![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
Had an excellent talk with Translators Without Borders today. [1] Both they and I are interested in working on a collaboration to translate medical articles first into simple English and then into other languages. Are there others here interested in helping? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Where are these google translating folks? Would be good to get them involved. First we are looking at translating the GAs and FAs. Will than attempt to clean up the rest of the articles before translation. Help of course appreciated :-) Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Gluten intolerance should not redirect to Coeliac disease, as it is a different clinical entity MaenK.A. Talk 11:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
We'd need a better source to negate that assertion. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)This condition has several other names, including: cœliac disease (with œ ligature), c(o)eliac sprue, non-tropical sprue, endemic sprue, gluten enteropathy or gluten-sensitive enteropathy, and gluten intolerance.
but have no idea how mainstream this is. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 14:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Coeliac disease, or gluten-sensitive enteropathy, is only one aspect of a range of possible manifestations of gluten sensitivity. Although neurological manifestations in patients with established coeliac disease have been reported since 1966, it was not until 30 years later that, in some individuals, gluten sensitivity was shown to manifest solely with neurological dysfunction.
Hadjivassiliou M, Sanders DS, Grünewald RA, Woodroofe N, Boscolo S, Aeschlimann D (March 2010). "Gluten sensitivity: from gut to brain" (PDF). Lancet Neurol. 9 (3): 318–30. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70290-X. PMID 20170845. S2CID 206159061.
{{ cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: date and year ( link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link)
Gluten sensitivity is a systemic autoimmune disease that occurs in genetically susceptible individuals on ingesting gluten. It can appear at any age, then becoming a permanent condition. It is more frequent in women, as happens with other autoimmune diseases. Celiac disease is the intestinal form and the most important manifestation among a set of gluten-induced autoimmune pathologies that affect different systems.
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Celiac disease, or gluten sensitive enteropathy is a relatively common disease of the jejunum, leading to malabsorption. It is an immune mediated disease, induced by gluten on the grounds of a specific genetic makeup. After gluten exposition immune processes are induced mainly by T-cells, causing typical intestinal and extra intestinal manifestations. The diagnosis of celiac disease is based on jejunal biopsy histology and the presence of antibodies against endomysium and tissue transglutaminase.
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link).
This thing was demonstrated by researchers recently gathered in a symposium about the disease, I cant find all those papers yet, but i ll provide you with some soon, and As an example you can see the names of these articles suggests that [1] [2] And you can see the conclusion of this paper as "This study shows that the two gluten-associated disorders, CD and GS, are different clinical entities, and it contributes to the characterization of GS as a condition associated with prevalent gluten-induced activation of innate, rather than adaptive, immune responses in the absence of detectable changes in mucosal barrier function." [3] and here: ""Non-celiac gluten intolerance" may exist, but no clues to the mechanism were elucidated." [4] you may as well check this abstract. [5] -- MaenK.A. Talk 16:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
"Gluten intolerance" may be being used to cover any disorder, including CD, caused by ingestion of gluten, while "gluten sensitivity" covers all but CD. Not sure. That's my reading of this so far, and in light of this title: Serological Tests in Gluten Sensitivity (Nonceliac Gluten Intolerance). If that's the case, we may end up with Gluten intolerance as a disambiguation page pointing to Coeliac disease and Gluten sensitivity. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 16:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Currently, a number of morphological, functional and immunological disorders have been considered under the umbrella of [gluten sensitivity] that miss one or more of the key CD criteria (enteropathy, associated HLA haplotypes and presence of anti-TG2 antibodies), but respond to gluten exclusion.
Troncone R, Jabri B (June 2011). "Coeliac disease and gluten sensitivity". J. Intern. Med. 269 (6): 582–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2011.02385.x. PMID 21481018. S2CID 41638756.
{{ cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: date and year ( link)
( ←) There is no such thing as a gene for coeliac disease. Gluten intolerance is the development of symptoms after exposure to gluten, and I suspect that this is to the exclusion of coeliac disease which can be diagnosed with serology and histology. Some people ( Pdeitiker ( talk · contribs) amongst others) will claim that there are people with clinical symptoms who have positivity to older types of gluten serology (e.g. anti-gliadin) who anecdotally respond to gluten withdrawal. This is actually a controversial area, and Pdeitiker has created a large walled garden of articles, mostly built on WP:MEDRS-incompatible sources, expounding on these subjects. JFW | T@lk 17:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
This site is a general public site so I try to put things in a way in which most are going to understand. I was refering to being DQ2/DQ8 postive. This test is nowdays often recommended to rule out Celiac disease if there is suspicion. As previous poster stated, negative DQ2/DQ8 virtually excludes Celiac disease. I will continue to refer to this as the celiac gene rather then DQ2/DQ8 as this isnt a medical site and most will understand that more. Not all who carry predisposition to breast cancer get breast cancer either. -- Taniaaust1 ( talk) 05:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
DQ2/DQ8 seems to be a sine qua non for the disease, but most people with DQ2/DQ8 don't get coeliac disease, as rightly stated, and there are numerous other risk factors that - together with the genetic makeup - determine the risk of disease. I would therefore struggle to refer to any gene as the "coeliac gene". Gluten intolerance, gluten-sensitive diseases, and coeliac disease are probably on some sort of continuum, but many people are doubtful about the existence of the gluten neuropathies (almost everything written on the subject comes from a single group in Sheffield, UK). JFW | T@lk 22:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
A user
DrMircro is adding long list of causes using poor quality sources such as seen here
Hepatitis#Causes --
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
17:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
We are having a productive chat on my talk page. He has begun using review articles / medical textbook. I guess the main question is how we should organize long lists of causes. My suggestion is that we do something similar to what is found on the article Shortness of breath and Anaphylaxis. We discussion the main causes in prose for giving some context of how important each is. Than we create an article called "List of causes of X" such as List of causes of shortness of breath Comments? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, everyone. We really need outside opinions about whether or not to list asexuality as a sexual orientation in the Sexual orientation article and Template:Sexual orientation, as well as how to go about mentioning that it is considered a sexual orientation by some researchers (though still not by the general medical community).
And I hate to beg, but please do help out. The discussion is being had at Template talk:Sexual orientation#Is there evidence that Asexuality is a sexual orientation? Flyer22 ( talk) 03:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
We have a group of Yale grad students editing that I have begun listing here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Classes_editing#Yale_students. I do not know how many there are or who there prof is but am looking into it. Please add further students to the list. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I think that would be good. I have reverted again an editor at malaria from Yale who just keeps trying to hammer in his text without addressing any of the concerns on his own talk pages (editing under both an IP and a user name) or on the malaria talk page. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm seeing some potential problems from Biol373.cwru ( talk · contribs) - basically pasting in entire class papers over existing articles - but I currently have a final exam to create. Could someone deal with this? Thanks! (At least some of the articles in question are tagged as being for WikiProject Medicine as well as Neuroscience.) Allens ( talk) 17:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Should the lede of Chronic fatigue syndrome include "multiple psychological and physiological factors may contribute to the development and maintenance of symptoms"? I know little about this condition, though I've read a few reviews in the last couple of days. My superficial view is, using the quoted phrase in the lede gives undue emphasis to weakly supported speculation. (Of course it should be, and is, covered in the body of the article.) I fear that the phrase is being held in place because it offends patients and advocates, and is making some kind of point. I would appreciate other views. Talk page discussion is here. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 16:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Resolved. [2] -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 01:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
[3] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone! You may all know about this already, but there were several medical articles nominated at WP:GAN recently, all by the same person as part of a university class. I am hoping that there are a few of you that might be willing to look over the articles and either do a full GA review or post comments on the talk page regarding their adherence to WP:MEDRS. The articles still needing review are:
The majority of reviewers at GA don't have an in-depth knowledge of the reliable sources guidelines specifically for medical articles, so they may miss major issues with primary/secondary sources, reliance on outdated/unreliable journals, etc., which is a major reason I'm hoping some med-focused editors can help out with these reviews. Thanks in advance for any help you can give (although I know you've been dealing with a lot of other university-related editing, so if you don't have time, that is understandable!), Dana boomer ( talk) 19:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Would anyone be interested in looking through Ginkgo biloba? I happened upon it today, and noticed that it claimed that ginkgo "improved cognition" in multiple sclerosis patients. The cited source, PMID 17439907, says the exact opposite (that ginkgo "did not show a statistically significant improvement in cognitive function"). That's a bald-faced, outright dishonest misrepresentation with the potential to mislead readers about their health. It was apparently inserted in October 2009 and has remained undetected since in this relatively high-profile article. I'm planning to look through for more such problems with the article, but as my time is currently limited I'd welcome anyone else interested in a source check for this article. And Happy Holidays! :) MastCell Talk 21:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Cross-posted from Project Anatomy. Please reply there.
What is the prevailing opinion on many short articles vs. fewer longer ones? Does every structure really need a separate article? I'm sure the issue is broader than this, but because I am interested in the hand, this is what caught my eye. I would like to merge, for example, all of the extrinsic muscles of the hand into a single article. At present, each of the muscles have their own separate page. Nearly all of them are a very short stub-class article and a lot of information is duplicated. They have been around for several years in this state and it seems likely they will stay that way.
— User:Taylornate
What do people think of this as a ref and link? This user has been adding it to a number of pages Special:Contributions/Cjc22 Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Pneumothorax is on FAC - comments much welcomed on the FAC page. JFW | T@lk 10:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Wondering if anyone else would be willing to comment here Talk:Stroke#Merge_Silent_stroke -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Nobody seems to care about the
Autoimmune disease. Can it be deleted? Or is somebody willing to solve the many links to disambiguation pages?
Night of the Big Wind
talk
22:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, everyone, I'm new on Wikipedia. I have an interest in medicine and hope to pursue it as a career,and would like to contribute to WikiProject Medicine in any way possible. However, I am limited by the fact that I am still a teenager, and thus have not even started university, let alone gained a medical degree. Until such a time as I can contribute with tangible and verifiable information, what can you suggest that a person with no medical knowledge (such as myself) might do to contribute to the project? Benjitheijneb ( talk) 20:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Happy New Year folks.
I've written an essay about the recent psychology student editing assignment: User:Colin/A large scale student assignment – what could possibly go wrong? I'd appreciate your comments and opinions on the essay talk page. In particular, suggestions for alternative assignments for this class would be very helpful.
