This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 120 | Archive 121 | Archive 122 | Archive 123 | Archive 124 | Archive 125 | → | Archive 130 |
Just out today there is a paper presenting a case study of Wikipedia editing in a physical therapy program. I am an author.
The classes are at Wikipedia:Touro. The outreach model is applying the Wikipedia:Education program to a 3-hour workshop where all the attendees do research and draft their text proposals and citations in advance. Tracking is with meta:Programs and Events Dashboard.
The Wikimedia Foundation sponsored open access publishing of this paper through its grants program as documented at meta:Grants:Project/Rapid/Touro College/publishing wiki education research in healthcare.
I have some additional information about this project which I intend to share, but which was out of scope of this paper. The paper talks about "persistence", which is a measure of the extent to which content which someone posts to Wikipedia actually stays in Wikipedia over a period of time. In general, editors wish to make persistent edits and to avoid edits which will not be persistent. Later on wiki I will share something about those measurements and tie it to this research.
For now, I hope that others can use this paper as supporting evidence of the usefulness of classes editing Wikipedia's medical content. For me it has been enlightening to learn how many patients have pain which they are treating with physical therapy, and how much more time that patients spend engaged in making thoughtful decisions about physical therapy as compared to many other types of healthcare, and also how often Wikipedia contains the perspective of pharmacology but lacks perspective of physical therapy in its articles.
Thanks everyone. If anyone wants to check student edits in this program just made on 12 March 2019, then please see the dashboard. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Can we get some opinions on whether it was a good idea to split this article this way? And if splitting the article at all is best? I commented at Talk:Pedophobia (phobia)#The split on the latest development. But there is previous discussion there and later sections about the changes. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
We need opinions on the following matter: Talk:Causes of transsexuality#"Correlation between Autism Spectrum (AS)" material. A permalink for it is here. The matter concerns sourcing, how to present the material, and whether or not we should present any of the material in that article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Is there a better name for this, or does this topic already exist as an article somewhere? It seems like it was created as vandalism and has been sitting unsourced for 13 years. Natureium ( talk) 19:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Some expert eyes are really needed on ECHO-7 article ( /info/en/?search=ECHO-7). It is an unproven anti-cancer drug from Latvia, currently in the center of a fresh scandal in its homecountry Latvia, so manufacturers and their publicists are flooding the page with their edits. Any help would be appreciated. KC LV ( talk) 17:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I came across the term decolonization in Susan S. Huang and wonder if an article could be put together explaining the term. Decolonization (healthcare), perhaps. The Decolonization article has more to do with tackling colonialism than ridding bodies of bacteria - which is what I understand the term to mean. thanks -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 11:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Further opinions requested at Talk:Dissociative_identity_disorder#"Split_personality"_as_sometimes_a_synonym. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, continuing our previous discussion on whether we should reject papers from Frontiers journal at the RSN here. petrarchan47 คุ ก 19:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I have a question. Some articles have different name. Some are Health in COUNTRYNAME, others are Health care in COUNTRYNAME, while some others are Healthcare in COUNTRYNAME? I dont understand that? Shouldn't all have the same name? Please explain to me. is there a reason for that? Also, i cannot move some articles, and have information : The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. How does exists if article name is not like that? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Bookman ( talk • contribs) 11:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
intitle:"Health care in"
gives
244 results but some of those are redirects. You can work through those at your pleasure. Cheers --
RexxS (
talk)
23:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Healthcare infrastructure in...
or Healthcare industry in...
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
15:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)This is a brand name that is no longer manufactured. Is there somewhere that this could be redirected to? Is a page for general phosphorous replacement products needed? Natureium ( talk) 14:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Could some take a look at two new tables in the staging section. I'm a neophyte with table structure, so I think they might benefit from someone with more experience wrt structure. Ian Furst ( talk) 14:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I have collected yet another batch of articles with links to DAB pages on medicine-related topics. Search for 'disam' in read mode and for '{{d' in edit mode; and if you solve any of these puzzles, remove the {{ dn}} tag and post {{ done}} here.
Thanks in advance, Narky Blert ( talk) 02:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi...I would welcome any suggestions or edits on Air China Flight 112 (SARS outbreak)? Whispyhistory ( talk) 09:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
R180 was converted from a redirect to a disambiguation page today. When looking to see if there were other entries that belonged on the page, I found that the first few results on google were related to the marking on 4mg Tizanidine Hydrochloride pills. Tizanidine hydrochloride redirects to Tizanidine which makes no mention of pills at all. Do editors here think that this should be mentioned in the article, in a different article and/or on the dab page?
I have no opinion either way, and I'm not advocating for or against inclusion anywhere, but I haven't found any guidance about it so I don't know if it's been discussed previously or what the issues are. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what needs to be done with this. Natureium ( talk) 01:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
If you deal with groups on wiki (beyond this awesome one, of course), then you might be interested in meatball:GoodBye. MeatballWiki has many interesting pages, but this one, which is about the end of the lifecycle for contributors, is IMO one of the best. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Recently, I have edited a page and some of the information was from RCTs. Those citations were deleted by another contributor. Can anyone confirm me that information from RCTs should not be included? What about the large RCTs? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sara3054 ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
For info. I wanted to publicise this AfD debate in a neutral manner to get independent eyes on the discussion, but then I thought bugger that, went to FTN, and came here. - Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Could I get some opinions on All-on-4? The phrase is a registered trademark of Nobelbiocare (a major dental implant manufacturer), and the article is weighted heavily to product push imo with few references. In 2014 I would have argued for deletion. Now, however, the phrase is thrown around as a generic term for the procedure of a fixed prosthetic on 4 implants (even though it's still a registered tagline), and I could easily clean to a procedure article. This could also be easily merged to Dental implant. Do I clean? Delete? Merge? Go have coffee and look again in 5 years? Looking for some thoughts. Ian Furst ( talk) 00:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Some WikiProject Medicine expertise would be useful at Talk:Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#By_Nomopbs re what counts as a primary vs. secondary source. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
NOTE: I am proposing this discussion for FleishmanHillard on behalf of Daiichi Sankyo. I am a paid editor and am aware of the COI guidelines.
Per the merger discussion guidelines, I wanted to notify WikiProject Medicine of a merger discussion I’ve initiated on the page for pigmented villonodular synovitis (PVNS). More detail is on that page’s Talk page, but in short, we have initiated this discussion at the recommendation of a conflict of interest editor who we’d previously contacted about adding tenosynovial giant cell tumor (TGCT) as a synonym for diffuse-type pigmented villonodular synovitis (PVNS).
We are seeking the community’s guidance on how to go about ensuring that tenosynovial giant cell tumor (TGCT) is accurately defined on Wikipedia. Currently, there is not a stand-alone TGCT page. It instead redirects to the giant-cell tumor of the tendon sheath (GCT-TS) page, which does not include TGCT terminology. This would suggest TGCT is solely a synonym for GCT-TS, which is incorrect. According to literature, TGCT is also closely related (and some say interchangeable) with pigmented villonodular synovitis (PVNS) as well. Thanks for your time and consideration. Jon Gray ( talk) 01:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Tumor, giant cell, soft parts see Neoplasm , connective tissue, uncertain behaviorthen
Neoplasm, connective tissue, [site], uncertain behavior. If you go straight to Vol 3's neoplasm table, there are "see connective tissue" instructions at both tendon (sheath) and synovial membrane. A code from category D21, the code currently listed at GCT-TS, would be used if the tumour was known to be/specified as benign. Little pob ( talk) 10:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
At Talk:Dental dam#Page under review as part of a university assessment task (a permalink here), we could use some opinions on wording. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 14:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
One of the sources here, used twice in the article, is the non-peer reviewed Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons published by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons a fringe group that among other things denies that HIV causes AIDS. The association's article has a lot to say about the journal, starting with:
The actual source used is: [7] I think this needs replacing but don't know that I'm the person to do it. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
References
I'm working through the list of unsourced medical articles, and we have a bunch of stubs of subspecialties of surgical pathology, most of them unsourced. Are these worth keeping, or should we redirect them to surgical pathology? I listed some of them here, but there are more:
Thanks, Natureium ( talk) 18:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
A few of us from Wiki Project Med are working to put on a space at Wikimania for Health related talks. We are drafting this HERE. Please suggest ideas and indicate if you are able to attend. Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
What do you guys think about this section? Does it pass MEDRS? I'm seeing a citation to the Journal of Complementary and Alternative medicine, which seems questionable. I'm not that familliar with MEDRS and Sahaja Yoga to comment on the rest. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 01:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I removed the section, but it has since been added back. Discuss it here:
Harizotoh9 ( talk) 01:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Another update: the section was added back, and I just removed it. I invite others to chime in on the discussion on the talk page so that we can try to reach a consensus. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 05:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
A lot of the same research is used here. Is it valid or also dubious?
