![]() | 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
The page on this ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GVE ) is a little confusing. My understanding of GVEs is that they only contain parasympathetic outputs from the brainstem; however, 90% of this article, as well as the image, is devoted to explaining sympathetic output from the thoracic cord.
At the very least, the way the article is currently written seems to imply that CN 3,7,9,10 contain SNS, as opposed to PNS. corvus.ag ( talk) 20:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
If you can take a break from the swine flu, I noticed this page about the Society for Neuroscience undertaking to improve neuroscience-related articles on Wikipedia. The Medicine and other WikiProjects might be able to help them — should we try to contact them? I already left a note on the MCB WikiProject talk page. Proteins ( talk) 20:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The WP article on Home birth could use some input from medical professionals. There have been safety and other claims put forward which are PoV and probably should not be part of this article. I've only been there because of a request on the NPoV board, not as an expert. But it is fairly obvious that the article's slant, and perhaps the facts being put forth, may contain serious error. The partisanship to date may require more serious intervention than I can offer. Astynax ( talk) 06:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This isn't exactly about Wikipedia, but it may interest some editors: The U.S. National Institutes of Health is requesting comments about the possibility of expanding the results section of the clinicaltrials.gov website. Currently, researchers are required to report, in tabular form, the "basic results information" from each listed trial, such as the demographics and measurements for each major outcome, on a schedule tied to FDA approval work. Narrative text has been prohibited primarily because of concerns about what Wikipedia would call WP:NPOV issues.
There are ten specific questions open in this RfC, and several of them, such as how to present technical information so that non-experts can understand it, and how to make the information be accurate and unbiased, seem like areas that experienced Wikipedia editors understand extremely well. If you have an interest in this area, or some suggestions for them, or if you have an idea about how their reports could be made more useful to our work here at Wikipedia, then please consider submitting your comments or suggestions to Docket No. NIH–2009–0002 at http://www.regulations.gov/ before Monday, June 22, 2009. (This process is open to "all interested parties", not merely U.S. citizens. All submitted comments become part of the public record, meaning "can be freely read by anyone with an internet connection".) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Due to the outbreak of a new strain of swine flu in Mexico and the southwestern United States, Swine influenza is being groomed to appear on the Main page, section In the news. Please help improve this article. -- Una Smith ( talk) 04:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The 2009 outbreak is top of the news on Main Page now, and a cluster of new related articles are in development:
Swine influenza needs still more work, as it confuses a number of technical issues. As a model, see Human influenza. -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The article and outbreak templates suffer from improper application of MOS:MED with regards to naming conventions, source reliability, and other technical issues related to medical articles. Flipper9 ( talk) 13:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
After a recent request on my talk page, I added the Medicine project to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. I can also provide the full data for any project covered by the bot if requested, though I normally don't keep it for much longer than a week after the list is generated. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! (note that there is an encoding issue with some non-ascii titles, this will be fixed in the next update). Mr. Z-man 19:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Would someone look at this edit: [2]. The information is added within a citation I placed, for which the additional information is not found. Also, I think the additional text may be misinformation. Perhaps someone could look it over? --- kilbad ( talk) 22:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Is 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine article within the scope of this project? I tried to apply WP:MEDMOS conventions arguing in favor of renaming the article back to MDMA (see here [3]) and was told that MEDMOS does not apply. I would appreciate you input. The Sceptical Chymist ( talk) 10:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I've prodded this one; I haven't been able to find a notability policy that covers hospitals. See the talk page; none of the 80 or so "news, books, scholar" hits suggested notability, but I would have no objection if the article is de-prodded or speedied, as long as you educate me in the process as to why. - Dank (formerly Dank55) ( push to talk) 23:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Influenza-like illness has just been moved into the queue to appear on the Main Page in the "Did you know" section. I have to go offline most of the next 6 hours or so, and won't be able to fix any problems that arise. Please watchlist the article and prepare to be responsive to queries. Thanks in advance! -- Una Smith ( talk) 14:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Arising from the Peer Review of Oxygen toxicity, it was suggested that the article would benefit from the History section being moved nearer the top (after Signs and symptoms). I've read through WP:MOSMED#Diseases/disorders/syndromes several times and checked the talk page there, but remain unsure how prescriptive the order of sections really is. My instinct is to follow the order given (for consistency between articles), but do not wish to disregard a peer-reviewer's suggestions unless necessary. Can anybody help me out in deciding the best position of the History section? Thanks in advance. -- RexxS ( talk) 20:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Should Category:Medical procedures be created? It seems logical to me, but you guys are the experts. There's a whole list at medical procedures that would be appropriate for this category. ~EdGl ★ 17:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I just created Category:Medical procedures as a subcategory of Category:Medical treatments. Many articles currently in Category:Medical treatments could be moved to Category:Medical procedures. The hard part will be differentiating procedures from other medical treatments. Any surgical procedures should be placed only in Category:Surgical procedures, which is a subcategory of Category:Medical procedures. -- Scott Alter 00:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
What do you think of the following move: [4]. Could we just make an "HSP" redirect? --- kilbad ( talk) 18:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Nonspecific but useful finding in mitral stenosis. Article worthy IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.4.79 ( talk) 17:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone may want to go over his contribs. Unomi ( talk) 00:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to place this listing into a table, and wanted to know what people though the best names for the columns would be? I was thinking "Name" "Life" (dates of lifespan), "Notable contribution(s)", "Reference(s)" ? What do you think? --- kilbad ( talk) 17:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I recently updated my page about missing topics related to medicine (and some of the subpages as well) and I wonder if anyone could have a new look at it. And whether some of the topics qualify only as redirects... - Skysmith ( talk) 13:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
There is also a Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Medicine. I suspect that many articles on Skysmith's lists can either be redirects or should not be created (e.g. individual research studies). JFW | T@lk 09:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Buddha Jumps Over the Wall, a variety of shark fin soup, is currently on the main page as a DYK. Unfortunately, the lead section makes two extraordinary health claims: 1) It is an aid in digestion, and ;2) It claims to be a good health supplement in the summer. Both claims are sourced to a popular Korean newspaper JoongAng Ilbo. Now, while it may or may not be possible to attribute such health claims in the body of the article, their placement in the lead is deceptive, and it insists the dish is both a digestive aid and health supplement. When one looks closer at this, it appears to be rooted in belief that shark fin cartilage has anti-cancer properties. It might be a good idea to discuss based on the evidence, rather than asserting outright health benefits that have not been proved. I don't think the health claims that are sourced to a popular newspaper should appear in the lead section, per WP:MEDRS. How do I proceed? I have opened a discussion on the talk page, here. I have removed the claims, here. Viriditas ( talk) 23:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
What should the actual title of the article be, particularly with respect to the punctuation? Should there be dashes? a single or multiple commas? I realize there are multiple redirects already, but wanted to see what the community thought the official title should be. Certain ICD codes use no punctuation. --- kilbad ( talk) 21:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Should the actual article title use a dash as per the ICD codes (i.e. Hairy-cell leukemia), then with the redirect from the undashed title? --- kilbad ( talk) 00:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone with admin bit please semi-protect Swine influenza; since protection was removed yesterday the frequency of vandalism by anons has been high. -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Should the article instead be found at Pediculosis capitis with a redirect from "Head-louse infestation"? --- kilbad ( talk) 16:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_12#Category:Medical_disasters. Johnbod ( talk) 02:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
How does the community feel about this condition? I have not found any great sources for the article, and wanted to know if it's worth keeping? I don't have strong feeling either way, but am looking to read what people think. If we end up keeping it, perhaps we could improve the references? --- kilbad ( talk) 14:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this is annoying. Just because a case report makes the news doesn't turn the newly coined condition into a notable subject. It is not undifferent from the cello scrotum and all sort of other weird and wonderful musculoskeletal and dermatological phenomena associated with some popular activity (here's another one: PMID 10688714).
Individual stubs on each phenomenon are not going to anyone any favours. I think that rather we should have a longer article covering all those conditions in a reasonable framework ( medical conditions related to game computer use or somesuch). JFW | T@lk 09:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Interesting discussion on the blog of Tom Watson MP here: Talk:Swine_influenza#British_Government_to_ensure_Wikipedia_is_"correct_and_up_to_date"? and here: http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2009/05/what-is-swine-flu .
-- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 22:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I support their contributions, nothing to stop them contributing to wiki, they can contribute valuable uptodate data which we (wikipedians) may miss. Only concern is that I hope they wouldn't be given preferential treatment and effectively be given control of the article of what stays and what goes and what gets entered. That would be unfair to other editors but I could see that possibly happening even unintentionally.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I have made some minor edits in the last year or so and as a medical student I feel that helping advance articles improves my education. I want to get involved with Wikipedia in my spare time by working with others who care about medicine and who are interested with sharing their knowledge and research abilities with the community. Can anyone give me some insight into how to get into an article creation group or a collaboration with others to improve the current topics? Thanks so much, Orlandoturner ( talk) 03:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, folks! I have been spending a great deal of time on the Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak article. I basically took the barebones article and added a tons of sources, expanded it, etc. Anyhow, I just nominated it for GA status. I thought I'd let you all know so you. Thanks!!!! Basket of Puppies 06:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Iron overload disorder should be moved to Iron overload, which is the condition of having too much iron stored in the body. There are no pages called "Iron deficiency disorder", "Anemia disorder" or "Hypertension disorder". Tocant ( talk) 14:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, it has to be structured in a good way. Iron overload is a somewhat confusing subject since the mutations responsible for the hereditary forms were not discovered until recently. "Hemochromatosis" has sometimes been used as an equivalent to iron overload in general, but I think that is changing. There are also articles on Hemochromatosis type 3, neonatal hemochromatosis and juvenile hemochromatosis that could be seen as separate diseases or variants of hemochromatosis. Then there is the term "Hemosiderosis" that could refer to "iron overload in general", "hemochromatosis", "the process of accumulation of hemosiderin" or just be used as a word in the terms "transfusion hemosiderosis" or "idiopathic pulmonary haemosiderosis". I think the most logical structure would be to have Iron overload (the opposite of Iron deficiency) as the main article (in a similar way that the article about Anemia defines "low hemoglobin" and discusses causes/classifications, diagnosis and complications among other things) since this is the end result of all conditions. The problem might be that hemochromatosis (type 1, HFE mutation) is responsible for most cases of iron overload and that there would be a lot of duplicated content, however as it is now the other forms of iron overload have almost no information about the effects of iron overload. This is just my opinion however and there might be a better solution. Tocant ( talk) 20:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I am in favor of moving it to Iron overload, and expanding it along the lines of Hypouricemia and Hyperuricemia. Explain what it is, how it works, how it is diagnosed, and its causes and consequences. -- Una Smith ( talk) 00:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
~After the changes made by Arcadian everything is now much clearer, especially the Terminology sections are very good to have! Tocant ( talk) 09:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Vaccine-preventable diseases is a redlink. Where would you point the link to? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Why does Medical treatment redirect to Psychotherapy? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I have been working with several other editors to create an organize categorization of pharmacology-related articles. My personal interest is the categorization of dermatology-related pharmacology; therefore, I wanted to know if those of you active in other taskforces might consider getting involved as well, so you can help create and guide the categorization of pharmacology that pertains to your field? --- kilbad ( talk) 21:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Is this a appropriate type of list? Who determines what items are "extraordinary"? --- kilbad ( talk) 19:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
There are an awful lot of rare diseases (the NORD database documents 1,150), each fascinating in their own way but perhaps such a list would test the patience of any reader. The article as it stands seems to take its entry criteria from a certain channel Five series -- i.e. what makes people stare. For example, Guinea worm disease and Elephantiasis are neither rare nor extraordinary, merely ghoulish. Colin° Talk 15:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to focus on the single issue of WP:V (that is, how to prevent the decision to include an item, or not include an item, from being WP:OR violation). Are we likely to find reliable sources that say "this disease is bizarre" or "this is a bit strange, or uncommon, but really not really sufficiently odd"? Otherwise, it's just going to be "well, I think this should be included, because I personally think it's weird-looking", and we can't have that. We must have actual independent reliable sources that are making the ordinary/extraordinary decision for us. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there any interest from the community in openning up an AfD and discussing it there? I certainly don't want to step on any toes here, but I think we could get even more opinions through an AfD. --- kilbad ( talk) 13:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
How about WP:RFC? My PO: this is a list of (ahem) "freak of the week" conditions; sensationalistic, not encyclopedic. -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI, Mikael Häggström has nominated this list for DYK. See Template talk:Did you know. -- Una Smith ( talk) 16:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
So I took a look at some of the other articles in the cat named above, just to get some perspective. Here's what I find:
By contrast, at this one, I find -- nothing. There's not a single source that says that these conditions are "unusual" in any sense other than "not very common". Therefore, I have to assume that the decision to include an item, or to not include an item, is based solely on the personal opinion of the editor adding the item, instead of being verifiably based on reliable sources.
If Wikipedia is going to have a list of medical conditions that make people stare, then every item in it needs to be supported by a ref that specifically identifies the condition as the sort of thing that makes people stare. Similar articles have managed to do this, and this one must, or it must be sent to AfD. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed that a recently created user ( User talk:OfCinicalInterest) has edited more than 50 times this (and only this) article. Most of the edits are quite positive towards the medicine. I believe there could be some conflict of interest here and since I am no expert in pharmacology maybe somebody feels like taking a look. I will also post the message in the pharmacology project. Bests.-- Garrondo ( talk) 07:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
If anyone is familar with the editor by the username scuro there is a discussion on admin noticeboard which could do with some additional input
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_topic_ban_of_User:Scuro_from_Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder. If you have positive or negative or even neutral views regarding disruption to ADHD and ADHD medication articles please feel free to give your viewpoint. Be forewarned it is a very lengthy discussion!--
Literaturegeek |
T@1k?
11:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
That is not true but fair enough you are entitled to your views. There are two editors with opposing viewpoints to me who would like scuro blocked. None of my additions are being challenged by scuro.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
New venue: Wikipedia:RFAR#Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. -- Una Smith ( talk) 16:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I have striked out my first post as that admin notice board discussion has been closed.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Help needed in bringing Cellulite up to WP:MEDRS standard. At the moment it's a dustbin of material by anon/SPA contributors, mostly with obvious commercial agendas. 86.161.33.63 ( talk) 03:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Given the importance of the topic, anyone is welcome to add to the review before I give it a final look over and pass. Be nice to give it a big boot toward FAC :) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Benzodiazepine article is now a good article. Next step is to get it up to featured article. Thank you for taking the time to review this article Casliber and thank you to any other editors here who have invested time on this article. I know Jdwolf did a fair amount of editing a while back and was good at fighting back the vandals.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd just like to mention that the Hypertension article has been nominated at WP:Good article nominations#Biology and medicine, and is currently waiting for a reviewer. Given the importance of the topic, it would be very nice to have a reviewer who has expertise. (I'm completely uninvolved and definitely don't have expertise, just thought it would be good to give a pointer here.) Looie496 ( talk) 22:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I recently modified the following images, making a separate unique image for every triangle of the neck, please I want some review for them, here they are
![]() |
and | ![]() |
and | ![]() |
and | ![]() |
and | ![]() |
and | ![]() |
and | ![]() |
and | ![]() |
and | ![]() |
and | ![]() |
and | ![]() |
and I added these images to the appropriate articles of the triangles, those images replaced 1 image was used on all these articles, and I added that Image at the end of each article, please view the images, and notify me if there is anything wrong with the labels or the borders, of the triangles, thank you all :-) Maen. K. A. ( talk) 22:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 05:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
if you write an article on a drug, please remember to write dates or approximate dates of discovery, FDA or other country approval, date drug goes generic, etc. this is important historical information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.61 ( talk) 06:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Will someone merge and delete this? Thanks in advance! My mistake. I have added some references, category, and small see also section. ---
kilbad (
talk)
17:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that we didn't have an article on radiation pneumonitis, so I've started a stub at radiation-induced lung injury (probably the most useful supercategory, which would also include late fibrotic lung injury from radiation). I'll expand it over the next few days, but wanted to invite anyone else with an interest. Also, if you come across any reasonably good spots in other articles that should link radiation pneumonitis etc, please go ahead and wikilink it. Thanks. MastCell Talk 18:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I have been try to populate and refine this category, and in doing so, I have come to feel that a rename is probably warranted. Currently, there are conditions in the category that may affect both the skin and mucous membranes, therefore, I was thinking about renaming it to something like Category:Virus-related cutaneous conditions. I also feel using "virus" instead of "viral" may make the name more accessible for general readers. What does the community think of that name? --- kilbad ( talk) 19:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Leishmaniasis americana is synonymous with Mucocutaneous leishmaniasis, and my question is this, should "americana" be capitalized? --- kilbad ( talk) 18:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Many of these articles seem un-maintained. Note the number of redlinks at List of diseases (A) or List of diseases (Q). Some of the listed items may not be diseases.
-- SV Resolution( Talk) 14:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The article Mucolytic agent could do with some attention. Template:Cough and cold preparations has two separate sections for Mucolytics and Expectorants, but expectorant and expectorants redirects to mucolytic agents. The article itself doesn't overly make clear whether they're the same or different. Someone with some knowledge on the topic may be able to clean it up fairly quickly. -- Limegreen ( talk) 05:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone here be able to give an oppinion on whether the two articles above (i.e. Anophthalmia & Cryptophthalmos) are reffering to the same thing or two seperate eye conditions? If they are the same, I would suggest a merger, but if they appear to be different, then let them be. My initial confusion came from this [7] but I remember someone here telling me that the disease database shouldn't always be taken as gospel, and hence why I thought I would check here. Cheers! Calaka ( talk) 03:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
can someone clarify the symptoms page of asbestosis. it is unclear and has an extra paragraph not about symptoms within it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.162.212 ( talk) 22:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
the definition reads like it was written by a medical student revising for their preclinical exams. i've removed some components, then read the rest and gave up in despair. the article has focussed on a couple of irrelevant conditions and suggests that histopath exists almost exclusively to diagnose the conditions mentioned; myocardial infarction, and 'cancer' (whatever definition of the day is for that - in fact on a seperate note I'd like to encourage all medical professionals editing wikipedia to refrain from using the term 'cancer' unless specifically talking about invasive metastatic neoplasms, as the term is widely misunderstood and carries enormous gravity with the general public). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.124.222 ( talk) 00:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
yet, they appear in the dang article. One reporter reported this and now people believe this wrong information. Please support the decision to either correct the image in swine flu article or remove it. Spring breakers also drink alcohol in mass quantities which makes people nauseous. They also get traveler's diarrhea... doesn't mean the flu caused gastric-intestinal symptoms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.241.7 ( talk) 03:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Some people experience cold-like symptoms while others have fever and muscle aches. Symptoms usually improve over two to five days, although the illness may last for a week or more. Weakness and fatigue may persist for several weeks (show figure 1). - UPTODATE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.61 ( talk) 19:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Diarrhea, nausea and vomiting can also be a side effect of tamiflu, those symptoms I believe.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
join in the fun and help out, make some comments on how to improve. Be nice to do this one well. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey folks. I've recently been making a number of changes/additions to the Reactive arthritis article. However, I Am Not A Doctor (although, at the risk of getting mugged, I'll own up to an MPH and a law degree focusing on medlaw - yes, I'm one of those, please don't hurt me), and I'm especially not a rheumatologist, so can I recruit an expert witness? I've cited everything as best I can, but I simply don't have the clinical experience that so importantly differentiates a doctor from some random dude with a copy of Harrison's. I'd appreciate any insight from real actual practitioners. -- George ( talk) 20:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Question: Does this image fulfill copyright wrt Wikipedia?
They have this image at Anabolic steroid and there are three more similar ones at Bupropion.
I have a whole bunch more pictures but before I upload need to make sure they are okay.
Here it seems to imply that they are not [8] which means that if this is the case many of the images from this project will have to be removed. I have found some more info [9] see to say that we can use them on the English language encyclopedia under fair use? Our images of drugs however are not currently labeled as fair use but under creative commons.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated the following medical articles for GA review.
-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
After many edits, Water fluoridation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been renominated as a Featured Article. Please feel free to leave comments; instructions for commenters can be found at WP:FAC. Thanks. Eubulides ( talk) 23:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Declined the speedy; 110-yr-old hospital. Notability is probably a problem. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I've put a rename suggestion for Combined hyperlipidemia to be renamed as Mixed hyperlipidaemia (or Mixed hyperlipidemia). The article indicates referring to common acquired cholesterol/triglyceridaemia of Type IIb, this though is E78.2 clearly to be called "Mixed hyperlipidaemia". The only "combined" form in E78 group is for "Familial combined hyperlipidaemia" of E78.4 which WHO somewhat denigrates to just "Other hyperlipidaemia". Now maybe I'm just misreading this, so I seek comment at Talk:Combined hyperlipidemia#Requested move. David Ruben Talk 22:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Could someone look at the move being suggested for Cutis verticis gyrata at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/current#29_May_2009. Is that an appropriate rename? --- kilbad ( talk) 01:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
By accident, my doctor found that I do have this disease to the heart. After wearing the defibulator vest, taking heart medicine for three months, there was no significant change, so later that month I was operated on and received a defibulator/pacemaker implant.
My question is" my doctor can not understand why my heart rate is high when I work out at the gym; as high as 165 and higher. The medicine should control the heart rate but in my case it doesn't . He requested another opinion by a specialist, and to consult with my doctor at his findings.
I had polio as a child in the mid 40's and couldn't walk for a few years. I had the Sister Kenney method at Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago, and I did have parolitic polio. My question is : would this virus have caused any heart problems later in my life? I have always been very healthy, and until this problem, I never ever had any chest pain or fatigue at all. Could polio have caused my heart problem???
Thank you.
Sheila Whitehead —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sheilawmom (
talk •
contribs)
03:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Facial mole for deletion. If interested, see the AfD at: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_May_30#Facial_mole. --- kilbad ( talk) 18:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyone care to take a look at these articles? Myxoma seems to be fine, but Atrial myxoma tends to repeat a bit of it and it lacks references, while Left atrial myxoma is stubby, has no refs and repeats much of what is said in atrial myxoma. Finally there is no article on Right atrial myxoma and I would assume there should be if there is one for the left atrial myxoma. If anyone feels up to expanding these out, feel free to do so. Or possibly do a few mergers/redirects. Thank you. Calaka ( talk) 03:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Done
David Ruben
Talk
19:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
This article is, on the surface, a pseudoscientific disaster zone. The discussion rests largely on one rather old key text, and two apparently substantive 2008 studies (Chen et al., Shah et al.) The latter two receive duplicate mentions, in language that is euphoric and lifted directly from an abstract of a medical editorial. Neither the methodology, the findings, nor the technical terminology (nociceptors, etc.) is explained in any specific, lay terms. It is graded "B" in quality, but strikes me as much poorer than that.
This topic is fascinating, but it could benefit greatly from some calm, knowledgable vetting by interested specialists in physiology or physical therapy. I am not calling for censorship, but I am calling for help in restoring balance either to the treatment context or to the evidentiary weight behind it.
Thank you very much for all of your good work on the Medical articles. -a.k.a. [just not logged in] 71.178.65.59 ( talk) 21:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Here is another medical encyclopedia http://wiki.medpedia.com/ This one is under the same license as Wikipedia and does not appear to be a cut and paste of Wikipedia.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
There are a number of issues I would like to address in re: this article:
Can you review this page I recently created? Jatlas ( talk) 00:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I very briefly looked over the article. It is appears to be indepth and comprehensive and well sourced. Good job, but as they are not used in general medicine you would probably be better posting on this project WP:ALTMED and WP:PLANTS.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Gave a bit more of a read over. It seems to focus almost entirely on its benefits so there may be WP:NPOV issues. Article might need some additional topics, I dunno like where the plants come from, some more info on history. I am not familar with the literature of whether there is any controversy or criticism so it may be citing only one point of view. But anyway for an article which is only about a month old I think that it is job well done and I am sure it will improve with time. Your best bet on improvements and feedback is the folks over at WP:ALTMED.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I see that task force suggestions are sort of being neglected, and I'd suggest everybody take a few minutes to browse through one you like (preferrabley oncology ;) ). Renaissancee (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi all,
I was quite disturbed by this: US Congress introduces bill to end free access to federally funded research.
Could have negative consequences for us, dunno if we could do something about it?
cheers, -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 07:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys,
Just to let you know I've removed WP:MED's template on Human Anatomy. Upon reading the WPMED reading WPMED's assessment scope, I've found that the article does not meet the scope in any way. WPMED is meant for diseases, treatments, and conditions. Human Anatomy is none of those. I plan to do a little sweep for our articles, to make sure they all meet our scope, alright? Thanks. Renaissancee (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I saw this to be the same as Myasthenia gravis and I hence placed a redirect of it. But then after doing a bit more research, the only source I found was Disease database. Hence after a bit more research I found that the disease is seperate and should probably deserve its own article. If anyone is able to write up an article for Erb-Goldflam disease (also known as: Erb's syndrome, Erb-Oppenheim-Goldflam syndrome, Hoppe-Goldflam syndrome, Hoppe-Goldflam symptom complex) please do so. Otherwise I would most likely have to speedy delete the redirect, since it is leading to an unrelated disease. Thank you. Calaka ( talk) 11:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Should the 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels of the Category:Drugs by target organ system mirror the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System exactly, or be consolidated when possible?
Please read the more thorough description of this issue at WT:PHARM:CAT and post your comments there. Comments are much appreciated! Thanks --- kilbad ( talk) 00:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
For a little while I've been having a slow edit war with Eddievos ( talk · contribs), mainly on Talk:Atorvastatin, about the way cholesterol and statins are represented on Wikipedia. There is a small but rather noisy movement, mainly on the internet, that seems to oppose either the lipid hypothesis or at least the benefits of pharmacological cholesterol lowering. They certainly got the ear of Business Week in 2008 when they did a large article that dropped a large number of names but didn't actually name the studies that they disputed; [12] it mainly seems to target the ASCOT study.
Now a small series of articles has cropped up ( mevalonate inhibition and Cholesterol Depletion), seemingly being forks of the cholesterol/statin articles and using case reports and laboratory studies to discredit widespread cholesterol lowering. I've send both articles to AFD currently, but I was wondering if the audience could review both articles and determine if any of the content is worth salvaging. JFW | T@lk 06:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Retinoblastoma has a support group link farm. Delete it? -- Una Smith ( talk) 21:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
On Talk:Multiple myeloma I'm having a somewhat circular argument with the webmaster of myelomaforums.com. The argument (as usual) revolves around the suitability of support forums in the external links section. I'm frankly quite tired of having to conduct these discussions all the time, but I continue to believe that forums, however well moderated, are not great resources from a Wikipedia perspective exactly because their moderation may not be optimal and the sites turn into hype-promoting, named-physician-bashing, alt-med-touting mostrosities. If we could have a clear line on this, perhaps we could simply stop having these discussions time and time again. JFW | T@lk 22:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh I identify with the circular argument problems on wiki, they are very frustrating. Believe me you have my sympathy JFW! I will add my comments.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I know you do. :) We need medals!-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Again.
I was scowering through some other WikiProjects to see if I wanted to join and I see they all had coordinators and leaders and ect. WPMED doesn't have any, and we really have no back bone organization. I'd sort of suggest that we make some sort of ranking system so our newcomers can ask appropriate people, instead of the user that hasn't editted since 1997. With that, I was thinking something along the lines of this... (low to high) Anoymous IP users> Wikipedia Users > WPMED Members > Task Force Coordinator(s) > WPMED Coordinator(s) Bad? Good? Not going to work? What do you think? I'd kind of like to see a little more backbone here. Renaissancee (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright, glad I could get your opinions. Renaissancee (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Does this fall under our scope? All it is is a stastistic from a report. To be honest, I think it should be deleted. Renaissancee (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Can someone have a look over Medical encyclopedia ? I removed the images attached to the article, because per WP:IMAGES, they have little relation to the topic at hand. The creator of the article seems to have a difference of opinion. 70.29.208.129 ( talk) 15:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I came across Lupus anticoagulant and after a bit of looking around I noticed that it had the same ICD9, DiseasesDB and most importantly OMIM with Antiphospholipid syndrome. Can anyone with more knowledge take a look at the two articles, their external links and make a judgment on whether they are completelly differet, one is a subset of another, or the exact same? I am guessing they might be different but the OMIM indicates that they are the same confused me. If they are the exact same, then I would recomend a merger. Thank you. Calaka ( talk) 08:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Similar to the above section I posted, would anyone like to recommend a merger between Nonne-Milroy-Meige syndrome and Milroy disease. The evidence of them being the same (in my opinion) is provided here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=153100 & here: http://www.whonamedit.com/synd.cfm/1326.html but I still didn't feel bold enough to do the merger myself (I am no doctor after all, so I figure an expert can do the confirmation first!). Thanks. Calaka ( talk) 09:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Would someone who knows about ectoderm / endoderm please take a look at recent IP changes to Pineal gland? I can't tell if these are honest attempts to get something right, or not. Thank you, Hordaland ( talk) 10:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I found a CDC site that offers public domain photos of skin diseases. Does anyone else know of sites where I can get photos of skin diseases for use on wikipedia? --- kilbad ( talk) 13:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's my list of US Gov image sites. Not all images on all sites are in the public domain.
