This page 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. |
Ladies and gentlemen:
I'm guessing that SOMEONE reviewed the above-entitled article, as the "New Unreviewed Article" tag has now disappeared. Many thanks to whomever did so. I have not been able to find any comments or criticisms on it anywhere, however, and I was just curious as to what people thought about it.
If anyone has a particular interest in lung cancer, particularly the less common variants, take a look at it when you get a minute and let me know what you think. I was considering doing a bunch more like that one, and I would appreciate feedback of any sort with a goal of trying to make sure subsequent ones are of the best possible quality.
I thank you all for your attention.
Best regards: Cliff Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS DDF 00:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uploadvirus ( talk • contribs)
Your project uses User:WolterBot, which occasionally gives your project maintenance-related listings.
User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles ( BLPs) related to your project.
Here is one example of a project which uses User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket_articles/Unreferenced_BLPs
There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.
The unreferenced living people articles related to your project will be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 18/Unreferenced BLPs
If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.
Thank you. Okip 08:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I have created a new category Category:Neurological disorders in children, and am currently putting articles on neurodevelopmental disoders (such as ( autism) and genetic neurological diseases (such as adrenoleukodystrophy) inot the category. I would appreciate your input on how to improve the category. Regards. Immunize ( talk) 00:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
However, tuberous sclerosis has a prominent neurological component, in addition to the other manifestations, and one could argue that the neurological component is the most impairing feature of the disorder (most patients have seizures, behavioral disturbances, and mental retardation). Regards. Immunize ( talk) 15:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I have also created the category Category:Viral encephalitis. Do you feel that this category wil be a more useful category? Immunize ( talk) 15:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Are there any medical categories that are needed but that have not yet been created that we could discuss the possibility of creating? Immunize ( talk) 17:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Of course autism is not a childhood disorder, it lasts throughout life. However, it has it onset in childhood, as opposed to some disorders such as Alzheimer disease, Huntington disease (barring the rare case of juvenile-onset HD), and Proggressive supranuclear palsy, which typically develops in those over 50-60. As for tuberous sclerosis, 90% of patients have epilepsy, and 70% have mental retardation, although you are correct to say that some patients may be more affected by lymphangiomyomatosis, or, in the case of infants and young children, cardiac rhabdomyomas then neurological problems. However, I still feel that the disorder could be considered va neurological diusorder, given the extremnely high precentage of patients with epilepsy and mental retardation. Immunize ( talk) 18:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
So I should remove Herpesviral encephalitis from Category:Viral diseases? Immunize ( talk) 19:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
So what should I do? Also did you notice the messages I left for you above? Immunize ( talk) 19:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I am considering creating another category, Category:Meningitis, and would like to know your opinion on weather or not this category would be useful or not. The category would cover probably at least 5 pages (meningococcal disease, bacterial meningitis, tuberculous meningitis, fungal meningitis, neoplastic meningitis, viral meningitis) and possibly even more. What are your thoughts on this? Immunize ( talk) 13:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I think I will go ahead and create the meningitis category now, as (at least to me) it seems that it would be a reasonably helpful category. Immunize ( talk) 14:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I have taken your advice and added the Category:Meningitis to Category:Diseases and disorders. Immunize ( talk) 20:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
That's rather more than a couple of issues. Perhaps it would be helpful to establish where we are all likely to agree, so that the discussion doesn't get sidetracked. Can we agree the following:
Now to the disagreements. I'm sure you don't want all of the -itis articles in Category:Inflammations, so let's dispose of that. The whole point of WP:SUBCAT is that Pseudomembranous colitis, Ulcerative colitis, Ischemic colitis, Microscopic colitis, Collagenous colitis, and Lymphocytic colitis could be all be grouped together in Category:Colitis, and anyone looking for disorders related to colitis would expect to find them there. The benefit is that related items are collected together; the cost is having to drill down the tree by one more step to find them. I hope we won't disagree on that. Where we seem to disagree is that I believe that the article Colitis should appear in Category:Inflammations (along with Category:Colitis) because there's no reason to have to drill down in that case – the searcher has found Colitis and there's no need to make them go via Category:Colitis – that's what WP:EPON is recommending.
The next disagreement is the question of diffusing categories. A Wikipedia category tree is not constrained to having nodes that contain only articles or categories (but not both). We should be using that capability to our advantage, not artificially restricting ourselves for no good reason. I agree with you that high-level categories should be completely diffuse, but disagree with your insistence that all should be. The further down the tree you go, the more reason there is to add the most important articles to the category, alongside subcategories. The reality of that is amply illustrated by examining section 'A' in Category:Neurological disorders. I think we both agree that 328 articles is too many for easy navigation and the category should be diffused further. So for example, I'd remove Absence seizure as it can be found though Category:Epilepsy -> Category:Seizure types, which is where anyone might expect to find it. The principle of "least astonishment" is vital to designing good web navigation, and for that reason, I wouldn't want to remove the article Epilepsy from Category:Neurological disorders, as I'd expect to find it there, not solely in a subcategory. Furthermore, I'd like to diffuse the article Abarognosis out of Category:Neurological disorders, as I would have thought it (1) less important and (2) likely to be related to other disorders that could form a subcategory. Unfortunately, I don't see an appropriate subcategory in Category:Neurological disorders to place it in. Perhaps you can see why I advocate allowing categories farther down the tree to be non-diffuse: that's where you would be most likely to have a need for subcategories with single members if all categories had to be diffuse. -- RexxS ( talk) 06:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I have created another category Category:Lymphoma, which I feel will be as helpful, if not more helpful, than Category:Meningitis, as it provides a navigational connection between the articles on various forms of lymphoma. Immunize ( talk) 14:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
So you oppose this category? Immunize ( talk) 18:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I have created 2 more categories, Category:Sarcoma and Category:Colitis. Immunize ( talk) 14:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I have now also created the category Category:Kidney cancer, however just after it's creation I realized that there were benign kidney tumors that needed a category more specific than Category:Kidney diseases, which is what they are in, and that by naming this category "Kidney cancer" I was excluding these articles on benign renal neoplasms from having there categorization improved. I briefly considered proposing a renaming kidney cancer kidney tumors, but I have now decided that the best course of action would most likely be creating a new category, Category:benign renal neoplasm, and then having both Category:Kidney cancer and Category:Benign renal neoplasms as a subcategory of Category:Kidney diseases. I plan to start work on Category:Benign renal neoplasms immediately. Please let me know of your opinions on the matter. Best wishes. Immunize ( talk) 17:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Ventilation/perfusion scan seems to behave like a subpage of Ventilation. Does anyone know how to fix this? Is there an alternative name we could use? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I want to have a complete listing of all the different types of id reactions. I know of tuberculid, pintids, syphilid, candidid, and dermatophytid. What others are out there? Thanks again! --- kilbad ( talk) 23:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I created this diagram, I wanna ask if this is useful??, If it is I will create a separate diagram for each murmur comparing it to normal MaenK.A. Talk 11:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Should I keep working on these?? MaenK.A. Talk 18:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the oldest article to be merged on the above list noticed the nav templates look a bit odd, one has Template:Digestive system and abdomen symptoms and signs, and the other Template:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs, there was brief talk of a merge but can't see if it went anywhere. I think it would be clearer to merge the two templates and drop the 'eponymous' ? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I am arguing with an other editor in the Saturated Fat talk page about making some changes to the article. Currently the first sentence under subsection Cardiovascular diseases is "Diets high in saturated fat have been correlated with an increased incidence of atherosclerosis[7] and coronary heart disease[8]." The sources are irrelevant to the claim, because they do not talk about the correlation between SFA consumption and CHD risk determined by observational studies. They simply say SFAs are unhealthy and increase cholesterol. But it has nothing to do with the direct correlation that observational studies determine. I changed the sentence to "The vast majority of observational studies have found no connection between saturated fat consumption and heart attack risk.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Three review papers, one of them including 21 cohort studies, concluded that there is no significant association between coronary heart disease and saturated fat consumption.[17][18][19]". I provided extensive evidence and three reviews done by independent investigators, that reviewed the observational studies and concluded there is no significant correlation. The person I am having a dispute with, Nutriveg, who reverted my edits, now says I don't have a consensus, because he doesn't agree with the changes and I can't put my edits back. So I would appreciate if I could get someone else to comment on it and look into it.-- Whatdidyoudo ( talk) 08:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I was wondering if anyone could possibly add a few images to my Combined Small Cell Lung Carcinoma article - of course, at your convenience. It would be greatly appreciated, and thank you in advance.
With best regards: Cliff
Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS DDF 02:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uploadvirus ( talk • contribs)
Can someone find out what specific palmoplantar keratoderma is shown in this photo? Thanks in advance. --- kilbad ( talk) 20:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I passed by the Freeman-Sheldon syndrome article while adding some images from commons, and I could not confirm whether these syndromes are separate syndromes, or variants of the same syndromes, the resources about the subject are few, and I found here a review suggesting that FSS is a variant of SHS, while other sources like this, this, and this one state them as separate disorders, and some other resources state that they are sub types of Distal arthrogryposis syndrome, so what should be done here?? shall we have separate articles for each?? or shall we have an article for Distal arthrogryposis syndrome linking to articles about FSS and SHS?? any ideas?? MaenK.A. Talk 17:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Is it a duplication to add a page (for instance, Glioblastoma multiforme) into both Category:Nervous system neoplasms and to Category:Neurooncology? Immunize ( talk) 13:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
In this case, I am inclined to agree with you that this is a duplication. I favor the title over that of Nervous system neoplasms over Neurooncology as categories are meant to be specific, and I feel that Nervous system neoplasms is more specific than category:Neurooncology. However, there are articles ( Grading of the tumors of the central nervous system and WHO classification of the tumors of the central nervous system) that I feel fit much better into Category:Neurooncology than they would in Category:Nervous system neoplasms. Immunize ( talk) 15:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Or perhaps we could nominate one of the categories for deletion? Immunize ( talk) 21:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
And if we were to consider one for deletion, I would think it would be Category:Nervous system neoplasms because Category:Neurooncology covers more articles and thus would seem to be more useful. I suppose will go ahead and begin populating the category Category:Neurooncology with the articles on specific tumor types, but I am somewhat reluctant to do this while the pages are in Category:Nervous system neoplasms. Immunize ( talk) 23:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Neurooncology for deletion, with the main reason being that it is underpopulated, and that the topics that would fit into it are already covered under Category:Nervous system neoplasms. Immunize ( talk) 14:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Update Category:Neurooncology has been deleted per CfD discussion, and the few pages that were within have been recategorized. Immunize ( talk) 19:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
There's a proposal at WP:Research to provide an official Wikipedia group to authorize surveys and other research projects by outside groups. Its major 'thing' seems to be a special bot to canvas randomly selected editors (e.g., to invite editors to participate in a survey about why they are editors).
Since several participants here know a bit more about research than the average editor, I thought you might like to know about this. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Is the Vagovagal reflex the same thing as a Vasovagal reflex? Is it the same as a Vagus reflex? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate the project's help with a peer review of the nocturnal enuresis article. Please see the peer review page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wshallwshall ( talk • contribs) 20:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
(also posted on Portal talk:medicine, not sure where the best place to post this is) Whilst trying to make a couple of articles clearer, and more useful as entry portals into their subject matter, I copied some of the collapsible templates into the relevant sections as a navigation aid. As a narrow strip they are fairly unobtrusive to someone just reading through the article and when opened put the whole topic in context. I personally feel that at the bottom of the page, especially whilst collapsed they are largly ignored/ignorable. In an article such as nervous system there are now so many of these that they they just put you off exploring them and the way some of the nested ones expand it just begins to look messy. If a template such as this is put in the relevant section (see visual system which for the moment has been allowed to stand) then they actually give a really great overview of the material that is available in wikipedia about that subject and put it all in context. I think it would also help editors as you get a clear idea of which pages are covering which parts of the material and so avoid duplication and unnecessary sidetracks. At the moment 2 out of three articles have just had my changes reverted quoting the WP:MOS (which doesn't actually mention them) and I think the bit on WP:LAYOUT about the order of bits at the bottom of the page is what the editors meant. I don't think it excludes using these templates in the body of the article as well. Even if it did then perhaps it needs review but obviously a much bigger body of opinion. Consistency is good but not at the loss of useful functionality. I obviously can't make a change like this on my own and I don't want to start an edit war over a few pages. Does anybody else think this is a useful way to go?
