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 150 | Archive 151 | Archive 152 | Archive 153 | Archive 154 | Archive 155 | → | Archive 160 |
Please sign up. It won't be the same as the in-person experience, but it'll include a lot more of us than usual.
In particular, I think many editors here will be interested in this presentation:
Daniel Mietchen and User:Netha Hussain also have a COVID-related talk scheduled.
If you see other sessions that might interest this group, please share links. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
:-)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:5α-Reductase deficiency#Requested move 7 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 23:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Is Aryepiglotticus muscle likely to be a duplicate of Aryepiglottic muscle? I stumbled upon it while trundling through orphaned articles but don't know enough to make the call. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:BBIBP-CorV#Requested move 12 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 2409:4061:700:93AF:418E:4466:2FDB:DC48 ( talk) 19:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi... I thought Mycosis... a collection of fungal infections, might be re-titled Fungal infections or Mycoses. I don't know how to request this change and fungal infection re-directs to mycosis. Whispyhistory ( talk) 20:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
{{subst:requested move|Fungal infections|reason=your reason here}}
(or Mycoses, or whatever name you're proposing), and save the page. Easy-peasy!
Mathglot (
talk) 18:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
This is a new article that looks like it needs evaluation. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Dear members of WikiProject Medicine
I am a long term Wikipedian contributing primarily to articles under WikiProject Medicine. I am the Editor in Chief of the ILAE Wikipedia Epilepsy Project. The aim of the project is to bring scientifically accurate information on epilepsy subjects to the masses through Wikipedia. We have tagged under WikiProject Epilepsy more than 200 articles which come under the scope of the project. A lot of lacunae have been identified and the updates need scientific acumen. We have been unable to get adequate number of volunteers involved and therefore are considering involving a paid contributor who can carry out the necessary activities. The required activities are:
Their official contributions will come from a username tagged with the project. They can directly receive emoluments for the efforts they put in and this would be openly declared on their userpage. The funds could come from the ILAE and a part can come from Wikimedia grants that can be applied for.
There is a paucity of Wikipedians who are academicians/experts in the field who can check the scientific content and verify validity of the information. We have tried to get volunteers but failed to get them adequately involved in structured and systematic contributions. This is leaving gaps that need to be filled and a paid post seems to be the only way out.
Seeking your inputs and checking whether anyone has any objections to this or if you have suggestions about how else this could be done. Diptanshu 💬 15:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
See the contributions of Cabswang ( talk · contribs). Anyone understanding what's going on here? Class project? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey Med, so I came across Rachna Chhachhi which looked very suspicious (one of the sources ( this) was talking about beating the worst of cancers with emotional nutrition which apparently includes organic eggs (paraphrasing)). And, I thought, if only there were a way to streamline alerting experienced MED editors about new articles that need their attention (recently had the same issue with History of Ayurveda, in which case I posted to parent article for help). I was thinking, maybe we could add a parameter like "needs attention=yes" to {{ WPMED}} and it could populate a category "MED articles needing attention", or a bot could populate a page with only new articles that are so tagged. Unless there exists a similar mechanism already, in which case, all you need to do is tell me. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey there! Just thought I'd bring this group to the attention of the Wikiproject. I am not a medical professional but I recently heard about this group and its connection to Wakefield's anti-MMR paper and the subsequent scare over vaccines and autism (the group seems to have jumpred onto the 'Covid-sceptic' bandwagon too - no surprise there).
If anyone here has some better insight on the group, better MEDRS sources, etc., that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! -- Bangalamania ( talk) 11:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Specifically regarding content issues and possibly WP:MEDRS issues surrounding the topic of whether sexual intercourse during menstruation is carrying significant health risks. See here. Thanks. EMsmile ( talk) 14:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Pointing it out so people with more experience than I have can take a look. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) uses this as a source. I dunno, is an op-ed really a good source for the claim, and even if it were would that very insinuatory statement really be worth keeping? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 21:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi - would editors experienced in assessing sources for medical topics please take a quick look at Talk:Chinese herbology and Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine? A relatively new user, who describes themselves as an an undergraduate neuroscientist and Qi Gong practitioner on their user page, is eager to add information about the efficacy of traditional Chinese herbal remedies to treat COVID19. Thank you. Girth Summit (blether) 18:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Per an ANI I opened in error, I was recommended to ask this WikiProject about a situation on the Trypophobia page, where a few users over several years, as well as non-editors I've seen online, have complained that the page includes a picture used by medical researchers to induce a condition which can cause panic attacks. Some users have complained of physical revulsion from the image, but despite this, 32 users in an RfC from 2018 unanimously decided to keep the image, with the most common argument in favor being that the picture's educational value outweighed user discomfort. At least since that time, editors, some of whom were involved in the RfC, have more or less camped the page and referred to the RfC as if it is binding consensus. The page and subject are controversial topics, as many people believe the condition is simply from a meme, despite scientific evidence to the contrary, or that too few have the condition to warrant consideration. They cite Wikipedia policy that the website isn't censored, but every other phobia page I've encountered has a history of displaying no image or a less-graphic image (for example, a cartoon spider, or someone using a window washing platform rather than a vertical view from a height). At least one active user on the page has implied they're unwilling to discuss the topic without administrative intervention. I was wondering if this project could take over with looking into the appropriateness of using this image in the lead. Thank you. -- IronMaidenRocks ( talk) 13:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
editors have more or less camped the page and referred to the RfC as if it is binding consensus ... many people believe the condition is simply from a meme ... At least one active user on the page has implied they're unwilling to discuss the topic without administrative intervention."
I'd like to request any further help on the article's discussion. I was hoping to find people to take my place in looking in to the matter for the point of view which I saw numerous users communicate online. So far, I'm bulldogging this thing completely alone and the only user who has joined the discussion from this project is arguing against me and creating more work for me to do. -- IronMaidenRocks ( talk) 11:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Medicine, I'm working on expanding the COVID-19 coverage on wikipedia. I have published a couple medical related articles recently: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United States and High-risk people. If you could take a look and possibly make an edit, I would appreciate it. Open to any feedback.
Thank you again. -- Wil540 art ( talk) 18:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Today is World Suicide Prevention Day. Please take care of yourself, and please consider removing some of the garbage that has accumulated in Suicide methods (which is easily the most-viewed suicide-related Wikipedia article). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Thoracic diaphragm#Requested move 3 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WP:RSN concerning this paper by Yuri Deigin and Rosana Segretto in Bioessays which may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. See discussion here.
Segreto, R., & Deigin, Y. (2021). The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin. BioEssays, 43, e2000240. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202000240.
Thanks.— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 23:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
A new editor, BruceSanderson is adding information to several articles claiming that ivermectin is efficacious against COVID-19. I'm rather ignorant about these things, so perhaps a more knowledgeable member of this project could have a look at these edits. Thanks! -- Randykitty ( talk) 12:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I have justed added reciprocal "See also" sections to Gastroenteritis and Enterocolitis. It would be very useful, IMO, to have a short section in each article discussing the relationship and distinction/differentiation between the two diseases, which certainly appear to be quite similar, especially in terms of how they present. (My sense of things is that Enterocolitis might possibly even be regarded as a subset/"special case" of Gastroenteritis.) Anomalous+0 ( talk) 21:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Would a kind soul have a look? I ran into this by way of WP:RFPP and I don't really understand what's happening. But there's no shortage of hostility, so be forewarned. ←I really know how to sell it! El_C 23:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
There is this website called OMIM. I have stumbled upon it when researching on rare diseases. But, I’m not entirely sure it’s an ideal medical source what do you guys think? CycoMa ( talk) 18:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
CycoMa, no, it is not, but ... as in prior cases, whether this source can be used depends on what you want to use it for. I would not use it for anything, and don't see much good reason for it to be cited anywhere on Wikipedia, but that said, it is possible that, for a rare disease, you can find something of use in it, but you should be certain that what you found is not outdated or that you are not giving undue weight to something useless recorded there.
It points to primary studies, without providing any context about those primary studies, much less updates, is often outdated and even inaccurate, and contains information that (depending on how you plan to use) would fall afoul of our DUE WEIGHT policy.
