![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The following pages need a reviewer:
Any registered editor who can read and follow directions ( WP:GACR, WP:GACN, WP:RGA) is welcome to do this. It's really not difficult, although it commonly takes a couple of hours all told for medicine-related articles. Anyone at all is welcome to comment on these articles once someone has started the review (or on the article's talk page now). Comments from extra people are very helpful, especially from people who can help look up sources.
If you've never reviewed an article and you'd kind of like to give it a try but you're just not feeling bold enough, then leave a note here, and I'll find a volunteer to help you. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
A couple of our sections are similar to another site. The question is who has copied from whom. [1] wondering if someone can look into this. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone help reviewing the GAC azathioprine? It's been more than two months since I nominated it, and I am getting a bit impatient cause on Chinese Wikipedia it usually only takes a week :(
Your help would be greatly appreciated.-- Jsjsjs1111 ( talk) 09:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I just took and passed my board exam, so now I am getting back into editing Wikipedia. I have a huge 5-inch binder filled with many extensive, high-yield tables I composed myself from many different sources. Tonight I just started a couple of the tables here on Wikipedia, hoping that by adding high-yield derm content more residents will visit Wikipedia, and perhaps get involved. Again, the lists are incomplete at this time, found at:
Before I continue to edit those pages I wanted to know:
On a side note, since these are stubs, I have included a "see also" section. I can remove it later if people feel strongly about it.
Thanks in advance for your help. --- My Core Competency is Competency ( talk) 10:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Since there is no category for "medicine" in the RfC templates, I am posting here to draw attention to Talk:Human penis size#RfC: Is an image illustrating "length" and "circumference" necessary?. Judging from the talk page, this article might benefit from some review by members of this project who are willing to look at things from a more, uh, scientific viewpoint. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 15:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I've seen now at a few articles some issues with how to handle published criticism of studies. Nearly every widely-read study has somebody who didn't like the methodology or conclusions, and so has published criticism about the study. Sometimes even the criticism itself is criticized, etc... How do we handle this in WP:MEDICINE articles? Do we respect the entire "He said, she said" thread back and forth and include all the content in our articles? Do we just go with the study and ignore the criticism? Do we say, "The study said X but this critic said the data says Y, or that the guys who did the study must have been drunk."? Does it matter where or how the criticism is published--Critic's own website? Letter to the editor? Re-analysis of the same data the study used that came up with a different result? Published in the same journal or different journal? What about guy Z who writes a letter saying he agrees with the result of study X and disagrees with Y?
This comes up frequently enough but I don't see any guidelines on it in
WP:MEDMOS, advice please.
Zad
68
18:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Request for input here - more than just an 'academic' point, imo. — MistyMorn ( talk) 21:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Could someone reverse this redirect to Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome --> Smith–Lemli–Opitz syndrome? --- My Core Competency is Competency ( talk) 21:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Domestic_violence_in_Pakistan might benefit from some comments from uninvolved people. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Could a knowledgeable person take a look at Fasting#Medical application. I've already removed what looked like puffery for Joel Fuhrman, M.D., but I think it needs further attention. Thanks. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I've been working on the "Medical Uses" section of the Aspirin page for the last couple weeks. i saw a list somewhere that it was a high importance article and went with it. i've done some pretty substantial revision to it already, focusing on making it more concise, removing primary sources in favor of secondary ones, with a preference for Open Access papers. I've been doing this sequentially, maintaining section headings etc, and my issue now is that there is a large "hypothesized uses" section that, quite honestly, does not seem like something appropriate for an encyclopedia. I have mentioned this issue on the article's talk page, and am hoping to solicit some input from more seasoned editors. UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 09:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping for more input on this page; I was trying to remove a section on nurse practitioners from the page (because they are not physicians), but have not been able to come to an agreement on the talk page. Further outside input would be appreciated. Yobol ( talk) 17:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello:
I am surprised to see how the article on the Willowbrook State School so casually handles the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willowbrook_State_School
Although I never worked at Willowbrook, as a former RN, I had clients who were survivors of that institution and know something of it's history and the vital impact it had on the way the developmentally disabled are treated in the United States. The exposure of the abuse (something Geraldo Rivera got right) and the following legal battles were a momentous event in this country. Yet, the major book on this subject isn't even mentioned anywhere on the page, The Willowbrook Wars: Bringing the Mentally Disabled Into the Community by David Rothman and Sheila Rothman.
I'd like to see the Willowbrook article more closely reflect the episode's importance in the history of patient rights, but I am kinda shy on WP and don't know how to do a lot of stuff. I've made some light edits, like spelling, but the one time I was more adventurous, I ended up completely mortified. I have no idea how it happened, but I edited an old version of an article instead of the current version and caused a raft of problems. After some pointed messages were sent to me about it, a kind soul finally figured out what happened and set things right. Now I mostly just make suggestions on Talk pages.
[Here's an example of the difficulties I have - see the second paragraph above. Everything looks fine in the typing window, but in Show Preview, "The Willowbrook Wars:" is italicized, "Bringing the Mentally Disabled Into the Community" is not, then "by David Rothman and Sheila Rothman." is italicized. I've deleted and re-entered the phrase several times with no improvement. Frustration abounds!]
Is there a mentorship program on WP or someone who I could provide with info who would be able to edit in my stead? How does this all work? Please don't tell me to search the Wikipedia: side; it's so extremely frustrating, bloated, and circularly self-referential that I waste an hour or two trying to figure something out, then give up. (That's another area of WP that urgently needs attention.) If this isn't the right place to ask these questions, is there someplace more appropriate?
Thank you, Wordreader ( talk) 05:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
There are a number of medicine-related classes working with the Wikipedia Education Program that are starting up around now, and several could use the help of experienced editors. If that sounds like something you want to do, you can become an Online Ambassador. If you're interested, let me know, or if you've got questions about the role, please ask. In any case, the work done by students in these classes may be of interest.
You can see the other courses in the United States and Canada programs (including some that already have at least on Online Ambassador, but would benefit from others as well) here: Canada, US.-- Sage Ross (WMF) ( talk) 15:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Anyone have a good idea what should happen with Sex identity? It seems either incredibly underdeveloped or otherwise needing some attention. Insomesia ( talk) 23:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
12:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion of the health effects of mercury in high fructose corn syrup, here. A search on pubmed for those terms turns up precisely two articles, by the same research groups, from 2009. The first, from January 2009 is a primary study. The second is a review article by the same people, attempting to link mercury consumption to oxidative stress and autism (a link which I had thought was well-dead and buried). From what I can tell, nothing else has come of this single 2009 incident, which was, I believe, based on improper cleaning of the equipment. This looks very much like excessive weight on a single secondary article expressing minority opinion that doesn't seem to extend outside of that one research group. WT:MED input would be greatly appreciated.
However, members of the Corn Growers Association of America need not comment, apparently. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 21:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
I'd be grateful for some input here. Don't worry, if you want to characterise it as asking for medical advice, you can, but it's just over 300 years too late. -- Dweller ( talk) 14:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
There has been back and forth on this article, since 2009, regarding the inclusion of symptoms of antifreeze posioning and one of the few, or two, ways to identify the posioning. See Talk:Antifreeze#Poisoning section. For reasons I cannot make sense of, one editor has consistently objected to the inclusion of this information...while the other editor has consistently argued for its inclusion. Since the section is supposed to summarize this medical issue and this material is all kinds of relevant, I believe that the material should stay. Suffice it to say, input on this matter from editors of this project is needed. This is what I stated in the Current discussion section I recenly made on the talk page of that article:
It seems that Uruiamme doesn't listen to reason or follow WP:Consensus. From the above, it is clear that there should be an appropriate use of WP:Summary style regarding the poisoning information. Yet he recently removed this information after the above input from others, and compromise wording, that this type of information should be in this article. Every editor above agreed that "immediate" and/or primary symptoms should definitely be included. I therefore reverted Uruiamme because the removal simply is not justified. Removing that this poison is diffucult to detect? That's the most relevant thing to mention, aside from the fact that antifreeze, ethylene glycol in particular, is poisonous. And he's been doing this since 2009? Good grief. Don't know what he thinks is going to get resolved by doing this every few months to a year, after he's apparently decided that the opposing editor is no longer paying attention, but it needs to stop. Like I stated already, oddly enough, he'd left in the information about the oxalic acid crystals this time, which is rendered irrelevant in a way without mentioning the fact that this poison is so difficult to identify. I see valid reasons grounded in relevancy, in guidelines and precedent for keeping this material. But none for removal. I also remind all that this article is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine for a reason; I very much doubt that they'd agree with removal of the symptoms. In fact, I'm going to ask them to weigh in here. This has gone on long enough. 134.255.247.88 ( talk) 16:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Could a knowledgeable person possibly take a look at our article on Protandim, with regard to its compliance with WP:MEDRS policy? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Could people please chime in at this discussion:
Talk:Sexual effects of circumcision#Is this page needed anymore? It should be redirected to Circumcision... title explains it all!
Zad
68
17:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Hey guys, it would be great to get some medical opinion over at bipolar disorder in the context of an effort to see if it could maybe be taken to ga. Cheers - Fayedizard ( talk) 20:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The article on babywearing would benefit from the project's help.
While babywearing has the appearance of a C-class article, it would be improved by using review or survey articles or leading textbooks.
From this project, a pediatrician or epidemiologist or parent would be especially suited to review babywearing.
Thanks, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Ditto. It seems problematic that the criticisms of cosleeping from the American College of Pediatrics is given less weight than Dr. Sears' book. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 12:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The Albert T. W. Simeons article contaned a large quantity of unreferenced material, all of which I have removed. Simeons designed a controversial hCG-based diet regime that appears to be the subject of both an FDA ban on the sale of over-the counter drugs for that purpose, and a substantial Internet-based industry selling the stuff -- or "stuff", if you count "homeopathic hCG". Alas, there are vast amounts of unsourced material about him and his diet on the Internet, apparently mostly aimed at publicising the diet or selling the products, some of it easily confusable at first sight with real news sources: this could easily find its way into the article, if we're not vigilant.
I'd greatly appreciate it if a few people here could pop it on their watchlists in case it becomes a marketing vehicle. -- The Anome ( talk) 02:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Starting with a primary study, is there a free database one can use to identify all the review articles that cite it? Biosthmors ( talk) 17:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#How should we treat unsupported health-related content? Your thoughts are welcome. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 04:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
This article is listed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicine, but that project, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, is not too active, so I brought the issue here.
Basically, this article is based on a fringe theory, and I am concerned about its promotion on Wikipedia. Concerns were already expressed on the article's talk page by a registered editor. See Fringe written as fact, and now editors of the article are discussing creating spin-offs of this theory and the possibility of giving more weight to it in other articles, such as the Human sexual response cycle article. See The orgasm reflex discussion. One editor stated that he had not even heard of the human sexual response cycle, [3] despite the fact it is mentioned often in sources when detailing sexual stimulation/arousal and orgasm and is the clinically accepted definition of the human sexual response (sexual arousal/orgasm). I responded with this comment: [4] I'm not even sure that "orgastic potency" should have a Wikipedia article. And if it should, certainly, given the concerns about this theory coming across as fact or otherwise legitimate, it would be better to name it Orgastic potency theory. So please have a look at this article and comment on this in one or both of the linked discussions above. 199.229.232.42 ( talk) 10:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I've listed meth mouth for a peer review; I'm trying to bring it to featured status. I'd appreciate it if someone with experience with medical articles could weigh in on whether I'm in compliance with the project's guidelines for medical articles. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 17:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Can some of the MEDRS wonks have a look at content matter underlying the edit war on Cognitive behavioral therapy? It's been the subject of some ANI reports and at least DRN one, all of which appear to be an exercise in bureaucracy and vote/revert counting rather than injecting previously uninvolved but knowledgeable editors. Tijfo098 ( talk) 15:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
And again. Tijfo098 ( talk) 21:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
“ | The sentence "Unlike in the humanities, scientific and medical peer reviewed sources are not generally considered secondary unless they are a review or a meta-analysis." isn't backed up by any reliable outside source I can find. - Stillwaterising ( talk) | ” |
I'm posting this here because the reliable independent sources referenced in the above section (in my opinion) should be used to help define the term Secondary Source as used in Wp:Medrs. Currently, the Definitions section is using definitions that do not have reliable sourcing and differ from the definitions found elsewhere on the internet. - Stillwaterising ( talk) 12:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
User keeps trying to cite a 12 person uncontrolled trial to refute a Cochrane review. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
21:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Source changes
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Members of this WikiProject may be interested in a new project at Wikiversity.
