![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Hi. I'm new here and I would like to stay even if I'm Portuguese. Veins, arteries, heart, are my passion. I did an article about a special GSV tributary, the accessory saphenous vein, I did it in a subpage but now I realize that the main page has been redirected to saphenous vein. That vein is really important in varicose vein disease and has a different treatment. It deserves its own page. Is it possible to undo that redirect? This is my subpage: User:Nini00/Acessory saphenous vein so you can check my work, and I wait yet another image. Thank you for your help Nini ✉ 20:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
What's the WP:MED standard for discussing work related to a drug? In particular, how much discussion and credentialing is appropriate when mentioning a lead researcher? At Pomalidomide and Thalidomide, several IPs (with suspicious geolocation) are insisting that we include name and affiliation in the body (edit-summary: "This lab discovered the drug and still works on such compounds Readers may want to contact this lab and need this info"). User:Edgar181 (who is mostly inactive at the moment) raised a WP:CREDENTIAL concern in part, and I went further with removing it to focus on the actual article topic and not giving essentially sole credit to the one lab's PI (edit-summaries: "no need to name-drop, especially since it's cited to a reliable source and is drifting off-topic for this article", "this is an encyclopedia, not a literature-review"). DMacks ( talk) 22:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
All the section (very big section) in Caring_for_people_with_dementia#Environmental_design_and_assistive_technology seems to be a wayyyyyyyyyy to close paraphrase of the cited article in it. Moreover, it is based in wikiuniversity text, so problems with copyright may not end here. To make it even more complicated it seems that the editor that added such content ( User:Jtneill) was an experienced one. Since I have not edited for a while I am really not sure how to act. -- Garrondo ( talk) 22:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I have been in talks with some faculty at OHSU School of Medicine for a few months now about a wiki editing pilot project. I just spoke with the students (a total of 8, so it should be quite manageable) about editing the ins and outs of editing wikipedia a bit. It is part of a course on pharmacology, and the "prompt" they were given had something to do with methamphetamine, or perhaps other sympathomimetics or indications for same. And FWIW, I have also spoken a bit with Lane Rasberry and Doc James about this in the past, it's just now getting going.
I just wanted to drop everyone (
WP:USEP
WP:ENB,
WP:MED,
WP:PHARM) a note who might be interacting with some of these folks over the next month or two (the course runs until April 10). I gave them a rundown on some of the common mistakes students make as part of these projects, e.g. assuming that one's edits have to stay up in order for them to be useful as a grade (which I've seen a number of times). I am confident they will be able to avoid most of these common pitfalls.
As it stands it appears that they will be looking for either stubs to build out that are related to the clinical vignette that is their initial prompt; they might instead/also work on rewriting part of an article that is jargon-laden or otherwise confusing to adhere more closely to WP:MEDMOS. The consensus was that they would try and sandbox everything before putting it in an actual article.
Most of them, as of right now, do not have WP accounts, but should be making them soon. If you see them around, say Hi!
-- UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 00:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Per Gunther as posted [1] JMIR Publications is currently (Jan 2013) pilot-testing an innovative peer-reviewed journal JMIR Wiki Medical Reviews which sets out to publish Wikipedia (Review) and Wikiversity (Original Works) papers. Authors who have made significant contributions to Wikipedia articles are invited to submit the article to http://wikimedical.jmir.org/author
JMIR Wiki Medical Reviews (JMIR Wiki Med Rev) is an innovative journal which takes the best wikipedia articles in medicine, peer-reviews them, and publishes them as citable scholarly review article, with the goals to 1) Improve Wikipedia articles, 2) enhance public trust in the accuracy of medical Wikipedia articles, 4) improve visibility and indexing of outstanding Wikipedia articles (e.g. by indexing in bibliographic databases and featuring them on JMIR), 5) to acknowledge authors who volunteer their time on wikipedia to improve articles by listing them as authors in a "citable" publication, 6) to add an additional layer of formal peer-review to wikipedia articles (JMIR Wiki Med Rev - About us/Focus and Scope)
JMIR Publications will publish the first 20 articles free of charge, deposit them in PubMed Central, and will apply for PubMed indexing. JMIR Wiki Medical Reviews is hoped to become the first peer-reviewed journal publishing Wikipedia articles.
Dr James Heilman has agreed to serve as Editor-in-chief, other editorial board members are to be recruited (ideally active in Wikipedia Medicine). Editorial board members encourage Wikipedia authors to submit their articles to the journal for peer-review, select external peer-reviewers, and guide articles through the peer-review process. The publisher (JMIR Publications, represented by Dr Gunther Eysenbach) will coordinate production, which includes converting the Wikipedia article into XML, and depositing the articles in various bibliographic databases and full text databases. It is hoped that the journal will be Medline-indexed and will receive an impact factor. For the latter it is important to primarily publish articles which will be highly cited.
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I was not an author on the article, but Influenza seems like a good article to go through the publication process since it is already a FA and has lots of global public health implications. Remember ( talk) 14:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. Would ketogenic diet be suitable? It needs an update with some recent reviews, though I don't think anything drastic will change as a result. Perhaps I may even get round to writing a decent epilepsy article. -- Colin° Talk 16:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Must you keep raising the bar? You're making the rest of us look lazy... Now I'm wondering how Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals is going to address this from secondary sources ;-) LeadSongDog come howl! 20:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
My interest is piqued, but I'd appreciate clarification. Having recently signed up with the Wikipedia Education Program where I am getting a crash course in the ways of WP editing, primarily by our terrific Ambassador, Biosthmors. I have just explained to my students how a Wikipedia article should be written in the style of an encyclopedia and not in the style of a review article for a scientific or medical journal. Differences include the emphasis on secondary sources rather than primary sources in WP articles. This is in contrast to professional review articles which (speaking as a scientist, but not an MD) I would expect to include more information about the underlying research. Biolprof ( talk) 05:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
If someone were to support an article for publication as the author, what are the requirements? Do they have to have added a large portion of the text to the article? Do they just have to support it during review and make all the necessary corrections? I may be interested in helping to get an article published, but I don't want to bite off more than I can chew. Remember ( talk) 18:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking of doing some outreach to M.D.s or Ph.D.s without current involvement in Wikipedia to invite them to participate as an editorial board member of JMIR Wiki Medical Reviews. Do we have a theoretical maximum of people for positions on the editorial board? 10? 15? 20? What are the expectations? A certain amount of peer-reviews? Biosthmors ( talk) 20:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I have 2 questions about this future page:
Thank you for your advice Nini ✉ 11:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I noticed it has been proposed (by user:coin459) that drooling be merged with hypersalivation. Not sure if this is the best thing to do since hypersalivation is specifically overproductiong of saliva, and whilst this is the main cause of drooling, the latter may also be caused by "inability to retain saliva within the mouth (incontinence of saliva), or problems with swallowing (dysphagia/odynophagia)"...both of which may occur with normal saliva output. On the other hand, I recently reworked xerostomia/ hyposalivation, a very similar scenario: 2 very close topics which are almost inseparable, hyposalivation being a topic contained within xerostomia, but xerostomia meaning slightly more. Hyposalivation was a redirect back to xerostomia. I decided in the end to just build the xerostomia page, although it ended up containing much info on hyposalivation. Comments requested for drooling/ hypersalivation merge, the consensus of which may lead to changes to xerostomia/ hyposalivation... Lesion ( talk) 12:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys! I was referred here by Ocaasi who has been providing me with careful guidance in editing Chiropractic. The main issues identified were NPOV and length. The article contained a lot of puffery (both pro/con) and tended the use primary sources in an uneven way when more current secondary sources were available. In order to raise the reliability and quality of the page, WP:MED and WP:MEDRS and WP:PSMED were used to introduce the proper manual of style for the article. I believe it accurately reflects the spirit and intent of WP:MED. This is a sincere attempt to open dialogue for an evidence-based discussion of chiropractic, but also for other traditional/CAM disciplines that have developed a legitimate scientific research base. Too often those articles have strong bias, pro or con, because WP:MED does not enforce WP:PSMED and WP:MEDRS in a consistent way. They should be under the WP:MED project so standards can be raised for editing thereby attracting academics and scholars as opposed to idealogues on both sides. In my opinion the best way to move forward is using a scientific point of view (SPOV) to achieve NPOV. Just offering a critical eye to controversial topics in medicine and how to resolve them in an evidence-based way. Regards, DVMt ( talk) 00:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
An issue, the article says "Manual and conservative therapies commonly used by chiropractors are effective for the treatment of low back pain," and bases it on this 2011 Cochrane review which states "High quality evidence suggests that there is no clinically relevant difference between SMT and other interventions for reducing pain and improving function in patients with chronic low-back pain." [3]. I not convinced the ref supports the text in question. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Our article than states without qualifications "Spinal manipulation, commonly used by chiropractors and other manual medicine practitioners are effective for the treatment of spinal pain, including low back pain, neck pain, some forms of headache and a number of extremity joint conditions such as shoulder and hip pain" supported the journal Chiropr Osteopat. Yet we have this more recent systematic review that states "Collectively, these data fail to demonstrate that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for pain management." .