BTW I chose to re-use the footer navboxes because they already exist in large numbers thanks to a lot of peoples hard work. Does anybody think we need this sort of topic navigation but in a different format? Arfgab ( talk) 06:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone noticed, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Unreferenced BLPs lists: zero unreferenced BLPs. We must be doing something right. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
As previously posted above, another user had received permissions to use photos from dermnet.com. However, after e-mailing the dermnet support email address, it seems there was a misunderstanding about which images were approved for use on Wikipedia. The following e-mail is what I received:
"Hi Brendan,
I have looked at the Dermatology related articles on Wikipedia and you are doing a very nice job with them. As for images from Dermnet.com I think there has been a misunderstanding. I was originally contacted by someone from Jordan (Madhero88) asking permission for specific images to be used in specific articles. There are 19 images altogether that I received approval for from the copyright holders. As you know, the Wikipedia user then started posting many more images than I had received copyright holder permission for. You had attempted to make me aware of this but I didn't read the email you sent me closely enough (the email I am responding to). I personally do not own the copyright to any of the images on Dermnet and therefore cannot give permission to repost all the images from Dermnet.com, nor would I want to do this. I have talked to the copyright holders for these images and they have not given permission for these images to be reposted on Wikipedia. I am a big fan of Wikipedia and the work you are doing. I know that this was an unfortunate misunderstanding by myself and the contributor from Jordan (Madero88). I request that you remove all the images from Wikipedia that are reposted from Dermnet.com, except for the original 19 that were agreed to (listed below). If there is a future request for any specific photos from Dermnet.com I would appreciate it if you would be the one to make it.
Thomas Habif, MD Adjunct Professor of Medicine Dartmouth Medical School"
He also sent an attachment with images approved for use on Wikipedia...
Therefore, with all that being posted, would some of you help clean this mess up? --- kilbad ( talk) 14:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
| ||||||||
An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter |
As detailed in last week's Signpost, WildBot has been patrolling Wikipedia-Books and searched for various problems in them, such as books having duplicate articles or containing redirects. WikiProject Wikipedia-Books is in the process of cleaning them up, but help would be appreciated. For this project, the following books have problems:
The problem reports explain in details what exactly are the problems, why they are problems, and how to fix them. This way anyone can fix them even if they aren't familiar with books. If you don't see something that looks like this, then all problems have been fixed. (Please strike articles from this list as the problems get fixed.)
Also, the {{ saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of books (title, subtitle, cover-image, cover-color), and gives are preview of the default cover on the book's page. An example of such a cover is found on the right. Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class medicine articles should have covers.
If you need help with cleaning up a book, help with the {{ saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.
This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 00:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ( owner • talk) 00:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Rich put together a great list of derm ICD9 codes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/ILDS-ICD. However, many times the redlinks utilize a comma, like Balanitis, amoebic. Therefore, I wanted to know if someone would help reverse all the redlinks with commas. So, with the previous example, the redlink would be changed to Amoebic balanitis. Thanks in advance! --- kilbad ( talk) 17:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not balanitis, amoebic should be a redirect, I will leave to the rest of you. However, I think that most of us agree that for the reordered links, like amoebic balanitis, a redirect might be an appropriate addition to Wikipedia. Therefore, with that being the case, would someone help reverse all the redlinks that contain commas? --- kilbad ( talk) 19:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I have redirected Balanitis, amoebic to Balanitis. Immunize ( talk) 16:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I recall a discussion about list of causes of... articles a month or so ago. This article perhaps fell through the cracks, as it is unreferenced and in need of attention. Regards, PDCook ( talk) 16:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I saw something to the effect that Herpangina and Hand, foot and mouth disease are the same disease. We have two separate articles on these, neither of which seems to mention the other.
Are these the same (in which case presumably we should merge these), or different? (in which case, is there any point in adding to each article a mention the other disease?)
Thanks as always. -- 189.122.83.71 ( talk) 22:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
We are having a disagreement over formatting at ADHD. Would anyone like to comment? A great deal of hide show boxes were added along with primary research. Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder Thanks Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Could someone create stubs on the follow-up conditions?
Please add dashes/adjust the capitalization as needed. Thanks in advance! --- kilbad ( talk) 18:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I've updated my list of missing medicine topics - Skysmith ( talk) 13:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
There is an error tn this article on xerophthalmia.Instead of causes of xerophthalmia what is published is causes of Cyanosis.This is to be corrected. Kvdev ( talk) 11:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello all.
I'm currently working on a bio for toxicologist Gabriel L. Plaa. For talking about his primary research, I'm basing mostly on doi: 10.3109/03602539709037571, an account by himself of his career. There's one aspect regarding his research on cholestasis I'm quite unclear about. Basically a significant interest for him was the elaboration of a protocol to detect cholestatic properties in drugs by animal test, but this was made difficult because, I think, the common lab animals (he specifically discuss rats and mentions hamsters and rabbits) are much less suceptible to cholestasis than human. Is that correct? I'd ask on that article's talk page, but it is little edited (and the article is currently rather... curt).
As an aside, has such a protocol been devised since Plaa's retirement? Since I'm no medical student, I wouldn't quite know where to look regarding the state of the art of this subject.
thanks in avance, Circéus ( talk) 12:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I want to occasionally add an external link to dermpedia.org, but am concerned that the link will occasionally be removed as spam. How do I go about making sure that does not happen? I have not included any external links thus far. Thanks in advance! --- kilbad ( talk) 14:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
It appears that Talk:Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis#Mixed_results_in_Lead would benefit from some level-headed editors.
If memory serves (and it might not), the typical story runs something like this: Women who have either voluntary abortions or involuntary miscarriages (early in the pregnancies) have (approximately) the same breast cancer risk as those who never got pregnant. Since (the hormones associated with) (full-term) pregnancy protects against breast cancer, then women who end or lose their pregnancies have a higher risk of breast cancer compared to those who achieved a full-term pregnancy.
As a result, the choice of control group (never got pregnant vs did not abort) determines the outcome, especially if you're considering the outcome of a first pregnancy. Mainstream sources have universally chosen "didn't get pregnant" as the suitable control group. The sources also address some other confounding factors, such as the use of oral contraceptives, number of other pregnancies, etc.
All of the usual agencies say that abortion/miscarriage does not cause breast cancer. Most of the usual agencies plainly say that there is no statistical association, and a few weasel slightly on the point (see "confounding factors" and "it's a bit more complicated than that"). The article has relied largely on a major report from the NCI, which takes a strong view on this point.
A single recent study (more recent than the NCI paper) says that there might be a small association -- a little lower risk than drinking 2 to 5 servings of alcohol each day, and puny compared to BRCA1/2 -- and there is a dispute about whether to incorporate this recent information into the lead.
Much of the talk page has been MastCell vs RoyBoy for over a year, and I think that the addition of several new editors would really improve matters. Please consider reading the current discussion and watchlisting this article. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out what to do with irritable bowel disease. From a bit of digging, it looks like it is an undefined term often used as a synonym for irritable bowel syndrome (for which it is currently a redirect) but stands at tremendous risk of being mistaken for inflammatory bowel disease. Does anyone know if irritable bowel disease is an actual (presumably rare) diagnosis? And what would all y'all think of turning irritable bowel disease into a disambiguation page for both IBS and inflammatory bowel disease? Nothing turns up as a primary definition, google search is not helpful, nor is google scholar nay google books. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 13:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Ladies and Gentlemen:
My name is Cliff, a/k/a "uploadvirus". I am writing to respond to a proposal someone made to merge Pleural Fibroma into Solitary Fibrous Tumor.
BACKGROUND: I was looking around on Project Medicine for things people wanted done to see what I could contribute, and I noticed (somewhere) that someone had requested that an article be written on Pleural Fibroma. I went ahead and made the current page for Pleural Fibroma, which included a definition of it as "... an outdated synonym for a mesenchymal neoplasm originating in areolar tissue adjacent to the pleura (membranes surrounding the lung). The current favored term for a pleural fibroma is "solitary fibrous tumor of the pleura", and referencing the most current WHO lung tumor classification system. I then (thought I) included a redirect to the Solitary fibrous tumor article, which I began writing. I haven't worked on it recently though.
I have no problem merging Pleural fibroma into Solitary fibrous tumor, and working the term "pleural fibroma" into a synomyms section. Lastly, the dead link to the WHO classification system us baffling - thats the correct address, and I just downloaded the file from that address earlier today, but for whatever reason, it keeps bringing back "Page not found" from there.
Therefore, I went back and fixed the link by changing it to the Download page for the classification system .pdf's, from where folks can download the lung tumor classification .pdf (or the other classification .pdf's) directly.
Best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS ( talk) 18:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Is the Drug addiction article within our scope? Currently it is tagged for the psychology project, and was surprised not to see us there - thought I'd check first! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 23:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
This page could use a few more eyes to get it going in the right direction. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I've had this since I was a child, but I just noticed that someone created an article about it in August 2009. Every physician I've talked to about it refers to as a form of arthritis. I'm curious, is this the appropriate name for the article, or is there an actual clinical term? Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 01:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I would like to draw attention to this newly created article, which is obviously important to the WikiProject and as currently written is far from encyclopedia-quality. Looie496 ( talk) 17:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
There is some disagreement on the name of the alcoholism article. The World Health Organisation, ICD and others favour the term alcohol dependence instead of alcoholism, but other editors prefer the term alcoholism as it is more widely known. Perhaps WP:COMMONNAME favours alcoholism or does the official medical term trump common name? I am in support of a move of alcoholism to alcohol dependence to keep with ICD and WHO, but I can see why some prefer to keep it as alcoholism as it is in more common usage. So we have a conundrum. It would be much appreciated if wiki med members/contributors could comment either in support or oppose on the alcoholism talk page. I would suggest reading here, User_talk:Arcadian#Alcoholism_and_alcohol_dependence and here Talk:Alcoholism#Alcoholism_and_alcohol_dependence for background information. Thanks.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I forgot to say that we have two articles, one for alcohol dependence and one for alcoholism and both have the same ICD10 and ICD9 codes.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I would like to respectfully request a review of the article I've been working on lately entitled large cell lung carcinoma with rhabdoid phenotype. I would consider it 90% or so finished, and would appreciate any suggestions, edits, etc. If anyone has some time, take a look and let me know what you think.
I thank you all for your time, attention, and courtesy.
Best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS ( talk) 00:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
There's a discussion over at Talk:Prostatitis (and CP/CPPS) over whether or not some cases of CP/CPPS are associated with infection despite a negative culture, and the role of antibiotics in the treatment of the condition. Input from more editors would be helpful. (Context should be clear from edit history and talk page.) -- Arcadian ( talk) 23:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
This is an announcement of the initial stages of what will hopefully become a long-term collaboration between the Wikipedia Foundation and Google.org, a charitable foundation funded by Google. Tim Vickers ( talk) 17:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
We at Google.org admire WikiProject Medicine’s improvement of health-related articles on Wikipedia. As others have already noted, you've created an important body of knowledge that ranks among the best sources of health information on the English web – no mean feat! We'd like to accelerate the momentum you’ve already established, and help in making the fruits of your labor available to more people around the world.
As I'm sure you all know, there's an urgent need for reliable health information, especially in developing countries. According to one recent estimate, tens of thousands die every day due to lack of an informed parent, caregiver or health worker.
We'd like to help in two ways. First, we'd like to provide vetting of a subset of popular medical articles by recognized authorities. We'll post these reviews on the corresponding Talk pages, and we hope that you'll use them as stepping stones to improve the articles. (We'll alert you on this WikiProject Talk page as the reviews become available.) Second, we'll work with volunteers to translate your work into other languages – such as Swahili, Arabic and Spanish – in collaboration with the communities of editors on those Wikipedias. We've been pleased with the success of this approach during our recent Kiswahili Wikipedia Challenge and have received positive feedback from the Wikimedia Foundation.
This initiative is primarily a project of Google.org, the philanthropic arm of Google that uses information and technology to address global challenges in areas such as health, poverty and the environment – but we'd really like to make it a team effort! We sincerely hope that you'll join us in this important cause by responding to the reviews, participating in the discussion, and finding ways to improve the articles. We're optimistic that our joint efforts will benefit both Wikipedia and the world as a whole.