I discovered it by reading
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#A new wikiversity learning project (version of
07:49, 18 September 2012).
—
Wavelength (
talk)
14:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
A "complication" is "an unfavorable evolution of a disease, a health condition or a therapy". In general, an ideal application of a therapy or treatment could result in no complications happening. But what is it called when there is an expected but undesired effect of some therapy, and in particular, of a surgery? For example, you cannot perform
rhinoplasty without at least some bleeding. You are not intending to cause the bleeding, you don't want the bleeding, but it's a required consequence of doing the operation. Excessive bleeding might be considered a complication, but what do you call the normal, ordinary bleeding you will encounter during the operation? I think I am looking for some word here other than "complication" or "side effect."
Zad
68
19:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)This section really needs to be brought up to MEDRS standards. -- Brangifer ( talk) 17:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I see it's now widely accepted after a major rewrite from an IP. Also David R. Hawkins at AfD. Tijfo098 ( talk) 10:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, medical types. I was reading the feedback page for Soursop, one of the articles on my watchlist, and there's a pretty high frequency of people wanting more information about soursop's potential as a cure for cancer. It seems there's actually some scientific seed of truth to this (e.g., Dai et al. 2011), but, of course, also people on the internet selling soursop extract as a magic cancer cure. There's currently one sentence in the article about soursop and cancer, but clearly there is a need for more information. I'm hoping that someone here would be willing to help separate medical hype from fact. Many thanks for any assistance. Tdslk ( talk) 17:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
The edits still need improvements as seen here Urinary_incontinence. But hopefully with guidance they will become good. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
The Misophonia article looks well-intentioned, but a great part of the article's content was either uncited, or cited to sources that fail to meet the WP:MEDRS, or even WP:RS, criteria. I've now removed about half of the article content, leaving only stuff cited to WP:RS. See this diff for the changes. It could do with further improvement: I'd really appreciate it if someone with relevant expertise could take a look at the new version of the article. -- The Anome ( talk) 07:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
A group of us are looking for help in continuing the development of a Wikiversity learning project. I hope this is appropriate place to contact wikipedians who might be interested in giving assistance or spreading the word. The project is The Science Behind Parkinson's. I invite you to visit it to look at its aims and state of development. We have, in fact, got a lot of material on it already. But we want more people to join us in developing it and making it a valuable resource particularly for those affected by Parkinson's who want to understand more about the science underlying the condition.
It would be good if you could also suggest other ways in which we could find other people who would be interested in helping with its development. I am prepared to write individually to all the active wikipedians on the Neuroscience project if that is the best way of contacting relevant people but I don't want to be accused of spamming! Thanks. My user name on Wikiversity is Droflet. Please write on my user talk page there, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Droflet or on my user talk page here on wikipedia. Jtelford ( talk) 09:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
There's a recently-created article
migraine treatment that was just Wikilinked from
migraine.
Migraine treatment has some problems from a Wikipedia perspective, parts of it appear to be OK, but it definitely has a promotional tone related to
Elliot Shevel and a surgical migraine treatment method his article discusses that he developed. A review of the editors involved in these articles shows some probable COI problems. (Sample sentence from the
migraine treatment article: "As these vessels have no connection with the arterial supply to the brain, the Shevel Procedure is exceedingly safe with no unpleasant side effects. The cosmetic effect is excellent as most of the incisions are within the hairline.")
Migraine was recently made GA so this is an area of current interest. Anybody who has extra time could you please check out these areas....
Zad
68
12:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)I started looking at this today, did a little tagging, and then saw that getting the content on these pages to conform to Wikipedia standards will not be quick or easy, in my opinion. Shevel is a legit doctor, a maxillo-facial surgeon with a lot of letters after his name. He is a peer reviewer of journals associated with the AMA and the International Headache Society (current editor-in-chief is at the Mayo clinic). He's gotten about 30 articles published, including some in PUBMED-indexed peer-reviewed journals. But he appears to be a bit of a maverick. I'm just starting to read about this topic for the first time myself, but it looks like migraines can have one of several origination points, and if a migraine has a vascular origination point, it is accepted knowledge that it is intra-cranial and drugs are the therapy of choice, at least for acute treatment. Shevel has been building some notoriety and a business for himself based on the idea that some migraines are caused by a drop in extra-cranial carotid artery pressure from dilation, and a treatment can be to cauterize the artery. Shevel states he independently came to this conclusion before discovering that Wolff came to the same conclusion in the 1930s and 40s (see
this for example). I did find
Migraine surgery: a plastic surgery solution for refractory migraine headache which does seem to independently echo Shevel's idea (but all I have is the abstract--there are very few free full reports in this subject area). However, this theory has not been picked up by the "mainstream" headache establishment, at least not yet. So the problem is that my normal PUBMED searches--recent review articles and other secondary sources, using keywords like "migraine AND surgery" or "migraine AND carotid"--don't turn up anything. Or, at least not a review written by someone other than Shevel himself, see
this for example.
This by Shevel gives an idea of the Shevel-vs.-the-establishment feel of what's going on, although, again, I only have access to the abstract. The Shevel bio article itself is clearly autobiographically written and uses almost no independent reliable secondary sources. If we were to apply the hard-core Wikipedia rules of "must use independent reliable secondary sources", we delete most of the
Migraine surgery article and we probably end up deleting most or all of the
Elliot Shevel article. However then we probably drive away possibly a good technical medical resource. I am not sure what to do now, and won't be back online until probably Thursday.
Zad
68
18:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
18:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Meet for much of the day today with different aspects of WHO. One of the tentative agreements is that they may be willing to release certain images under an open license as a pilot if requested by a Wikipedian. Thus if people see images at WHO that they thing would be useful to illustrate a page email me / drop me a note of my user page and I will see about getting a release from the WHO. This could also apply to graphs and maps. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
My name is Allyssa, a senior undergraduate student from Rice University. I would like to extend and revise the Wikipedia article, Infant mortality. I intend on rearranging the sections to make the article flow better. I will expand on existing sections to create a more comprehensive article. Also, I will expand this article by adding sections titled, ‘Top causes for infant mortality,’ ‘Medical disparities,’ ‘Knowledge disparities,’ and ‘Policies addressing infant mortality.’
I hope to contribute salient knowledge on this issue. I also intend on editing this article to meet Wikipedia standards.
If there are any suggestions on ways to go about this, please let me know.
Allyssa.abacan ( talk) 00:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback! I intend on using scholarly and medical articles in this article. I will read WP:MEDRS to ensure that I follow guidelines on referencing medical articles. I'll work on being more clear with my jargon. Thanks again!
I will be focusing on south east asian countries since differences in medical resources and outcomes can be seen on a bigger level (Singapore and the Philippines). I will narrow down my focus to elaborate on causes (dengue fever, polio, etc) and medical infrastructure within each South East Nation I talk about. I will mainly focus on the top 5 causes of infant mortality. Information on medical infrastructure would hopefully allow readers to gain an understanding of how political structure can influence infant mortality. Also, I plan on writing about successful and failed political policies that aim(ed) to ameliorate infant mortality. Hopefully this will allow readers to grasp the root causes for high infant mortality in various countries that have varying SES status. Right now, the article is not holistically explaining infant mortality.
During my research, I will garner more academically viable resources to make this article more reliable.
I will see what I can do when considering adding/reorganizing into Epidemiology, Prevention, History, Society and culture.
Allyssa.abacan ( talk) 02:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
This article highlights the importance of our WP:COI policy and is a very interested read [9]. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
This is why we proposed an open access guide for pharma about using Wikipedia as well (page 7). NCurse work 05:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
We have a number of sources saying some companies regularly commission studies and then publish only, or mostly, the studies that reflect favourably on their therapeutic product. Does anyone know if there's a Wikipedia article on the topic? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 13:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
If you haven't tried this yet, please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ArticleFeedbackv5Watchlist?ref=watchlist
This will show all of the Article Feedback Tool version 5 comments from readers for pages on your watchlist. We're getting interesting comments on some pages. For example, Frailty syndrome is accumulating complaints about being too complicated, and readers of Spinal cord injury are begging for more treatment information. Overall, I think that people who leave actionable comments are requesting more pictures and simpler writing (and not just on medicine-related articles).
Many comments are non-actionable, and we're getting some nice compliments, too. But if you see a good suggestion for improving the article, then you can either make the improvement yourself and mark it resolved, or you can click the link to "feature" this comment so that other editors will be more likely to see it. (Non-actionable comments, like compliments, can be marked resolved with an appropriate comment, like "Thanks for the compliment" or "No action requested" or "Not an appropriate request for an encyclopedia article".)
Please let us know what you think of this tool, either here or at WT:AFT5. I've already made simple, quick improvements to several pages as a result of these suggestions. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I found a very helpful comment here, which prompted me to make substantial changes to the article in regards to anticoagulation. Afterward, someone complimented the article in feedback. Perhaps there was causation behind the correlation. Biosthmors ( talk) 19:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I am really happy with the Article Feedback Tool and I see a lot of potential in this. This could be a major step toward getting organizations interested in Wikipedia. This kind of information paired with pageview statistics is supporting evidence that the public cares about Wikipedia articles. The relationship between Wikipedia and organizations now is that most organizations think they are justified in ignoring the contents of Wikipedia articles in their fields, even if Wikipedia articles are what people find doing search engine queries with terms in those fields. If any article has extremely high traffic, like asthma does, then every organization which is founded to educate the world on asthma ought to divert a lot of their attention to this article because it is where people are going for information. Still, organizations often are not convinced. However, paired with comments of any kind whether vandalism or not shows that a certain number of people are coming to this article and taking extra steps to do something. Even nonsense responses mean that someone was here to do something and that they wanted to the feedback tool for some reason that probably was not accidental. No on accidentally is surfing the net and comes to the Wikipedia article on asthma. I like this a lot. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
There is an argument [10] that this article: Biology and political orientation is not covered by MEDRS. Is there any comments from someone experienced with MEDRS as to whether this is the case? IRWolfie- ( talk) 21:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The article Gender issues in diagnosing conduct disorder seems to be ripe with issues. I notice it has no project tags so invite those more aware of the issues involved to take a look and see if it belongs in this project and if the clean-up issues can be addressed, or if the article should remain. Insomesia ( talk) 23:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Per here Wikidata will be adding infobox data by the end of this year / early next year. [11] The World Health Organization is interested in collaborating on definitions of diseases. They wish to feed our definitions (along with a bunch of other stuff) to their experts who will than improve on them and hopefully feed them back to us.
A while ago we discussed adding definitions to infoboxes (as well as some other stuff). While some things may not display properly in an infobox as it is simply to much text this sort of content should fit well within Wikidata and than can hopefully be easily feed into Wikipedia's articles on disease.
We want a system where if the WHO updates or changes their definition this will automatically feed from their database into Wikidata and than into the rest of Wikipedia.