PMID
22621391. {{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help) So I think we have a huge problem. It appears that our article just picks up the positive research and presents it while ignoring the research that disagrees.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) (if I write on your page reply on mine)
01:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
A recurring theme in articles on CAM methodologies that we really need to clarify hinges on the statistical impossibility of proving the proposition that one specific inert intervention is not more effective than a placebo. Time after time we see reviews look at such results and give a feeble conclusion that larger sample populations are needed (when infinite sample populations would still be "inconclusive") or that better methodology is needed. The simple truth is that placebos are indistinguishable from each other. Hence any attempt to show a CAM methodology's efficacy in a placebo-controlled trial must be regarded as ill-conceived, with a high probability of false "success" at a low confidence level. Rather, the comparison should be against the best known standard of care. With a few exceptions, our CAM articles have failed to clearly convey this problem to readers. We should be able to find a consistent, clear way to convey this. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Sadly we appear to have the same problem of down-playing of the mainstream view at Vertebral subluxation as well. If you compare the current version with that of 22 January 2013, you can see how for example the criticism section has now been reduced to a single paragraph. -- RexxS ( talk) 03:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I was just looking at the reader feedback on the asthma article.
It seems that a fair proportion of the people reading the article were struggling with what they consider complex terminology, but much of the article seems quite correctly encyclopedic to me (I'm not a medical professional - and I can follow the article without much problem, and there are hyperlinks for any tricky bits).
So, it occurred to me that there are two reasons people will be consulting the asthma article (and in general looking at medical/disease type articles), either someone who is looking for some detailed nuance (who will want the article in much the same state as it currently stands), or someone who is looking for the broader overview (symptoms, causes, if they are contagious, treatments, outcome).
I think the people in the second category - especially if they are children may find it easier to look at simple:asthma than asthma, but I think the 'simple english' pages are not well known by those unfamiliar with wikipedia, so... I wondered about whether there ought to be a hatnote at the top of the asthma article saying something like If the medical terminology is too complex, and you just want a broad overview, you might like to check out [[:simple:asthma|this page]].
Then I thought it might be a good idea to have that a generic hatnote template for all medical articles?Though the person adding the template might also then want to check that the simple equivalent was suitably worded.
The other idea I had was just a general attempt to run through existing articles looking for a info box for diseases with a view to spotting whether they listed symptoms, causes, contagious/vector, treatments, treated/untreated outcome. I've added this project to my watchlist for a while, I don't know if this has already been discussed. EdwardLane ( talk) 11:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I think anyone writing a article within in this project is aware of a need to provide both an encyclopedic article, and at the same time knows that almost all people accessing the page will be doing so primarily because of questions about their own health, or their family or someone they know. However, as per WP:MEDMOS articles are not supposed to be "patient information leaflets". Personally I try to balance this by writing the lead in a slightly different style to the body of the article. The lead is almost a plain language summary, and avoids unnecessary jargon. The lead is like a summary for the people in the second category you describe, and the rest of the article goes into much greater depth, and does not avoid medical terminology, although these are wikilinked and/or explained in parentheses. Nesting of related articles also allows for even greater detail of subtopics. In this respect, there is a "level of service" depending upon what the readers are after: basic information, encyclopedic and academic.
Lead: synonyms, basic definition, summary of content e.g. symptoms, classification, etc etc
Body of article...
==Classification==
{{main:Classification of syndrome XX}}
1 or 2 paragraph summary of Classification of syndrome XX.
==Symptoms==
{{main:Symptoms of syndrome XX}}
etc.
I think the plain language summary would be great to highlight to readers, and this could certainly be done as some kind of standard template/ hatnote. Great idea. Lesion ( talk) 21:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Key words | No. pubmed hits |
---|---|
"Glossodynia" | 287 |
"Burning mouth syndrome" | 782 |
"Oral dysaesthesia" | 6 |
"glossopyrosis" | 19 |
"stomatodynia" | 44 |
ICD-10 uses Glossodynia [5]. The one Cochrane RV of this topic uses the term "Burning mouth syndrome". [6] Lesion ( talk) 02:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I just added a couple {{ empty section}}'s to burning mouth syndrome, and it made me think we should probably have one specific to medical articles that links to WP:MEDRS. I think this would help us keep track of how incomplete articles are and it parallels with User:WhatamIdoing's recent comments about making sure we have prognosis sections, if I remember correctly. Biosthmors ( talk) 20:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Is this in any way an improvement? Maybe someone knows off the top of their head. I don't. Biosthmors ( talk) 22:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't remember if at the 3rd week of fetus development there is a distinction between nasal and oral cavity. I think there is no difference yet so oral cavity is the correct term. If is true it can be an improvement. DocElisa ✉ 22:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you DocElisa ✉ 09:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes I did an error: Accessory saphenous vein must be deleted or redirected to Anterior accessory saphenous vein. This is the name in the new terminology and is in accord with the Latin name. I can't do it... yet. And instead to move to the new title I have created the new page (idiot newbie I am ...) Thank you for correction DocElisa ✉ 09:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
... upon Ted Kaptchuk, Irving Kirsch, and Program in Placebo Studies. There seems to be some first-party editing but some cleanup might rescue the articles. Is it worth the effort? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
About 50% of the whole article Lower limbs venous ultrasonography is launched. All comments and corrections are welcome. Thank you. DocElisa ✉ 19:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
FYI, there is currently an
active discussion at WT:MEDRS over a proposal to
weaken the current recommendations in
WP:MEDRS against the inclusion of primary studies. Participation would be appreciated! Cheers...
Zad
68
16:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi All,
I just created a stub article on Ventricular dyssynchrony. It's my first medical article and I am not a medical expert. I am looking for someone more knowledgeable to take a quick look at the content to make sure I haven't said something horribly wrong. If this is not the right venue to ask such a favor, where would be a more appropriate location?
Thanks, -- Mark viking ( talk) 22:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Just some ideas to expand the article:
1 - may be good to expand this theme talking about physiology
2 - May be better to expand physiopathology too (a little bit)
3 - Tell us what it is "resynchronization therapy"
Well done, go ahead. Regards DocElisa ✉ 23:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Can an expert take a look at Toxoplasmosis#Signs_and_symptoms? It needs a bit of a tweak for readability. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 21:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion at commons:Commons:Bots/Requests/Smallbot 8 as to whether the upload is worthwhile. Smallman12q ( talk) 22:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I ran across Homogenized Milk and Atherosclerosis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) today. It's throwing a lot of red flags up in my mind, including an reliance on cherry-picked, predominantly-primary, mostly-decades-old sources, plus extensive use of references to books published by Sunflower Publishing Co. (of Sweden), which seems to just be an outlet for guys marketing a miracle cure (the so-called "ORS Method") for heart disease. Despite the article being extensive and generally well-formatted, and bearing something like 100 footnotes, it seems to be structured primarily as an argument for a fringe theory.
Should this whole thing be redirected to atherosclerosis, accompanied by a merge of whatever small amount of useful content is present to Atherosclerosis#Diet and dietary supplements, or have I totally misread this article? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 23:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Can Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicinal botany, that includes both medicine (pharmaceutical) and alternative medicine, belong under this wikiproject as a taskforce? Sidelight 12 Talk 09:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Just bumping this issue. Despite 5 different users voting, there is still a tie and no consensus. Proposal is to rename to "recurrent aphthous stomatitis" or "aphthous stomatitis". Please comment if you haven't done so already (or change your mind), thank you... Talk:Aphthous ulcer#Requested move. Lesion ( talk) 15:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I needed to check something on the article and discovered lots of primary research, claims, promotional language using primary research, etc., so I started a thread on the talk page to draw attention to the issue. (I don't have much time at present to do a good job of fixing the problem myself, which is usually my preferred way of dealing with such issues.) I'd appreciate it if some editors took a look at the thread and addressed the matter there:
I'm especially concerned about this part of a comment, which, IMHO, would open a Pandora's box for misuse of primary sources:
I can see certain situations which are directly about the research itself, not the subject of the research (in this case aloe vera) where it would be okay, but I'm very uncomfortable about this interpretation. -- Brangifer ( talk) 18:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I have used sfn refs to refer pages of some books and web Pdf articles on
Lower limbs venous ultrasonography. Clicking over pdf short ref I go to the full ref but not with books. I don't understand what is wrong.
Someone has time to help me? Thank you
Doc Elisa
✉
20:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi all. In relation to my experiment on Regional variation in standards of care, could someone help me with the following. I see that there are different WikiProject Medicines depending on the language version you choose in the left sidebar. While supporting the main disease state article (English version), it will take a collective effort from people within respective regions and language domains to support supplying information on the variations of how diseases are viewed and tackled in those respective regions. My question is:
Is there currently a method in place to alert and communicate with other WikiProject Medicine language domains on a collective effort such as this experiment (e.g. a channel for all WikiProject Medicine languages to view and see)?