Case study for Tourette syndrome
OMIM entry for TS, last updated on 10/23/2014 (see WP:MEDDATE)
With respect to due weight, I direct your attention to the section on Clinical Management (I cannot get the page to link directly). OMIM gives one entry: a case study of one boy with Lesch-Nyhan syndrome-- a rare condition easily distinguished from TS by experts because of the extreme severity of the self-injurious behaviors associated with Lesch-Nyhan. While our article warrants one line in differential diagnosis, the OMIM entry has this one case study of one individual as the entirety of its entry on clinical management.
Regarding relevance of the primary studies cited there, note that one of the most highly discredited researchers in the realm of TS (Comings) has at least 24 entries: how is the average reader to know that most of what Comings published was since discredited or disproven? Secondary literature reviews would put those entries in perspective (in this case, by mostly ignoring them).
Case study for Dementia with Lewy bodies
OMIM entry for DLB, last updated on 6/27/2018
Inaccurate: mentions that guidelines were updated in 2005. In fact, they were updated in 2017 (before this article was updated in 2018).
WEIGHT: REM sleep behavior disorder-- a key feature of DLB, representing a significant breakthrough in diagnosis-- is not mentioned once.
I stopped there. I could go on, but these are short examples of why I strongly discourage you from using this source, especially for a rare disease. Could you tell us precisely what you want to use it to cite, so that others might do a literature search for better sources? It is hard to imagine that you could find anything useful at OMIM that would not be better covered in secondary literature, even for a rare disease, but my particular concern is with DUE WEIGHT, along with datedness and accuracy. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Could someone please look at Trauma trigger and check the sentence 'Among people without traumatic experiences, "trigger warnings did not affect anxiety responses to potentially distressing material in general"' for me? I haven't found a non-paywalled copy of the source, but the quoted sentence doesn't line up very closely with what I see in the abstract.
If anyone's interested in having a go at the article in general, please feel free. So far, with a very small sample size, the 2014-ish sources seem to be fairly political and polemical, but even slightly more recent sources seem to be aware of a distinction between individual medical disability (e.g., some combat survivors can be triggered by firecrackers) and uncomfortable content (e.g., everyone should expect racist and sexist content in 19th-century literature). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm working on a draft called Draft:Recurrent Cancer The topic for the article is notable. It has been mentioned by Cancer.gov, American cancer society, webmd, Mayo clinic, and other sources have addressed the topic. So it's clearly notable but, I do have some knowledge on cancer but I feel like I need editors who have more experience on cancer th help with this draft. CycoMa ( talk) 03:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Or anyone who has more knowledge about cancer than would be useful. CycoMa ( talk) 17:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Also I’m commenting this here because I have noticed articles for different types of cancer do not address or mention anything about cancer coming back. CycoMa ( talk) 18:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, at the University of Edinburgh our cohort of Reproductive Biomedicine BSc Honours students will be learning to edit Wikipedia as part of their course programme and contributing their group research to articles related to reproductive medicine. I just wanted to flag their suggested pages to edit to see if there are any thoughts/suggestions/potential banana skins and also to highlight that these are students trying to positively improve the sum of all knowledge so if you come across their fledgling edits then do help/support as appropriate! many thanks.
Professor Norah Spears is keen to do a Wikipedia page on a scientist, which would be her top preference. Her suggested topics (in order of preference) would be:
Other suggested topics not in any particular order of preference:
Further suggestions, in order of preference:
Thoughts welcome! Research will begin 22 September with a view to publishing edits on 6th October 2021. Stinglehammer ( talk) 11:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, can someone please take a look at the Date palm section "health benefits". The text says "Dates are reported to have good potential in diabetes treatment due to the presence of polyphenols exerting strong antioxidant activities. They were found to reduce fasting plasma glucose and postprandial plasma glucose in a 2021 meta-analysis."
This content is sourced to [7], an unreliable food journal by MDPI and another review [8] in the Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences. I have never heard of the latter journal but it doesn't look very reliable [9]. I believe we need some stronger sources here.
I have had a look round for reviews on dates and cannot find any decent sources. A lot of dodgy journals seem to publishing on this topic [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] etc making all kinds of health claims but none of these journals appear reliable for Wikipedia to be making such biomedical claims.
What can we do to improve this section considering some content out there in journals on this subject is not entirely reliable? I would like to improve the section. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 12:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Autism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Bangalamania ( talk) 18:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans, which is about a wikipedia that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Bangalamania ( talk) 20:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello WT Med! Is duodenorenal ligament a notable enough feature to need a standalone, or can it be merged? If it should remain standalone, where can I link it from? ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Since 2014, the article Antimicrobial resistance has cited a paper from one Institute for Creation Research, which is troubling. The two claims currently cited to the paper look innocuous enough, so I'm tempted to just remove the citation and wait for some other editor to find a new citation for them, but I don't know anything about the topic, so I'm afraid to let them stand. — Kodiologist ( t) 07:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Replaced with {{ cn}} tags. Things don't need to be listed at RSP to be deemed unreliable. realultimatepower.net isn't a reliable source on ninjas, for instance, despite not being listed at RSP. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 22:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Alcoholics_Anonymous#Merger_proposal Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
This FTN thread may be of interest to editors familiar with the coverage of medicine: WP:FTN § Multiple chemical sensitivity etc. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 06:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Greetings User:Harrisonnelson1205 and others. (I'm tired, so I'm sorry if this is excessively grumpy.) For what it's worth, I am not a fan of the recent contributions I see from this editor. In general, I dislike it when contributors think there's 1 journal that's so great that they then go along dropping sentences in random articles to cite a single publication. I dislike the flow of the prose that results from this approach, and I find it a myopic approach to editing. I recently reverted one contribution at deep vein thrombosis that was added in this manner, and I explained my rationale on the talk page and the edit summary. (There are other gripes I state there, and they relate to the source, but I won't repeat them here.) Maybe others would like to review these contributions. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to do so myself. I have been concerned for a long time about conflicts of interest in these cases. I fear that editors who adopt this style of contributing are blinded by the desire to cite 1 specific journal or publisher and that they do not consider the rest of the medical literature and the totality of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines so that the net effect is that they aren't really here to help build an encyclopedia. I'm concerned that editors who contribute in this style are instead actually here to promote a publisher to Wikipedia's detriment. Biosthmors ( talk) 02:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Cochrane Library reviews and NICE guidelines are generally of high quality and are periodically re-examined even if their initial publication dates fall outside the 5-year window."-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 02:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Biosthmors thank you for staying on top of this issue, which has been an ongoing problem for many years; it is time we did something about this problem. I have noticed over the years how much effort you have to put in to correcting the Cochrane entries, but the problems go well beyond formatting. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Cochrane is a misguided venture which, rather than leading to significant improvements of Wikipedia articles, has instead appeared to benefit Cochrane more than Wikipedia in terms of advertising. The goal of the "collaboration" appears to be to get every Cochrane article cited on Wikipedia, and this is often done by newly recruited volunteers who don't know how to format their entries, in which part of the article to place them, whether they are repeating better information from better sources already in the article, and even, at times, whether they are linking to dated information. The idea seems to be simply to use Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Cochrane/Cochrane Review List to make sure Cochrane is represented everywhere-- even if there are better or newer sources.
The goal of this newly recruited volunteers appears to be simply to add an entry, any entry, somewhere on Wikipedia to make sure Cochrane is cited, and I have been raising concerns about the sloppiness of these entries for years. JenOttawa is pinged, she promises to speak to the new trainee, everyone involved is nice and kind and well intentioned and helpful, but ... lather, rinse and repeat and the same things happens with every new trainee. There appears to be no sustained commitment to quality.
I don't know why the "search archives" button isn't working, so I am unable to link to the number of times I have raised this issue-- also, I often raise it on article talk pages, rather than here. I do not see the benefit of this "collaboration", but have repeatedly seen that it creates too much work for other editors to clean up the faulty entries. This is a collaboration with a purpose contrary to the goals of Wikipedia-- to push Cochrane into higher visibility, and I wish we would stop this. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi all! I'm a student at the BHSc program at McMaster, and User:Bharatss-SB, User:Joyjxu1 and I are currently taking a course where we have to update an article for a class assignment. We would love to edit this article, however our professor has concerns that the need for group consensus would significantly impede our progress. We were wondering if we could be granted permission to make live edits? No worries at all if this is not possible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joan1087 ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
::::
indentation and ~~~~
signature codes automatically when you post you comment.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 16:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)I was hoping to help a bit with the COVID-19 vaccine articles. The US news says unvaccinated healthcare workers are hoping to get an exemption from COVID vaccine mandates. The main theme is that the HEK 293 cells were derived via abortion, the cell lines were used in testing and/or production of all the vaccines, and that avoiding anything remotely connected to abortion is religiously necessary.