We're going to start small by reviewing a sample of forty medical articles on the English Wikipedia, which you can find listed here (article list). This trial will allow us to gradually scale up as we learn more about the best ways of working with you. Your suggestions and comments are very welcome!
Thanks so much for your help, and congratulations again on all your valuable work to date.
- Google.org April 2010
This is really good news, Tim. What's you're involvement in this? Colin° Talk 17:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
# | Name | Status as of April 2010 | Page views for March 2010 | Reviewed by outside experts |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2009 flu pandemic | Good article | 274 | Not yet |
2 | Hemorrhoid | Start class | 326 | Not yet |
(undent) Even though it would be good to have some more feedback what we really need is more people who are willing to write high quality articles. There is tons of work to do just a lack of people willing to do it. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
(undent) Acute pharyngitis IMO would be a better page to review for starters rather than strep pharyngitis a subtype of acute pharyngitis. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Should we create a task force or other dedicated Medicine subpage to help ensure that the Google collaboration is a success? Remember ( talk) 17:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Dyspepsia and heartburn are often used interchangeably. Should we merge the two? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Stem cell treatment is missing an importance rting from us, as it could be a major therapy and is a major controversial subject I would've place it High ( or even Top ), but MCB project has it tagged as low on their importance scale... What should it be?-- Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 10:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The article Cyclic vomiting syndrome states that "abortive therapy has limited success", but abortive therapy isn't wikilinked. I felt that understanding it would help me with understanding of CVS, so I searched to see was there an article. There wasn't. I googled, and got some idea what it means. I have no expertise in medicine, but surely that's a topic that has scope for an article? Could someone start one - even a stub? Thanks. Girlwithgreeneyes ( talk) 18:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, both. The therapy article is helpful. I did find out what abortive therapy was through googling, but I felt that within the CVS article, a link would be useful. Girlwithgreeneyes ( talk) 09:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Can any of you recommend some good articles on formatting of a medical note. Restated, when I write a note on a patient (i.e. CC, HPI, ALL, PMH, PSH, FH, SH, PE, A, P), are there any articles on how to best format the note, particularly in the context of an EMR. --- kilbad ( talk) 01:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
No standardization. Until the last decade, most notes were handwritten. EMRs generally have not had fancy formatting capabilities like indenting, bolding, fonts etc. Some of the newer ones do, but no doctor has the time to make a note pretty. alteripse ( talk) 10:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The illustration under 'How it works' in the Port (medical) article] does not seem to fit the accompanying text, nor is it helpful in illustrating the article. Lriley47 ( talk) 18:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I ve been working on an input box that would help greatly creating new disease articles. you can try it here, If we agree to use it, I can move all subpages to wikiproject medicine subpages
MaenK.A.
Talk
18:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I ve created a collapsible type of menu with the same content of the editnotice for the tool, can we add it to the Wikiproject medicine template that we use on articles talk pages?? here it is
Toolbox Edit |
---|
MaenK.A. Talk 13:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I Moved the template to the project subpages here MaenK.A. Talk 14:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, Just noticed while searching for heart block types that neither " 1° heart block" or " 1st degree heart block" redirects to "First-degree atrioventricular block". In fact, " 1° atrioventricular block" doesn't even do that either. I suggest adding that redirection. On a slightly related note, I think adding trace ECGs of sinus rhythm verus first degree heart block would be useful. I happen to have both traces if they are wanted. FruitywS ( talk) 14:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Just as another addition, could you redirect 2nd degree heart block too? 3rd degree is done fine already it seems.
FruitywS (
talk)
13:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm hoping I can find someone here to help me with the article James W. Black (the inventor of beta blockers inter alia). I'd really like to get the article to GA, but my knowledge of his field of medicine is pretty much limited to what I can comprehend from the sources, so I'd really like either a bit of informal feedback or a collaboration with somebody so I can make the article as informative as possible. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Is lingering at good article nominations. I am reviewing it and it could use a little help with comprehensiveness. Any british folks (or other nationalities) - some more worldwide data is needed at the Prognosis section - and possibly at the Epidemiology section. Come join in the discussion at the review page - all input on comprehensiveness and sourcing welcome. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I have a personal website. Would it be safe to post my resume online there? I have seen a few of you do that. Is it safe to do so? What precautions should I take, etc. --- kilbad ( talk) 22:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I browsed to this article just now, redirected from a link to Chronic Hyperventilation Syndrome (capitals in original) in Buteyko method. I'm not an expert in this field and I apologise in advance if I'm wrong, but I'm concerned that the Theory section in the latter article has the stylistic characteristics of a fringe opinion. This is also suggested by its stating that 'PEF and FEV1 lung function tests are not appropriate tests for testing asthmatics': they certainly were when I was working in general hospital medicine a few years ago.
My reason for posting this here rather than on the Buteyko article's talk page is that Hyperventilation syndrome appears to have been affected by the same problem: it begins 'Hyperventilation syndrome (HVS; also Chronic Hyperventilation Syndrome or CHVS)' (note capitalisation) and continues with a mixture of uncontroversial statements about the effects of (acute) hyperventilation alongside some rather odd-sounding material such as a large table illustrating chronic hyperventilation in various diseases.
Can anyone verify this material, or confirm my suspicion that some of it is bogus? Neurotip ( talk) 01:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
A new editor has worked hard on Graves disease posting over 250 edits in the last few days. Aside from copyedit issues (article length incr 35 to 135kb despite existing subarticle links) and listing abstracts on lots of research papers, issues of cherry picking primary sources for there being long term psychiatric sequellae (beyond normalisation of thyroid function) and impact on jobs etc. Other primary sources dispute this, and general consensus would I think be that there is no consistent longterm neuropsychiatric prognosis (eg per eMedicine article's one paragraph to this citing 2007 review) - ie WP:MEDRS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:NPOV issues.
Much of the work repositioned or rephrased the article sensibly, but impossible to untangle 250+ edits, a few by other editors too in midst of this large viewpoint/balance/weight realignment.
Anyway please have a look at the prior & current version (I've reverted back to April 9) and the additional material version, and help this new editor with their earnest contributions - further discussion should be had at Talk:Graves' disease#Major edits revert. David Ruben Talk 23:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I think there should be a separate article for Physiological changes in pregnancy. Currently, there are two large sections dealing with the subject, Obstetrics#Maternal_change, and Pregnancy#Physiological_changes_in_pregnancy. However, the scope of Obstetrics article is rather the medical profession per se, and few readers wanting to know about the physiological changes expect to find them there. The Pregnancy article, on the other hand, is 59 kilobytes long and on the verge of really needing to have some of it forked away. Merging these sections together would make a more powerful piece than each of them separately. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 16:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
WP has an article and category for Orthopedic surgery but not the more-general "orthopedics", or something similar. Is this an oversight or intentional? Maurreen ( talk) 07:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads-up about a formatting problem that you may encounter with Diberri's ref tool:
If a journal isn't written in English, then PubMed puts the name of the article title in [square brackets] -- which creates odd formatting effects in {{ cite journal}}. The simple solution is just to remove the stray square brackets. If you happen to see something that looks like [ Article title] in a template-using ref, then that may be the issue. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)|trans_title=
for these cases as:{{
cite journal}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)I recently merged the content of Extraesophageal reflux disease to Laryngopharyngeal reflux, as the terms refer to the same condition. Any assistance to improve this fledgling article would be appreciated.
Can anyone identify any other appropriate templates to place at the bottom of this page? Is there a template for disorders of the larynx, and, if so, would Laryngopharyngeal reflux be an appropriate addition? Any help is appreciated, thanks. TypicalUser ( talk) 23:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Larynx was targeted for vandalism over a month ago, which I only just now discovered and restored. Interested people, please add Larynx to your watchlist to resolve any further vandalism. Thanks. TypicalUser ( talk) 23:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
See the history of edits on arc eye. We have an ambitious editor named user:wizard191 who, rather than accept my edits to make the treatment section less dangerous, decided to delete it entirely. He's coming to a medical article near you. What say you all? S B H arris
Wowzers...I didn't realize my edit was going to spurn all this. Just to make a few notes:
I honestly meant my edits in good faith, and not as a personal attack against SBHarris' edit to the article. I hope that there are no hard feeling from here on out and that we can move on to bettering our encyclopedia (as it appears you guys have through merging related articles). Wizard191 ( talk) 21:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of HOWTO violations, the following 15 pages are tagged as needing attention on that point:
Any editor should feel free to pick one and improve it -- even small efforts are valuable! WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
There's a disagreement regarding this image that is purported to be an electron micrograph of the Hepatitis C virus. I believe the preferred image of viruses and bacteria is a micrograph rather than a diagram or drawing (that's my general recall of specific pages) but can't find guidance. Any advice? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 01:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Would someone help me format the following reference into the citation template?
Ryan T: Cutaneous Circulation. In: Physiology, biochemistry, and molecular biology of the skin. Goldsmith LA (ed). New York:Oxford University Press, 1991, pp. 1019.
Thanks in advance! --- kilbad ( talk) 15:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
|chapter=
parameter to specify the name of the chapter. The |author=
is the chapter's author, and Goldsmith is the |editor=
, which gives you:
While working on categorization of diseases, I have come across many articles that are categorized into Category:Genetic disorders and a type of heredity subcategory (such as Category:Autosomal recessive disorders). Is it necessary to put articles in both of these categories? For diseases with known inheritance patterns, I do not think they need to be in the overly generalized Category:Genetic disorders. After all, almost all diseases can be said to have a genetic component. Therefore, I would like to clean up and diffuse Category:Genetic disorders into subcategories based on things like involved chromosomes and dominance. -- Scott Alter 15:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Since microscopy is within your scope, I'm letting you know about this figure that I composed (from previously existing material) that might be useful for illustrating aspects of light and/or electron microscopy. If you need to make changes that will reduce the EV in the three butterfly-related articles where it's currently placed, please create a fork instead. Thank you.
Photographic and light microscopic images Zoomed-out view of an Aglais io. Closeup of the scales of the same specimen. High magnification of the coloured scales (probably a different species). Electron microscopic images A patch of wing Scales close up A single scale Microstructure of a scale Magnification Approx. ×50 Approx. ×200 ×1000 ×5000
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk)
11:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I raised a query re use of this subscription only source at WT:MEDRS, initial reponse suggested here might have been a better location for the query - see WT:MEDRS#Use or overuse of UpToDate. David Ruben Talk 23:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I have never regarded UpToDate as a useful source for Wikipedia. It is a continuously-changing professional resource, much like Emedicine articles, and is clearly intended to be a practical resource. In contrast, high-quality journal reviews do not change until they are updated and are clearly more suitable. Having skimmed a fair number of UpToDate articles, I'm also struck by the fact that its authors sometimes get really obscure. On the whole, UpToDate entries are not equivalent to journal reviews and should be avoided. JFW | T@lk 07:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
UpToDate is certainly one of the best online resources for clinical care in the US. It is expensive and most of us rely on hospital or university access. It is typically more comprehensive and less uneven than Emedicine, with better details of treatment. While UpToDate is fairly well referenced, I agree w JFW that it is not a reference of choice for WP because of the expensive cost of access and frequent revisions, but also because to this point there is nothing in it for which there is not a standard reference. {Parenthetically I am always surprised and slightly disturbed at how many house officers will openly admit they start with WP, since UpToDate has a considerably burdensome log-in threshold). alteripse ( talk) 17:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
|accessdate=
parameter is designed for exactly that situation.I have never thought of it as a "patient oriented website". I would not dispute that it is an excellent site for practicing physicians who have access to it. That said, abstracts of standard journal articles are still far more accessible to those who simply want the gist of a reference or to verify that the reference says what the referencer claims it does. While buying single journal articles is prohibitively expensive, there are greater chances of access to many clinical journals at local hospital and university libraries than to UpToDate for most of our readers. Finally, for many purposes, if you have a choice of references the original citation, the most authoritative citation, or the most accessible citation might be preferred, and those three criteria are still not likely ever to be UpToDate. alteripse ( talk) 02:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
We are discussing the merge of these two pages here: Talk:Protein_allergy#Merge. Comments would be appreciated. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
An editor with a chip on their shoulder (see their possibly forbidden username) has made an edit that has been reverted. That article may need to be gone through to make sure it lives up to our MEDRS guideline. -- Brangifer ( talk) 00:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, First off please correct me if it's wrong to ask for improvements in this manner. I'm just looking through the entire platelet activation process in detail and I notice that there seems to be some considerable difference in manner between the coagulation article and the platelet activation subsection. Personally I find the coagulation article much clearer, and in better depth. I'm wondering if maybe the platelet article be brought up to this level, or perhaps a see also marker be placed in the section and a broad overview given instead. At the present time I just found it to be slightly poor compared to the usual standard on these topics. I'm not well enough accustomed to wiki (or endowed with enough knowledge on the topic) to edit it to a suitable standard I feel. Any thoughts? FruitywS ( talk) 15:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I was under the impression that a seizure and convulsion are the same thing but we have two seperate articles with the same ICD9 and Mesh codes. I think that they need merged, but I am open to persuasion. :)-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Both our seizure and seizure types articles deal solely with epileptic seizures. The reason they are at seizure and not epileptic seizure is our WP:COMMONNAME policy. There is an argument that they should be at the full unambiguous name and that seizure should be a DAB. However, that would require fixing many links and break WP:COMMONNAME. This is the problem we have that accurate naming conflicting with WP policy. The proposed mergers don't help without fixing the above accurate naming issues.
