![]() | 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 135 | ← | Archive 137 | Archive 138 | Archive 139 | Archive 140 | Archive 141 | → | Archive 145 |
I have published a poster titled 'Wikipedia editing by healthcare professionals: Need of time' in year 2018. It can be used as a reference if found appropriate. I think I should not add it as there will be conflict of interest as the poster is presented by me, but if found important, someone else can add it. Thanks in advance. -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai ( talk) 06:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I realize this isn’t particularly wiki-related, but I figured I’d reach out anyway since this is relevant to primary/tertiary care physicians, nurses, and technologists.
I started a precision diagnostics company with 4 others; would love to talk about it, but need to file a patent first, and before that I have to wait on the FDA to return written feedback and then teleconference with my team on our device design. Working on getting approval for a CLIA-waived POC rapid diagnostic testing device for virtually all known infectious pathogens (each biofluid entails a unique test) and their unique AMR profiles; it’d be permitted for use in hospitals and primary care clinics that have a CLIA-waiver. Expect the pricing to be ~$14000/device + ~$75/test (less if I can leverage my patents to get the manufacturer to reduce their >100% margin on reagents). Attaining maximal sensitivity+specificity per pathogen is fairly trivial with the hardware/software tech we’re using, but phase 3 is probably going to cost upwards of $100 million. Lol
Anyway, anyone happen to know any expert medical device consultants or current/former employees of the FDA office of IVD? I need an advisory board member with that expertise to whom I can pose an occasional question on regulatory compliance.
I’m not monitoring this page, so please ping/email me if you reply. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 20:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I've been working on improving the Complete blood count article recently, and I'd like to incorporate some information about screening and quality control guidelines in non-Anglophone countries, but I've struggled to find sources for this. Wondering if anyone here can dig up some good sources for Europe, Asia, Africa, etc.? There is some more discussion of this on the article talk page. Thanks, Spicy ( talk) 19:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
I searched the archive and found an earlier discussion from 2017
here and also from October 2019
here. But there must have been further discussions since then. Basically I am looking at the maps on the
SDG 3 on the website of SDG Tracker which is part of Our World in Data, see
here. Do I have to download them and then upload to Wikimedia Commons or is there already a streamlined process or bot for that?
EMsmile (
talk)
04:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
References
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Another plea for basic scrutiny of recent changes. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
18:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I'm a COI editor posting on behalf of Daiichi Sankyo to propose that Pigmented villonodular synovitis (PVNS) and Giant-cell tumor of the tendon sheath (GCT-TS) be merged into a new Tenosynovial giant cell tumor (TGCT) article, which I've drafted here. The medical consensus is that PVNS and GCT-TS are both variations of TGCT. I've opened a discussion on the PVNS talk page. Thank you in advance for any time/feedback! Mary Gaulke ( talk) 14:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, I think I may have slightly overwhelemed interested editors by my list of templates for discussion. Thanks to all for contributing so far. I would like to request some more eyes over the nominated templates. Many have just received one comment and I so I think there is a risk of some issues being missed that I'm not recognising. Also it would speed things along by a month or more for my tidy-up and smaller second batch :). If you want to keep an eye on this you can use our article alerts, which has an automatically updated list here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts
Ping to people have contributed - Mdaniels5757, Izno, Trialpears, Jfdwolff, Spicy, Bsherr - thanks, and if I could lean on you for a few more comments that would be appreciated. I have tried to word this neutrally, because I would appreciate comments in either direction, and so I hope this isn't considered canvassing.
If you could please look at the list below and comment on a few (no problems if you are opposing what I've proposed!) that would be wonderful:-- Tom (LT) ( talk) 05:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Related category discussions:
Akathisia needs to be on a few active watchlists. AFAICT this is a 'movement disorder' (the name means "can't sit still") that appears during antipsychotic treatment for delirium, but the Internet seems to think that it's a feeling of abject terror. I'm betting that someone who spends time around ICU patients knows a lot more about this than I do. Just blanking incorrect information would be helpful at this stage. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I apologize if this is a dumb question. I am not a part of this WikiProject (I can honestly say I don't know much about medicine), but I recently added a little bit to Anorexia (symptom) and would like to add more content. The article previously said nothing about anorexia in animals, so I wrote in the lead that it happens to other species and cited some sources. However, I'm having a hard time finding any kind of secondary source covering anorexia/inappetence in dogs or cats. The tools on this project page only get results about people, and WP:Veterinary Medicine doesn't have a similar tool for finding sources and doesn't include the Anorexia (symptom) page anyway.