In looking for more information on this, I ran across this webpage, which lists other, non-vaccine drugs with similar uses of the same cell lines. The answer appears to be "just about everything". If you can't take the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines because they were tested on these cells, then you also can't take aspirin, ibuprofen, paracetamol, Benadryl, or, you know, just about any other drug, not to mention several altmed things like Quercetin. Or, if we want to put a fine point on it, Regeneron, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquinone, and whatever else anti-vaccine folks have touted as COVID cures. Presumably, if you have a religious objection against taking (and prescribing?) drugs tested on fetal cell lines, then you would have identical religious objections to using any of these other drugs as well.
I've thought about adding this webpage to the ==External links==, but it seems a bit unfair to the author (who could get harassed) and although the list comes complete with footnotes, it's not any sort of official page. Does anyone have any ideas about where to find a more formal page with a list of drugs that are known to have been tested on this cell line? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
"If you work in a care home you are working with some of the most vulnerable people in our country and if you cannot be bothered to go and get vaccinated, then get out and go and get another job. If you want to look after them (care home residents), if you want to cook for them, if you want to feed them, if you want to put them to bed, then you should get vaccinated. If you are not going to get vaccinated then why are you working in care?". The same rules do not apply to nurses and doctors in the NHS, who also work with "some of the most vulnerable people in our country". It also does not apply to visitors. Care home staff earn minimum wage. Many do leave to work in the NHS instead and can earn more money on the tills at an Aldi supermarket or filling boxes in an Amazon warehouse. It is estimated around 40,000 will be required to leave. We shall see if that happens. But there is already a crisis with care homes, being short of staff and going bust due to high costs of dealing with covid. I think this sort of thing demonstrates the really difficult problem when what seems to be us to be a straightforwardly obvious science-based decision meets legislation, personal rights and staffing compromises. -- Colin° Talk 10:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it bears mentioning that the list is essentially endless, because there are more "turtles all the way down" aspects... Even if a drug was not directly tested on a fetal cell line, it is likely that a technique used in its creation would not exist without a fetal cell line. as Colin suggests about Shampoos, cosmetics, etc. And perhaps the cell line which it was tested on was not fetal in origin, but was at one point reliant upon fetal cell lines for its own development (to synthesize plasmids used to alter its genetics, or to test its nutrient broth, or to test its growing conditions, or to test antibiotics used in its culture and upkeep, etc etc.) Indeed, the protein serum that we add to 90-95% of cell cultures comes from fetal cows. I'm guessing that's not what we're worried about here, but still. No hands are free of blood in this scenario.
Where do you draw the line? It's fetal cell lines all the way down!
They are such an integral part of medical science. because they are some of the only truly renewing and immortal non-cancer primary lines... Some have argued that it is much better to test drugs on fetal cells than cancer, when it comes to safety of that drug. Because cancers mutate into organisms that are pretty distinct from humanity... Each cancer cell line is screwed up in its own way. We need fetal cell lines to avoid the problems that creates. That's why this list is likely extremely long.
I think we'd be artificially cutting it at "directly tested on," when any truly moral person who holds this conviction would want to avoid any medicine which would not exist without fetal cell lines. And that line is basically as long as any medicine which has existed since a few years after the cultivation of these cell lines. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 13:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
From its illiterate and nonsensical lede, to its jumble of content mixing mainstream cancer research with with out-and-out quackery, this article is a misleading mess. I'm thinking any viable content could be moved to alternative cancer treatments and cancer research, but before proposing this, I wonder if there is a distinct topic here, maybe around participation in clinical trials? Thoughts? Alexbrn ( talk) 02:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
(Am I at the right place?) This article cites whom it claims to be the proposer of the hypothesis, for all(-ish?) on-topic claims, many of which are extraordinary. From the article,
V1SH was proposed in late 1990's by Li Zhaoping.
V1SH is the only theory so far to not only endow V1 a very important cognitive function, but also to have provided multiple non-trivial theoretical predictions that have been experimentally confirmed subsequently.two citations, both to Zhaoping
Opinions started to change by a surprising piece of behavioral data: an item uniquely shown to one eye among similarly appearing items shown to the other eye (using e.g. a pair of glasses for watching 3D movies) can attract gaze or attention automaticallycited to Zhaoping
etc.
There are other refs in the article but they seem to be for unrelated claims like:
In the 1960s, David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel discovered that V1 neurons are activated by tiny image patches that are large enough to depict a small barHubel et al. (1962), and
This work led to a Nobel prize , and V1 has since been seen as merely serving a back-office function (of image processing) for the subsequent cognitive processing in the brain beyond V1. However, Hubel and Wiesel commented half a century later that little progress has since been made to understand the subsequent visual processingcited to an interview but all this is there only to be contradicted by our article with a primary source:
Outside the box of the traditional views, V1SH is catalyzing a change of framework to enable fresh progresses on understanding vision.cited to Zhaoping.
Because the article uses Zhaoping's works to support on-topic claims, I am concerned that this may be WP:FRINGE and may need to be covered accordingly, or not covered at all. Would someone confirm that this is a topic that's got attention of independent academics and is notable enough for a standalone article ( This seems to be independent, but is it, and is there more?)? If the topic is notable, should we do anything about what these authors are doing, for example, the promotional WP:SYNTH in the last paragraph of the article, and apparent WP:COI with Zhaoping? Could you also check that links to this article, accompanying text, and other unrelated material cited to Zhaoping, that these editors have been adding to other articles are appropriate? Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
The subject is almost the entire question: should Nina Teicholz be tagged with {{ Reliable sources for medical articles}} requiring WP:MEDRS sourcing with respect to the veracity of the diet claims that the subject is a proponent of? ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Opinions would be welcomed there. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 05:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I think we should merge Workplace safety in healthcare settings and Patient-initiated violence into a single article that deals with "abuse in healthcare" which would deal with abuse by patients, professionals, relatives of patients and people generally in a healthcare setting, and the causes of it.
How this topic should be split up editorially is unclear. I suspect concepts like "patient-initiated violence" and workplace safety are in part designed to "beg the question" of what the causes of abuse of healthcare workers in the healthcare setting are, insofar as an implicit assumption is created in the concepts of abuse themselves that presupposes that healthcare workers have no role in the abuse that occurs in a healthcare setting. However, these concepts and terms *are used* in a reasonable amount of research. On the other hand, a review of the research does not convince me that the research actually suggests or even addresses the question of how involved healthcare workers are in the abuse they receive. Rather research mostly addresses factors exclusively to do with patients and their relatives and ignores the interactions with healthcare workers themselves.
To turn to a metaphor, If one instead of the concept of "dog" always discussed the concept of "dooog" that does not include rottweilers, bull dogs, or alsatians, then we might be able to conclude that dogs are safer animals than they actually are. Alternatively if we included tigers and lions in the category of "caaaaat" we would conclude that cats are very dangerous indeed. There is most likely not a scientific basis for either non-standard category, but if we were to suppose that these concepts were used in literature should be use them?
So we have an editorial question about how we "cut up" the concept of abuse in the healthcare settings. I personally think that drawing a massive line between "blameless abuse of healthcare workers" and "abuse in the healtcare sector" artificially reduces understanding, so the broader term should be used editorially despite the literature. It's also worth noting that research in mental health *does* acknowledge the role of interpersonal relationships in violence - so if we are to address abuse in mental healthcare settings at the same time as other settings the broader category is necessary.