Thanks. GT67 ( talk) 18:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
On "
Talk:X-rays", I've noticed one to be edited.
It's just a bit of grammar - a single bit; but I was advised to come here and — what?
O'k, it's {{
WPMED}} – the information is
here, and please pipe it up there if you correct that yourself.
Lincoln Josh (
talk)
10:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
We have a new editor with less than 75 edits but with what appears to be a great deal of knowledge regarding the functioning of Wikipedia at this page [7] wanting a further opinion. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment_or_re-assessment if anyone wants to take a stab. Biosthmors ( talk) 19:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi all,
I'm concerned that
Philosophy of Chiropractic is a
POV fork of
Chiropractic. However, when I asked at
Talk:Chiropractic,
DVMt said it had been "approved" by this project. Any suggestions/comments from the good people of WikiProject Medicine?
bobrayner (
talk)
00:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Bob, would this be the same as editor at [9]? -- Qexigator ( talk) 00:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I have gotten into a talk page discussion on Polypill with someone who both acknowledges a CoI and disagrees with my removal of a link to a vendor of these kinds of products, on the grounds that the company's board of advisors includes the two people who originally coined the term. More eyes would be appreciated, I acknowledge that I could be totally wrong on this.
Also, I note that the article is not currently tagged as being under
WP:MED and I wonder if that is deliberate? If it's just an oversight, I will admit I don't actually know how to tag it as such, so help would be appreciated. --
UseTheCommandLine (
talk)
08:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
An unfortunate late-night (for me) disagreement has been settled, but I think the Polypill article still could use substantial work. -- UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 10:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I have had some involvement with AMSA and PharmFree in the past. I recently made some edits on those pages despite this, and I think I was able to keep it NPOV, though I would appreciate some additional eyes. There was some criticism on, iirc, the AMSA page from a blog that i removed as an EL, though I wasnt able to find a RS link to anything similar. That's my main concern, everything else is pretty much updating or copyediting. (I think, please correct me if i'm wrong)
Anyway, more eyes would be appreciated. Given that relatively few people seem to watch/edit these pages, should I edit and then ask for help, or propose on talk page first? -- UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 18:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Looking at my edit history, it seems I've only edited at PharmFree, though the other article probably needs more eyes as well. -- UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 19:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I was talking with Yunshui ( talk · contribs) about Education Program:Marquette University/Neurobiology (Spring 2013) and MEDRS and here are some links to drafts and respective articles (or one redirect target).
I'll see what I can do to make sure things are as encyclopedic as possible. Biosthmors ( talk) 23:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
There is an active discussion of several proposals to define what
WP:MEDRS applies to
here. If a proposal gains consensus it would provide a clear scope of what the guideline applies to, and also clarify where it does not apply. This would require significant community participation. Your input is appreciated. Thanks...
Zad
68
23:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, some weirdness happened over at Bronchitis and the entire article looks like a mess. Someone who has some time may want to take a look and see if they can fix the damage that's been done. Just thought I'd pass that along since I don't have time to attend to it at the moment. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 02:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I have found this project Education Program:Davidson College/Cognitive Psychology (2013 Q1). Many articles are medicine related. Students have to add or develop a section in the article and include 10 references. However only a reduced emphasis has been made on the use of secondary sources, and as of today students have posted some possible sources to be used in the talk pages of the articles and in most cases are primary. I have indicated the problem to the teacher and embassador (yesterday) but it is still too soon to see the effect. Nevertheless more eyes would be a good idea. -- Garrondo ( talk) 14:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
-They've been responsive to feedback as seen by the note at the top of the course page. Smallman12q ( talk) 13:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Podoconiosis has made it to the main page with a picture in the DYK section if anyone wants to make edits while it is so prominently linked. Biosthmors ( talk) 18:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
More eyes needed at water fluoridation. Editor is trying to change scope to include natural fluoridation and making unsourced edits, removing stuff they don't like, etc, etc. Colin° Talk 21:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Having observed that tonsil cancer and tonsillar cancer were redlinks, and noticing that tonsil and oral cancer and palatine tonsil didn't mention the subject in depth, I went to WP:RDS and asked if we had any articles covering cancer originating in the tonsils; they pointed me to oropharyngeal cancer, which is what I wanted. My question — would it be reasonable to create tonsil cancer and tonsillar cancer as redirects to the oropharyngeal cancer article? Nyttend ( talk) 02:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I just ran into the article Injection fraction. To my untrained eye it doesn't look like real medicine. I'd like the opinion of those who have more knowledge than me. Thank you. SchreiberBike ( talk) 01:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Look at editor's UP and Talk too is strange DocElisa ✉ 02:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Davidruben ( talk · contribs) and myself have been trying to work with this editor for ages. Lacking the time I have not tried to verify the content in articles he started. I agree that AFD seems a good place for this walled garden of weird stuff. JFW | T@lk 07:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Another "Bicholin conflict" but in Medicine, and on many articles!!! very troubling as you say DocElisa ✉ 08:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
With the "translation task force project" this kind of issue is really a danger. I think all medical stuff must be verified. It seems a very hard work is it possible? DocElisa ✉ 13:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I have taken a red pen to the obtuse turgid English, removed speculation, statements of what can not be described to a mere "lay" encyclopedia readers, and generally trimmed the article to make some sort of readable paragraphs. I've also removed analogies of buckets (idk), ballistic recoil... Hope this edit is an improvement. That editor with probable coi issue on this topic, previously blocked following repeated warnings and discussion. Such technobabble editing is very hard for other editors to rephrase, and so such distruptive contributions are particularly annoying. David Ruben Talk 22:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Reply from author. Biosthmors ( talk) 19:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikidata is going live. This will affect the WP:Interwiki links to articles in other languages. See meta:Wikidata/Deployment_Questions for more information. The practical point is this: if you see someone removing all the interlanguage links, please check the article, not just the diff, to see whether the links still appear in the usual place (on the left, in "Languages" underneath the Toolbox and Print/Export sections, if you're using the normal skin). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. My name is Lane and I am Wikipedian in Residence at the US-based non-profit organization Consumer Reports. Consumer Reports hired me for no other reason than to promote the development of health articles on Wikipedia, and their specific interest is in sharing information from a health education campaign called "Choosing Wisely". One of the problems I have encountered is explaining to people what Choosing Wisely is and why my organization cares about Wikipedia. Choosing Wisely has a particular health focus, but more broadly, it represents a serious outreach effort on the part of top-level medical organizations to begin promoting the integration of health information into the Wikipedia articlespace. To be transparent about what I am doing I feel that the most natural explanation is my creation of a Wikipedia article on the project on which I am working. To compliment that, I also have a project space at WP:Choosing Wisely.
Consumer Reports and the other participating health organizations care about Wikipedia because Wikipedia is one of the most consulted sources of health information in the world in all places, and it is probably actually the most popular source of health information. I feel that anyone who is serious about providing free health information to the public is obligated to develop Wikipedia articles in their field in a way that is in accord with community guidelines.
The Wikipedia community has extensive policies on WP:conflict of interest editing. I made a Choosing Wisely article as a paid staff member for my organization, so this article would fall under paid editing community regulations. The article is currently at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Choosing Wisely and it is in queue for anyone to review it and make it go live, which I think it deserves because I feel that it meets Wikipedia inclusion criteria. There are not clear community guidelines on how I can propose this article for review, but I posted it to WP:AFC and am posting it here on the WikiProject Medicine board because it is most relevant to this project. Guidelines are clear that I should not make it live myself because I was paid to write it. Further discussion about the article or what it represents could go on the talk page of the article if it were to go live.