From what I understand after looking at WP:MEDRS, I can't talk about the causes, treatments, or other health issues caused by anorexia without a reliable source. Currently, I have yet to find a secondary source that discusses the topic, only primary sources and websites with a general overview which I don't think qualify. Also, should I discuss this with WikiProject Veterinary Medicine, even though the page is part of this project? Thanks for your help with my minor issue. TuskDeer ( talk) 10:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Many pages are in multiple projects, I think it's appropriate to ask in veterinary too User:TuskDeer. I found this advanced search] on Google books (anorexia, in books with a title including "Veterinary" gave a number of promising secondary sources. The main issue is to check for which are edited books, which is usually obvious if there is a contents page listing different authors for chapters. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Pseudosenility is one of my UCSF student editing watchlisted articles. Best I can tell, it is not a thing. It returns three hits in PubMed, TOTAL-- 1958, 1961 and 1973. Most of the sources listed are for pseudodementia or reversible dementia, [2] and a lot of the actual article is about pseudodementia, [3] so I attempted to move the article to pseudodementia. Which already exists. Is there such a thing, or should this article be merged and redirected to pseudodementia, and the students switched over to pseudodementia? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Suicide methods ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Help is needed on this matter: Talk:Suicide methods#Summarizing the lead. A permalink for it is here. Obviously, the current lead is too small. But how should we go about expanding it? I could type up something myself, but I am interested in hearing others' thoughts, including on whether we should retain some of Poorya0014's version. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 19:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Arbidol has been used in cases of COVID-19, mostly in China and Russia. The article has some very problematic sourcing. It could do with some expert review. HLHJ ( talk) 01:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Looking for a second opinion for an FAC: does the content at Horseshoe_bat#As_disease_reservoirs require MEDRS-level sourcing? Is the current sourcing of sufficient quality? Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
humans likely became sick through contact with infected masked palm civets, which were identified as intermediate hosts of the virus.– sourced to Review of Bats and SARS, which is a review of sorts, but not a systematic review.
humans can become ill through exposure to other MRVs– sourced to ISBN 9781119150046 which is published by Wiley, a respectable publisher.
Kyasanur Forest disease is transmitted to humans through the bite of infected ticks, and has a mortality rate of 2–10%.– sourced to pmid:16710839 a review, but not systematic.
Anyone else care to look over the MEDRS for this article? I think this is the last point to consider before it passes FAC. Enwebb ( talk) 16:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
A group of student editors are making major changes to Prostaglandin E2. I don't work on MED articles, just wanted to mention it so a qualified editor can hopefully screen the rewrites. Schazjmd (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd like some help reviewing the main Coronavirus disease 2019 article. I've just had a look at the ==Signs and symptoms== section. Most of it was written in March and April. Some of the sources have been updated since then, but the text is staying the same. Does anyone have any really good sources that they would recommend as the foundation of this medicine-focused article? That section used a previous version of https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-patients.html and I'd like to have another source or two before trying to check it.
In terms of expansion, there should probably be a section for ==Pregnancy== and ==Children== added, but my goal right now is just to make sure that the basics are present and not unreasonably outdated. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Too many to list, but for a starter, does anyone know how we can get a replacement for User:West.andrew.g/Popular medical pages, or get it updated? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Done for now. The main page of WP:MED was devoting a large amount of real estate to off-en.Wikipedia Projects, with links to pages for how you can actually help ON en.Wikipedia obscured ... I've moved those up. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Ajpolino I have added the newsletter to the navigation template so that it now figures on the project page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I noticed this new course is working on a COVID-19 article. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/UMass_Boston/Composition_II_(Summer_2020)
JenOttawa ( talk) 02:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
There are a number of articles related to cholesterol and heart disease that are very bad. They have a lot of citations of primary studies that are not scientifically relevant, which end up making the articles quite misleading. Two that I found (lipid hypothesis and atherosclerosis) actually mention and cite Gary Taubes, a controversial diet book author who is not a medical researcher. The articles should be instead be based on the many exhaustive secondary reviews from organizations like the AHA and WHO. I think these should be a priority for editing given that heart disease is the leading cause of death. CheerfulOctopode ( talk) 22:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I have been working on Complete blood count recently with the goal of eventually taking it to FAC. It has been reviewed by some WP:MED regulars already, and some non-med editors, but to ensure the article is well prepared I would like to get as many people's eyes on it as possible. I would like to invite anyone reading this post to take a look at the article and edit as you see fit or share yoir thoughts on the talk page, even if you know nothing about the topic... in fact, especially if you know nothing about the topic, as I would like to make sure it is understandable and engaging to a wide audience. Thanks, Spicy ( talk) 23:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Obsessive–compulsive personality disorder ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Like I noted on the article's talk page, Gaming User ( talk · contribs) has made extensive revisions to the article, and I've contacted WP:Med for review. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 21:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
While WP:FTN would also suit for this topic, a discussion is taking place at the article's talk page about my interpretation of the placebo effect and my recent edits there. Since this particular point is probably best handled by editors familiar with MEDRS and how trials are performed, I thought this page would be better than FTN. Input welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 19:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Can somebody knowledgeable in virology please take a look at the viral interference article? There are a lot of different sources all with slightly different takes on this, and I'm finding it hard to integrate them all into the article. Is there a systematic review of the topic somewhere that could be of use for this? -- The Anome ( talk) 08:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Are we supporting all articles about COVID-19, or just the ones (the majority) that have some sort of medical content? I wonder this because of Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the music industry, which I think ought to be renamed to "List of music events cancelled during the COVID-19 pandemic". WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Suicide ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
We need opinions at Talk:Suicide#Causes. A permalink for it is here.