Turning to the literature itself. I think this discussion of literature in this (primary) source does a reasonable job of summarizing this situation: https://bmcfampract.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12875-016-0454-7
Previous research on workplace violence in primary care has often focused on risk factors mostly related to characteristics of the patient, the general practitioner or the work environment [2–6]. In emergency primary care the patient is often unknown, and this limits the usefulness of warning signs related to the patient. However, aggression usually occurs as a result of interpersonal interactions [7, 8]. Cox and Leather [9] claim that “human aggression is typically the product of interpersonal interactions wherein two or more persons become involved in a sequence of escalating moves and counter moves, each of which successively modifies the probability of subsequent aggression”. Existing studies on the dynamics of the interaction between staff and patients have mostly been performed in psychiatric institutions and general hospitals [10]. The in-patient premises, settings and incidents differ in many respects from emergency out-patient settings [11], thus the transfer value of findings from in-patient settings is uncertain.
It is also worth noting that qualitative research on the topic is rather lacking, so the support for the current conceptualization in the literature is weak, based on a recent theoretical review:
However, as noted by Landau and Bendalak a weakness of most studies in this field is their strong emphasis on empirical findings with very little (if any) theoretical orientation.
So the more restrictive conceptualization of "patient initiated violence" does not yet have real support in the literature, perhaps supporting a more general article that can comment on the lack of theoretical clarity. And straying into OR territory, we might like to note that research from the limitied "abuse by patients" viewpoint found that involuntary treatment, and unsolicited touching were some of the most predictive factors of patient violence.
Discussing the surrounding literature general, the literature seems to be sourcing some concepts from criminology. ( [2]). Some research is taking concepts from sociology. There is research of sociology within mental health settings and violence, including historic theoretical conceptualizations like "the total institution" from Goffman. Discussions of inpatient involuntary eating disorder treatment talks about dehumanization of patients.
Talpedia ( talk) 17:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, that is almost certainly true. However the article Workplace safety in healthcare settings is exclusively about abuse was moved from a page "Aggression in healthcare settings" ( ) and covers much the same material as Patient-initiated violence. Patient-initiated violence being created *after* "Aggression in healthcare settings" was fairly complete ( diff)are both independently notable and both have received significant coverage
References
This alt-med flowchart might help. Cheers, Mathglot ( talk) 17:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
It could be. I've written up a section at WikiProject#WikiProject_Medicine (note that the COVID section existed before, I added a history of / reviews based on academic sources). Anyway, good job guys, you represent the best this project has to offer :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
This potentially significant new COVID-19 drug has inevitably caused a lot of editing activity. While there is a lack of WP:MEDRS sources it's probably okay to use some lesser sources with appropriate caveats and restraint. However, we now have a user pressing hard for using a primary source ( pmid:33961695) to include speculation that the drug can cause cancer and birth defects. More eyes from MEDRS-savvy editors would be welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 12:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
All of these articles will need watchlisting:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Creativity and mental health#Requested move 13 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 17:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Nickel allergy may have some inadequate sourcing. Some statements also verge on the contradictory; for instance, it says that "These researchers have correctly identified foods high in nickel content (e.g., nuts, chocolate, beans), they have sometimes incorrectly advocated the avoidance of cutlery, bowls, etc. made from stainless steel [8-10% nickel, usually], which do not release significant amounts of nickel", but that "common kitchen utensils" can be irritant and should be avoided by allergic people. HLHJ ( talk) 02:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Pharmacognosy Research phcogres.com. Venkat TL ( talk) 10:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello WP Medicine! Just a heads up that over at WikiProject Women in Red one of our themes in November is Endocrinologists, Diabetes and hormonal health more widely. We're hoping to new a bunch of new pages about the role of women in these disciplines, please do join us! Lajmmoore ( talk) 11:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Could someone from the project review Draft:Vitamin A5 . The references seem good, but the discussion of therapeutical potential is not sourced specifically, though it is probably covered in ref. 4. Nonetheless, it seems very speculative at this stage. -- DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
In September 2021, the European Journal of Epidemiology published a study demonstrating that increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States. The study also indicated that the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with a higher percentage of their population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people. The authors of the study advised that sole reliance on vaccination as a primary strategy to mitigate COVID-19 and its adverse consequences needs to be re-examined, especially considering the Delta variant and the likelihood of future variants. [1]
References
This is a request to evaluate if this source is reliable and is well represented. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 08:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
It would be great to have some experienced WP:MEDRS editors look at the Havana Syndrome page. The lede of the article currently starts by saying ringing in the ears, fatigue and dizziness are symptoms of Havana Syndrome. Thanks in advance. DolyaIskrina ( talk) 08:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
The lede of the article currently starts by saying ringing in the ears, fatigue and dizziness are symptoms of Havana Syndrome. No, it doesn't. Nice canvass, though. Geogene ( talk) 22:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Voting is open for the final round of Commons' 2020 Picture of the Year. Almost everyone reading this page is eligible to vote. In this round, you get to vote for three pictures out of the 59 finalists. All of them are good, and a few are medicine-related this year. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Likely of interest to this wikiproject: WP:RSN § Sugar, literature reviews and reviews of reviews — Paleo Neonate – 03:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
The third paragraph of Seventh-day_Adventist_Church#Health_and_diet makes health claims based on news articles, not medical reviews. The related Adventist Health Studies cites a lot of publications from Loma Linda University (a Seventh-Day Adventist institution), and only one scientific article, all of whose authors are at Loma Linda. I'd think that the strong claims made here should require, like other medical claims on WP, third-party reviews published in reputable journals, not individual research studies published by advocates. -- Macrakis ( talk) 16:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
New editor here with a question. Health effects of chocolate states that there are essentially no positive health effects of chocolate. I found a recent review article that lists lots of cardiovascular benefits to chocolate. This is a review article, which is what is needed under WP:MEDRS. I edited the article to insert these findings and delete the statement in the lede that there are no positive effects. An existing editor immediately reverted my edits. Here is our discussion about it: [22] He seems unwilling to admit that there are legitimate studies showing a health benefit.
Am I in the wrong? Why? How am I wrong? If I am not wrong, how do I handle this? -- Isabela31 ( talk) 01:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
To summarize, this is the section currently in the article, while this is my proposed rewrite. Going through the discussions has helped me see some of the points of favor of the current section, and has even lead me to rewrite and improve the proposed section, though I still disagree with some of the arguments made in favor of the current section. I will take a step back from this for now. If any of you good people would like to take a stab at it, please go ahead. @ David notMD, @ WhatamIdoing, @ Alexbrn, @ Colin -- Isabela31 ( talk) 14:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic is a controversial subject and it would be nice to have some more eyes on it. CaffeinAddict ( talk) 16:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I am surprised this didn't exist. Setting aside how significant this is, it probably also describes what we do here at this project... btw, has there been any academic study about WP:MEDICINE? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello friends, I come to you with another curious medical orphan stub: Frazier's point. Same questions as the last one: is it notable? Can it be merged, or should it be deleted? ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
We need more MEDRS information on the public-health effects of vaccine inequity, especially at the high-traffic COVID-19 vaccine#Access, and at Deployment of COVID-19 vaccines#Equitable access. The information looks generally sound, but is sometimes cited to news media citing the WHO etc., and it could really benefit from being clearer, more comprehensive, better organized, and expertly integrated with the related non-medrs-needing information (who is doing what with vaccines where etc.). Thanks! HLHJ ( talk) 03:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I've put Melioidosis on my watchlist (not least so I don't have to remember how to spell it). The most recent addition is unsourced info on an outbreak linked to aromatherapy oils. I'm not even sure what counts as a good source for that sort of thing, so I am flagging it here. Red Fiona ( talk) 20:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm a new editor, trying to learn about reliable sources. I read Wikipedia:MEDRS and related pages, and just trying to understand what all of that means in practical terms. Check these 3 references, based on this.
The first one is clearly bad. Not in MEDLINE, no JIF, very low Scopus. The second one has positives and negatives. In AIM, good Scopus, but low JIF. Do you consider it reliable? The third one is in MEDLINE (but not AIM), good JIF, good Scopus. What is your opinion?
Citation | Journal | MEDLINE | JIF | Scopus |
---|---|---|---|---|
PMID 34485569 | Journal of Education and Health Promotion | no | NA | 24 percentile (bad) |
PMID 33549287 | The Nursing Clinics of North America | AIM | 1.208 (low) | 68 percentile (good) |
PMID 34405933 | Phytotherapy Research | yes | 5.878 (good!) | 84 percentile (very good) |
-- Isabela31 ( talk) 20:11, 4 November 2021 (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 150 | Archive 151 | Archive 152 | Archive 153 | Archive 154 | Archive 155 | → | Archive 160 |
Please sign up. It won't be the same as the in-person experience, but it'll include a lot more of us than usual.
