/Suggestions for WikiProject Medicine.
I don't know what the most urgent needs are for Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force, but preparing an article that interests them is another way to have a significant worldwide effect.
In terms of preparing, I recommend this recent video by Amin Azzam on his student-editing program at UCSF. https://www.simonsfoundation.org/education-outreach/crowdsourcing-expertise/ has some suggestions and materials for getting people started. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Have sent you an email. Happy to connect and discuss possibilities. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

TfD: {{Steroid metabolism modulators}} and {{Cytochrome P450 modulators}}

Navboxes proposed for deletion by User:Boghog. Discussion here. Input is appreciated. Medgirl131 22:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


Specific carbohydrate diet

more eyes would be useful here. thx Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

will watch--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Free accounts for PsychiatryOnline (American Psychiatric Association) now available!

Hi all, just wanted to let you know that you can now sign up for free access to PsychiatryOnline (from the American Psychiatric Association) through The Wikipedia Library! And a reminder that recommendations for databases we don't have available yet are welcomed. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

And just to clarify, you'll get access to the Premium Package, which includes just about everything (including DSM-5)! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Management or treatment

Please see Talk:Gluten-free_diet#Management Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I see management as more long term and less curative
While treatment is more curative and generally shorter term
But both mean more or less the same and are frequently used interchangeably. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
There are multiple ways to understand those words. For example, "managing your blood sugar" is the most important way of "treating Type 2 diabetes". There's also an idea that you manage symptoms and treat diseases, or that you "manage" a disease when the interventions are largely ineffective, but "treat" the disease when they work for most patients. None of it's official jargon with a One True™ Usage.
The specific question at this article seems to be whether every single word related to treatment should be excised from the article and replaced by the word management, or whether it should be the other way around. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

WMF Board

Hey All For those who have not noticed board elections have begun. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Voted for my first time! JenOttawa (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Placement of the Template:Medical resources

There is a discussion going on HERE. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

An RfC is being conducted that will seek consensus for an exception to WP:ELT for Template:Medical resources. The discussion is at Template talk:Medical resources #RfC on placement of Medical condition classification and resources template. Opinions and constructive suggestions are welcome. --RexxS (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Oral allergy syndrome

This article is badly in need of "MEDRS-ing and MEDMOS-ing" if anyone is interested in this topic. Epeefleche perhaps. It would be great to interlink this topic with Stomatitis#Allergic_contact_stomatitis since this seems to define at least part of the condition. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

[4]might help--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Opinions sought with regards inhaled steroids as a cause of oral candidiasis

Well meaning editor wanting to make info on inhaled steroids more findable in the article. Thoughts? (please respond on talk page). 19:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Added comment Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of the use of easier to understand language

Here. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


Opinions needed!

Looking for opinions on: Talk:Psychiatric pharmacy#Name change. Biochemistry&Love (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Opposite of PRN?

Does anyone know whether there's a medical term for (more or less) the opposite of PRN, i.e. when a a medicine is supposed to be taken daily (whether the patient feels they need it that day or not)? --Philologia (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

OD is once daily; QD is once daily in the Latin tradition (quaque die); BID is twice daily; TID is three times a day; QID – sometimes confusingly shortened to QD – is four times daily. In vet med, SID (semel in die) is used for once daily. Note that you shouldn't really use any of these, because they're impossible for normal people to understand and have created serious medical errors on occasion (especially when handwritten). You especially shouldn't use OD, because that has other meanings (like "overdose" and "right eye"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Opposite of "as needed" is "scheduled". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
When I look at a prescription bottle, is there any real difference between "take one tablet daily" and "take one tablet daily as directed"? (Both medicines were prescribed by the same M.D., I always discuss any new prescriptions with my doctor, and, not being an idiot, I always do whatever I am "directed" to do.) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
-User:Guy Macon fair question. The difference is "take one tablet once a day as needed" versus "take one table once a day" The two you mention are typically the same. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The "as directed" language sounds like you should take one tablet daily and additionally follow some other directions (e.g., "take one tablet daily until X happens"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all these replies! I've just tried to clarify the significance of "scheduled" as an antonym in the article. As a non-medical expert, it helps me understand PRN better. --Philologia (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Please help with Eddie Eagle good article effort

You are invited to help close a good article effort at Eddie Eagle, a pediatric gun injury prevention program.

In December 2016 an editor warred to:

See also WT:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_95#Eddie_Eagle from 12 April 2017 (@Doc James:, @WhatamIdoing:).

More recently on the verge of a good article nomination the same editor has returned to:

These recent edits are very clearly not improvements to the encyclopedia. Additional participation may be necessary to salvage good article recognition for this editorial effort. Please help. Thank you! 35.163.21.246 (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The article is very much based on primary sources. People should be using secondary source per WP:MEDRS.
The image was non-free and therefore needed to be removed per policy. What was listed as "review articles" were not reviews but primary sources.
Can you list the MEDRS compliant sources that were deleted? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your collaboration. MEDRS compliant sources removed or summarization curtailed:

In 1992 the Committee on Injury and Poison Prevention of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) adopted a position critical of the program, discouraged its use, cited the lack of evidence demonstrating efficacy, and recommended an absence of guns from children's homes, or trigger locks or gun safes, as more effective alternatives. The AAP renewed its recommendations in 2000 and 2012.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ "Firearm Injuries Affecting the Pediatric Population" (PDF). Pediatrics. 89 (4). American Academy of Pediatrics: 788–790. 1992. ISSN 0031-4005. PMID 1557283.
  2. ^ "Firearm Injuries Affecting the Pediatric Population". Pediatrics. 105 (4). American Academy of Pediatrics: 888–895. April 2000. ISSN 0031-4005. PMID 10742344.
  3. ^ "Firearm-Related Injuries Affecting the Pediatric Population". Pediatrics. 130 (5). American Academy of Pediatrics: 1416–1423. November 2012. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-2481. PMID 23080412.

Jackman et. al (2001) wrote in Pediatrics that although the Eddie Eagle program "has been promoted heavily, it never has been evaluated formally to prove that it works. If gun safety education gives parents a sense of complacency without fundamentally altering child behavior, then it might do more harm than good."[1]

References

  1. ^ Jackman, Geoffrey A.; Farah, Mirna M.; Kellermann, Arthur L.; Simon, Harold K. (June 2001). "Seeing Is Believing: What Do Boys Do When They Find a Real Gun?". Pediatrics. 107 (6). American Academy of Pediatrics: 1247–1250. doi:10.1542/peds.107.6.1247. PMID 11389238.

A 2002 survey article by Hardy published in the journal The Future of Children in a special issue on the topic of "Children, Youth, and Gun Violence" identified the Eddie Eagle program as "perhaps the most popular" gun avoidance program for prekindergarten through the sixth grade but said the program "does not give children a reason for avoiding guns (such as that guns are dangerous)" and that "The NRA offers no empirical evidence that its approach is effective."[1]

References

  1. ^ Hardy, Marjorie S. (2002). "Behavior-Oriented Approaches to Reducing Youth Gun Violence". The Future of Children. 12 (2). PMID 12194605.

Himle et. al (2004), in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, wrote "...few investigations have evaluated the effectiveness of programs designed to teach children appropriate safety skills to use when they find a firearm. The few investigations that have been conducted have shown existing programs to be ineffective..."[1]

References

  1. ^ Himle, Michael B.; Miltenberger, Raymond G.; Flessner, Christopher; Gatheridge, Brian (2004). "Teaching safety skills to children to prevent gun play". Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 37 (1): 1–9. doi:10.1901/jaba.2004.37-1. PMC 1284473. Retrieved December 7, 2016.

A 2004 survey of the literature and critical review of prevention strategies for unintended firearms injuries to children in the journal Education and Treatment of Children concluded "existing child-based firearm-safety programs do not reduce children's injury risk...Although knowledge of what one should do may be valuable, research suggests that knowledge of skills often does not correspond with actual behavior."[1]

References

  1. ^ Himle, Michael B.; Miltenberger, Raymond G. (2004). "Preventing unintentional firearm injury in children: The need for behavioral skills training". Education and Treatment of Children. West Virginia University Press: 161–177. ISSN 0748-8491.