The assignment is due to be repeated with minor changes beginning the 28th January and ending 9th April. I think it is important that the WP:MED community voice whether this is a good idea or not, and suggest any necessary changes either to this assignment or to student assignments in general. It might be best to keep comments together on the talk page.
-- Colin° Talk 13:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I took the liberty of changing the collaboration of the month to Pneumothorax, currently a featured article candidate which could use anybody's help/input. -- WS ( talk) 13:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
A certain pharmaceutical company has some safety concerns about some of the Wiki pages related to their products they feel should be corrected. They want to work with Wikipedia to find a short- and long-term solution. What do you think is the best way to get the safety information to readers?
Other options could include:
1) Name someone from the company who would have a profile on Wikipedia and would act as a spokesperson.
2) Anyone can make those changes if they reveal conflict of interest in the edit history.
Your feedback is much appreciated.
NCurse work 16:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback! I guess the consensus is that if someone from a pharma company wants to make a correction in an entry about a pharma product (no matter whether it belongs to their own company or to another), they should cite reviews, peer-reviewed papers, reliable resources and leave a message on the discussion page of the entry or on the pharma project page claiming that they are from this pharma company therefore all conflicts of interest are revealed. NCurse work 10:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we should try and standardize the 'Edit summary' to highlight potentially contentious edits and have a system to review those edits systematically (panel of three editors, or some litmus test to ensure integrity of article is maintained. I am new to the community, so this process may already exist, in which case I will leave it to those more experienced to point us in the right direction. Laith Bustani ( talk) 14:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
If people are getting paid to make changes to improve the appearance of the payers products that however might be a concern. Some pharmaceutical companies have received some bad press for doing this in the past. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Amazing feedback, thank you! Now I'm going to send this to the company that contacted me in the first place. NCurse work 08:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
On Talk:Pomegranate and the Talk:Cranberry a discussion is taking place pertaining to 1) the health effects of the aforementioned fruit and berry, and 2) whether the reviews could belong to the ‘further reading’ – section? I am hoping for a larger community input. Do you have time to take a look? Thank you. Granateple ( talk) 19:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Solar eclipse is undergoing a review of its FA status. I had a read and noted it lacked sourcing for the viewing section, and could do with some buffing in terms of clarifying exactness of risks and damage to retina etc. I posted this in case anyone was more familiar with it (not a common syndrome in psychiatry...) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 19:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I have had a few offers of money for Wikipedia's medical initiatives. One project I was thinking of was hiring a summer student (basically a medical student between 2nd and 3rd year) to review all the new edits here. Than when not doing that they would make improvements to high / top importance medical articles and complete GA reviews. I would personally teach this person how to edit and basically they would spend 40 hours per week doing so during their summer holidays. Would probably limit applications to the University of British Columbia or the University of Calgary due to my location. The scholarship has not really garnered sufficient interest to keep it going. Comments? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
An editor at Talk:Asperger syndrome has declared that he will remove all comments from unregistered users in the future. Refusing to allow unregistered users to participate is obviously unacceptable, and I think it would be appropriate for a couple of admins to keep an eye on the page. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I have come across a couple of pages Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene and Superior angle of scapula which IMO do not belong as part of WPMED. Comments? -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Category:Disability disorders has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.
Notifiying WikiProject Medicine in case anyone can provide a good definition or better name for this category (apart of course from any other comments). -- Mirokado ( talk) 00:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The WMF has increased requirements for involvement as detailed here [5] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I have started an informal RfC on WT:PHARM#Template:AIDS Compounds whether the drugbox should link to NIAID ChemDB. Does anyone know about this database? Is it notable? -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 15:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello! This List of hospitals in India is very unorganized and obviously incomplete. I had some doubts about it. Hence thought that anyone would answer them here. Do we define what a Hospital means? I see many clinics also added to this list. Maybe they are hospitals but called as clinics or are clinics itself. But do we have some fixed thought on whats to be included here? And dont we require references? Very few of the enteries are blue linked and that will remain so forever. - Animeshkulkarni ( talk) 14:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I refer the group to this thread on the Talk page at Major Depressive Disorder concerning the use of Vincent van Gogh's painting "At Eternity's Gate" in that article and to this comment of mine pointing out it has no place in the article and should be removed.
The essence of the complaint is that is fully documented that van Gogh's painting is not at all, nor was ever meant to be, a portrayal of depressive disorder but is rather merely a study of an old man. For that reason alone it should be removed for reasons of encyclopaedic accuracy.
As it stands it necessarily makes a judgement about the nature of depressive disorder, that it necessarily implies despair, even that it necessarily implies suicidal ideation (because of its title and van Gogh's own well known suicide). It is very much to be regretted indeed in my opinion that a Wikipedia administrator, Casliber, a practicising psychiatrist it seems but a poor historian of art, appears to be the prime mover behind perpetuating these poor judgements.
It also mythologises Vincent van Gogh himself who took the greatest care to separate his difficulties in life from his work; the nature of whose illness is not settled but which is not certainly typical of a depressive disorder; who is not documented as suffering from suicidal depressive moods in the last months of his life when this painting was completed and whose suicide itself has in the past year been plausibly questioned by a respected source as rather a manslaughter.
I ask that the image be removed. If it is felt necessary, and I cannot imagine why it should be, that the article be illustrated by a fine art image, then I suggest the original image, Durer's Melancholia, be reinserted. Skirtopodes ( talk) 22:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Is Jackie Duffin better off merged into Marie-Marguerite d'Youville? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Please take a look here: Talk:Prevention_of_migraines#Many_violations_of_MEDRS -- Brangifer ( talk) 08:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi docs:
I wondered what is the rationale for the infoboxes that I see on medical articles? Like this one:
WikiProject Medicine/Archive 25 |
---|
I guess they are lists of External Links. I'm fine with that actually (never been a stickler for the approach of not referring to external content.) But my concern about the boxes is they are so inscrutable to a regular reader. Why not have some format that is more like normal external links, where we say what article and content people are heading to? I mean, maybe docs know what the letters and numbers are, but it is pretty cryptic even to a technically trained, smart, non doctor.
TCO ( Reviews needed) 22:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
You all are very helpful here (honest, have gotten great help, don't get mad at me), but I still worry that the vast amount of people are getting crufty letters and numbers in a very "valuable piece of real estate". I mean, look at this infobox, is there any reason to have the MeshID (whatever that is) unique identifier so prominent? It feels like putting an ISBN or a LOC catalog number up in a very important area.
WikiProject Medicine/Archive 25 |
---|
Oh...and I was seeing some really good doc to talk about something...and he used the Wiki when a question came up! He was kind of young and academic and used a program that had more of a root cause analysis path (not like a normal neighborhood doc, no offense). But he sure as heck did NOT use the ICD stuff. He scanned the text. I had to push him to look at the ref (I'm such a good Wikipedian...but it was some paper by a Harvard doc...and on the web too...)
TCO ( Reviews needed) 00:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The content is "still in the article" even if you shift it to the end. You don't have to have an infobox, either. If the choice is no infobox or one with those Dewey decimal numbers, I would go no infobox and just have a big picture. Make the MESH, ICD stuff a table way at the end. I mean "refs" are helpful for paperwork also. But they are at the end. It's not a question of getting rid of the links, but do they justify their prominence, given low usage and inscrutability. TCO ( Reviews needed) 15:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, some medical navigation templates, such as Template:Nervous tissue and Template:Virus topics, contain a whole bunch of gibberish, like "noco(m/d/e/h/v/s)/cong/tumr, sysi/epon, injr" and so on. Has something gone wrong with these? If it is for some reason intentional then it seems a rather bad idea. Who is supposed to understand it? 86.181.172.222 ( talk) 18:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there a policy of linking to clinical trials as a reference? In general I make it a habit to remove links to prospective or ongoing clinical trials; though there's guidance regarding external links, what about those found in the body of the article? As an example, I just removed an entire table of "advanced disease-modifying drug (DMD) candidates". It would seem to violate WP:CRYSTAL. Is this is what is implied by the statement "Wikipedia is not a directory of clinical trials or researchers" in the diseases section of MEDMOS?
For context, right now "clinicaltrials.gov" is found nearly 600 times and even on the first page a lot seem to be direct links to ongoing trials. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 15:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course, Wikipedia is not a "directory" for anything ( Wikipedia:DIRECTORY#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory). So that by itself is not saying anything we don't already know. II | ( t - c) 21:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Could someone check the copyright status on Global Assessment of Functioning? There are past problems noted on its talk page, and I think they may have resurfaced. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:MEDMOS recommends inclusion of a section "In other animals" in medical articles. While this may be appropriate for predominantly "animal diseases" such as myxomatosis, I don't think that it is appropriate for "human diseases", or least articles that are clearly about the disease in humans. For such articles, could we change the guideline to recommend the section title "In animals" instead? (Yes, I am aware that humans are technically animals.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I am going to be apply for a summer student and have proposed a project here [6] Comments welcome. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
New account takes up where Mariahsalyer left off; adding primary studies to articles. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
A primary, empirical study | |
---|---|
Primary studies | 62 |
Secondary studies (reviews / meta-analysis) | 40 |
Medical information resources | 24 |
Epidemiology / statistics / overall studies | 18 |
Newspapers / news sources | 17 |
Textbooks | 8 |
Uncertain and/or difficult to classify | 5 |
SUM | 174 |
Primary studies | 35,6 % |
Other studies etc. | 64,4 % |
Castration – resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is being treated with the plant secondary metabolite taxol (class: alkaloid). I am about to rewrite the Pomegranate health section with a focus on ellagitannins and anthocyanins (class: phenols). Many authoritative reviews are available. It is my opinion that reviews are preferable (as a safeguard), but that they should not become a strait jacket (secondary studies are based on primary studies …). What do you think about the balance in the example above? Granateple ( talk) 16:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I know WhatamIdoing likes to correct any statements that smack of WP:BANPRIMARYSOURCES but empirical evidence is that citations to primary research papers nearly always indicate an incorrect use of sources, an attempt to violate WP:WEIGHT, and evidence the editor is conducting their own review of the primary literature. For example this edit to ketogenic diet required reverting twice after this editor didn't get the point. Frequently we see such editors cite policy or guidelines in saying they "may use primary sources", even arguing no reviews exist (which in this case is clearly false). Can we, for balance, ensure that every time it is pointed out that one may use primary research papers as sources for medical articles, also point out that is is very likely that one should not. And the chances that one should not increase if one is in a dispute over content. In addition, discussion of PSTS without context is pointless. BTW, I can think of a "particularly famous paper" by a chap called Wakefield. Colin° Talk 13:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
As many of you know I am working on a project to translate our top importance articles into as many other languages as possible. One problem I have encountered is that while {{ cite}} is support in other wikis {{ vcite}} and {{ sfn}} is not. Is there any agreement here to go with cite? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a full-blown edit war going on at this article and it could use the intervention of some level-headed editors from this project. Thanks. -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 10:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Golding Bird has been nominated for FA. You are welcome to add your comments there. Spinning Spark 13:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Mokotillon wish to add the following text to inguinal hernia supported by a ref to http://www.groin-hernia.com/herniabible/exercises.html and a youtube video. He feels that these refs are supported by WP:MEDRS as mentioned here [10].