How are we to relay the causes in the infobox? Do we include causes there at all since they are varied and some suspected causes aren't a settled matter? Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 01:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Could this article be moved from high to top priority? I am not sure how to check when it was last assessed / assigned a priority. It is currently a B class article with High priority in WikiProject Medicine. I don't know if it makes any difference on WP, but the WHO listed it as one of the top 10 Global health threats for 2019. Given the COVID-19 situation this page would be one I would like to see improved and updated. I don't have the background knowledge to improve it on my own (why people would rather get sick than have a vaccines is a mystery to me). Would adding it to fringe be helpful in encouraging more editors? - Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Is Shashank Shah a notable doctor? The article is clearly a COI creation (the main contributor notes in one edit summary "Also Dr. Shah personally reviewed this Article") and has plenty of perennial WP:PEACOCK issues, , but COI aside, does he meet notability requirements? TJRC ( talk) 04:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that User:Saeedehosseinian is WP:SPA added one reference ( https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64452-z) to 9 medical articles in random way then being inactive. I removed it from Alzheimer's disease article. Thanks -- Alaa :)..! 10:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
As RexxS said, that we didn't disagree that it's a fine source, but it was wrong to add it randomly (Spammy-way). Thanks RexxS for left talk page note -- Alaa :)..! 23:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I am coming back to a question I asked in 2017, see in the archive here. I asked about which tools you guys use to determine the Flesch–Kincaid readability tests score. At the time, two websites were recommended to me: This one: Readability of Wikipedia and this one: Hemingway App. I have now noticed that the website ReadabilityofWikipedia no longer gives proper results (I tried it out for Sustainable Development Goals and for sanitation). The hemingway app is great for pieces of text but not so good for an entire Wikipedia article. So I am just wondering if another free website/app has turned up? My google search only led me to place where you have to pay to get the readability of your website analysed. - By the way, have you had further discussions on improving the readability score of the articles within WikiProject Medicine? It is a topic that I feel strongly about - I see it as low-hanging fruit because it is fairly easy to improve readability, and one doesn't need to be a medical expert either. EMsmile ( talk) 03:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Please EMsmile, don't use these tools. See Readability Formulas: 7 Reasons to Avoid Them and What to Do Instead. These tools were designed before AI and machine learning was a thing, when people dictated to secretaries with typewriters and engineers worked things out on slide rules. We all at WP:MED know that correlation is not causation. It isn't rocket science to measure some crude stats about words on a page and sentence length, without considering at all the meaning of words, and invent an equation that generally outputs a higher number when presented with more complex/difficult prose than when presented with simpler/easier prose. But it is really wrongheaded to think that manipulating the text in a mechanical way, as has been done by some editors, particularly in WP:MED, to reduce the score, makes our articles better. And I use "better" rather than "easier to read", because it is one thing to write text anyone can read, but quite another to write text anyone would want to read.
People have noted that medical articles have unreadable leads. They are "unreadable" not because they are hard, but because you get past the first few sentences and lose the will to live. They are unreadable because although the sentences are short, they are just a collection of random facts presented without thought to developing or introducing concepts. And they often fail in an important part of our educational mission and encyclopaedic purpose, which is teaching our readers some of the difficult words that their doctor will use and are necessary to understand a topic. As an example, I've seen text saying when a drug was "discovered" changed to saying when it was "found", as though a chemist just came across it in the street, or perhaps had lost it the day before, and I've seen an article saying when a drug was first "synthesized" changed to saying when it was "made". But drug discovery and chemical synthesis are both terms a reader will expect to find in an encyclopaedia, and will be surprised by our choice of baby words instead.
I have spent quite a bit of my time on Wikipedia helping subject-knowledgable writers polish prose so that a lay reader can enjoy and understand. Part of that for sure is spotting when a jargon word is used unnecessarily or without/prior to it being explained. Part of that is also spotting sentences that become tangled and over long. But also part of that is really thinking about what the article is trying to teach and the reader is trying to grasp, and fixing it if unclear, or saying so on the talk page. And that doesn't require inserting more full stops to make shorter sentences, or replacing some long words with simpler ones, but often requires unclear prose to be reconsidered by the expert with access to the sources and knowledge of the body of literature. Our best copyeditors don't need to be subject experts, but often work in partnership with the article author to make prose improvements that are then reviewed by that expert to make sure the meaning hasn't been broken.
I would much rather that we junk the pseudoscientific formulas and computer algorithms, and use our human brains to actually read our articles in order to consider if the text is good, or bad. After all, a human brain is what our readers have too. -- Colin° Talk 15:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for all the contributions on the topic of "readability". I am finding it very interesting (and I can hear your pain about people in the past who meant well but made articles worse by trying to simplify language too much). Let's leave aside that discussion about those algorithms and tools for now. Can I reach any consensus on my proposal to add another bullet point to the task list about improving prose? The task list looks like this and I have added a potential new task at the end:
EMsmile ( talk) 13:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
EMsmile I suppose I should have been clearer with respect to how I use this tool. I use this tool to take a before/after snap shot of the work i've done so I can provide some validation for the work I do. I do not use this tool. I take a snap shot of the article before I start changing the article, then a snap shot when I feel I've done all I can do to make the article easier to read. It sounds like some of the tools have been used to actually make changes, rather than to measure the impact of our work. I hope this helps provide some clarity. Mcbrarian ( talk) 15:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
A well-documented function of SynGAP1 involves NMDA receptor-mediated synaptic plasticity and membrane insertion of AMPA receptors through the suppression of upstream signaling pathways.SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
As of the end of July, according to Wikimedia Foundation spokeswoman Chantal De Soto, more than 67,000 editors had collaborated to create more than 5,000 Wikipedia articles in 175 different languages about covid-19 and its various impacts. Some of these, including the disease’s main English-language article, are sensitive pages restricted to certain trusted users (a decision made by other Wikipedia volunteers), De Soto said.