A convulsion is a muscle spasm and when the cause is epileptic, the precise term would be a clonic seizure, which is listed in seizure types, and this can occur as a phase within a tonic-clonic seizure that many people are familiar with. An older term was grand mal seizure. But convulsions can have non-epileptic causes. There are many non-convulsive epileptic seizure types, though many people (including medics) are unfamiliar with them. The word "convulsion" isn't just a lay term: it accurately describes the visible manifestation that the patient or an observer saw.
The term seizure is imprecise but when used by medics is nearly always an abbreviated way of saying "epileptic seizure". A medic wouldn't describe a heart attack as a seizure or a fit of rage as a seizure. The word "fit" also has a broad range of uses, and is used by both lay and medics as a word for epileptic seizures too.
Non-epileptic seizures (of which psychogenic seizures are one kind) are a different kettle of fish. Some might argue they are simply a classification of misdiagnoses rather than a disorder someone should be diagnosed with. For example, someone might be suspected of having seizures but it turns out they are having fainting fits. They don't belong in the ILAE classification of (epileptic) seizures. To say they are a "subtype" of seizure is wrong in much the same way as a classification of animals doesn't have "stuffed toy" as a subtype, even though "teddy bear" shares the same word and has some similarities with a "bear". Colin° Talk 22:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Wrt renaming seizure to epileptic seizure and having Seizure (disambiguation) become seizure. WP:COMMONNAME recognises there are competing arguments for the current situation and the suggested one. Precision is the main reason for using epileptic seizure. But it fails on the recognizable, easy to find, concise and consistent tests. For example, the test for a name "which editors will most naturally link from other articles". The links seizure or seizures are used 1,101 times; the links epileptic seizure and epileptic seizures are used only 281 times. Nearly all of those 1,101 times refer to an epileptic seizure, though in some cases it may be hard to know.
The other test is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, where we judge whether "epileptic seizure" is what is nearly always meant by the term "seizure". I believe it is. This is reinforced by the article linking stats.
Lastly, our policy requires us to be "guided by the usage in reliable sources". A search on PubMed for article titles, shows that "seizure" or "seizures" are used 21,871 times and "epileptic seizure" or "epileptic seizures" are used only 1,777 times. Again, the articles with "seizure" in the title are almost universally referring to an epileptic seizure.
If this was an non-hyperlinked medical encyclopaedia, I'd probably vote for the article to be epileptic seizure as this is the precise term. But Wikipedia isn't. Colin° Talk 09:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Seizure has quite non-medical meanings as well that will not show on PubMed. A court of law may be "seized of a matter", pirates may "seize a ship", and in tribology poorly-lubricated surfaces in contact may "seize" each other. Any of these kinds of seizure could merit articles of their own, but would seem inappropriate to class as "non-epileptic". Seizure should be a simple disambiguation page with epileptic seizure as the first entry. Other medical meanings might come near the top of that page, but users should not need double redirects to find those other meanings. User:LeadSongDog come howl 15:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I also agree with Scott's suggestion, and would add that an admin isn't needed to move Seizure to Epileptic seizure over the redirect, since the history is trivial. However, when checking that, I noticed the log:
So it seems that we're proposing to reverse a move that had discussion in June 2008 – although I don't see that discussion at Talk:Seizure. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick note – before this gets archived – that Scott has now kindly done the work of moving Seizure to Epileptic seizure and used {{ Redirect6}} to make a sensible hatnote. Hopefully, this will stick and should then reflect much of the consensus here (in case editors want to refer to it in the future). -- RexxS ( talk) 23:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Would someone create a stub on the term rubeosis?? Thanks in advance! --- kilbad ( talk) 23:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
We have a page called Münchausen by Internet which is currently listed as a GA under the WP:MED project. It gets 8 pubmed hits. Wondering if other could take a look? -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
It looks like there's a relatively civil POV battle at Harm reduction, and it might be helpful to have more editors adding their comments. Most of it revolves around the drug policies in Sweden, so if there's anyone who reads Swedish or is familiar with their program, your involvement would be especially helpful.
The dispute largely involves the need to accurately interpreting sources (without going well beyond them), so I suspect that many of our editors could be helpful. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Are lists such as List of causes of diarrhea and List of causes of fever acceptable topics? Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I feel that the lists are desirable, as they are typically fairly comprehensive, provide references, and educate the reader. Immunize ( talk) 20:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Why not use DiagnosisPro as a source, rather then adding an external link and then mass-deleting lists? Immunize ( talk) 21:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
It already states that WP should not be used for medical advice, but if you feel it is still an issue, I would suggest putting a statement on every list of symptom causes explicitly stating that this list should not be used as medical advice. We could even create a template for this purpose. Immunize ( talk) 21:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
All lists should be merged with their parent articles. If a cause for diarrhoea is not worth mentioning on diarrhea, it is probably not notable for the list either. JFW | T@lk 22:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I was not aware that disclaimers were not allowed on articles, but does a template really count as a disclaimer if is says sometinhing like "not intended as medical advice"? Immunize ( talk) 23:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, I feel that if the lists cannot remain in there current form, they should be merged into there parent articles not deleted. For instance, I feel list of causes of fever should be merged into Fever, which has only a short causes section. However I still feel that it would be best for the lists to remain in there current form. Yes, there is a risk that these pages could be taken as advice, but we have an appropriate disclamier that should dissuade this use of the lists here. Immunize ( talk) 23:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I completely disagree. As WhatamIdoing ( talk · contribs) said, these lists are notable, and most of the lists are well sourced (for instance, in my list of causes of fever, each disease listed has a reference that certifies that it can cause fever, so they are well sourced and meet WP:NOTABLE guidelines. Best wishes. Immunize ( talk) 14:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
So, my lists are in no danger of deletion? Immunize ( talk) 21:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be consensus that these lists are not useful. What should we do with them? Can we identify them here? I can merge some of the smaller ones, but some of the list articles are quite large and I wouldn't know where to start. I should mention that User:Immunize is still generating these lists, such as List of causes of fatigue and List of causes of emesis. PDCook ( talk) 23:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
It is very difficult to compile thorough differential diagnosis lists. The best ones tend to be found in review articles and texts written by expert practitioners. I just did a quick review of DiagnosisPro and tested several problems with which i have some expertise: growth failure, hypoglycemia in infancy, adrenal failure, and ambiguous genitalia. It failed even to mention some major causes in a routine differential for each of the problems, leaving out whole categories of disease. I would not even recommend it as a starting point for a medical student. We should not be linking anything to it.
Despite the obvious effort put into them, User:Immunize's lists are similarly challenged. The two I checked are so incomplete as to be fairly useless. The two I just looked at (fatigue and emesis) feature exotic problems rarely seen for the last 25 years (e.g. Reye syndrome) while missing common ones (e.g. eating disorders). Anyone with expertise can look at those lists and immediately think of several important conditions omitted, while anyone without expertise has no way to guess how incomplete the lists are. Without some system for trying to achieve at least completeness of the major causes, it's hard to imagine who might benefit from partial lists. There is no way to say this without seeming to deprecate user:Immunize's efforts, but I agree with JFW that without article context and interpretive guidance, the lists themselves have little value here. alteripse ( talk) 21:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Update - I have listed the "diarrhoea" and "fever" lists for AFD. If these both lead to deletion decisions then we have a precedent for eliminating the others. Can I remind Immunize to stick carefully to WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS? You are free to observe the process by which experienced editors produce reliable medical content, and emulate their approaches. JFW | T@lk 08:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Would a move of my lists to the article incubator for improvement be reasonable? Immunize ( talk) 20:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Update Per AfD discussion, List of causes of fever and List of causes of diarrhea have been deleted. However, several other list articles remain. Personally, I favor improving the articles rather than nominating them for deletion. Immunize ( talk) 16:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, I could move the remaining lists to my userspace for improvement, and then move them back into the article space. Immunize ( talk) 16:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
In what way should the pages be improved-do you think it would be appropriate to add an "other symptoms" section to put the illness into context-for instance, in the case of meningococcemia, saying:Other symptoms of meningococcal meningitis include petechiae and purpura, emesis, severe headache, and meningismus. P.S. You suggested a copy and pastemove of the remaining lists into my userspace, but as far as I know copy and paste moves are not advised. Immunize ( talk) 20:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I would think that, if the articles are changed to something more similar to what you showed me at Testicular pain, they would need to be moved to a title such as Causes of fever, as they would no longer be in list format. Immunize ( talk) 14:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that this would be the title for the articles in question. Immunize ( talk) 14:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Done I have moved my userspace copy of List of causes of fever to the title you suggested. Should I move the lists still in the article space to this title as well? Immunize ( talk) 15:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Would you recommend me moving the remainder of the lists to my userspace? Immunize ( talk) 18:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Done I have moved all of the lists to my userspace for improvement. Also, I added Ewing's sarcoma to User:Immunize/Differential diagnosis for a fever, and have included a short description of the disease itself. Immunize ( talk) 21:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable to copy and paste information from another Wikipedia article (for instance, in the case of Ewings sarcoma) and use that to create a short summary? Immunize ( talk) 13:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I mean another Wikipedia article. Immunize ( talk) 14:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
When I say "another wikipedia" I mean another Wikipedia article. Immunize ( talk) 14:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I have copied and pasted information from Wikipedia into the article User:Immunize/Differential diagnosis for a fever, and have also created subsections for each disease in the article. Immunize ( talk) 15:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
So I should reference the copy-pasted information? Immunize ( talk) 18:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
It is verbatim from Wikipedia, because it is a direct copy-paste from a Wikipedia article. So you are saying I should cite it as from wikipedia and note in the edit summary that it is copy-pasted from Wikipedia, right? Immunize ( talk) 14:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I have improved the article User:Immunize/Differential diagnosis for a fever significantly over the past several days, and feel it may soon be time to move it back into the article space. Can an experienced medical wikipedian please look at it and give me their opinion? Immunize ( talk) 19:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Why has there been no response? I have edited the User:Immunize/Differential diagnosis for a fever article significantly, and it is now ready for review and possible move back to the article space. Immunize ( talk) 18:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Are there any other measures I could take to improve the list? Immunize ( talk) 22:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Would it be more appropriate to split the article into smaller articles such as "infectious causes for fever" or "neoplastic causes for fever"? Immunize ( talk) 12:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
So, as I understand it, you feel that this article is still a list despite the addition of large amounts of text in an attempt to put the list into context? Immunize ( talk) 16:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I suppose I am starting to doubt that these lists will ever be improved beyond there current state, given that you do not feel that, even after at least a month of work the lists are still not ready for move to the article space. Immunize ( talk) 19:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
This page redirected to xeroderma pigmentosum, but it's not the same syndrome. I have thought opportune to cancel the redirect... I'm waiting for someone of you who can be engaged to write a more complete voice. -- Ceccomaster ( talk) 14:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
This page 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. |
Ladies and gentlemen:
I'm guessing that SOMEONE reviewed the above-entitled article, as the "New Unreviewed Article" tag has now disappeared. Many thanks to whomever did so. I have not been able to find any comments or criticisms on it anywhere, however, and I was just curious as to what people thought about it.