Alternative treatments to surgery, like pilates exercices, have been suggested, but they have neither been backed nor denied by empirical studies. [1] [2]
IMO this is WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. As well as not supported by WP:MEDRS. Further comments welcome. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Re: File:Pneumothorax CXR.jpg. This image was uploaded to Commons and described there as an X-ray of someone how had clinical tension pneumothorax. The caption for this image on the Pneumothorax article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pneumothorax/archive1. The current caption is "Chest X-ray of left-sided pneumothorax (seen on the right in this image). The left thoracic cavity is partly filled with air occupying the pleural space. The mediastinum is shifted to the opposite side." Currently, the caption and the Commons image description may be unstable. I think that mention of tension pneumothorax should be included in the image's caption in the Wikipedia article. Any comments? Snowman ( talk) 14:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes a CXR does not rule in a tension pneumo but it does rule it out if one only sees a small pneumo. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Doc James' statement that a person with a "clinically diagnosed tension pneumothorax" should not proceed to x-ray prior to treatment. That assertion alone makes the Commons text questionable. The Commons text continues: "Due to the fact this is an posterior to anterior x-ray of the patients chest, the patient's left is your right (as if you are looking at the patient facing you". That statement is unequivocally false. The only information that we can definitively claim from the x-ray alone is that there is a pneumothorax with tracheal deviation away from the side of the pneumothorax. We can't even be sure which side is the left; for some reason the marker has been obscured. (I accept that the shape of the heart suggests that the x-ray is in the conventional orientation.)
" While not diagnostic a X rays can be consistent with tension pneumothorax and this is indeed common medical usage. "
— Doc James
" I agree with User Doc James that "abc changes are consistent with a diagnosis of xyz" is a commonly used expression. The phrase is used in X-ray reports, pathology reports, and probably many other situations. "
— Snowmanradio
I am unable to view the links that Doc James provided. Radiologists and pathologists are provided with a lot of extra clinical information. Indeed they keep insisting that clinicians provide as much relevant information as possible, because it assists them in reporting. Despite extra clinical information, radiologists may "sit on the fence" with terms such as "consistent with", purely because the diagnosis must be made in the clinical context, not from the x-ray alone. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that this discussion should be continued on Talk:Pneumothorax or on the FAC page. JFW | T@lk 20:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello all, at the risk of boring everyone, I'd really appreciate some more comments at the FAC for pneumothorax. JFW | T@lk 22:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Should articles about medical conditions only deal with medical information? Or can they also report about what people actually do with their disease, (as far as this practice meets WP:notability), even if the medical community has not written anything about it? The current guidelines WP:MEDRS do not deal with this topic: they deal with non-academic sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_%28medicine-related_articles%29#Other_sources as sources of medical information, but they do not deal with them as sources of information about social practices related with a medical condition. This is different: I think that medical information should clearly be separated from social practices information, but I also think that both can be part of the same article. For example, evolution article has a section "Social and cultural responses". Mokotillon ( talk) 14:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a serious question about the legitimacy of "open access" journals as sources under WP:MEDRS. Clearly, the concept that the author pays to have his paper published is at odds with the traditional model of academic journals, raising questions about the extent to which the journal's editorial standards (assuming it has any to begin with) are compromised by the lure of the cash from the prospective authors. Many open access journal publishers have been singled out as nothing more than the academic journal version of a vanity press, others identified as being on a "watchlist" for having vanity press aspects that raise questions. [14] This question came to my attention because of a large number of articles in open access journals of recent vintage being extensively used as sources in the Wikipedia article Transcendental Meditation research. See discussion here Talk:Transcendental_Meditation_research#Sources_under_scrutiny I question (i) whether any "open access" journal can serve as a source and (ii) if being an "open access" pay-to-play journal is not automatically disqualifying, how we establish for purposes of WP:MEDRS whether a particular publisher or a particular journal is indeed high-quality, accepted and reputable. Anybody nowadays can publish an online-only journal, claim to have peer review, put an impressive name on it, and have someone at Wikipedia use it as a source on a medical article. Thoughts? Fladrif ( talk) 16:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say I'd moved this discussion, I said I'd moved a discussion that is more specific per a single source. To be clear. As well this isn't a DR forum, so whether the source is considered reliable or not and removed should be dealt with on a NB, which it now is. ( olive ( talk) 21:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC))
Food protein-induced Enterocolitis syndrome and PTSD in postpartum women. These need cleanup, at the very least. Steven Walling • talk 05:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't even know if it's in the DSM-- I don't have access to full text sources. Anyway, editors are plowing ahead at Postpartum posttraumatic stress disorder, chunking in text from primary sources, even though I've listed secondary reviews on talk. That's all I can do, I don't have access to sources, don't know how to name the article, and don't even know if it should be an article or should be merged to PTSD. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:RSN seems to be willing to take up questions regarding whether sources meet WP:MEDRS, so I've asked the question there [16], rather than here, which would have been my first inclination. I'm inquiring about the use of an article from the online nursing publication Health Science Journal, formerly known as ICUs and Nursing Web Journal in the Transcendental Meditation research article. I'd appreciate any uninvolved editor input on the reliability and use of the source. Thanks. Fladrif ( talk) 16:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I noted a change on my watchlist today on Mental disorder by Psychiatrick ( talk · contribs) which looked like material that took material out of context to promote an undue POV. I note that this user has made numerous other Psychiatry-related pages including Psychiatry which have prominently cited the works of psychiatry critic Thomas Szasz as well as using google book references to publishers I'm not familiar with. As this user has added numerous similar material across multiple pages, I wanted to see if anyone else is seeing the same problem I am seeing before mucking around with these articles, or if I am missing something (psychiatry being outside my usual comfort zone). Thanks! Yobol ( talk) 00:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
( ←) We've had no end of trouble with critics of psychiatry in the past on Wikipedia. I'd say their perspectives are reasonably well represented. NPOV and WEIGHT need to be adhered to at all times. JFW | T@lk 07:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
An anonymous IP keeps adding some bizarre entries to the healthcare section of this list against consensus (see talk page). I've tried to stir up more conversation there, but I can't carry on reverting the edits because I'm sailing close to the wind in terms of WP:3RR. Also, I'm going to Tanzania tomorrow for 2 months for my elective, and so won't be able to follow this up. If some of you could adopt this issue and sort it that would be great. Thanks. Basalisk inspect damage⁄ berate 18:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I'm preparing to nominate Birth control movement in the United States for Featured Article status, and it was suggested that the article be reviewed first by a medical black-belt, to ensure it conforms to WP:MEDRS standards. Could someone help out? Please post any comments at the articles Talk page. Thanks. -- Noleander ( talk) 05:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The article about the Alexander technique needs work. Expertise in presenting randomized controlled clinical trials (and perhaps the weaker studies also presented) would be especially useful.
The BMJ reported on two studies of the AT for relieving chronic or recurrent back-pain.
Thanks, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 15:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
could someone please have a quick look at
Khan Kinetic Treatment (KKT)? This may have been created as a promotion job, and I have a hard time figuring out whether this is a viable topic. Google News doesn't know it, but that is certainly not the best place to check.
Thanks,
Amalthea
12:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
At Talk:Oil_of_cloves#NYT_article_.2F_blog_post I am trying to find:
How do I access this resource? Do you know of any other ways which I can find review articles of the following?