By the end of July, the main English-language covid-19 article had been edited 22,000 times by more than 4,000 editors.
-- Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 18:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
From what I can see, the WHO licences the ICD-10 codes under nothing less restrictive than CC BY-SA-NC - making the content of those lists copyrighted and non-free for use on Wikipedia. We have quite literally a complete copy of the ICD-10 codes on Wikipedia, and unless I'm missing something, they appear to all be copyright violations. The ICD-10 classification system certainly is eligible for copyright, and the exact classifications and titles are therefor copyrighted from what I can tell. Before I go mass AFD dozens of articles from over a decade ago in some instances, does anyone have an explanation for this? And even if it is allowed, there is no attribution in some of the articles' history/talk pages - which will be necessary to add (but again, I doubt this is acceptable). bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 06:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
We need to consider all the following WHO classifications. The ICD-9 is public domain. [11]
It seems fairly clear to me that we cannot reproduce the lists. -- Colin° Talk 13:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
WHO publications published after 11 November 2016 are issued under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Intergovernmental Organization ( CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO) licence. This licence allows for any non-commercial use, without the need to obtain permission from WHO. Adaptations and translations are also permitted, as long as the adapted work is published under the same licence.
So, what’s next? Can we just put {{db-copyvio}} on articles, link to this thread, and wait for an admin to delete? Or put a list here and ask Diannaa et al to do it ?? Back to, we can’t keep asking RexxS to do all adminly things. WAID, why are you not an admin? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Redlinks all over creation now, all the backlinks to all of these need fixin'. I fixed mine like this and this. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
As a follow-up to the above, although it does not have the same copyright issues, for the other reasons we've discussed above (mainly WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTMIRROR), what is the thought about a follow-up nomination for the ICD-9 chapters? (within this cat: Category:International_Classification_of_Diseases). -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 05:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
As a follow-up to the above, I see above a mention by Berchanhimez that it may also be a copyvio to use ICD-10 codes in our navbox titles (please see here for what I mean by this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_138#Proposal_to_remove_ICD_codes_from_templates). I've currently got a local and Wikidata bot request waiting to port these to Wikidata. Is it more appropriate just to delete the ICD-10 codes in navbox titles outright? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 05:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
As a follow-up to the above statement about ICD-10, is it useful at all to have navboxes have ICD codes associated with them at all? We are an independent unaffiliated encycopedia and navbox contents change all the time, I personally don't see it as useful in any respect, we are WP:NOTDIRECTORY and, although I mentioned I am waiting for a local and Wikidata bot request to port these to Wikidata, such a port is likely ultimately to produce some degree of inaccuracy as navboxes change over time. What are the opinions about just stripping the ICD codes, without preserving them in Wikidata at all? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 05:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Just as a personal pov (from someone who believes certain 'nerdy' attributes can facilitate appropriate content :-), I'd prefer ICD codes (and MeSH terms, etc) to be somehow visible directly from a Wikipedia disease/condition page where they can be readily consulted and pondered, rather than exiled to Wikidata, where they're not so readily accessible either for reference or maintenance. 86.191.67.232 ( talk) 12:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I looked at the previous postings on this page which suggest tentative acceptance, but when I read on topics I know a bit about, they seem q. inaccurate and the sourcing quite off base e.g. Chronic pain calls opioids second line analgesics in intractable neuropathic pain, fails to mention that TCAs are first line for neuropathic pain. i.e. Their guidance is far removed from clinical guidelines. Secondly, the grammar and writing quality is of concern, it makes me think they are not peer reviewed. Thirdly, the authors seem to be pumping them out quite rapidly, which normally isn't good for clinical reviews, these would normally take time and be written by subject matter experts rather than generalists. As best as I can tell they don't have the same quality as UptoDate for instance, but they are free. They seem to be used in a lot of articles here, so I'm curious what others think of them. PainProf ( talk) 02:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for bring this topic up. Statpearls is used as a ref >20 times at Prostaglandin E2. As part of watching the med students work on this article, I will check if the use of Statpearls is of good quality. David notMD ( talk) 17:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
We need opinions on the following Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Removing guidance about the lead, and adding a bit about terminology and technical language. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 04:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Any idea where to find references to answer the "Success of each phase" question in Talk:Vaccine trial? SuaveLion21 ( talk) 21:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Pemphigus includes references to "GI health", without defining the term. GI health is a red link. Please can someone clarify the topic, and create a redirect? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
These seems to be a push to have Wikipedia make prominent mention of this. How to do it with a WP:NPOV requires the sort of skills which could, I think, be usefully provided by WT:MED regulars; more eyes would help. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Are primary research articles, even with very preliminary results, acceptable if one discusses and cites them in a "Research" section? For example, Alcoholism#Research and Cocaine dependence#Research. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 20:47, 16 August 2020 (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 135 | ← | Archive 137 | Archive 138 | Archive 139 | Archive 140 | Archive 141 | → | Archive 145 |
I have published a poster titled 'Wikipedia editing by healthcare professionals: Need of time' in year 2018. It can be used as a reference if found appropriate. I think I should not add it as there will be conflict of interest as the poster is presented by me, but if found important, someone else can add it. Thanks in advance. -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai ( talk) 06:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I realize this isn’t particularly wiki-related, but I figured I’d reach out anyway since this is relevant to primary/tertiary care physicians, nurses, and technologists.