If anyone has a particular interest in lung cancer, particularly the less common variants, take a look at it when you get a minute and let me know what you think. I was considering doing a bunch more like that one, and I would appreciate feedback of any sort with a goal of trying to make sure subsequent ones are of the best possible quality.
I thank you all for your attention.
Best regards: Cliff Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS DDF 00:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uploadvirus ( talk • contribs)
Your project uses User:WolterBot, which occasionally gives your project maintenance-related listings.
User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles ( BLPs) related to your project.
Here is one example of a project which uses User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket_articles/Unreferenced_BLPs
There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.
The unreferenced living people articles related to your project will be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 18/Unreferenced BLPs
If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.
Thank you. Okip 08:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I have created a new category Category:Neurological disorders in children, and am currently putting articles on neurodevelopmental disoders (such as ( autism) and genetic neurological diseases (such as adrenoleukodystrophy) inot the category. I would appreciate your input on how to improve the category. Regards. Immunize ( talk) 00:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
However, tuberous sclerosis has a prominent neurological component, in addition to the other manifestations, and one could argue that the neurological component is the most impairing feature of the disorder (most patients have seizures, behavioral disturbances, and mental retardation). Regards. Immunize ( talk) 15:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I have also created the category Category:Viral encephalitis. Do you feel that this category wil be a more useful category? Immunize ( talk) 15:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Are there any medical categories that are needed but that have not yet been created that we could discuss the possibility of creating? Immunize ( talk) 17:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Of course autism is not a childhood disorder, it lasts throughout life. However, it has it onset in childhood, as opposed to some disorders such as Alzheimer disease, Huntington disease (barring the rare case of juvenile-onset HD), and Proggressive supranuclear palsy, which typically develops in those over 50-60. As for tuberous sclerosis, 90% of patients have epilepsy, and 70% have mental retardation, although you are correct to say that some patients may be more affected by lymphangiomyomatosis, or, in the case of infants and young children, cardiac rhabdomyomas then neurological problems. However, I still feel that the disorder could be considered va neurological diusorder, given the extremnely high precentage of patients with epilepsy and mental retardation. Immunize ( talk) 18:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
So I should remove Herpesviral encephalitis from Category:Viral diseases? Immunize ( talk) 19:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
So what should I do? Also did you notice the messages I left for you above? Immunize ( talk) 19:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I am considering creating another category, Category:Meningitis, and would like to know your opinion on weather or not this category would be useful or not. The category would cover probably at least 5 pages (meningococcal disease, bacterial meningitis, tuberculous meningitis, fungal meningitis, neoplastic meningitis, viral meningitis) and possibly even more. What are your thoughts on this? Immunize ( talk) 13:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I think I will go ahead and create the meningitis category now, as (at least to me) it seems that it would be a reasonably helpful category. Immunize ( talk) 14:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I have taken your advice and added the Category:Meningitis to Category:Diseases and disorders. Immunize ( talk) 20:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
That's rather more than a couple of issues. Perhaps it would be helpful to establish where we are all likely to agree, so that the discussion doesn't get sidetracked. Can we agree the following:
Now to the disagreements. I'm sure you don't want all of the -itis articles in Category:Inflammations, so let's dispose of that. The whole point of WP:SUBCAT is that Pseudomembranous colitis, Ulcerative colitis, Ischemic colitis, Microscopic colitis, Collagenous colitis, and Lymphocytic colitis could be all be grouped together in Category:Colitis, and anyone looking for disorders related to colitis would expect to find them there. The benefit is that related items are collected together; the cost is having to drill down the tree by one more step to find them. I hope we won't disagree on that. Where we seem to disagree is that I believe that the article Colitis should appear in Category:Inflammations (along with Category:Colitis) because there's no reason to have to drill down in that case – the searcher has found Colitis and there's no need to make them go via Category:Colitis – that's what WP:EPON is recommending.
The next disagreement is the question of diffusing categories. A Wikipedia category tree is not constrained to having nodes that contain only articles or categories (but not both). We should be using that capability to our advantage, not artificially restricting ourselves for no good reason. I agree with you that high-level categories should be completely diffuse, but disagree with your insistence that all should be. The further down the tree you go, the more reason there is to add the most important articles to the category, alongside subcategories. The reality of that is amply illustrated by examining section 'A' in Category:Neurological disorders. I think we both agree that 328 articles is too many for easy navigation and the category should be diffused further. So for example, I'd remove Absence seizure as it can be found though Category:Epilepsy -> Category:Seizure types, which is where anyone might expect to find it. The principle of "least astonishment" is vital to designing good web navigation, and for that reason, I wouldn't want to remove the article Epilepsy from Category:Neurological disorders, as I'd expect to find it there, not solely in a subcategory. Furthermore, I'd like to diffuse the article Abarognosis out of Category:Neurological disorders, as I would have thought it (1) less important and (2) likely to be related to other disorders that could form a subcategory. Unfortunately, I don't see an appropriate subcategory in Category:Neurological disorders to place it in. Perhaps you can see why I advocate allowing categories farther down the tree to be non-diffuse: that's where you would be most likely to have a need for subcategories with single members if all categories had to be diffuse. -- RexxS ( talk) 06:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I have created another category Category:Lymphoma, which I feel will be as helpful, if not more helpful, than Category:Meningitis, as it provides a navigational connection between the articles on various forms of lymphoma. Immunize ( talk) 14:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
So you oppose this category? Immunize ( talk) 18:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I have created 2 more categories, Category:Sarcoma and Category:Colitis. Immunize ( talk) 14:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I have now also created the category Category:Kidney cancer, however just after it's creation I realized that there were benign kidney tumors that needed a category more specific than Category:Kidney diseases, which is what they are in, and that by naming this category "Kidney cancer" I was excluding these articles on benign renal neoplasms from having there categorization improved. I briefly considered proposing a renaming kidney cancer kidney tumors, but I have now decided that the best course of action would most likely be creating a new category, Category:benign renal neoplasm, and then having both Category:Kidney cancer and Category:Benign renal neoplasms as a subcategory of Category:Kidney diseases. I plan to start work on Category:Benign renal neoplasms immediately. Please let me know of your opinions on the matter. Best wishes. Immunize ( talk) 17:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Ventilation/perfusion scan seems to behave like a subpage of Ventilation. Does anyone know how to fix this? Is there an alternative name we could use? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I want to have a complete listing of all the different types of id reactions. I know of tuberculid, pintids, syphilid, candidid, and dermatophytid. What others are out there? Thanks again! --- kilbad ( talk) 23:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I created this diagram, I wanna ask if this is useful??, If it is I will create a separate diagram for each murmur comparing it to normal MaenK.A. Talk 11:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Should I keep working on these?? MaenK.A. Talk 18:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the oldest article to be merged on the above list noticed the nav templates look a bit odd, one has Template:Digestive system and abdomen symptoms and signs, and the other Template:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs, there was brief talk of a merge but can't see if it went anywhere. I think it would be clearer to merge the two templates and drop the 'eponymous' ? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I am arguing with an other editor in the Saturated Fat talk page about making some changes to the article. Currently the first sentence under subsection Cardiovascular diseases is "Diets high in saturated fat have been correlated with an increased incidence of atherosclerosis[7] and coronary heart disease[8]." The sources are irrelevant to the claim, because they do not talk about the correlation between SFA consumption and CHD risk determined by observational studies. They simply say SFAs are unhealthy and increase cholesterol. But it has nothing to do with the direct correlation that observational studies determine. I changed the sentence to "The vast majority of observational studies have found no connection between saturated fat consumption and heart attack risk.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Three review papers, one of them including 21 cohort studies, concluded that there is no significant association between coronary heart disease and saturated fat consumption.[17][18][19]". I provided extensive evidence and three reviews done by independent investigators, that reviewed the observational studies and concluded there is no significant correlation. The person I am having a dispute with, Nutriveg, who reverted my edits, now says I don't have a consensus, because he doesn't agree with the changes and I can't put my edits back. So I would appreciate if I could get someone else to comment on it and look into it.-- Whatdidyoudo ( talk) 08:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I was wondering if anyone could possibly add a few images to my Combined Small Cell Lung Carcinoma article - of course, at your convenience. It would be greatly appreciated, and thank you in advance.
With best regards: Cliff
Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS DDF 02:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uploadvirus ( talk • contribs)
Can someone find out what specific palmoplantar keratoderma is shown in this photo? Thanks in advance. --- kilbad ( talk) 20:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I passed by the Freeman-Sheldon syndrome article while adding some images from commons, and I could not confirm whether these syndromes are separate syndromes, or variants of the same syndromes, the resources about the subject are few, and I found here a review suggesting that FSS is a variant of SHS, while other sources like this, this, and this one state them as separate disorders, and some other resources state that they are sub types of Distal arthrogryposis syndrome, so what should be done here?? shall we have separate articles for each?? or shall we have an article for Distal arthrogryposis syndrome linking to articles about FSS and SHS?? any ideas?? MaenK.A. Talk 17:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Is it a duplication to add a page (for instance, Glioblastoma multiforme) into both Category:Nervous system neoplasms and to Category:Neurooncology? Immunize ( talk) 13:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
In this case, I am inclined to agree with you that this is a duplication. I favor the title over that of Nervous system neoplasms over Neurooncology as categories are meant to be specific, and I feel that Nervous system neoplasms is more specific than category:Neurooncology. However, there are articles ( Grading of the tumors of the central nervous system and WHO classification of the tumors of the central nervous system) that I feel fit much better into Category:Neurooncology than they would in Category:Nervous system neoplasms. Immunize ( talk) 15:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Or perhaps we could nominate one of the categories for deletion? Immunize ( talk) 21:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
And if we were to consider one for deletion, I would think it would be Category:Nervous system neoplasms because Category:Neurooncology covers more articles and thus would seem to be more useful. I suppose will go ahead and begin populating the category Category:Neurooncology with the articles on specific tumor types, but I am somewhat reluctant to do this while the pages are in Category:Nervous system neoplasms. Immunize ( talk) 23:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Neurooncology for deletion, with the main reason being that it is underpopulated, and that the topics that would fit into it are already covered under Category:Nervous system neoplasms. Immunize ( talk) 14:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Update Category:Neurooncology has been deleted per CfD discussion, and the few pages that were within have been recategorized. Immunize ( talk) 19:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
There's a proposal at WP:Research to provide an official Wikipedia group to authorize surveys and other research projects by outside groups. Its major 'thing' seems to be a special bot to canvas randomly selected editors (e.g., to invite editors to participate in a survey about why they are editors).
Since several participants here know a bit more about research than the average editor, I thought you might like to know about this. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Is the Vagovagal reflex the same thing as a Vasovagal reflex? Is it the same as a Vagus reflex? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate the project's help with a peer review of the nocturnal enuresis article. Please see the peer review page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wshallwshall ( talk • contribs) 20:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
(also posted on Portal talk:medicine, not sure where the best place to post this is) Whilst trying to make a couple of articles clearer, and more useful as entry portals into their subject matter, I copied some of the collapsible templates into the relevant sections as a navigation aid. As a narrow strip they are fairly unobtrusive to someone just reading through the article and when opened put the whole topic in context. I personally feel that at the bottom of the page, especially whilst collapsed they are largly ignored/ignorable. In an article such as nervous system there are now so many of these that they they just put you off exploring them and the way some of the nested ones expand it just begins to look messy. If a template such as this is put in the relevant section (see visual system which for the moment has been allowed to stand) then they actually give a really great overview of the material that is available in wikipedia about that subject and put it all in context. I think it would also help editors as you get a clear idea of which pages are covering which parts of the material and so avoid duplication and unnecessary sidetracks. At the moment 2 out of three articles have just had my changes reverted quoting the WP:MOS (which doesn't actually mention them) and I think the bit on WP:LAYOUT about the order of bits at the bottom of the page is what the editors meant. I don't think it excludes using these templates in the body of the article as well. Even if it did then perhaps it needs review but obviously a much bigger body of opinion. Consistency is good but not at the loss of useful functionality. I obviously can't make a change like this on my own and I don't want to start an edit war over a few pages. Does anybody else think this is a useful way to go?