Harizotoh9 ( talk) 00:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone here is familiar with {{
cn-span}}
, but due to the fact that there was no template which had this functionality for specifying text that needed a medical reference in a manner similar to
Template:Citation needed span prior to today and since I wanted a template with this functionality, I created {{
Medical citation needed span}}
. Template shortcuts include {{
mcn-span}}
, {{
mcn span}}
, and {{
mcns}}
.
The usage/purpose of this template is fairly straightforward and works exactly like
Template:Citation needed span. Compare {{
mcn}}
in (1) with {{
mcns}}
in (2) below:
Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 05:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Would someone mind taking a picture of some coban for cohesive bandage? Natureium ( talk) 15:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I've come across a bunch of medical journal stubs and have asked for input on what should be considered for inclusion here. Thoughts welcome. Natureium ( talk) 19:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
While the direct subject isn't medical, part of an RfC at Talk:Decline_in_insect_populations#Use_of_sources_for_insect_declines deals with the interplay of secondary sources vs. primary research articles and newspapers in an area of disputed science that may be of some interest to editors here given the type of material we work with in medical topics. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 20:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
There's a neutrality dispute at this article.
Harizotoh9 ( talk) 00:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
If you have an opinion on the title/content of this sidebar, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Please weigh in if interested here. petrarchan47 คุ ก 10:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a compilation of journals, arranged by publisher (from most to least citations). It's very early, and needs a ton of cleanup, but the results are interesting. For example, if you're interested in AMA journals, you can search (with quotes "American Medical Association"), and find the JAMA journals consolidated under one heading.
Again, there will be lots of false positives, but they can be suppressed exactly like those from WP:SOURCEWATCH can be suppressed. See WT:SOURCEWATCH#FAQ (Q4 and Q6) for details on how to do that. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 05:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Update on a tool I heard about at work: The wishlist folks are working on a sort of metrics dashboard that will be useful to people who run Wikipedia editing parties (aka WP:EDITATHONs). I decided to try out WPMED as an "event". Using the people listed in the newer Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Members (which isn't all of you, by the way), and looking at the activity in editing (any/all) articles during the first three months of this year, I found: [8]
The tool can't look at talk page categories to check only edits made to WPMED-tagged pages, but we could check out edits to specific mainspace category trees, like articles in Category:Cancer and its subpages. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
18:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
While creating the template in the section above, I noticed a problem with these redirects.
Does anyone have any objection to me retargeting Template:Medref inline to Template:Medical citation needed? I think that page would be a more appropriate target for that redirect. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 05:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
{{
Medref inline}}
actually only had 1 backlink and 0 transclusions; I removed the backlink and retargeted the redirect accordingly.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
10:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Should anyone have time:
I just replaced several very marginal sources there. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Article was moved to " Compulsive sexual behavior". Opinions are needed at Talk:Compulsive sexual behavior#Move of the article. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed this new on Twitter. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/RetractionBot I am looking forward to learning more about this. JenOttawa ( talk) 23:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Cortico-striatal-thalamic-cortical loop and Cortico-basal ganglia-thalamo-cortical loop have been tagged for merge since 2018 and no one has commented. Does this fall under your guys' wheelhouse? If so, thoughts? ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
About how to balance wording when the high quality literature says different things. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
3rd nomination for this article - subject has written books WP:GNG Even though the books are self published the books are in many libraries. In addition the subject has made a widely recognized contribution in her field. Often quoted on the topic of Men's Health across Australia 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
widely recognised contribution in her field" is a long way short of "
a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field (Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians)" as required by WP:ANYBIO#2. -- RexxS ( talk) 18:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I've removed a lot of copyvio from Tourniquet, added at various times at least three different people apparently associated with James McEwen and/or his company Delfi Medical. The article is pretty much a wreck as a result, and needs to be completely re-written by someone with appropriate background knowledge and experience. I'm not that person; any takers? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 20:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I created the article - /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#After_nominating:_Notify_interested_projects_and_editors
The article was proposed WP:AFD at 21:40, on the 20 April 2019. Incidentally, I think the proposing editor doesn't have a valid set of reasons (please see WP:DEL-REASON) for the proposal, so the proposal itself shouldn't actually be permitted.
cordially, Sederecarinae ( talk) 20:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
21:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
A seemingly notable doctor, urologist, robotic surgeon, and professor. Widely published. But sourcing is thin. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I have added two sections to the article: about use as a probiotic and about human infections caused by this yeast. I tried to follow WP:MEDRS as well as general scientific guidelines and common sense judgement in selecting and citing sources, but since I have no medical training myself, neither training in microbiology (nor in any other branch of biology), I believe that it might be useful if some professional medical researcher could give a look to my additions. Эйхер ( talk) 14:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
The next mw:Wikimedia Research/Showcase has two talks: "Group Membership and Contributions to Public Information Goods: The Case of WikiProject" and "Thanks for Stopping By: A Study of 'Thanks' Usage on Wikimedia". They'll begin on Wednesday, April 17, 2019, at 19:30 UTC (11:30 a.m. PDT). It will be recorded on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmb5LoJzOoE
This might be interesting to anyone who deals with groups or who uses the Thanks button. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello medical experts. Would someone from this project please look over the Draft:Craig Simmons page, which is up for review at AFC? Some of the references are at PUBMED. I know it needs work on being more factual and less about inspiration and goals. The editor responded somewhat to my comment about the need for independent references. I am willing to work on the tone if I was right about the notability.— Anne Delong ( talk) 11:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
GENERALLY1) Fundamentally, I do not consider any award for emerging anything to indicate notability in any field. All the rest of the wording "distinguished", "exceptional" is puffery--the key part is "emmerging". People are notable once their accomplishments have emerged. "emerging" = "might be notable someday," known around here as WP:TOOSOON. This is not to say that someone with such an award as the hgihest award might not actualy be notable, just that the Canada Research Chair people have not accepted it yet. And , obviously, someone with that award in their earlier career might and often will actually become notable later. This in fact seems to be the case here--the award is from 2006. 2)Most US named professorships are permaent awards at the highest level. But sometimes an award given as a "Distinguished" professorship is a term award, given for a term of anywhere from 1 to 5 years. And the title "University professor" has a variable meaning,; some universities use it a term award ; others for retired professors--I know Berkeley does (or at least did), 3) we always need to go by citations. Awards in the absence of high citations indicates a situation that needs further checking. (sometimes, of course, it just indicates a very narrow specialty, but it can indicate notability by press release) SPECIFICALLY: 1)Looking at google scholar, I see 10 articles with over 2000' references each. That's enough for very clear notability. There's no need for anything qualified or uncertain here. 2)In any case the article is promotional and worded as a press release. For articles like this I find it easier to rewrite than to successfully explain how to rewrite. I will do that, and accept. DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC) AND The expected danger of promotional writing is to make something look notable when it really isn't; but I have seen an increasing number of instances here where promotional writing (sometimes innocent copy-cat, not promotional intent) leads to our being suspicious and obscures the actual notability. DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC) ANYBIO is based upon press coverage, but the wording of press coverage is likely to be hyperbola and PR; this is especially true in subjects where it is thought the general public cannot judge for themselves. As an encyclopedia , we should report the accomplishments, not the taglines.