I would like for this article and the Choosing Wisely health campaign to be an example for all health organizations that when they conduct educational outreach efforts, they need to consider whether they are sharing the kind of information which people try to get from Wikipedia, and if so, then that organization needs to work with the Wikipedia community to develop practices for doing long-term collaboration to maintain the quality of Wikipedia health articles. I can talk more about this here on this talk page, on my own talk page, in the WP:Choosing Wisely project space, on the Choosing Wisely article talk page if it goes live, or by phone or Skype if you email me your contact details. It is my hope that Choosing Wisely will set a precedent that anyone doing health education of any kind - including all governments, non-profit organizations, hospitals, public health efforts, medical libraries, and anyone else - should recognize the role of Wikipedia in educating the public on basic health topics. Thanks for your attention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
This looks like just another PR campaign - the top Google links are self-published and the rest are the result of a press releases. Clearly Wikipedia is just another link in the self-promotion chain. In short, all I see is a lot of effort at self-promotion and very little indication that this campaign has any notability apart from its promoters. Rklawton ( talk) 15:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Can someone have a look at this article on an "offshore stem cell practitioner". As best I can make out it has been something of a battleground between those who want to promote and those say the subject is a con artist, and the content reads that way. Some expertise with the underlying topic would help.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 13:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hyperia (epilepsy) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperia (epilepsy) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Maralia ( talk) 15:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Your WP:Keep It Simple label, {{ User label WPMedicine}} is in danger of being deleted. See ( Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 6#Template:User_label.) If you still want it, you may wish to move it to project space, perhaps a redirect page Template:Label_WPMedicine or Template:Label_WikiProject_Medicine by placing {{db-move|Template:User label WPMedicine|[[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 6#Template:User_label]]}} above the redirect. Also see {{ user label}} for technical details. Feel free to review my planning page, User:PC-XT/KIS, and talk there if you have questions. PC-XT ( talk) 01:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I have a quick question. If a study has been published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and, shortly thereafter, the same authors publish an update of their findings in a different publication, which study, for Wikipedia, should be given precedence? Example of two studies provided below:
Thanks. FiachraByrne ( talk) 20:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
What's the process for weighing a systematic review which completely disagrees with the majority of literature including Cochrane reviews. Would such a paper be considered an "outlier" as it falls outside of mainstream consensus? DVMt ( talk) 22:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Please consider weighing in on this RFC about whether the United States National Health Care Act (the "single payer" bill, H.R. 676) article should include this polling data or not. Thank you! Neo Poz ( talk) 06:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm Daniela del Río and I'm working on a project at school for my Medical English Class.
Hi Im working on a school project :). Im Rodrigo Rafael Flores Mariñelarena from the Tec CCM.
Holaaaaa :D! I'm Xime!
Hi, I'm a medical student studying in Mexico. I'm doing a project for a medical english class and I'll be using WikiProject Medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nindasofia24601 ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm Israel Collado and I'm working in a Medical Project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Israel Collado ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The assignment is Medical English our teacher is User:Thelmadatter no we doesn't have WP:Course page , but that could be a good idea . See you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorras ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi! My name is Carolina. I'm working on an English Project and I ll be glad to help on the wikiproject of Medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolinapercas ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi! my name is Juan and i'am a student from Mexico sing in here for an English project, if someone could explain me the basic rules of behavoir and what things can i post in here i will be very greatfull :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by JhonnyDuffman ( talk • contribs) 17:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to all of you. If you want to see what a great article looks like, then please look over the ones at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine#Showcase. If you want some basic advice, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/How to edit or the links at {{ MedWelcome-reg}}. Good luck, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Another query I'm afraid. If a therapy has measurable efficacy but is not, in clinical terms, demonstrably more effective than other therapies, what formulation of words might best be used to communicate that in a wikipedian article? I'm think of findings that report, as per the section heading, a therapy that provides a benefit which is statistically significant but not clinically relevant. FiachraByrne ( talk) 12:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)I agree with the point made by WhatamIdoing in that "it doesn't work any better than anything else for chronic low back pain" doesn't mean the same as "it doesn't work at all". This cochrane review concludes that "High quality evidence suggests that there is no clinically relevant difference between SMT and other interventions...in patients with chronic low-back pain." and the plain language summary expands to say: "...spine manipulation appears to be as effective as other common therapies prescribed for chronic low-back pain, such as, exercise therapy, standard medical care or physiotherapy." Similarly, this secondary source concludes that spine manipulation achieves "equivalent or superior improvement in pain and function when compared with other commonly used interventions, such as physical modalities, medication, education, or exercise, for short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up." In fact, most secondary sources conclude that manipulation is 'as effective as other therapies', or that it is just simply 'effective' for back pain; for example [17] [18] [19]. Doc James has presented one source by one author that says spine manipulation is not effective for pain, but IMO this is a fringe view when discussing back pain specifically. The current text at the chiropractic article is "The scientific consensus is that chiropractic may be on a par with other manual therapies for some musculoskeletal conditions such as lower back pain", but the bulk of mainstream sources seem to indicate that manipulation is equally as effective as all other treatments, including standard medical care, for back pain. Puhlaa ( talk) 08:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
What's the process for weighing a systematic review which completely disagrees with the majority of literature including Cochrane reviews. Would such a paper be considered an "outlier" as it falls outside of mainstream consensus? DVMt ( talk) 22:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
you keep mentioning RfC would you be so kind as to provide a link to the RfC Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Represents the minority/outlier viewpoint.
Represents the mainstream, majority viewpoint. Note the interdisciplinary consensus with 39 of 41 authors agreeing with a common , mainstream, majority viewpoint.
Zad
68
18:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
He made one here: Talk:Spinal_manipulation#RfC_Effectiveness_of_SMT_for_LBP — raeky t 00:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)In a recent discussion on this talk page (
#Weird article: Homogenized Milk and Atherosclerosis), it was apparent that other editors gave more credence to four search results on
PubMed than to 8,690 search results on
Google Scholar, implying that PubMed has higher quality as a reference source than does Google Scholar. I have been accustomed to believing that Google Scholar delivers results of high quality, at least in comparison with regular
Google Search results. PubMed is hosted by the United States government. What is the policy of this WikiProject in regard to the relative credibility of these two search options, and on what is that policy based?
—
Wavelength (
talk)
00:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The top red links report in medical content has been regenerated to be more helpful. Feel free to see if redirects or articles are appropriate for the topics listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Red links. Biosthmors ( talk) 21:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Alternapedia describes itself as "the online encyclopedia where researchers, educators and practitioners in naturopathic and other forms of integrative medicine edit and create the encyclopedia entries." I am not suggesting this as a source for Wikipedia articles, but its information might give editors ideas for improving Wikipedia's coverage of some topics.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
21:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Does anybody have a bad case of editcountitis at the moment? A whole bunch of biographies and organizations have been incorrectly rated as "Mid" importance on our tags. I've cleared out almost a hundred, but if someone else wants to take over, then please start at the letter D. Basically all articles about people and organizations are low importance for this project (by which we really mean low priority for us to work on, not exactly "importance") per WP:MEDA.
Fixing this just means going to the talk page of any person- or organization-sounding article and changing the |importance=Mid
to its correct setting, which is |importance=Low
. There are probably a couple hundred to be done, and it only takes a few seconds each.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
01:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
01:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Stem cell educator ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Would appreciate someone with some expertise to take a look at the article and see if my recent edits were appropriate. Thanks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I think is yet a research subject. It will be wonderful if we can educate stem cells, but is just a trial. Doc Elisa ✉ 08:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Red Pen - I don't think your edits are appropriate, you should go back and search for better sources for the content you removed. It is good practice to search for secondary sources to support content currently supported by primary sources, or failing this use the tag {{primary source-inline}} to highlight the need for better sources to a future editor who may perform this search, if you are too busy. Some editors prefer to delete content immediately. In time, editors non familiar with MEDRS will add back the removed material referencing more primary sources and the cycle begins again. The best way to improve an article is to preserve content where ever possible, and substitute less favorable sources with better ones. This is responsible editing. Lesion ( talk) 13:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
see talk:Infant where the title of the article is in question -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 15:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
It seems to have been taken down or moved and their articles were used as sources. see Template:Medcyclopaedia. Feral mage ( talk) 21:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I thought I understood this but apparently not. I want to enter K04.8 [39] this is what I think it should be...{{ICD10||K|04|8|k|04}}. Help? Lesion ( talk) 17:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
{{ICD10|K|04|8|k|04}}
An editor, User:YvelinesFrance, has added the words "Female circumcision" to the infobox of the Female genital mutilation article as the primary title, as well as to the beginning of the lead as the primary title, [40] [41] despite (whether YvelinesFrance knows it or not) the fact that "female genital mutilation" is the WP:COMMONNAME and the WP:COMMON MEDICAL NAME for these procedures. Not to mention that having "Female circumcision" listed as the first name doesn't conform to the title of the article, and the Terminology section mentions that "female genital mutilation" is the more common name for the procedures. Having looked at the current discussions on the article's talk page about the title, it has been mentioned there that the title has been discussed/debated extensively times before...and that the WP:CONSENSUS is to leave the article titled Female genital mutilation. So because of that, and because the topic of the procedures is so sensitive, I feel that more eyes from this project are needed on that article.