What do people think of this proposal? We will hopefully soon have a Wikipedian in Residence at the WHO to help with the development of this idea. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
We are nearing incorporation of Wikimedia Medicine, a thematic group (basically a chapter that is international in scope and deals only with medicine). All those here are free to become involved. Its main goals will be to develop collaborations with other organizations and be a liaison between editors here and those organizations. Content decisions will as before still take place within Wikipedia. Comments appreciated. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I've also posted a note to the Village Pump (Miscellaneous). J N 466 20:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Should this page—or part of it—be within the scope of this project? The page is protected, but I've tried to suggest a series of improvements To help update/revise Evaluation of effectiveness etc per WP:MEDRS. — MistyMorn ( talk) 18:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Input is needed with regard to the above linked discussion. It has to do with how the medical community defines sexual orientation vs. social terms that have been created to describe sexual preferences/feelings and/or gender. Flyer22 ( talk) 18:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Just my 2 cents, — MistyMorn ( talk) 19:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
We have a user adding external links to many cancer articles to the site cancer.net Special:Contributions/Mmh526 Comments? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I think a more appropriate place for the ongoing thread Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Does_this_fall_under_MEDRS.3F would be here. User: WhisperToMe queried a particular source which, imo, wouldn't meet WP:RS, let alone MEDRS. However, the query implicitly raises a wider issue about whether medical cost-effectiveness analysis studies should come under MEDRS. — MistyMorn ( talk) 01:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
01:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Just because you can find papers on Medline does not mean that you're looking at purely scientific claims. One of the ways you can tell, is that the guidelines disagree with each other. Why is that? Well, because they've used different assumptions, ethical values, and fears, going into the statistics, and in evaluating the studies. And " GIGO" applies just as well in logic as it does in computer science.
I see we need an example. Suppose you've had a thrombotic stroke and you don't have a diseased heart or some easy way to explain it. Your blood pressure and cholesterol are good, and you're not obese and and you don't smoke and so on. Now the question is what kind of anti-platelet agent shall we give you to prevent a second stroke? The official AHA/ASA guidelines [15] say treatment should be "individualized." But they don't tell you how, except obviously people with intolerance to one drug should be given another. They do say: Aspirin is less expensive, which may affect long-term adherence.283,284 However, even small reductions in vascular events compared with aspirin may make combination dipyridamole and aspirin or clopidogrel cost-effective from a broader societal perspective.285 So what do they mean by "may make"? Who decides? Aspirin is pennies a day, whereas the other antiplatelet agents typically are $150 a month or more. The reduction in risk over aspirin is small but statistically real. However, the larger side effects and non-compliance rates for the other drugs are far greater than aspirin, and just as real. So, a couple of Belgians look through all the best studies and find all that, and say: "Despite changes in international guidelines, aspirin monotherapy should retain its position as the main antiplatelet agent for secondary prevention of non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke." Uh oh.
So now, your HMO or perhaps Medicaid decide that asprin is the thing you need, and all they will pay for, on the basis of this cost-effectiveness analysis that says the the expensive drugs aren't worth it, and haven't been scientifically shown to be worth it, even from the money-alone viewpoint. And you object that these people are not as worried as you are about that slight extra increase in chance of a new stroke, and you don't care if you can't prove that the cost of your slight increase in chance of needing long-term care plus having a bad bleeding side effect, doesn't outweigh the cost of the drugs for the rest of your life. You feel you should have the expensive drugs anyway, and are willing to take the side-effect risk. You put this argument to Medicaid or your HMO doc and add that you can't afford anything but aspirin. Back comes the answer: "Sucks to be you, then." Although they're more polite than that, and have a lot of other legalese and references. Now, you object that the reasoning behind denying you the expensive drug isn't fully scientific and relies on a lot of assumptions about tradeoffs between side effects, costs, and small risk decreases that are statistically real, but clinically not very large. Your HMO doc says Well, you're not being fully scientific, either, sir. I think you're stroke-a-phobic. And besides, who says these Belgian meta analysis guidelines aren't scientific? We found them on Medline: PMID 22997997 as a big meta analysis in Acta Cardiologica, a fully refeereed and highly respected journal. Therefore, they are scientific by definition. They even meet WP:MEDRS, if you allow for a few assumptions. The same goes for the AMA/ASA guidelines, too, of course. But we like the Belgian point of view, and it will save us money...
My point is that this kind of thing goes on EVERYWHERE in medicine. It's very typical. You can't solve it all by application of science, or WP:MEDRS. By the time you get to this level, you're partly operating from differences in taste, and differences in fear. And, of course, differences in outlook that come from whose money it is, that is being spent. S B H arris 03:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Personally, I agree with Zad that it should. As I wrote in the initial discussion over at Talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine):
It's true that cost-effectiveness is a form of economic analysis. But when talking about the cost-effectiveness of a medical intervention, the effectiveness part (ie the denominator of a cost-effectiveness ratio) implicitly incorporates health-status outcomes such as quality of life and survival; for example, a commonly used outcome measure is quality-adjusted life years (QALY) [16], where the cost-effectiveness ratio is expressed as $/QALY etc, allowing economic comparisons of different treatments/interventions to be made using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. So I think there's a strong case for applying MEDRS for cost-effectiveness studies of medical or health interventions (especially when multiple primary studies are available).
— MistyMorn ( talk) 15:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
As I said someplace else, natural science knowledge (including biomedical knowledge) tells you only what you can (probably) do, but not what you should do. Thus, it's best to keep fairly pure biomedical science questions off in their own corner, and deal with biomedical ethics and policy questions under other WP guidelines (which are the same ones where we discuss global warming initiatives and politics and religion). Manmade global warming is a scientific question, but what to do about it (if anything) is not really a scientific question (or at least, mostly not). These same intangibles are what differentiate materials science (say) from structural engineering, and stuctural engineering from (say) architecture. The nature of WP:IRS changes completely as you go from materials science to architecture. One RS policy really can't cover it, and a MEDRS policy specifically crafted to look at natural science questions fails badly when harnessed into doing ethics and values-laden things also. How could it not? These are different modes of discourse. S B H arris 02:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
But if we turn to a source genuinely regarding cost effectiveness, such as Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillators for arrhythmias: a systematic review and economic evaluation, we're obviously not just dealing with relative costs of different devices, but rather with maximizing long-term clinical effectiveness within a given (national) economic scenario. JFW has suggested that that sort of question is better discussed at WT:MEDRS.— MistyMorn ( talk) 11:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
They're still doing it. I've asked for opinions at Village pump (policy). Why are these Randys allowed to tell individual readers made-up, unsourced health-related stuff that wouldn't last five minutes on a watched medical article? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 06:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, my name is Matthew, and I'm an undergraduate student from Rice University. I'm intending on expanding and rewriting the current article on International emergency medicine. It's currently a start class article so there is a lot of room for improvement. I'd like to focus on the establishment/improvement of emergency medicine in developing countries. My plan is reorganize what is already there and to create sections like "Overview of international emergency medicine", "Institutions involved", "Role in the overall health system", "Initiatives to expand emergency medicine", and "Challenges." There is a pretty good body of literature on these topics in some of the emergency medicine journals but I would be glad to hear if anyone had ideas on other sources I could use. Any suggestions for the best way to go about this? Mjs15 ( talk) 14:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I had a quick scout around for you on PubMed, and, yes, it does indeed seem that most of the pertinent articles are in the specialist literature.* You might like to try the TRIP database [25]. I did come across an article in the Bulletin of the WHO [26]. I didn't stumble upon any obviously useful book sources, but you may well know of some.
*FYI, the most sensitive PubMed string I tried to search for potentially relevant reliable medical sources (
WP:MEDRS) was:
"international emergency medicine" OR ("Emergency Medicine"[Mesh] OR "Disaster Medicine"[Mesh]) AND ("International Agencies"[Mesh] OR "International Cooperation"[Mesh] OR "Internationality"[Mesh] OR "World Health Organization"[Mesh] OR internat* OR world* OR global*) AND (Meta-Analysis[ptyp] OR Review[ptyp] OR systematic[sb] OR Guideline[ptyp])
= 104 results, 34 from the last 5 years
If people are interested please sign up here meta:Wikimedia_Medicine#People_interested. The chap comm wants 25 people in support before they will approve this. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
...at Antigen leukocyte cellular antibody test? Seems I'm thought to be guilty of an outrageous COATRACK. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Please lend your expertise at Talk:List_of_preventable_causes_of_death#Hypertension.3F. Thanks. -- Dweller ( talk) 20:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
As part of a class at Rice University, I propose to start a new Wikipedia page entitled “HIV and Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM)” to expand the current small subsection on the Men who have sex with men page. The current HIV subsection of the MSM page is far more detailed than anything else on the MSM page (everything else is merely a survey) and would benefit from having freedom to expand by itself. The CDC, UNAIDS, and AVERT websites all have pages specifically dedicated to HIV and MSM so Wikipedia should have a page that goes into an equal level of detail. The page should also include information beyond public health risks alone, like the stigma associated with an HIV diagnosis in the MSM community and prevention methods. This would make the page a thorough sociological analysis of how HIV affects the MSM population. Although I will draw on the Center for Disease Control for statistics about the prevalence of HIV in the MSM community and demographic data, I will rely mainly on journal articles for my references. There are a variety of scholarly articles available on HIV/AIDS and its specific relationship to men who have sex with men. Journals like The Lancet, AIDS Journal, The American Foundation for AIDS Research, The Journal of Homosexuality, The Journal of Urban Health, AIDS and Behavior, and the British Medical Journal all have published multiple articles on topics relevant to my Wikipedia article. I will make sure my sources are varied, unbiased, and represent a variety of scholarly work. I would be interested to hear the WikiProject members’ feedback on how I can better improve my contribution. Cshaase ( talk) 01:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I will be editing and adding contributions to the Wikipedia page Diseases of poverty. I believe that this fits into the Wikiproject medicine. This contribution will expand on diseases of poverty to include those found in United States, as well as disparities in access to health care between the rich and the poor, and the impact of lack of resources such as clean water. For this article I will use information from the Centers of Disease Control and prevention, the National Institute of Health and other scholarly articles. I will be contributing these additions as part of an extensive class assignment.
I welcome any recommendations for further edits as well as credible sources of information. I also welcome and tips for raising the quality of the overall page. Bellechic ( talk) 04:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC) ( talk)
Post-Finasteride Syndrome. Biosthmors ( talk) 16:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
There is some interest in creating "patient handouts" under a CC BY SA license. I am thinking on Wikibooks. Are others interested or do they have any thoughts on this? I have a few collaborators interested. They would of course be referenced. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
We have a new mailing list here [27] All who are interested are welcome to sign up. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
At the end of August, several of us attended the Medical Wiki Workshop in Coventry, UK ( http://coventrywiki.eventbrite.co.uk/ ). One of the key speakers was Jon Brassey, Co-Founder of TRIP Database, which is a search engine that concentrates on finding the best clinical evidence ( http://www.tripdatabase.com/ ). After Jon's presentation, I chatted with him about specific ways in which we might be able to make use of his resources to improve medical articles on Wikipedia. A couple of possibilities have emerged and I wanted to share them with WikiProject members to see how we could proceed. -- RexxS ( talk) 14:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Those of you who use Trip database will know that it already classifies articles as "Secondary evidence" / "Evidence based synopses" / "Systematic reviews", etc. I have often found that one of the biggest problems for new editors of medical articles is that they want to substitute their own judgement of article quality for that of expert reviewers. It's exactly that problem that fuels a lot of disputes about whether a given source is suitable for inclusion in an article. I have suggested to Jon that he might be able to put a 'quality mark' on the very best articles in his database - 'wikipedia approved', if you will. This would at least give editors an external assessment of source quality that could point them to the best evidence to use in an article. I can see that it is only likely to work well if it is accurately implemented, but I would be grateful for comments on the potential usefulness of the idea before we move further with it. -- RexxS ( talk) 14:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Talking with Jon, he explained that they add about 500 new articles to the Trip database per month. Jon asked if we would like to receive a copy of those on-wiki in some usable format, and categorised in some way - and if so where would they be delivered to? We discussed the possibility of delivering notices of new sources to relevant Wikipedia articles, probably on the talk page in the same way that newsletters are delivered to user talk pages. I suggested the possibility of delivering them to subpages of this project, broken down into broad categories, so that interested editors could find all of those on a particular topic en bloc. Other possibilities must exist, so I would again be grateful for thoughts on how useful this may be, and what implementation would be best. Thanks in advance, -- RexxS ( talk) 14:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
[28] Thanks Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
We are getting content about this localized US outbreak added to the main meningitis page. I have move the content to the talk page. I guess the main question is how do we address news like this within an established article? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Your input concerning Chiropractic would be appreciated. Discussion is underway at Talk:Chiropractic.