I started a precision diagnostics company with 4 others; would love to talk about it, but need to file a patent first, and before that I have to wait on the FDA to return written feedback and then teleconference with my team on our device design. Working on getting approval for a CLIA-waived POC rapid diagnostic testing device for virtually all known infectious pathogens (each biofluid entails a unique test) and their unique AMR profiles; it’d be permitted for use in hospitals and primary care clinics that have a CLIA-waiver. Expect the pricing to be ~$14000/device + ~$75/test (less if I can leverage my patents to get the manufacturer to reduce their >100% margin on reagents). Attaining maximal sensitivity+specificity per pathogen is fairly trivial with the hardware/software tech we’re using, but phase 3 is probably going to cost upwards of $100 million. Lol
Anyway, anyone happen to know any expert medical device consultants or current/former employees of the FDA office of IVD? I need an advisory board member with that expertise to whom I can pose an occasional question on regulatory compliance.
I’m not monitoring this page, so please ping/email me if you reply. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 20:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I've been working on improving the Complete blood count article recently, and I'd like to incorporate some information about screening and quality control guidelines in non-Anglophone countries, but I've struggled to find sources for this. Wondering if anyone here can dig up some good sources for Europe, Asia, Africa, etc.? There is some more discussion of this on the article talk page. Thanks, Spicy ( talk) 19:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
I searched the archive and found an earlier discussion from 2017
here and also from October 2019
here. But there must have been further discussions since then. Basically I am looking at the maps on the
SDG 3 on the website of SDG Tracker which is part of Our World in Data, see
here. Do I have to download them and then upload to Wikimedia Commons or is there already a streamlined process or bot for that?
EMsmile (
talk)
04:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
References
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Another plea for basic scrutiny of recent changes. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
18:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I'm a COI editor posting on behalf of Daiichi Sankyo to propose that Pigmented villonodular synovitis (PVNS) and Giant-cell tumor of the tendon sheath (GCT-TS) be merged into a new Tenosynovial giant cell tumor (TGCT) article, which I've drafted here. The medical consensus is that PVNS and GCT-TS are both variations of TGCT. I've opened a discussion on the PVNS talk page. Thank you in advance for any time/feedback! Mary Gaulke ( talk) 14:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, I think I may have slightly overwhelemed interested editors by my list of templates for discussion. Thanks to all for contributing so far. I would like to request some more eyes over the nominated templates. Many have just received one comment and I so I think there is a risk of some issues being missed that I'm not recognising. Also it would speed things along by a month or more for my tidy-up and smaller second batch :). If you want to keep an eye on this you can use our article alerts, which has an automatically updated list here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts
Ping to people have contributed - Mdaniels5757, Izno, Trialpears, Jfdwolff, Spicy, Bsherr - thanks, and if I could lean on you for a few more comments that would be appreciated. I have tried to word this neutrally, because I would appreciate comments in either direction, and so I hope this isn't considered canvassing.
If you could please look at the list below and comment on a few (no problems if you are opposing what I've proposed!) that would be wonderful:-- Tom (LT) ( talk) 05:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Related category discussions:
Akathisia needs to be on a few active watchlists. AFAICT this is a 'movement disorder' (the name means "can't sit still") that appears during antipsychotic treatment for delirium, but the Internet seems to think that it's a feeling of abject terror. I'm betting that someone who spends time around ICU patients knows a lot more about this than I do. Just blanking incorrect information would be helpful at this stage. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I apologize if this is a dumb question. I am not a part of this WikiProject (I can honestly say I don't know much about medicine), but I recently added a little bit to Anorexia (symptom) and would like to add more content. The article previously said nothing about anorexia in animals, so I wrote in the lead that it happens to other species and cited some sources. However, I'm having a hard time finding any kind of secondary source covering anorexia/inappetence in dogs or cats. The tools on this project page only get results about people, and WP:Veterinary Medicine doesn't have a similar tool for finding sources and doesn't include the Anorexia (symptom) page anyway.