In particular, I think many editors here will be interested in this presentation:
Daniel Mietchen and User:Netha Hussain also have a COVID-related talk scheduled.
If you see other sessions that might interest this group, please share links. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
:-)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:5α-Reductase deficiency#Requested move 7 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 23:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Is Aryepiglotticus muscle likely to be a duplicate of Aryepiglottic muscle? I stumbled upon it while trundling through orphaned articles but don't know enough to make the call. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:BBIBP-CorV#Requested move 12 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 2409:4061:700:93AF:418E:4466:2FDB:DC48 ( talk) 19:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi... I thought Mycosis... a collection of fungal infections, might be re-titled Fungal infections or Mycoses. I don't know how to request this change and fungal infection re-directs to mycosis. Whispyhistory ( talk) 20:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
{{subst:requested move|Fungal infections|reason=your reason here}}
(or Mycoses, or whatever name you're proposing), and save the page. Easy-peasy!
Mathglot (
talk) 18:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
This is a new article that looks like it needs evaluation. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Dear members of WikiProject Medicine
I am a long term Wikipedian contributing primarily to articles under WikiProject Medicine. I am the Editor in Chief of the ILAE Wikipedia Epilepsy Project. The aim of the project is to bring scientifically accurate information on epilepsy subjects to the masses through Wikipedia. We have tagged under WikiProject Epilepsy more than 200 articles which come under the scope of the project. A lot of lacunae have been identified and the updates need scientific acumen. We have been unable to get adequate number of volunteers involved and therefore are considering involving a paid contributor who can carry out the necessary activities. The required activities are:
Their official contributions will come from a username tagged with the project. They can directly receive emoluments for the efforts they put in and this would be openly declared on their userpage. The funds could come from the ILAE and a part can come from Wikimedia grants that can be applied for.
There is a paucity of Wikipedians who are academicians/experts in the field who can check the scientific content and verify validity of the information. We have tried to get volunteers but failed to get them adequately involved in structured and systematic contributions. This is leaving gaps that need to be filled and a paid post seems to be the only way out.
Seeking your inputs and checking whether anyone has any objections to this or if you have suggestions about how else this could be done. Diptanshu 💬 15:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
See the contributions of Cabswang ( talk · contribs). Anyone understanding what's going on here? Class project? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey Med, so I came across Rachna Chhachhi which looked very suspicious (one of the sources ( this) was talking about beating the worst of cancers with emotional nutrition which apparently includes organic eggs (paraphrasing)). And, I thought, if only there were a way to streamline alerting experienced MED editors about new articles that need their attention (recently had the same issue with History of Ayurveda, in which case I posted to parent article for help). I was thinking, maybe we could add a parameter like "needs attention=yes" to {{ WPMED}} and it could populate a category "MED articles needing attention", or a bot could populate a page with only new articles that are so tagged. Unless there exists a similar mechanism already, in which case, all you need to do is tell me. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey there! Just thought I'd bring this group to the attention of the Wikiproject. I am not a medical professional but I recently heard about this group and its connection to Wakefield's anti-MMR paper and the subsequent scare over vaccines and autism (the group seems to have jumpred onto the 'Covid-sceptic' bandwagon too - no surprise there).
If anyone here has some better insight on the group, better MEDRS sources, etc., that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! -- Bangalamania ( talk) 11:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Specifically regarding content issues and possibly WP:MEDRS issues surrounding the topic of whether sexual intercourse during menstruation is carrying significant health risks. See here. Thanks. EMsmile ( talk) 14:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Pointing it out so people with more experience than I have can take a look. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) uses this as a source. I dunno, is an op-ed really a good source for the claim, and even if it were would that very insinuatory statement really be worth keeping? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 21:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi - would editors experienced in assessing sources for medical topics please take a quick look at Talk:Chinese herbology and Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine? A relatively new user, who describes themselves as an an undergraduate neuroscientist and Qi Gong practitioner on their user page, is eager to add information about the efficacy of traditional Chinese herbal remedies to treat COVID19. Thank you. Girth Summit (blether) 18:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Per an ANI I opened in error, I was recommended to ask this WikiProject about a situation on the Trypophobia page, where a few users over several years, as well as non-editors I've seen online, have complained that the page includes a picture used by medical researchers to induce a condition which can cause panic attacks. Some users have complained of physical revulsion from the image, but despite this, 32 users in an RfC from 2018 unanimously decided to keep the image, with the most common argument in favor being that the picture's educational value outweighed user discomfort. At least since that time, editors, some of whom were involved in the RfC, have more or less camped the page and referred to the RfC as if it is binding consensus. The page and subject are controversial topics, as many people believe the condition is simply from a meme, despite scientific evidence to the contrary, or that too few have the condition to warrant consideration. They cite Wikipedia policy that the website isn't censored, but every other phobia page I've encountered has a history of displaying no image or a less-graphic image (for example, a cartoon spider, or someone using a window washing platform rather than a vertical view from a height). At least one active user on the page has implied they're unwilling to discuss the topic without administrative intervention. I was wondering if this project could take over with looking into the appropriateness of using this image in the lead. Thank you. -- IronMaidenRocks ( talk) 13:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
editors have more or less camped the page and referred to the RfC as if it is binding consensus ... many people believe the condition is simply from a meme ... At least one active user on the page has implied they're unwilling to discuss the topic without administrative intervention."
I'd like to request any further help on the article's discussion. I was hoping to find people to take my place in looking in to the matter for the point of view which I saw numerous users communicate online. So far, I'm bulldogging this thing completely alone and the only user who has joined the discussion from this project is arguing against me and creating more work for me to do. -- IronMaidenRocks ( talk) 11:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Medicine, I'm working on expanding the COVID-19 coverage on wikipedia. I have published a couple medical related articles recently: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United States and High-risk people. If you could take a look and possibly make an edit, I would appreciate it. Open to any feedback.
Thank you again. -- Wil540 art ( talk) 18:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Today is World Suicide Prevention Day. Please take care of yourself, and please consider removing some of the garbage that has accumulated in Suicide methods (which is easily the most-viewed suicide-related Wikipedia article). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Thoracic diaphragm#Requested move 3 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WP:RSN concerning this paper by Yuri Deigin and Rosana Segretto in Bioessays which may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. See discussion here.
Segreto, R., & Deigin, Y. (2021). The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin. BioEssays, 43, e2000240. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202000240.
Thanks.— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 23:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
A new editor, BruceSanderson is adding information to several articles claiming that ivermectin is efficacious against COVID-19. I'm rather ignorant about these things, so perhaps a more knowledgeable member of this project could have a look at these edits. Thanks! -- Randykitty ( talk) 12:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I have justed added reciprocal "See also" sections to Gastroenteritis and Enterocolitis. It would be very useful, IMO, to have a short section in each article discussing the relationship and distinction/differentiation between the two diseases, which certainly appear to be quite similar, especially in terms of how they present. (My sense of things is that Enterocolitis might possibly even be regarded as a subset/"special case" of Gastroenteritis.) Anomalous+0 ( talk) 21:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Would a kind soul have a look? I ran into this by way of WP:RFPP and I don't really understand what's happening. But there's no shortage of hostility, so be forewarned. ←I really know how to sell it! El_C 23:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
There is this website called OMIM. I have stumbled upon it when researching on rare diseases. But, I’m not entirely sure it’s an ideal medical source what do you guys think? CycoMa ( talk) 18:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
CycoMa, no, it is not, but ... as in prior cases, whether this source can be used depends on what you want to use it for. I would not use it for anything, and don't see much good reason for it to be cited anywhere on Wikipedia, but that said, it is possible that, for a rare disease, you can find something of use in it, but you should be certain that what you found is not outdated or that you are not giving undue weight to something useless recorded there.
It points to primary studies, without providing any context about those primary studies, much less updates, is often outdated and even inaccurate, and contains information that (depending on how you plan to use) would fall afoul of our DUE WEIGHT policy.