-- Mknjbhvgcf ( talk) 17:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
We could use some help with the fibromyalgia article from someone who has access to the International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases. The issue has to do with the following article: "The use of opioids in fibromyalgia", February 2011, PMID 21303476. This journal article is being used as a source for the following text: "[Opioids] are not recommended as they can worsen mood, such as depression in fibromyalgia, have abuse and dependence potential as well as have a significant adverse effect profile. Long-term use of opioids may worsen pain in some people...".
As stated in the journal article's abstract, there are no randomized controlled studies dealing with the use of opioids for fibromyalgia. So, question is, what type of evidence is used to support the claims in the quotation above? Is this evidence high enough in quality to be used in a Wikipedia article, given what WP:MEDRS says about assessing evidence quality?
Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. -- JTSchreiber ( talk) 05:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
the article on this has very little in the prevention section. Missing is excercise.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7934752 looks like a start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.113.171 ( talk) 12:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Eyes needed again on ALCAT test please to prevent pushing of a commercial concern not based on reliable evidence. — MistyMorn ( talk) 21:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I need an expert opinion: am I incorrect in assuming that "disconjugate gaze" is synonymous with strabismus? Sasata ( talk) 22:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Would appreciate some additional eyes on this article - is the link being added appropriately? -- Scray ( talk) 00:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I ran across this image in my ongoing quest to sort through commons:Category:Diseases and disorders. I thought it was a nice way to present multiple signs and symptoms, so I decided to post it here in case anyone's ever looking for some inspiration. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
This high-importance article has long needed some love. Anyone care to dig in? LeadSongDog come howl! 22:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Would welcome additional opinions. -- Scray ( talk) 04:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
04:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Regarding
Insulin: I removed the most unclear, unsourced additions, tagged the decently-sourced but unclear additions, brought one paragraph of content that sounded reasonable but was poorly sourced and poorly written over to the Talk page for further discussion, left a note at the responsible editor's User Talk page pointing him to
WP:MEDRS.
Zad
68
13:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I've proposed deletion of List of viruses. Please discuss there. I am guessing that editors here might have valuable perspective. -- Scray ( talk) 15:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Two questions arise on the talk page, one somewhat technical (from 2010, and unaddressed), and one I raise about synonyms. Assistance from an expert, which in this case probably means generally competent about medicine, would be appreciated.
Rich
Farmbrough,
22:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC).
Does anybody know where to find that number? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 06:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Found it: 25000. (On James's excellent cc-by-sa outreach Power Point presentation.) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 17:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. Do any of you mind weighing in on the Talk:Puberty#Lede and puberty discussion? [31] This topic is part of WikiProject Medicine for obvious reasons shown in the Puberty article, and we clearly need other views on this particular matter. I and another editor worked out the initial issue in the discussion, but another issue has cropped up because defining puberty, especially the onset and ending of it, is complex. We're currently on the "boys at ages 11-12"/"How are [we] defining the beginning of puberty?" part of the discussion. So I'm only asking for comments on that -- our most recent point of views -- but you can of course weigh in on everything we addressed in that discussion if you want. Flyer22 ( talk) 15:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
This article is a complete shipwreck in my opinion. The neologism refers to women who claim to have been "raped" by medical professionals during the childbirth process, because the medical professional did things to ensure the safe delivery of the baby. Is this topic notable? None of the references provided seem remotely reliable and non-tabloid. Then there's the whole controversy and neutrality thing. I've removed a whole load of emotional tabloid fluff, though I would also like additional opinions on what should be done with this article. -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 16:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
This errmm POV page was created earlier this year by a gf newbie who last showed up in April [32]. Sports medicine carries a merger proposal. What to do? — MistyMorn ( talk) 13:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
A group of people are suddenly editing global health. I presume it is a class - it is about 15 new editors who have created accounts and done nothing but dropped content into the article, most of which is not an improvement. I posted welcome templates on all their talk pages and directed them to the Teahouse. If any of them responds to identify their actions I will try to contact their professor and coach this person. I hate to see wasted effort, but it is not good for professors to tell students to go to Wikipedia and do as they see fit without considering community guidelines.
I suppose this needs no particular action from anyone else on this board but I wanted to share. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Done Doc James, UseTheCommandLine, and I all are in contact with the professor. It would be nice if the professor agreed to participate in the campus ambassador program and this person has been invited. Anyone who wants to get involved may, but otherwise at this point no further action or thought is needed.
Blue Rasberry
(talk)
16:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
A very nice poster regarding us was presented at the Cochrane Colloquium this year [34]. It relates to this project here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Evidence_based_content_for_medical_articles_on_Wikipedia Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Following on from the Coventry conference, Martin Poulter has written a blog about some of the work done by WPMED:
http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/10/bringing-evidence-based-medicine-to-the-world/
Feel free to comment there if anyone is interested. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I've nominated this page for deletion. It seems to me this is a hoax with respect to the article's content. Created by a WP:SPA, it sat in mainspace for two years. Someone added it to Category:Pseudoscience and Category:Types of scientific fallacy, which is how I found it; it's not liked from any articles. (It looks like a couple of readers found it before me, because they rated it with one star.) However, the title seems to be some genuine ECG jargon. I don't know if it's something notable enough for its own article though; probably just delete+redirect. Tijfo098 ( talk) 20:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Based on the IPs which edited alongside the SPA, our hoaxer friend works at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. Tijfo098 ( talk) 20:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I am Adert, a italian Wikipedian who is also a translator from en.wiki to it.wiki. To change, together with participants of project medicine in Italian and a translator, we expanded your voice Klinefelter's syndrome. The draft you can find it here. What do you think? I'd like to start a partnership with you to improve with the articles of medicine. Thanks for your attention-- Adert-it ( talk) 20:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to assess whether some of the edits made by students working on Wikipedia in the spring 2012 semester were worthwhile, and was hoping for some help with the medical articles. Would someone be able to look at a couple of articles and tell me if they have useful content, or if they use primary sources and are low value, or just nonsense -- or whatever.
This assessment is being recorded as part of the education program's attempt to evaluate the work of the classes in the program.
If anyone is interested, here are the edits I'd like to assess.
There may be one or two more; I'm still working through the list of spring 2012 courses. Thanks for any help with this.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
19:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, I've never even heard of the HEXACO model of personality structure let alone a subsection - Honesty-humility factor of the HEXACO model of personality...I'll have to ask some psychologists at work tomorrow.... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
|type=
parameter for this purpose. We ought to make better use of it.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
17:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)FWIW:
Zad
68
03:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)It is 100 years since Wilson's disease was first fully described. The article is currently GA, and I was wondering if someone was up for a collaboration to push it up to FA. I have listed some useful sources on the talk page. JFW | T@lk 09:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Could someone who actually knows something about medicine please take a look at Pituitary gland, and specifically at this diff by a new contributor? I'm willing to AGF that the user is an expert in the field as xe claims, and that the previous version of the article was inaccurate, but, of course, that doesn't absolve him of the need to include reliable sources. I'm also concerned about any claim that "isn't included in many college textbooks". However, the user did go to the effort to leave me a long and detailed message on my talk page (see User Talk:Qwyrxian#Pituitary gland), so I felt it would help if someone with more subject matter competence than me took a look. Qwyrxian ( talk) 22:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
This new article, Herpes nosodes, could probably use some attention from someone with medical knowledge. Thank you. Deli nk ( talk) 16:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Infant mortality recently had a large expansion thanks to a good student editor. It probably could benefit from some attention. Prenatal care in the United States was an article they created last semester. Biosthmors ( talk) 16:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I've proposed James Norman for deletion. The article is marked as part of Wikiproject Medicine; the creator and major contributors have been informed. Additional input from uninvested Wikiproject Medicine editors is welcome. -- Rhombus ( talk) 10:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)FYI, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology#scope_of_the_medicine_project
— MistyMorn ( talk) 14:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks-- Pierpao ( talk) 13:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
This picture for use on the work in progress page rectal prolapse requires a caption. I contacted the original uploader (nephron) a few weeks ago, they don't seem to be around. Are there any pathologists that could make some general comments about the cells? 23_2{(SBST:SU:m.}} ( talk) 19:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
This follows from statements above by user:UseTheCommandLine, Doc James, User:Axl, user:LeadSongDog,
It appears so many of them are simply plagiarism of Wikipedia. We are coming to a point in time where someone comes to Wikipedia and makes something up. It than gets into a textbook. And along I come to try to reference our text by looking for sources and low and behold the worlds books support us just a little to well. Another example:
There are several ways to prevent infectious pneumonia. Appropriately treating underlying illnesses (such as AIDS) can decrease a person's risk of pneumonia. Smoking cessation is important not only because it helps to limit lung damage, but also because cigarette smoke interferes with many of the body's natural defenses against pneumonia. Research shows that there are several ways to prevent pneumonia in newborn infants. Testing pregnant women for Group B Streptococcus and Chlamydia trachomatis, and then giving antibiotic treatment if needed, reduces pneumonia in infants. Suctioning the mouth and throat of infants with meconium-stainedamniotic fluid decreases the rate of aspiration pneumonia.
Zad
68
13:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Medical textbooks of this size are typically written by a collaboration of many authors. Subsections are often "outsourced" to junior/middle-grade doctors. There is usually a small fee for the junior doctor, but the main benefit is addition to the CV. A single lead editor (or small group of senior editors) oversees the whole project.
Of course it is impossible for one person to scrutinize every part of a book of this size. The main editor relies on the integrity of the junior authors. Authors are typically required to affirm that the material is their own work. While the vast majority of authors are conscientious, it is inevitable that there are a few who will "cheat".
In the case of this textbook, the author of each chapter is given at the end of the chapter. Here, the offending author is Julie A. McDougal. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
A related story worth reading: Book That Plagiarized From Wikipedia Is Pulled From Market. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
" I guess the question is did she write this content originally on Wikipedia (better check more thoroughly)? "
There's possibly a misunderstanding that plagiarising text from Wikipedia will somehow make a book chapter or even the whole book GFDL or CC BY-SA. Have a read of The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't Falling which refers to GPL but similar issues apply to our licenses. If the terms of the licence (such as attribution) aren't met then it falls back on copyright. The owner(s) of the work can sue for damages/legal-costs and request an injunction to prevent further publication. Who are the owners of the Wikipedia article text? Not the WMF. All the folk who wrote it. Don't know about you, but I don't have the funds for a lawyer, nor do I suspect my contributions would earn me much in damages. Instead we should pursue the ethical rather than legal issues here. Any professional publisher should be upset about this. Colin° Talk 11:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I am interested in two related situations.
In both of these cases there needs to be some kind of institutional outreach. Ideally, someone (or multiple people?) would write letters and emails to the organization and encourage them to properly engage Wikipedia. In response, hopefully the organization would make a commitment to recognize best practices for interacting with Wikipedia and how Wikipedia can help them.
Historically there has been worry that all organizational interaction would be a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest which was most likely to mean that the organization would exploit a relatively defenseless Wikipedia community of volunteers. More and more lately I am seeing the Wikipedia community as an international superpower directing the world's most popular media source and wondering what would happen if the community started making very public demands to be recognized as a legitimate peer to any other media outlet and requesting in open letters that organizations which misuse Wikimedia content make good by having their staff serve a fair part in the Wikipedia mission to advance access to the same resources that are already using, critically need, but inappropriately and in ignorance republish with much less respect than they would had this content been published elsewhere. If such a complaint process were developed to ask organizations to have their staff learn Wikipedia so as not to misuse it, the same process could be used to ask other organizations to learn Wikipedia to use it properly.
I really wish that all organizations which seek to advance education, perhaps particularly non-profit educational organizations, would start to consider their public positions and relationship to Wikipedia. I think it would be in their interest to declare publicly that they will have a staff person become minimally competent in understanding how Wikipedia works and how to properly use content from the site. Thoughts from anyone? How would anyone feel about drafting both one-page letters of complaint and letters of outreach with me? If such letters existed, would anyone be interested in sending them publicly and publicly posting the responses they got for them? Is that a sensible, respectful thing to do? If not this, then what should we do? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an
educational assignment at Rice University supported by the
Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q4 term. Further details are available
on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
16:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The following pages need a reviewer:
Any registered editor who can read and follow directions ( WP:GACR, WP:GACN, WP:RGA) is welcome to do this. It's really not difficult, although it commonly takes a couple of hours all told for medicine-related articles. Anyone at all is welcome to comment on these articles once someone has started the review (or on the article's talk page now). Comments from extra people are very helpful, especially from people who can help look up sources.