I've made a stub for Limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy (LATE) which is hitting the lay media. If anybody has the time, please review it. Abductive ( reasoning) 17:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Anesthesia#RFC
Interstellarity (
talk)
10:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
11:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
The editor of the Pancreatic cancer page asked me to post my addition here. I would like to offer the following sentence for pre-review. If there are any issues please suggest how I can make this conform to Wiki standards. This research has significant implications.
An active area of research is to explore whether galectin specific targeting might have therapeutic potential, since there is evidence for aberrant protein glycosylation and overexpression of Galectin-1 and Galectin-3 in pancreatic cancer. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
I was wondering whether this publication reflects accepted medical history of sickle cell disease; because if so I plan to add some information from it to African humid period. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 11:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Health of Filipino Americans#Merger Discussion . RightCowLeftCoast ( Moo) 01:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Please join the discussion on Talk:Giant axonal neuropathy with curly hair as to whether that article should be merged into Giant axonal neuropathy. -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 22:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I was looking up something to do with transferrin saturation, and noticed there was a "no references" tag. I just wanted to check that https://labtestsonline.org/ would do as a reliable resource before I started a tidy up. As in, I know it is reliable, but is it wiki-suitable? Thanks, Red Fiona ( talk) 11:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Last couple of times (citation #1 fixed here and citation #4 fixed here) I've added a citation using a PMID with the "Cite" tool in wikitext editor, the PMC field is corrupted by an extra "PMC" prefix (PMC IDs begin with "PMC", whereas PMIDs are strictly numeric). I would guess that someone originally wrote the PMC formatter to prepend with "PMC", then someone "fixed" the PMID citation template to include the PMC prefix. Anyone know where to take this? I'd go to a Talk page but I don't know which one to use (things seem to be buried a few levels deep). — soupvector ( talk) 15:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
{{Cite journal|last=Barros|first=Mônica Bastos de Lima|last2=de Almeida Paes|first2=Rodrigo|last3=Schubach|first3=Armando Oliveira|date=2011-10|title=Sporothrix schenckii and Sporotrichosis|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21976602|journal=Clinical Microbiology Reviews|volume=24|issue=4|pages=633–654|doi=10.1128/CMR.00007-11|issn=1098-6618|pmc=PMCPMC3194828|pmid=21976602}}
|date=2011-10
can't be a range of years and YYYY-MM is not allowed by
MOS:DATES|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21976602
links to the same place as |pmid=21976602
and also hides the automatic link to PubMed but ...|pmc=PMCPMC3194828
has too many PMC
prefixes so doesn't link by itself nor does it auto-link |title=
PMC
prefix which was in keeping with the original wikitext-based cs1|2 templates. That was changed with
this edit 29 April 2017. There is now no requirement that |PMC=
be digits only. cs1|2 will accept either digits-only or digits with one PMC
prefix. The code strips that prefix because the rendering: "PMC PMC3194828" looks silly (when there are errors, as above, the module renders the PMC as-is in case it just might work – an indicator that something in the module has gang agley). When a template has |pmc=PMC...
, the module categorized that article into ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:CS1 maint: PMC format. Gnomes (and
User:Citation bot I think) use this category to strip the prefix from the PMCID which is why it is so near to empty most of the time.PMC
prefixes as it did above, we should tweak
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers so that it strips all PMC
prefixes instead of just the first one. Gnomes or bots seem to be keeping the error count down, ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:CS1 errors: PMC stays relatively empty, but those volunteers shouldn't have to be continually cleaning up garbage that ve shouldn't be producing in the first place.{{
pmc}}
is not a citation template so doesn't fall within the bailiwick of cs1|2. Some thing like this might be used to replace {{{1}}}
in that template:
{{#invoke:String|replace|source={{{1}}} |pattern=^[Pp][Mm][Cc] |replace= |plain=false}}
{{{1}}}
with PMC3194828
:
{{#invoke:String|replace|source=PMC3194828 |pattern=^[Pp][Mm][Cc] |replace= |plain=false}}
→ 3194828I heard about m:Research:Reading time/Draft Report in a meeting yesterday, and I think some of you may be interested.
Reading time is just what it says on the tin: how much time people spend reading a given article. The answer is: not much.
Specifically, half of people opening a Wikipedia article are gone 25 seconds later. Only a quarter stay on the same article for as long as 75 seconds. And it's shorter if the person is from a developed country and/or if the reader is using a mobile device.
We know there is some demand for long articles (think about anyone with a loved one in the hospital, on a desperate quest to learn everything right now), but for the most part, we've got somewhere between 10 seconds and (if we're lucky) two minutes to tell typical readers what we think they need to know.
So with that in mind, maybe it'd be a good idea for anyone with "favorite" articles to take a look at what you see at the very top of the page. 25 seconds is enough time for an average adult to read about 100 words. Half the time, that's the most amount of time we've got. (There are lots of free word-counting tools on the web, or you could estimate it as a third the length of this message.) Look over the beginning of the articles you care about, and ask yourself: Are we "burying the lead", or are we getting straight to the main point? Are we getting lost in classification systems, etymologies, or technical jargon, or can people glance at the page and discover right away that "Scaryitis is a bacterial infection that causes redness and fatigue, and can be treated with antibiotics"?
I'll admit that article leads haven't always been my favorite thing to work on. They often feel like a haphazard collection of information that probably belongs elsewhere. But it's looking like most of our readers never get any further than that. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I was just questimating. It looks more like 40. Trying to summarize an article in 40 words seems like either an incredibly high or low bar, but something to keep in mind when creating the first two sentences? Ian Furst ( talk) 23:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I've just retargeted autographism and factitious urticaria to Dermatographic urticaria (they previously pointed to Hives) because neither is mentioned in the previous target and the more specific article seemed to more closely mirror definitions elsewhere. I don't really know anything about skin diseases, though, so if anyone would like to take a look and either confirm that this was a good decision or rectify the situation in some other way that would be appreciated. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 18:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Some of you may be interested in Talk:List of suicide crisis lines#rfc 1BB1897. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
I have come into contact with people from the University of Geneva specialising in "Sciences, Sexes and Indentities" questions [10]. They have produced schematics that I find of interest, especially female reproductive organs seem from an oblique angle [11]; since they seem interested in disseminating them widely for educational purposes, I inquired whether they would release the material under a Free licence.
In their answer, they say that they were considering a Cc-by-sa-nd licence, in order to ensure reliability of the information. May I ask whether WikiProject Medicine has ways to mark serious content and prevent inexact derivative from spreading?
Thank you very much and good continuation! Rama ( talk) 12:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
The Muscle response testing redirect was converted again to an article. A previous related discussion was here. The restore argument is the same as last time, that the test is distinct from the discipline and warrants its article. Input welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 07:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Nursing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Nursing until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 10:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Would somebody please have a look at Talk:Systemic lupus erythematosus#Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2019 and implement/close the request as required? I'm not well versed in identifying suitable articles/sources for use in medical articles. Many thanks, Nici Vampire Heart 11:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi everybody, I would like to report the following issue to users more familiar than me with this kind of matters. A newly registered user recently replaced the content of Therapeutic abortion with a redirect to Abortion#Induced, claiming that they made it in accord with a decision taken in 2010. The page has been then restored in 2015 and nobody complained for that until now. A quick look at the version that preceeded the redirect showed a pretty poorly sourced article, with a lot of POV issues. In any case, I'm not in condition to assess if the item was good enough to deserve a specific article or the information stated in at Abortion#Induced is to be considered enough. Just wanted to signal this situation. Regards, Horst Hof ( talk) 10:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
should anyone wish to lend a hand(yesterday [12] …... today [13] 45 cases in one day) thanks-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 23:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The tool has become significantly easier to use as of this week and is now "all on Wikipedia". Still not perfect and still a lot of technical work to do. The tool is based around scripts such as this one Wikipedia:VideoWiki/Gout.