Thanks WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I have come to this talk page to discuss this nomenclature issue in an effort to prevent an editing war. A user has been reverting my edits that have changed the phrase "osteopathic physician" to DO. I have laid out several logical reasons for making this change both on the Osteopathic Medicine in the United States page and on the user's talk page. I would like to hear other opinions on the matter. The user has stated more or less that it is his personal preference that osteopathic physician be used to refer to the holder of the DO degree and that DO should be reserved solely for the degree. He believes that referring to osteopathic physicians as DOs will confuse people. However, I completely disagree with him. An example of a sentence using DOs in this way: DOs perform surgery, prescribe medications and attend medical school for four years just like their MD counterparts. It is clear from context in a sentence like this one that the holder of the degree is what is being described by the phrase DO or MD not the degree itself. Clearly, degrees do not perform surgery, prescribe medications, etc. Secondly, DO is potentially less confusing in terms of nomenclature since many people those relatively uninformed about DOs and MDs often conflate U.S. trained osteopathic physicians and foreign osteopaths which are not the same thing. The term DO would make this distinction clearer and lessen confusion. Third, replacing the phrase osteopathic physician, which in an article like this is used extensively, can shorten the article somewhat and make sentences more concise and vary the sentence structure to further improve the writing in addition to the added clarity that will result from my previously mentioned point. Additionally, professional organizations such as the AOA and AACOM use DO to refer to both the holder of the degree and the degree itself in the way I have asserted is acceptable. Here are some links to support this statement: http://www.osteopathic.org/osteopathic-health/about-dos/what-is-a-do/Pages/default.aspx http://www.osteopathic.org/osteopathic-health/about-dos/Pages/default.aspx http://www.aacom.org/resources/bookstore/cib/Documents/2012cib/2012cib-p21-23.pdf
Also, this same person has insisted in his edits that the plural of DO must be written as DO's which seems incorrect since the plural of MD that I have seen written most often is MDs. I have also found pages from professional DO organizations that write the plural of DO as DOs which is the form I have been advocating. Here are links demonstrating this: http://www.aacom.org/resources/e-news/ome/2011-03/Pages/LoanRepayment.aspx http://www.osteopathic.org/osteopathic-health/about-dos/Pages/default.aspx http://www.osteopathic.org/osteopathic-health/about-dos/dos-around-the-world/Pages/default.aspx
So, to sum up my points, the term DO is synonymous with osteopathic physician and should be written as such to make a more parallel comparison with the term MD in this (and other) articles discussing/comparing DOs and MDs and editor's "personal preferences" should not be a deciding factor in an NPOV article. Here is the link to the osteopathic medicine in the united states talk page where you can see the discussion at the bottom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Osteopathic_medicine_in_the_United_States DoctorK88 ( talk) 19:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
One last note-people on the user's page (the one who has been undoing the edits) has had people on his own talk page tell him in the past that DO is a more accessible/recognizable term to them and the purpose of wikipedia pages is to inform and serve as a resource of accessible and easily comprehensible information. DoctorK88 ( talk) 19:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
If we're being technical here, which I feel like you are being a bit technical here, DO is not a colloquial term. And I am the one advocating for the removal of the apostrophes from the plural of DO if I have not yet made that clear. That is the reason I asked it in the first place, because I removed those apostrophes and someone reverted it. So, just to be clear, consensus has not been reached yet and reversions should not occur until it is reached. The standard for a formal term is not for "all" papers to use it. The threshold is that the term is used in academia and government pages (which should not be ignored) which are indeed formal arenas designed to inform so I must disagree with you on a fundamental level WhatamIdoing. It is not irrelevant because it addresses Leadsongdog's claim that it is colloquial because I showed that by definition, it is not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquialism http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colloquial It is a term used in formal settings whether you agree or not and I have shown that. I would be happy to further demonstrate its presence in formal settings if necessary. DoctorK88 ( talk) 04:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
If you care for the Free Dictionary ( I am relatively unfamiliar with it but it apparently is a dictionary and encyclopedia online) has this entry which uses DO to mean Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine and MD for Doctor of Medicine: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/osteopath please let me know if that works or if you had other encyclopedias or places in mind and I will continue my search. DoctorK88 ( talk) 02:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Here is another encyclopedia article: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/osteopathy.aspx#1 However, it should be noted that I have also seen some encyclopedias fail to make a distinction between osteopathic physicians (American trained) and osteopaths (foreign trained) which are not the same thing. However, it is clear in the context of this encyclopedia article that DO is used to also describe the holder of the degree. This looks like a more reliable reference than thefreedictionary.com as well. And here is another reference: http://wiki.medpedia.com/Osteopathic_Physician_(D.O.) Medpedia was listed on the list of notable online encyclopedias on the wikipedia page of online encyclopedias and apparently it has ties with reputable universities. This looks to be professionally edited, enjoy! DoctorK88 ( talk) 16:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
" I do think however that the community should try to find a solution that satisfies as many as editors as possible. "
— DrK88
There is a solution that satisfies over 90% of editors.
" I am not so stubborn and inflexible as to be close minded to the idea of compromise and working toward a solution that satisfies everyone. "
— DrK88
I would like to assume good faith, but I actually don't believe that.
I await your next wall of text rebuttal. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Literaturegeek, you are incorrect here. People did not respond to most of the arguments and evidence I put forth with logical counterarguments showing why what I said was invalid, etc. All I received were comments like oh, no, you haven't proven your point or oh, no, you've only shown it in a few sources, now that's not good enough, etc. Most people did not say something to the effect of "you're arguments are incorrect, or illogical because..." and show why that was the case. Yes, people "responded" to me, but not in a constructive way that discredited my arguments, most of them were side stepped or we just disagreed fundamentally but after reviewing these discussions of ours I see little effort to provide evidence that renders my arguments invalid and shows my evidence to be false. So, again, we are going to disagree on a fundamental level here, Literaturegeek (not surprising to me, we have disagreed the entire time). How taylornate, is one additional sentence wordy? It's not. Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine is not a big difference from osteopathic physician in terms of "wordiness" and I did not say it needs to be used for the entirety of the article, I was suggesting more along the lines of using it to define the term at the earlier parts of the article. I was not disruptive at all Literaturegeek, I actually looked up wikipedia's definition of disruptive and our debate did not fall under one single category of it. I would contend that the disruptive behavior was yours, WhatamIdoing's and Hopping's with your rude, antagonistic tones (from the start). Feel free to continue discussing the Doctor of Medicine/Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine substitution instead of the shift of osteopathic physician to DO, I am now washing my hands of the whole thing. I have more important things to attend to, this has become a drag on my time and if I can be frank, I am exhausted from dealing with editors such as yourselves (most of you, not all of you) who I find to be unreasonable and uncooperative (again, from the start, not from a dragged out debate which would have gone much faster had people directly addressed my arguments and evidence). I am mainly disappointed in the behavior exhibited by many of the other editors here, not angry or sad, just disappointed and now a bit tired. There is no need to respond to this last response of mine because I will not see it. Do what you like, if you are satisfied with your illogical arguments, most of which I have proven to be false, then so be it. I do hope that in the future you can work with me in a collaborative and cooperative fashion. Make no mistake, I am not leaving mad, I am just finished with this debate since the discussion is no longer going anywhere and you have become very sidetracked with whether or not we should have the debate instead of the issue itself despite my attempts to try and get you to focus on the issue at hand. The silver lining was to see that there are reasonable, professional editors such as Axl, Mr. Stradivarius and Pesky. I sincerely hope you use them as models for your interactions with other editors in the future, best of luck to you all in whatever you are doing. Consider the matter, on my end, officially closed. You can continue to talk about Doctor of Medicine/Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine replacement of MD and DO, respectively if you wish. I will no longer be participating. Consider me retired.
Hello. Could anyone take a look at this article, please? I tried to wikify the article a bit, but I have a very little knowledge in this area. Is the information correct? Thanks for any help/verification. -- Vejvančický ( talk | contribs) 17:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Ulceration is currently a disambiguation page, but it appears to run afoul of WP:DABCONCEPT, as it only lists different kinds of ulcers. Can someone here write a general-purpose article on the topic of ulceration, for which the examples provided would appear in context? Cheers! bd2412 T 18:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I had a help question in the irc channel (wikipedia-en-help) saying: "In the section of vitamin D, the amounts listed in the appropriate dosages are taken from an article from Health Canada which I believe to be in error. The units are given as micrograms per litre. In all other sources I have seen they are reported as nanograms per litre." She gave this source as an example: http://www.uptodate.com/contents/patient-information-vitamin-d-deficiency. Another helper replied "the serums levels are measured in nanograms..(25 hydroxy vit d) not the supplemental dosage.. supplemental daily doses are in micrograms or international units (IU)." I have no expertise here, but I thought I'd pass it on to you guys just to make sure that the article isn't confusing the two. Thanks! Ocaasi t | c 23:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
As mentioned on Inside Health, the Radio Four programme presented by Mark Porter, the term coeliac disease refers to something other than two terms which often get used as synonyms - gluten sensitivity and gluten intolerance. I was distressed to see, therefore, that the term gluten intolerance got redirected to coeliac disease. This has now gone to Wikipedia: Redirects for discussion. I think that people in this WikiProject might have the most knowledge on this matter, so I shall leave message here. If any one has specialist knowledge of coeliac disease, it would be good if s/he could leave his or her comments on Wikipedia: Redirects for discussion. Thank you in advance for any help, ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 21:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I did - as you say - start on the talk page of
coeliac disease. The ideal place to discuss this was
Wikipedia: Redirects for discussion, where this one did get - and it appears to have been settled, we now have
gluten intolerance redirecting to
gluten sensitivity. Thank you for your comments here,
ACEOREVIVED (
talk)
09:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Bexarotene re the need for MEDRS. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, the endothelium has, for too long been, overlooked and generally ignored when it is the originating organ in most CVD events. What I would like to see is an article that is accessible to the average person without medical training as well as being useful to the professional. Next, people, professionals too, need to know that to take care of their heart, they have to take care of their endothelium. Third, the present article does not have a history section and I think that would be an improvement. Fourth, the present article mixes disfunction and function. It seems to me that it would also be useful for people to sort that out and understand causation. I would greatly appreciate working with anyone who had an interest and would understand Wikispeak far better than I for I an a novice in this nunnery. Endofix ( talk) 23:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure if these meet WP:MEDRS. It's above my pay grade, as I just copyedited these articles. Also, it appears to be the same content added to each; it might only be appropriate in one of them.
A check would be great. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 18:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The program has several courses starting soon. I've listed some that may impact articles covered by this wikiproject.
Most seem to be attached to Wikiproject Psychology. Is someone from Wikiproject Medicine liaising with them on article choice? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 10:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Talk:Circumcision#RfC: how should the lead summarise positions of medical associations?. Input would be appreciated. Jakew ( talk) 21:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Brand new editor here, about a month, first time doing something like this so excuse my mistakes please. As seen here, WLU, Jlfosternz and I have been very actively collaborating on the DID article very successfully and we are discussing a unique phenomena with DID history which is that there is significant cultural history that is mostly independent of the scientific/research history, and vice versa. Additionally, both of these areas have hot contention from two very opposite sides who mostly refuse to even cite or in some cases even acknowledge the existence of the other. This makes for a very busy and disordered history section, and a big general challenge for the article itself (we are working hard on it though!). We all agree something needs to be done with the history section, but are not sure how exactly to do it appropriately and aren't sure of any precedent for this kind of thing. Any help or ideas are appreciated, thank you. Forgotten Faces ( talk) 22:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
More eyes, please on plantar fasciitis. There appears to be a coordinated effort by some IPs to add positive, remove negative information with regards to extracorporeal shockwave therapy to the page. More eyes on the page/voices on the talk page would be helpful. Yobol ( talk) 18:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Rename article? See Talk:MMR vaccine controversy#Suppression of dissenting voices.3F. SandyGeorgia ( Talk)
I tagged this article, FepA, mostly because it is too technical for the literate reader who has no knowledge within this field WP:NOT#JARGON. There is no way for me to vouch for the accuracy of the article. Also it looks like the vocabulary has been taken from some academic journal article, but I am unable to determine if this is so. I was wondering if someone from this project can take a look at this article for accuracy and maybe make sure it is not a copyright violation. Thanks in advance. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 19:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
Had an excellent talk with Translators Without Borders today. [1] Both they and I are interested in working on a collaboration to translate medical articles first into simple English and then into other languages. Are there others here interested in helping? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Where are these google translating folks? Would be good to get them involved. First we are looking at translating the GAs and FAs. Will than attempt to clean up the rest of the articles before translation. Help of course appreciated :-) Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Gluten intolerance should not redirect to Coeliac disease, as it is a different clinical entity MaenK.A. Talk 11:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
We'd need a better source to negate that assertion. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)This condition has several other names, including: cœliac disease (with œ ligature), c(o)eliac sprue, non-tropical sprue, endemic sprue, gluten enteropathy or gluten-sensitive enteropathy, and gluten intolerance.
but have no idea how mainstream this is. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 14:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Coeliac disease, or gluten-sensitive enteropathy, is only one aspect of a range of possible manifestations of gluten sensitivity. Although neurological manifestations in patients with established coeliac disease have been reported since 1966, it was not until 30 years later that, in some individuals, gluten sensitivity was shown to manifest solely with neurological dysfunction.