Case study for Tourette syndrome
OMIM entry for TS, last updated on 10/23/2014 (see WP:MEDDATE)
With respect to due weight, I direct your attention to the section on Clinical Management (I cannot get the page to link directly). OMIM gives one entry: a case study of one boy with Lesch-Nyhan syndrome-- a rare condition easily distinguished from TS by experts because of the extreme severity of the self-injurious behaviors associated with Lesch-Nyhan. While our article warrants one line in differential diagnosis, the OMIM entry has this one case study of one individual as the entirety of its entry on clinical management.
Regarding relevance of the primary studies cited there, note that one of the most highly discredited researchers in the realm of TS (Comings) has at least 24 entries: how is the average reader to know that most of what Comings published was since discredited or disproven? Secondary literature reviews would put those entries in perspective (in this case, by mostly ignoring them).
Case study for Dementia with Lewy bodies
OMIM entry for DLB, last updated on 6/27/2018
Inaccurate: mentions that guidelines were updated in 2005. In fact, they were updated in 2017 (before this article was updated in 2018).
WEIGHT: REM sleep behavior disorder-- a key feature of DLB, representing a significant breakthrough in diagnosis-- is not mentioned once.
I stopped there. I could go on, but these are short examples of why I strongly discourage you from using this source, especially for a rare disease. Could you tell us precisely what you want to use it to cite, so that others might do a literature search for better sources? It is hard to imagine that you could find anything useful at OMIM that would not be better covered in secondary literature, even for a rare disease, but my particular concern is with DUE WEIGHT, along with datedness and accuracy. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Could someone please look at Trauma trigger and check the sentence 'Among people without traumatic experiences, "trigger warnings did not affect anxiety responses to potentially distressing material in general"' for me? I haven't found a non-paywalled copy of the source, but the quoted sentence doesn't line up very closely with what I see in the abstract.
If anyone's interested in having a go at the article in general, please feel free. So far, with a very small sample size, the 2014-ish sources seem to be fairly political and polemical, but even slightly more recent sources seem to be aware of a distinction between individual medical disability (e.g., some combat survivors can be triggered by firecrackers) and uncomfortable content (e.g., everyone should expect racist and sexist content in 19th-century literature). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm working on a draft called Draft:Recurrent Cancer The topic for the article is notable. It has been mentioned by Cancer.gov, American cancer society, webmd, Mayo clinic, and other sources have addressed the topic. So it's clearly notable but, I do have some knowledge on cancer but I feel like I need editors who have more experience on cancer th help with this draft. CycoMa ( talk) 03:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Or anyone who has more knowledge about cancer than would be useful. CycoMa ( talk) 17:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Also I’m commenting this here because I have noticed articles for different types of cancer do not address or mention anything about cancer coming back. CycoMa ( talk) 18:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, at the University of Edinburgh our cohort of Reproductive Biomedicine BSc Honours students will be learning to edit Wikipedia as part of their course programme and contributing their group research to articles related to reproductive medicine. I just wanted to flag their suggested pages to edit to see if there are any thoughts/suggestions/potential banana skins and also to highlight that these are students trying to positively improve the sum of all knowledge so if you come across their fledgling edits then do help/support as appropriate! many thanks.
Professor Norah Spears is keen to do a Wikipedia page on a scientist, which would be her top preference. Her suggested topics (in order of preference) would be:
Other suggested topics not in any particular order of preference:
Further suggestions, in order of preference:
Thoughts welcome! Research will begin 22 September with a view to publishing edits on 6th October 2021. Stinglehammer ( talk) 11:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, can someone please take a look at the Date palm section "health benefits". The text says "Dates are reported to have good potential in diabetes treatment due to the presence of polyphenols exerting strong antioxidant activities. They were found to reduce fasting plasma glucose and postprandial plasma glucose in a 2021 meta-analysis."
This content is sourced to [7], an unreliable food journal by MDPI and another review [8] in the Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences. I have never heard of the latter journal but it doesn't look very reliable [9]. I believe we need some stronger sources here.
I have had a look round for reviews on dates and cannot find any decent sources. A lot of dodgy journals seem to publishing on this topic [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] etc making all kinds of health claims but none of these journals appear reliable for Wikipedia to be making such biomedical claims.
What can we do to improve this section considering some content out there in journals on this subject is not entirely reliable? I would like to improve the section. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 12:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Autism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Bangalamania ( talk) 18:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans, which is about a wikipedia that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Bangalamania ( talk) 20:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello WT Med! Is duodenorenal ligament a notable enough feature to need a standalone, or can it be merged? If it should remain standalone, where can I link it from? ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Since 2014, the article Antimicrobial resistance has cited a paper from one Institute for Creation Research, which is troubling. The two claims currently cited to the paper look innocuous enough, so I'm tempted to just remove the citation and wait for some other editor to find a new citation for them, but I don't know anything about the topic, so I'm afraid to let them stand. — Kodiologist ( t) 07:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Replaced with {{ cn}} tags. Things don't need to be listed at RSP to be deemed unreliable. realultimatepower.net isn't a reliable source on ninjas, for instance, despite not being listed at RSP. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 22:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Alcoholics_Anonymous#Merger_proposal Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
This FTN thread may be of interest to editors familiar with the coverage of medicine: WP:FTN § Multiple chemical sensitivity etc. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 06:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Greetings User:Harrisonnelson1205 and others. (I'm tired, so I'm sorry if this is excessively grumpy.) For what it's worth, I am not a fan of the recent contributions I see from this editor. In general, I dislike it when contributors think there's 1 journal that's so great that they then go along dropping sentences in random articles to cite a single publication. I dislike the flow of the prose that results from this approach, and I find it a myopic approach to editing. I recently reverted one contribution at deep vein thrombosis that was added in this manner, and I explained my rationale on the talk page and the edit summary. (There are other gripes I state there, and they relate to the source, but I won't repeat them here.) Maybe others would like to review these contributions. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to do so myself. I have been concerned for a long time about conflicts of interest in these cases. I fear that editors who adopt this style of contributing are blinded by the desire to cite 1 specific journal or publisher and that they do not consider the rest of the medical literature and the totality of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines so that the net effect is that they aren't really here to help build an encyclopedia. I'm concerned that editors who contribute in this style are instead actually here to promote a publisher to Wikipedia's detriment. Biosthmors ( talk) 02:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Cochrane Library reviews and NICE guidelines are generally of high quality and are periodically re-examined even if their initial publication dates fall outside the 5-year window."-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 02:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Biosthmors thank you for staying on top of this issue, which has been an ongoing problem for many years; it is time we did something about this problem. I have noticed over the years how much effort you have to put in to correcting the Cochrane entries, but the problems go well beyond formatting. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Cochrane is a misguided venture which, rather than leading to significant improvements of Wikipedia articles, has instead appeared to benefit Cochrane more than Wikipedia in terms of advertising. The goal of the "collaboration" appears to be to get every Cochrane article cited on Wikipedia, and this is often done by newly recruited volunteers who don't know how to format their entries, in which part of the article to place them, whether they are repeating better information from better sources already in the article, and even, at times, whether they are linking to dated information. The idea seems to be simply to use Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Cochrane/Cochrane Review List to make sure Cochrane is represented everywhere-- even if there are better or newer sources.
The goal of this newly recruited volunteers appears to be simply to add an entry, any entry, somewhere on Wikipedia to make sure Cochrane is cited, and I have been raising concerns about the sloppiness of these entries for years. JenOttawa is pinged, she promises to speak to the new trainee, everyone involved is nice and kind and well intentioned and helpful, but ... lather, rinse and repeat and the same things happens with every new trainee. There appears to be no sustained commitment to quality.
I don't know why the "search archives" button isn't working, so I am unable to link to the number of times I have raised this issue-- also, I often raise it on article talk pages, rather than here. I do not see the benefit of this "collaboration", but have repeatedly seen that it creates too much work for other editors to clean up the faulty entries. This is a collaboration with a purpose contrary to the goals of Wikipedia-- to push Cochrane into higher visibility, and I wish we would stop this. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi all! I'm a student at the BHSc program at McMaster, and User:Bharatss-SB, User:Joyjxu1 and I are currently taking a course where we have to update an article for a class assignment. We would love to edit this article, however our professor has concerns that the need for group consensus would significantly impede our progress. We were wondering if we could be granted permission to make live edits? No worries at all if this is not possible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joan1087 ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
::::
indentation and ~~~~
signature codes automatically when you post you comment.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 16:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)I was hoping to help a bit with the COVID-19 vaccine articles. The US news says unvaccinated healthcare workers are hoping to get an exemption from COVID vaccine mandates. The main theme is that the HEK 293 cells were derived via abortion, the cell lines were used in testing and/or production of all the vaccines, and that avoiding anything remotely connected to abortion is religiously necessary.