— G716 < T· C> 17:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to let the community know that there is a move to reorganize disease article stubs at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2009/June. --- kilbad ( talk) 12:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Another merger suggestion. Please comment at Talk:Seckel_syndrome#Merge_Virchow-Seckel_syndrome_here. and if you think the merger is appropriate enough, be bold. Thank you. Calaka ( talk) 04:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
This is nothing more than trivia and yet is listed as a GA under WP:MED Michael Jackson's health and appearance. I think it belong to another project if anything?-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see here: [ [13]] for reasoning of possible merger. Any input would be greatly appreciated and if you are knowledgeable enough about these two terms as being the same, then by all means be bold. Thank you. Calaka ( talk) 11:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Trawling around some links found Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Template for medical conditions, I believe this is now covered in MOS in further detail, suggest delteing it? L∴V 14:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Anyone want to have a look at the Deep penetrating light therapy stub? It was a mess before, so I trimmed out the massive source dump. Now it's kinda naked. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 15:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys, I just finished a member sweep, and I'd like to tell you some interesting facts. For borderline any members that have not edited Wikipedia since 1 January 2009 were removed from the active members list and put into the inactive. At the begging of the sweep, we had a total of 254 members listed. After reviewing all of members contributions, 72 of those 254 were illegible for the inactive members' list. Roughly 28.3% of our members where inactive. A fifth. I'd like to suggest that we do yearly regular member sweeps, as this one I did was very brief and quick. All I did was check their contributions and if I saw a 2008, 2007, and I did see a few 2006's, I removed them. Renaissancee (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Currently, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction does not have its own article. It is covered as a paragraph on 'diastolic heart failure' under the main heart failure article. Would anyone object if I created a new HFPEF article to separate it out from HF with reduced EF? Antelan 22:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Would someone mind reviewing the addition of a CSD G3 tag to this recent stub I created? --- kilbad ( talk) 18:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey everbody (puts fingers in teeth and whistles loudly), there's a debate here about common names policy strengthening vs those of individual wikiprojects. Are the two compatible, and how? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Anybody have a good source for Medical diagnosis? It seems like it would be useful to describe subtypes, such as those based on "how" (e.g., clinical vs lab diagnosis), "who" (e.g., nursing diagnosis) and "when" (prenatal diagnosis) the diagnosis is made. Anyone else have any favorite ways to divide up this rather large territory? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Should there be individual articles on medical abbreviations? We currently have EOMI and PERRLA. I don't think these are necessary, and I'd like to delete them/redirect them to List of medical abbreviations. There are also articles on some Medical mnemonics, which could be left as-is. -- Scott Alter 23:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Here is an interesting article on alt med. 2.5 billion spent with lots of negative results. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090610/ap_on_he_me/us_med_unproven_remedies_research_3 -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have any good techniques/suggestions/etc for outlining signal transduction outside or inside a cell without using cartoons/diagrams (i.e. some type of all-text approach)? --- kilbad ( talk) 01:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been seeing notices that the flu does not fall under WikiProject Medicine, I find that very strange. The tags have been replaced with WP:VIRUS tags, but the articles don't talk about the virus, only the disease it causes, and WP:VIRUS is a Tree-of-life related WikiProject... I also saw a notice saying that bacteria do not fall under WPMED... so that cuts off a whole lot of disease, if all bateriological and viral diseases do not fall under WPMED, and drugs fall under WP:PHARMA... is all you cover surgery, malnutrition, and autoimmune disease? 70.29.210.174 ( talk) 06:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright, sorry about that. Scope and stuff is getting more and more complicated, so I'm bound to screw up sometime. Looks like this was one of them. Yes, you should probably readd the banners. Renaissancee (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Task_forces#Psychiatry lists five editors that are interested in a task force dedicated to psychiatry. I think this is enough, but none of you seem to be watching the task force page, and if we set up this task force, then I want to make sure that you'll actually show up. So: anyone still interested? Are we ready to launch? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Recently I discovered Calf is mostly about baby cattle, and there was no Wikipedia article about the human calf. I wrote Calf (of leg) and began disambiguating links to Calf. I also proposed to move the article about baby cattle to Calf (cattle) and to move Calf (disambiguation) to Calf, so that future links to Calf will continue to be disambiguated.
Some of the arguments against moving these pages are absurd. For example, the leg part isn't really a "calf" and for god's sake, it's utterly ridiculous to create separate articles on the leg part and the muscle. Argh. Please help. -- Una Smith ( talk) 19:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Examining other anatomy articles, I see the convention favors Calf (anatomy). As that page name is already occupied (by a redirect), an admin will have to move it. I will hold off on disambiguating the rest of the links to Calf and Calf muscle until the move proposals are resolved. Links to Calf muscle need to be disambiguated because many of them actually intend the calf, not the calf muscle. This is a big mess resulting from the absence of a page on a minor but basic topic of human anatomy. A stub would have been better. -- Una Smith ( talk) 23:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you think it is okay to merge Calf muscle to Triceps surae? Both articles are on the same topic. "Calf muscle" is somewhat ambiguous, as it actually relates to several muscles. We seem to favor titles using the full scientific name of muscles (eg Quadriceps femoris muscle, Biceps brachii muscle, Triceps brachii muscle), so I think this merge is appropriate. -- Scott Alter 01:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
After going through the mess of trying to work out what is what, I managed to work out that Cowchock Syndrome AND Cowchock Wapner Kurtz syndrome (also known as Cystic hygroma) are NOT the same thing. Can someone please take a look at these and merge Cowchock Wapner Kutz into Cystic hygroma (since the former has a number of incorrect statements in my opinion due to the mistaken belief that Cowchock syndrome = Cowchock Wapner Kurtz syndrome). There is no indication of the OMIM of Cowchock syndrome to have a Wapner or Kurtz anywhere [15]. Furthermore these two links (they are government pages so I assume they can be trusted) show clearly the distinction between the above: [16] and [17]. I will redirect Cowchock to the more correct Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (as it is a subtype or X linked type 4). Thank you. Calaka ( talk) 03:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
It looks like Neospora caninum and Neospora need to be merged. -- Una Smith ( talk) 19:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
hello, i'm AQ. i am have lot of interest to be neurosergeon in future. i would love to share a little about something that we as the reality of this field. as all of we know, this job is the most challenging field in the medical choices. but after all i'm thinking, i'm afraid this field could be treated in the future because of many of the young lad today have shown very less interest to involve in this field.even if they do, mostly they only have interest about the salary. this is only my opinion.i am talk based on my observation.tq.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.79.104 ( talk) 06:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
In case anyone missed it, this is at FAC - might be good to see if anything left out comprehensivenesswise and see what else needs to be done (or help out). Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that we rename this article to Treatment of hypertension, Antihypertensive drugs, or Pharmacologic treatment of hypertension, what do you think?? MaenK.A. Talk 13:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
We could use some fresh voices in the long-running dispute over whether to display, how many to display, and where to place, the Rorschach test inkblot image(s). The most recent debate, at Talk:Rorschach test#All 10 images is over whether to include a gallery with all the images. – xeno talk 22:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
On the SIDS page "Infant being overweight" is called a prenatal risk factor and "Low birth weight" is called a post-natal risk factor. I think they should be classified similarly, and if so, should they both be put under prenatal or post-natal? Sidsmaven ( talk) 12:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Are there any other names for Polyclinic? It seems like the kind of concept that would have a different name in different countries, and we don't really need multiple articles. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
It looks like User:Deathstyler2 has done a cut-and-paste move of Environmental factor to Environmental disease. Aside from the minor problem that these terms aren't actually identical, it screws up the edit history. Does anyone want to figure out how to unwind these pages?
Fair warning: Based on a quick trip through the editor's contributions, I can't guarantee that this will necessarily be a simple, one-time fix. Among other things, the editor redirected Cardiovascular disease to this stub. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
A question about one of this publisher's website came up on the wiki spam project talk page a few days ago that's probably more suitable listed here. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#cancernetwork.com. The company produces a number of publications, newsletters, websites, conferences, etc., which seems to include custom publications, advertorials and supplements. There appear to be several editors adding content sourced to their publications, as well as external links. There are definitely COI issues that need to be addressed, but the edits, suitability of the links and determination of its publications as RS would probably best be discussed here. Flowanda | Talk 22:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
There has been discussion about using flagged revisions for BLPs. Wondering if this is something we should consider for this project? Here is comments from Jimbo [ [19]] -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It appears that the entire article on Schizoid Personality Disorder was lifted word-for-word from http;//www.schizoid.eu , which claims copyright over the information.
I am not familiar enough with Wikipedia's rules for correcting this, but I have also notified them so this can be worked out.
J. Kulacz 24.117.91.92 ( talk) 05:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I just redirected Annular ligament of femur to Zona orbicularis (expanded the unassessed article and name-dropped a few alternative names). However, I'm not a native English-speaker, so I'm wondering what you people actually call this ligament. -- Addingrefs ( talk | contribs ) 17:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Guys, is there a sub-team that could make comments on some of the television and movies articles that center around medicine? I notice some have your project banner and I think several more could use it, but would like to make sure that they get tagged for the appropriate sub-team? -- Mjquin_id ( talk) 03:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Paper Blindness has been prod'd as a potential hoax by a new editor. The condition it describes doesn't sound entirely unreasonable, and it's possible that it's a made-up name for a real condition. It's also possible that it's a garden-variety hoax. If you're curious, please take a look. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Thoughts about how to handle this recently created article? The term itself is quite dated, to say the least. In an ideal world, our article on proctitis would already cover the relevant material. I'm not really supportive of a standalone article with this title, especially since the references are so sparse and date largely from the 1970s. In fact, the McGraw-Hill Manual of Colorectal Surgery has this to say:
Coined in the pre-HIV era, the term "gay bowel syndrome" comprised a rather unselective potpourri of unusual anorectal and GI symptoms experienced by homosexual males... with better understanding of the underlying causes, this term is outdated: the derogatory terminology should be abandoned and more specific entities and terms recognized and used. [20]
My thoughts exactly. Anyone else? MastCell Talk 20:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I too would support redirecting it to proctitis, though I'd have no objections to stubbing it. -- Rob ( talk) 20:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I think it should stay. Its presented in a reasonable manner and it makes it clear that it is a obsolete medical term. Other articles such as Hysteria and Neurosis are about obsolete diagnoses, but they aren't merged into the relevant psychology articles. Asarelah ( talk) 23:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps someone could consider working on this article a bit? --- kilbad ( talk) 02:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
It would be appreciated if a few people who have knowledge of CFS-related fields would have a look at the various articles that relate to chronic fatigue syndrome. The biggest article of concern is the main article itself, however, many related articles could also use some review, such as: Clinical descriptions of chronic fatigue syndrome, Controversies related to chronic fatigue syndrome, Daniel Peterson (physician), David Sheffield Bell, Leonard A. Jason, Malcolm Hooper, Medically unexplained physical symptoms, and Pathophysiology of chronic fatigue syndrome.
In particular, neutral point of view presentation is a concern. There have been accusations of the articles taking pro-biological viewpoints, and reversions against consensus to counteract the perceived bias. I think someone (or probably several someones) with a more hands-off approach would be appreciated at this point.
Thanks everyone! -- Rob ( talk) 04:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I would support a merger of clinical descriptions of chronic fatigue syndrome, controversies related to chronic fatigue syndrome, and pathophysiology of chronic fatigue syndrome into chronic fatigue syndrome. Would anyone else support this? --- kilbad ( talk) 17:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree with ward, merging would make the article too big.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Last year, when my duodenum became perforated, a short catheter was inserted into my urethra while I was in the emergency room. It was unlike any in the Wikipedia article on catheters. It had a cylindrically-shaped bulb on the end which was lubricated and inserted only about ten centimeters into the urethra. It was referred to as a Foley catheter, but evidently was something else. What could it have been? It was probably inserted for the operation I soon underwent, but was left in for about a week, at least. Unfree ( talk) 00:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Review of animal bite-associated infections in next week's Lancet Infectious Diseases; does anyone have access to the full text? It could be used to improve a number of articles, and I don't feel like imposing on the nice folks over at WP:REX :) Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 02:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello to all (But not to the world). For the past couple weeks I've been working extensively on Rumination Syndrome, an eating disorder characterised by the involuntary and effortless regurgitation of meals immediately following their ingestion. It is severly underdiagnosed and its prevalence in the general population is unknown, though predictably large. It affects up to 10% of cognitively disabled children and adults in their lifetime.
Anyways, descriptions aside, I'm looking for a fellow editor - Preferably one who is better with the technicalities of english than myself - to help me polish the article off and get more citations in place. Since I started working on it, the article has been significantly filled out from its former self. There is still plenty of information to be added (Especially the technical stuff... Goodie goodie!), and another section at the least (Causes). I think this could potentially reach Good Article status with enough effort.
note to deletionists: This is still a work in progress, and some information has yet to be cited. I will revert any negative changes to the article! -- ʄɭoyd̪iaɲ τ ç 04:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Done
David Ruben
Talk
00:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Ah, thank you, that makes sense. The wiki I'm most active on doesn't really have legal issues to worry about. I'm distinctly having the problem that while my wiki technical knowledge is fairly good, the environment at Wikipedia is very different. I appreciate the explanation and links. -- Rob ( talk) 02:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I am having major issues on the benzodiazepine article and other editors there seem to be wanting to "avoid the conflict". I really would appreciate some eyes on this. Everytime the article is ready to be promoted original research and systematic reviews are deleted and replaced with weak non-systematic reviews of uncontrolled clinical trials. The editor keeps either outright deleting NICE clinical guidelines or minimising them as well as other reviews. Please intervene, even if you agree with systematic review guidelines being deleted. I am at the point where if I lose my argument I don't care, just want the community to simply intervene.
Talk:Benzodiazepine#RfC:_Is_is_right_to_keep_deleting_systematic_review_and_clinical_guidelines.3F Thank you.--
Literaturegeek |
T@1k?
12:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
It might actually be better if someone neutral with understanding of medical and pharmacology knowledge and wiki policies would act as a mediator.--
Literaturegeek |
T@1k?
14:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Changed to
Talk:Benzodiazepine#Mediation.2C_any_volunteers.--
Literaturegeek |
T@1k?
15:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Issue is being looked into by admin over next few days.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know anything about nutrition and macular degeneration? Witness this edit on nutrition - Cochrane supports a lack of evidence, while there are a surprising number of studies on pubmed that seem to arrive at the opposite conclusion, but all seem to come out of Tufts University's Age-Related Eye Disease Study: PMID 19508997, PMID 19410952, PMID 17435429, PMID 11594942, PMID 18425071; that there are a couple articles pimping supplements in the abstracts seems very, very odd to me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 14:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this is standard internationally, but most people say, 1 unit of prbc, 1 unit cryo, 1 unit of platelets... but when I see it recorded in the computer it's always in cc of each blood product. and since 1 unit of prbc is a different number of cc than 1 unit of platelets, i always waste time converting back and forth for when I report to the attending. do we have a table somewhere on wikipedia which shows what a Unit of each blood product is in cc or is this not standard across nations? thanks 163.40.12.37 ( talk) 17:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi guys, me again. We've been having a discussion the last little while about whether or not the Post-viral fatigue syndrome article should be merged into the Chronic fatigue syndrome article. Unlike some CFS-related discussions <g>, it's been very amicable and there are some good points both for and against the merger, but ultimately, I think we're all unsure about what the best course of action is here. Any suggestions? Thanks everyone! -- Rob ( talk) 04:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought we'd been over this "endless case history" thing at Brown-Séquard syndrome with User:A E Francis before, but
In addition to getting these articles cleaned up (any volunteers?), should we consider specifically naming this problem at WP:MEDMOS#Writing_style? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the casuistry from failed back syndrome (is that not entirely NOR?) but in the other two the case reports are intertwined with the actual content and will need careful removal, ideally by the original author. We skirmished in the past over his list of causes for Brown-Sequard syndome. On a separate note, none of the extensive references are templated, which makes it harder to judge the content by the title (it's of the first author/journal/volume/pages variety). JFW | T@lk 07:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed Blood type for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 23:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear doctors mess, can you please tell me how many total medical articles are on Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate it. I couldn't find a category for medicine to count myself. Greatly appreciated. Will crosspost at Reference Desk. 207.59.144.196 ( talk) 00:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Dr please can you help with some points as regards to the relevance of parasitology to medicine? User:208.78.62.116
I have two very good sources that have conflicting information. One states spongiosis is intracellular edema, while the other states it is extracellular edema. Do any of you have additional sources that can be used to clarify what the strict definition of spongiosis is? Perhaps you could add them to the article? Thanks in advance for your help. --- kilbad ( talk) 13:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Can some physicians please put eyes on recent edits at MMR vaccine controversy? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Is it really relevant to the subject to compare public conerns (even if those concerns are unfounded) about vaccines to "holocaust denial" and anti-science conspiracies theories though? I think Sandy's reverts/deletions were good.--
Literaturegeek |
T@1k?
17:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Struck out my comments, I see that you were just referring to public stats and not the other paragraph. Apologies Fuzbaby.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps stats were worth keeping, dunno Sandy's reasoning. How about raising it on the article talk page or with Sandy on her talk page? :)-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh ok no probs Sandy. I am not opposed to the stats being included, they are recent and should be interesting to the reader. The other paragraph clearly did need deleting. :) Why not just add the stats and ref back in Fuzbaby and if anyone challenges it you can take it to the article talk page. :)-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Public opinion polls aren't really a scientific statement and are unlikely to appear in a review article in my opinion. Improved sourcing might not be possible. Agree that it the stats are not directly relevant to MMR.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I know I'm going to get pushback on this, but I am not pleased with a series of single studies with no aggregation being reported approvingly over at emotional freedom technique. So I've culled. I'd love to point out that the studies were almost universally flawed - small n, no control groups, poor follow-up, horrible methodology, published in partisan press, etc. (the only good study was negative, and it's not pubmed indexed [21]). As I said, my main concern is that the page reports the very small number of studies individually, with no aggregation. Since this is exploratory, with few studies, of little scientific merit, of a borderline pseudoscience, I'm rather uncomfortable with the the previous reporting of individual results, methodologies, etc. that existed before my trim. Spam is an obvious concern, as is WP:CRYSTAL. Opinions of experienced contributors is welcome and appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 00:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
We have an article on
Emu oil, which discusses various healthcare-related properties and uses of this substance.
The cites in this article seem to be largely from various promotional websites.
Could members of this project please review these cites for adspam? Thanks. --
201.37.230.43 (
talk)
22:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, we've probably been over this a bunch already, but we don't accept the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons as a reliable source, right? It's the publication of a fringe activist group as I understand it. I'm going to take something that uses it as a source out of shaken baby syndrome, see Talk:shaken baby syndrome#Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. delldot ∇. 23:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
We've been refining our scope as part of our ongoing assessment work. Your opinions on the latest big-picture questions are wanted.
All of the following are within the scope of WP:PHARM. Are they also within WPMED's scope?
Options include everything from "Yes" to "No", with considerable room for complexity as needed. For example, someone might want WPMED to support major classes of medications ( NSAIDs) but not individual medications ( aspirin); to support over-the-counter drugs ( aspirin) but not prescription-only medications ( cisplatin); to support common medications ( paroxetine) but not uncommon ones ( alpha-galactosidase); to support legally regulated drugs but not "dietary supplements" — or any other system you think appropriate.
Whatever your personal opinions, please feel free to share them. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Seems there are 4 seperate articles, mostly stubs, that deal with practically the same subject. I am not good with merging pages that are in different stances, but I thought I'd provide the list for anyone interested in it.
I'm sure with some searching another one or two may be uncovered. These articles all have merge templates but no discussion on the proposed merge has begun. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Please note the hatnote on Polyphagia; I think the biological usage is the more notable one, in which case this article should be about polyphagia in the biological sense, which refers to having a very broad diet, similar to omnivory. -- Una Smith ( talk) 01:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Benzodiazepine#Questions_about_U_Sheffield_paper has an open question about whether genuine, official NICE guidelines include statements like "The views expressed in this Publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of either the Royal College of General Practitioners or the National Institute for Clinical Excellence". If one (or more) of our UK editors could please take a look, I'd appreciate it. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Colin has resolved this issue. :)-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
A new reason has come up now, apparently the NICE guidelines are too technical and long for non-professionals or something. This is what happens you resolve one frivilous problem and then another problem is found which you have to argue about. WP:DISRUPT is appropriate. This has been going on for over a month now. I should point out that due weight and balance is given to both sides of the controversy in this section. Benzodiazepine#Tolerance.2C_dependence_and_withdrawal This apparently isn't enough because by me citing the "extremist" NICE systematic review and the clinical guidelines in the anxiety section, I am being "radical".-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Way to go, guys! You just decided by majority that a document saying "The views expressed in this Publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of either the Royal College of General Practitioners or the National Institute for Clinical Excellence" - is a NICE guideline. While a document [22] saying "This document, which contains the Institute's full guidance on Anxiety" is not a NICE guideline.
You are too absorbed, LG and MS, in attacking me personally to look into the problem. Please note that Colin eventually agreed with me on the only issue I tried to clarify. He wrote ""full version" is the one they call the "full guideline", not the one they call the "NICE guideline" "The NICE guideline presents the recommendations from the full guideline in a format that focuses on implementation by healthcare professionals and NHS organisations" (bold mine, TSC)."
I agreed with Colin in principle that it does not really matter what to use:"Regardless, the recommendation sections of both documents say the same." He insisted that full NICE guideline is more appropriate, and I did not further argue with that. What is your problem, LG and MS? The Sceptical Chymist ( talk) 00:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
This new article seems very problematic. First it praises the institute citing articles that would not be good sources according to MEDRS, then it lists a number of "controversies" in ways that seem to violate BLP because they are based on poor sources. I bring this here because it's outside my domain; I only saw it as part of a Bot-search result. Looie496 ( talk) 04:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I recently ported Shared decision making over from CZ (recent update of licenses allows this granted that acknowledgment is given) and since it is related to medicine, I was hoping someone here can give an expert view on it. Mainly to check for NPOV, references are valid and ensure the article is not biased etc, since I have heard that some of the articles over at CZ (such as the ones about homeopathy) are pushed towards a POV. Cheers. Calaka ( talk) 09:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The alcohol and cancer page is a mess. A bit of quick background, as some of you may remember I raised problems (which are now resolved) a while back with the long-term effects of alcohol article regarding it being severely abused by a sociologist from the drinks industry who had a wealth of references to give massive undue weight to the benefits of moderate alcohol, misusing references and using old sources which were disproven with later research etc etc. The same thing happened with the alcohol and cancer page. Anyway one of the main problems is editors copying and pasting sentences from references and doing direct quotes. This editing style was used by the sociologist (who is banned now after resorting to sockpuppeteering), the response of some of the community was then to copy the editing style of the sociologist by doing direct copy and paste tactics, wrongly thinking that this would mean that the "alcohol industry" wouldn't be able to "touch their edits". It has resulted in a comprehensive article but is borderline violating copyright issues throughout it. It would be a shame to just delete all of the hard work. If the community could reword these quotes we could end up with a reasonable B class medicine article. Please join in and lend a helping hand to fix this article. It's been a mess with these quotes for over a year and is only partially resolved. Thanks. :-)-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
When clicking on some of the cancer links on the alcohol and cancer page, I stumbled across an old unresolved merge proposal. See Salivary gland neoplasm, I was about to merge them myself but then realised a neoplasm can be benign so then had second thoughts and thought I would bring it to the attention of this project.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
This message is in reference to the existing Skin grafting article, and the final image that is displayed (a skin graft applied to a lower leg trauma injury, benefiting from VAC). The photograph is of my own leg, and was taken in December 2007 following a motorcycle accident. Would the article benefit from having a photograph of the graft now it is completely healed, with no moist areas? And how about any intermediate images? I can try to crop and rotate to the same orientation so the images are consistent. Furthermore, would the article benefit from any reference to long-term implications of full thickness grafts and their potential impact on the lymphatic system? For example, where mine is sited means that I suffer from significant swelling without several hours of daily elevation. Clearly this is not going to affect every patient but is a potential long-term complication as a result of having a skin graft. This can also be accommodated in an image time-line if I do contribute one in the manner I have suggested - I can intentionally lay up to make the surrounding tissue sit flush with the graft on the edge where the tissue loss is at its thinnest, and likewise I can intentionally keep the leg down for a day or two to swell up somewhat grotesquely, and make the surrounding tissue taught and angry. Would this be of any use whatsoever, or would it over-complicate the article? To make this clear, I'm not doing this for some sort of personal kick of sharing photos of my injuries - I personally feel that it would be of some use to patients to see how things might possibly look during the healing process as well as possibly illustrating possible long-term side effects, but of course if it would detract from the factual nature of "what is a skin graft" then I will bow to your collective greater knowledge and not embark on this little project. If anyone from the profession wants to see the intermediate-stage images I intend to use (not yet rotated etc) then I've put them on photobucket - you can view them through the following links: [24] [25] [26]. I've not yet uploaded the fully healed images. I would of course be happy to work with anyone from the profession in creating any amendment to make it relevant from the get-go, and save people the effort of re-edits later. Thanks. -- El Gordo 78 ( talk) 02:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
In the Symptoms and conditions section of the article there is a list of conditions with references to placebo controlled studies and metastudies. The only explanation for the list is "List of medical conditions". There has been some discussion of keeping the list as is or removing it until better context for the list is included in the article here. Some more input or clarification would be appreciated. Thanks. Ward20 ( talk) 06:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
I've been editing the snakebite article recently (I'm 98.232.98.144 ( talk · contribs) when too lazy to log in) and I noticed it is rated as mid-importance for this Wikiproject group. The article is also a former good article, but was demoted for a variety of reasons. I've tried to address some of the problems on the to-do list, but I don't have enough free time in my day to do everything I'd like to. The article as it is now has the potential to regain good article status with a little more work, but I would like help from this group if anyone's willing. It would be nice to have some fresh eyes look over it and note potential problems and improvements, and add citation tags where they're needed. Thanks!-- Eightofnine ( talk) 06:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
What is going on? Why are private practices posting before and after shots to encyclopedia articles? What are the terms and conditions regarding this type of "contribution"? The pages that I have come across have become significantly less reputable due to these types of images being posted (and a *lot* less aesthetically pleasing). A list of the articles that I have found include: abdominoplasty, liposuction, rhinoplasty, and rhytidectomy, but the list is realistically longer than that. I am an avid medical photographer and have been given a great opportunity to take photos during actual surgeries, also having been given full legal rights from both the patients and surgeon to my images, and the rights to contribute my work to the Wikimedia projects and global community in general.
After adding some images to the abdominoplasty article, I was contacted by a Dr. Otto J. Placik from Arlington Heights, IL, USA regarding the article and that he was "there first" and would appreciate it if I would leave his work alone (I had edited one of his photo captions in the liposuction article to remove the phrase "PLEASE CLICK ON PHOTO FOR MORE INFORMATION")--with the subtle hint that my contributions are not welcome. He then proceeded to remove an extremely valuable and descriptive image of this surgery (which I re-added late last night after deciding to disregard his requests). How do I contact an administrator, or what is the Wikimedia/Wikipedia policy on this type of behavior? Dr. Otto Placik has also been "contributing" using multiple accounts, including Emilymiller123, Sarahjjohnson123, and the "anonymous" 75.63.221.230 IP address in an eff ort to ghost his marketing and self-promotion.
I'm not at all opposed to anyone from the medical community being involved in contributing to this great work. But seriously, what defines "crossing the line", and what can be done to keep people like Dr. Otto J. Placik from controlling and degrading the quality of this collaborative project? I'm new here, so I really don't know where to turn for help or advice on this matter. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paravis ( talk • contribs) 18:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
DocJames you may agree with Paravis above that "links to his personal pages must be removed" when referring to me Otto Placik. but I have removed all links while the user you seem to agree with (Pararvis) continues to have links on all his phtos to a Dr. Michael Schwartz. I find this type of behavior dispicable and evidence that PAravis is operating in bad faith. How can he disparage me "keep people like Dr. Otto J. Placik from controlling and degrading the quality of this collaborative project" (his words) and he continues to attach links to a commercial website. Seems hypocritical to me! Otto Placik ( talk) 00:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Zbar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Steinbrech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_K._Herman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gentile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Charles_Edwards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrick_E._Antell
Thanks! Rob Droliver ( talk) 20:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Isn't Paravis ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) adding before and after images for a Dr. Michael S. Schwartz with direct links to his promotional website. Is that allowed? The source field on the image summary has a direct hyperlink to the physician's website and has terms of use that seem to give direct credit to this physician. I find this to be contradictory to the advertising bans and non-promotional nature of Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fat_removal_using_cannula_during_tumescent_liposuction.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto Placik ( talk • contribs) 07:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Otto Placik ( talk) 15:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
We need to add:
Paravis ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
since the photos lead to Michael Schartz, a plastic surgeon's website. Flowanda | Talk 06:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I would agree that this needs review. Multiple photos contributed by User:Paravis for example [ [29]] have direct links to a Dr. Michael S. Schwartz's website. He claims that he is giving credit and I agree that this is reasonable. However, it was my impression that direct links to a personal website for promotional purposes is strongly discouraged. I believe that Paravis should not be allowed to upload these images (I counted 17 photos) without removing the links. Changing the links to the Physician's name only would diminish the obvious nature of this blatant promotional use of Wikipedia and at least give the impression that his efforts were sincere in intent.-- Otto Placik ( talk) 05:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
There are a number of images on various article pages that show uploaded photos to Wikimedia Commons that contain links to physicians' websites, including the editor above who complained about harassment. I think the notice I placed on this user's talk page provides the links to current and past discussions : [30]. I think the best way to keep the discussion together would be to make any replies to the WP:RSPAM noticeboard [31]. Thanks, Flowanda | Talk 00:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
...is open for business. See the talk page and join in the fun. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, I created the following SVGs, serving the wikiproject medicine, I want some review, thank you all :-)
please comment on this MaenK.A. Talk 12:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
For a long time I have been disappointed with the quality of the diabetes content on Wikipedia. Given the large amount of articles involved I thought this might be right forum to raise these issues. To be honest, I think one of the main problems is the lack of agreement whether all content should remain on diabetes mellitus (lumpers) or whether this should be a placeholder article that primarily links to numerous subarticles (splitters).
Could I make the following proposals:
It would be lovely to have a task force set up for diabetes and endocrinology, but I suspect there is not currently enough manpower to do this. JFW | T@lk 10:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenazopyridine#Cancer_Risk
i know this page is monitored by the makers of this drug. Please help me bring middle of the road information to the article about azo dyes. Does the pharm box at the top have a category for class of pharmaceutical? Thanks, 99.22.220.61 ( talk) 22:25, 5 July 2009 (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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
The page on this ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GVE ) is a little confusing. My understanding of GVEs is that they only contain parasympathetic outputs from the brainstem; however, 90% of this article, as well as the image, is devoted to explaining sympathetic output from the thoracic cord.