Glatt (2005) in the Journal of Pediatric Nursing wrote of the Eddie Eagle program "The NRA believes that it can be effective by teaching children the simple, straightforward message to stop, do not touch, leave the area, and tell an adult when confronted by the presence of a firearm...This is an unrealistic expectation based on the cognitive abilities of children in this age group."[1]

References

  1. ^ Glatt, Kathleen (December 2005). "Child-to-Child Unintentional Injury and Death from Firearms in the United States: What can be Done?". Journal of Pediatric Nursing. 20 (6): 448–452. doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2005.08.006. ISSN 0882-5963. PMID 16298286.

File:Eddie Eagle cover.jpg

The image is the book cover of the program workbook, Eddie Eagle Kids' Activity Booklet, Pre-K and Kindergarten edition. The use of this image in this article is policy-compliant; the image was reviewed and accepted with a use rationale for use in article Eddie Eagle.

Thank you again. 52.201.205.110 (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Please note this is likely yet another sock IP used by blocked user HughD. The editor has been blocked. The previous IP addresses adding the same content to this discussion were blocked per WP:scrutiny [[6]] and as a HughD block evade (x2) [[7]], [[8]] Springee (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Some of these are secondary sources. Others are primary sources.
    • This is an excellent source from 2012 and even under an open license.[9]
    • Will add it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I removed it primarily because this is how admins have been dealing with edits made by this IP [[10]], [[11]], [[12]]. Also this topic would fall under HughD's current topic bans (above and beyond the edit block). I also would argue it is a big stretch to include a public education plan in project medicine. The program is a social/education program, not a medical program. I don't think we put other public safety programs such as swimming pool safety, bike safety, or driving safety programs into project medicine. (edit: I see Automobile safety includes project medicine - added by HughD during an edit war shortly before his block) Gun safety does not include project medicine. Springee (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Do we have a SPI on HughD and these IPs?
I am happy with the adding of gun violence prevention programs to WPMED. Same applies to swimming pool safety as both of these drowning and guns, are major causes of deaths. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) - SPI is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HughD/Archive - 52.201.205.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is not mentioned among them, but it looks likely.
The problem is, Springee that the majority of sources that establish the notability of the programme focus on the controversy over its effectiveness, or lack thereof, in helping children learn. Those sort of issues are very much within the purview of WikiProject Med. You may feel that WPMED ought to limit itself to articles on diseases and drugs, but the editors who make up the WikiProject don't agree with you – for example, the sixth most popular medical article of the last week was Project MKUltra, not a traditional med article, but sufficiently in-scope to be tagged; just as Eddie Eagle is. it's not your place to decide on behalf of WPMED what is in its scope. While I sympathise with your intentions in combating disruption, I fear you may be losing sight of what improves the encyclopedia. For example, in your most recent revert at that article, you removed: (1) an image that had a perfectly acceptable non-free use rationale; and (2) a link to online content for a news source, as well as other sourced content. The other sourced content may be debatable in terms of its value, but nobody is going to agree with you that removing the only image from the article and deleting a convenience link to an source that is also available online is improving the article. Please have another think about the impact your editing is having on articles. I've also removed your collapsing of the contribution from 52.201.205.110 here because I object to the title text that you used. WP:ILLEGIT a policy, not a label for editors, and you're getting close to a personal attack in making those kind of statements merely on suspicion. --RexxS (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
MEDRS might be applied to this article in a very limited way, such as for sources which state if the program is effective or not, and even then this is not really the type of content that MEDRS is supposed to cover as it's not a medical intervention or anything like that. All other content in the article shouldn't need MEDRS compliant sources imo. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you. It's a health-related topic (so it interests people here and should be tagged for the group to track the article), but whether six year olds will reliably follow instructions presented during a one-time school lesson is not WP:Biomedical information by any reasonable definition of those words (so MEDRS is not exactly relevant). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
yes, agree w/ WAID's point --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to move Urinary bladder to Human urinary bladder

Verticle section bladder wall

There is a discussion taking place on the talk page of the article Urinary bladder on whether this article should be moved to Human urinary bladder and the content of a new more-generalized article on bladders (located here) be used to replace it. Your input is welcome! KDS4444 (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

  • more opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Gah. Imagine if we moved "cancer" to "cancer in humans", "pneumonia" to "human pneumonia", "gout" to "human gout". Our readers will end up with endless surprises. This is not a good idea. The main articles are generally about humans primarily with a section for other animals at the end. We human (our typical readers) care a lot about human related stuff and generally less about the similar topic in other animals or plants, etc. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Well, for one thing the titles would be a more accurate indication of the content, and the surprises would be temporary, until our readers get used to the idea that other things exist, and they are not the crown of creation, and this encyclopaedia (not Medical encyclopaedia) is not owned by WPMED, which is the impression one might get here. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

IMO, for anatomy articles it is more appropriate to have the human anatomy topic as the sub article, and a more general physiology type article as the main article. For pathology, depends if the topic is more related to humans or other animals. Pbsouthwood agree with you, an encyclopaedia should have encyclopaedic coverage, not partial coverage. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This is what we currently do with brain and human brain. I think for anatomy articles this is a sensible suggestion. Whichever direction we go, we need to standardize. Sizeofint (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Why do we need to standardize? Why don't we consider the individual subject, and then decide to split the brain-related articles (they're large), but keep, say, gallbladder merged together? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
We need to standardise so that we don't have to check every time we make a link about exactly where it goes. Personally I think we should standardise on Urinary bladder (human) for humans and Urinary bladder (anatomy) for the general sense. We can then argue independently over which of those should be a redirect to the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
If it's all in the same article, then you don't need to check anything. We could additionally create redirects to a standardized naming system, and then we could write good articles and you still wouldn't ever need to check: if everything's in one place, then both redirects point to the same page, and if it's been split, then each points to the most relevant article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there is no problem if there is one article. However, I think many participants here are interested in the case in which there are multiple articles on a topic. The standardized naming system is precisely what we're interested in. Sizeofint (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing: when you say If it's all in the same article, then you don't need to check anything. you appear to be missing the point that a maintenance bot has no way or automatically determining whether it's all in the same article. If there were standardised redirects, that would be possible. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Do we actually have a maintenance bot that is capable of determining whether a given link in an article ought to refer to a general anatomical object or specifically a human one? (I've got nothing against creating lots of redirects; however, I strongly oppose splitting one decent article about anatomy into two incomplete ones, just to segregate human anatomy from everything-else anatomy.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
WAID is absolutely right. Readers first. Editors second. Bots a distant third, until they manage to vote to alter it. Where there is so much material in the Other animals section that splitting off a daughter article is sensible, then we do it. Otherwise a single article is the best bet for everybody, including any other animals who may be reading our articles. FWIW, I don't consider the three brief sentences in Urinary bladder #Other animals justify a separate spin-off article. --RexxS (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Draft:The Hallmarks of Aging

I'm not 100% sure of what is going on at Draft:The Hallmarks of Aging,but it looks like they need help. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

commented[13]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
School class Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Goucher College/Seminar in Mechanisms of Aging and Cancer (Spring 2017)
Maybe it should go at Wikiversity or Wikibooks? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
wikibooks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Are they trying to write an article about Aging by summarizing https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3836174/ or are they trying to write about the paper (the way that we might write an encyclopedia article about a book such as the On the Origin of Species)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Docusate Sodium

As an engineer who sometimes attempts to improve medical articles, I would like some advice.

I was looking at our Docusate article, and comparing it with what is available in local drug stores in Southern California. Around here, only Docusate Sodium is available OTC. Yet the article leads with "Docusate, also known as docusate salts or dioctyl sulfosuccinate", followed closely with "It typically comes in the form of a sodium, calcium, or potassium salts". Yet the reference given[14] lists one example of Docusate Calcium and twenty five examples of Docusate Sodium. Should we change the lead to reflect the most common name, or are different forms of docusate popular in different parts of the world?