In looking for more information on this, I ran across this webpage, which lists other, non-vaccine drugs with similar uses of the same cell lines. The answer appears to be "just about everything". If you can't take the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines because they were tested on these cells, then you also can't take aspirin, ibuprofen, paracetamol, Benadryl, or, you know, just about any other drug, not to mention several altmed things like Quercetin. Or, if we want to put a fine point on it, Regeneron, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquinone, and whatever else anti-vaccine folks have touted as COVID cures. Presumably, if you have a religious objection against taking (and prescribing?) drugs tested on fetal cell lines, then you would have identical religious objections to using any of these other drugs as well.
I've thought about adding this webpage to the ==External links==, but it seems a bit unfair to the author (who could get harassed) and although the list comes complete with footnotes, it's not any sort of official page. Does anyone have any ideas about where to find a more formal page with a list of drugs that are known to have been tested on this cell line? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
"If you work in a care home you are working with some of the most vulnerable people in our country and if you cannot be bothered to go and get vaccinated, then get out and go and get another job. If you want to look after them (care home residents), if you want to cook for them, if you want to feed them, if you want to put them to bed, then you should get vaccinated. If you are not going to get vaccinated then why are you working in care?". The same rules do not apply to nurses and doctors in the NHS, who also work with "some of the most vulnerable people in our country". It also does not apply to visitors. Care home staff earn minimum wage. Many do leave to work in the NHS instead and can earn more money on the tills at an Aldi supermarket or filling boxes in an Amazon warehouse. It is estimated around 40,000 will be required to leave. We shall see if that happens. But there is already a crisis with care homes, being short of staff and going bust due to high costs of dealing with covid. I think this sort of thing demonstrates the really difficult problem when what seems to be us to be a straightforwardly obvious science-based decision meets legislation, personal rights and staffing compromises. -- Colin° Talk 10:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it bears mentioning that the list is essentially endless, because there are more "turtles all the way down" aspects... Even if a drug was not directly tested on a fetal cell line, it is likely that a technique used in its creation would not exist without a fetal cell line. as Colin suggests about Shampoos, cosmetics, etc. And perhaps the cell line which it was tested on was not fetal in origin, but was at one point reliant upon fetal cell lines for its own development (to synthesize plasmids used to alter its genetics, or to test its nutrient broth, or to test its growing conditions, or to test antibiotics used in its culture and upkeep, etc etc.) Indeed, the protein serum that we add to 90-95% of cell cultures comes from fetal cows. I'm guessing that's not what we're worried about here, but still. No hands are free of blood in this scenario.
Where do you draw the line? It's fetal cell lines all the way down!
They are such an integral part of medical science. because they are some of the only truly renewing and immortal non-cancer primary lines... Some have argued that it is much better to test drugs on fetal cells than cancer, when it comes to safety of that drug. Because cancers mutate into organisms that are pretty distinct from humanity... Each cancer cell line is screwed up in its own way. We need fetal cell lines to avoid the problems that creates. That's why this list is likely extremely long.
I think we'd be artificially cutting it at "directly tested on," when any truly moral person who holds this conviction would want to avoid any medicine which would not exist without fetal cell lines. And that line is basically as long as any medicine which has existed since a few years after the cultivation of these cell lines. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 13:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
From its illiterate and nonsensical lede, to its jumble of content mixing mainstream cancer research with with out-and-out quackery, this article is a misleading mess. I'm thinking any viable content could be moved to alternative cancer treatments and cancer research, but before proposing this, I wonder if there is a distinct topic here, maybe around participation in clinical trials? Thoughts? Alexbrn ( talk) 02:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
(Am I at the right place?) This article cites whom it claims to be the proposer of the hypothesis, for all(-ish?) on-topic claims, many of which are extraordinary. From the article,
V1SH was proposed in late 1990's by Li Zhaoping.
V1SH is the only theory so far to not only endow V1 a very important cognitive function, but also to have provided multiple non-trivial theoretical predictions that have been experimentally confirmed subsequently.two citations, both to Zhaoping
Opinions started to change by a surprising piece of behavioral data: an item uniquely shown to one eye among similarly appearing items shown to the other eye (using e.g. a pair of glasses for watching 3D movies) can attract gaze or attention automaticallycited to Zhaoping
etc.
There are other refs in the article but they seem to be for unrelated claims like:
In the 1960s, David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel discovered that V1 neurons are activated by tiny image patches that are large enough to depict a small barHubel et al. (1962), and
This work led to a Nobel prize , and V1 has since been seen as merely serving a back-office function (of image processing) for the subsequent cognitive processing in the brain beyond V1. However, Hubel and Wiesel commented half a century later that little progress has since been made to understand the subsequent visual processingcited to an interview but all this is there only to be contradicted by our article with a primary source:
Outside the box of the traditional views, V1SH is catalyzing a change of framework to enable fresh progresses on understanding vision.cited to Zhaoping.
Because the article uses Zhaoping's works to support on-topic claims, I am concerned that this may be WP:FRINGE and may need to be covered accordingly, or not covered at all. Would someone confirm that this is a topic that's got attention of independent academics and is notable enough for a standalone article ( This seems to be independent, but is it, and is there more?)? If the topic is notable, should we do anything about what these authors are doing, for example, the promotional WP:SYNTH in the last paragraph of the article, and apparent WP:COI with Zhaoping? Could you also check that links to this article, accompanying text, and other unrelated material cited to Zhaoping, that these editors have been adding to other articles are appropriate? Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
The subject is almost the entire question: should Nina Teicholz be tagged with {{ Reliable sources for medical articles}} requiring WP:MEDRS sourcing with respect to the veracity of the diet claims that the subject is a proponent of? ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Opinions would be welcomed there. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 05:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I think we should merge Workplace safety in healthcare settings and Patient-initiated violence into a single article that deals with "abuse in healthcare" which would deal with abuse by patients, professionals, relatives of patients and people generally in a healthcare setting, and the causes of it.
How this topic should be split up editorially is unclear. I suspect concepts like "patient-initiated violence" and workplace safety are in part designed to "beg the question" of what the causes of abuse of healthcare workers in the healthcare setting are, insofar as an implicit assumption is created in the concepts of abuse themselves that presupposes that healthcare workers have no role in the abuse that occurs in a healthcare setting. However, these concepts and terms *are used* in a reasonable amount of research. On the other hand, a review of the research does not convince me that the research actually suggests or even addresses the question of how involved healthcare workers are in the abuse they receive. Rather research mostly addresses factors exclusively to do with patients and their relatives and ignores the interactions with healthcare workers themselves.
To turn to a metaphor, If one instead of the concept of "dog" always discussed the concept of "dooog" that does not include rottweilers, bull dogs, or alsatians, then we might be able to conclude that dogs are safer animals than they actually are. Alternatively if we included tigers and lions in the category of "caaaaat" we would conclude that cats are very dangerous indeed. There is most likely not a scientific basis for either non-standard category, but if we were to suppose that these concepts were used in literature should be use them?
So we have an editorial question about how we "cut up" the concept of abuse in the healthcare settings. I personally think that drawing a massive line between "blameless abuse of healthcare workers" and "abuse in the healtcare sector" artificially reduces understanding, so the broader term should be used editorially despite the literature. It's also worth noting that research in mental health *does* acknowledge the role of interpersonal relationships in violence - so if we are to address abuse in mental healthcare settings at the same time as other settings the broader category is necessary.