Looking at YvelinesFrance's contributions, which show extensive blanking/removal of things he does not like, even when those things are reliably sourced, his conduct is something suited for discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Flyer22 ( talk) 18:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Any of you willing to weigh in on the title of this article? After getting a brain freeze some minutes ago, I decided to check out Wikipedia's article on the subject and was surprised to see it titled Ice-cream headache. I'm not the only one who is surprised by that, considering that the talk page discussions about the title are mostly in support of having the article titled Brian freeze. The latest discussion about the title is Talk:Ice-cream headache#Brain Freeze, where I've already commented. I'm not sure if I ever visited this article before, despite this being a common effect and my having been at Wikipedia for years. Flyer22 ( talk) 06:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I have been working on the History of medicine article and note that for most articles on diseases there is little in the way of history. Historians in recent decades have been using a social history approach that has generated a solid scholarly literature. Unless people object, I propose adding a few (usually one or two) citations in the "Further reading" section to history sources on the specific topic of the article that will be of use to the general reader (say, undergraduates). These resources are hard for beginners to find. This approach is explicitly authorized as Wikipedia policy by WP:Further which states Further reading: "An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of editor-recommended publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. Editors may include brief annotations." Rjensen ( talk) 08:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
16:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I could see adding this to the sub articles that specifically pertain to history of medicine. We could put all sorts of things in the "further reading" section, key primary research papers, recent systematic reviews, textbooks etc but we do not. I would rather people use references to write encyclopedic content. If one finds good refs place it on the talk page if you do not wish to use it yourself. The sections at the end are not places to part sources for others to add to the article. Typically I see this as a section for a couple of books that cover the condition generally (which if they do would also cover the history of the condition). With respect to the history of medicine this is more recent source which has gone through a couple of editions [43] but which amazon does not sell either.
The issue I have encountered is that we get authors, there publisher, or there family adding their book to dozens of articles in this section as a method of promotion. Whenever I see the exact same book adding to more than half a dozen articles IMO their should be consensus. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23432369
From the abstract:
"Nephrology articles on Wikipedia were relatively comprehensive, with 70.5% of ICD-10 codes being represented. The articles were fairly reliable, with 7.1 ± 9.8 (mean ± SD) references per article, of which 59.7 ± 35.0% were substantiated references. Finally, all three readability indices determined that nephrology articles are written at a college level. Wikipedia is a comprehensive and fairly reliable medical resource for nephrology patients that is written at a college reading level. Accessibility of this information for the general public may be improved by hosting it at alternative Wikipedias targeted at a lower reading level, such as the Simple English Wikipedia."
That's quite a variability in substantiated references. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk] #_ 12:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
" That's quite a variability in substantiated references. "
— UseTheCommandLine
The statistical analysis is flawed. "Substantiated references" is a binary, qualitative variable. Each reference either is substantiated, or it is not. Standard distribution can only be applied to continuous variables, not qualitative variables. I suspect that an author dropped the data into a spreadsheet, perhaps assigning "0" for unsubstantiated and "1" for substantiated.
Regarding the references per article, the SD is unusually large compared to the mean. One SD distance lower than the mean is less than zero. The explanation here is that the data is not normally distributed. Indeed this is what I would expect. The data is probably positively skewed. The vast majority of articles have only a few references each, while a handful of well-developed articles (such as featured articles and good articles) have a large number of references each, bringing the mean value (of references per article) much higher than the median.
I have read only the abstract, not the full paper, so I am unable to comment on the use of SEM here. All too often though, I have seen SEM (mis)used to reduce the apparent value of the SD, giving a visually more appealing result than the SD, lending greater credibility to a result, especially to a less discerning reader. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is about a published article discussing Wikipedia and health information. It was even written by user:Jfdwolff, one of our own and the person who founded WikiProject Medicine. Whenever anyone here finds such a paper, please list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Wikipedia and medicine. We should keep a log of these things and that link is the most central place we have yet. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
In the last several days I have found recently registered users doing important additions to treatment of multiple sclerosis, a featured article, (User:Wonglilian), Pathophysiology of multiple sclerosis (user: Desolateflame) and management of Parkinson's disease (User:Przemyslaw.kosinski). Editions are of quite good quality, although have typical mistakes of newcomers including occasional use of primary sources. I have contacted Wonglilian and he is part of an assigment (educational I suppose) which does not seem to be registered. Moreover, I suspect that the other 2 users are also in the same assigment per the type of articles and additions and that there are probably others out of my radar. Has anybody noticed this pattern in other articles? I am going to treat with Wonglilian, but taking into account the extensive additions they are making, it would be great if others contacted the other editors. I see quite a lot of potential but guidance would still be needed.-- Garrondo ( talk) 15:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I regret to say that this article is currently experiencing a flareup of its chronic disease and might benefit from medical attention. Looie496 ( talk) 00:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Category:Medical outbreaks and subcats needs to be renamed to something a bit better. It is a bit like an outbreak of peace! -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 04:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I did a request for Lower limbs venous ultrasonography to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. I would like to improve this article to a class A. Thank you all for your collaboration. Doc Elisa ✉ 09:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Right now, {{ MedTalkheader}} says "We are not able to provide any medical advice; please see your local health professional. Questions about medical subjects in general should be asked at the reference desk." It also says "This page is a place to discuss issues related to Wikipedia's medical articles and related policies..." and then it asks for questions to be placed at the reference desk.
I think these two points should be merged to say "This page is a place to discuss things related to improving Wikipedia's medical content. We do not provide medical advice; please see your local health professional. If you are trying to learn something from a Wikipedia medical article that you think should be there per this and this, feel free to point out that perceived omission below for consideration."
I'll go ahead and make that edit and some others. Biosthmors ( talk) 19:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Wondering if anyone else can comment? There appears to be efforts to remove the conclusion of this systematic review [45] in this edit [46] by User:DVMt Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
All the evidence of efficacy for CAM interventions has been deleted and removed here [47] and again here [48]. All material that was deleted was systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews from 2011-2013. I'm afraid there has been a loss of editorial objectivity. DVMt ( talk) 22:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Coatrack? Biosthmors ( talk) 01:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
It looks to me like there's a whole lot of non- AGFing going on here. Can we maybe nip that in the bud? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk] #_ 01:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
This user is adding lots of books such as master thesis [49] and this 10 page pamphlet [50] which contains no content our article doesn't already as ELs. Thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I am teaching a Medical English class this semester and my students have started working on Wikipedia. We put some photos up on Commons and now are translating articles from en.wiki to es.wiki. You can see what we are up to here User:Thelmadatter#Medical_English_Spring_2013 If any of you are active on es.wiki as well, we can use your help! We may put articles in en.wiki, depending on how things go. Thelmadatter ( talk) 20:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Very curious. The seem the same to me. LCS check ( talk) 16:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Some time ago I added some content to the article Antipsychotic from a primary source. It was from a then fairly recent study by Nancy Andreasen on the impact of antipsychotic dosage on brain volumes over time. There are superior secondary sources that look at this issue but I really don't feel competent at summarising their contents. If another editor or editors competent in this area would consider revising the text to match current research I'd be extremely grateful. You'll find more details - including some relevant secondary sources - at the relevant talk page discussion: Talk:Antipsychotic#Side effects vs structural effects; primary vs secondary sources; unsourced section. Thank you. FiachraByrne ( talk) 22:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
No doubt you'll all be delighted to hear of this requested page move which I've initiated. Relevant talk page discussion can be found here. Apologies in advance. FiachraByrne ( talk) 02:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
G'day everyone, my name's Pete. I'd like to ask for your assistance, if you're a medical professional.
I suffer from severe anomic aphasia and loss of lip motor control. These are the undocumented side-effects of long-term use of dextropropoxyphene and (very recently) Lyrica (as adjunct treatment for chronic neuropathy due to a 30-year-old stabilising thoracic laminectomy, with sufentanyl supplied intrathecally by an implanted programmable pump) . Unfortunately, while I'd like to get these effects documented and investigated, I've run into a brick wall at every turn, and continue to suffer from these effects socially.
My physician and all the specialists I've worked with have laughed it off (gently, they do respect me) or shrugged their shoulders. The manufacturers don't appear to be interested - I've contacted both Pfizer and Eli Lily, and when I get to speak to someone, they refer me back to my physician!
Please understand, I am NOT seeking treatment per se : I'm trying to get an extremely severe and completely repeatable side-effect that's been completely undocumented documented (if that sentence makes sense!). Anomia is apparently of high interest to various investigative neurologists, and the lip control thing is (as far as I can tell) completely unknown as a complication!
So I'm a target, looking for hunters, but I can't be seen. I think that about overs it.
I understand I can't document these issues here, even on the appropriate pages - after all, there's only one (not widely respected enough) referent!
So is anyone able to offer any suggestions here?
As a smalltime editor and contributor here, I sincerely apologise for asking this kind of thing here, but I've run out of alternatives, and you all seem like reasonable, intelligent, good-looking, sophisticated....