From what I understand after looking at WP:MEDRS, I can't talk about the causes, treatments, or other health issues caused by anorexia without a reliable source. Currently, I have yet to find a secondary source that discusses the topic, only primary sources and websites with a general overview which I don't think qualify. Also, should I discuss this with WikiProject Veterinary Medicine, even though the page is part of this project? Thanks for your help with my minor issue. TuskDeer ( talk) 10:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Many pages are in multiple projects, I think it's appropriate to ask in veterinary too User:TuskDeer. I found this advanced search] on Google books (anorexia, in books with a title including "Veterinary" gave a number of promising secondary sources. The main issue is to check for which are edited books, which is usually obvious if there is a contents page listing different authors for chapters. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Pseudosenility is one of my UCSF student editing watchlisted articles. Best I can tell, it is not a thing. It returns three hits in PubMed, TOTAL-- 1958, 1961 and 1973. Most of the sources listed are for pseudodementia or reversible dementia, [2] and a lot of the actual article is about pseudodementia, [3] so I attempted to move the article to pseudodementia. Which already exists. Is there such a thing, or should this article be merged and redirected to pseudodementia, and the students switched over to pseudodementia? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Suicide methods ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Help is needed on this matter: Talk:Suicide methods#Summarizing the lead. A permalink for it is here. Obviously, the current lead is too small. But how should we go about expanding it? I could type up something myself, but I am interested in hearing others' thoughts, including on whether we should retain some of Poorya0014's version. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 19:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Arbidol has been used in cases of COVID-19, mostly in China and Russia. The article has some very problematic sourcing. It could do with some expert review. HLHJ ( talk) 01:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Looking for a second opinion for an FAC: does the content at Horseshoe_bat#As_disease_reservoirs require MEDRS-level sourcing? Is the current sourcing of sufficient quality? Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
humans likely became sick through contact with infected masked palm civets, which were identified as intermediate hosts of the virus.– sourced to Review of Bats and SARS, which is a review of sorts, but not a systematic review.
humans can become ill through exposure to other MRVs– sourced to ISBN 9781119150046 which is published by Wiley, a respectable publisher.
Kyasanur Forest disease is transmitted to humans through the bite of infected ticks, and has a mortality rate of 2–10%.– sourced to pmid:16710839 a review, but not systematic.
Anyone else care to look over the MEDRS for this article? I think this is the last point to consider before it passes FAC. Enwebb ( talk) 16:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
A group of student editors are making major changes to Prostaglandin E2. I don't work on MED articles, just wanted to mention it so a qualified editor can hopefully screen the rewrites. Schazjmd (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd like some help reviewing the main Coronavirus disease 2019 article. I've just had a look at the ==Signs and symptoms== section. Most of it was written in March and April. Some of the sources have been updated since then, but the text is staying the same. Does anyone have any really good sources that they would recommend as the foundation of this medicine-focused article? That section used a previous version of https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-patients.html and I'd like to have another source or two before trying to check it.
In terms of expansion, there should probably be a section for ==Pregnancy== and ==Children== added, but my goal right now is just to make sure that the basics are present and not unreasonably outdated. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Too many to list, but for a starter, does anyone know how we can get a replacement for User:West.andrew.g/Popular medical pages, or get it updated? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Done for now. The main page of WP:MED was devoting a large amount of real estate to off-en.Wikipedia Projects, with links to pages for how you can actually help ON en.Wikipedia obscured ... I've moved those up. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Ajpolino I have added the newsletter to the navigation template so that it now figures on the project page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I noticed this new course is working on a COVID-19 article. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/UMass_Boston/Composition_II_(Summer_2020)
JenOttawa ( talk) 02:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
There are a number of articles related to cholesterol and heart disease that are very bad. They have a lot of citations of primary studies that are not scientifically relevant, which end up making the articles quite misleading. Two that I found (lipid hypothesis and atherosclerosis) actually mention and cite Gary Taubes, a controversial diet book author who is not a medical researcher. The articles should be instead be based on the many exhaustive secondary reviews from organizations like the AHA and WHO. I think these should be a priority for editing given that heart disease is the leading cause of death. CheerfulOctopode ( talk) 22:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I have been working on Complete blood count recently with the goal of eventually taking it to FAC. It has been reviewed by some WP:MED regulars already, and some non-med editors, but to ensure the article is well prepared I would like to get as many people's eyes on it as possible. I would like to invite anyone reading this post to take a look at the article and edit as you see fit or share yoir thoughts on the talk page, even if you know nothing about the topic... in fact, especially if you know nothing about the topic, as I would like to make sure it is understandable and engaging to a wide audience. Thanks, Spicy ( talk) 23:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Obsessive–compulsive personality disorder ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Like I noted on the article's talk page, Gaming User ( talk · contribs) has made extensive revisions to the article, and I've contacted WP:Med for review. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 21:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
While WP:FTN would also suit for this topic, a discussion is taking place at the article's talk page about my interpretation of the placebo effect and my recent edits there. Since this particular point is probably best handled by editors familiar with MEDRS and how trials are performed, I thought this page would be better than FTN. Input welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 19:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Can somebody knowledgeable in virology please take a look at the viral interference article? There are a lot of different sources all with slightly different takes on this, and I'm finding it hard to integrate them all into the article. Is there a systematic review of the topic somewhere that could be of use for this? -- The Anome ( talk) 08:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Are we supporting all articles about COVID-19, or just the ones (the majority) that have some sort of medical content? I wonder this because of Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the music industry, which I think ought to be renamed to "List of music events cancelled during the COVID-19 pandemic". WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Suicide ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
We need opinions at Talk:Suicide#Causes. A permalink for it is here.