Basically one builds the script, adds the images to the script, and than hits LINK to generate the video, followed by UPDATE to load it to Commons. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine#Partners lists three partnerships:
The CRUK one ended in 2015 as far as I know. What partnerships should be listed? I'm happy to do the formatting if people let me know the current list. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 23:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I've now updated the Partners section with the additional projects and commented out the CRUK collab. I've converted the CSS into templates, so the parameters should be easy to change to replace the images (I'm not really sure about the videowiki one) and any of the subtitle links T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 08:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I wonder if someone here would be willing to read and edit the Psychiatry section in Arthur M. Sackler. Was this a wrong headed treatment? We have sort of a double whammy in the primitive nature of psychiatry and the controversy surrounding OxyContin and Purdue Pharma so your discretion would be appreciated. I do not wish to smear anyone's reputation, and am attempting only to rely on facts as we see them now. Got quite a long way to go on this bio. Thank you. - SusanLesch ( talk) 16:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I am feeling a little bit disappointed over the move from diabetes mellitus to diabetes. I see little evidence for consensus. It also clashes with the long-held policy of this project that WP:COMMONNAME should not compromise the accuracy of the name of an article. Any thoughts? JFW | T@lk 11:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Allopathic medicine#Make this page a disambiguation page WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
At the Insight Centre for Data Analytics, we are currently working on the development of a tool which would help contributors and editors of articles in WikiProject Medicine with the task of identifying relevant Cochrane reviews. The source code and results of the first release of WPM2Cochrane is available on GitHub. We very much appreciate your comments and suggestions to improve this tool.
Arash.Joorabchi ( talk) 17:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Gut bath, which currently redirects to Pharmacology (an article where it is not mentioned), has been nominated for deletion at RfD. You are invited to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 16#Gut bath. Thryduulf ( talk) 08:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of Xconomy and HealthLeaders (healthleadersmedia.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Xconomy and HealthLeaders for eMix. — Newslinger talk 00:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I would like to add to WP an infobox for procedures that would take advantage of WikiData semantic relationship. E.g., MeSH code for Parathyroidectomy. Where can I make a proposal for new infobox? EncycloABC ( talk) 14:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay drafted a new version {{ Infobox medical intervention (new)}} Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
When I read Death by a Thousand Clicks: Where Electronic Health Records Went Wrong, I was surprised to find that one of the characters in the story, eClinicalWorks, had no Wikipedia article. I started messing around with one at User:ImperfectlyInformed/eClinicalWorks. If anyone wants to help out, feel free; I'm not super well-practiced at writing new articles. II | ( t - c) 08:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello WT:MED friends, which direction should Anisochromasia & Anisochromia be merged in? I don't know enough to make the call. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Almost all the drug interactions listed in Wikidata appear to be from a 2012 reference. [1] There are quite a few drug interactions that I expected to find but were missing (e.g. fentanyl x amiodarone). [2] Is Wikidata missing interactions, or is there a threshold of severity required that I'm overlooking? I've updated the wikdata item for fentanyl, so please revert if I've made an error. Additionally, is there any scope to use the qaualifier field to indicate the nature or severity of the interaction? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 07:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
"a clinically significant interaction between two pharmacologically active substances (i.e., drugs and/or active metabolites) where one substance (so-called 'precipitant') alters the pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics of another substance (so-called, 'object'). The property should be used in this direction: <object> <drug action altered by> <precipitant>". HTH -- RexxS ( talk) 16:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
References
Input from subject matter experts would be appreciated on Draft:John Layke. If the doctor should be in (is notable), move the draft to mainspace. If the doctor should be out, leave a note on the draft's talk page. Thanks. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 21:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
References
May I informally request views on some COI edits made at Phillip Morris's request? See Talk:Electric smoking system#Suggested to shorten IQOS section HLHJ ( talk) 01:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
The emissions generated by IQOS contains some of the harmful constituents in tobacco cigarette smoke, though the levels are on average lower than those found in cigarette smoke.[10][11] According to government reports published in the Netherlands,[12] England,[13] and Germany[11], the IQOS product is likely less toxic or harmful than traditional cigarettes.
Can we take a closer look at what these folks are up to? This as just published: http://web.archive.org/web/20190521191008/https://documents.cap.org/documents/general-ldt-faqs.pdf ! US-regulation-wise, LDTs are to medical lab testing as Nutritional supplements are to pharmaceuticals. The wild west, buyer-beware. And it indicates these foxes are the henhouse guards and are trying to keep it that way by opposing any meaningful regulation. It states that they're opposing any "attempt to regulate the practice of medicine", they think the wild west situation is cool and should be retained with a "grandfather provision", yet there's a shit ton of quack testing done. When I look around at what's advertised, whether to consumers or clinicians, most of the testing advertised are quack LDTs! This confirms that their interests align with pathologists who want to want to have to do as little work as possible. (Note the lack of caveats.) So there's a massive conflict of interest wherein they run the SAAS system that evaluates lab quality and where it exists, auditing! (Note: It effectively doesn't for LDTs.) We're talking irreplicable hair testing, heavy metal testing, etc. -- 24.130.170.132 ( talk) 19:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
) A lot of totally evidence-free statements there, Canada. I'm unconvinced. Just because (someone claims that) much of (gene, newborn... or all of - rares) a kind of testing is LDTs doesn't mean that portion of the testing is legit. The claims on quackwatch site aren't by some pseudonymous editor. They're by MDs and are backed by logic and citations.
The lack of regulation given the billions spent is horrifying. For the most part, there's simply no reasonable assurance that such tests are analytically, let alone clinically, valid. One example: ovarian cancer screening tests offered to asymptomatic patients were shown not to work only after patients unnecessarily underwent major surgeries with significant recovery and side effects. http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm519540.htm 2601:643:8680:158F:52F:BC2D:BBE:5BBD ( talk) 08:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
As you may remember, physician Ralph Northam drew a lot of criticism for his remarks on letting the parents and their physician decide how to proceed when a nonviable deformed fetus is born. The talk page is working on a RfC draft after the first one failed to reach a consensus. It would be good to have a few people with medical experience look it over. Gandydancer ( talk) 15:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
There has recently been an influx of opinionated new editors at Talk:Nurse_practitioner. The situation could use some experienced eyes, even tempers, and relevant domain knowledge. Thanks in advance. - MrOllie ( talk) 15:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Some additional attention would seem to be needed, particularly to the subtopics of drug diversion, cold-chain distribution of vaccines and other biologics (for instance, there's some interesting news at https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-05-life-saving-vaccines.html), and the rapid distribution of radioactive pharmaceuticals. These areas present a major challenge in the elimination of diseases from reservoirs in less-developed areas. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I came across some probable cite spam, see search results for author name. Many/most of the sources seem to be primary research articles, but I am not sure which of these citations meet WP:MEDRS standards (and add relevant information in due weight). I have removed a few obvious issues, but it would be great if a topic expert could look into the remaining linked list and assess some of the more complicated usages - I'd rather not delete some valuable content by accident, even if the source was spammed. GermanJoe ( talk) 01:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Oral cancer has had a major overhaul. I'd appreciate a 2nd set of eyes to give it a copy-edit, and look at the structure. Ian Furst ( talk) 16:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 120 | Archive 121 | Archive 122 | Archive 123 | Archive 124 | Archive 125 | → | Archive 130 |
Just out today there is a paper presenting a case study of Wikipedia editing in a physical therapy program. I am an author.