Thanks for your understanding, and feel completely free to delete or report this! -pete Cephas Atheos ( talk) 00:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
My thanks to everyone who read or responded. From the documented responses, I can agree with most or all of you - this ain't the place to ask, but having asked, it's almost certainly a side-effect affecting a very small population, and there are some reporting schemes that I was unaware of. I'll investigate those options. My sincere thanks for understanding my position. Now, back to some real work... Cephas Atheos ( talk) 01:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Aoki Mariko phenomenon is based off several Japanese sources. I can't find anything in the English literature. Could someone confirm the terminology/the existence of this in the literature? (Also asked at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Aoki_Mariko_phenomenon). Smallman12q ( talk) 23:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Hi. I'm new here and I would like to stay even if I'm Portuguese. Veins, arteries, heart, are my passion. I did an article about a special GSV tributary, the accessory saphenous vein, I did it in a subpage but now I realize that the main page has been redirected to saphenous vein. That vein is really important in varicose vein disease and has a different treatment. It deserves its own page. Is it possible to undo that redirect? This is my subpage: User:Nini00/Acessory saphenous vein so you can check my work, and I wait yet another image. Thank you for your help Nini ✉ 20:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
What's the WP:MED standard for discussing work related to a drug? In particular, how much discussion and credentialing is appropriate when mentioning a lead researcher? At Pomalidomide and Thalidomide, several IPs (with suspicious geolocation) are insisting that we include name and affiliation in the body (edit-summary: "This lab discovered the drug and still works on such compounds Readers may want to contact this lab and need this info"). User:Edgar181 (who is mostly inactive at the moment) raised a WP:CREDENTIAL concern in part, and I went further with removing it to focus on the actual article topic and not giving essentially sole credit to the one lab's PI (edit-summaries: "no need to name-drop, especially since it's cited to a reliable source and is drifting off-topic for this article", "this is an encyclopedia, not a literature-review"). DMacks ( talk) 22:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
All the section (very big section) in Caring_for_people_with_dementia#Environmental_design_and_assistive_technology seems to be a wayyyyyyyyyy to close paraphrase of the cited article in it. Moreover, it is based in wikiuniversity text, so problems with copyright may not end here. To make it even more complicated it seems that the editor that added such content ( User:Jtneill) was an experienced one. Since I have not edited for a while I am really not sure how to act. -- Garrondo ( talk) 22:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I have been in talks with some faculty at OHSU School of Medicine for a few months now about a wiki editing pilot project. I just spoke with the students (a total of 8, so it should be quite manageable) about editing the ins and outs of editing wikipedia a bit. It is part of a course on pharmacology, and the "prompt" they were given had something to do with methamphetamine, or perhaps other sympathomimetics or indications for same. And FWIW, I have also spoken a bit with Lane Rasberry and Doc James about this in the past, it's just now getting going.
I just wanted to drop everyone (
WP:USEP
WP:ENB,
WP:MED,
WP:PHARM) a note who might be interacting with some of these folks over the next month or two (the course runs until April 10). I gave them a rundown on some of the common mistakes students make as part of these projects, e.g. assuming that one's edits have to stay up in order for them to be useful as a grade (which I've seen a number of times). I am confident they will be able to avoid most of these common pitfalls.
As it stands it appears that they will be looking for either stubs to build out that are related to the clinical vignette that is their initial prompt; they might instead/also work on rewriting part of an article that is jargon-laden or otherwise confusing to adhere more closely to WP:MEDMOS. The consensus was that they would try and sandbox everything before putting it in an actual article.
Most of them, as of right now, do not have WP accounts, but should be making them soon. If you see them around, say Hi!
-- UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 00:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Per Gunther as posted [1] JMIR Publications is currently (Jan 2013) pilot-testing an innovative peer-reviewed journal JMIR Wiki Medical Reviews which sets out to publish Wikipedia (Review) and Wikiversity (Original Works) papers. Authors who have made significant contributions to Wikipedia articles are invited to submit the article to http://wikimedical.jmir.org/author
JMIR Wiki Medical Reviews (JMIR Wiki Med Rev) is an innovative journal which takes the best wikipedia articles in medicine, peer-reviews them, and publishes them as citable scholarly review article, with the goals to 1) Improve Wikipedia articles, 2) enhance public trust in the accuracy of medical Wikipedia articles, 4) improve visibility and indexing of outstanding Wikipedia articles (e.g. by indexing in bibliographic databases and featuring them on JMIR), 5) to acknowledge authors who volunteer their time on wikipedia to improve articles by listing them as authors in a "citable" publication, 6) to add an additional layer of formal peer-review to wikipedia articles (JMIR Wiki Med Rev - About us/Focus and Scope)
JMIR Publications will publish the first 20 articles free of charge, deposit them in PubMed Central, and will apply for PubMed indexing. JMIR Wiki Medical Reviews is hoped to become the first peer-reviewed journal publishing Wikipedia articles.
Dr James Heilman has agreed to serve as Editor-in-chief, other editorial board members are to be recruited (ideally active in Wikipedia Medicine). Editorial board members encourage Wikipedia authors to submit their articles to the journal for peer-review, select external peer-reviewers, and guide articles through the peer-review process. The publisher (JMIR Publications, represented by Dr Gunther Eysenbach) will coordinate production, which includes converting the Wikipedia article into XML, and depositing the articles in various bibliographic databases and full text databases. It is hoped that the journal will be Medline-indexed and will receive an impact factor. For the latter it is important to primarily publish articles which will be highly cited.
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I was not an author on the article, but Influenza seems like a good article to go through the publication process since it is already a FA and has lots of global public health implications. Remember ( talk) 14:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. Would ketogenic diet be suitable? It needs an update with some recent reviews, though I don't think anything drastic will change as a result. Perhaps I may even get round to writing a decent epilepsy article. -- Colin° Talk 16:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Must you keep raising the bar? You're making the rest of us look lazy... Now I'm wondering how Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals is going to address this from secondary sources ;-) LeadSongDog come howl! 20:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
My interest is piqued, but I'd appreciate clarification. Having recently signed up with the Wikipedia Education Program where I am getting a crash course in the ways of WP editing, primarily by our terrific Ambassador, Biosthmors. I have just explained to my students how a Wikipedia article should be written in the style of an encyclopedia and not in the style of a review article for a scientific or medical journal. Differences include the emphasis on secondary sources rather than primary sources in WP articles. This is in contrast to professional review articles which (speaking as a scientist, but not an MD) I would expect to include more information about the underlying research. Biolprof ( talk) 05:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
If someone were to support an article for publication as the author, what are the requirements? Do they have to have added a large portion of the text to the article? Do they just have to support it during review and make all the necessary corrections? I may be interested in helping to get an article published, but I don't want to bite off more than I can chew. Remember ( talk) 18:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking of doing some outreach to M.D.s or Ph.D.s without current involvement in Wikipedia to invite them to participate as an editorial board member of JMIR Wiki Medical Reviews. Do we have a theoretical maximum of people for positions on the editorial board? 10? 15? 20? What are the expectations? A certain amount of peer-reviews? Biosthmors ( talk) 20:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I have 2 questions about this future page:
Thank you for your advice Nini ✉ 11:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I noticed it has been proposed (by user:coin459) that drooling be merged with hypersalivation. Not sure if this is the best thing to do since hypersalivation is specifically overproductiong of saliva, and whilst this is the main cause of drooling, the latter may also be caused by "inability to retain saliva within the mouth (incontinence of saliva), or problems with swallowing (dysphagia/odynophagia)"...both of which may occur with normal saliva output. On the other hand, I recently reworked xerostomia/ hyposalivation, a very similar scenario: 2 very close topics which are almost inseparable, hyposalivation being a topic contained within xerostomia, but xerostomia meaning slightly more. Hyposalivation was a redirect back to xerostomia. I decided in the end to just build the xerostomia page, although it ended up containing much info on hyposalivation. Comments requested for drooling/ hypersalivation merge, the consensus of which may lead to changes to xerostomia/ hyposalivation... Lesion ( talk) 12:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys! I was referred here by Ocaasi who has been providing me with careful guidance in editing Chiropractic. The main issues identified were NPOV and length. The article contained a lot of puffery (both pro/con) and tended the use primary sources in an uneven way when more current secondary sources were available. In order to raise the reliability and quality of the page, WP:MED and WP:MEDRS and WP:PSMED were used to introduce the proper manual of style for the article. I believe it accurately reflects the spirit and intent of WP:MED. This is a sincere attempt to open dialogue for an evidence-based discussion of chiropractic, but also for other traditional/CAM disciplines that have developed a legitimate scientific research base. Too often those articles have strong bias, pro or con, because WP:MED does not enforce WP:PSMED and WP:MEDRS in a consistent way. They should be under the WP:MED project so standards can be raised for editing thereby attracting academics and scholars as opposed to idealogues on both sides. In my opinion the best way to move forward is using a scientific point of view (SPOV) to achieve NPOV. Just offering a critical eye to controversial topics in medicine and how to resolve them in an evidence-based way. Regards, DVMt ( talk) 00:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
An issue, the article says "Manual and conservative therapies commonly used by chiropractors are effective for the treatment of low back pain," and bases it on this 2011 Cochrane review which states "High quality evidence suggests that there is no clinically relevant difference between SMT and other interventions for reducing pain and improving function in patients with chronic low-back pain." [3]. I not convinced the ref supports the text in question. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Our article than states without qualifications "Spinal manipulation, commonly used by chiropractors and other manual medicine practitioners are effective for the treatment of spinal pain, including low back pain, neck pain, some forms of headache and a number of extremity joint conditions such as shoulder and hip pain" supported the journal Chiropr Osteopat. Yet we have this more recent systematic review that states "Collectively, these data fail to demonstrate that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for pain management." .