How are we to relay the causes in the infobox? Do we include causes there at all since they are varied and some suspected causes aren't a settled matter? Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 01:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Could this article be moved from high to top priority? I am not sure how to check when it was last assessed / assigned a priority. It is currently a B class article with High priority in WikiProject Medicine. I don't know if it makes any difference on WP, but the WHO listed it as one of the top 10 Global health threats for 2019. Given the COVID-19 situation this page would be one I would like to see improved and updated. I don't have the background knowledge to improve it on my own (why people would rather get sick than have a vaccines is a mystery to me). Would adding it to fringe be helpful in encouraging more editors? - Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Is Shashank Shah a notable doctor? The article is clearly a COI creation (the main contributor notes in one edit summary "Also Dr. Shah personally reviewed this Article") and has plenty of perennial WP:PEACOCK issues, , but COI aside, does he meet notability requirements? TJRC ( talk) 04:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that User:Saeedehosseinian is WP:SPA added one reference ( https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64452-z) to 9 medical articles in random way then being inactive. I removed it from Alzheimer's disease article. Thanks -- Alaa :)..! 10:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
As RexxS said, that we didn't disagree that it's a fine source, but it was wrong to add it randomly (Spammy-way). Thanks RexxS for left talk page note -- Alaa :)..! 23:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I am coming back to a question I asked in 2017, see in the archive here. I asked about which tools you guys use to determine the Flesch–Kincaid readability tests score. At the time, two websites were recommended to me: This one: Readability of Wikipedia and this one: Hemingway App. I have now noticed that the website ReadabilityofWikipedia no longer gives proper results (I tried it out for Sustainable Development Goals and for sanitation). The hemingway app is great for pieces of text but not so good for an entire Wikipedia article. So I am just wondering if another free website/app has turned up? My google search only led me to place where you have to pay to get the readability of your website analysed. - By the way, have you had further discussions on improving the readability score of the articles within WikiProject Medicine? It is a topic that I feel strongly about - I see it as low-hanging fruit because it is fairly easy to improve readability, and one doesn't need to be a medical expert either. EMsmile ( talk) 03:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Please EMsmile, don't use these tools. See Readability Formulas: 7 Reasons to Avoid Them and What to Do Instead. These tools were designed before AI and machine learning was a thing, when people dictated to secretaries with typewriters and engineers worked things out on slide rules. We all at WP:MED know that correlation is not causation. It isn't rocket science to measure some crude stats about words on a page and sentence length, without considering at all the meaning of words, and invent an equation that generally outputs a higher number when presented with more complex/difficult prose than when presented with simpler/easier prose. But it is really wrongheaded to think that manipulating the text in a mechanical way, as has been done by some editors, particularly in WP:MED, to reduce the score, makes our articles better. And I use "better" rather than "easier to read", because it is one thing to write text anyone can read, but quite another to write text anyone would want to read.
People have noted that medical articles have unreadable leads. They are "unreadable" not because they are hard, but because you get past the first few sentences and lose the will to live. They are unreadable because although the sentences are short, they are just a collection of random facts presented without thought to developing or introducing concepts. And they often fail in an important part of our educational mission and encyclopaedic purpose, which is teaching our readers some of the difficult words that their doctor will use and are necessary to understand a topic. As an example, I've seen text saying when a drug was "discovered" changed to saying when it was "found", as though a chemist just came across it in the street, or perhaps had lost it the day before, and I've seen an article saying when a drug was first "synthesized" changed to saying when it was "made". But drug discovery and chemical synthesis are both terms a reader will expect to find in an encyclopaedia, and will be surprised by our choice of baby words instead.
I have spent quite a bit of my time on Wikipedia helping subject-knowledgable writers polish prose so that a lay reader can enjoy and understand. Part of that for sure is spotting when a jargon word is used unnecessarily or without/prior to it being explained. Part of that is also spotting sentences that become tangled and over long. But also part of that is really thinking about what the article is trying to teach and the reader is trying to grasp, and fixing it if unclear, or saying so on the talk page. And that doesn't require inserting more full stops to make shorter sentences, or replacing some long words with simpler ones, but often requires unclear prose to be reconsidered by the expert with access to the sources and knowledge of the body of literature. Our best copyeditors don't need to be subject experts, but often work in partnership with the article author to make prose improvements that are then reviewed by that expert to make sure the meaning hasn't been broken.
I would much rather that we junk the pseudoscientific formulas and computer algorithms, and use our human brains to actually read our articles in order to consider if the text is good, or bad. After all, a human brain is what our readers have too. -- Colin° Talk 15:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for all the contributions on the topic of "readability". I am finding it very interesting (and I can hear your pain about people in the past who meant well but made articles worse by trying to simplify language too much). Let's leave aside that discussion about those algorithms and tools for now. Can I reach any consensus on my proposal to add another bullet point to the task list about improving prose? The task list looks like this and I have added a potential new task at the end:
EMsmile ( talk) 13:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
EMsmile I suppose I should have been clearer with respect to how I use this tool. I use this tool to take a before/after snap shot of the work i've done so I can provide some validation for the work I do. I do not use this tool. I take a snap shot of the article before I start changing the article, then a snap shot when I feel I've done all I can do to make the article easier to read. It sounds like some of the tools have been used to actually make changes, rather than to measure the impact of our work. I hope this helps provide some clarity. Mcbrarian ( talk) 15:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
A well-documented function of SynGAP1 involves NMDA receptor-mediated synaptic plasticity and membrane insertion of AMPA receptors through the suppression of upstream signaling pathways.SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
As of the end of July, according to Wikimedia Foundation spokeswoman Chantal De Soto, more than 67,000 editors had collaborated to create more than 5,000 Wikipedia articles in 175 different languages about covid-19 and its various impacts. Some of these, including the disease’s main English-language article, are sensitive pages restricted to certain trusted users (a decision made by other Wikipedia volunteers), De Soto said.