At the very least, the way the article is currently written seems to imply that CN 3,7,9,10 contain SNS, as opposed to PNS. corvus.ag ( talk) 20:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
If you can take a break from the swine flu, I noticed this page about the Society for Neuroscience undertaking to improve neuroscience-related articles on Wikipedia. The Medicine and other WikiProjects might be able to help them — should we try to contact them? I already left a note on the MCB WikiProject talk page. Proteins ( talk) 20:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The WP article on Home birth could use some input from medical professionals. There have been safety and other claims put forward which are PoV and probably should not be part of this article. I've only been there because of a request on the NPoV board, not as an expert. But it is fairly obvious that the article's slant, and perhaps the facts being put forth, may contain serious error. The partisanship to date may require more serious intervention than I can offer. Astynax ( talk) 06:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This isn't exactly about Wikipedia, but it may interest some editors: The U.S. National Institutes of Health is requesting comments about the possibility of expanding the results section of the clinicaltrials.gov website. Currently, researchers are required to report, in tabular form, the "basic results information" from each listed trial, such as the demographics and measurements for each major outcome, on a schedule tied to FDA approval work. Narrative text has been prohibited primarily because of concerns about what Wikipedia would call WP:NPOV issues.
There are ten specific questions open in this RfC, and several of them, such as how to present technical information so that non-experts can understand it, and how to make the information be accurate and unbiased, seem like areas that experienced Wikipedia editors understand extremely well. If you have an interest in this area, or some suggestions for them, or if you have an idea about how their reports could be made more useful to our work here at Wikipedia, then please consider submitting your comments or suggestions to Docket No. NIH–2009–0002 at http://www.regulations.gov/ before Monday, June 22, 2009. (This process is open to "all interested parties", not merely U.S. citizens. All submitted comments become part of the public record, meaning "can be freely read by anyone with an internet connection".) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Due to the outbreak of a new strain of swine flu in Mexico and the southwestern United States, Swine influenza is being groomed to appear on the Main page, section In the news. Please help improve this article. -- Una Smith ( talk) 04:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The 2009 outbreak is top of the news on Main Page now, and a cluster of new related articles are in development:
Swine influenza needs still more work, as it confuses a number of technical issues. As a model, see Human influenza. -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The article and outbreak templates suffer from improper application of MOS:MED with regards to naming conventions, source reliability, and other technical issues related to medical articles. Flipper9 ( talk) 13:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
After a recent request on my talk page, I added the Medicine project to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. I can also provide the full data for any project covered by the bot if requested, though I normally don't keep it for much longer than a week after the list is generated. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! (note that there is an encoding issue with some non-ascii titles, this will be fixed in the next update). Mr. Z-man 19:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Would someone look at this edit: [2]. The information is added within a citation I placed, for which the additional information is not found. Also, I think the additional text may be misinformation. Perhaps someone could look it over? --- kilbad ( talk) 22:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Is 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine article within the scope of this project? I tried to apply WP:MEDMOS conventions arguing in favor of renaming the article back to MDMA (see here [3]) and was told that MEDMOS does not apply. I would appreciate you input. The Sceptical Chymist ( talk) 10:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I've prodded this one; I haven't been able to find a notability policy that covers hospitals. See the talk page; none of the 80 or so "news, books, scholar" hits suggested notability, but I would have no objection if the article is de-prodded or speedied, as long as you educate me in the process as to why. - Dank (formerly Dank55) ( push to talk) 23:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Influenza-like illness has just been moved into the queue to appear on the Main Page in the "Did you know" section. I have to go offline most of the next 6 hours or so, and won't be able to fix any problems that arise. Please watchlist the article and prepare to be responsive to queries. Thanks in advance! -- Una Smith ( talk) 14:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Arising from the Peer Review of Oxygen toxicity, it was suggested that the article would benefit from the History section being moved nearer the top (after Signs and symptoms). I've read through WP:MOSMED#Diseases/disorders/syndromes several times and checked the talk page there, but remain unsure how prescriptive the order of sections really is. My instinct is to follow the order given (for consistency between articles), but do not wish to disregard a peer-reviewer's suggestions unless necessary. Can anybody help me out in deciding the best position of the History section? Thanks in advance. -- RexxS ( talk) 20:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Should Category:Medical procedures be created? It seems logical to me, but you guys are the experts. There's a whole list at medical procedures that would be appropriate for this category. ~EdGl ★ 17:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I just created Category:Medical procedures as a subcategory of Category:Medical treatments. Many articles currently in Category:Medical treatments could be moved to Category:Medical procedures. The hard part will be differentiating procedures from other medical treatments. Any surgical procedures should be placed only in Category:Surgical procedures, which is a subcategory of Category:Medical procedures. -- Scott Alter 00:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
What do you think of the following move: [4]. Could we just make an "HSP" redirect? --- kilbad ( talk) 18:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Nonspecific but useful finding in mitral stenosis. Article worthy IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.4.79 ( talk) 17:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone may want to go over his contribs. Unomi ( talk) 00:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to place this listing into a table, and wanted to know what people though the best names for the columns would be? I was thinking "Name" "Life" (dates of lifespan), "Notable contribution(s)", "Reference(s)" ? What do you think? --- kilbad ( talk) 17:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I recently updated my page about missing topics related to medicine (and some of the subpages as well) and I wonder if anyone could have a new look at it. And whether some of the topics qualify only as redirects... - Skysmith ( talk) 13:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
There is also a Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Medicine. I suspect that many articles on Skysmith's lists can either be redirects or should not be created (e.g. individual research studies). JFW | T@lk 09:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Buddha Jumps Over the Wall, a variety of shark fin soup, is currently on the main page as a DYK. Unfortunately, the lead section makes two extraordinary health claims: 1) It is an aid in digestion, and ;2) It claims to be a good health supplement in the summer. Both claims are sourced to a popular Korean newspaper JoongAng Ilbo. Now, while it may or may not be possible to attribute such health claims in the body of the article, their placement in the lead is deceptive, and it insists the dish is both a digestive aid and health supplement. When one looks closer at this, it appears to be rooted in belief that shark fin cartilage has anti-cancer properties. It might be a good idea to discuss based on the evidence, rather than asserting outright health benefits that have not been proved. I don't think the health claims that are sourced to a popular newspaper should appear in the lead section, per WP:MEDRS. How do I proceed? I have opened a discussion on the talk page, here. I have removed the claims, here. Viriditas ( talk) 23:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
What should the actual title of the article be, particularly with respect to the punctuation? Should there be dashes? a single or multiple commas? I realize there are multiple redirects already, but wanted to see what the community thought the official title should be. Certain ICD codes use no punctuation. --- kilbad ( talk) 21:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Should the actual article title use a dash as per the ICD codes (i.e. Hairy-cell leukemia), then with the redirect from the undashed title? --- kilbad ( talk) 00:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone with admin bit please semi-protect Swine influenza; since protection was removed yesterday the frequency of vandalism by anons has been high. -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Should the article instead be found at Pediculosis capitis with a redirect from "Head-louse infestation"? --- kilbad ( talk) 16:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_12#Category:Medical_disasters. Johnbod ( talk) 02:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
How does the community feel about this condition? I have not found any great sources for the article, and wanted to know if it's worth keeping? I don't have strong feeling either way, but am looking to read what people think. If we end up keeping it, perhaps we could improve the references? --- kilbad ( talk) 14:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this is annoying. Just because a case report makes the news doesn't turn the newly coined condition into a notable subject. It is not undifferent from the cello scrotum and all sort of other weird and wonderful musculoskeletal and dermatological phenomena associated with some popular activity (here's another one: PMID 10688714).
Individual stubs on each phenomenon are not going to anyone any favours. I think that rather we should have a longer article covering all those conditions in a reasonable framework ( medical conditions related to game computer use or somesuch). JFW | T@lk 09:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Interesting discussion on the blog of Tom Watson MP here: Talk:Swine_influenza#British_Government_to_ensure_Wikipedia_is_"correct_and_up_to_date"? and here: http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2009/05/what-is-swine-flu .
-- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 22:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I support their contributions, nothing to stop them contributing to wiki, they can contribute valuable uptodate data which we (wikipedians) may miss. Only concern is that I hope they wouldn't be given preferential treatment and effectively be given control of the article of what stays and what goes and what gets entered. That would be unfair to other editors but I could see that possibly happening even unintentionally.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I have made some minor edits in the last year or so and as a medical student I feel that helping advance articles improves my education. I want to get involved with Wikipedia in my spare time by working with others who care about medicine and who are interested with sharing their knowledge and research abilities with the community. Can anyone give me some insight into how to get into an article creation group or a collaboration with others to improve the current topics? Thanks so much, Orlandoturner ( talk) 03:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, folks! I have been spending a great deal of time on the Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak article. I basically took the barebones article and added a tons of sources, expanded it, etc. Anyhow, I just nominated it for GA status. I thought I'd let you all know so you. Thanks!!!! Basket of Puppies 06:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Iron overload disorder should be moved to Iron overload, which is the condition of having too much iron stored in the body. There are no pages called "Iron deficiency disorder", "Anemia disorder" or "Hypertension disorder". Tocant ( talk) 14:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, it has to be structured in a good way. Iron overload is a somewhat confusing subject since the mutations responsible for the hereditary forms were not discovered until recently. "Hemochromatosis" has sometimes been used as an equivalent to iron overload in general, but I think that is changing. There are also articles on Hemochromatosis type 3, neonatal hemochromatosis and juvenile hemochromatosis that could be seen as separate diseases or variants of hemochromatosis. Then there is the term "Hemosiderosis" that could refer to "iron overload in general", "hemochromatosis", "the process of accumulation of hemosiderin" or just be used as a word in the terms "transfusion hemosiderosis" or "idiopathic pulmonary haemosiderosis". I think the most logical structure would be to have Iron overload (the opposite of Iron deficiency) as the main article (in a similar way that the article about Anemia defines "low hemoglobin" and discusses causes/classifications, diagnosis and complications among other things) since this is the end result of all conditions. The problem might be that hemochromatosis (type 1, HFE mutation) is responsible for most cases of iron overload and that there would be a lot of duplicated content, however as it is now the other forms of iron overload have almost no information about the effects of iron overload. This is just my opinion however and there might be a better solution. Tocant ( talk) 20:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I am in favor of moving it to Iron overload, and expanding it along the lines of Hypouricemia and Hyperuricemia. Explain what it is, how it works, how it is diagnosed, and its causes and consequences. -- Una Smith ( talk) 00:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
~After the changes made by Arcadian everything is now much clearer, especially the Terminology sections are very good to have! Tocant ( talk) 09:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Vaccine-preventable diseases is a redlink. Where would you point the link to? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Why does Medical treatment redirect to Psychotherapy? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I have been working with several other editors to create an organize categorization of pharmacology-related articles. My personal interest is the categorization of dermatology-related pharmacology; therefore, I wanted to know if those of you active in other taskforces might consider getting involved as well, so you can help create and guide the categorization of pharmacology that pertains to your field? --- kilbad ( talk) 21:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Is this a appropriate type of list? Who determines what items are "extraordinary"? --- kilbad ( talk) 19:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
There are an awful lot of rare diseases (the NORD database documents 1,150), each fascinating in their own way but perhaps such a list would test the patience of any reader. The article as it stands seems to take its entry criteria from a certain channel Five series -- i.e. what makes people stare. For example, Guinea worm disease and Elephantiasis are neither rare nor extraordinary, merely ghoulish. Colin° Talk 15:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to focus on the single issue of WP:V (that is, how to prevent the decision to include an item, or not include an item, from being WP:OR violation). Are we likely to find reliable sources that say "this disease is bizarre" or "this is a bit strange, or uncommon, but really not really sufficiently odd"? Otherwise, it's just going to be "well, I think this should be included, because I personally think it's weird-looking", and we can't have that. We must have actual independent reliable sources that are making the ordinary/extraordinary decision for us. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there any interest from the community in openning up an AfD and discussing it there? I certainly don't want to step on any toes here, but I think we could get even more opinions through an AfD. --- kilbad ( talk) 13:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
How about WP:RFC? My PO: this is a list of (ahem) "freak of the week" conditions; sensationalistic, not encyclopedic. -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI, Mikael Häggström has nominated this list for DYK. See Template talk:Did you know. -- Una Smith ( talk) 16:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
So I took a look at some of the other articles in the cat named above, just to get some perspective. Here's what I find:
By contrast, at this one, I find -- nothing. There's not a single source that says that these conditions are "unusual" in any sense other than "not very common". Therefore, I have to assume that the decision to include an item, or to not include an item, is based solely on the personal opinion of the editor adding the item, instead of being verifiably based on reliable sources.
If Wikipedia is going to have a list of medical conditions that make people stare, then every item in it needs to be supported by a ref that specifically identifies the condition as the sort of thing that makes people stare. Similar articles have managed to do this, and this one must, or it must be sent to AfD. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed that a recently created user ( User talk:OfCinicalInterest) has edited more than 50 times this (and only this) article. Most of the edits are quite positive towards the medicine. I believe there could be some conflict of interest here and since I am no expert in pharmacology maybe somebody feels like taking a look. I will also post the message in the pharmacology project. Bests.-- Garrondo ( talk) 07:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
If anyone is familar with the editor by the username scuro there is a discussion on admin noticeboard which could do with some additional input
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_topic_ban_of_User:Scuro_from_Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder. If you have positive or negative or even neutral views regarding disruption to ADHD and ADHD medication articles please feel free to give your viewpoint. Be forewarned it is a very lengthy discussion!--
Literaturegeek |
T@1k?
11:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
That is not true but fair enough you are entitled to your views. There are two editors with opposing viewpoints to me who would like scuro blocked. None of my additions are being challenged by scuro.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
New venue: Wikipedia:RFAR#Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. -- Una Smith ( talk) 16:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I have striked out my first post as that admin notice board discussion has been closed.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Help needed in bringing Cellulite up to WP:MEDRS standard. At the moment it's a dustbin of material by anon/SPA contributors, mostly with obvious commercial agendas. 86.161.33.63 ( talk) 03:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Given the importance of the topic, anyone is welcome to add to the review before I give it a final look over and pass. Be nice to give it a big boot toward FAC :) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Benzodiazepine article is now a good article. Next step is to get it up to featured article. Thank you for taking the time to review this article Casliber and thank you to any other editors here who have invested time on this article. I know Jdwolf did a fair amount of editing a while back and was good at fighting back the vandals.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd just like to mention that the Hypertension article has been nominated at WP:Good article nominations#Biology and medicine, and is currently waiting for a reviewer. Given the importance of the topic, it would be very nice to have a reviewer who has expertise. (I'm completely uninvolved and definitely don't have expertise, just thought it would be good to give a pointer here.) Looie496 ( talk) 22:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I recently modified the following images, making a separate unique image for every triangle of the neck, please I want some review for them, here they are
![]() |
and | ![]() |
and | ![]() |
and | ![]() |
and | ![]() |
and | ![]() |
and | ![]() |
and | ![]() |
and | ![]() |
and | ![]() |
and | ![]() |
and I added these images to the appropriate articles of the triangles, those images replaced 1 image was used on all these articles, and I added that Image at the end of each article, please view the images, and notify me if there is anything wrong with the labels or the borders, of the triangles, thank you all :-) Maen. K. A. ( talk) 22:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 05:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
if you write an article on a drug, please remember to write dates or approximate dates of discovery, FDA or other country approval, date drug goes generic, etc. this is important historical information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.61 ( talk) 06:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Will someone merge and delete this? Thanks in advance! My mistake. I have added some references, category, and small see also section. ---
kilbad (
talk)
17:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that we didn't have an article on radiation pneumonitis, so I've started a stub at radiation-induced lung injury (probably the most useful supercategory, which would also include late fibrotic lung injury from radiation). I'll expand it over the next few days, but wanted to invite anyone else with an interest. Also, if you come across any reasonably good spots in other articles that should link radiation pneumonitis etc, please go ahead and wikilink it. Thanks. MastCell Talk 18:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I have been try to populate and refine this category, and in doing so, I have come to feel that a rename is probably warranted. Currently, there are conditions in the category that may affect both the skin and mucous membranes, therefore, I was thinking about renaming it to something like Category:Virus-related cutaneous conditions. I also feel using "virus" instead of "viral" may make the name more accessible for general readers. What does the community think of that name? --- kilbad ( talk) 19:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Leishmaniasis americana is synonymous with Mucocutaneous leishmaniasis, and my question is this, should "americana" be capitalized? --- kilbad ( talk) 18:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Many of these articles seem un-maintained. Note the number of redlinks at List of diseases (A) or List of diseases (Q). Some of the listed items may not be diseases.
-- SV Resolution( Talk) 14:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The article Mucolytic agent could do with some attention. Template:Cough and cold preparations has two separate sections for Mucolytics and Expectorants, but expectorant and expectorants redirects to mucolytic agents. The article itself doesn't overly make clear whether they're the same or different. Someone with some knowledge on the topic may be able to clean it up fairly quickly. -- Limegreen ( talk) 05:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone here be able to give an oppinion on whether the two articles above (i.e. Anophthalmia & Cryptophthalmos) are reffering to the same thing or two seperate eye conditions? If they are the same, I would suggest a merger, but if they appear to be different, then let them be. My initial confusion came from this [7] but I remember someone here telling me that the disease database shouldn't always be taken as gospel, and hence why I thought I would check here. Cheers! Calaka ( talk) 03:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
can someone clarify the symptoms page of asbestosis. it is unclear and has an extra paragraph not about symptoms within it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.162.212 ( talk) 22:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
the definition reads like it was written by a medical student revising for their preclinical exams. i've removed some components, then read the rest and gave up in despair. the article has focussed on a couple of irrelevant conditions and suggests that histopath exists almost exclusively to diagnose the conditions mentioned; myocardial infarction, and 'cancer' (whatever definition of the day is for that - in fact on a seperate note I'd like to encourage all medical professionals editing wikipedia to refrain from using the term 'cancer' unless specifically talking about invasive metastatic neoplasms, as the term is widely misunderstood and carries enormous gravity with the general public). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.124.222 ( talk) 00:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
yet, they appear in the dang article. One reporter reported this and now people believe this wrong information. Please support the decision to either correct the image in swine flu article or remove it. Spring breakers also drink alcohol in mass quantities which makes people nauseous. They also get traveler's diarrhea... doesn't mean the flu caused gastric-intestinal symptoms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.241.7 ( talk) 03:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Some people experience cold-like symptoms while others have fever and muscle aches. Symptoms usually improve over two to five days, although the illness may last for a week or more. Weakness and fatigue may persist for several weeks (show figure 1). - UPTODATE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.61 ( talk) 19:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Diarrhea, nausea and vomiting can also be a side effect of tamiflu, those symptoms I believe.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
join in the fun and help out, make some comments on how to improve. Be nice to do this one well. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey folks. I've recently been making a number of changes/additions to the Reactive arthritis article. However, I Am Not A Doctor (although, at the risk of getting mugged, I'll own up to an MPH and a law degree focusing on medlaw - yes, I'm one of those, please don't hurt me), and I'm especially not a rheumatologist, so can I recruit an expert witness? I've cited everything as best I can, but I simply don't have the clinical experience that so importantly differentiates a doctor from some random dude with a copy of Harrison's. I'd appreciate any insight from real actual practitioners. -- George ( talk) 20:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Question: Does this image fulfill copyright wrt Wikipedia?
They have this image at Anabolic steroid and there are three more similar ones at Bupropion.
I have a whole bunch more pictures but before I upload need to make sure they are okay.
Here it seems to imply that they are not [8] which means that if this is the case many of the images from this project will have to be removed. I have found some more info [9] see to say that we can use them on the English language encyclopedia under fair use? Our images of drugs however are not currently labeled as fair use but under creative commons.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated the following medical articles for GA review.
-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
After many edits, Water fluoridation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been renominated as a Featured Article. Please feel free to leave comments; instructions for commenters can be found at WP:FAC. Thanks. Eubulides ( talk) 23:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Declined the speedy; 110-yr-old hospital. Notability is probably a problem. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I've put a rename suggestion for Combined hyperlipidemia to be renamed as Mixed hyperlipidaemia (or Mixed hyperlipidemia). The article indicates referring to common acquired cholesterol/triglyceridaemia of Type IIb, this though is E78.2 clearly to be called "Mixed hyperlipidaemia". The only "combined" form in E78 group is for "Familial combined hyperlipidaemia" of E78.4 which WHO somewhat denigrates to just "Other hyperlipidaemia". Now maybe I'm just misreading this, so I seek comment at Talk:Combined hyperlipidemia#Requested move. David Ruben Talk 22:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Could someone look at the move being suggested for Cutis verticis gyrata at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/current#29_May_2009. Is that an appropriate rename? --- kilbad ( talk) 01:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
By accident, my doctor found that I do have this disease to the heart. After wearing the defibulator vest, taking heart medicine for three months, there was no significant change, so later that month I was operated on and received a defibulator/pacemaker implant.
My question is" my doctor can not understand why my heart rate is high when I work out at the gym; as high as 165 and higher. The medicine should control the heart rate but in my case it doesn't . He requested another opinion by a specialist, and to consult with my doctor at his findings.
I had polio as a child in the mid 40's and couldn't walk for a few years. I had the Sister Kenney method at Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago, and I did have parolitic polio. My question is : would this virus have caused any heart problems later in my life? I have always been very healthy, and until this problem, I never ever had any chest pain or fatigue at all. Could polio have caused my heart problem???
Thank you.
Sheila Whitehead —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sheilawmom (
talk •
contribs)
03:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Facial mole for deletion. If interested, see the AfD at: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_May_30#Facial_mole. --- kilbad ( talk) 18:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyone care to take a look at these articles? Myxoma seems to be fine, but Atrial myxoma tends to repeat a bit of it and it lacks references, while Left atrial myxoma is stubby, has no refs and repeats much of what is said in atrial myxoma. Finally there is no article on Right atrial myxoma and I would assume there should be if there is one for the left atrial myxoma. If anyone feels up to expanding these out, feel free to do so. Or possibly do a few mergers/redirects. Thank you. Calaka ( talk) 03:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Done
David Ruben
Talk
19:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
This article is, on the surface, a pseudoscientific disaster zone. The discussion rests largely on one rather old key text, and two apparently substantive 2008 studies (Chen et al., Shah et al.) The latter two receive duplicate mentions, in language that is euphoric and lifted directly from an abstract of a medical editorial. Neither the methodology, the findings, nor the technical terminology (nociceptors, etc.) is explained in any specific, lay terms. It is graded "B" in quality, but strikes me as much poorer than that.
This topic is fascinating, but it could benefit greatly from some calm, knowledgable vetting by interested specialists in physiology or physical therapy. I am not calling for censorship, but I am calling for help in restoring balance either to the treatment context or to the evidentiary weight behind it.
Thank you very much for all of your good work on the Medical articles. -a.k.a. [just not logged in] 71.178.65.59 ( talk) 21:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Here is another medical encyclopedia http://wiki.medpedia.com/ This one is under the same license as Wikipedia and does not appear to be a cut and paste of Wikipedia.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
There are a number of issues I would like to address in re: this article:
Can you review this page I recently created? Jatlas ( talk) 00:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I very briefly looked over the article. It is appears to be indepth and comprehensive and well sourced. Good job, but as they are not used in general medicine you would probably be better posting on this project WP:ALTMED and WP:PLANTS.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Gave a bit more of a read over. It seems to focus almost entirely on its benefits so there may be WP:NPOV issues. Article might need some additional topics, I dunno like where the plants come from, some more info on history. I am not familar with the literature of whether there is any controversy or criticism so it may be citing only one point of view. But anyway for an article which is only about a month old I think that it is job well done and I am sure it will improve with time. Your best bet on improvements and feedback is the folks over at WP:ALTMED.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I see that task force suggestions are sort of being neglected, and I'd suggest everybody take a few minutes to browse through one you like (preferrabley oncology ;) ). Renaissancee (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi all,
I was quite disturbed by this: US Congress introduces bill to end free access to federally funded research.
Could have negative consequences for us, dunno if we could do something about it?
cheers, -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 07:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys,
Just to let you know I've removed WP:MED's template on Human Anatomy. Upon reading the WPMED reading WPMED's assessment scope, I've found that the article does not meet the scope in any way. WPMED is meant for diseases, treatments, and conditions. Human Anatomy is none of those. I plan to do a little sweep for our articles, to make sure they all meet our scope, alright? Thanks. Renaissancee (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I saw this to be the same as Myasthenia gravis and I hence placed a redirect of it. But then after doing a bit more research, the only source I found was Disease database. Hence after a bit more research I found that the disease is seperate and should probably deserve its own article. If anyone is able to write up an article for Erb-Goldflam disease (also known as: Erb's syndrome, Erb-Oppenheim-Goldflam syndrome, Hoppe-Goldflam syndrome, Hoppe-Goldflam symptom complex) please do so. Otherwise I would most likely have to speedy delete the redirect, since it is leading to an unrelated disease. Thank you. Calaka ( talk) 11:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Should the 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels of the Category:Drugs by target organ system mirror the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System exactly, or be consolidated when possible?
Please read the more thorough description of this issue at WT:PHARM:CAT and post your comments there. Comments are much appreciated! Thanks --- kilbad ( talk) 00:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
For a little while I've been having a slow edit war with Eddievos ( talk · contribs), mainly on Talk:Atorvastatin, about the way cholesterol and statins are represented on Wikipedia. There is a small but rather noisy movement, mainly on the internet, that seems to oppose either the lipid hypothesis or at least the benefits of pharmacological cholesterol lowering. They certainly got the ear of Business Week in 2008 when they did a large article that dropped a large number of names but didn't actually name the studies that they disputed; [12] it mainly seems to target the ASCOT study.
Now a small series of articles has cropped up ( mevalonate inhibition and Cholesterol Depletion), seemingly being forks of the cholesterol/statin articles and using case reports and laboratory studies to discredit widespread cholesterol lowering. I've send both articles to AFD currently, but I was wondering if the audience could review both articles and determine if any of the content is worth salvaging. JFW | T@lk 06:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Retinoblastoma has a support group link farm. Delete it? -- Una Smith ( talk) 21:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
On Talk:Multiple myeloma I'm having a somewhat circular argument with the webmaster of myelomaforums.com. The argument (as usual) revolves around the suitability of support forums in the external links section. I'm frankly quite tired of having to conduct these discussions all the time, but I continue to believe that forums, however well moderated, are not great resources from a Wikipedia perspective exactly because their moderation may not be optimal and the sites turn into hype-promoting, named-physician-bashing, alt-med-touting mostrosities. If we could have a clear line on this, perhaps we could simply stop having these discussions time and time again. JFW | T@lk 22:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh I identify with the circular argument problems on wiki, they are very frustrating. Believe me you have my sympathy JFW! I will add my comments.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I know you do. :) We need medals!-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Again.
I was scowering through some other WikiProjects to see if I wanted to join and I see they all had coordinators and leaders and ect. WPMED doesn't have any, and we really have no back bone organization. I'd sort of suggest that we make some sort of ranking system so our newcomers can ask appropriate people, instead of the user that hasn't editted since 1997. With that, I was thinking something along the lines of this... (low to high) Anoymous IP users> Wikipedia Users > WPMED Members > Task Force Coordinator(s) > WPMED Coordinator(s) Bad? Good? Not going to work? What do you think? I'd kind of like to see a little more backbone here. Renaissancee (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright, glad I could get your opinions. Renaissancee (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Does this fall under our scope? All it is is a stastistic from a report. To be honest, I think it should be deleted. Renaissancee (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Can someone have a look over Medical encyclopedia ? I removed the images attached to the article, because per WP:IMAGES, they have little relation to the topic at hand. The creator of the article seems to have a difference of opinion. 70.29.208.129 ( talk) 15:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I came across Lupus anticoagulant and after a bit of looking around I noticed that it had the same ICD9, DiseasesDB and most importantly OMIM with Antiphospholipid syndrome. Can anyone with more knowledge take a look at the two articles, their external links and make a judgment on whether they are completelly differet, one is a subset of another, or the exact same? I am guessing they might be different but the OMIM indicates that they are the same confused me. If they are the exact same, then I would recomend a merger. Thank you. Calaka ( talk) 08:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Similar to the above section I posted, would anyone like to recommend a merger between Nonne-Milroy-Meige syndrome and Milroy disease. The evidence of them being the same (in my opinion) is provided here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=153100 & here: http://www.whonamedit.com/synd.cfm/1326.html but I still didn't feel bold enough to do the merger myself (I am no doctor after all, so I figure an expert can do the confirmation first!). Thanks. Calaka ( talk) 09:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Would someone who knows about ectoderm / endoderm please take a look at recent IP changes to Pineal gland? I can't tell if these are honest attempts to get something right, or not. Thank you, Hordaland ( talk) 10:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I found a CDC site that offers public domain photos of skin diseases. Does anyone else know of sites where I can get photos of skin diseases for use on wikipedia? --- kilbad ( talk) 13:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's my list of US Gov image sites. Not all images on all sites are in the public domain.