The reason I was looking at the page was to find out how much dietary sodium is in a 100 mg Docusate Sodium dose. This ref[15] says 6mg. This is usefyul information for peoplem on low-salt diets. Would it be appropriate to add this to the article? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The various salts are equivalent, absent data to the contrary, and I would avoid over-specifying if not useful. A low-sodium diet would be about 2000 mg per day, so 6 mg is not relevant to a low-sodium diet (it's a round-off error for any other food). — soupvector (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
You might be able to use https://books.google.com/books?id=N_YoDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA746&lpg=PA746&dq=%22docusate+sodium%22+%22clinically+insignificant%22 to support a sentence that the amount is "clinically insignificant". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

SSRI increased suicide rate??

Serotonin
There is controversy around the benefit-versus-harm of antidepressants.[33] In young persons, the newer antidepressants such as SSRIs appear to increase the risk of suicidality from 25 per 1000 to 40 per 1000.[131]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide#Prevention

This is very unprofessional and should be treated unreliable and to be deleted from the article. =) --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 09:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@It's gonna be awesome: Both citations in the quoted passage meet the quality standards outlined in WP:MEDRS. Would you mind explaining what you find unprofessional about these statements? —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 13:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

SSRIs is not new at all. =) --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 09:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Although SSRIs were introduced in the 1980s, they're still referred to as newer antidepressants in contrast to the older Monoamine oxidase inhibitors and Tricyclic antidepressants. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 13:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree newer versus older adds little and trimmed Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Your edit unfortunately made it sound like all antidepressants have this effect, which is not true.
Shelley, do you happen to know offhand whether the "newer" antidepressants include any category other than SSRIs? If not, then we could re-write this as "SSRI antidepressants" or "SSRIs (a type of antidepressant drug)" or something like that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: As far as I know, the "newer" category includes all antidepressants from the introduction of fluoxetine to present—SSRIs, SNRIs (e.g., venlafaxine), maybe other small classes of drugs. There's a bit of information at Antidepressant#History, but not necessarily enough to be helpful. I agree the "newer" vs. "older" terminology is frustratingly vague. There's a roughly equivalent MeSH term, Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation, also defined as antidepressants that aren't MAOIs or TCAs. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 13:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Adjusted further. Wait I realize you already fixed it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Might be worthwhile to add a link to Antidepressants and suicide risk in there somewhere, or it might not. I'll let someone else make that call. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 02:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure link added Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

What is and is not a medical article?

When is and isn't an organ—in whole or part—a medical article? For example, urinary bladder, above, is a medical article. However insular cortex apparently isn't. (This reasoning was recently used to justify primary sources in that article.)
I assumed insular cortex—about the human insular cortex—would be a medical article. (A no-brainer!) If not, shouldn't sections discussing function and particularly clinical conditions follow MEDRS?
If so, I believe MEDRS are available to preserve most of the article, and this should be attempted. — βox73 (৳alk) 02:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

MEDRS applies to medical claims regarding of whether or not an article is tagged as part of WPMED. We do not include urinary bladder as part of WPMED yet we are still happy to have discuss regarding it here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Functional neurological symptom disorder

Functional neurological symptom disorder has been listed at WP:copyright problems since 4 April. Before I spend much more time looking through the rather messy history, would you medical experts care to comment on whether there is in fact such a condition, or if it should simply be a redirect to Conversion disorder? The page was created by an editor who's clearly here to advocate for it (or against it, I don't know) – see FND Hope. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

[16](another [17]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. No mention of "Functional neurological symptom disorder" in the abstract; what about in the full text? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Functional neurological disorder is diagnosable under DSM-V and in the soon to be released ICD-11, so there should be a standalone article for this disorder. DSM-V states that a functional neurological disorder can occur independently from a psychological stressor, and thus independent of conversion disorder. Therefore, the article should not be redirected to conversion disorder. It is, it seems, a tricky disorder to diagnose, having to differentiate between conversion disorder, factitious disorder and functional neurological dysfunction unrelated to psychological factors or comorbid with, but not triggered by, psychological conditions, etc. Thankfully I am not a neurologist! :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox update April 2017

Example of the medicine infobox update.

I have been working to update our infoboxes to human useful date. This is an idea proposed by User:Bluerasberry a few years ago. I have done a couple of hundred articles so far. And the plan is to do around a thousand before getting a bot to transfer the info to Wikidata so other languages can benefit. The EN WP data however will stay on EN WP. Every item gets / needs a high quality reference.

The question is can I get the first part which is this done by bot? Ie have a bot makes this change to all articles which use the Template:Infobox medical condition. The numerical data is moved to the external links section. Amir will do the bot work, we just need community consensus first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Support

  • looks good on Dyslexia(therefore support)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • OK. Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree This change involves a complicated set of issues which the Wikimedia community has found challenging to discuss in the past. In a section below "Previous discussion of medical infoboxes" I tried to list what I thought were some relevant related discussions. An element of this current proposal which has been rejected in the past is the move of the library cataloging information from the top of the article to the bottom. Although this idea has been rejected multiple times, it is a recurring proposal which has had some supporters. The idea of putting consumer information in an infobox in the lead has been made multiple times also, and rejected in the past. Things are a little different in this proposal because there has been more discussion over the years about what sort of information is and is not appropriate to present, and in this present proposal, some controversial early ideas are not present to derail the discussion. Also, the idea of pulling data from Wikidata is abandoned, and instead all information in this box is planned to be managed on English Wikipedia with citations. Based on previous conversations, the biggest opposition which I perceive to this is the standing opposition to making researchers and scientists go to the bottom of the Wikipedia article to get links that they want. However, I do not join that opposition, because I favor serving the general reader who is the majority user and feel that researchers are power users who can learn to get the same information at the bottom of the article without being unduly burdened. I support the use of the bot to move the current infoboxes to the bottom of each article, and to present this English-Wikipedia managed new variation of an infobox. I participate in this discussion because I think this is one of the more influential innovations which WikiProject Medicine can try to improve the quality of its content and make content more accessible to more people. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is much more useful to the general reader than the current infobox. Sizeofint (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes. More detailed and useful content for our readers. QuackGuru (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as proposer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I like how this includes more information that readers care about. Mamyles (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - good idea IMO. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Definitely a good step, as User:Bluerasberry has so eloquently explained above. E.g. a Wikipedia Zero user deserves more useful and potentially life-saving information at his fingertips. A researcher can scroll down to the bottom of the page and get cataloging data. There's no critical rush in what he's doing.--Saintfevrier (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

While I strongly support the move to a more useful infobox, I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of this bot is. I'm guessing it is useful, but for the sake of those who don't know what the end-goal is: what specifically do you intend to do?

  • Will the bot clear or copy the content of the infoboxes moving that information to a {{Medical resources}} at the bottom of the articles?

There is a difference between clearing and copying. Copying may make the work much easier in the future if we wish to fully migrate, while still preserving functionality for now. Clearing however may end us up with entirely useless infoboxes for now, risking them being deleted.