If you've never reviewed an article and you'd kind of like to give it a try but you're just not feeling bold enough, then leave a note here, and I'll find a volunteer to help you. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
A couple of our sections are similar to another site. The question is who has copied from whom. [1] wondering if someone can look into this. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone help reviewing the GAC azathioprine? It's been more than two months since I nominated it, and I am getting a bit impatient cause on Chinese Wikipedia it usually only takes a week :(
Your help would be greatly appreciated.-- Jsjsjs1111 ( talk) 09:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I just took and passed my board exam, so now I am getting back into editing Wikipedia. I have a huge 5-inch binder filled with many extensive, high-yield tables I composed myself from many different sources. Tonight I just started a couple of the tables here on Wikipedia, hoping that by adding high-yield derm content more residents will visit Wikipedia, and perhaps get involved. Again, the lists are incomplete at this time, found at:
Before I continue to edit those pages I wanted to know:
On a side note, since these are stubs, I have included a "see also" section. I can remove it later if people feel strongly about it.
Thanks in advance for your help. --- My Core Competency is Competency ( talk) 10:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Since there is no category for "medicine" in the RfC templates, I am posting here to draw attention to Talk:Human penis size#RfC: Is an image illustrating "length" and "circumference" necessary?. Judging from the talk page, this article might benefit from some review by members of this project who are willing to look at things from a more, uh, scientific viewpoint. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 15:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I've seen now at a few articles some issues with how to handle published criticism of studies. Nearly every widely-read study has somebody who didn't like the methodology or conclusions, and so has published criticism about the study. Sometimes even the criticism itself is criticized, etc... How do we handle this in WP:MEDICINE articles? Do we respect the entire "He said, she said" thread back and forth and include all the content in our articles? Do we just go with the study and ignore the criticism? Do we say, "The study said X but this critic said the data says Y, or that the guys who did the study must have been drunk."? Does it matter where or how the criticism is published--Critic's own website? Letter to the editor? Re-analysis of the same data the study used that came up with a different result? Published in the same journal or different journal? What about guy Z who writes a letter saying he agrees with the result of study X and disagrees with Y?
This comes up frequently enough but I don't see any guidelines on it in
WP:MEDMOS, advice please.
Zad
68
18:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Request for input here - more than just an 'academic' point, imo. — MistyMorn ( talk) 21:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Could someone reverse this redirect to Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome --> Smith–Lemli–Opitz syndrome? --- My Core Competency is Competency ( talk) 21:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Domestic_violence_in_Pakistan might benefit from some comments from uninvolved people. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Could a knowledgeable person take a look at Fasting#Medical application. I've already removed what looked like puffery for Joel Fuhrman, M.D., but I think it needs further attention. Thanks. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I've been working on the "Medical Uses" section of the Aspirin page for the last couple weeks. i saw a list somewhere that it was a high importance article and went with it. i've done some pretty substantial revision to it already, focusing on making it more concise, removing primary sources in favor of secondary ones, with a preference for Open Access papers. I've been doing this sequentially, maintaining section headings etc, and my issue now is that there is a large "hypothesized uses" section that, quite honestly, does not seem like something appropriate for an encyclopedia. I have mentioned this issue on the article's talk page, and am hoping to solicit some input from more seasoned editors. UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 09:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping for more input on this page; I was trying to remove a section on nurse practitioners from the page (because they are not physicians), but have not been able to come to an agreement on the talk page. Further outside input would be appreciated. Yobol ( talk) 17:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello:
I am surprised to see how the article on the Willowbrook State School so casually handles the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willowbrook_State_School
Although I never worked at Willowbrook, as a former RN, I had clients who were survivors of that institution and know something of it's history and the vital impact it had on the way the developmentally disabled are treated in the United States. The exposure of the abuse (something Geraldo Rivera got right) and the following legal battles were a momentous event in this country. Yet, the major book on this subject isn't even mentioned anywhere on the page, The Willowbrook Wars: Bringing the Mentally Disabled Into the Community by David Rothman and Sheila Rothman.
I'd like to see the Willowbrook article more closely reflect the episode's importance in the history of patient rights, but I am kinda shy on WP and don't know how to do a lot of stuff. I've made some light edits, like spelling, but the one time I was more adventurous, I ended up completely mortified. I have no idea how it happened, but I edited an old version of an article instead of the current version and caused a raft of problems. After some pointed messages were sent to me about it, a kind soul finally figured out what happened and set things right. Now I mostly just make suggestions on Talk pages.
[Here's an example of the difficulties I have - see the second paragraph above. Everything looks fine in the typing window, but in Show Preview, "The Willowbrook Wars:" is italicized, "Bringing the Mentally Disabled Into the Community" is not, then "by David Rothman and Sheila Rothman." is italicized. I've deleted and re-entered the phrase several times with no improvement. Frustration abounds!]
Is there a mentorship program on WP or someone who I could provide with info who would be able to edit in my stead? How does this all work? Please don't tell me to search the Wikipedia: side; it's so extremely frustrating, bloated, and circularly self-referential that I waste an hour or two trying to figure something out, then give up. (That's another area of WP that urgently needs attention.) If this isn't the right place to ask these questions, is there someplace more appropriate?
Thank you, Wordreader ( talk) 05:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
There are a number of medicine-related classes working with the Wikipedia Education Program that are starting up around now, and several could use the help of experienced editors. If that sounds like something you want to do, you can become an Online Ambassador. If you're interested, let me know, or if you've got questions about the role, please ask. In any case, the work done by students in these classes may be of interest.
You can see the other courses in the United States and Canada programs (including some that already have at least on Online Ambassador, but would benefit from others as well) here: Canada, US.-- Sage Ross (WMF) ( talk) 15:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Anyone have a good idea what should happen with Sex identity? It seems either incredibly underdeveloped or otherwise needing some attention. Insomesia ( talk) 23:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
12:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion of the health effects of mercury in high fructose corn syrup, here. A search on pubmed for those terms turns up precisely two articles, by the same research groups, from 2009. The first, from January 2009 is a primary study. The second is a review article by the same people, attempting to link mercury consumption to oxidative stress and autism (a link which I had thought was well-dead and buried). From what I can tell, nothing else has come of this single 2009 incident, which was, I believe, based on improper cleaning of the equipment. This looks very much like excessive weight on a single secondary article expressing minority opinion that doesn't seem to extend outside of that one research group. WT:MED input would be greatly appreciated.
However, members of the Corn Growers Association of America need not comment, apparently. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 21:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
I'd be grateful for some input here. Don't worry, if you want to characterise it as asking for medical advice, you can, but it's just over 300 years too late. -- Dweller ( talk) 14:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
There has been back and forth on this article, since 2009, regarding the inclusion of symptoms of antifreeze posioning and one of the few, or two, ways to identify the posioning. See Talk:Antifreeze#Poisoning section. For reasons I cannot make sense of, one editor has consistently objected to the inclusion of this information...while the other editor has consistently argued for its inclusion. Since the section is supposed to summarize this medical issue and this material is all kinds of relevant, I believe that the material should stay. Suffice it to say, input on this matter from editors of this project is needed. This is what I stated in the Current discussion section I recenly made on the talk page of that article:
It seems that Uruiamme doesn't listen to reason or follow WP:Consensus. From the above, it is clear that there should be an appropriate use of WP:Summary style regarding the poisoning information. Yet he recently removed this information after the above input from others, and compromise wording, that this type of information should be in this article. Every editor above agreed that "immediate" and/or primary symptoms should definitely be included. I therefore reverted Uruiamme because the removal simply is not justified. Removing that this poison is diffucult to detect? That's the most relevant thing to mention, aside from the fact that antifreeze, ethylene glycol in particular, is poisonous. And he's been doing this since 2009? Good grief. Don't know what he thinks is going to get resolved by doing this every few months to a year, after he's apparently decided that the opposing editor is no longer paying attention, but it needs to stop. Like I stated already, oddly enough, he'd left in the information about the oxalic acid crystals this time, which is rendered irrelevant in a way without mentioning the fact that this poison is so difficult to identify. I see valid reasons grounded in relevancy, in guidelines and precedent for keeping this material. But none for removal. I also remind all that this article is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine for a reason; I very much doubt that they'd agree with removal of the symptoms. In fact, I'm going to ask them to weigh in here. This has gone on long enough. 134.255.247.88 ( talk) 16:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Could a knowledgeable person possibly take a look at our article on Protandim, with regard to its compliance with WP:MEDRS policy? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Could people please chime in at this discussion:
Talk:Sexual effects of circumcision#Is this page needed anymore? It should be redirected to Circumcision... title explains it all!
Zad
68
17:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Hey guys, it would be great to get some medical opinion over at bipolar disorder in the context of an effort to see if it could maybe be taken to ga. Cheers - Fayedizard ( talk) 20:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The article on babywearing would benefit from the project's help.
While babywearing has the appearance of a C-class article, it would be improved by using review or survey articles or leading textbooks.
From this project, a pediatrician or epidemiologist or parent would be especially suited to review babywearing.
Thanks, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Ditto. It seems problematic that the criticisms of cosleeping from the American College of Pediatrics is given less weight than Dr. Sears' book. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 12:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The Albert T. W. Simeons article contaned a large quantity of unreferenced material, all of which I have removed. Simeons designed a controversial hCG-based diet regime that appears to be the subject of both an FDA ban on the sale of over-the counter drugs for that purpose, and a substantial Internet-based industry selling the stuff -- or "stuff", if you count "homeopathic hCG". Alas, there are vast amounts of unsourced material about him and his diet on the Internet, apparently mostly aimed at publicising the diet or selling the products, some of it easily confusable at first sight with real news sources: this could easily find its way into the article, if we're not vigilant.
I'd greatly appreciate it if a few people here could pop it on their watchlists in case it becomes a marketing vehicle. -- The Anome ( talk) 02:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Starting with a primary study, is there a free database one can use to identify all the review articles that cite it? Biosthmors ( talk) 17:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#How should we treat unsupported health-related content? Your thoughts are welcome. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 04:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
This article is listed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicine, but that project, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, is not too active, so I brought the issue here.
Basically, this article is based on a fringe theory, and I am concerned about its promotion on Wikipedia. Concerns were already expressed on the article's talk page by a registered editor. See Fringe written as fact, and now editors of the article are discussing creating spin-offs of this theory and the possibility of giving more weight to it in other articles, such as the Human sexual response cycle article. See The orgasm reflex discussion. One editor stated that he had not even heard of the human sexual response cycle, [3] despite the fact it is mentioned often in sources when detailing sexual stimulation/arousal and orgasm and is the clinically accepted definition of the human sexual response (sexual arousal/orgasm). I responded with this comment: [4] I'm not even sure that "orgastic potency" should have a Wikipedia article. And if it should, certainly, given the concerns about this theory coming across as fact or otherwise legitimate, it would be better to name it Orgastic potency theory. So please have a look at this article and comment on this in one or both of the linked discussions above. 199.229.232.42 ( talk) 10:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I've listed meth mouth for a peer review; I'm trying to bring it to featured status. I'd appreciate it if someone with experience with medical articles could weigh in on whether I'm in compliance with the project's guidelines for medical articles. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 17:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Can some of the MEDRS wonks have a look at content matter underlying the edit war on Cognitive behavioral therapy? It's been the subject of some ANI reports and at least DRN one, all of which appear to be an exercise in bureaucracy and vote/revert counting rather than injecting previously uninvolved but knowledgeable editors. Tijfo098 ( talk) 15:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
And again. Tijfo098 ( talk) 21:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
“ | The sentence "Unlike in the humanities, scientific and medical peer reviewed sources are not generally considered secondary unless they are a review or a meta-analysis." isn't backed up by any reliable outside source I can find. - Stillwaterising ( talk) | ” |
I'm posting this here because the reliable independent sources referenced in the above section (in my opinion) should be used to help define the term Secondary Source as used in Wp:Medrs. Currently, the Definitions section is using definitions that do not have reliable sourcing and differ from the definitions found elsewhere on the internet. - Stillwaterising ( talk) 12:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
User keeps trying to cite a 12 person uncontrolled trial to refute a Cochrane review. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
21:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Source changes
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Members of this WikiProject may be interested in a new project at Wikiversity.