The classes are at Wikipedia:Touro. The outreach model is applying the Wikipedia:Education program to a 3-hour workshop where all the attendees do research and draft their text proposals and citations in advance. Tracking is with meta:Programs and Events Dashboard.
The Wikimedia Foundation sponsored open access publishing of this paper through its grants program as documented at meta:Grants:Project/Rapid/Touro College/publishing wiki education research in healthcare.
I have some additional information about this project which I intend to share, but which was out of scope of this paper. The paper talks about "persistence", which is a measure of the extent to which content which someone posts to Wikipedia actually stays in Wikipedia over a period of time. In general, editors wish to make persistent edits and to avoid edits which will not be persistent. Later on wiki I will share something about those measurements and tie it to this research.
For now, I hope that others can use this paper as supporting evidence of the usefulness of classes editing Wikipedia's medical content. For me it has been enlightening to learn how many patients have pain which they are treating with physical therapy, and how much more time that patients spend engaged in making thoughtful decisions about physical therapy as compared to many other types of healthcare, and also how often Wikipedia contains the perspective of pharmacology but lacks perspective of physical therapy in its articles.
Thanks everyone. If anyone wants to check student edits in this program just made on 12 March 2019, then please see the dashboard. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Can we get some opinions on whether it was a good idea to split this article this way? And if splitting the article at all is best? I commented at Talk:Pedophobia (phobia)#The split on the latest development. But there is previous discussion there and later sections about the changes. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
We need opinions on the following matter: Talk:Causes of transsexuality#"Correlation between Autism Spectrum (AS)" material. A permalink for it is here. The matter concerns sourcing, how to present the material, and whether or not we should present any of the material in that article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Is there a better name for this, or does this topic already exist as an article somewhere? It seems like it was created as vandalism and has been sitting unsourced for 13 years. Natureium ( talk) 19:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Some expert eyes are really needed on ECHO-7 article ( /info/en/?search=ECHO-7). It is an unproven anti-cancer drug from Latvia, currently in the center of a fresh scandal in its homecountry Latvia, so manufacturers and their publicists are flooding the page with their edits. Any help would be appreciated. KC LV ( talk) 17:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I came across the term decolonization in Susan S. Huang and wonder if an article could be put together explaining the term. Decolonization (healthcare), perhaps. The Decolonization article has more to do with tackling colonialism than ridding bodies of bacteria - which is what I understand the term to mean. thanks -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 11:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Further opinions requested at Talk:Dissociative_identity_disorder#"Split_personality"_as_sometimes_a_synonym. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, continuing our previous discussion on whether we should reject papers from Frontiers journal at the RSN here. petrarchan47 คุ ก 19:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I have a question. Some articles have different name. Some are Health in COUNTRYNAME, others are Health care in COUNTRYNAME, while some others are Healthcare in COUNTRYNAME? I dont understand that? Shouldn't all have the same name? Please explain to me. is there a reason for that? Also, i cannot move some articles, and have information : The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. How does exists if article name is not like that? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Bookman ( talk • contribs) 11:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
intitle:"Health care in"
gives
244 results but some of those are redirects. You can work through those at your pleasure. Cheers --
RexxS (
talk)
23:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Healthcare infrastructure in...
or Healthcare industry in...
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
15:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)This is a brand name that is no longer manufactured. Is there somewhere that this could be redirected to? Is a page for general phosphorous replacement products needed? Natureium ( talk) 14:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Could some take a look at two new tables in the staging section. I'm a neophyte with table structure, so I think they might benefit from someone with more experience wrt structure. Ian Furst ( talk) 14:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I have collected yet another batch of articles with links to DAB pages on medicine-related topics. Search for 'disam' in read mode and for '{{d' in edit mode; and if you solve any of these puzzles, remove the {{ dn}} tag and post {{ done}} here.
Thanks in advance, Narky Blert ( talk) 02:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi...I would welcome any suggestions or edits on Air China Flight 112 (SARS outbreak)? Whispyhistory ( talk) 09:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
R180 was converted from a redirect to a disambiguation page today. When looking to see if there were other entries that belonged on the page, I found that the first few results on google were related to the marking on 4mg Tizanidine Hydrochloride pills. Tizanidine hydrochloride redirects to Tizanidine which makes no mention of pills at all. Do editors here think that this should be mentioned in the article, in a different article and/or on the dab page?
I have no opinion either way, and I'm not advocating for or against inclusion anywhere, but I haven't found any guidance about it so I don't know if it's been discussed previously or what the issues are. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what needs to be done with this. Natureium ( talk) 01:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
If you deal with groups on wiki (beyond this awesome one, of course), then you might be interested in meatball:GoodBye. MeatballWiki has many interesting pages, but this one, which is about the end of the lifecycle for contributors, is IMO one of the best. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Recently, I have edited a page and some of the information was from RCTs. Those citations were deleted by another contributor. Can anyone confirm me that information from RCTs should not be included? What about the large RCTs? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sara3054 ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
For info. I wanted to publicise this AfD debate in a neutral manner to get independent eyes on the discussion, but then I thought bugger that, went to FTN, and came here. - Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Could I get some opinions on All-on-4? The phrase is a registered trademark of Nobelbiocare (a major dental implant manufacturer), and the article is weighted heavily to product push imo with few references. In 2014 I would have argued for deletion. Now, however, the phrase is thrown around as a generic term for the procedure of a fixed prosthetic on 4 implants (even though it's still a registered tagline), and I could easily clean to a procedure article. This could also be easily merged to Dental implant. Do I clean? Delete? Merge? Go have coffee and look again in 5 years? Looking for some thoughts. Ian Furst ( talk) 00:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Some WikiProject Medicine expertise would be useful at Talk:Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#By_Nomopbs re what counts as a primary vs. secondary source. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
NOTE: I am proposing this discussion for FleishmanHillard on behalf of Daiichi Sankyo. I am a paid editor and am aware of the COI guidelines.
Per the merger discussion guidelines, I wanted to notify WikiProject Medicine of a merger discussion I’ve initiated on the page for pigmented villonodular synovitis (PVNS). More detail is on that page’s Talk page, but in short, we have initiated this discussion at the recommendation of a conflict of interest editor who we’d previously contacted about adding tenosynovial giant cell tumor (TGCT) as a synonym for diffuse-type pigmented villonodular synovitis (PVNS).
We are seeking the community’s guidance on how to go about ensuring that tenosynovial giant cell tumor (TGCT) is accurately defined on Wikipedia. Currently, there is not a stand-alone TGCT page. It instead redirects to the giant-cell tumor of the tendon sheath (GCT-TS) page, which does not include TGCT terminology. This would suggest TGCT is solely a synonym for GCT-TS, which is incorrect. According to literature, TGCT is also closely related (and some say interchangeable) with pigmented villonodular synovitis (PVNS) as well. Thanks for your time and consideration. Jon Gray ( talk) 01:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Tumor, giant cell, soft parts see Neoplasm , connective tissue, uncertain behaviorthen
Neoplasm, connective tissue, [site], uncertain behavior. If you go straight to Vol 3's neoplasm table, there are "see connective tissue" instructions at both tendon (sheath) and synovial membrane. A code from category D21, the code currently listed at GCT-TS, would be used if the tumour was known to be/specified as benign. Little pob ( talk) 10:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
At Talk:Dental dam#Page under review as part of a university assessment task (a permalink here), we could use some opinions on wording. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 14:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
One of the sources here, used twice in the article, is the non-peer reviewed Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons published by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons a fringe group that among other things denies that HIV causes AIDS. The association's article has a lot to say about the journal, starting with:
The actual source used is: [7] I think this needs replacing but don't know that I'm the person to do it. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
References
I'm working through the list of unsourced medical articles, and we have a bunch of stubs of subspecialties of surgical pathology, most of them unsourced. Are these worth keeping, or should we redirect them to surgical pathology? I listed some of them here, but there are more:
Thanks, Natureium ( talk) 18:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
A few of us from Wiki Project Med are working to put on a space at Wikimania for Health related talks. We are drafting this HERE. Please suggest ideas and indicate if you are able to attend. Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
What do you guys think about this section? Does it pass MEDRS? I'm seeing a citation to the Journal of Complementary and Alternative medicine, which seems questionable. I'm not that familliar with MEDRS and Sahaja Yoga to comment on the rest. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 01:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I removed the section, but it has since been added back. Discuss it here:
Harizotoh9 ( talk) 01:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Another update: the section was added back, and I just removed it. I invite others to chime in on the discussion on the talk page so that we can try to reach a consensus. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 05:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
A lot of the same research is used here. Is it valid or also dubious?