The other question is what you mean that infobox statements need sources. This is very often overlooked, and I would actually like to suggest we force sources into the infobox. This has been done before on other language Wikipedias, but the idea is to create a field for each statement so that you fill in: 

mortality rate =
mortality rate source =

and if the source isn't entered the rate isn't included. This could potentially solve lots of problems, and would also make it easy to handle sources in the infobox, for example by forcing them into a group source so they don't cause clutter. It maybe very profitable to introduce such a source-requirement at the same time as we migrate to new infoboxes, which is why I'd like to take it a little slower. Best, Carl Fredrik talk 23:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  • The bot would just convert the old infobox to the new one, right? And the adding of sourced content would be done subsequently by editors, right? Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Per Jytdog, yes. It just converts and editors need to fill it in.
    • THIS is what the bot will do.
    • I am not a big fan of a separate line for sources. Sources should simple go after the statement in question. We just as a community need to remove unreffed stuff from infoboxes / add a ref if it is missing as we do for other areas of an article.
    • Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
      1. On the bot: Copying stuff from an infobox at the top an article and into a box at the bottom of the article is easy, and that's all that's done there. I think people may be confused by all of the new parameters like |symptoms=. So to clarify, the bot's not filling in those new parameters. It's keeping things like name and image, and adding blank parameters for things like |symptoms=. This is actually a feasible task, and it should be (very) easy to skip any articles that would otherwise end up with an empty infobox at the top if the links are moved.
      2. Using a separate parameter for the source would make it easy to automatically check for the absence of sources. If if |mortality-rate= used, then you could make |mortality-rate-source= display either the source or automatically add a {{fact}} tag or display an error message.
        I'm not sure what the larger community thinks about adding sources in infoboxes. The idea has always been that almost nothing should go in the infobox unless it's already in the article, and sourced in the article (making sources in the infobox be superfluous). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Thank WAID. With respect to source. A good portion of our readers / editors want every line referenced. The same argument that nothing in the lead should not be referenced in the body just leads to the lead being fill with [citation needed] tags. If we are going to move this information to WD it needs references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I prefer the old infobox, but this is only because I prefer that the ICD-10, etc. be linked in the infobox and I don't think readers are likely to look for it in the External links section. Also, the cause(s), treatment(s), etc. of/for a disease or disorder can be complicated and/or disputed, and listing them in the infobox can subsequently prove to be problematic. I worry about the new infobox leading to WP:OR and edit wars. But I'll get used to the new infobox. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I think it'll take some time for everyone to get used to it. For example, things like |cause= shouldn't be used unless it's clear and simple (e.g., HIV causes AIDS), but it'll take a while to get the message out that this isn't a good spot to fill in hundreds of suspected causes in the Cancer article.
      Would you be more satisfied with having all of it in one long infobox? Infoboxes for chemicals are unusually long, with a bunch of codes stuff in the end, and that doesn't really seem to bother people much. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
You mean the ICD-10 stuff, etc. in one long infobox? I wouldn't mind that. And, yeah, your cancer infobox example is something to be worried about, but that article is well-watched. The articles that are not well-watched are the ones I'm more concerned about. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
For cause of cancer in the infobox we say "Tobacco, obesity, poor diet, lack of physical activity, excessive alcohol, certain infections". I am thinking we should keep it to the top half dozen only. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I made this change to the infobox on cerebral palsy, does that mean that it has also been added on wikidata? (There is a thing at the bottom of the new infobox saying 'edit on wikidata') --122.108.141.214 (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

No, that's just a convenience link to cerebral palsy (Q210427) for editors who want to update Wikidata as well. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Eventually the hope is to update Wikidata based on the details we add here. Not sure how that will work yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks RexxS and Doc James! --122.108.141.214 (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Previous discussion of medical infoboxes

I think that the core of this proposal is moving the library cataloging information from the lead of the article to the bottom, and to fill the space left behind with information for the general consumer.

Proposals which were similar to this one have been both well discussed and controversial in the past. Personally, I would characterize past discussions as being progressive for change and protective of current practice from different perspectives and because it seemed like any one change for one group of stakeholders would also cause several changes affecting other groups. Because memories fade and because I think it is useful to try to track some history of discussion, I linking to some past related discussions which led to this one. These discussions could be useful for anyone joining the conversation and who wants to know what other things the wiki community has discussed or tried. Other people would have their own memories and perspectives of past conversations and I probably missed linking to some. These ones that I am featuring here are ones that I either found in search or remembered.

  1. "Helpfulness of data in infobox", November 2011 in WikiProject Medicine. Mamyles argues that infoboxes should not contain classifying numbers and instead should have consumer information.
  2. "External links in infobox", June 2014 in WikiProject Medicine. Diptanshu.D proposes to remove library cataloging information from the infobox in the lead. This is much like the current proposal. It got opposition at the time.
  3. "Proposal of retaining and fixing eMedicine template under Infobox disease", June 2014 at WikiProject Medicine. Diptanshu.D proposes to add a link out to a particular website in the infobox, and the WikiProject Medicine community reflects on what kinds of sources are appropriate for linking in the lead of an article. This discussion is relevant to this one because it demonstrates the context of taking for granted that Wikipedia should prioritize linking out in an infobox in the lead, which is the practice being questioned in this discussion.
  4. ""MalaCards www.malacards.org", November 2014 at WikiProject Medicine. A representative of an external organization Marilyn Safran asks about adding external links to their health content to the infobox. There is more discussion about the purpose of an infobox, including whether it should have cataloging links at all.
  5. "This infobox is incomprehensible", January 2015 at {{Infobox medical condition}}. Bhny says, "It is completely unencyclopedic. It just has a bunch of codes and links."
  6. Adding further parameters", January 2015 at {{Infobox medical condition}}. Doc James starts this response to that other January 2015 talk on this page. Here there are a range of opinions about what an infobox should be.
  7. "Perhaps this infobox should not be the primary medical condition infobox", February 2015 at {{Infobox medical condition}}. I, bluerasberry, make a similar proposal to what is being discussed now.
  8. "Seeking comment on a new kind of drug infoboxes", June 2015 at WikiProject Medicine. It seemed to controversial to start with medical conditions, so instead, I proposed starting with drug infoboxes.
  9. "Making the template more useful for people", August 2015 at {{Infobox drug}}. Doc James proposes that drug infoboxes have consumer information rather than cataloging data.
  10. "Testing new infobox" November 2015 at Gout. Doc James presents an infobox which pulls data from Wikidata.
  11. "Wikipedia for Health and Safety Research and Data," in-person meeting at the United States National Archives in November 2015. 5-10 WikiProject Medicine contributors joined this meeting. One of the major outcomes was that Emitraka from Portal:Gene Wiki and ProteinBoxBot demonstrated how English Wikipedia infoboxes can be populated with Wikidata information, as happened in the Gene Wiki project for Wikipedia articles about genes.
  12. "Another reform proposal - split infobox into 'human readable' and 'non human readable' and call from Wikidata", December 2015 at {{Infobox medical condition}}. Here I propose something like what is here, except also assume that calling data from Wikidata would be less controversial. I was wrong about Wikidata being the less controversial way forward.
  13. "Wikidata for pneumonia (failed experiment maybe)", December 2016 at WikiProject Medicine. Doc James tries a new way of pulling Wikidata information to post in English Wikipedia infoboxes. There were problems.

Printed on paper, all of this discussion and the examples cited in these discussions might be the equivalent of 200 paper pages of content. It is a lot to digest. If others remember more or other previous relevant conversation then please share. Wikipedia is not well-equipped to manage a conversation of this sort which has happened in multiple forums over a period of years. I am guessing that not fewer than 50 users have commented in these discussions, and almost every comment is a substantial statement by a highly knowledgeable user. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Lane. Excellent overview. One of the important side benefits of this effort is that it moves eMedicine and ADAM hosted on medlineplus to the external links section (giving them less undue weight). GPnotebook has been placed in like 1,000 external links section (I have already moved 500). They used to be open access but have now moved to a closed access subscription model. If they were added via the Template:Medical condition classification and resources we could remove them with a single code change. Instead I have another 500 edits to make. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC

Because of the changes made in putting the classification and resources at the bottom of an article, there is already a challenge based on WP:CONLOCAL that consensus here can't override the site-wide guideline WP:ELT. To settle the issue once and for all, this is now the subject of an RfC at Template talk:Medical resources #RfC on placement of Medical condition classification and resources template. Those commenting here may wish to voice their opinions at the RfC. --RexxS (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

commented[18]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Strategy themes

Hey All The Strategy process has produced 5 overall "draft" themes here. Further comments requested. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


more opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed page move

You are all invited to give a piece of your mind at Talk:Stachybotrys chartarum#Requested move 4 May 2017. Thank you for your contributions!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedian in Residence at the Physiological Society and at The History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group

I have two new Wikimedian in Residence roles, both related to medicine:

I'll be doing some work as a Wikimedian in Residence at The Physiological Society over the next few months. As part of that, I have added a list of prize winners to the article about the society - there are lots of red links there for folk to work on! Please see also Wikipedia:GLAM/PhySoc and note there any articles you create in response to this initiative.