I discovered it by reading
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#A new wikiversity learning project (version of
07:49, 18 September 2012).
—
Wavelength (
talk)
14:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
A "complication" is "an unfavorable evolution of a disease, a health condition or a therapy". In general, an ideal application of a therapy or treatment could result in no complications happening. But what is it called when there is an expected but undesired effect of some therapy, and in particular, of a surgery? For example, you cannot perform
rhinoplasty without at least some bleeding. You are not intending to cause the bleeding, you don't want the bleeding, but it's a required consequence of doing the operation. Excessive bleeding might be considered a complication, but what do you call the normal, ordinary bleeding you will encounter during the operation? I think I am looking for some word here other than "complication" or "side effect."
Zad
68
19:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)This section really needs to be brought up to MEDRS standards. -- Brangifer ( talk) 17:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I see it's now widely accepted after a major rewrite from an IP. Also David R. Hawkins at AfD. Tijfo098 ( talk) 10:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, medical types. I was reading the feedback page for Soursop, one of the articles on my watchlist, and there's a pretty high frequency of people wanting more information about soursop's potential as a cure for cancer. It seems there's actually some scientific seed of truth to this (e.g., Dai et al. 2011), but, of course, also people on the internet selling soursop extract as a magic cancer cure. There's currently one sentence in the article about soursop and cancer, but clearly there is a need for more information. I'm hoping that someone here would be willing to help separate medical hype from fact. Many thanks for any assistance. Tdslk ( talk) 17:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
The edits still need improvements as seen here Urinary_incontinence. But hopefully with guidance they will become good. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
The Misophonia article looks well-intentioned, but a great part of the article's content was either uncited, or cited to sources that fail to meet the WP:MEDRS, or even WP:RS, criteria. I've now removed about half of the article content, leaving only stuff cited to WP:RS. See this diff for the changes. It could do with further improvement: I'd really appreciate it if someone with relevant expertise could take a look at the new version of the article. -- The Anome ( talk) 07:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
A group of us are looking for help in continuing the development of a Wikiversity learning project. I hope this is appropriate place to contact wikipedians who might be interested in giving assistance or spreading the word. The project is The Science Behind Parkinson's. I invite you to visit it to look at its aims and state of development. We have, in fact, got a lot of material on it already. But we want more people to join us in developing it and making it a valuable resource particularly for those affected by Parkinson's who want to understand more about the science underlying the condition.
It would be good if you could also suggest other ways in which we could find other people who would be interested in helping with its development. I am prepared to write individually to all the active wikipedians on the Neuroscience project if that is the best way of contacting relevant people but I don't want to be accused of spamming! Thanks. My user name on Wikiversity is Droflet. Please write on my user talk page there, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Droflet or on my user talk page here on wikipedia. Jtelford ( talk) 09:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
There's a recently-created article
migraine treatment that was just Wikilinked from
migraine.
Migraine treatment has some problems from a Wikipedia perspective, parts of it appear to be OK, but it definitely has a promotional tone related to
Elliot Shevel and a surgical migraine treatment method his article discusses that he developed. A review of the editors involved in these articles shows some probable COI problems. (Sample sentence from the
migraine treatment article: "As these vessels have no connection with the arterial supply to the brain, the Shevel Procedure is exceedingly safe with no unpleasant side effects. The cosmetic effect is excellent as most of the incisions are within the hairline.")
Migraine was recently made GA so this is an area of current interest. Anybody who has extra time could you please check out these areas....
Zad
68
12:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)I started looking at this today, did a little tagging, and then saw that getting the content on these pages to conform to Wikipedia standards will not be quick or easy, in my opinion. Shevel is a legit doctor, a maxillo-facial surgeon with a lot of letters after his name. He is a peer reviewer of journals associated with the AMA and the International Headache Society (current editor-in-chief is at the Mayo clinic). He's gotten about 30 articles published, including some in PUBMED-indexed peer-reviewed journals. But he appears to be a bit of a maverick. I'm just starting to read about this topic for the first time myself, but it looks like migraines can have one of several origination points, and if a migraine has a vascular origination point, it is accepted knowledge that it is intra-cranial and drugs are the therapy of choice, at least for acute treatment. Shevel has been building some notoriety and a business for himself based on the idea that some migraines are caused by a drop in extra-cranial carotid artery pressure from dilation, and a treatment can be to cauterize the artery. Shevel states he independently came to this conclusion before discovering that Wolff came to the same conclusion in the 1930s and 40s (see
this for example). I did find
Migraine surgery: a plastic surgery solution for refractory migraine headache which does seem to independently echo Shevel's idea (but all I have is the abstract--there are very few free full reports in this subject area). However, this theory has not been picked up by the "mainstream" headache establishment, at least not yet. So the problem is that my normal PUBMED searches--recent review articles and other secondary sources, using keywords like "migraine AND surgery" or "migraine AND carotid"--don't turn up anything. Or, at least not a review written by someone other than Shevel himself, see
this for example.
This by Shevel gives an idea of the Shevel-vs.-the-establishment feel of what's going on, although, again, I only have access to the abstract. The Shevel bio article itself is clearly autobiographically written and uses almost no independent reliable secondary sources. If we were to apply the hard-core Wikipedia rules of "must use independent reliable secondary sources", we delete most of the
Migraine surgery article and we probably end up deleting most or all of the
Elliot Shevel article. However then we probably drive away possibly a good technical medical resource. I am not sure what to do now, and won't be back online until probably Thursday.
Zad
68
18:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
18:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Meet for much of the day today with different aspects of WHO. One of the tentative agreements is that they may be willing to release certain images under an open license as a pilot if requested by a Wikipedian. Thus if people see images at WHO that they thing would be useful to illustrate a page email me / drop me a note of my user page and I will see about getting a release from the WHO. This could also apply to graphs and maps. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
My name is Allyssa, a senior undergraduate student from Rice University. I would like to extend and revise the Wikipedia article, Infant mortality. I intend on rearranging the sections to make the article flow better. I will expand on existing sections to create a more comprehensive article. Also, I will expand this article by adding sections titled, ‘Top causes for infant mortality,’ ‘Medical disparities,’ ‘Knowledge disparities,’ and ‘Policies addressing infant mortality.’
I hope to contribute salient knowledge on this issue. I also intend on editing this article to meet Wikipedia standards.
If there are any suggestions on ways to go about this, please let me know.
Allyssa.abacan ( talk) 00:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback! I intend on using scholarly and medical articles in this article. I will read WP:MEDRS to ensure that I follow guidelines on referencing medical articles. I'll work on being more clear with my jargon. Thanks again!
I will be focusing on south east asian countries since differences in medical resources and outcomes can be seen on a bigger level (Singapore and the Philippines). I will narrow down my focus to elaborate on causes (dengue fever, polio, etc) and medical infrastructure within each South East Nation I talk about. I will mainly focus on the top 5 causes of infant mortality. Information on medical infrastructure would hopefully allow readers to gain an understanding of how political structure can influence infant mortality. Also, I plan on writing about successful and failed political policies that aim(ed) to ameliorate infant mortality. Hopefully this will allow readers to grasp the root causes for high infant mortality in various countries that have varying SES status. Right now, the article is not holistically explaining infant mortality.
During my research, I will garner more academically viable resources to make this article more reliable.
I will see what I can do when considering adding/reorganizing into Epidemiology, Prevention, History, Society and culture.
Allyssa.abacan ( talk) 02:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
This article highlights the importance of our WP:COI policy and is a very interested read [9]. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
This is why we proposed an open access guide for pharma about using Wikipedia as well (page 7). NCurse work 05:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
We have a number of sources saying some companies regularly commission studies and then publish only, or mostly, the studies that reflect favourably on their therapeutic product. Does anyone know if there's a Wikipedia article on the topic? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 13:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
If you haven't tried this yet, please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ArticleFeedbackv5Watchlist?ref=watchlist
This will show all of the Article Feedback Tool version 5 comments from readers for pages on your watchlist. We're getting interesting comments on some pages. For example, Frailty syndrome is accumulating complaints about being too complicated, and readers of Spinal cord injury are begging for more treatment information. Overall, I think that people who leave actionable comments are requesting more pictures and simpler writing (and not just on medicine-related articles).
Many comments are non-actionable, and we're getting some nice compliments, too. But if you see a good suggestion for improving the article, then you can either make the improvement yourself and mark it resolved, or you can click the link to "feature" this comment so that other editors will be more likely to see it. (Non-actionable comments, like compliments, can be marked resolved with an appropriate comment, like "Thanks for the compliment" or "No action requested" or "Not an appropriate request for an encyclopedia article".)
Please let us know what you think of this tool, either here or at WT:AFT5. I've already made simple, quick improvements to several pages as a result of these suggestions. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I found a very helpful comment here, which prompted me to make substantial changes to the article in regards to anticoagulation. Afterward, someone complimented the article in feedback. Perhaps there was causation behind the correlation. Biosthmors ( talk) 19:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I am really happy with the Article Feedback Tool and I see a lot of potential in this. This could be a major step toward getting organizations interested in Wikipedia. This kind of information paired with pageview statistics is supporting evidence that the public cares about Wikipedia articles. The relationship between Wikipedia and organizations now is that most organizations think they are justified in ignoring the contents of Wikipedia articles in their fields, even if Wikipedia articles are what people find doing search engine queries with terms in those fields. If any article has extremely high traffic, like asthma does, then every organization which is founded to educate the world on asthma ought to divert a lot of their attention to this article because it is where people are going for information. Still, organizations often are not convinced. However, paired with comments of any kind whether vandalism or not shows that a certain number of people are coming to this article and taking extra steps to do something. Even nonsense responses mean that someone was here to do something and that they wanted to the feedback tool for some reason that probably was not accidental. No on accidentally is surfing the net and comes to the Wikipedia article on asthma. I like this a lot. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
There is an argument [10] that this article: Biology and political orientation is not covered by MEDRS. Is there any comments from someone experienced with MEDRS as to whether this is the case? IRWolfie- ( talk) 21:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The article Gender issues in diagnosing conduct disorder seems to be ripe with issues. I notice it has no project tags so invite those more aware of the issues involved to take a look and see if it belongs in this project and if the clean-up issues can be addressed, or if the article should remain. Insomesia ( talk) 23:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Per here Wikidata will be adding infobox data by the end of this year / early next year. [11] The World Health Organization is interested in collaborating on definitions of diseases. They wish to feed our definitions (along with a bunch of other stuff) to their experts who will than improve on them and hopefully feed them back to us.
A while ago we discussed adding definitions to infoboxes (as well as some other stuff). While some things may not display properly in an infobox as it is simply to much text this sort of content should fit well within Wikidata and than can hopefully be easily feed into Wikipedia's articles on disease.
We want a system where if the WHO updates or changes their definition this will automatically feed from their database into Wikidata and than into the rest of Wikipedia.