BTW I chose to re-use the footer navboxes because they already exist in large numbers thanks to a lot of peoples hard work. Does anybody think we need this sort of topic navigation but in a different format? Arfgab ( talk) 06:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone noticed, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Unreferenced BLPs lists: zero unreferenced BLPs. We must be doing something right. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
As previously posted above, another user had received permissions to use photos from dermnet.com. However, after e-mailing the dermnet support email address, it seems there was a misunderstanding about which images were approved for use on Wikipedia. The following e-mail is what I received:
"Hi Brendan,
I have looked at the Dermatology related articles on Wikipedia and you are doing a very nice job with them. As for images from Dermnet.com I think there has been a misunderstanding. I was originally contacted by someone from Jordan (Madhero88) asking permission for specific images to be used in specific articles. There are 19 images altogether that I received approval for from the copyright holders. As you know, the Wikipedia user then started posting many more images than I had received copyright holder permission for. You had attempted to make me aware of this but I didn't read the email you sent me closely enough (the email I am responding to). I personally do not own the copyright to any of the images on Dermnet and therefore cannot give permission to repost all the images from Dermnet.com, nor would I want to do this. I have talked to the copyright holders for these images and they have not given permission for these images to be reposted on Wikipedia. I am a big fan of Wikipedia and the work you are doing. I know that this was an unfortunate misunderstanding by myself and the contributor from Jordan (Madero88). I request that you remove all the images from Wikipedia that are reposted from Dermnet.com, except for the original 19 that were agreed to (listed below). If there is a future request for any specific photos from Dermnet.com I would appreciate it if you would be the one to make it.
Thomas Habif, MD Adjunct Professor of Medicine Dartmouth Medical School"
He also sent an attachment with images approved for use on Wikipedia...
Therefore, with all that being posted, would some of you help clean this mess up? --- kilbad ( talk) 14:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
| ||||||||
An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter |
As detailed in last week's Signpost, WildBot has been patrolling Wikipedia-Books and searched for various problems in them, such as books having duplicate articles or containing redirects. WikiProject Wikipedia-Books is in the process of cleaning them up, but help would be appreciated. For this project, the following books have problems:
The problem reports explain in details what exactly are the problems, why they are problems, and how to fix them. This way anyone can fix them even if they aren't familiar with books. If you don't see something that looks like this, then all problems have been fixed. (Please strike articles from this list as the problems get fixed.)
Also, the {{ saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of books (title, subtitle, cover-image, cover-color), and gives are preview of the default cover on the book's page. An example of such a cover is found on the right. Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class medicine articles should have covers.
If you need help with cleaning up a book, help with the {{ saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.
This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 00:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ( owner • talk) 00:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Rich put together a great list of derm ICD9 codes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/ILDS-ICD. However, many times the redlinks utilize a comma, like Balanitis, amoebic. Therefore, I wanted to know if someone would help reverse all the redlinks with commas. So, with the previous example, the redlink would be changed to Amoebic balanitis. Thanks in advance! --- kilbad ( talk) 17:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not balanitis, amoebic should be a redirect, I will leave to the rest of you. However, I think that most of us agree that for the reordered links, like amoebic balanitis, a redirect might be an appropriate addition to Wikipedia. Therefore, with that being the case, would someone help reverse all the redlinks that contain commas? --- kilbad ( talk) 19:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I have redirected Balanitis, amoebic to Balanitis. Immunize ( talk) 16:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I recall a discussion about list of causes of... articles a month or so ago. This article perhaps fell through the cracks, as it is unreferenced and in need of attention. Regards, PDCook ( talk) 16:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I saw something to the effect that Herpangina and Hand, foot and mouth disease are the same disease. We have two separate articles on these, neither of which seems to mention the other.
Are these the same (in which case presumably we should merge these), or different? (in which case, is there any point in adding to each article a mention the other disease?)
Thanks as always. -- 189.122.83.71 ( talk) 22:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
We are having a disagreement over formatting at ADHD. Would anyone like to comment? A great deal of hide show boxes were added along with primary research. Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder Thanks Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Could someone create stubs on the follow-up conditions?
Please add dashes/adjust the capitalization as needed. Thanks in advance! --- kilbad ( talk) 18:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I've updated my list of missing medicine topics - Skysmith ( talk) 13:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
There is an error tn this article on xerophthalmia.Instead of causes of xerophthalmia what is published is causes of Cyanosis.This is to be corrected. Kvdev ( talk) 11:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello all.
I'm currently working on a bio for toxicologist Gabriel L. Plaa. For talking about his primary research, I'm basing mostly on doi: 10.3109/03602539709037571, an account by himself of his career. There's one aspect regarding his research on cholestasis I'm quite unclear about. Basically a significant interest for him was the elaboration of a protocol to detect cholestatic properties in drugs by animal test, but this was made difficult because, I think, the common lab animals (he specifically discuss rats and mentions hamsters and rabbits) are much less suceptible to cholestasis than human. Is that correct? I'd ask on that article's talk page, but it is little edited (and the article is currently rather... curt).
As an aside, has such a protocol been devised since Plaa's retirement? Since I'm no medical student, I wouldn't quite know where to look regarding the state of the art of this subject.
thanks in avance, Circéus ( talk) 12:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I want to occasionally add an external link to dermpedia.org, but am concerned that the link will occasionally be removed as spam. How do I go about making sure that does not happen? I have not included any external links thus far. Thanks in advance! --- kilbad ( talk) 14:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
It appears that Talk:Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis#Mixed_results_in_Lead would benefit from some level-headed editors.
If memory serves (and it might not), the typical story runs something like this: Women who have either voluntary abortions or involuntary miscarriages (early in the pregnancies) have (approximately) the same breast cancer risk as those who never got pregnant. Since (the hormones associated with) (full-term) pregnancy protects against breast cancer, then women who end or lose their pregnancies have a higher risk of breast cancer compared to those who achieved a full-term pregnancy.
As a result, the choice of control group (never got pregnant vs did not abort) determines the outcome, especially if you're considering the outcome of a first pregnancy. Mainstream sources have universally chosen "didn't get pregnant" as the suitable control group. The sources also address some other confounding factors, such as the use of oral contraceptives, number of other pregnancies, etc.
All of the usual agencies say that abortion/miscarriage does not cause breast cancer. Most of the usual agencies plainly say that there is no statistical association, and a few weasel slightly on the point (see "confounding factors" and "it's a bit more complicated than that"). The article has relied largely on a major report from the NCI, which takes a strong view on this point.
A single recent study (more recent than the NCI paper) says that there might be a small association -- a little lower risk than drinking 2 to 5 servings of alcohol each day, and puny compared to BRCA1/2 -- and there is a dispute about whether to incorporate this recent information into the lead.
Much of the talk page has been MastCell vs RoyBoy for over a year, and I think that the addition of several new editors would really improve matters. Please consider reading the current discussion and watchlisting this article. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out what to do with irritable bowel disease. From a bit of digging, it looks like it is an undefined term often used as a synonym for irritable bowel syndrome (for which it is currently a redirect) but stands at tremendous risk of being mistaken for inflammatory bowel disease. Does anyone know if irritable bowel disease is an actual (presumably rare) diagnosis? And what would all y'all think of turning irritable bowel disease into a disambiguation page for both IBS and inflammatory bowel disease? Nothing turns up as a primary definition, google search is not helpful, nor is google scholar nay google books. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 13:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Ladies and Gentlemen:
My name is Cliff, a/k/a "uploadvirus". I am writing to respond to a proposal someone made to merge Pleural Fibroma into Solitary Fibrous Tumor.
BACKGROUND: I was looking around on Project Medicine for things people wanted done to see what I could contribute, and I noticed (somewhere) that someone had requested that an article be written on Pleural Fibroma. I went ahead and made the current page for Pleural Fibroma, which included a definition of it as "... an outdated synonym for a mesenchymal neoplasm originating in areolar tissue adjacent to the pleura (membranes surrounding the lung). The current favored term for a pleural fibroma is "solitary fibrous tumor of the pleura", and referencing the most current WHO lung tumor classification system. I then (thought I) included a redirect to the Solitary fibrous tumor article, which I began writing. I haven't worked on it recently though.
I have no problem merging Pleural fibroma into Solitary fibrous tumor, and working the term "pleural fibroma" into a synomyms section. Lastly, the dead link to the WHO classification system us baffling - thats the correct address, and I just downloaded the file from that address earlier today, but for whatever reason, it keeps bringing back "Page not found" from there.
Therefore, I went back and fixed the link by changing it to the Download page for the classification system .pdf's, from where folks can download the lung tumor classification .pdf (or the other classification .pdf's) directly.
Best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS ( talk) 18:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Is the Drug addiction article within our scope? Currently it is tagged for the psychology project, and was surprised not to see us there - thought I'd check first! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 23:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
This page could use a few more eyes to get it going in the right direction. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I've had this since I was a child, but I just noticed that someone created an article about it in August 2009. Every physician I've talked to about it refers to as a form of arthritis. I'm curious, is this the appropriate name for the article, or is there an actual clinical term? Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 01:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I would like to draw attention to this newly created article, which is obviously important to the WikiProject and as currently written is far from encyclopedia-quality. Looie496 ( talk) 17:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
There is some disagreement on the name of the alcoholism article. The World Health Organisation, ICD and others favour the term alcohol dependence instead of alcoholism, but other editors prefer the term alcoholism as it is more widely known. Perhaps WP:COMMONNAME favours alcoholism or does the official medical term trump common name? I am in support of a move of alcoholism to alcohol dependence to keep with ICD and WHO, but I can see why some prefer to keep it as alcoholism as it is in more common usage. So we have a conundrum. It would be much appreciated if wiki med members/contributors could comment either in support or oppose on the alcoholism talk page. I would suggest reading here, User_talk:Arcadian#Alcoholism_and_alcohol_dependence and here Talk:Alcoholism#Alcoholism_and_alcohol_dependence for background information. Thanks.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I forgot to say that we have two articles, one for alcohol dependence and one for alcoholism and both have the same ICD10 and ICD9 codes.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I would like to respectfully request a review of the article I've been working on lately entitled large cell lung carcinoma with rhabdoid phenotype. I would consider it 90% or so finished, and would appreciate any suggestions, edits, etc. If anyone has some time, take a look and let me know what you think.
I thank you all for your time, attention, and courtesy.
Best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS ( talk) 00:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
There's a discussion over at Talk:Prostatitis (and CP/CPPS) over whether or not some cases of CP/CPPS are associated with infection despite a negative culture, and the role of antibiotics in the treatment of the condition. Input from more editors would be helpful. (Context should be clear from edit history and talk page.) -- Arcadian ( talk) 23:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
This is an announcement of the initial stages of what will hopefully become a long-term collaboration between the Wikipedia Foundation and Google.org, a charitable foundation funded by Google. Tim Vickers ( talk) 17:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
We at Google.org admire WikiProject Medicine’s improvement of health-related articles on Wikipedia. As others have already noted, you've created an important body of knowledge that ranks among the best sources of health information on the English web – no mean feat! We'd like to accelerate the momentum you’ve already established, and help in making the fruits of your labor available to more people around the world.
As I'm sure you all know, there's an urgent need for reliable health information, especially in developing countries. According to one recent estimate, tens of thousands die every day due to lack of an informed parent, caregiver or health worker.
We'd like to help in two ways. First, we'd like to provide vetting of a subset of popular medical articles by recognized authorities. We'll post these reviews on the corresponding Talk pages, and we hope that you'll use them as stepping stones to improve the articles. (We'll alert you on this WikiProject Talk page as the reviews become available.) Second, we'll work with volunteers to translate your work into other languages – such as Swahili, Arabic and Spanish – in collaboration with the communities of editors on those Wikipedias. We've been pleased with the success of this approach during our recent Kiswahili Wikipedia Challenge and have received positive feedback from the Wikimedia Foundation.
This initiative is primarily a project of Google.org, the philanthropic arm of Google that uses information and technology to address global challenges in areas such as health, poverty and the environment – but we'd really like to make it a team effort! We sincerely hope that you'll join us in this important cause by responding to the reviews, participating in the discussion, and finding ways to improve the articles. We're optimistic that our joint efforts will benefit both Wikipedia and the world as a whole.