Also, I'm now in residence at The History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group; see their announcement. In this case, there are too many notable people for a list of red links, but see items with Wikidata property History of Modern Biomedicine ID (P3885); list at [19]. Again, please note any you create at Wikipedia:GLAM/HMBRG.

I'm happy to act as a conduit for any queries you may have, regarding either organisation.

One or two editathons will be held, in London, later this year. Watch this space! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett congrats on the new positions Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Ditto. Let us know about the editathons. Bondegezou (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
interesting(and great)[20]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Goat Yoga

Makes a categorical claim for health benefits based on a Yoga journal. I removed it but it was restored. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually at Goat Yoga – even that's wrong. Seems that an axe has been taken to the synth and unsubstantiated claims, but might be worth keeping an eye on for a while. --RexxS (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
The "categorical claim for health benefits" appears to be that yoga (in general) is a form of physical exercise. Do you actually believe that yoga doesn't have any demonstrated "health benefits, from increasing flexibility to reducing stress" (a line you removed as unreliable)? I'm pretty sure that the mainstream medical POV is that yoga does have these benefits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
You might want to ask Alexbrn, as Doug hasn't edited the article. Nevertheless, I'd hazard a guess that making claims about health benefits of yoga really ought to be sourced to something better than http://www.yogajournal.com/article/health/count-yoga-38-ways-yoga-keeps-fit/ - wouldn't you agree? (If you think that source is reliable enough, perhaps we can start an article on Rex Schneider, based on this.) --RexxS (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure, a stronger source could have been added in the two-sentence-long ==Health Benefits== section that Doug blanked (six hours before Alex's first edit), but Wikipedia doesn't get better through wholesale blanking of factual content just because someone didn't put "the right" kind of source behind it on the first try. (The other source in that section was the US CDC, which I believe is still listed by name in MEDRS as a generally desirable secondary source.) We use tags like {{better source}}, {{unreliable medical source}}, and several others when we think that some otherwise acceptable content would benefit from a stronger source.
(One of the problems with blanking relatively restrained content, such as "Yoga practice has many proven health benefits, from increasing flexibility to reducing stress", is that the absence of any information sometimes prompts people to put in something – and half the time, to put in something worse.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
But the problem with focusing your criticism on the removal of each sentence independently is that you miss the real problem: the juxtaposition of a crap source saying "Yoga is good for you" with a decent source saying "Petting animals is good for you", thus begging the conclusion "Doing yoga while petting goats must be very good for you." It's implicit SYNTH and it has no place in the article. If goat yoga really has health benefits, then we might expect a reliable secondary source to have noted that. Otherwise, the whole article is just an advert for a single company who is trying to promote an unproven medical technique. Do we have a tag for {{selling snake oil}}? --RexxS (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
There is lots of mainstream news coverage. I not sure why we continue to call it the "news" though. Meh, as long as there are no health claims I guess we can document its existence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to User:RexxS for clarifying the problem with using a reliable source on pets and health. And although yoga probably has health benefits, does that really apply to all forms of Yoga? I don't know. In any case, the health benefits of Yoga are still unclear, see Yoga#Exercise and health applications and Yoga as exercise. If those main articles don't state "Yoga practice has many proven health benefits..." I'm not at all convinced this one should say that. Doug Weller talk 16:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Should likely be merged to the article on yoga. By the way the article appears to be paid for. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Merge it into Yoga#With other animals? --RexxS (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
"Otherwise, the whole article is just an advert for a single company who is trying to promote an unproven medical technique"
The article says that there are (so far) two of these businesses (unrelated). Furthermore, they're not "trying to promote an unproven medical technique": they're trying to get people to pay for yoga classes, which are not "medical techniques". It is an unfortunate truth that WP:CORP makes such subjects notable if they can cobble together two news articles, at least one of which isn't their local newspaper.
Doug, I think that the main article may be outdated and perhaps a little overly detailed (e.g., listing levels of evidence for individual conditions) in the way that suggests the existence of a long history of true believers fighting with true skeptics. I glanced through a few recent reviews last week, which say things such as practicing yoga (but not necessarily expensive yoga classes) is not only efficacious for reducing pain in people with chronic back pain, but also cost-effective. It's a very common recommendation in the "you all should get some exercise" advice. When the NICE guideline for low back pain was updated a few months ago, they named yoga as an example of what people with low back pain should be doing as first-line treatment.[21] The NICE guideline on multiple sclerosis recommends yoga for MS-related fatigue.[22] If the main article isn't leaving you with the overall impression that yoga (at least as practiced in Western countries) is a form of physical exercise, and that, like many other forms of physical exercise, it has many health benefits, then the main article probably needs to be re-written.
(Disclaimer: I've never done yoga. So let me say this a different way: all the sources say that it's exercise, and whenever I walk past a yoga studio, it looks like exercise to me. If someone here has personal experience and can assure me that it's much more like lying in a hammock with a good book and a bowl of strawberries, then perhaps I'd consider doing a little OR for the cause. But until then, I'm just going to assume that the sources are correct on that point.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The problem with chronic lower back pain is that nothing is really effective in the long run, but lots of things can yield an improvement (even chiropractic). I do a little yoga every so often when I'm feeling creaky and stiff – the combination of stretching, tensing, breathing and focusing the mind seem to work well for me (anecdotally of course). I doubt that anybody would not consider it physical exercise, but I guess it would be relatively unusual to see it recommended for improving health in the same way that something like swimming is. You can burn 500+ calories an hour swimming, but yoga probably burns only around half of that. I wonder if anybody has patented "swimming yoga" yet? --RexxS (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
It appears that it's called "Aqua Yoga" instead of "Swimming Yoga".
I don't believe that burning a significant number calories is (strictly speaking) a necessary component for all health-improving exercises. Perhaps that explains why yoga seems to be so widely recommended. It may not be "the best" but you don't need "the best" to get health benefits (especially compared to the alternative of doing nothing). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • What are the chances of a successful AfD of all this "Goat Yoga" for failing the notability criretion? Because if it survives, I promise I will propose an article on, say, Morning Cereal Yoga or T-Shirt Yoga, complete with a (sponsored) article in some third-class online tabloid. — kashmiri TALK 02:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
    • IMO, chances at AFD are very low right now, and would probably still be low (but higher) in, say, a year or so (assuming that the current flurry of news articles are the usual flash in the pan). Chances of making a bold WP:MERGE stick are IMO much higher. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Waiting a year to take down blatant advertisement? This "goat yoga" is not any actual school of thought or Yogic practice but a commercial product sold by two enterpreneurial individuals. Can't see why we should carry its ads here for a year. I intend to CSD it under G11. Sorry, I have sort of sufficient knowledge and living experience to tell apart an actual Yoga school and a business that misuses the word. — kashmiri TALK 13:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
        1. Good luck with that.
        2. Perhaps we're using different dictionaries. I've got a "blatant advertisement" on my table here. It tells me the prices of products and the hours during which I can buy them at a particular store. It even tries to tell me why I should buy them at their store instead of buying the identical product at a store that's a ten-minute walk away. The Goat Yoga article doesn't do anything like that. In fact, at least 99% of the people who read that article have no chance of buying the product, because they don't live within a reasonable distance of the in-person classes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh no, per WP:G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion), "promotion does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc.". Here we are seing a certain product (Goat Yoga classes) being advertised and promoted. Additionally, a product that fails N - not being noted in multiple independent reliable sources - because not a single reference there complies with RS (none is independent or reliable). Such a product, listed on WP by a person with suspected COI, is clearly an advertisement/promotion. Going ahead with CSD. — kashmiri TALK 18:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Merge to another article might be easiest as it is more or less trivia and there is not enough for a stand alone article. They have done an amazing job getting media coverage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, will propose merge should speedy get declined. I am in shock how anything can be sold these days. BTW, someone found a diet supplement "DNA/RNA" being sold on Amazon for $3, and a serious discussion ensued in one of patient communities whether this could cure a severe genetic disorder. Folks were ready to go and buy it. — kashmiri TALK 18:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge to "Animal yoga" with other articles on yoga with animals. QuackGuru (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

For the record: AfD closed: "The result was redirect to Yoga. Almost nobody wants to keep this, but some want to merge a mention of this practice to Yoga. I don't think we have consensus for this, though, given that there seem to be no clear ideas about where in the expansive Yoga article his topic could be mentioned. A redirect is a compromise that allows editors to figure this out later." --RexxS (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge

Discussion Talk:PAX_Labs regarding a brand of e-cigs and its company. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)



  • needs more opinion(gave mine), particularly in discussion section,thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge discussion Vaginitis and Aerobic vaginitis

here Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 00:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

One is a subtype of the other. Not sure a merge is needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with James. If the articles are large enough that a merge is contraindicated, a {{main}} in the one should link to the other. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Neither article is very large. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

FDA Approved?