What do people think of this proposal? We will hopefully soon have a Wikipedian in Residence at the WHO to help with the development of this idea. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
We are nearing incorporation of Wikimedia Medicine, a thematic group (basically a chapter that is international in scope and deals only with medicine). All those here are free to become involved. Its main goals will be to develop collaborations with other organizations and be a liaison between editors here and those organizations. Content decisions will as before still take place within Wikipedia. Comments appreciated. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I've also posted a note to the Village Pump (Miscellaneous). J N 466 20:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Should this page—or part of it—be within the scope of this project? The page is protected, but I've tried to suggest a series of improvements To help update/revise Evaluation of effectiveness etc per WP:MEDRS. — MistyMorn ( talk) 18:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Input is needed with regard to the above linked discussion. It has to do with how the medical community defines sexual orientation vs. social terms that have been created to describe sexual preferences/feelings and/or gender. Flyer22 ( talk) 18:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Just my 2 cents, — MistyMorn ( talk) 19:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
We have a user adding external links to many cancer articles to the site cancer.net Special:Contributions/Mmh526 Comments? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I think a more appropriate place for the ongoing thread Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Does_this_fall_under_MEDRS.3F would be here. User: WhisperToMe queried a particular source which, imo, wouldn't meet WP:RS, let alone MEDRS. However, the query implicitly raises a wider issue about whether medical cost-effectiveness analysis studies should come under MEDRS. — MistyMorn ( talk) 01:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
01:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Just because you can find papers on Medline does not mean that you're looking at purely scientific claims. One of the ways you can tell, is that the guidelines disagree with each other. Why is that? Well, because they've used different assumptions, ethical values, and fears, going into the statistics, and in evaluating the studies. And " GIGO" applies just as well in logic as it does in computer science.
I see we need an example. Suppose you've had a thrombotic stroke and you don't have a diseased heart or some easy way to explain it. Your blood pressure and cholesterol are good, and you're not obese and and you don't smoke and so on. Now the question is what kind of anti-platelet agent shall we give you to prevent a second stroke? The official AHA/ASA guidelines [15] say treatment should be "individualized." But they don't tell you how, except obviously people with intolerance to one drug should be given another. They do say: Aspirin is less expensive, which may affect long-term adherence.283,284 However, even small reductions in vascular events compared with aspirin may make combination dipyridamole and aspirin or clopidogrel cost-effective from a broader societal perspective.285 So what do they mean by "may make"? Who decides? Aspirin is pennies a day, whereas the other antiplatelet agents typically are $150 a month or more. The reduction in risk over aspirin is small but statistically real. However, the larger side effects and non-compliance rates for the other drugs are far greater than aspirin, and just as real. So, a couple of Belgians look through all the best studies and find all that, and say: "Despite changes in international guidelines, aspirin monotherapy should retain its position as the main antiplatelet agent for secondary prevention of non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke." Uh oh.
So now, your HMO or perhaps Medicaid decide that asprin is the thing you need, and all they will pay for, on the basis of this cost-effectiveness analysis that says the the expensive drugs aren't worth it, and haven't been scientifically shown to be worth it, even from the money-alone viewpoint. And you object that these people are not as worried as you are about that slight extra increase in chance of a new stroke, and you don't care if you can't prove that the cost of your slight increase in chance of needing long-term care plus having a bad bleeding side effect, doesn't outweigh the cost of the drugs for the rest of your life. You feel you should have the expensive drugs anyway, and are willing to take the side-effect risk. You put this argument to Medicaid or your HMO doc and add that you can't afford anything but aspirin. Back comes the answer: "Sucks to be you, then." Although they're more polite than that, and have a lot of other legalese and references. Now, you object that the reasoning behind denying you the expensive drug isn't fully scientific and relies on a lot of assumptions about tradeoffs between side effects, costs, and small risk decreases that are statistically real, but clinically not very large. Your HMO doc says Well, you're not being fully scientific, either, sir. I think you're stroke-a-phobic. And besides, who says these Belgian meta analysis guidelines aren't scientific? We found them on Medline: PMID 22997997 as a big meta analysis in Acta Cardiologica, a fully refeereed and highly respected journal. Therefore, they are scientific by definition. They even meet WP:MEDRS, if you allow for a few assumptions. The same goes for the AMA/ASA guidelines, too, of course. But we like the Belgian point of view, and it will save us money...
My point is that this kind of thing goes on EVERYWHERE in medicine. It's very typical. You can't solve it all by application of science, or WP:MEDRS. By the time you get to this level, you're partly operating from differences in taste, and differences in fear. And, of course, differences in outlook that come from whose money it is, that is being spent. S B H arris 03:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Personally, I agree with Zad that it should. As I wrote in the initial discussion over at Talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine):
It's true that cost-effectiveness is a form of economic analysis. But when talking about the cost-effectiveness of a medical intervention, the effectiveness part (ie the denominator of a cost-effectiveness ratio) implicitly incorporates health-status outcomes such as quality of life and survival; for example, a commonly used outcome measure is quality-adjusted life years (QALY) [16], where the cost-effectiveness ratio is expressed as $/QALY etc, allowing economic comparisons of different treatments/interventions to be made using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. So I think there's a strong case for applying MEDRS for cost-effectiveness studies of medical or health interventions (especially when multiple primary studies are available).
— MistyMorn ( talk) 15:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
As I said someplace else, natural science knowledge (including biomedical knowledge) tells you only what you can (probably) do, but not what you should do. Thus, it's best to keep fairly pure biomedical science questions off in their own corner, and deal with biomedical ethics and policy questions under other WP guidelines (which are the same ones where we discuss global warming initiatives and politics and religion). Manmade global warming is a scientific question, but what to do about it (if anything) is not really a scientific question (or at least, mostly not). These same intangibles are what differentiate materials science (say) from structural engineering, and stuctural engineering from (say) architecture. The nature of WP:IRS changes completely as you go from materials science to architecture. One RS policy really can't cover it, and a MEDRS policy specifically crafted to look at natural science questions fails badly when harnessed into doing ethics and values-laden things also. How could it not? These are different modes of discourse. S B H arris 02:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
But if we turn to a source genuinely regarding cost effectiveness, such as Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillators for arrhythmias: a systematic review and economic evaluation, we're obviously not just dealing with relative costs of different devices, but rather with maximizing long-term clinical effectiveness within a given (national) economic scenario. JFW has suggested that that sort of question is better discussed at WT:MEDRS.— MistyMorn ( talk) 11:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
They're still doing it. I've asked for opinions at Village pump (policy). Why are these Randys allowed to tell individual readers made-up, unsourced health-related stuff that wouldn't last five minutes on a watched medical article? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 06:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, my name is Matthew, and I'm an undergraduate student from Rice University. I'm intending on expanding and rewriting the current article on International emergency medicine. It's currently a start class article so there is a lot of room for improvement. I'd like to focus on the establishment/improvement of emergency medicine in developing countries. My plan is reorganize what is already there and to create sections like "Overview of international emergency medicine", "Institutions involved", "Role in the overall health system", "Initiatives to expand emergency medicine", and "Challenges." There is a pretty good body of literature on these topics in some of the emergency medicine journals but I would be glad to hear if anyone had ideas on other sources I could use. Any suggestions for the best way to go about this? Mjs15 ( talk) 14:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I had a quick scout around for you on PubMed, and, yes, it does indeed seem that most of the pertinent articles are in the specialist literature.* You might like to try the TRIP database [25]. I did come across an article in the Bulletin of the WHO [26]. I didn't stumble upon any obviously useful book sources, but you may well know of some.
*FYI, the most sensitive PubMed string I tried to search for potentially relevant reliable medical sources (
WP:MEDRS) was:
"international emergency medicine" OR ("Emergency Medicine"[Mesh] OR "Disaster Medicine"[Mesh]) AND ("International Agencies"[Mesh] OR "International Cooperation"[Mesh] OR "Internationality"[Mesh] OR "World Health Organization"[Mesh] OR internat* OR world* OR global*) AND (Meta-Analysis[ptyp] OR Review[ptyp] OR systematic[sb] OR Guideline[ptyp])
= 104 results, 34 from the last 5 years
If people are interested please sign up here meta:Wikimedia_Medicine#People_interested. The chap comm wants 25 people in support before they will approve this. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
...at Antigen leukocyte cellular antibody test? Seems I'm thought to be guilty of an outrageous COATRACK. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Please lend your expertise at Talk:List_of_preventable_causes_of_death#Hypertension.3F. Thanks. -- Dweller ( talk) 20:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
As part of a class at Rice University, I propose to start a new Wikipedia page entitled “HIV and Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM)” to expand the current small subsection on the Men who have sex with men page. The current HIV subsection of the MSM page is far more detailed than anything else on the MSM page (everything else is merely a survey) and would benefit from having freedom to expand by itself. The CDC, UNAIDS, and AVERT websites all have pages specifically dedicated to HIV and MSM so Wikipedia should have a page that goes into an equal level of detail. The page should also include information beyond public health risks alone, like the stigma associated with an HIV diagnosis in the MSM community and prevention methods. This would make the page a thorough sociological analysis of how HIV affects the MSM population. Although I will draw on the Center for Disease Control for statistics about the prevalence of HIV in the MSM community and demographic data, I will rely mainly on journal articles for my references. There are a variety of scholarly articles available on HIV/AIDS and its specific relationship to men who have sex with men. Journals like The Lancet, AIDS Journal, The American Foundation for AIDS Research, The Journal of Homosexuality, The Journal of Urban Health, AIDS and Behavior, and the British Medical Journal all have published multiple articles on topics relevant to my Wikipedia article. I will make sure my sources are varied, unbiased, and represent a variety of scholarly work. I would be interested to hear the WikiProject members’ feedback on how I can better improve my contribution. Cshaase ( talk) 01:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I will be editing and adding contributions to the Wikipedia page Diseases of poverty. I believe that this fits into the Wikiproject medicine. This contribution will expand on diseases of poverty to include those found in United States, as well as disparities in access to health care between the rich and the poor, and the impact of lack of resources such as clean water. For this article I will use information from the Centers of Disease Control and prevention, the National Institute of Health and other scholarly articles. I will be contributing these additions as part of an extensive class assignment.
I welcome any recommendations for further edits as well as credible sources of information. I also welcome and tips for raising the quality of the overall page. Bellechic ( talk) 04:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC) ( talk)
Post-Finasteride Syndrome. Biosthmors ( talk) 16:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
There is some interest in creating "patient handouts" under a CC BY SA license. I am thinking on Wikibooks. Are others interested or do they have any thoughts on this? I have a few collaborators interested. They would of course be referenced. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
We have a new mailing list here [27] All who are interested are welcome to sign up. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
At the end of August, several of us attended the Medical Wiki Workshop in Coventry, UK ( http://coventrywiki.eventbrite.co.uk/ ). One of the key speakers was Jon Brassey, Co-Founder of TRIP Database, which is a search engine that concentrates on finding the best clinical evidence ( http://www.tripdatabase.com/ ). After Jon's presentation, I chatted with him about specific ways in which we might be able to make use of his resources to improve medical articles on Wikipedia. A couple of possibilities have emerged and I wanted to share them with WikiProject members to see how we could proceed. -- RexxS ( talk) 14:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Those of you who use Trip database will know that it already classifies articles as "Secondary evidence" / "Evidence based synopses" / "Systematic reviews", etc. I have often found that one of the biggest problems for new editors of medical articles is that they want to substitute their own judgement of article quality for that of expert reviewers. It's exactly that problem that fuels a lot of disputes about whether a given source is suitable for inclusion in an article. I have suggested to Jon that he might be able to put a 'quality mark' on the very best articles in his database - 'wikipedia approved', if you will. This would at least give editors an external assessment of source quality that could point them to the best evidence to use in an article. I can see that it is only likely to work well if it is accurately implemented, but I would be grateful for comments on the potential usefulness of the idea before we move further with it. -- RexxS ( talk) 14:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Talking with Jon, he explained that they add about 500 new articles to the Trip database per month. Jon asked if we would like to receive a copy of those on-wiki in some usable format, and categorised in some way - and if so where would they be delivered to? We discussed the possibility of delivering notices of new sources to relevant Wikipedia articles, probably on the talk page in the same way that newsletters are delivered to user talk pages. I suggested the possibility of delivering them to subpages of this project, broken down into broad categories, so that interested editors could find all of those on a particular topic en bloc. Other possibilities must exist, so I would again be grateful for thoughts on how useful this may be, and what implementation would be best. Thanks in advance, -- RexxS ( talk) 14:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
[28] Thanks Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
We are getting content about this localized US outbreak added to the main meningitis page. I have move the content to the talk page. I guess the main question is how do we address news like this within an established article? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Your input concerning Chiropractic would be appreciated. Discussion is underway at Talk:Chiropractic.