PMID
22621391. {{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help) So I think we have a huge problem. It appears that our article just picks up the positive research and presents it while ignoring the research that disagrees.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) (if I write on your page reply on mine)
01:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
A recurring theme in articles on CAM methodologies that we really need to clarify hinges on the statistical impossibility of proving the proposition that one specific inert intervention is not more effective than a placebo. Time after time we see reviews look at such results and give a feeble conclusion that larger sample populations are needed (when infinite sample populations would still be "inconclusive") or that better methodology is needed. The simple truth is that placebos are indistinguishable from each other. Hence any attempt to show a CAM methodology's efficacy in a placebo-controlled trial must be regarded as ill-conceived, with a high probability of false "success" at a low confidence level. Rather, the comparison should be against the best known standard of care. With a few exceptions, our CAM articles have failed to clearly convey this problem to readers. We should be able to find a consistent, clear way to convey this. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Sadly we appear to have the same problem of down-playing of the mainstream view at Vertebral subluxation as well. If you compare the current version with that of 22 January 2013, you can see how for example the criticism section has now been reduced to a single paragraph. -- RexxS ( talk) 03:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I was just looking at the reader feedback on the asthma article.
It seems that a fair proportion of the people reading the article were struggling with what they consider complex terminology, but much of the article seems quite correctly encyclopedic to me (I'm not a medical professional - and I can follow the article without much problem, and there are hyperlinks for any tricky bits).
So, it occurred to me that there are two reasons people will be consulting the asthma article (and in general looking at medical/disease type articles), either someone who is looking for some detailed nuance (who will want the article in much the same state as it currently stands), or someone who is looking for the broader overview (symptoms, causes, if they are contagious, treatments, outcome).
I think the people in the second category - especially if they are children may find it easier to look at simple:asthma than asthma, but I think the 'simple english' pages are not well known by those unfamiliar with wikipedia, so... I wondered about whether there ought to be a hatnote at the top of the asthma article saying something like If the medical terminology is too complex, and you just want a broad overview, you might like to check out [[:simple:asthma|this page]].
Then I thought it might be a good idea to have that a generic hatnote template for all medical articles?Though the person adding the template might also then want to check that the simple equivalent was suitably worded.
The other idea I had was just a general attempt to run through existing articles looking for a info box for diseases with a view to spotting whether they listed symptoms, causes, contagious/vector, treatments, treated/untreated outcome. I've added this project to my watchlist for a while, I don't know if this has already been discussed. EdwardLane ( talk) 11:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I think anyone writing a article within in this project is aware of a need to provide both an encyclopedic article, and at the same time knows that almost all people accessing the page will be doing so primarily because of questions about their own health, or their family or someone they know. However, as per WP:MEDMOS articles are not supposed to be "patient information leaflets". Personally I try to balance this by writing the lead in a slightly different style to the body of the article. The lead is almost a plain language summary, and avoids unnecessary jargon. The lead is like a summary for the people in the second category you describe, and the rest of the article goes into much greater depth, and does not avoid medical terminology, although these are wikilinked and/or explained in parentheses. Nesting of related articles also allows for even greater detail of subtopics. In this respect, there is a "level of service" depending upon what the readers are after: basic information, encyclopedic and academic.
Lead: synonyms, basic definition, summary of content e.g. symptoms, classification, etc etc
Body of article...
==Classification==
{{main:Classification of syndrome XX}}
1 or 2 paragraph summary of Classification of syndrome XX.
==Symptoms==
{{main:Symptoms of syndrome XX}}
etc.
I think the plain language summary would be great to highlight to readers, and this could certainly be done as some kind of standard template/ hatnote. Great idea. Lesion ( talk) 21:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Key words | No. pubmed hits |
---|---|
"Glossodynia" | 287 |
"Burning mouth syndrome" | 782 |
"Oral dysaesthesia" | 6 |
"glossopyrosis" | 19 |
"stomatodynia" | 44 |
ICD-10 uses Glossodynia [5]. The one Cochrane RV of this topic uses the term "Burning mouth syndrome". [6] Lesion ( talk) 02:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I just added a couple {{ empty section}}'s to burning mouth syndrome, and it made me think we should probably have one specific to medical articles that links to WP:MEDRS. I think this would help us keep track of how incomplete articles are and it parallels with User:WhatamIdoing's recent comments about making sure we have prognosis sections, if I remember correctly. Biosthmors ( talk) 20:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Is this in any way an improvement? Maybe someone knows off the top of their head. I don't. Biosthmors ( talk) 22:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't remember if at the 3rd week of fetus development there is a distinction between nasal and oral cavity. I think there is no difference yet so oral cavity is the correct term. If is true it can be an improvement. DocElisa ✉ 22:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you DocElisa ✉ 09:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes I did an error: Accessory saphenous vein must be deleted or redirected to Anterior accessory saphenous vein. This is the name in the new terminology and is in accord with the Latin name. I can't do it... yet. And instead to move to the new title I have created the new page (idiot newbie I am ...) Thank you for correction DocElisa ✉ 09:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
... upon Ted Kaptchuk, Irving Kirsch, and Program in Placebo Studies. There seems to be some first-party editing but some cleanup might rescue the articles. Is it worth the effort? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
About 50% of the whole article Lower limbs venous ultrasonography is launched. All comments and corrections are welcome. Thank you. DocElisa ✉ 19:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
FYI, there is currently an
active discussion at WT:MEDRS over a proposal to
weaken the current recommendations in
WP:MEDRS against the inclusion of primary studies. Participation would be appreciated! Cheers...
Zad
68
16:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi All,
I just created a stub article on Ventricular dyssynchrony. It's my first medical article and I am not a medical expert. I am looking for someone more knowledgeable to take a quick look at the content to make sure I haven't said something horribly wrong. If this is not the right venue to ask such a favor, where would be a more appropriate location?
Thanks, -- Mark viking ( talk) 22:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Just some ideas to expand the article:
1 - may be good to expand this theme talking about physiology
2 - May be better to expand physiopathology too (a little bit)
3 - Tell us what it is "resynchronization therapy"
Well done, go ahead. Regards DocElisa ✉ 23:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Can an expert take a look at Toxoplasmosis#Signs_and_symptoms? It needs a bit of a tweak for readability. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 21:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion at commons:Commons:Bots/Requests/Smallbot 8 as to whether the upload is worthwhile. Smallman12q ( talk) 22:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I ran across Homogenized Milk and Atherosclerosis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) today. It's throwing a lot of red flags up in my mind, including an reliance on cherry-picked, predominantly-primary, mostly-decades-old sources, plus extensive use of references to books published by Sunflower Publishing Co. (of Sweden), which seems to just be an outlet for guys marketing a miracle cure (the so-called "ORS Method") for heart disease. Despite the article being extensive and generally well-formatted, and bearing something like 100 footnotes, it seems to be structured primarily as an argument for a fringe theory.
Should this whole thing be redirected to atherosclerosis, accompanied by a merge of whatever small amount of useful content is present to Atherosclerosis#Diet and dietary supplements, or have I totally misread this article? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 23:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Can Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicinal botany, that includes both medicine (pharmaceutical) and alternative medicine, belong under this wikiproject as a taskforce? Sidelight 12 Talk 09:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Just bumping this issue. Despite 5 different users voting, there is still a tie and no consensus. Proposal is to rename to "recurrent aphthous stomatitis" or "aphthous stomatitis". Please comment if you haven't done so already (or change your mind), thank you... Talk:Aphthous ulcer#Requested move. Lesion ( talk) 15:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I needed to check something on the article and discovered lots of primary research, claims, promotional language using primary research, etc., so I started a thread on the talk page to draw attention to the issue. (I don't have much time at present to do a good job of fixing the problem myself, which is usually my preferred way of dealing with such issues.) I'd appreciate it if some editors took a look at the thread and addressed the matter there:
I'm especially concerned about this part of a comment, which, IMHO, would open a Pandora's box for misuse of primary sources:
I can see certain situations which are directly about the research itself, not the subject of the research (in this case aloe vera) where it would be okay, but I'm very uncomfortable about this interpretation. -- Brangifer ( talk) 18:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I have used sfn refs to refer pages of some books and web Pdf articles on
Lower limbs venous ultrasonography. Clicking over pdf short ref I go to the full ref but not with books. I don't understand what is wrong.