I did a few little edits on the Levomefolic acid article (diff). In the process I tried to determine if levomefolic acid (L-methylfolate) has been approved by the FDA as an adjunctive treatment for major depressive disorder. According to drugs.com: "L-methylfolate (in the 7.5 mg or 15 mg strength marketed as Deplin tablets) is approved by the FDA for the distinct nutritional requirements of individuals who have suboptimal L-methylfolate levels in the cerebrospinal fluid, plasma, and/or red blood cells and have major depressive disorder (MDD) with particular emphasis as adjunctive support for individuals who are on an antidepressant." However, I did not find it listed on either of the two FDA databases the agency recommends, Drugs@FDA and the FDA "Orange Book". I searched for 'levomefolic' and 'L-methylfolate' and 'Deplin'. I did not add anything to the article about FDA approval. Did I miss anything? Thanks! - Mark P.S. Is the Levomefolic acid article of interest to WikiProject Medicine? Currently three WikiProjects are listed on the Talk page: Chemicals, Pharmacology, & Biology.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

it is a medical food, an obscure class of stuff between dietary supplement and drug. Yes, should have WP:MED banner on it.... Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Jytdog. I added the banner. ... I will assume it is not FDA approved unless someone tells me (us) otherwise. ... Yeah, I love the 'medical food' label as it could mean so many different things. ;-)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Pulmonary volutrauma

Is there a real difference between Pulmonary volutrauma and Pulmonary barotrauma? If so, what is the real difference? If not, should Pulmonary volutrauma be merged into another article with redirect? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

[23]...Other manifestations....termed volutrauma, atelectotrauma, and biotrauma.... reflect the major pathophysiologic....[of] injury.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Read that. Can't see that it explains a real difference. As I see it: Lung barotrauma - injury resulting from excessive over-pressure in lungs relative to ambient, causing expansion of gas in lungs to over-stress lung tissue so that it tears (by tension or possibly shear stress) Lung volutrauma - injury resulting from excessive stretching of lung tissues in tension or possibly shear stress. The increased volume being caused by a pressure excess inside the lungs compared with the ambient pressure. To me these are just two ways of saying the same thing. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
To put it slightly differently: In both barotrauma and volutrauma there is necessarily an excessive volume caused by excessive pressure. Take the pressure away and the volume reverts automatically, the two are inseparable, causatively linked. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I see your point(and agree to an extent), perhaps more opinions are needed...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Peter's quite right and any diver will immediately spot that there's an inevitable connection between volume and pressure in a gas. I looked hard at the sources and it seems that the neologism 'volutrauma' seems to be almost exclusively associated with having a medical ventilator set to provide too great a tidal volume. That's the sense that the injury is caused by "excessive volume". Of course, for the damage to occur, you have to have an excess pressure, caused by the ventilator trying to force too great a volume of air into a pair of lungs that can't expand that far (so we're back to barotrauma again). --RexxS (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Boyle's law hasn't been repealed. Reading on in the same source,

In view of the preceding description, alveolar overdistention is the key element in the development of barotrauma. In this sense, “barotrauma” is a misnomer, because the term suggests the presence of elevated pressures in its pathogenesis. Current concepts suggest that high tidal volume ventilation produces the alveolar disruption that triggers the aforementioned chain of events.
Therefore, VILI seen with high tidal volume is most accurately termed volutrauma, and it has been the basis for recent clinical trials that have established a low tidal volume approach to mechanical ventilation.

— [24]

I would take that as simply indicative of an evolving nomenclature, from barotrauma toward volutrauma. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that alveolar overdistention is the proximal cause of the overstressing of the tissues, but it could not happen without a pressure difference. Volutrauma and barotrauma are both logical descriptions for the injury and are describing the same thing. Therefore, I suggest that there is no good reason to have a separate article for each, and that one could and should be merged into the other with a redirect. Barotrauma seems to be the more widely used term - particularly in diving physiology and medicine. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
concur[25]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
From Nunn's Applied Respiratory Physiology, 8th edition, page 471:-
"Many animal studies have demonstrated pulmonary oedema following artificial ventilation with high inflation pressures. In one of these studies, lung damage with high inflation pressures was attenuated by restricting chest movement to prevent overdistension of the lungs, indicating that alveolar size rather than pressure was responsible for lung injury. Termed volutrauma, this is now believed to contribute significantly to lung damage in patients with ALI [acute lung injury], in whom only a small proportion of alveoli may receive the entire tidal volume. This form of VILI most commonly manifests itself as interstitial or alveolar pulmonary oedema. There are several possible underlying mechanisms, all of which are closely interrelated." Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
That is very interesting, and supports my understanding of the mechanism by experimental evidence. Perhaps this is worth adding to the barotrauma article. Thanks. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
A careful reading of the single reference from Pulmonary volutrauma reveals the statement Although there has been some debate about the primary force that causes injury, both volume and pressure are two sides of the same coin - transpulmonary pressure. At the cellular level, stretching the lung beyond its capacity ruptures alveolar cell membranes, so I think the original editor was a little confused. Anyway, now that Ozzie has redirected, I will try to make a few improvements to Barotrauma. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
By way of comparison, is a steel beam bent (or a bone broken) by "excessive shear force", or by "excessive strain" under that force? Neither term is "wrong", it is simply another way of looking at the same thing: the beam follows a linear shear/strain curve until it exceeds an elastic limit, then the strain rapidly increases in a nonlinear fashion until the shear force is abruptly released. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 97/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Medicine.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Medicine, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. You guys rock :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Cure for Sickle-cell

Sickle-cell disease

A "cure" for Sickle-cell disease is being reported [26] [www.bbc.com/news/health-39142971]. Would some knowldgeable editor update the article, please? Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

[27]noteworthy case...., but will it work in the long run on a high percentage of such cases?[28][29]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I updated the research blurb at the bottom. Sizeofint (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, so are there are 2 possible "cures" now: "Allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation" (which may cure 18% with a sibling) and "therapeutic ex vivo gene transfer into autologous hematopoietic stem cells"? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
[30]better version--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
None of which are approved for use. Both in the research stages. Noteworthy for the research section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Reliable Drugs

I noticed that we have a "Reliable Drugs" drug store chain (chemist's shoppe). Do we have an article on pharmaceutical reliability (however you wish to interpret that) for which we can hatnote the article for people using the search term "reliable drugs" to get general information on drug efficacity measures/theory or similar? -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Would you mean Essential medicines? — PaleoNeonate — 04:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Efficacy is mostly about pharmaceutical efficacy. As with most articles on general concepts, it probably has a lot of room for improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

cannot access source to assess against MEDRS

User possibly putting in own publication. The text of the wp article was not changed. I have no access so cannot assess the suitability of the source [32]. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

That is not a review. Similar sources were added to many articles. QuackGuru (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I can see from the pubmed abstract of some of these that they are "case report and review of literature" type sources. Seems to be same patter, adds the reference without changing the text of the encyclopedia article. Thoughts? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Seems WP:CITESELF on the COI page would suggest this is excessive. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I think it's a wrong behavior. He is only adding refs without adding content and this also may be considered as WP: REFSPAM. We should probably revert his edits. Let's see more opinions. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 21:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
"Only adding refs without adding content" is not a problem. If we don't have people doing this, then we will never increase the proportion of cited content, which some editors support.
I'm also not worried about the "case report and review" style of source, as several of these seem to be rare diseases, for which few better sources exist.
But I do suspect this of being rather "excessive" in the sense discouraged by WP:SELFCITE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