-- Mknjbhvgcf ( talk) 17:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
We could use some help with the fibromyalgia article from someone who has access to the International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases. The issue has to do with the following article: "The use of opioids in fibromyalgia", February 2011, PMID 21303476. This journal article is being used as a source for the following text: "[Opioids] are not recommended as they can worsen mood, such as depression in fibromyalgia, have abuse and dependence potential as well as have a significant adverse effect profile. Long-term use of opioids may worsen pain in some people...".
As stated in the journal article's abstract, there are no randomized controlled studies dealing with the use of opioids for fibromyalgia. So, question is, what type of evidence is used to support the claims in the quotation above? Is this evidence high enough in quality to be used in a Wikipedia article, given what WP:MEDRS says about assessing evidence quality?
Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. -- JTSchreiber ( talk) 05:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
the article on this has very little in the prevention section. Missing is excercise.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7934752 looks like a start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.113.171 ( talk) 12:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Eyes needed again on ALCAT test please to prevent pushing of a commercial concern not based on reliable evidence. — MistyMorn ( talk) 21:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I need an expert opinion: am I incorrect in assuming that "disconjugate gaze" is synonymous with strabismus? Sasata ( talk) 22:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Would appreciate some additional eyes on this article - is the link being added appropriately? -- Scray ( talk) 00:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I ran across this image in my ongoing quest to sort through commons:Category:Diseases and disorders. I thought it was a nice way to present multiple signs and symptoms, so I decided to post it here in case anyone's ever looking for some inspiration. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
This high-importance article has long needed some love. Anyone care to dig in? LeadSongDog come howl! 22:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Would welcome additional opinions. -- Scray ( talk) 04:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
04:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Regarding
Insulin: I removed the most unclear, unsourced additions, tagged the decently-sourced but unclear additions, brought one paragraph of content that sounded reasonable but was poorly sourced and poorly written over to the Talk page for further discussion, left a note at the responsible editor's User Talk page pointing him to
WP:MEDRS.
Zad
68
13:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I've proposed deletion of List of viruses. Please discuss there. I am guessing that editors here might have valuable perspective. -- Scray ( talk) 15:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Two questions arise on the talk page, one somewhat technical (from 2010, and unaddressed), and one I raise about synonyms. Assistance from an expert, which in this case probably means generally competent about medicine, would be appreciated.
Rich
Farmbrough,
22:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC).
Does anybody know where to find that number? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 06:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Found it: 25000. (On James's excellent cc-by-sa outreach Power Point presentation.) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 17:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. Do any of you mind weighing in on the Talk:Puberty#Lede and puberty discussion? [31] This topic is part of WikiProject Medicine for obvious reasons shown in the Puberty article, and we clearly need other views on this particular matter. I and another editor worked out the initial issue in the discussion, but another issue has cropped up because defining puberty, especially the onset and ending of it, is complex. We're currently on the "boys at ages 11-12"/"How are [we] defining the beginning of puberty?" part of the discussion. So I'm only asking for comments on that -- our most recent point of views -- but you can of course weigh in on everything we addressed in that discussion if you want. Flyer22 ( talk) 15:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
This article is a complete shipwreck in my opinion. The neologism refers to women who claim to have been "raped" by medical professionals during the childbirth process, because the medical professional did things to ensure the safe delivery of the baby. Is this topic notable? None of the references provided seem remotely reliable and non-tabloid. Then there's the whole controversy and neutrality thing. I've removed a whole load of emotional tabloid fluff, though I would also like additional opinions on what should be done with this article. -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 16:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
This errmm POV page was created earlier this year by a gf newbie who last showed up in April [32]. Sports medicine carries a merger proposal. What to do? — MistyMorn ( talk) 13:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
A group of people are suddenly editing global health. I presume it is a class - it is about 15 new editors who have created accounts and done nothing but dropped content into the article, most of which is not an improvement. I posted welcome templates on all their talk pages and directed them to the Teahouse. If any of them responds to identify their actions I will try to contact their professor and coach this person. I hate to see wasted effort, but it is not good for professors to tell students to go to Wikipedia and do as they see fit without considering community guidelines.
I suppose this needs no particular action from anyone else on this board but I wanted to share. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Done Doc James, UseTheCommandLine, and I all are in contact with the professor. It would be nice if the professor agreed to participate in the campus ambassador program and this person has been invited. Anyone who wants to get involved may, but otherwise at this point no further action or thought is needed.
Blue Rasberry
(talk)
16:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
A very nice poster regarding us was presented at the Cochrane Colloquium this year [34]. It relates to this project here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Evidence_based_content_for_medical_articles_on_Wikipedia Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Following on from the Coventry conference, Martin Poulter has written a blog about some of the work done by WPMED:
http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/10/bringing-evidence-based-medicine-to-the-world/
Feel free to comment there if anyone is interested. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I've nominated this page for deletion. It seems to me this is a hoax with respect to the article's content. Created by a WP:SPA, it sat in mainspace for two years. Someone added it to Category:Pseudoscience and Category:Types of scientific fallacy, which is how I found it; it's not liked from any articles. (It looks like a couple of readers found it before me, because they rated it with one star.) However, the title seems to be some genuine ECG jargon. I don't know if it's something notable enough for its own article though; probably just delete+redirect. Tijfo098 ( talk) 20:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Based on the IPs which edited alongside the SPA, our hoaxer friend works at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. Tijfo098 ( talk) 20:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I am Adert, a italian Wikipedian who is also a translator from en.wiki to it.wiki. To change, together with participants of project medicine in Italian and a translator, we expanded your voice Klinefelter's syndrome. The draft you can find it here. What do you think? I'd like to start a partnership with you to improve with the articles of medicine. Thanks for your attention-- Adert-it ( talk) 20:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to assess whether some of the edits made by students working on Wikipedia in the spring 2012 semester were worthwhile, and was hoping for some help with the medical articles. Would someone be able to look at a couple of articles and tell me if they have useful content, or if they use primary sources and are low value, or just nonsense -- or whatever.
This assessment is being recorded as part of the education program's attempt to evaluate the work of the classes in the program.
If anyone is interested, here are the edits I'd like to assess.
There may be one or two more; I'm still working through the list of spring 2012 courses. Thanks for any help with this.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
19:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, I've never even heard of the HEXACO model of personality structure let alone a subsection - Honesty-humility factor of the HEXACO model of personality...I'll have to ask some psychologists at work tomorrow.... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
|type=
parameter for this purpose. We ought to make better use of it.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
17:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)FWIW:
Zad
68
03:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)It is 100 years since Wilson's disease was first fully described. The article is currently GA, and I was wondering if someone was up for a collaboration to push it up to FA. I have listed some useful sources on the talk page. JFW | T@lk 09:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Could someone who actually knows something about medicine please take a look at Pituitary gland, and specifically at this diff by a new contributor? I'm willing to AGF that the user is an expert in the field as xe claims, and that the previous version of the article was inaccurate, but, of course, that doesn't absolve him of the need to include reliable sources. I'm also concerned about any claim that "isn't included in many college textbooks". However, the user did go to the effort to leave me a long and detailed message on my talk page (see User Talk:Qwyrxian#Pituitary gland), so I felt it would help if someone with more subject matter competence than me took a look. Qwyrxian ( talk) 22:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
This new article, Herpes nosodes, could probably use some attention from someone with medical knowledge. Thank you. Deli nk ( talk) 16:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Infant mortality recently had a large expansion thanks to a good student editor. It probably could benefit from some attention. Prenatal care in the United States was an article they created last semester. Biosthmors ( talk) 16:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I've proposed James Norman for deletion. The article is marked as part of Wikiproject Medicine; the creator and major contributors have been informed. Additional input from uninvested Wikiproject Medicine editors is welcome. -- Rhombus ( talk) 10:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)FYI, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology#scope_of_the_medicine_project
— MistyMorn ( talk) 14:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks-- Pierpao ( talk) 13:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
This picture for use on the work in progress page rectal prolapse requires a caption. I contacted the original uploader (nephron) a few weeks ago, they don't seem to be around. Are there any pathologists that could make some general comments about the cells? 23_2{(SBST:SU:m.}} ( talk) 19:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
This follows from statements above by user:UseTheCommandLine, Doc James, User:Axl, user:LeadSongDog,
It appears so many of them are simply plagiarism of Wikipedia. We are coming to a point in time where someone comes to Wikipedia and makes something up. It than gets into a textbook. And along I come to try to reference our text by looking for sources and low and behold the worlds books support us just a little to well. Another example:
There are several ways to prevent infectious pneumonia. Appropriately treating underlying illnesses (such as AIDS) can decrease a person's risk of pneumonia. Smoking cessation is important not only because it helps to limit lung damage, but also because cigarette smoke interferes with many of the body's natural defenses against pneumonia. Research shows that there are several ways to prevent pneumonia in newborn infants. Testing pregnant women for Group B Streptococcus and Chlamydia trachomatis, and then giving antibiotic treatment if needed, reduces pneumonia in infants. Suctioning the mouth and throat of infants with meconium-stainedamniotic fluid decreases the rate of aspiration pneumonia.
Zad
68
13:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Medical textbooks of this size are typically written by a collaboration of many authors. Subsections are often "outsourced" to junior/middle-grade doctors. There is usually a small fee for the junior doctor, but the main benefit is addition to the CV. A single lead editor (or small group of senior editors) oversees the whole project.
Of course it is impossible for one person to scrutinize every part of a book of this size. The main editor relies on the integrity of the junior authors. Authors are typically required to affirm that the material is their own work. While the vast majority of authors are conscientious, it is inevitable that there are a few who will "cheat".
In the case of this textbook, the author of each chapter is given at the end of the chapter. Here, the offending author is Julie A. McDougal. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
A related story worth reading: Book That Plagiarized From Wikipedia Is Pulled From Market. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
" I guess the question is did she write this content originally on Wikipedia (better check more thoroughly)? "
There's possibly a misunderstanding that plagiarising text from Wikipedia will somehow make a book chapter or even the whole book GFDL or CC BY-SA. Have a read of The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't Falling which refers to GPL but similar issues apply to our licenses. If the terms of the licence (such as attribution) aren't met then it falls back on copyright. The owner(s) of the work can sue for damages/legal-costs and request an injunction to prevent further publication. Who are the owners of the Wikipedia article text? Not the WMF. All the folk who wrote it. Don't know about you, but I don't have the funds for a lawyer, nor do I suspect my contributions would earn me much in damages. Instead we should pursue the ethical rather than legal issues here. Any professional publisher should be upset about this. Colin° Talk 11:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I am interested in two related situations.
In both of these cases there needs to be some kind of institutional outreach. Ideally, someone (or multiple people?) would write letters and emails to the organization and encourage them to properly engage Wikipedia. In response, hopefully the organization would make a commitment to recognize best practices for interacting with Wikipedia and how Wikipedia can help them.
Historically there has been worry that all organizational interaction would be a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest which was most likely to mean that the organization would exploit a relatively defenseless Wikipedia community of volunteers. More and more lately I am seeing the Wikipedia community as an international superpower directing the world's most popular media source and wondering what would happen if the community started making very public demands to be recognized as a legitimate peer to any other media outlet and requesting in open letters that organizations which misuse Wikimedia content make good by having their staff serve a fair part in the Wikipedia mission to advance access to the same resources that are already using, critically need, but inappropriately and in ignorance republish with much less respect than they would had this content been published elsewhere. If such a complaint process were developed to ask organizations to have their staff learn Wikipedia so as not to misuse it, the same process could be used to ask other organizations to learn Wikipedia to use it properly.
I really wish that all organizations which seek to advance education, perhaps particularly non-profit educational organizations, would start to consider their public positions and relationship to Wikipedia. I think it would be in their interest to declare publicly that they will have a staff person become minimally competent in understanding how Wikipedia works and how to properly use content from the site. Thoughts from anyone? How would anyone feel about drafting both one-page letters of complaint and letters of outreach with me? If such letters existed, would anyone be interested in sending them publicly and publicly posting the responses they got for them? Is that a sensible, respectful thing to do? If not this, then what should we do? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an
educational assignment at Rice University supported by the
Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q4 term. Further details are available
on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
16:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)