Turning to the literature itself. I think this discussion of literature in this (primary) source does a reasonable job of summarizing this situation: https://bmcfampract.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12875-016-0454-7
Previous research on workplace violence in primary care has often focused on risk factors mostly related to characteristics of the patient, the general practitioner or the work environment [2–6]. In emergency primary care the patient is often unknown, and this limits the usefulness of warning signs related to the patient. However, aggression usually occurs as a result of interpersonal interactions [7, 8]. Cox and Leather [9] claim that “human aggression is typically the product of interpersonal interactions wherein two or more persons become involved in a sequence of escalating moves and counter moves, each of which successively modifies the probability of subsequent aggression”. Existing studies on the dynamics of the interaction between staff and patients have mostly been performed in psychiatric institutions and general hospitals [10]. The in-patient premises, settings and incidents differ in many respects from emergency out-patient settings [11], thus the transfer value of findings from in-patient settings is uncertain.
It is also worth noting that qualitative research on the topic is rather lacking, so the support for the current conceptualization in the literature is weak, based on a recent theoretical review:
However, as noted by Landau and Bendalak a weakness of most studies in this field is their strong emphasis on empirical findings with very little (if any) theoretical orientation.
So the more restrictive conceptualization of "patient initiated violence" does not yet have real support in the literature, perhaps supporting a more general article that can comment on the lack of theoretical clarity. And straying into OR territory, we might like to note that research from the limitied "abuse by patients" viewpoint found that involuntary treatment, and unsolicited touching were some of the most predictive factors of patient violence.
Discussing the surrounding literature general, the literature seems to be sourcing some concepts from criminology. ( [2]). Some research is taking concepts from sociology. There is research of sociology within mental health settings and violence, including historic theoretical conceptualizations like "the total institution" from Goffman. Discussions of inpatient involuntary eating disorder treatment talks about dehumanization of patients.
Talpedia ( talk) 17:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, that is almost certainly true. However the article Workplace safety in healthcare settings is exclusively about abuse was moved from a page "Aggression in healthcare settings" ( ) and covers much the same material as Patient-initiated violence. Patient-initiated violence being created *after* "Aggression in healthcare settings" was fairly complete ( diff)are both independently notable and both have received significant coverage
References
This alt-med flowchart might help. Cheers, Mathglot ( talk) 17:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
It could be. I've written up a section at WikiProject#WikiProject_Medicine (note that the COVID section existed before, I added a history of / reviews based on academic sources). Anyway, good job guys, you represent the best this project has to offer :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
This potentially significant new COVID-19 drug has inevitably caused a lot of editing activity. While there is a lack of WP:MEDRS sources it's probably okay to use some lesser sources with appropriate caveats and restraint. However, we now have a user pressing hard for using a primary source ( pmid:33961695) to include speculation that the drug can cause cancer and birth defects. More eyes from MEDRS-savvy editors would be welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 12:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
All of these articles will need watchlisting:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Creativity and mental health#Requested move 13 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 17:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Nickel allergy may have some inadequate sourcing. Some statements also verge on the contradictory; for instance, it says that "These researchers have correctly identified foods high in nickel content (e.g., nuts, chocolate, beans), they have sometimes incorrectly advocated the avoidance of cutlery, bowls, etc. made from stainless steel [8-10% nickel, usually], which do not release significant amounts of nickel", but that "common kitchen utensils" can be irritant and should be avoided by allergic people. HLHJ ( talk) 02:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Pharmacognosy Research phcogres.com. Venkat TL ( talk) 10:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello WP Medicine! Just a heads up that over at WikiProject Women in Red one of our themes in November is Endocrinologists, Diabetes and hormonal health more widely. We're hoping to new a bunch of new pages about the role of women in these disciplines, please do join us! Lajmmoore ( talk) 11:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Could someone from the project review Draft:Vitamin A5 . The references seem good, but the discussion of therapeutical potential is not sourced specifically, though it is probably covered in ref. 4. Nonetheless, it seems very speculative at this stage. -- DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
In September 2021, the European Journal of Epidemiology published a study demonstrating that increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States. The study also indicated that the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with a higher percentage of their population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people. The authors of the study advised that sole reliance on vaccination as a primary strategy to mitigate COVID-19 and its adverse consequences needs to be re-examined, especially considering the Delta variant and the likelihood of future variants. [1]
References
This is a request to evaluate if this source is reliable and is well represented. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 08:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
It would be great to have some experienced WP:MEDRS editors look at the Havana Syndrome page. The lede of the article currently starts by saying ringing in the ears, fatigue and dizziness are symptoms of Havana Syndrome. Thanks in advance. DolyaIskrina ( talk) 08:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
The lede of the article currently starts by saying ringing in the ears, fatigue and dizziness are symptoms of Havana Syndrome. No, it doesn't. Nice canvass, though. Geogene ( talk) 22:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Voting is open for the final round of Commons' 2020 Picture of the Year. Almost everyone reading this page is eligible to vote. In this round, you get to vote for three pictures out of the 59 finalists. All of them are good, and a few are medicine-related this year. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Likely of interest to this wikiproject: WP:RSN § Sugar, literature reviews and reviews of reviews — Paleo Neonate – 03:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
The third paragraph of Seventh-day_Adventist_Church#Health_and_diet makes health claims based on news articles, not medical reviews. The related Adventist Health Studies cites a lot of publications from Loma Linda University (a Seventh-Day Adventist institution), and only one scientific article, all of whose authors are at Loma Linda. I'd think that the strong claims made here should require, like other medical claims on WP, third-party reviews published in reputable journals, not individual research studies published by advocates. -- Macrakis ( talk) 16:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
New editor here with a question. Health effects of chocolate states that there are essentially no positive health effects of chocolate. I found a recent review article that lists lots of cardiovascular benefits to chocolate. This is a review article, which is what is needed under WP:MEDRS. I edited the article to insert these findings and delete the statement in the lede that there are no positive effects. An existing editor immediately reverted my edits. Here is our discussion about it: [22] He seems unwilling to admit that there are legitimate studies showing a health benefit.
Am I in the wrong? Why? How am I wrong? If I am not wrong, how do I handle this? -- Isabela31 ( talk) 01:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
To summarize, this is the section currently in the article, while this is my proposed rewrite. Going through the discussions has helped me see some of the points of favor of the current section, and has even lead me to rewrite and improve the proposed section, though I still disagree with some of the arguments made in favor of the current section. I will take a step back from this for now. If any of you good people would like to take a stab at it, please go ahead. @ David notMD, @ WhatamIdoing, @ Alexbrn, @ Colin -- Isabela31 ( talk) 14:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic is a controversial subject and it would be nice to have some more eyes on it. CaffeinAddict ( talk) 16:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I am surprised this didn't exist. Setting aside how significant this is, it probably also describes what we do here at this project... btw, has there been any academic study about WP:MEDICINE? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello friends, I come to you with another curious medical orphan stub: Frazier's point. Same questions as the last one: is it notable? Can it be merged, or should it be deleted? ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
We need more MEDRS information on the public-health effects of vaccine inequity, especially at the high-traffic COVID-19 vaccine#Access, and at Deployment of COVID-19 vaccines#Equitable access. The information looks generally sound, but is sometimes cited to news media citing the WHO etc., and it could really benefit from being clearer, more comprehensive, better organized, and expertly integrated with the related non-medrs-needing information (who is doing what with vaccines where etc.). Thanks! HLHJ ( talk) 03:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I've put Melioidosis on my watchlist (not least so I don't have to remember how to spell it). The most recent addition is unsourced info on an outbreak linked to aromatherapy oils. I'm not even sure what counts as a good source for that sort of thing, so I am flagging it here. Red Fiona ( talk) 20:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm a new editor, trying to learn about reliable sources. I read Wikipedia:MEDRS and related pages, and just trying to understand what all of that means in practical terms. Check these 3 references, based on this.
The first one is clearly bad. Not in MEDLINE, no JIF, very low Scopus. The second one has positives and negatives. In AIM, good Scopus, but low JIF. Do you consider it reliable? The third one is in MEDLINE (but not AIM), good JIF, good Scopus. What is your opinion?
Citation | Journal | MEDLINE | JIF | Scopus |
---|---|---|---|---|
PMID 34485569 | Journal of Education and Health Promotion | no | NA | 24 percentile (bad) |
PMID 33549287 | The Nursing Clinics of North America | AIM | 1.208 (low) | 68 percentile (good) |
PMID 34405933 | Phytotherapy Research | yes | 5.878 (good!) | 84 percentile (very good) |
-- Isabela31 ( talk) 20:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)