— G716 < T· C> 17:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to let the community know that there is a move to reorganize disease article stubs at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2009/June. --- kilbad ( talk) 12:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Another merger suggestion. Please comment at Talk:Seckel_syndrome#Merge_Virchow-Seckel_syndrome_here. and if you think the merger is appropriate enough, be bold. Thank you. Calaka ( talk) 04:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
This is nothing more than trivia and yet is listed as a GA under WP:MED Michael Jackson's health and appearance. I think it belong to another project if anything?-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see here: [ [13]] for reasoning of possible merger. Any input would be greatly appreciated and if you are knowledgeable enough about these two terms as being the same, then by all means be bold. Thank you. Calaka ( talk) 11:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Trawling around some links found Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Template for medical conditions, I believe this is now covered in MOS in further detail, suggest delteing it? L∴V 14:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Anyone want to have a look at the Deep penetrating light therapy stub? It was a mess before, so I trimmed out the massive source dump. Now it's kinda naked. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 15:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys, I just finished a member sweep, and I'd like to tell you some interesting facts. For borderline any members that have not edited Wikipedia since 1 January 2009 were removed from the active members list and put into the inactive. At the begging of the sweep, we had a total of 254 members listed. After reviewing all of members contributions, 72 of those 254 were illegible for the inactive members' list. Roughly 28.3% of our members where inactive. A fifth. I'd like to suggest that we do yearly regular member sweeps, as this one I did was very brief and quick. All I did was check their contributions and if I saw a 2008, 2007, and I did see a few 2006's, I removed them. Renaissancee (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Currently, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction does not have its own article. It is covered as a paragraph on 'diastolic heart failure' under the main heart failure article. Would anyone object if I created a new HFPEF article to separate it out from HF with reduced EF? Antelan 22:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Would someone mind reviewing the addition of a CSD G3 tag to this recent stub I created? --- kilbad ( talk) 18:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey everbody (puts fingers in teeth and whistles loudly), there's a debate here about common names policy strengthening vs those of individual wikiprojects. Are the two compatible, and how? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Anybody have a good source for Medical diagnosis? It seems like it would be useful to describe subtypes, such as those based on "how" (e.g., clinical vs lab diagnosis), "who" (e.g., nursing diagnosis) and "when" (prenatal diagnosis) the diagnosis is made. Anyone else have any favorite ways to divide up this rather large territory? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Should there be individual articles on medical abbreviations? We currently have EOMI and PERRLA. I don't think these are necessary, and I'd like to delete them/redirect them to List of medical abbreviations. There are also articles on some Medical mnemonics, which could be left as-is. -- Scott Alter 23:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Here is an interesting article on alt med. 2.5 billion spent with lots of negative results. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090610/ap_on_he_me/us_med_unproven_remedies_research_3 -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have any good techniques/suggestions/etc for outlining signal transduction outside or inside a cell without using cartoons/diagrams (i.e. some type of all-text approach)? --- kilbad ( talk) 01:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been seeing notices that the flu does not fall under WikiProject Medicine, I find that very strange. The tags have been replaced with WP:VIRUS tags, but the articles don't talk about the virus, only the disease it causes, and WP:VIRUS is a Tree-of-life related WikiProject... I also saw a notice saying that bacteria do not fall under WPMED... so that cuts off a whole lot of disease, if all bateriological and viral diseases do not fall under WPMED, and drugs fall under WP:PHARMA... is all you cover surgery, malnutrition, and autoimmune disease? 70.29.210.174 ( talk) 06:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright, sorry about that. Scope and stuff is getting more and more complicated, so I'm bound to screw up sometime. Looks like this was one of them. Yes, you should probably readd the banners. Renaissancee (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Task_forces#Psychiatry lists five editors that are interested in a task force dedicated to psychiatry. I think this is enough, but none of you seem to be watching the task force page, and if we set up this task force, then I want to make sure that you'll actually show up. So: anyone still interested? Are we ready to launch? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Recently I discovered Calf is mostly about baby cattle, and there was no Wikipedia article about the human calf. I wrote Calf (of leg) and began disambiguating links to Calf. I also proposed to move the article about baby cattle to Calf (cattle) and to move Calf (disambiguation) to Calf, so that future links to Calf will continue to be disambiguated.
Some of the arguments against moving these pages are absurd. For example, the leg part isn't really a "calf" and for god's sake, it's utterly ridiculous to create separate articles on the leg part and the muscle. Argh. Please help. -- Una Smith ( talk) 19:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Examining other anatomy articles, I see the convention favors Calf (anatomy). As that page name is already occupied (by a redirect), an admin will have to move it. I will hold off on disambiguating the rest of the links to Calf and Calf muscle until the move proposals are resolved. Links to Calf muscle need to be disambiguated because many of them actually intend the calf, not the calf muscle. This is a big mess resulting from the absence of a page on a minor but basic topic of human anatomy. A stub would have been better. -- Una Smith ( talk) 23:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you think it is okay to merge Calf muscle to Triceps surae? Both articles are on the same topic. "Calf muscle" is somewhat ambiguous, as it actually relates to several muscles. We seem to favor titles using the full scientific name of muscles (eg Quadriceps femoris muscle, Biceps brachii muscle, Triceps brachii muscle), so I think this merge is appropriate. -- Scott Alter 01:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
After going through the mess of trying to work out what is what, I managed to work out that Cowchock Syndrome AND Cowchock Wapner Kurtz syndrome (also known as Cystic hygroma) are NOT the same thing. Can someone please take a look at these and merge Cowchock Wapner Kutz into Cystic hygroma (since the former has a number of incorrect statements in my opinion due to the mistaken belief that Cowchock syndrome = Cowchock Wapner Kurtz syndrome). There is no indication of the OMIM of Cowchock syndrome to have a Wapner or Kurtz anywhere [15]. Furthermore these two links (they are government pages so I assume they can be trusted) show clearly the distinction between the above: [16] and [17]. I will redirect Cowchock to the more correct Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (as it is a subtype or X linked type 4). Thank you. Calaka ( talk) 03:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
It looks like Neospora caninum and Neospora need to be merged. -- Una Smith ( talk) 19:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
hello, i'm AQ. i am have lot of interest to be neurosergeon in future. i would love to share a little about something that we as the reality of this field. as all of we know, this job is the most challenging field in the medical choices. but after all i'm thinking, i'm afraid this field could be treated in the future because of many of the young lad today have shown very less interest to involve in this field.even if they do, mostly they only have interest about the salary. this is only my opinion.i am talk based on my observation.tq.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.79.104 ( talk) 06:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
In case anyone missed it, this is at FAC - might be good to see if anything left out comprehensivenesswise and see what else needs to be done (or help out). Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that we rename this article to Treatment of hypertension, Antihypertensive drugs, or Pharmacologic treatment of hypertension, what do you think?? MaenK.A. Talk 13:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
We could use some fresh voices in the long-running dispute over whether to display, how many to display, and where to place, the Rorschach test inkblot image(s). The most recent debate, at Talk:Rorschach test#All 10 images is over whether to include a gallery with all the images. – xeno talk 22:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
On the SIDS page "Infant being overweight" is called a prenatal risk factor and "Low birth weight" is called a post-natal risk factor. I think they should be classified similarly, and if so, should they both be put under prenatal or post-natal? Sidsmaven ( talk) 12:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Are there any other names for Polyclinic? It seems like the kind of concept that would have a different name in different countries, and we don't really need multiple articles. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
It looks like User:Deathstyler2 has done a cut-and-paste move of Environmental factor to Environmental disease. Aside from the minor problem that these terms aren't actually identical, it screws up the edit history. Does anyone want to figure out how to unwind these pages?
Fair warning: Based on a quick trip through the editor's contributions, I can't guarantee that this will necessarily be a simple, one-time fix. Among other things, the editor redirected Cardiovascular disease to this stub. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
A question about one of this publisher's website came up on the wiki spam project talk page a few days ago that's probably more suitable listed here. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#cancernetwork.com. The company produces a number of publications, newsletters, websites, conferences, etc., which seems to include custom publications, advertorials and supplements. There appear to be several editors adding content sourced to their publications, as well as external links. There are definitely COI issues that need to be addressed, but the edits, suitability of the links and determination of its publications as RS would probably best be discussed here. Flowanda | Talk 22:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
There has been discussion about using flagged revisions for BLPs. Wondering if this is something we should consider for this project? Here is comments from Jimbo [ [19]] -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It appears that the entire article on Schizoid Personality Disorder was lifted word-for-word from http;//www.schizoid.eu , which claims copyright over the information.
I am not familiar enough with Wikipedia's rules for correcting this, but I have also notified them so this can be worked out.
J. Kulacz 24.117.91.92 ( talk) 05:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I just redirected Annular ligament of femur to Zona orbicularis (expanded the unassessed article and name-dropped a few alternative names). However, I'm not a native English-speaker, so I'm wondering what you people actually call this ligament. -- Addingrefs ( talk | contribs ) 17:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Guys, is there a sub-team that could make comments on some of the television and movies articles that center around medicine? I notice some have your project banner and I think several more could use it, but would like to make sure that they get tagged for the appropriate sub-team? -- Mjquin_id ( talk) 03:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Paper Blindness has been prod'd as a potential hoax by a new editor. The condition it describes doesn't sound entirely unreasonable, and it's possible that it's a made-up name for a real condition. It's also possible that it's a garden-variety hoax. If you're curious, please take a look. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Thoughts about how to handle this recently created article? The term itself is quite dated, to say the least. In an ideal world, our article on proctitis would already cover the relevant material. I'm not really supportive of a standalone article with this title, especially since the references are so sparse and date largely from the 1970s. In fact, the McGraw-Hill Manual of Colorectal Surgery has this to say:
Coined in the pre-HIV era, the term "gay bowel syndrome" comprised a rather unselective potpourri of unusual anorectal and GI symptoms experienced by homosexual males... with better understanding of the underlying causes, this term is outdated: the derogatory terminology should be abandoned and more specific entities and terms recognized and used. [20]
My thoughts exactly. Anyone else? MastCell Talk 20:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I too would support redirecting it to proctitis, though I'd have no objections to stubbing it. -- Rob ( talk) 20:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I think it should stay. Its presented in a reasonable manner and it makes it clear that it is a obsolete medical term. Other articles such as Hysteria and Neurosis are about obsolete diagnoses, but they aren't merged into the relevant psychology articles. Asarelah ( talk) 23:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps someone could consider working on this article a bit? --- kilbad ( talk) 02:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
It would be appreciated if a few people who have knowledge of CFS-related fields would have a look at the various articles that relate to chronic fatigue syndrome. The biggest article of concern is the main article itself, however, many related articles could also use some review, such as: Clinical descriptions of chronic fatigue syndrome, Controversies related to chronic fatigue syndrome, Daniel Peterson (physician), David Sheffield Bell, Leonard A. Jason, Malcolm Hooper, Medically unexplained physical symptoms, and Pathophysiology of chronic fatigue syndrome.
In particular, neutral point of view presentation is a concern. There have been accusations of the articles taking pro-biological viewpoints, and reversions against consensus to counteract the perceived bias. I think someone (or probably several someones) with a more hands-off approach would be appreciated at this point.
Thanks everyone! -- Rob ( talk) 04:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I would support a merger of clinical descriptions of chronic fatigue syndrome, controversies related to chronic fatigue syndrome, and pathophysiology of chronic fatigue syndrome into chronic fatigue syndrome. Would anyone else support this? --- kilbad ( talk) 17:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree with ward, merging would make the article too big.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Last year, when my duodenum became perforated, a short catheter was inserted into my urethra while I was in the emergency room. It was unlike any in the Wikipedia article on catheters. It had a cylindrically-shaped bulb on the end which was lubricated and inserted only about ten centimeters into the urethra. It was referred to as a Foley catheter, but evidently was something else. What could it have been? It was probably inserted for the operation I soon underwent, but was left in for about a week, at least. Unfree ( talk) 00:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Review of animal bite-associated infections in next week's Lancet Infectious Diseases; does anyone have access to the full text? It could be used to improve a number of articles, and I don't feel like imposing on the nice folks over at WP:REX :) Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 02:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello to all (But not to the world). For the past couple weeks I've been working extensively on Rumination Syndrome, an eating disorder characterised by the involuntary and effortless regurgitation of meals immediately following their ingestion. It is severly underdiagnosed and its prevalence in the general population is unknown, though predictably large. It affects up to 10% of cognitively disabled children and adults in their lifetime.
Anyways, descriptions aside, I'm looking for a fellow editor - Preferably one who is better with the technicalities of english than myself - to help me polish the article off and get more citations in place. Since I started working on it, the article has been significantly filled out from its former self. There is still plenty of information to be added (Especially the technical stuff... Goodie goodie!), and another section at the least (Causes). I think this could potentially reach Good Article status with enough effort.
note to deletionists: This is still a work in progress, and some information has yet to be cited. I will revert any negative changes to the article! -- ʄɭoyd̪iaɲ τ ç 04:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Done
David Ruben
Talk
00:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Ah, thank you, that makes sense. The wiki I'm most active on doesn't really have legal issues to worry about. I'm distinctly having the problem that while my wiki technical knowledge is fairly good, the environment at Wikipedia is very different. I appreciate the explanation and links. -- Rob ( talk) 02:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I am having major issues on the benzodiazepine article and other editors there seem to be wanting to "avoid the conflict". I really would appreciate some eyes on this. Everytime the article is ready to be promoted original research and systematic reviews are deleted and replaced with weak non-systematic reviews of uncontrolled clinical trials. The editor keeps either outright deleting NICE clinical guidelines or minimising them as well as other reviews. Please intervene, even if you agree with systematic review guidelines being deleted. I am at the point where if I lose my argument I don't care, just want the community to simply intervene.
Talk:Benzodiazepine#RfC:_Is_is_right_to_keep_deleting_systematic_review_and_clinical_guidelines.3F Thank you.--
Literaturegeek |
T@1k?
12:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
It might actually be better if someone neutral with understanding of medical and pharmacology knowledge and wiki policies would act as a mediator.--
Literaturegeek |
T@1k?
14:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Changed to
Talk:Benzodiazepine#Mediation.2C_any_volunteers.--
Literaturegeek |
T@1k?
15:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Issue is being looked into by admin over next few days.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know anything about nutrition and macular degeneration? Witness this edit on nutrition - Cochrane supports a lack of evidence, while there are a surprising number of studies on pubmed that seem to arrive at the opposite conclusion, but all seem to come out of Tufts University's Age-Related Eye Disease Study: PMID 19508997, PMID 19410952, PMID 17435429, PMID 11594942, PMID 18425071; that there are a couple articles pimping supplements in the abstracts seems very, very odd to me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 14:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this is standard internationally, but most people say, 1 unit of prbc, 1 unit cryo, 1 unit of platelets... but when I see it recorded in the computer it's always in cc of each blood product. and since 1 unit of prbc is a different number of cc than 1 unit of platelets, i always waste time converting back and forth for when I report to the attending. do we have a table somewhere on wikipedia which shows what a Unit of each blood product is in cc or is this not standard across nations? thanks 163.40.12.37 ( talk) 17:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi guys, me again. We've been having a discussion the last little while about whether or not the Post-viral fatigue syndrome article should be merged into the Chronic fatigue syndrome article. Unlike some CFS-related discussions <g>, it's been very amicable and there are some good points both for and against the merger, but ultimately, I think we're all unsure about what the best course of action is here. Any suggestions? Thanks everyone! -- Rob ( talk) 04:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought we'd been over this "endless case history" thing at Brown-Séquard syndrome with User:A E Francis before, but
In addition to getting these articles cleaned up (any volunteers?), should we consider specifically naming this problem at WP:MEDMOS#Writing_style? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the casuistry from failed back syndrome (is that not entirely NOR?) but in the other two the case reports are intertwined with the actual content and will need careful removal, ideally by the original author. We skirmished in the past over his list of causes for Brown-Sequard syndome. On a separate note, none of the extensive references are templated, which makes it harder to judge the content by the title (it's of the first author/journal/volume/pages variety). JFW | T@lk 07:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed Blood type for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 23:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear doctors mess, can you please tell me how many total medical articles are on Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate it. I couldn't find a category for medicine to count myself. Greatly appreciated. Will crosspost at Reference Desk. 207.59.144.196 ( talk) 00:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Dr please can you help with some points as regards to the relevance of parasitology to medicine? User:208.78.62.116
I have two very good sources that have conflicting information. One states spongiosis is intracellular edema, while the other states it is extracellular edema. Do any of you have additional sources that can be used to clarify what the strict definition of spongiosis is? Perhaps you could add them to the article? Thanks in advance for your help. --- kilbad ( talk) 13:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Can some physicians please put eyes on recent edits at MMR vaccine controversy? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Is it really relevant to the subject to compare public conerns (even if those concerns are unfounded) about vaccines to "holocaust denial" and anti-science conspiracies theories though? I think Sandy's reverts/deletions were good.--
Literaturegeek |
T@1k?
17:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Struck out my comments, I see that you were just referring to public stats and not the other paragraph. Apologies Fuzbaby.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps stats were worth keeping, dunno Sandy's reasoning. How about raising it on the article talk page or with Sandy on her talk page? :)-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh ok no probs Sandy. I am not opposed to the stats being included, they are recent and should be interesting to the reader. The other paragraph clearly did need deleting. :) Why not just add the stats and ref back in Fuzbaby and if anyone challenges it you can take it to the article talk page. :)-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Public opinion polls aren't really a scientific statement and are unlikely to appear in a review article in my opinion. Improved sourcing might not be possible. Agree that it the stats are not directly relevant to MMR.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I know I'm going to get pushback on this, but I am not pleased with a series of single studies with no aggregation being reported approvingly over at emotional freedom technique. So I've culled. I'd love to point out that the studies were almost universally flawed - small n, no control groups, poor follow-up, horrible methodology, published in partisan press, etc. (the only good study was negative, and it's not pubmed indexed [21]). As I said, my main concern is that the page reports the very small number of studies individually, with no aggregation. Since this is exploratory, with few studies, of little scientific merit, of a borderline pseudoscience, I'm rather uncomfortable with the the previous reporting of individual results, methodologies, etc. that existed before my trim. Spam is an obvious concern, as is WP:CRYSTAL. Opinions of experienced contributors is welcome and appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 00:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
We have an article on
Emu oil, which discusses various healthcare-related properties and uses of this substance.
The cites in this article seem to be largely from various promotional websites.
Could members of this project please review these cites for adspam? Thanks. --
201.37.230.43 (
talk)
22:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, we've probably been over this a bunch already, but we don't accept the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons as a reliable source, right? It's the publication of a fringe activist group as I understand it. I'm going to take something that uses it as a source out of shaken baby syndrome, see Talk:shaken baby syndrome#Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. delldot ∇. 23:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
We've been refining our scope as part of our ongoing assessment work. Your opinions on the latest big-picture questions are wanted.
All of the following are within the scope of WP:PHARM. Are they also within WPMED's scope?
Options include everything from "Yes" to "No", with considerable room for complexity as needed. For example, someone might want WPMED to support major classes of medications ( NSAIDs) but not individual medications ( aspirin); to support over-the-counter drugs ( aspirin) but not prescription-only medications ( cisplatin); to support common medications ( paroxetine) but not uncommon ones ( alpha-galactosidase); to support legally regulated drugs but not "dietary supplements" — or any other system you think appropriate.
Whatever your personal opinions, please feel free to share them. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Seems there are 4 seperate articles, mostly stubs, that deal with practically the same subject. I am not good with merging pages that are in different stances, but I thought I'd provide the list for anyone interested in it.
I'm sure with some searching another one or two may be uncovered. These articles all have merge templates but no discussion on the proposed merge has begun. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Please note the hatnote on Polyphagia; I think the biological usage is the more notable one, in which case this article should be about polyphagia in the biological sense, which refers to having a very broad diet, similar to omnivory. -- Una Smith ( talk) 01:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Benzodiazepine#Questions_about_U_Sheffield_paper has an open question about whether genuine, official NICE guidelines include statements like "The views expressed in this Publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of either the Royal College of General Practitioners or the National Institute for Clinical Excellence". If one (or more) of our UK editors could please take a look, I'd appreciate it. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Colin has resolved this issue. :)-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
A new reason has come up now, apparently the NICE guidelines are too technical and long for non-professionals or something. This is what happens you resolve one frivilous problem and then another problem is found which you have to argue about. WP:DISRUPT is appropriate. This has been going on for over a month now. I should point out that due weight and balance is given to both sides of the controversy in this section. Benzodiazepine#Tolerance.2C_dependence_and_withdrawal This apparently isn't enough because by me citing the "extremist" NICE systematic review and the clinical guidelines in the anxiety section, I am being "radical".-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Way to go, guys! You just decided by majority that a document saying "The views expressed in this Publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of either the Royal College of General Practitioners or the National Institute for Clinical Excellence" - is a NICE guideline. While a document [22] saying "This document, which contains the Institute's full guidance on Anxiety" is not a NICE guideline.
You are too absorbed, LG and MS, in attacking me personally to look into the problem. Please note that Colin eventually agreed with me on the only issue I tried to clarify. He wrote ""full version" is the one they call the "full guideline", not the one they call the "NICE guideline" "The NICE guideline presents the recommendations from the full guideline in a format that focuses on implementation by healthcare professionals and NHS organisations" (bold mine, TSC)."
I agreed with Colin in principle that it does not really matter what to use:"Regardless, the recommendation sections of both documents say the same." He insisted that full NICE guideline is more appropriate, and I did not further argue with that. What is your problem, LG and MS? The Sceptical Chymist ( talk) 00:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
This new article seems very problematic. First it praises the institute citing articles that would not be good sources according to MEDRS, then it lists a number of "controversies" in ways that seem to violate BLP because they are based on poor sources. I bring this here because it's outside my domain; I only saw it as part of a Bot-search result. Looie496 ( talk) 04:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I recently ported Shared decision making over from CZ (recent update of licenses allows this granted that acknowledgment is given) and since it is related to medicine, I was hoping someone here can give an expert view on it. Mainly to check for NPOV, references are valid and ensure the article is not biased etc, since I have heard that some of the articles over at CZ (such as the ones about homeopathy) are pushed towards a POV. Cheers. Calaka ( talk) 09:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The alcohol and cancer page is a mess. A bit of quick background, as some of you may remember I raised problems (which are now resolved) a while back with the long-term effects of alcohol article regarding it being severely abused by a sociologist from the drinks industry who had a wealth of references to give massive undue weight to the benefits of moderate alcohol, misusing references and using old sources which were disproven with later research etc etc. The same thing happened with the alcohol and cancer page. Anyway one of the main problems is editors copying and pasting sentences from references and doing direct quotes. This editing style was used by the sociologist (who is banned now after resorting to sockpuppeteering), the response of some of the community was then to copy the editing style of the sociologist by doing direct copy and paste tactics, wrongly thinking that this would mean that the "alcohol industry" wouldn't be able to "touch their edits". It has resulted in a comprehensive article but is borderline violating copyright issues throughout it. It would be a shame to just delete all of the hard work. If the community could reword these quotes we could end up with a reasonable B class medicine article. Please join in and lend a helping hand to fix this article. It's been a mess with these quotes for over a year and is only partially resolved. Thanks. :-)-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
When clicking on some of the cancer links on the alcohol and cancer page, I stumbled across an old unresolved merge proposal. See Salivary gland neoplasm, I was about to merge them myself but then realised a neoplasm can be benign so then had second thoughts and thought I would bring it to the attention of this project.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
This message is in reference to the existing Skin grafting article, and the final image that is displayed (a skin graft applied to a lower leg trauma injury, benefiting from VAC). The photograph is of my own leg, and was taken in December 2007 following a motorcycle accident. Would the article benefit from having a photograph of the graft now it is completely healed, with no moist areas? And how about any intermediate images? I can try to crop and rotate to the same orientation so the images are consistent. Furthermore, would the article benefit from any reference to long-term implications of full thickness grafts and their potential impact on the lymphatic system? For example, where mine is sited means that I suffer from significant swelling without several hours of daily elevation. Clearly this is not going to affect every patient but is a potential long-term complication as a result of having a skin graft. This can also be accommodated in an image time-line if I do contribute one in the manner I have suggested - I can intentionally lay up to make the surrounding tissue sit flush with the graft on the edge where the tissue loss is at its thinnest, and likewise I can intentionally keep the leg down for a day or two to swell up somewhat grotesquely, and make the surrounding tissue taught and angry. Would this be of any use whatsoever, or would it over-complicate the article? To make this clear, I'm not doing this for some sort of personal kick of sharing photos of my injuries - I personally feel that it would be of some use to patients to see how things might possibly look during the healing process as well as possibly illustrating possible long-term side effects, but of course if it would detract from the factual nature of "what is a skin graft" then I will bow to your collective greater knowledge and not embark on this little project. If anyone from the profession wants to see the intermediate-stage images I intend to use (not yet rotated etc) then I've put them on photobucket - you can view them through the following links: [24] [25] [26]. I've not yet uploaded the fully healed images. I would of course be happy to work with anyone from the profession in creating any amendment to make it relevant from the get-go, and save people the effort of re-edits later. Thanks. -- El Gordo 78 ( talk) 02:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
In the Symptoms and conditions section of the article there is a list of conditions with references to placebo controlled studies and metastudies. The only explanation for the list is "List of medical conditions". There has been some discussion of keeping the list as is or removing it until better context for the list is included in the article here. Some more input or clarification would be appreciated. Thanks. Ward20 ( talk) 06:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
I've been editing the snakebite article recently (I'm 98.232.98.144 ( talk · contribs) when too lazy to log in) and I noticed it is rated as mid-importance for this Wikiproject group. The article is also a former good article, but was demoted for a variety of reasons. I've tried to address some of the problems on the to-do list, but I don't have enough free time in my day to do everything I'd like to. The article as it is now has the potential to regain good article status with a little more work, but I would like help from this group if anyone's willing. It would be nice to have some fresh eyes look over it and note potential problems and improvements, and add citation tags where they're needed. Thanks!-- Eightofnine ( talk) 06:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
What is going on? Why are private practices posting before and after shots to encyclopedia articles? What are the terms and conditions regarding this type of "contribution"? The pages that I have come across have become significantly less reputable due to these types of images being posted (and a *lot* less aesthetically pleasing). A list of the articles that I have found include: abdominoplasty, liposuction, rhinoplasty, and rhytidectomy, but the list is realistically longer than that. I am an avid medical photographer and have been given a great opportunity to take photos during actual surgeries, also having been given full legal rights from both the patients and surgeon to my images, and the rights to contribute my work to the Wikimedia projects and global community in general.
After adding some images to the abdominoplasty article, I was contacted by a Dr. Otto J. Placik from Arlington Heights, IL, USA regarding the article and that he was "there first" and would appreciate it if I would leave his work alone (I had edited one of his photo captions in the liposuction article to remove the phrase "PLEASE CLICK ON PHOTO FOR MORE INFORMATION")--with the subtle hint that my contributions are not welcome. He then proceeded to remove an extremely valuable and descriptive image of this surgery (which I re-added late last night after deciding to disregard his requests). How do I contact an administrator, or what is the Wikimedia/Wikipedia policy on this type of behavior? Dr. Otto Placik has also been "contributing" using multiple accounts, including Emilymiller123, Sarahjjohnson123, and the "anonymous" 75.63.221.230 IP address in an eff ort to ghost his marketing and self-promotion.
I'm not at all opposed to anyone from the medical community being involved in contributing to this great work. But seriously, what defines "crossing the line", and what can be done to keep people like Dr. Otto J. Placik from controlling and degrading the quality of this collaborative project? I'm new here, so I really don't know where to turn for help or advice on this matter. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paravis ( talk • contribs) 18:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
DocJames you may agree with Paravis above that "links to his personal pages must be removed" when referring to me Otto Placik. but I have removed all links while the user you seem to agree with (Pararvis) continues to have links on all his phtos to a Dr. Michael Schwartz. I find this type of behavior dispicable and evidence that PAravis is operating in bad faith. How can he disparage me "keep people like Dr. Otto J. Placik from controlling and degrading the quality of this collaborative project" (his words) and he continues to attach links to a commercial website. Seems hypocritical to me! Otto Placik ( talk) 00:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Zbar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Steinbrech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_K._Herman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gentile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Charles_Edwards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrick_E._Antell
Thanks! Rob Droliver ( talk) 20:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Isn't Paravis ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) adding before and after images for a Dr. Michael S. Schwartz with direct links to his promotional website. Is that allowed? The source field on the image summary has a direct hyperlink to the physician's website and has terms of use that seem to give direct credit to this physician. I find this to be contradictory to the advertising bans and non-promotional nature of Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fat_removal_using_cannula_during_tumescent_liposuction.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto Placik ( talk • contribs) 07:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Otto Placik ( talk) 15:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
We need to add:
Paravis ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
since the photos lead to Michael Schartz, a plastic surgeon's website. Flowanda | Talk 06:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I would agree that this needs review. Multiple photos contributed by User:Paravis for example [ [29]] have direct links to a Dr. Michael S. Schwartz's website. He claims that he is giving credit and I agree that this is reasonable. However, it was my impression that direct links to a personal website for promotional purposes is strongly discouraged. I believe that Paravis should not be allowed to upload these images (I counted 17 photos) without removing the links. Changing the links to the Physician's name only would diminish the obvious nature of this blatant promotional use of Wikipedia and at least give the impression that his efforts were sincere in intent.-- Otto Placik ( talk) 05:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
There are a number of images on various article pages that show uploaded photos to Wikimedia Commons that contain links to physicians' websites, including the editor above who complained about harassment. I think the notice I placed on this user's talk page provides the links to current and past discussions : [30]. I think the best way to keep the discussion together would be to make any replies to the WP:RSPAM noticeboard [31]. Thanks, Flowanda | Talk 00:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
...is open for business. See the talk page and join in the fun. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, I created the following SVGs, serving the wikiproject medicine, I want some review, thank you all :-)
please comment on this MaenK.A. Talk 12:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
For a long time I have been disappointed with the quality of the diabetes content on Wikipedia. Given the large amount of articles involved I thought this might be right forum to raise these issues. To be honest, I think one of the main problems is the lack of agreement whether all content should remain on diabetes mellitus (lumpers) or whether this should be a placeholder article that primarily links to numerous subarticles (splitters).
Could I make the following proposals:
It would be lovely to have a task force set up for diabetes and endocrinology, but I suspect there is not currently enough manpower to do this. JFW | T@lk 10:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenazopyridine#Cancer_Risk
i know this page is monitored by the makers of this drug. Please help me bring middle of the road information to the article about azo dyes. Does the pharm box at the top have a category for class of pharmaceutical? Thanks, 99.22.220.61 ( talk) 22:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)