This is very worrying. I just checked his edits to Plummer–Vinson syndrome and although he may well be right about the burning sensation not being a symptom, his reference pmid:26486296 is a case report on five subjects and nothing to do with the text he amended. In addition, looking at his journal article on PubMed, some of it appears to have been lifted wholesale from a 2006 review that we use in our article. I've reverted his changes at Plummer–Vinson syndrome, but all of his contributions need examination. --RexxS (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I have checked Congenital lip pit, because it cites the only recent article by this author that PubMed tags as being a review. It wasn't an unreasonable source for the statement in question, so I left it. It might be possible to substitute a better source, but this particular citation is probably better than nothing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Of course, WhatamIdoing you are quite right, "Only adding refs without adding content" is not a problem in general terms, thanks so much for your explanation. But my comment was an extension of the previous ones, that is to say: this concrete case in which there is an excessive WP:SELFCITE (all refs are selfcite) and also, he is not adding any content. That is why it seemed to me WP:REFSPAM. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 16:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The editor did make a small number of content changes, e.g., here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
... none of which were related to his references. --RexxS (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, only one small content change in 18 edits: this one (He erased a part of the sentence and moved the rest).
I want to ask a question: in these cases, should we notify the user of this conversation here? He is a new editor and I imagine that he does not know the Wikipedia policies, it would be good to be able to learn. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 00:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I'd overlooked that. I had just assumed that the new editor had been pinged in one of the first mentions.
It would be really great if we could recruit this obviously knowledgeable editor. If you're publishing papers, then you're likely to know about other good papers, too. All of the ins and outs of Wikipedia editing can be pretty complicated. But perhaps you would consider leaving a personal message on the user talk page instead? The tone of this thread might be overly discouraging. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I've posted an explanatory note and link to this thread on the user's talk page. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, WhatamIdoing and Matthew Ferguson 57! You are so right, WhatamIdoing, so I left him a message of encouragement [33]. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 18:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Sustained Acoustic Medicine

Please review the above, also please see Talk:Therapeutic_ultrasound#Proposed_merge_with_Sustained_Acoustic_Medicine. Thx Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a person with a COI wrote it. Unreliable sources are littered throughout the page. QuackGuru (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I have asked the creator about that. I am not going to start cleaning it up until i finish that discussion, but i think the merge is probably a good idea at minimum and i hope folks will give their thoughts at the merge discussion, whatever they may be. Jytdog (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Some of the sources are related to conferences. Based on that someone very close to the subject wrote it. Most of the sources do not have a link to read the sources. It is difficult to verify most of the claims when I can't click to read most of the sources. But the unreliable sources can be deleted. I would start by taking a broom and sweeping out the unreliable ones. Is sustained acoustic medicine a new technology or is it just another ultrasound therapy being rebranded as something new that uses the same technology as ultrasound therapy? QuackGuru (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I think Sustained Acoustic Medicine might be a brand of ZetrOZ, Inc. There is no Sustained Acoustic Medicine. It is a device called Sustained Acoustic Medicine. AFD or redirect for the ad. QuackGuru (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Immunocompromise, immunosuppression and immunodeficiency

Neutropenia(a type of immunodeficiency)

Assumed clear definitions distinguishing these terms, e.g.:

However, former article lists examples of "non deliberate immunosuppression" such as HIV/AIDS. If it is possible to be "immunosuppressed" because of medical conditions rather than it being a term restricted to an artificially created condition by medical interventions, then what is the difference between immunodeficiency and immunosuppression? And the next question would be do we need separate articles in the encyclopedia? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that the terms have been used very precisely in most sources. If we've got a top-quality source that specifically defines them, then we could create compare-and-contrast sections in the two articles and try to improve our own precision in other articles, but if you frequently read, e.g., that people with HIV are "immunosuppressed", then you will expect them to be mentioned in that article. (Ten seconds with Google suggests that sources are nearly 50–50 on that example, with slightly more Ghits for "immunosuppressed" than for "immunocompromised".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
If sources are commonly using the terms interchangeably, then this begs the question should we merge? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
It makes more sense to talk about the subject of the article(s) first, and to find a title later.
The possible subjects could be divided up like this: deliberate immune reduction (e.g., lupus), accidental/side-effect-y immune lowering (e.g., chemotherapy), and pathological low immune system (e.g., AIDS).
Completely ignoring the terms, does it make more sense to you to have an article about all of those together (lupus+chemo+AIDS), or to separate them in various ways? And if you split them, do you split them into two or three groups? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
agree w/ WAID on questions asked--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Also agree entirely with WAID's analysis of this topic. However this may be original research to classify into these 3 groups like this. Is there a source which explicitly states this? If these terms are all used basically interchangeably in the literature, then support merge to 1 article. @Doc James:, or anyone else other opinions? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Context

Inhaled corticosteroids causing isolated candidial lesions on the dorsum of the tongue and the palate, presumably the steroid flowing over these surfaces while it is being inhaled, and altering/suppressing local/mucosal immune function and allowing commensal candidal species to become pathogenic. Since the lesion is caused by what is effectively topical rather than systemic use of steroids, is this still considered immunosuppression? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Any opinions/thoughts/ evidence on this? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
per [34]exact phrase not found--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
It's weird how can't find any source which explicitly states this. Assume it does qualify as immunosuppression even though it is on the local level rather than systemic level. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

One would say "they are immunocompromised", "they are immunosuppressed" or "they are in an immunodeficiency state" interchangeably. We have refs such as this [35] I am happy with a merge. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Visible citations for every sentence

Our readers appear to want at least one citation supporting every single sentence for medical content.

When a single ref supports multiple sentences in a row I used to hide all but the last one. I however am going to stop doing this as this happens SO often [36] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Wikipedia_talk:Citation_overkill#Citations Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
That's just an essay James. I think we might be better off writing our own essay at WP:MEDCITE, explaining that we prefer having references in the lead (because we actively translate the lead into other languages as a priority), and that one source may support multiple sentences, especially in the lead. We could mention that hiding references inside hidden text has become less useful since the advent of the visual editor. We could recommend using brief named references like (<ref name="Smith 2016"> at the end of each sentence, in order to lessen the maintenance work of the regular editors like yourself. If the essay gained support as a practice in medical articles, we could later propose promoting it to a subject-specific guideline. What do folks think? --RexxS (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is going to be a problem. We'd need to make a WP:PROPOSAL that medical content be exempted from MOSLEAD, and I'm not sure that's a fight that's worth taking.
Especially since the IP's problem wasn't the hidden source, but the fact that the article was self-contradictory. The lead said more men than women, and the body said more women than men. That needed to be fixed. (Whether it's correct now is more than I know.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's a fight to be had. MOSLEAD (or more precisely WP:LEADCITE) says "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." In my book, that's pretty much carte blanche for WPMED to explain why we prefer to have citations in the lead, and how medicine tends to be complex, so justifies a greater density of citations than some other topic areas (see also User:Piotrus/Wikipedia:Why most sentences should be cited) --RexxS (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
There is an important gap between "explain why we (a group of self-selected individuals with no authority to make other editors do what we want) prefer to have citation in the lead" and "make other editors accept and provide such citations, despite the widely supported tradition of avoiding citations in the lead".
Anybody can write an essay; a WP:PROPOSAL is a sounder method of changing the guideline, and changing the guideline is what other editors are going to expect from you, if you demand the use of citations in the lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm really not suggesting we "demand the use of citations in the lead". Honest. Read what I wrote again. I just want to make other editors aware that there are good reasons why medical articles may benefit from having more citations in the lead. There's a mistaken meme on Wikipedia that we don't have citations in the lead, and that needs to be balanced with cogent arguments of why that may not always be best. --RexxS (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
What the editor saw when removing the self-contradictory sentence.
How do we know that "Our readers appear to want at least one citation supporting every single sentence"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Because I review 100s to 1,000s of medical edits per day and fairly frequently see stuff like this.[37] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
That's a link to an edit – the fourth edit made from that particular mobile IP address – which means that it's what an editor did (i.e., not what a reader wants). Furthermore, the edit summary states that self-contradiction was the reason for removal. That sentence (or the one claiming the opposite) needed to be removed. Have a look at the screenshot: The "hidden" notes are visible, and if you double-click them, they expand to fill the whole screen. Or try it out yourself: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevens%E2%80%93Johnson_syndrome#/editor/0 will work even from a desktop computer. Use the pencil icon in the upper right of the toolbar to switch back and forth between wikitext and visual modes. (Switching to visual mode is very handy for getting past the infobox.)
Have you talked to non-editing readers about whether they expect little blue clicky numbers, and/or whether they ever look at them? I have a couple of times, and I find that people don't exactly care about sourcing. They want our content right, and sources are an appropriate and effective means to that end, but readers don't use those as much as editors do.
For that matter, many editors, including me, will leave an edit summary of "uncited" as a euphemism for "This is factually wrong" or "This does not belong in an encyclopedia". So even if you're seeing a lot of "uncited" edit summaries from me, that doesn't mean that I actually care about whether a citation has been spammed into the end of that sentence. It could just mean that I want the sentence gone, and I am engaging in a policy ritual that makes restoring it slightly more BURDENsome on you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah thanks WAID. VE is getting nice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: "We could mention that hiding references inside hidden text has become less useful since the advent of the visual editor", what percentage of edits are done using VE? Is there any reason to believe that that percentage might be higher or lower for edits to medical articles? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