We're going to start small by reviewing a sample of forty medical articles on the English Wikipedia, which you can find listed here (article list). This trial will allow us to gradually scale up as we learn more about the best ways of working with you. Your suggestions and comments are very welcome!
Thanks so much for your help, and congratulations again on all your valuable work to date.
- Google.org April 2010
This is really good news, Tim. What's you're involvement in this? Colin° Talk 17:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
# | Name | Status as of April 2010 | Page views for March 2010 | Reviewed by outside experts |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2009 flu pandemic | Good article | 274 | Not yet |
2 | Hemorrhoid | Start class | 326 | Not yet |
(undent) Even though it would be good to have some more feedback what we really need is more people who are willing to write high quality articles. There is tons of work to do just a lack of people willing to do it. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
(undent) Acute pharyngitis IMO would be a better page to review for starters rather than strep pharyngitis a subtype of acute pharyngitis. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Should we create a task force or other dedicated Medicine subpage to help ensure that the Google collaboration is a success? Remember ( talk) 17:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Dyspepsia and heartburn are often used interchangeably. Should we merge the two? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Stem cell treatment is missing an importance rting from us, as it could be a major therapy and is a major controversial subject I would've place it High ( or even Top ), but MCB project has it tagged as low on their importance scale... What should it be?-- Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 10:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The article Cyclic vomiting syndrome states that "abortive therapy has limited success", but abortive therapy isn't wikilinked. I felt that understanding it would help me with understanding of CVS, so I searched to see was there an article. There wasn't. I googled, and got some idea what it means. I have no expertise in medicine, but surely that's a topic that has scope for an article? Could someone start one - even a stub? Thanks. Girlwithgreeneyes ( talk) 18:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, both. The therapy article is helpful. I did find out what abortive therapy was through googling, but I felt that within the CVS article, a link would be useful. Girlwithgreeneyes ( talk) 09:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Can any of you recommend some good articles on formatting of a medical note. Restated, when I write a note on a patient (i.e. CC, HPI, ALL, PMH, PSH, FH, SH, PE, A, P), are there any articles on how to best format the note, particularly in the context of an EMR. --- kilbad ( talk) 01:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
No standardization. Until the last decade, most notes were handwritten. EMRs generally have not had fancy formatting capabilities like indenting, bolding, fonts etc. Some of the newer ones do, but no doctor has the time to make a note pretty. alteripse ( talk) 10:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The illustration under 'How it works' in the Port (medical) article] does not seem to fit the accompanying text, nor is it helpful in illustrating the article. Lriley47 ( talk) 18:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I ve been working on an input box that would help greatly creating new disease articles. you can try it here, If we agree to use it, I can move all subpages to wikiproject medicine subpages
MaenK.A.
Talk
18:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I ve created a collapsible type of menu with the same content of the editnotice for the tool, can we add it to the Wikiproject medicine template that we use on articles talk pages?? here it is
Toolbox Edit |
---|
MaenK.A. Talk 13:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I Moved the template to the project subpages here MaenK.A. Talk 14:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, Just noticed while searching for heart block types that neither " 1° heart block" or " 1st degree heart block" redirects to "First-degree atrioventricular block". In fact, " 1° atrioventricular block" doesn't even do that either. I suggest adding that redirection. On a slightly related note, I think adding trace ECGs of sinus rhythm verus first degree heart block would be useful. I happen to have both traces if they are wanted. FruitywS ( talk) 14:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Just as another addition, could you redirect 2nd degree heart block too? 3rd degree is done fine already it seems.
FruitywS (
talk)
13:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm hoping I can find someone here to help me with the article James W. Black (the inventor of beta blockers inter alia). I'd really like to get the article to GA, but my knowledge of his field of medicine is pretty much limited to what I can comprehend from the sources, so I'd really like either a bit of informal feedback or a collaboration with somebody so I can make the article as informative as possible. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Is lingering at good article nominations. I am reviewing it and it could use a little help with comprehensiveness. Any british folks (or other nationalities) - some more worldwide data is needed at the Prognosis section - and possibly at the Epidemiology section. Come join in the discussion at the review page - all input on comprehensiveness and sourcing welcome. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I have a personal website. Would it be safe to post my resume online there? I have seen a few of you do that. Is it safe to do so? What precautions should I take, etc. --- kilbad ( talk) 22:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I browsed to this article just now, redirected from a link to Chronic Hyperventilation Syndrome (capitals in original) in Buteyko method. I'm not an expert in this field and I apologise in advance if I'm wrong, but I'm concerned that the Theory section in the latter article has the stylistic characteristics of a fringe opinion. This is also suggested by its stating that 'PEF and FEV1 lung function tests are not appropriate tests for testing asthmatics': they certainly were when I was working in general hospital medicine a few years ago.
My reason for posting this here rather than on the Buteyko article's talk page is that Hyperventilation syndrome appears to have been affected by the same problem: it begins 'Hyperventilation syndrome (HVS; also Chronic Hyperventilation Syndrome or CHVS)' (note capitalisation) and continues with a mixture of uncontroversial statements about the effects of (acute) hyperventilation alongside some rather odd-sounding material such as a large table illustrating chronic hyperventilation in various diseases.
Can anyone verify this material, or confirm my suspicion that some of it is bogus? Neurotip ( talk) 01:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
A new editor has worked hard on Graves disease posting over 250 edits in the last few days. Aside from copyedit issues (article length incr 35 to 135kb despite existing subarticle links) and listing abstracts on lots of research papers, issues of cherry picking primary sources for there being long term psychiatric sequellae (beyond normalisation of thyroid function) and impact on jobs etc. Other primary sources dispute this, and general consensus would I think be that there is no consistent longterm neuropsychiatric prognosis (eg per eMedicine article's one paragraph to this citing 2007 review) - ie WP:MEDRS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:NPOV issues.
Much of the work repositioned or rephrased the article sensibly, but impossible to untangle 250+ edits, a few by other editors too in midst of this large viewpoint/balance/weight realignment.
Anyway please have a look at the prior & current version (I've reverted back to April 9) and the additional material version, and help this new editor with their earnest contributions - further discussion should be had at Talk:Graves' disease#Major edits revert. David Ruben Talk 23:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I think there should be a separate article for Physiological changes in pregnancy. Currently, there are two large sections dealing with the subject, Obstetrics#Maternal_change, and Pregnancy#Physiological_changes_in_pregnancy. However, the scope of Obstetrics article is rather the medical profession per se, and few readers wanting to know about the physiological changes expect to find them there. The Pregnancy article, on the other hand, is 59 kilobytes long and on the verge of really needing to have some of it forked away. Merging these sections together would make a more powerful piece than each of them separately. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 16:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
WP has an article and category for Orthopedic surgery but not the more-general "orthopedics", or something similar. Is this an oversight or intentional? Maurreen ( talk) 07:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads-up about a formatting problem that you may encounter with Diberri's ref tool:
If a journal isn't written in English, then PubMed puts the name of the article title in [square brackets] -- which creates odd formatting effects in {{ cite journal}}. The simple solution is just to remove the stray square brackets. If you happen to see something that looks like [ Article title] in a template-using ref, then that may be the issue. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)|trans_title=
for these cases as:{{
cite journal}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)I recently merged the content of Extraesophageal reflux disease to Laryngopharyngeal reflux, as the terms refer to the same condition. Any assistance to improve this fledgling article would be appreciated.
Can anyone identify any other appropriate templates to place at the bottom of this page? Is there a template for disorders of the larynx, and, if so, would Laryngopharyngeal reflux be an appropriate addition? Any help is appreciated, thanks. TypicalUser ( talk) 23:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Larynx was targeted for vandalism over a month ago, which I only just now discovered and restored. Interested people, please add Larynx to your watchlist to resolve any further vandalism. Thanks. TypicalUser ( talk) 23:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
See the history of edits on arc eye. We have an ambitious editor named user:wizard191 who, rather than accept my edits to make the treatment section less dangerous, decided to delete it entirely. He's coming to a medical article near you. What say you all? S B H arris
Wowzers...I didn't realize my edit was going to spurn all this. Just to make a few notes:
I honestly meant my edits in good faith, and not as a personal attack against SBHarris' edit to the article. I hope that there are no hard feeling from here on out and that we can move on to bettering our encyclopedia (as it appears you guys have through merging related articles). Wizard191 ( talk) 21:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of HOWTO violations, the following 15 pages are tagged as needing attention on that point:
Any editor should feel free to pick one and improve it -- even small efforts are valuable! WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
There's a disagreement regarding this image that is purported to be an electron micrograph of the Hepatitis C virus. I believe the preferred image of viruses and bacteria is a micrograph rather than a diagram or drawing (that's my general recall of specific pages) but can't find guidance. Any advice? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 01:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Would someone help me format the following reference into the citation template?
Ryan T: Cutaneous Circulation. In: Physiology, biochemistry, and molecular biology of the skin. Goldsmith LA (ed). New York:Oxford University Press, 1991, pp. 1019.
Thanks in advance! --- kilbad ( talk) 15:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
|chapter=
parameter to specify the name of the chapter. The |author=
is the chapter's author, and Goldsmith is the |editor=
, which gives you:
While working on categorization of diseases, I have come across many articles that are categorized into Category:Genetic disorders and a type of heredity subcategory (such as Category:Autosomal recessive disorders). Is it necessary to put articles in both of these categories? For diseases with known inheritance patterns, I do not think they need to be in the overly generalized Category:Genetic disorders. After all, almost all diseases can be said to have a genetic component. Therefore, I would like to clean up and diffuse Category:Genetic disorders into subcategories based on things like involved chromosomes and dominance. -- Scott Alter 15:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Since microscopy is within your scope, I'm letting you know about this figure that I composed (from previously existing material) that might be useful for illustrating aspects of light and/or electron microscopy. If you need to make changes that will reduce the EV in the three butterfly-related articles where it's currently placed, please create a fork instead. Thank you.
Photographic and light microscopic images Zoomed-out view of an Aglais io. Closeup of the scales of the same specimen. High magnification of the coloured scales (probably a different species). Electron microscopic images A patch of wing Scales close up A single scale Microstructure of a scale Magnification Approx. ×50 Approx. ×200 ×1000 ×5000
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk)
11:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I raised a query re use of this subscription only source at WT:MEDRS, initial reponse suggested here might have been a better location for the query - see WT:MEDRS#Use or overuse of UpToDate. David Ruben Talk 23:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I have never regarded UpToDate as a useful source for Wikipedia. It is a continuously-changing professional resource, much like Emedicine articles, and is clearly intended to be a practical resource. In contrast, high-quality journal reviews do not change until they are updated and are clearly more suitable. Having skimmed a fair number of UpToDate articles, I'm also struck by the fact that its authors sometimes get really obscure. On the whole, UpToDate entries are not equivalent to journal reviews and should be avoided. JFW | T@lk 07:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
UpToDate is certainly one of the best online resources for clinical care in the US. It is expensive and most of us rely on hospital or university access. It is typically more comprehensive and less uneven than Emedicine, with better details of treatment. While UpToDate is fairly well referenced, I agree w JFW that it is not a reference of choice for WP because of the expensive cost of access and frequent revisions, but also because to this point there is nothing in it for which there is not a standard reference. {Parenthetically I am always surprised and slightly disturbed at how many house officers will openly admit they start with WP, since UpToDate has a considerably burdensome log-in threshold). alteripse ( talk) 17:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
|accessdate=
parameter is designed for exactly that situation.I have never thought of it as a "patient oriented website". I would not dispute that it is an excellent site for practicing physicians who have access to it. That said, abstracts of standard journal articles are still far more accessible to those who simply want the gist of a reference or to verify that the reference says what the referencer claims it does. While buying single journal articles is prohibitively expensive, there are greater chances of access to many clinical journals at local hospital and university libraries than to UpToDate for most of our readers. Finally, for many purposes, if you have a choice of references the original citation, the most authoritative citation, or the most accessible citation might be preferred, and those three criteria are still not likely ever to be UpToDate. alteripse ( talk) 02:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
We are discussing the merge of these two pages here: Talk:Protein_allergy#Merge. Comments would be appreciated. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
An editor with a chip on their shoulder (see their possibly forbidden username) has made an edit that has been reverted. That article may need to be gone through to make sure it lives up to our MEDRS guideline. -- Brangifer ( talk) 00:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, First off please correct me if it's wrong to ask for improvements in this manner. I'm just looking through the entire platelet activation process in detail and I notice that there seems to be some considerable difference in manner between the coagulation article and the platelet activation subsection. Personally I find the coagulation article much clearer, and in better depth. I'm wondering if maybe the platelet article be brought up to this level, or perhaps a see also marker be placed in the section and a broad overview given instead. At the present time I just found it to be slightly poor compared to the usual standard on these topics. I'm not well enough accustomed to wiki (or endowed with enough knowledge on the topic) to edit it to a suitable standard I feel. Any thoughts? FruitywS ( talk) 15:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I was under the impression that a seizure and convulsion are the same thing but we have two seperate articles with the same ICD9 and Mesh codes. I think that they need merged, but I am open to persuasion. :)-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Both our seizure and seizure types articles deal solely with epileptic seizures. The reason they are at seizure and not epileptic seizure is our WP:COMMONNAME policy. There is an argument that they should be at the full unambiguous name and that seizure should be a DAB. However, that would require fixing many links and break WP:COMMONNAME. This is the problem we have that accurate naming conflicting with WP policy. The proposed mergers don't help without fixing the above accurate naming issues.