Hadjivassiliou M, Sanders DS, Grünewald RA, Woodroofe N, Boscolo S, Aeschlimann D (March 2010). "Gluten sensitivity: from gut to brain" (PDF). Lancet Neurol. 9 (3): 318–30. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70290-X. PMID 20170845. S2CID 206159061.
{{ cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: date and year ( link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link)
Gluten sensitivity is a systemic autoimmune disease that occurs in genetically susceptible individuals on ingesting gluten. It can appear at any age, then becoming a permanent condition. It is more frequent in women, as happens with other autoimmune diseases. Celiac disease is the intestinal form and the most important manifestation among a set of gluten-induced autoimmune pathologies that affect different systems.
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Celiac disease, or gluten sensitive enteropathy is a relatively common disease of the jejunum, leading to malabsorption. It is an immune mediated disease, induced by gluten on the grounds of a specific genetic makeup. After gluten exposition immune processes are induced mainly by T-cells, causing typical intestinal and extra intestinal manifestations. The diagnosis of celiac disease is based on jejunal biopsy histology and the presence of antibodies against endomysium and tissue transglutaminase.
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link).
This thing was demonstrated by researchers recently gathered in a symposium about the disease, I cant find all those papers yet, but i ll provide you with some soon, and As an example you can see the names of these articles suggests that [1] [2] And you can see the conclusion of this paper as "This study shows that the two gluten-associated disorders, CD and GS, are different clinical entities, and it contributes to the characterization of GS as a condition associated with prevalent gluten-induced activation of innate, rather than adaptive, immune responses in the absence of detectable changes in mucosal barrier function." [3] and here: ""Non-celiac gluten intolerance" may exist, but no clues to the mechanism were elucidated." [4] you may as well check this abstract. [5] -- MaenK.A. Talk 16:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
"Gluten intolerance" may be being used to cover any disorder, including CD, caused by ingestion of gluten, while "gluten sensitivity" covers all but CD. Not sure. That's my reading of this so far, and in light of this title: Serological Tests in Gluten Sensitivity (Nonceliac Gluten Intolerance). If that's the case, we may end up with Gluten intolerance as a disambiguation page pointing to Coeliac disease and Gluten sensitivity. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 16:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Currently, a number of morphological, functional and immunological disorders have been considered under the umbrella of [gluten sensitivity] that miss one or more of the key CD criteria (enteropathy, associated HLA haplotypes and presence of anti-TG2 antibodies), but respond to gluten exclusion.
Troncone R, Jabri B (June 2011). "Coeliac disease and gluten sensitivity". J. Intern. Med. 269 (6): 582–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2011.02385.x. PMID 21481018. S2CID 41638756.
{{ cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: date and year ( link)
( ←) There is no such thing as a gene for coeliac disease. Gluten intolerance is the development of symptoms after exposure to gluten, and I suspect that this is to the exclusion of coeliac disease which can be diagnosed with serology and histology. Some people ( Pdeitiker ( talk · contribs) amongst others) will claim that there are people with clinical symptoms who have positivity to older types of gluten serology (e.g. anti-gliadin) who anecdotally respond to gluten withdrawal. This is actually a controversial area, and Pdeitiker has created a large walled garden of articles, mostly built on WP:MEDRS-incompatible sources, expounding on these subjects. JFW | T@lk 17:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
This site is a general public site so I try to put things in a way in which most are going to understand. I was refering to being DQ2/DQ8 postive. This test is nowdays often recommended to rule out Celiac disease if there is suspicion. As previous poster stated, negative DQ2/DQ8 virtually excludes Celiac disease. I will continue to refer to this as the celiac gene rather then DQ2/DQ8 as this isnt a medical site and most will understand that more. Not all who carry predisposition to breast cancer get breast cancer either. -- Taniaaust1 ( talk) 05:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
DQ2/DQ8 seems to be a sine qua non for the disease, but most people with DQ2/DQ8 don't get coeliac disease, as rightly stated, and there are numerous other risk factors that - together with the genetic makeup - determine the risk of disease. I would therefore struggle to refer to any gene as the "coeliac gene". Gluten intolerance, gluten-sensitive diseases, and coeliac disease are probably on some sort of continuum, but many people are doubtful about the existence of the gluten neuropathies (almost everything written on the subject comes from a single group in Sheffield, UK). JFW | T@lk 22:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
A user
DrMircro is adding long list of causes using poor quality sources such as seen here
Hepatitis#Causes --
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
17:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
We are having a productive chat on my talk page. He has begun using review articles / medical textbook. I guess the main question is how we should organize long lists of causes. My suggestion is that we do something similar to what is found on the article Shortness of breath and Anaphylaxis. We discussion the main causes in prose for giving some context of how important each is. Than we create an article called "List of causes of X" such as List of causes of shortness of breath Comments? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, everyone. We really need outside opinions about whether or not to list asexuality as a sexual orientation in the Sexual orientation article and Template:Sexual orientation, as well as how to go about mentioning that it is considered a sexual orientation by some researchers (though still not by the general medical community).
And I hate to beg, but please do help out. The discussion is being had at Template talk:Sexual orientation#Is there evidence that Asexuality is a sexual orientation? Flyer22 ( talk) 03:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
We have a group of Yale grad students editing that I have begun listing here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Classes_editing#Yale_students. I do not know how many there are or who there prof is but am looking into it. Please add further students to the list. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I think that would be good. I have reverted again an editor at malaria from Yale who just keeps trying to hammer in his text without addressing any of the concerns on his own talk pages (editing under both an IP and a user name) or on the malaria talk page. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm seeing some potential problems from Biol373.cwru ( talk · contribs) - basically pasting in entire class papers over existing articles - but I currently have a final exam to create. Could someone deal with this? Thanks! (At least some of the articles in question are tagged as being for WikiProject Medicine as well as Neuroscience.) Allens ( talk) 17:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Should the lede of Chronic fatigue syndrome include "multiple psychological and physiological factors may contribute to the development and maintenance of symptoms"? I know little about this condition, though I've read a few reviews in the last couple of days. My superficial view is, using the quoted phrase in the lede gives undue emphasis to weakly supported speculation. (Of course it should be, and is, covered in the body of the article.) I fear that the phrase is being held in place because it offends patients and advocates, and is making some kind of point. I would appreciate other views. Talk page discussion is here. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 16:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Resolved. [2] -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 01:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
[3] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone! You may all know about this already, but there were several medical articles nominated at WP:GAN recently, all by the same person as part of a university class. I am hoping that there are a few of you that might be willing to look over the articles and either do a full GA review or post comments on the talk page regarding their adherence to WP:MEDRS. The articles still needing review are:
The majority of reviewers at GA don't have an in-depth knowledge of the reliable sources guidelines specifically for medical articles, so they may miss major issues with primary/secondary sources, reliance on outdated/unreliable journals, etc., which is a major reason I'm hoping some med-focused editors can help out with these reviews. Thanks in advance for any help you can give (although I know you've been dealing with a lot of other university-related editing, so if you don't have time, that is understandable!), Dana boomer ( talk) 19:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Would anyone be interested in looking through Ginkgo biloba? I happened upon it today, and noticed that it claimed that ginkgo "improved cognition" in multiple sclerosis patients. The cited source, PMID 17439907, says the exact opposite (that ginkgo "did not show a statistically significant improvement in cognitive function"). That's a bald-faced, outright dishonest misrepresentation with the potential to mislead readers about their health. It was apparently inserted in October 2009 and has remained undetected since in this relatively high-profile article. I'm planning to look through for more such problems with the article, but as my time is currently limited I'd welcome anyone else interested in a source check for this article. And Happy Holidays! :) MastCell Talk 21:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Cross-posted from Project Anatomy. Please reply there.
What is the prevailing opinion on many short articles vs. fewer longer ones? Does every structure really need a separate article? I'm sure the issue is broader than this, but because I am interested in the hand, this is what caught my eye. I would like to merge, for example, all of the extrinsic muscles of the hand into a single article. At present, each of the muscles have their own separate page. Nearly all of them are a very short stub-class article and a lot of information is duplicated. They have been around for several years in this state and it seems likely they will stay that way.
— User:Taylornate
What do people think of this as a ref and link? This user has been adding it to a number of pages Special:Contributions/Cjc22 Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Pneumothorax is on FAC - comments much welcomed on the FAC page. JFW | T@lk 10:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Wondering if anyone else would be willing to comment here Talk:Stroke#Merge_Silent_stroke -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Nobody seems to care about the
Autoimmune disease. Can it be deleted? Or is somebody willing to solve the many links to disambiguation pages?
Night of the Big Wind
talk
22:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, everyone, I'm new on Wikipedia. I have an interest in medicine and hope to pursue it as a career,and would like to contribute to WikiProject Medicine in any way possible. However, I am limited by the fact that I am still a teenager, and thus have not even started university, let alone gained a medical degree. Until such a time as I can contribute with tangible and verifiable information, what can you suggest that a person with no medical knowledge (such as myself) might do to contribute to the project? Benjitheijneb ( talk) 20:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Happy New Year folks.
I've written an essay about the recent psychology student editing assignment: User:Colin/A large scale student assignment – what could possibly go wrong? I'd appreciate your comments and opinions on the essay talk page. In particular, suggestions for alternative assignments for this class would be very helpful.