VE editors are higher among new editors who simply do not notice the comments.
How frequently VE is used is an excellent Q though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Use varies by platform and language. Here at the English Wikipedia, maybe 5% of mainspace edits use the visual editor, and (because the configuration here essentially hides it) new editors have difficulty figuring out how to switch to visual editing. As a result, here (and at a few other projects: Meta, Commons, most of the Wiktionaries and Wikisources, a handful of Wikipedias with dual-script languages, etc.), using visual editing could be taken as an indicator that a "new" editor is not exactly new.
For comparison, I've heard that about 40% of non-bot edits on desktop in the mainspace involve "power user" tools such as AWB. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Readers might think the text is original research per this. On controversial topics editors intentionally replaced sourced text with text that fails verification, especially in the lede. Sources in the lede is the best option. QuackGuru (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Bundling too many citations at the end of the sentence will cause mass confusion. See "Aluminum,[31] barium,[68] cadmium,[71] chromium,[1] copper,[11] iron,[11] lead,[71] manganese,[68] mercury,[72] nickel,[71] silicate,[11] silver,[11] strontium,[68] tin,[11] titanium,[68] zinc,[68] and zirconium have been found in the vapor.[68]" That's the way to do this. QuackGuru (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Support citations for everything I support a default expectation that all claims in Wikipedia's medical content should be backed with citations to sources. I think the citations should be visible in all cases, and not commented out. I think that anyone is justified in striking any sentence without a citation, putting the burden back on anyone who restores it to add a citation. I do not think it would be appropriate at this time to remove all content which is not backed by a citation, but I do think that anyone is justified in always using citations after every sentence. If each sentence in a paragraph is backed with the same source, then I support having visible citations for all sentences. I support the use of citations for every sentence in the lead despite older wiki arguments that they are unnecessary. I acknowledge that this goes against wiki tradition but I think that the situation has changed and that there are good reasons for piloting reform of the citation system in medical articles. Having more citations increases the quality of Wikipedia's medical content. So far as I am able to understand, the major argument against using citations is that the presence of citations makes text more difficult and less attractive for readers to use, and that citations are a barrier to reader access to information. I am not persuaded that either that or other arguments against citations outweigh the reasons for having them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I've made a start at laying out the different issues and positions at the newly-created WP:MEDCITE. It's just a draft of an essay, so any contributions would be gratefully received. --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is another example User:Fortnum deleted referenced content twice,[38][39] the second time after I explained that the content was indeed referenced.[40]
Other editors appear to want every sentence to be referenced. But than again we also have people who remove references when there are more than a couple in a row. I am not sure what the solution is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
In a WP:NUTSHELL editors who delete inline citations may be violating Wikipedia:Verifiability. See WP:PROVEIT: "Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). See Citing sources for details of how to do this."
See WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION: "If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, you can tag a sentence with the {{citation needed}} template by writing {{cn}} or {{fact}}."
Any sentence without an inline citation is unsourced. But there is a much deeper problem. Most editors do not want to follow the rules. That may be the reason behind they are against an inline citation after every sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Strongly support visible citation for every sentence. Things get messy when future editors will want to redraft and move things around (WP:INTEGRITY), articles will be more stable in the longterm. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: There is always the potential for new users to have problems communicating, and having more references may help avoid those. In Fortnum's case he failed to leave edit summaries or reply on his talk page, but he did open a thread at Talk:Stomach cancer #Removal of unreferenced material where he explains that he feels the "text confuses 'cause' with 'association'". I've reworded that sentence of the lead and added another reference. --RexxS (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Could we perhaps get a little clarity about what "citations for every sentence" means to its supporters?
For example, do you really believe that we need a citation behind a sentence such as "The human hand normally has four fingers and a thumb"? Or do you mean that if a citation is needed for the content, then that citation should be present after each sentence and not merely dumped at the end of a long paragraph? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I believe there is existing guidance about not needing sources for "sky is blue" statements.
For stuff that needs citation, placing one inline citation at the end of a paragraph leads to WP:INTEGRITY issues as other editors later redraft the article and add things in the middle of the paragraph. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
+1 to Matthew about the sky is blue thing; I can defer to existing policy on that. I do think the policy is often abused, though, with WP:BLUE being used to support content which is obvious to field experts but not known to layman readers. I also want citations in the lead and in infoboxes because I dispute the popular claim that Wikipedians have the capacity to easily manage the quality of leads and infoboxes when the citations are mixed in the body of the article somewhere. I feel that there was a misjudgement in the past about how labor intensive it is to cross check which sentences in the lead go to which citations in the body of an article and I want citations everywhere. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hiding citations subsection

Should our readers be able to verify a concept or idea? Should they be able to click on the citation or is it better to hide citations? See Wikipedia_talk:Citation_overkill#Flow_regarding_the_content_about_hiding_citations. QuackGuru (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It appears that this dispute begins at Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Citations, and Quack has linked to only the last sub-section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder article

I made this revert to the article. It might need additional eyes if the edit is made again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

That was a huge edit, probably done offline/in a word processor. Some of it's obviously problematic (e.g., blanking the entire ==Epidemiology== section), but was there anything in it that could have been saved? The editor probably has a point about the article being long and difficult for most readers to understand. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Left them a student welcome. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, WhatamIdoing, some of the material can probably be saved. I didn't have the time to attempt analyze what can possibly be saved. But we can obviously post the IP's change to the talk page and see. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you'd like to WP:PRESERVE it by putting the diff on the article's talk page, for the sake of anyone who is interested in improving the article in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Donation of a couple of hundred US images

Under an open license and found here[41] Will be adding them soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

[42]very useful (for several articles)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay have gone through and added them as appropriate :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Person-centered therapy

I know it's not totally in your purview, but Person-centered therapy could use some eyes on it; there is a content dispute that could use third opinions. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Chimed in on the Talk page, and edited the lede (lead paragraph). I also changed the WP:PSYCH rating from B-class to C-class.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Myotonic dystrophy

MMD/Histopathology

the above article could use some help(edits) I had done a few, however the diagnosis section still needs work,thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Salt Lamps

I made a comment on the speleotherpy talk page here. Comments would be appreciated. Thanks. JenOttawa (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I've done a few small copy-edits. Further attention would be welcome. --RexxS (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Adjusted some more. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The quackery is strong with this one. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_97"