Harizotoh9 ( talk) 00:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone here is familiar with {{
cn-span}}
, but due to the fact that there was no template which had this functionality for specifying text that needed a medical reference in a manner similar to
Template:Citation needed span prior to today and since I wanted a template with this functionality, I created {{
Medical citation needed span}}
. Template shortcuts include {{
mcn-span}}
, {{
mcn span}}
, and {{
mcns}}
.
The usage/purpose of this template is fairly straightforward and works exactly like
Template:Citation needed span. Compare {{
mcn}}
in (1) with {{
mcns}}
in (2) below:
Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 05:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Would someone mind taking a picture of some coban for cohesive bandage? Natureium ( talk) 15:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I've come across a bunch of medical journal stubs and have asked for input on what should be considered for inclusion here. Thoughts welcome. Natureium ( talk) 19:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
While the direct subject isn't medical, part of an RfC at Talk:Decline_in_insect_populations#Use_of_sources_for_insect_declines deals with the interplay of secondary sources vs. primary research articles and newspapers in an area of disputed science that may be of some interest to editors here given the type of material we work with in medical topics. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 20:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
There's a neutrality dispute at this article.
Harizotoh9 ( talk) 00:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
If you have an opinion on the title/content of this sidebar, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Please weigh in if interested here. petrarchan47 คุ ก 10:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a compilation of journals, arranged by publisher (from most to least citations). It's very early, and needs a ton of cleanup, but the results are interesting. For example, if you're interested in AMA journals, you can search (with quotes "American Medical Association"), and find the JAMA journals consolidated under one heading.
Again, there will be lots of false positives, but they can be suppressed exactly like those from WP:SOURCEWATCH can be suppressed. See WT:SOURCEWATCH#FAQ (Q4 and Q6) for details on how to do that. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 05:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Update on a tool I heard about at work: The wishlist folks are working on a sort of metrics dashboard that will be useful to people who run Wikipedia editing parties (aka WP:EDITATHONs). I decided to try out WPMED as an "event". Using the people listed in the newer Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Members (which isn't all of you, by the way), and looking at the activity in editing (any/all) articles during the first three months of this year, I found: [8]
The tool can't look at talk page categories to check only edits made to WPMED-tagged pages, but we could check out edits to specific mainspace category trees, like articles in Category:Cancer and its subpages. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
18:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
While creating the template in the section above, I noticed a problem with these redirects.
Does anyone have any objection to me retargeting Template:Medref inline to Template:Medical citation needed? I think that page would be a more appropriate target for that redirect. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 05:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
{{
Medref inline}}
actually only had 1 backlink and 0 transclusions; I removed the backlink and retargeted the redirect accordingly.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
10:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Should anyone have time:
I just replaced several very marginal sources there. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Article was moved to " Compulsive sexual behavior". Opinions are needed at Talk:Compulsive sexual behavior#Move of the article. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed this new on Twitter. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/RetractionBot I am looking forward to learning more about this. JenOttawa ( talk) 23:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Cortico-striatal-thalamic-cortical loop and Cortico-basal ganglia-thalamo-cortical loop have been tagged for merge since 2018 and no one has commented. Does this fall under your guys' wheelhouse? If so, thoughts? ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
About how to balance wording when the high quality literature says different things. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
3rd nomination for this article - subject has written books WP:GNG Even though the books are self published the books are in many libraries. In addition the subject has made a widely recognized contribution in her field. Often quoted on the topic of Men's Health across Australia 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
widely recognised contribution in her field" is a long way short of "
a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field (Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians)" as required by WP:ANYBIO#2. -- RexxS ( talk) 18:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I've removed a lot of copyvio from Tourniquet, added at various times at least three different people apparently associated with James McEwen and/or his company Delfi Medical. The article is pretty much a wreck as a result, and needs to be completely re-written by someone with appropriate background knowledge and experience. I'm not that person; any takers? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 20:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I created the article - /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#After_nominating:_Notify_interested_projects_and_editors
The article was proposed WP:AFD at 21:40, on the 20 April 2019. Incidentally, I think the proposing editor doesn't have a valid set of reasons (please see WP:DEL-REASON) for the proposal, so the proposal itself shouldn't actually be permitted.
cordially, Sederecarinae ( talk) 20:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
21:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
A seemingly notable doctor, urologist, robotic surgeon, and professor. Widely published. But sourcing is thin. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I have added two sections to the article: about use as a probiotic and about human infections caused by this yeast. I tried to follow WP:MEDRS as well as general scientific guidelines and common sense judgement in selecting and citing sources, but since I have no medical training myself, neither training in microbiology (nor in any other branch of biology), I believe that it might be useful if some professional medical researcher could give a look to my additions. Эйхер ( talk) 14:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
The next mw:Wikimedia Research/Showcase has two talks: "Group Membership and Contributions to Public Information Goods: The Case of WikiProject" and "Thanks for Stopping By: A Study of 'Thanks' Usage on Wikimedia". They'll begin on Wednesday, April 17, 2019, at 19:30 UTC (11:30 a.m. PDT). It will be recorded on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmb5LoJzOoE
This might be interesting to anyone who deals with groups or who uses the Thanks button. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello medical experts. Would someone from this project please look over the Draft:Craig Simmons page, which is up for review at AFC? Some of the references are at PUBMED. I know it needs work on being more factual and less about inspiration and goals. The editor responded somewhat to my comment about the need for independent references. I am willing to work on the tone if I was right about the notability.— Anne Delong ( talk) 11:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
GENERALLY1) Fundamentally, I do not consider any award for emerging anything to indicate notability in any field. All the rest of the wording "distinguished", "exceptional" is puffery--the key part is "emmerging". People are notable once their accomplishments have emerged. "emerging" = "might be notable someday," known around here as WP:TOOSOON. This is not to say that someone with such an award as the hgihest award might not actualy be notable, just that the Canada Research Chair people have not accepted it yet. And , obviously, someone with that award in their earlier career might and often will actually become notable later. This in fact seems to be the case here--the award is from 2006. 2)Most US named professorships are permaent awards at the highest level. But sometimes an award given as a "Distinguished" professorship is a term award, given for a term of anywhere from 1 to 5 years. And the title "University professor" has a variable meaning,; some universities use it a term award ; others for retired professors--I know Berkeley does (or at least did), 3) we always need to go by citations. Awards in the absence of high citations indicates a situation that needs further checking. (sometimes, of course, it just indicates a very narrow specialty, but it can indicate notability by press release) SPECIFICALLY: 1)Looking at google scholar, I see 10 articles with over 2000' references each. That's enough for very clear notability. There's no need for anything qualified or uncertain here. 2)In any case the article is promotional and worded as a press release. For articles like this I find it easier to rewrite than to successfully explain how to rewrite. I will do that, and accept. DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC) AND The expected danger of promotional writing is to make something look notable when it really isn't; but I have seen an increasing number of instances here where promotional writing (sometimes innocent copy-cat, not promotional intent) leads to our being suspicious and obscures the actual notability. DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC) ANYBIO is based upon press coverage, but the wording of press coverage is likely to be hyperbola and PR; this is especially true in subjects where it is thought the general public cannot judge for themselves. As an encyclopedia , we should report the accomplishments, not the taglines.