The assignment is due to be repeated with minor changes beginning the 28th January and ending 9th April. I think it is important that the WP:MED community voice whether this is a good idea or not, and suggest any necessary changes either to this assignment or to student assignments in general. It might be best to keep comments together on the talk page.
-- Colin° Talk 13:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I took the liberty of changing the collaboration of the month to Pneumothorax, currently a featured article candidate which could use anybody's help/input. -- WS ( talk) 13:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
A certain pharmaceutical company has some safety concerns about some of the Wiki pages related to their products they feel should be corrected. They want to work with Wikipedia to find a short- and long-term solution. What do you think is the best way to get the safety information to readers?
Other options could include:
1) Name someone from the company who would have a profile on Wikipedia and would act as a spokesperson.
2) Anyone can make those changes if they reveal conflict of interest in the edit history.
Your feedback is much appreciated.
NCurse work 16:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback! I guess the consensus is that if someone from a pharma company wants to make a correction in an entry about a pharma product (no matter whether it belongs to their own company or to another), they should cite reviews, peer-reviewed papers, reliable resources and leave a message on the discussion page of the entry or on the pharma project page claiming that they are from this pharma company therefore all conflicts of interest are revealed. NCurse work 10:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we should try and standardize the 'Edit summary' to highlight potentially contentious edits and have a system to review those edits systematically (panel of three editors, or some litmus test to ensure integrity of article is maintained. I am new to the community, so this process may already exist, in which case I will leave it to those more experienced to point us in the right direction. Laith Bustani ( talk) 14:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
If people are getting paid to make changes to improve the appearance of the payers products that however might be a concern. Some pharmaceutical companies have received some bad press for doing this in the past. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Amazing feedback, thank you! Now I'm going to send this to the company that contacted me in the first place. NCurse work 08:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
On Talk:Pomegranate and the Talk:Cranberry a discussion is taking place pertaining to 1) the health effects of the aforementioned fruit and berry, and 2) whether the reviews could belong to the ‘further reading’ – section? I am hoping for a larger community input. Do you have time to take a look? Thank you. Granateple ( talk) 19:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Solar eclipse is undergoing a review of its FA status. I had a read and noted it lacked sourcing for the viewing section, and could do with some buffing in terms of clarifying exactness of risks and damage to retina etc. I posted this in case anyone was more familiar with it (not a common syndrome in psychiatry...) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 19:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I have had a few offers of money for Wikipedia's medical initiatives. One project I was thinking of was hiring a summer student (basically a medical student between 2nd and 3rd year) to review all the new edits here. Than when not doing that they would make improvements to high / top importance medical articles and complete GA reviews. I would personally teach this person how to edit and basically they would spend 40 hours per week doing so during their summer holidays. Would probably limit applications to the University of British Columbia or the University of Calgary due to my location. The scholarship has not really garnered sufficient interest to keep it going. Comments? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
An editor at Talk:Asperger syndrome has declared that he will remove all comments from unregistered users in the future. Refusing to allow unregistered users to participate is obviously unacceptable, and I think it would be appropriate for a couple of admins to keep an eye on the page. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I have come across a couple of pages Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene and Superior angle of scapula which IMO do not belong as part of WPMED. Comments? -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Category:Disability disorders has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.
Notifiying WikiProject Medicine in case anyone can provide a good definition or better name for this category (apart of course from any other comments). -- Mirokado ( talk) 00:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The WMF has increased requirements for involvement as detailed here [5] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I have started an informal RfC on WT:PHARM#Template:AIDS Compounds whether the drugbox should link to NIAID ChemDB. Does anyone know about this database? Is it notable? -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 15:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello! This List of hospitals in India is very unorganized and obviously incomplete. I had some doubts about it. Hence thought that anyone would answer them here. Do we define what a Hospital means? I see many clinics also added to this list. Maybe they are hospitals but called as clinics or are clinics itself. But do we have some fixed thought on whats to be included here? And dont we require references? Very few of the enteries are blue linked and that will remain so forever. - Animeshkulkarni ( talk) 14:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I refer the group to this thread on the Talk page at Major Depressive Disorder concerning the use of Vincent van Gogh's painting "At Eternity's Gate" in that article and to this comment of mine pointing out it has no place in the article and should be removed.
The essence of the complaint is that is fully documented that van Gogh's painting is not at all, nor was ever meant to be, a portrayal of depressive disorder but is rather merely a study of an old man. For that reason alone it should be removed for reasons of encyclopaedic accuracy.
As it stands it necessarily makes a judgement about the nature of depressive disorder, that it necessarily implies despair, even that it necessarily implies suicidal ideation (because of its title and van Gogh's own well known suicide). It is very much to be regretted indeed in my opinion that a Wikipedia administrator, Casliber, a practicising psychiatrist it seems but a poor historian of art, appears to be the prime mover behind perpetuating these poor judgements.
It also mythologises Vincent van Gogh himself who took the greatest care to separate his difficulties in life from his work; the nature of whose illness is not settled but which is not certainly typical of a depressive disorder; who is not documented as suffering from suicidal depressive moods in the last months of his life when this painting was completed and whose suicide itself has in the past year been plausibly questioned by a respected source as rather a manslaughter.
I ask that the image be removed. If it is felt necessary, and I cannot imagine why it should be, that the article be illustrated by a fine art image, then I suggest the original image, Durer's Melancholia, be reinserted. Skirtopodes ( talk) 22:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Is Jackie Duffin better off merged into Marie-Marguerite d'Youville? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Please take a look here: Talk:Prevention_of_migraines#Many_violations_of_MEDRS -- Brangifer ( talk) 08:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi docs:
I wondered what is the rationale for the infoboxes that I see on medical articles? Like this one:
WikiProject Medicine/Archive 25 |
---|
I guess they are lists of External Links. I'm fine with that actually (never been a stickler for the approach of not referring to external content.) But my concern about the boxes is they are so inscrutable to a regular reader. Why not have some format that is more like normal external links, where we say what article and content people are heading to? I mean, maybe docs know what the letters and numbers are, but it is pretty cryptic even to a technically trained, smart, non doctor.
TCO ( Reviews needed) 22:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
You all are very helpful here (honest, have gotten great help, don't get mad at me), but I still worry that the vast amount of people are getting crufty letters and numbers in a very "valuable piece of real estate". I mean, look at this infobox, is there any reason to have the MeshID (whatever that is) unique identifier so prominent? It feels like putting an ISBN or a LOC catalog number up in a very important area.
WikiProject Medicine/Archive 25 |
---|
Oh...and I was seeing some really good doc to talk about something...and he used the Wiki when a question came up! He was kind of young and academic and used a program that had more of a root cause analysis path (not like a normal neighborhood doc, no offense). But he sure as heck did NOT use the ICD stuff. He scanned the text. I had to push him to look at the ref (I'm such a good Wikipedian...but it was some paper by a Harvard doc...and on the web too...)
TCO ( Reviews needed) 00:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The content is "still in the article" even if you shift it to the end. You don't have to have an infobox, either. If the choice is no infobox or one with those Dewey decimal numbers, I would go no infobox and just have a big picture. Make the MESH, ICD stuff a table way at the end. I mean "refs" are helpful for paperwork also. But they are at the end. It's not a question of getting rid of the links, but do they justify their prominence, given low usage and inscrutability. TCO ( Reviews needed) 15:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, some medical navigation templates, such as Template:Nervous tissue and Template:Virus topics, contain a whole bunch of gibberish, like "noco(m/d/e/h/v/s)/cong/tumr, sysi/epon, injr" and so on. Has something gone wrong with these? If it is for some reason intentional then it seems a rather bad idea. Who is supposed to understand it? 86.181.172.222 ( talk) 18:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there a policy of linking to clinical trials as a reference? In general I make it a habit to remove links to prospective or ongoing clinical trials; though there's guidance regarding external links, what about those found in the body of the article? As an example, I just removed an entire table of "advanced disease-modifying drug (DMD) candidates". It would seem to violate WP:CRYSTAL. Is this is what is implied by the statement "Wikipedia is not a directory of clinical trials or researchers" in the diseases section of MEDMOS?
For context, right now "clinicaltrials.gov" is found nearly 600 times and even on the first page a lot seem to be direct links to ongoing trials. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 15:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course, Wikipedia is not a "directory" for anything ( Wikipedia:DIRECTORY#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory). So that by itself is not saying anything we don't already know. II | ( t - c) 21:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Could someone check the copyright status on Global Assessment of Functioning? There are past problems noted on its talk page, and I think they may have resurfaced. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:MEDMOS recommends inclusion of a section "In other animals" in medical articles. While this may be appropriate for predominantly "animal diseases" such as myxomatosis, I don't think that it is appropriate for "human diseases", or least articles that are clearly about the disease in humans. For such articles, could we change the guideline to recommend the section title "In animals" instead? (Yes, I am aware that humans are technically animals.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I am going to be apply for a summer student and have proposed a project here [6] Comments welcome. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
New account takes up where Mariahsalyer left off; adding primary studies to articles. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
A primary, empirical study | |
---|---|
Primary studies | 62 |
Secondary studies (reviews / meta-analysis) | 40 |
Medical information resources | 24 |
Epidemiology / statistics / overall studies | 18 |
Newspapers / news sources | 17 |
Textbooks | 8 |
Uncertain and/or difficult to classify | 5 |
SUM | 174 |
Primary studies | 35,6 % |
Other studies etc. | 64,4 % |
Castration – resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is being treated with the plant secondary metabolite taxol (class: alkaloid). I am about to rewrite the Pomegranate health section with a focus on ellagitannins and anthocyanins (class: phenols). Many authoritative reviews are available. It is my opinion that reviews are preferable (as a safeguard), but that they should not become a strait jacket (secondary studies are based on primary studies …). What do you think about the balance in the example above? Granateple ( talk) 16:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I know WhatamIdoing likes to correct any statements that smack of WP:BANPRIMARYSOURCES but empirical evidence is that citations to primary research papers nearly always indicate an incorrect use of sources, an attempt to violate WP:WEIGHT, and evidence the editor is conducting their own review of the primary literature. For example this edit to ketogenic diet required reverting twice after this editor didn't get the point. Frequently we see such editors cite policy or guidelines in saying they "may use primary sources", even arguing no reviews exist (which in this case is clearly false). Can we, for balance, ensure that every time it is pointed out that one may use primary research papers as sources for medical articles, also point out that is is very likely that one should not. And the chances that one should not increase if one is in a dispute over content. In addition, discussion of PSTS without context is pointless. BTW, I can think of a "particularly famous paper" by a chap called Wakefield. Colin° Talk 13:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
As many of you know I am working on a project to translate our top importance articles into as many other languages as possible. One problem I have encountered is that while {{ cite}} is support in other wikis {{ vcite}} and {{ sfn}} is not. Is there any agreement here to go with cite? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a full-blown edit war going on at this article and it could use the intervention of some level-headed editors from this project. Thanks. -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 10:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Golding Bird has been nominated for FA. You are welcome to add your comments there. Spinning Spark 13:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Mokotillon wish to add the following text to inguinal hernia supported by a ref to http://www.groin-hernia.com/herniabible/exercises.html and a youtube video. He feels that these refs are supported by WP:MEDRS as mentioned here [10].