A convulsion is a muscle spasm and when the cause is epileptic, the precise term would be a clonic seizure, which is listed in seizure types, and this can occur as a phase within a tonic-clonic seizure that many people are familiar with. An older term was grand mal seizure. But convulsions can have non-epileptic causes. There are many non-convulsive epileptic seizure types, though many people (including medics) are unfamiliar with them. The word "convulsion" isn't just a lay term: it accurately describes the visible manifestation that the patient or an observer saw.
The term seizure is imprecise but when used by medics is nearly always an abbreviated way of saying "epileptic seizure". A medic wouldn't describe a heart attack as a seizure or a fit of rage as a seizure. The word "fit" also has a broad range of uses, and is used by both lay and medics as a word for epileptic seizures too.
Non-epileptic seizures (of which psychogenic seizures are one kind) are a different kettle of fish. Some might argue they are simply a classification of misdiagnoses rather than a disorder someone should be diagnosed with. For example, someone might be suspected of having seizures but it turns out they are having fainting fits. They don't belong in the ILAE classification of (epileptic) seizures. To say they are a "subtype" of seizure is wrong in much the same way as a classification of animals doesn't have "stuffed toy" as a subtype, even though "teddy bear" shares the same word and has some similarities with a "bear". Colin° Talk 22:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Wrt renaming seizure to epileptic seizure and having Seizure (disambiguation) become seizure. WP:COMMONNAME recognises there are competing arguments for the current situation and the suggested one. Precision is the main reason for using epileptic seizure. But it fails on the recognizable, easy to find, concise and consistent tests. For example, the test for a name "which editors will most naturally link from other articles". The links seizure or seizures are used 1,101 times; the links epileptic seizure and epileptic seizures are used only 281 times. Nearly all of those 1,101 times refer to an epileptic seizure, though in some cases it may be hard to know.
The other test is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, where we judge whether "epileptic seizure" is what is nearly always meant by the term "seizure". I believe it is. This is reinforced by the article linking stats.
Lastly, our policy requires us to be "guided by the usage in reliable sources". A search on PubMed for article titles, shows that "seizure" or "seizures" are used 21,871 times and "epileptic seizure" or "epileptic seizures" are used only 1,777 times. Again, the articles with "seizure" in the title are almost universally referring to an epileptic seizure.
If this was an non-hyperlinked medical encyclopaedia, I'd probably vote for the article to be epileptic seizure as this is the precise term. But Wikipedia isn't. Colin° Talk 09:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Seizure has quite non-medical meanings as well that will not show on PubMed. A court of law may be "seized of a matter", pirates may "seize a ship", and in tribology poorly-lubricated surfaces in contact may "seize" each other. Any of these kinds of seizure could merit articles of their own, but would seem inappropriate to class as "non-epileptic". Seizure should be a simple disambiguation page with epileptic seizure as the first entry. Other medical meanings might come near the top of that page, but users should not need double redirects to find those other meanings. User:LeadSongDog come howl 15:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I also agree with Scott's suggestion, and would add that an admin isn't needed to move Seizure to Epileptic seizure over the redirect, since the history is trivial. However, when checking that, I noticed the log:
So it seems that we're proposing to reverse a move that had discussion in June 2008 – although I don't see that discussion at Talk:Seizure. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick note – before this gets archived – that Scott has now kindly done the work of moving Seizure to Epileptic seizure and used {{ Redirect6}} to make a sensible hatnote. Hopefully, this will stick and should then reflect much of the consensus here (in case editors want to refer to it in the future). -- RexxS ( talk) 23:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Would someone create a stub on the term rubeosis?? Thanks in advance! --- kilbad ( talk) 23:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
We have a page called Münchausen by Internet which is currently listed as a GA under the WP:MED project. It gets 8 pubmed hits. Wondering if other could take a look? -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
It looks like there's a relatively civil POV battle at Harm reduction, and it might be helpful to have more editors adding their comments. Most of it revolves around the drug policies in Sweden, so if there's anyone who reads Swedish or is familiar with their program, your involvement would be especially helpful.
The dispute largely involves the need to accurately interpreting sources (without going well beyond them), so I suspect that many of our editors could be helpful. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Are lists such as List of causes of diarrhea and List of causes of fever acceptable topics? Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I feel that the lists are desirable, as they are typically fairly comprehensive, provide references, and educate the reader. Immunize ( talk) 20:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Why not use DiagnosisPro as a source, rather then adding an external link and then mass-deleting lists? Immunize ( talk) 21:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
It already states that WP should not be used for medical advice, but if you feel it is still an issue, I would suggest putting a statement on every list of symptom causes explicitly stating that this list should not be used as medical advice. We could even create a template for this purpose. Immunize ( talk) 21:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
All lists should be merged with their parent articles. If a cause for diarrhoea is not worth mentioning on diarrhea, it is probably not notable for the list either. JFW | T@lk 22:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I was not aware that disclaimers were not allowed on articles, but does a template really count as a disclaimer if is says sometinhing like "not intended as medical advice"? Immunize ( talk) 23:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, I feel that if the lists cannot remain in there current form, they should be merged into there parent articles not deleted. For instance, I feel list of causes of fever should be merged into Fever, which has only a short causes section. However I still feel that it would be best for the lists to remain in there current form. Yes, there is a risk that these pages could be taken as advice, but we have an appropriate disclamier that should dissuade this use of the lists here. Immunize ( talk) 23:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I completely disagree. As WhatamIdoing ( talk · contribs) said, these lists are notable, and most of the lists are well sourced (for instance, in my list of causes of fever, each disease listed has a reference that certifies that it can cause fever, so they are well sourced and meet WP:NOTABLE guidelines. Best wishes. Immunize ( talk) 14:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
So, my lists are in no danger of deletion? Immunize ( talk) 21:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be consensus that these lists are not useful. What should we do with them? Can we identify them here? I can merge some of the smaller ones, but some of the list articles are quite large and I wouldn't know where to start. I should mention that User:Immunize is still generating these lists, such as List of causes of fatigue and List of causes of emesis. PDCook ( talk) 23:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
It is very difficult to compile thorough differential diagnosis lists. The best ones tend to be found in review articles and texts written by expert practitioners. I just did a quick review of DiagnosisPro and tested several problems with which i have some expertise: growth failure, hypoglycemia in infancy, adrenal failure, and ambiguous genitalia. It failed even to mention some major causes in a routine differential for each of the problems, leaving out whole categories of disease. I would not even recommend it as a starting point for a medical student. We should not be linking anything to it.
Despite the obvious effort put into them, User:Immunize's lists are similarly challenged. The two I checked are so incomplete as to be fairly useless. The two I just looked at (fatigue and emesis) feature exotic problems rarely seen for the last 25 years (e.g. Reye syndrome) while missing common ones (e.g. eating disorders). Anyone with expertise can look at those lists and immediately think of several important conditions omitted, while anyone without expertise has no way to guess how incomplete the lists are. Without some system for trying to achieve at least completeness of the major causes, it's hard to imagine who might benefit from partial lists. There is no way to say this without seeming to deprecate user:Immunize's efforts, but I agree with JFW that without article context and interpretive guidance, the lists themselves have little value here. alteripse ( talk) 21:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Update - I have listed the "diarrhoea" and "fever" lists for AFD. If these both lead to deletion decisions then we have a precedent for eliminating the others. Can I remind Immunize to stick carefully to WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS? You are free to observe the process by which experienced editors produce reliable medical content, and emulate their approaches. JFW | T@lk 08:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Would a move of my lists to the article incubator for improvement be reasonable? Immunize ( talk) 20:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Update Per AfD discussion, List of causes of fever and List of causes of diarrhea have been deleted. However, several other list articles remain. Personally, I favor improving the articles rather than nominating them for deletion. Immunize ( talk) 16:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, I could move the remaining lists to my userspace for improvement, and then move them back into the article space. Immunize ( talk) 16:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
In what way should the pages be improved-do you think it would be appropriate to add an "other symptoms" section to put the illness into context-for instance, in the case of meningococcemia, saying:Other symptoms of meningococcal meningitis include petechiae and purpura, emesis, severe headache, and meningismus. P.S. You suggested a copy and pastemove of the remaining lists into my userspace, but as far as I know copy and paste moves are not advised. Immunize ( talk) 20:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I would think that, if the articles are changed to something more similar to what you showed me at Testicular pain, they would need to be moved to a title such as Causes of fever, as they would no longer be in list format. Immunize ( talk) 14:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that this would be the title for the articles in question. Immunize ( talk) 14:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Done I have moved my userspace copy of List of causes of fever to the title you suggested. Should I move the lists still in the article space to this title as well? Immunize ( talk) 15:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Would you recommend me moving the remainder of the lists to my userspace? Immunize ( talk) 18:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Done I have moved all of the lists to my userspace for improvement. Also, I added Ewing's sarcoma to User:Immunize/Differential diagnosis for a fever, and have included a short description of the disease itself. Immunize ( talk) 21:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable to copy and paste information from another Wikipedia article (for instance, in the case of Ewings sarcoma) and use that to create a short summary? Immunize ( talk) 13:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I mean another Wikipedia article. Immunize ( talk) 14:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
When I say "another wikipedia" I mean another Wikipedia article. Immunize ( talk) 14:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I have copied and pasted information from Wikipedia into the article User:Immunize/Differential diagnosis for a fever, and have also created subsections for each disease in the article. Immunize ( talk) 15:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
So I should reference the copy-pasted information? Immunize ( talk) 18:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
It is verbatim from Wikipedia, because it is a direct copy-paste from a Wikipedia article. So you are saying I should cite it as from wikipedia and note in the edit summary that it is copy-pasted from Wikipedia, right? Immunize ( talk) 14:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I have improved the article User:Immunize/Differential diagnosis for a fever significantly over the past several days, and feel it may soon be time to move it back into the article space. Can an experienced medical wikipedian please look at it and give me their opinion? Immunize ( talk) 19:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Why has there been no response? I have edited the User:Immunize/Differential diagnosis for a fever article significantly, and it is now ready for review and possible move back to the article space. Immunize ( talk) 18:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Are there any other measures I could take to improve the list? Immunize ( talk) 22:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Would it be more appropriate to split the article into smaller articles such as "infectious causes for fever" or "neoplastic causes for fever"? Immunize ( talk) 12:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
So, as I understand it, you feel that this article is still a list despite the addition of large amounts of text in an attempt to put the list into context? Immunize ( talk) 16:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I suppose I am starting to doubt that these lists will ever be improved beyond there current state, given that you do not feel that, even after at least a month of work the lists are still not ready for move to the article space. Immunize ( talk) 19:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
This page redirected to xeroderma pigmentosum, but it's not the same syndrome. I have thought opportune to cancel the redirect... I'm waiting for someone of you who can be engaged to write a more complete voice. -- Ceccomaster ( talk) 14:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)