I've made a stub for Limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy (LATE) which is hitting the lay media. If anybody has the time, please review it. Abductive ( reasoning) 17:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Anesthesia#RFC
Interstellarity (
talk)
10:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
11:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
The editor of the Pancreatic cancer page asked me to post my addition here. I would like to offer the following sentence for pre-review. If there are any issues please suggest how I can make this conform to Wiki standards. This research has significant implications.
An active area of research is to explore whether galectin specific targeting might have therapeutic potential, since there is evidence for aberrant protein glycosylation and overexpression of Galectin-1 and Galectin-3 in pancreatic cancer. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
I was wondering whether this publication reflects accepted medical history of sickle cell disease; because if so I plan to add some information from it to African humid period. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 11:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Health of Filipino Americans#Merger Discussion . RightCowLeftCoast ( Moo) 01:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Please join the discussion on Talk:Giant axonal neuropathy with curly hair as to whether that article should be merged into Giant axonal neuropathy. -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 22:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I was looking up something to do with transferrin saturation, and noticed there was a "no references" tag. I just wanted to check that https://labtestsonline.org/ would do as a reliable resource before I started a tidy up. As in, I know it is reliable, but is it wiki-suitable? Thanks, Red Fiona ( talk) 11:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Last couple of times (citation #1 fixed here and citation #4 fixed here) I've added a citation using a PMID with the "Cite" tool in wikitext editor, the PMC field is corrupted by an extra "PMC" prefix (PMC IDs begin with "PMC", whereas PMIDs are strictly numeric). I would guess that someone originally wrote the PMC formatter to prepend with "PMC", then someone "fixed" the PMID citation template to include the PMC prefix. Anyone know where to take this? I'd go to a Talk page but I don't know which one to use (things seem to be buried a few levels deep). — soupvector ( talk) 15:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
{{Cite journal|last=Barros|first=Mônica Bastos de Lima|last2=de Almeida Paes|first2=Rodrigo|last3=Schubach|first3=Armando Oliveira|date=2011-10|title=Sporothrix schenckii and Sporotrichosis|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21976602|journal=Clinical Microbiology Reviews|volume=24|issue=4|pages=633–654|doi=10.1128/CMR.00007-11|issn=1098-6618|pmc=PMCPMC3194828|pmid=21976602}}
|date=2011-10
can't be a range of years and YYYY-MM is not allowed by
MOS:DATES|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21976602
links to the same place as |pmid=21976602
and also hides the automatic link to PubMed but ...|pmc=PMCPMC3194828
has too many PMC
prefixes so doesn't link by itself nor does it auto-link |title=
PMC
prefix which was in keeping with the original wikitext-based cs1|2 templates. That was changed with
this edit 29 April 2017. There is now no requirement that |PMC=
be digits only. cs1|2 will accept either digits-only or digits with one PMC
prefix. The code strips that prefix because the rendering: "PMC PMC3194828" looks silly (when there are errors, as above, the module renders the PMC as-is in case it just might work – an indicator that something in the module has gang agley). When a template has |pmc=PMC...
, the module categorized that article into ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:CS1 maint: PMC format. Gnomes (and
User:Citation bot I think) use this category to strip the prefix from the PMCID which is why it is so near to empty most of the time.PMC
prefixes as it did above, we should tweak
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers so that it strips all PMC
prefixes instead of just the first one. Gnomes or bots seem to be keeping the error count down, ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:CS1 errors: PMC stays relatively empty, but those volunteers shouldn't have to be continually cleaning up garbage that ve shouldn't be producing in the first place.{{
pmc}}
is not a citation template so doesn't fall within the bailiwick of cs1|2. Some thing like this might be used to replace {{{1}}}
in that template:
{{#invoke:String|replace|source={{{1}}} |pattern=^[Pp][Mm][Cc] |replace= |plain=false}}
{{{1}}}
with PMC3194828
:
{{#invoke:String|replace|source=PMC3194828 |pattern=^[Pp][Mm][Cc] |replace= |plain=false}}
→ 3194828I heard about m:Research:Reading time/Draft Report in a meeting yesterday, and I think some of you may be interested.
Reading time is just what it says on the tin: how much time people spend reading a given article. The answer is: not much.
Specifically, half of people opening a Wikipedia article are gone 25 seconds later. Only a quarter stay on the same article for as long as 75 seconds. And it's shorter if the person is from a developed country and/or if the reader is using a mobile device.
We know there is some demand for long articles (think about anyone with a loved one in the hospital, on a desperate quest to learn everything right now), but for the most part, we've got somewhere between 10 seconds and (if we're lucky) two minutes to tell typical readers what we think they need to know.
So with that in mind, maybe it'd be a good idea for anyone with "favorite" articles to take a look at what you see at the very top of the page. 25 seconds is enough time for an average adult to read about 100 words. Half the time, that's the most amount of time we've got. (There are lots of free word-counting tools on the web, or you could estimate it as a third the length of this message.) Look over the beginning of the articles you care about, and ask yourself: Are we "burying the lead", or are we getting straight to the main point? Are we getting lost in classification systems, etymologies, or technical jargon, or can people glance at the page and discover right away that "Scaryitis is a bacterial infection that causes redness and fatigue, and can be treated with antibiotics"?
I'll admit that article leads haven't always been my favorite thing to work on. They often feel like a haphazard collection of information that probably belongs elsewhere. But it's looking like most of our readers never get any further than that. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I was just questimating. It looks more like 40. Trying to summarize an article in 40 words seems like either an incredibly high or low bar, but something to keep in mind when creating the first two sentences? Ian Furst ( talk) 23:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I've just retargeted autographism and factitious urticaria to Dermatographic urticaria (they previously pointed to Hives) because neither is mentioned in the previous target and the more specific article seemed to more closely mirror definitions elsewhere. I don't really know anything about skin diseases, though, so if anyone would like to take a look and either confirm that this was a good decision or rectify the situation in some other way that would be appreciated. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 18:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Some of you may be interested in Talk:List of suicide crisis lines#rfc 1BB1897. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
I have come into contact with people from the University of Geneva specialising in "Sciences, Sexes and Indentities" questions [10]. They have produced schematics that I find of interest, especially female reproductive organs seem from an oblique angle [11]; since they seem interested in disseminating them widely for educational purposes, I inquired whether they would release the material under a Free licence.
In their answer, they say that they were considering a Cc-by-sa-nd licence, in order to ensure reliability of the information. May I ask whether WikiProject Medicine has ways to mark serious content and prevent inexact derivative from spreading?
Thank you very much and good continuation! Rama ( talk) 12:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
The Muscle response testing redirect was converted again to an article. A previous related discussion was here. The restore argument is the same as last time, that the test is distinct from the discipline and warrants its article. Input welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 07:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Nursing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Nursing until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 10:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Would somebody please have a look at Talk:Systemic lupus erythematosus#Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2019 and implement/close the request as required? I'm not well versed in identifying suitable articles/sources for use in medical articles. Many thanks, Nici Vampire Heart 11:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi everybody, I would like to report the following issue to users more familiar than me with this kind of matters. A newly registered user recently replaced the content of Therapeutic abortion with a redirect to Abortion#Induced, claiming that they made it in accord with a decision taken in 2010. The page has been then restored in 2015 and nobody complained for that until now. A quick look at the version that preceeded the redirect showed a pretty poorly sourced article, with a lot of POV issues. In any case, I'm not in condition to assess if the item was good enough to deserve a specific article or the information stated in at Abortion#Induced is to be considered enough. Just wanted to signal this situation. Regards, Horst Hof ( talk) 10:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
should anyone wish to lend a hand(yesterday [12] …... today [13] 45 cases in one day) thanks-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 23:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The tool has become significantly easier to use as of this week and is now "all on Wikipedia". Still not perfect and still a lot of technical work to do. The tool is based around scripts such as this one Wikipedia:VideoWiki/Gout.