Alternative treatments to surgery, like pilates exercices, have been suggested, but they have neither been backed nor denied by empirical studies. [1] [2]
IMO this is WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. As well as not supported by WP:MEDRS. Further comments welcome. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Re: File:Pneumothorax CXR.jpg. This image was uploaded to Commons and described there as an X-ray of someone how had clinical tension pneumothorax. The caption for this image on the Pneumothorax article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pneumothorax/archive1. The current caption is "Chest X-ray of left-sided pneumothorax (seen on the right in this image). The left thoracic cavity is partly filled with air occupying the pleural space. The mediastinum is shifted to the opposite side." Currently, the caption and the Commons image description may be unstable. I think that mention of tension pneumothorax should be included in the image's caption in the Wikipedia article. Any comments? Snowman ( talk) 14:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes a CXR does not rule in a tension pneumo but it does rule it out if one only sees a small pneumo. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Doc James' statement that a person with a "clinically diagnosed tension pneumothorax" should not proceed to x-ray prior to treatment. That assertion alone makes the Commons text questionable. The Commons text continues: "Due to the fact this is an posterior to anterior x-ray of the patients chest, the patient's left is your right (as if you are looking at the patient facing you". That statement is unequivocally false. The only information that we can definitively claim from the x-ray alone is that there is a pneumothorax with tracheal deviation away from the side of the pneumothorax. We can't even be sure which side is the left; for some reason the marker has been obscured. (I accept that the shape of the heart suggests that the x-ray is in the conventional orientation.)
" While not diagnostic a X rays can be consistent with tension pneumothorax and this is indeed common medical usage. "
— Doc James
" I agree with User Doc James that "abc changes are consistent with a diagnosis of xyz" is a commonly used expression. The phrase is used in X-ray reports, pathology reports, and probably many other situations. "
— Snowmanradio
I am unable to view the links that Doc James provided. Radiologists and pathologists are provided with a lot of extra clinical information. Indeed they keep insisting that clinicians provide as much relevant information as possible, because it assists them in reporting. Despite extra clinical information, radiologists may "sit on the fence" with terms such as "consistent with", purely because the diagnosis must be made in the clinical context, not from the x-ray alone. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that this discussion should be continued on Talk:Pneumothorax or on the FAC page. JFW | T@lk 20:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello all, at the risk of boring everyone, I'd really appreciate some more comments at the FAC for pneumothorax. JFW | T@lk 22:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Should articles about medical conditions only deal with medical information? Or can they also report about what people actually do with their disease, (as far as this practice meets WP:notability), even if the medical community has not written anything about it? The current guidelines WP:MEDRS do not deal with this topic: they deal with non-academic sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_%28medicine-related_articles%29#Other_sources as sources of medical information, but they do not deal with them as sources of information about social practices related with a medical condition. This is different: I think that medical information should clearly be separated from social practices information, but I also think that both can be part of the same article. For example, evolution article has a section "Social and cultural responses". Mokotillon ( talk) 14:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a serious question about the legitimacy of "open access" journals as sources under WP:MEDRS. Clearly, the concept that the author pays to have his paper published is at odds with the traditional model of academic journals, raising questions about the extent to which the journal's editorial standards (assuming it has any to begin with) are compromised by the lure of the cash from the prospective authors. Many open access journal publishers have been singled out as nothing more than the academic journal version of a vanity press, others identified as being on a "watchlist" for having vanity press aspects that raise questions. [14] This question came to my attention because of a large number of articles in open access journals of recent vintage being extensively used as sources in the Wikipedia article Transcendental Meditation research. See discussion here Talk:Transcendental_Meditation_research#Sources_under_scrutiny I question (i) whether any "open access" journal can serve as a source and (ii) if being an "open access" pay-to-play journal is not automatically disqualifying, how we establish for purposes of WP:MEDRS whether a particular publisher or a particular journal is indeed high-quality, accepted and reputable. Anybody nowadays can publish an online-only journal, claim to have peer review, put an impressive name on it, and have someone at Wikipedia use it as a source on a medical article. Thoughts? Fladrif ( talk) 16:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say I'd moved this discussion, I said I'd moved a discussion that is more specific per a single source. To be clear. As well this isn't a DR forum, so whether the source is considered reliable or not and removed should be dealt with on a NB, which it now is. ( olive ( talk) 21:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC))
Food protein-induced Enterocolitis syndrome and PTSD in postpartum women. These need cleanup, at the very least. Steven Walling • talk 05:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't even know if it's in the DSM-- I don't have access to full text sources. Anyway, editors are plowing ahead at Postpartum posttraumatic stress disorder, chunking in text from primary sources, even though I've listed secondary reviews on talk. That's all I can do, I don't have access to sources, don't know how to name the article, and don't even know if it should be an article or should be merged to PTSD. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:RSN seems to be willing to take up questions regarding whether sources meet WP:MEDRS, so I've asked the question there [16], rather than here, which would have been my first inclination. I'm inquiring about the use of an article from the online nursing publication Health Science Journal, formerly known as ICUs and Nursing Web Journal in the Transcendental Meditation research article. I'd appreciate any uninvolved editor input on the reliability and use of the source. Thanks. Fladrif ( talk) 16:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I noted a change on my watchlist today on Mental disorder by Psychiatrick ( talk · contribs) which looked like material that took material out of context to promote an undue POV. I note that this user has made numerous other Psychiatry-related pages including Psychiatry which have prominently cited the works of psychiatry critic Thomas Szasz as well as using google book references to publishers I'm not familiar with. As this user has added numerous similar material across multiple pages, I wanted to see if anyone else is seeing the same problem I am seeing before mucking around with these articles, or if I am missing something (psychiatry being outside my usual comfort zone). Thanks! Yobol ( talk) 00:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
( ←) We've had no end of trouble with critics of psychiatry in the past on Wikipedia. I'd say their perspectives are reasonably well represented. NPOV and WEIGHT need to be adhered to at all times. JFW | T@lk 07:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
An anonymous IP keeps adding some bizarre entries to the healthcare section of this list against consensus (see talk page). I've tried to stir up more conversation there, but I can't carry on reverting the edits because I'm sailing close to the wind in terms of WP:3RR. Also, I'm going to Tanzania tomorrow for 2 months for my elective, and so won't be able to follow this up. If some of you could adopt this issue and sort it that would be great. Thanks. Basalisk inspect damage⁄ berate 18:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I'm preparing to nominate Birth control movement in the United States for Featured Article status, and it was suggested that the article be reviewed first by a medical black-belt, to ensure it conforms to WP:MEDRS standards. Could someone help out? Please post any comments at the articles Talk page. Thanks. -- Noleander ( talk) 05:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The article about the Alexander technique needs work. Expertise in presenting randomized controlled clinical trials (and perhaps the weaker studies also presented) would be especially useful.
The BMJ reported on two studies of the AT for relieving chronic or recurrent back-pain.
Thanks, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 15:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
could someone please have a quick look at
Khan Kinetic Treatment (KKT)? This may have been created as a promotion job, and I have a hard time figuring out whether this is a viable topic. Google News doesn't know it, but that is certainly not the best place to check.
Thanks,
Amalthea
12:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
At Talk:Oil_of_cloves#NYT_article_.2F_blog_post I am trying to find:
How do I access this resource? Do you know of any other ways which I can find review articles of the following?