By the end of July, the main English-language covid-19 article had been edited 22,000 times by more than 4,000 editors.
-- Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 18:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
From what I can see, the WHO licences the ICD-10 codes under nothing less restrictive than CC BY-SA-NC - making the content of those lists copyrighted and non-free for use on Wikipedia. We have quite literally a complete copy of the ICD-10 codes on Wikipedia, and unless I'm missing something, they appear to all be copyright violations. The ICD-10 classification system certainly is eligible for copyright, and the exact classifications and titles are therefor copyrighted from what I can tell. Before I go mass AFD dozens of articles from over a decade ago in some instances, does anyone have an explanation for this? And even if it is allowed, there is no attribution in some of the articles' history/talk pages - which will be necessary to add (but again, I doubt this is acceptable). bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 06:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
We need to consider all the following WHO classifications. The ICD-9 is public domain. [11]
It seems fairly clear to me that we cannot reproduce the lists. -- Colin° Talk 13:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
WHO publications published after 11 November 2016 are issued under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Intergovernmental Organization ( CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO) licence. This licence allows for any non-commercial use, without the need to obtain permission from WHO. Adaptations and translations are also permitted, as long as the adapted work is published under the same licence.
So, what’s next? Can we just put {{db-copyvio}} on articles, link to this thread, and wait for an admin to delete? Or put a list here and ask Diannaa et al to do it ?? Back to, we can’t keep asking RexxS to do all adminly things. WAID, why are you not an admin? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Redlinks all over creation now, all the backlinks to all of these need fixin'. I fixed mine like this and this. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
As a follow-up to the above, although it does not have the same copyright issues, for the other reasons we've discussed above (mainly WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTMIRROR), what is the thought about a follow-up nomination for the ICD-9 chapters? (within this cat: Category:International_Classification_of_Diseases). -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 05:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
As a follow-up to the above, I see above a mention by Berchanhimez that it may also be a copyvio to use ICD-10 codes in our navbox titles (please see here for what I mean by this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_138#Proposal_to_remove_ICD_codes_from_templates). I've currently got a local and Wikidata bot request waiting to port these to Wikidata. Is it more appropriate just to delete the ICD-10 codes in navbox titles outright? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 05:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
As a follow-up to the above statement about ICD-10, is it useful at all to have navboxes have ICD codes associated with them at all? We are an independent unaffiliated encycopedia and navbox contents change all the time, I personally don't see it as useful in any respect, we are WP:NOTDIRECTORY and, although I mentioned I am waiting for a local and Wikidata bot request to port these to Wikidata, such a port is likely ultimately to produce some degree of inaccuracy as navboxes change over time. What are the opinions about just stripping the ICD codes, without preserving them in Wikidata at all? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 05:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Just as a personal pov (from someone who believes certain 'nerdy' attributes can facilitate appropriate content :-), I'd prefer ICD codes (and MeSH terms, etc) to be somehow visible directly from a Wikipedia disease/condition page where they can be readily consulted and pondered, rather than exiled to Wikidata, where they're not so readily accessible either for reference or maintenance. 86.191.67.232 ( talk) 12:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I looked at the previous postings on this page which suggest tentative acceptance, but when I read on topics I know a bit about, they seem q. inaccurate and the sourcing quite off base e.g. Chronic pain calls opioids second line analgesics in intractable neuropathic pain, fails to mention that TCAs are first line for neuropathic pain. i.e. Their guidance is far removed from clinical guidelines. Secondly, the grammar and writing quality is of concern, it makes me think they are not peer reviewed. Thirdly, the authors seem to be pumping them out quite rapidly, which normally isn't good for clinical reviews, these would normally take time and be written by subject matter experts rather than generalists. As best as I can tell they don't have the same quality as UptoDate for instance, but they are free. They seem to be used in a lot of articles here, so I'm curious what others think of them. PainProf ( talk) 02:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for bring this topic up. Statpearls is used as a ref >20 times at Prostaglandin E2. As part of watching the med students work on this article, I will check if the use of Statpearls is of good quality. David notMD ( talk) 17:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
We need opinions on the following Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Removing guidance about the lead, and adding a bit about terminology and technical language. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 04:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Any idea where to find references to answer the "Success of each phase" question in Talk:Vaccine trial? SuaveLion21 ( talk) 21:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Pemphigus includes references to "GI health", without defining the term. GI health is a red link. Please can someone clarify the topic, and create a redirect? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
These seems to be a push to have Wikipedia make prominent mention of this. How to do it with a WP:NPOV requires the sort of skills which could, I think, be usefully provided by WT:MED regulars; more eyes would help. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Are primary research articles, even with very preliminary results, acceptable if one discusses and cites them in a "Research" section? For example, Alcoholism#Research and Cocaine dependence#Research. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 20:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)