Basically one builds the script, adds the images to the script, and than hits LINK to generate the video, followed by UPDATE to load it to Commons. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine#Partners lists three partnerships:
The CRUK one ended in 2015 as far as I know. What partnerships should be listed? I'm happy to do the formatting if people let me know the current list. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 23:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I've now updated the Partners section with the additional projects and commented out the CRUK collab. I've converted the CSS into templates, so the parameters should be easy to change to replace the images (I'm not really sure about the videowiki one) and any of the subtitle links T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 08:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I wonder if someone here would be willing to read and edit the Psychiatry section in Arthur M. Sackler. Was this a wrong headed treatment? We have sort of a double whammy in the primitive nature of psychiatry and the controversy surrounding OxyContin and Purdue Pharma so your discretion would be appreciated. I do not wish to smear anyone's reputation, and am attempting only to rely on facts as we see them now. Got quite a long way to go on this bio. Thank you. - SusanLesch ( talk) 16:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I am feeling a little bit disappointed over the move from diabetes mellitus to diabetes. I see little evidence for consensus. It also clashes with the long-held policy of this project that WP:COMMONNAME should not compromise the accuracy of the name of an article. Any thoughts? JFW | T@lk 11:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Allopathic medicine#Make this page a disambiguation page WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
At the Insight Centre for Data Analytics, we are currently working on the development of a tool which would help contributors and editors of articles in WikiProject Medicine with the task of identifying relevant Cochrane reviews. The source code and results of the first release of WPM2Cochrane is available on GitHub. We very much appreciate your comments and suggestions to improve this tool.
Arash.Joorabchi ( talk) 17:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Gut bath, which currently redirects to Pharmacology (an article where it is not mentioned), has been nominated for deletion at RfD. You are invited to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 16#Gut bath. Thryduulf ( talk) 08:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of Xconomy and HealthLeaders (healthleadersmedia.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Xconomy and HealthLeaders for eMix. — Newslinger talk 00:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I would like to add to WP an infobox for procedures that would take advantage of WikiData semantic relationship. E.g., MeSH code for Parathyroidectomy. Where can I make a proposal for new infobox? EncycloABC ( talk) 14:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay drafted a new version {{ Infobox medical intervention (new)}} Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
When I read Death by a Thousand Clicks: Where Electronic Health Records Went Wrong, I was surprised to find that one of the characters in the story, eClinicalWorks, had no Wikipedia article. I started messing around with one at User:ImperfectlyInformed/eClinicalWorks. If anyone wants to help out, feel free; I'm not super well-practiced at writing new articles. II | ( t - c) 08:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello WT:MED friends, which direction should Anisochromasia & Anisochromia be merged in? I don't know enough to make the call. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Almost all the drug interactions listed in Wikidata appear to be from a 2012 reference. [1] There are quite a few drug interactions that I expected to find but were missing (e.g. fentanyl x amiodarone). [2] Is Wikidata missing interactions, or is there a threshold of severity required that I'm overlooking? I've updated the wikdata item for fentanyl, so please revert if I've made an error. Additionally, is there any scope to use the qaualifier field to indicate the nature or severity of the interaction? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 07:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
"a clinically significant interaction between two pharmacologically active substances (i.e., drugs and/or active metabolites) where one substance (so-called 'precipitant') alters the pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics of another substance (so-called, 'object'). The property should be used in this direction: <object> <drug action altered by> <precipitant>". HTH -- RexxS ( talk) 16:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
References
Input from subject matter experts would be appreciated on Draft:John Layke. If the doctor should be in (is notable), move the draft to mainspace. If the doctor should be out, leave a note on the draft's talk page. Thanks. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 21:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
References
May I informally request views on some COI edits made at Phillip Morris's request? See Talk:Electric smoking system#Suggested to shorten IQOS section HLHJ ( talk) 01:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
The emissions generated by IQOS contains some of the harmful constituents in tobacco cigarette smoke, though the levels are on average lower than those found in cigarette smoke.[10][11] According to government reports published in the Netherlands,[12] England,[13] and Germany[11], the IQOS product is likely less toxic or harmful than traditional cigarettes.
Can we take a closer look at what these folks are up to? This as just published: http://web.archive.org/web/20190521191008/https://documents.cap.org/documents/general-ldt-faqs.pdf ! US-regulation-wise, LDTs are to medical lab testing as Nutritional supplements are to pharmaceuticals. The wild west, buyer-beware. And it indicates these foxes are the henhouse guards and are trying to keep it that way by opposing any meaningful regulation. It states that they're opposing any "attempt to regulate the practice of medicine", they think the wild west situation is cool and should be retained with a "grandfather provision", yet there's a shit ton of quack testing done. When I look around at what's advertised, whether to consumers or clinicians, most of the testing advertised are quack LDTs! This confirms that their interests align with pathologists who want to want to have to do as little work as possible. (Note the lack of caveats.) So there's a massive conflict of interest wherein they run the SAAS system that evaluates lab quality and where it exists, auditing! (Note: It effectively doesn't for LDTs.) We're talking irreplicable hair testing, heavy metal testing, etc. -- 24.130.170.132 ( talk) 19:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
) A lot of totally evidence-free statements there, Canada. I'm unconvinced. Just because (someone claims that) much of (gene, newborn... or all of - rares) a kind of testing is LDTs doesn't mean that portion of the testing is legit. The claims on quackwatch site aren't by some pseudonymous editor. They're by MDs and are backed by logic and citations.
The lack of regulation given the billions spent is horrifying. For the most part, there's simply no reasonable assurance that such tests are analytically, let alone clinically, valid. One example: ovarian cancer screening tests offered to asymptomatic patients were shown not to work only after patients unnecessarily underwent major surgeries with significant recovery and side effects. http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm519540.htm 2601:643:8680:158F:52F:BC2D:BBE:5BBD ( talk) 08:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
As you may remember, physician Ralph Northam drew a lot of criticism for his remarks on letting the parents and their physician decide how to proceed when a nonviable deformed fetus is born. The talk page is working on a RfC draft after the first one failed to reach a consensus. It would be good to have a few people with medical experience look it over. Gandydancer ( talk) 15:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
There has recently been an influx of opinionated new editors at Talk:Nurse_practitioner. The situation could use some experienced eyes, even tempers, and relevant domain knowledge. Thanks in advance. - MrOllie ( talk) 15:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Some additional attention would seem to be needed, particularly to the subtopics of drug diversion, cold-chain distribution of vaccines and other biologics (for instance, there's some interesting news at https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-05-life-saving-vaccines.html), and the rapid distribution of radioactive pharmaceuticals. These areas present a major challenge in the elimination of diseases from reservoirs in less-developed areas. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I came across some probable cite spam, see search results for author name. Many/most of the sources seem to be primary research articles, but I am not sure which of these citations meet WP:MEDRS standards (and add relevant information in due weight). I have removed a few obvious issues, but it would be great if a topic expert could look into the remaining linked list and assess some of the more complicated usages - I'd rather not delete some valuable content by accident, even if the source was spammed. GermanJoe ( talk) 01:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Oral cancer has had a major overhaul. I'd appreciate a 2nd set of eyes to give it a copy-edit, and look at the structure. Ian Furst ( talk) 16:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)