Thanks WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I have come to this talk page to discuss this nomenclature issue in an effort to prevent an editing war. A user has been reverting my edits that have changed the phrase "osteopathic physician" to DO. I have laid out several logical reasons for making this change both on the Osteopathic Medicine in the United States page and on the user's talk page. I would like to hear other opinions on the matter. The user has stated more or less that it is his personal preference that osteopathic physician be used to refer to the holder of the DO degree and that DO should be reserved solely for the degree. He believes that referring to osteopathic physicians as DOs will confuse people. However, I completely disagree with him. An example of a sentence using DOs in this way: DOs perform surgery, prescribe medications and attend medical school for four years just like their MD counterparts. It is clear from context in a sentence like this one that the holder of the degree is what is being described by the phrase DO or MD not the degree itself. Clearly, degrees do not perform surgery, prescribe medications, etc. Secondly, DO is potentially less confusing in terms of nomenclature since many people those relatively uninformed about DOs and MDs often conflate U.S. trained osteopathic physicians and foreign osteopaths which are not the same thing. The term DO would make this distinction clearer and lessen confusion. Third, replacing the phrase osteopathic physician, which in an article like this is used extensively, can shorten the article somewhat and make sentences more concise and vary the sentence structure to further improve the writing in addition to the added clarity that will result from my previously mentioned point. Additionally, professional organizations such as the AOA and AACOM use DO to refer to both the holder of the degree and the degree itself in the way I have asserted is acceptable. Here are some links to support this statement: http://www.osteopathic.org/osteopathic-health/about-dos/what-is-a-do/Pages/default.aspx http://www.osteopathic.org/osteopathic-health/about-dos/Pages/default.aspx http://www.aacom.org/resources/bookstore/cib/Documents/2012cib/2012cib-p21-23.pdf
Also, this same person has insisted in his edits that the plural of DO must be written as DO's which seems incorrect since the plural of MD that I have seen written most often is MDs. I have also found pages from professional DO organizations that write the plural of DO as DOs which is the form I have been advocating. Here are links demonstrating this: http://www.aacom.org/resources/e-news/ome/2011-03/Pages/LoanRepayment.aspx http://www.osteopathic.org/osteopathic-health/about-dos/Pages/default.aspx http://www.osteopathic.org/osteopathic-health/about-dos/dos-around-the-world/Pages/default.aspx
So, to sum up my points, the term DO is synonymous with osteopathic physician and should be written as such to make a more parallel comparison with the term MD in this (and other) articles discussing/comparing DOs and MDs and editor's "personal preferences" should not be a deciding factor in an NPOV article. Here is the link to the osteopathic medicine in the united states talk page where you can see the discussion at the bottom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Osteopathic_medicine_in_the_United_States DoctorK88 ( talk) 19:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
One last note-people on the user's page (the one who has been undoing the edits) has had people on his own talk page tell him in the past that DO is a more accessible/recognizable term to them and the purpose of wikipedia pages is to inform and serve as a resource of accessible and easily comprehensible information. DoctorK88 ( talk) 19:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
If we're being technical here, which I feel like you are being a bit technical here, DO is not a colloquial term. And I am the one advocating for the removal of the apostrophes from the plural of DO if I have not yet made that clear. That is the reason I asked it in the first place, because I removed those apostrophes and someone reverted it. So, just to be clear, consensus has not been reached yet and reversions should not occur until it is reached. The standard for a formal term is not for "all" papers to use it. The threshold is that the term is used in academia and government pages (which should not be ignored) which are indeed formal arenas designed to inform so I must disagree with you on a fundamental level WhatamIdoing. It is not irrelevant because it addresses Leadsongdog's claim that it is colloquial because I showed that by definition, it is not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquialism http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colloquial It is a term used in formal settings whether you agree or not and I have shown that. I would be happy to further demonstrate its presence in formal settings if necessary. DoctorK88 ( talk) 04:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
If you care for the Free Dictionary ( I am relatively unfamiliar with it but it apparently is a dictionary and encyclopedia online) has this entry which uses DO to mean Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine and MD for Doctor of Medicine: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/osteopath please let me know if that works or if you had other encyclopedias or places in mind and I will continue my search. DoctorK88 ( talk) 02:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Here is another encyclopedia article: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/osteopathy.aspx#1 However, it should be noted that I have also seen some encyclopedias fail to make a distinction between osteopathic physicians (American trained) and osteopaths (foreign trained) which are not the same thing. However, it is clear in the context of this encyclopedia article that DO is used to also describe the holder of the degree. This looks like a more reliable reference than thefreedictionary.com as well. And here is another reference: http://wiki.medpedia.com/Osteopathic_Physician_(D.O.) Medpedia was listed on the list of notable online encyclopedias on the wikipedia page of online encyclopedias and apparently it has ties with reputable universities. This looks to be professionally edited, enjoy! DoctorK88 ( talk) 16:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
" I do think however that the community should try to find a solution that satisfies as many as editors as possible. "
— DrK88
There is a solution that satisfies over 90% of editors.
" I am not so stubborn and inflexible as to be close minded to the idea of compromise and working toward a solution that satisfies everyone. "
— DrK88
I would like to assume good faith, but I actually don't believe that.
I await your next wall of text rebuttal. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Literaturegeek, you are incorrect here. People did not respond to most of the arguments and evidence I put forth with logical counterarguments showing why what I said was invalid, etc. All I received were comments like oh, no, you haven't proven your point or oh, no, you've only shown it in a few sources, now that's not good enough, etc. Most people did not say something to the effect of "you're arguments are incorrect, or illogical because..." and show why that was the case. Yes, people "responded" to me, but not in a constructive way that discredited my arguments, most of them were side stepped or we just disagreed fundamentally but after reviewing these discussions of ours I see little effort to provide evidence that renders my arguments invalid and shows my evidence to be false. So, again, we are going to disagree on a fundamental level here, Literaturegeek (not surprising to me, we have disagreed the entire time). How taylornate, is one additional sentence wordy? It's not. Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine is not a big difference from osteopathic physician in terms of "wordiness" and I did not say it needs to be used for the entirety of the article, I was suggesting more along the lines of using it to define the term at the earlier parts of the article. I was not disruptive at all Literaturegeek, I actually looked up wikipedia's definition of disruptive and our debate did not fall under one single category of it. I would contend that the disruptive behavior was yours, WhatamIdoing's and Hopping's with your rude, antagonistic tones (from the start). Feel free to continue discussing the Doctor of Medicine/Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine substitution instead of the shift of osteopathic physician to DO, I am now washing my hands of the whole thing. I have more important things to attend to, this has become a drag on my time and if I can be frank, I am exhausted from dealing with editors such as yourselves (most of you, not all of you) who I find to be unreasonable and uncooperative (again, from the start, not from a dragged out debate which would have gone much faster had people directly addressed my arguments and evidence). I am mainly disappointed in the behavior exhibited by many of the other editors here, not angry or sad, just disappointed and now a bit tired. There is no need to respond to this last response of mine because I will not see it. Do what you like, if you are satisfied with your illogical arguments, most of which I have proven to be false, then so be it. I do hope that in the future you can work with me in a collaborative and cooperative fashion. Make no mistake, I am not leaving mad, I am just finished with this debate since the discussion is no longer going anywhere and you have become very sidetracked with whether or not we should have the debate instead of the issue itself despite my attempts to try and get you to focus on the issue at hand. The silver lining was to see that there are reasonable, professional editors such as Axl, Mr. Stradivarius and Pesky. I sincerely hope you use them as models for your interactions with other editors in the future, best of luck to you all in whatever you are doing. Consider the matter, on my end, officially closed. You can continue to talk about Doctor of Medicine/Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine replacement of MD and DO, respectively if you wish. I will no longer be participating. Consider me retired.
Hello. Could anyone take a look at this article, please? I tried to wikify the article a bit, but I have a very little knowledge in this area. Is the information correct? Thanks for any help/verification. -- Vejvančický ( talk | contribs) 17:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Ulceration is currently a disambiguation page, but it appears to run afoul of WP:DABCONCEPT, as it only lists different kinds of ulcers. Can someone here write a general-purpose article on the topic of ulceration, for which the examples provided would appear in context? Cheers! bd2412 T 18:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I had a help question in the irc channel (wikipedia-en-help) saying: "In the section of vitamin D, the amounts listed in the appropriate dosages are taken from an article from Health Canada which I believe to be in error. The units are given as micrograms per litre. In all other sources I have seen they are reported as nanograms per litre." She gave this source as an example: http://www.uptodate.com/contents/patient-information-vitamin-d-deficiency. Another helper replied "the serums levels are measured in nanograms..(25 hydroxy vit d) not the supplemental dosage.. supplemental daily doses are in micrograms or international units (IU)." I have no expertise here, but I thought I'd pass it on to you guys just to make sure that the article isn't confusing the two. Thanks! Ocaasi t | c 23:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
As mentioned on Inside Health, the Radio Four programme presented by Mark Porter, the term coeliac disease refers to something other than two terms which often get used as synonyms - gluten sensitivity and gluten intolerance. I was distressed to see, therefore, that the term gluten intolerance got redirected to coeliac disease. This has now gone to Wikipedia: Redirects for discussion. I think that people in this WikiProject might have the most knowledge on this matter, so I shall leave message here. If any one has specialist knowledge of coeliac disease, it would be good if s/he could leave his or her comments on Wikipedia: Redirects for discussion. Thank you in advance for any help, ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 21:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I did - as you say - start on the talk page of
coeliac disease. The ideal place to discuss this was
Wikipedia: Redirects for discussion, where this one did get - and it appears to have been settled, we now have
gluten intolerance redirecting to
gluten sensitivity. Thank you for your comments here,
ACEOREVIVED (
talk)
09:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Bexarotene re the need for MEDRS. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, the endothelium has, for too long been, overlooked and generally ignored when it is the originating organ in most CVD events. What I would like to see is an article that is accessible to the average person without medical training as well as being useful to the professional. Next, people, professionals too, need to know that to take care of their heart, they have to take care of their endothelium. Third, the present article does not have a history section and I think that would be an improvement. Fourth, the present article mixes disfunction and function. It seems to me that it would also be useful for people to sort that out and understand causation. I would greatly appreciate working with anyone who had an interest and would understand Wikispeak far better than I for I an a novice in this nunnery. Endofix ( talk) 23:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure if these meet WP:MEDRS. It's above my pay grade, as I just copyedited these articles. Also, it appears to be the same content added to each; it might only be appropriate in one of them.
A check would be great. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 18:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The program has several courses starting soon. I've listed some that may impact articles covered by this wikiproject.
Most seem to be attached to Wikiproject Psychology. Is someone from Wikiproject Medicine liaising with them on article choice? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 10:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Talk:Circumcision#RfC: how should the lead summarise positions of medical associations?. Input would be appreciated. Jakew ( talk) 21:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Brand new editor here, about a month, first time doing something like this so excuse my mistakes please. As seen here, WLU, Jlfosternz and I have been very actively collaborating on the DID article very successfully and we are discussing a unique phenomena with DID history which is that there is significant cultural history that is mostly independent of the scientific/research history, and vice versa. Additionally, both of these areas have hot contention from two very opposite sides who mostly refuse to even cite or in some cases even acknowledge the existence of the other. This makes for a very busy and disordered history section, and a big general challenge for the article itself (we are working hard on it though!). We all agree something needs to be done with the history section, but are not sure how exactly to do it appropriately and aren't sure of any precedent for this kind of thing. Any help or ideas are appreciated, thank you. Forgotten Faces ( talk) 22:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
More eyes, please on plantar fasciitis. There appears to be a coordinated effort by some IPs to add positive, remove negative information with regards to extracorporeal shockwave therapy to the page. More eyes on the page/voices on the talk page would be helpful. Yobol ( talk) 18:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Rename article? See Talk:MMR vaccine controversy#Suppression of dissenting voices.3F. SandyGeorgia ( Talk)
I tagged this article, FepA, mostly because it is too technical for the literate reader who has no knowledge within this field WP:NOT#JARGON. There is no way for me to vouch for the accuracy of the article. Also it looks like the vocabulary has been taken from some academic journal article, but I am unable to determine if this is so. I was wondering if someone from this project can take a look at this article for accuracy and maybe make sure it is not a copyright violation. Thanks in advance. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 19:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)