Someone has time to help me? Thank you
Doc Elisa
✉
20:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi all. In relation to my experiment on Regional variation in standards of care, could someone help me with the following. I see that there are different WikiProject Medicines depending on the language version you choose in the left sidebar. While supporting the main disease state article (English version), it will take a collective effort from people within respective regions and language domains to support supplying information on the variations of how diseases are viewed and tackled in those respective regions. My question is:
Is there currently a method in place to alert and communicate with other WikiProject Medicine language domains on a collective effort such as this experiment (e.g. a channel for all WikiProject Medicine languages to view and see)?
Thanks. GT67 ( talk) 18:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
On "
Talk:X-rays", I've noticed one to be edited.
It's just a bit of grammar - a single bit; but I was advised to come here and — what?
O'k, it's {{
WPMED}} – the information is
here, and please pipe it up there if you correct that yourself.
Lincoln Josh (
talk)
10:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
We have a new editor with less than 75 edits but with what appears to be a great deal of knowledge regarding the functioning of Wikipedia at this page [7] wanting a further opinion. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment_or_re-assessment if anyone wants to take a stab. Biosthmors ( talk) 19:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi all,
I'm concerned that
Philosophy of Chiropractic is a
POV fork of
Chiropractic. However, when I asked at
Talk:Chiropractic,
DVMt said it had been "approved" by this project. Any suggestions/comments from the good people of WikiProject Medicine?
bobrayner (
talk)
00:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Bob, would this be the same as editor at [9]? -- Qexigator ( talk) 00:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I have gotten into a talk page discussion on Polypill with someone who both acknowledges a CoI and disagrees with my removal of a link to a vendor of these kinds of products, on the grounds that the company's board of advisors includes the two people who originally coined the term. More eyes would be appreciated, I acknowledge that I could be totally wrong on this.
Also, I note that the article is not currently tagged as being under
WP:MED and I wonder if that is deliberate? If it's just an oversight, I will admit I don't actually know how to tag it as such, so help would be appreciated. --
UseTheCommandLine (
talk)
08:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
An unfortunate late-night (for me) disagreement has been settled, but I think the Polypill article still could use substantial work. -- UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 10:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I have had some involvement with AMSA and PharmFree in the past. I recently made some edits on those pages despite this, and I think I was able to keep it NPOV, though I would appreciate some additional eyes. There was some criticism on, iirc, the AMSA page from a blog that i removed as an EL, though I wasnt able to find a RS link to anything similar. That's my main concern, everything else is pretty much updating or copyediting. (I think, please correct me if i'm wrong)
Anyway, more eyes would be appreciated. Given that relatively few people seem to watch/edit these pages, should I edit and then ask for help, or propose on talk page first? -- UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 18:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Looking at my edit history, it seems I've only edited at PharmFree, though the other article probably needs more eyes as well. -- UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 19:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I was talking with Yunshui ( talk · contribs) about Education Program:Marquette University/Neurobiology (Spring 2013) and MEDRS and here are some links to drafts and respective articles (or one redirect target).
I'll see what I can do to make sure things are as encyclopedic as possible. Biosthmors ( talk) 23:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
There is an active discussion of several proposals to define what
WP:MEDRS applies to
here. If a proposal gains consensus it would provide a clear scope of what the guideline applies to, and also clarify where it does not apply. This would require significant community participation. Your input is appreciated. Thanks...
Zad
68
23:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, some weirdness happened over at Bronchitis and the entire article looks like a mess. Someone who has some time may want to take a look and see if they can fix the damage that's been done. Just thought I'd pass that along since I don't have time to attend to it at the moment. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 02:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I have found this project Education Program:Davidson College/Cognitive Psychology (2013 Q1). Many articles are medicine related. Students have to add or develop a section in the article and include 10 references. However only a reduced emphasis has been made on the use of secondary sources, and as of today students have posted some possible sources to be used in the talk pages of the articles and in most cases are primary. I have indicated the problem to the teacher and embassador (yesterday) but it is still too soon to see the effect. Nevertheless more eyes would be a good idea. -- Garrondo ( talk) 14:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
-They've been responsive to feedback as seen by the note at the top of the course page. Smallman12q ( talk) 13:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Podoconiosis has made it to the main page with a picture in the DYK section if anyone wants to make edits while it is so prominently linked. Biosthmors ( talk) 18:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
More eyes needed at water fluoridation. Editor is trying to change scope to include natural fluoridation and making unsourced edits, removing stuff they don't like, etc, etc. Colin° Talk 21:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Having observed that tonsil cancer and tonsillar cancer were redlinks, and noticing that tonsil and oral cancer and palatine tonsil didn't mention the subject in depth, I went to WP:RDS and asked if we had any articles covering cancer originating in the tonsils; they pointed me to oropharyngeal cancer, which is what I wanted. My question — would it be reasonable to create tonsil cancer and tonsillar cancer as redirects to the oropharyngeal cancer article? Nyttend ( talk) 02:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I just ran into the article Injection fraction. To my untrained eye it doesn't look like real medicine. I'd like the opinion of those who have more knowledge than me. Thank you. SchreiberBike ( talk) 01:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Look at editor's UP and Talk too is strange DocElisa ✉ 02:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Davidruben ( talk · contribs) and myself have been trying to work with this editor for ages. Lacking the time I have not tried to verify the content in articles he started. I agree that AFD seems a good place for this walled garden of weird stuff. JFW | T@lk 07:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Another "Bicholin conflict" but in Medicine, and on many articles!!! very troubling as you say DocElisa ✉ 08:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
With the "translation task force project" this kind of issue is really a danger. I think all medical stuff must be verified. It seems a very hard work is it possible? DocElisa ✉ 13:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I have taken a red pen to the obtuse turgid English, removed speculation, statements of what can not be described to a mere "lay" encyclopedia readers, and generally trimmed the article to make some sort of readable paragraphs. I've also removed analogies of buckets (idk), ballistic recoil... Hope this edit is an improvement. That editor with probable coi issue on this topic, previously blocked following repeated warnings and discussion. Such technobabble editing is very hard for other editors to rephrase, and so such distruptive contributions are particularly annoying. David Ruben Talk 22:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Reply from author. Biosthmors ( talk) 19:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikidata is going live. This will affect the WP:Interwiki links to articles in other languages. See meta:Wikidata/Deployment_Questions for more information. The practical point is this: if you see someone removing all the interlanguage links, please check the article, not just the diff, to see whether the links still appear in the usual place (on the left, in "Languages" underneath the Toolbox and Print/Export sections, if you're using the normal skin). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. My name is Lane and I am Wikipedian in Residence at the US-based non-profit organization Consumer Reports. Consumer Reports hired me for no other reason than to promote the development of health articles on Wikipedia, and their specific interest is in sharing information from a health education campaign called "Choosing Wisely". One of the problems I have encountered is explaining to people what Choosing Wisely is and why my organization cares about Wikipedia. Choosing Wisely has a particular health focus, but more broadly, it represents a serious outreach effort on the part of top-level medical organizations to begin promoting the integration of health information into the Wikipedia articlespace. To be transparent about what I am doing I feel that the most natural explanation is my creation of a Wikipedia article on the project on which I am working. To compliment that, I also have a project space at WP:Choosing Wisely.
Consumer Reports and the other participating health organizations care about Wikipedia because Wikipedia is one of the most consulted sources of health information in the world in all places, and it is probably actually the most popular source of health information. I feel that anyone who is serious about providing free health information to the public is obligated to develop Wikipedia articles in their field in a way that is in accord with community guidelines.
The Wikipedia community has extensive policies on WP:conflict of interest editing. I made a Choosing Wisely article as a paid staff member for my organization, so this article would fall under paid editing community regulations. The article is currently at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Choosing Wisely and it is in queue for anyone to review it and make it go live, which I think it deserves because I feel that it meets Wikipedia inclusion criteria. There are not clear community guidelines on how I can propose this article for review, but I posted it to WP:AFC and am posting it here on the WikiProject Medicine board because it is most relevant to this project. Guidelines are clear that I should not make it live myself because I was paid to write it. Further discussion about the article or what it represents could go on the talk page of the article if it were to go live.
I would like for this article and the Choosing Wisely health campaign to be an example for all health organizations that when they conduct educational outreach efforts, they need to consider whether they are sharing the kind of information which people try to get from Wikipedia, and if so, then that organization needs to work with the Wikipedia community to develop practices for doing long-term collaboration to maintain the quality of Wikipedia health articles. I can talk more about this here on this talk page, on my own talk page, in the WP:Choosing Wisely project space, on the Choosing Wisely article talk page if it goes live, or by phone or Skype if you email me your contact details. It is my hope that Choosing Wisely will set a precedent that anyone doing health education of any kind - including all governments, non-profit organizations, hospitals, public health efforts, medical libraries, and anyone else - should recognize the role of Wikipedia in educating the public on basic health topics. Thanks for your attention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
This looks like just another PR campaign - the top Google links are self-published and the rest are the result of a press releases. Clearly Wikipedia is just another link in the self-promotion chain. In short, all I see is a lot of effort at self-promotion and very little indication that this campaign has any notability apart from its promoters. Rklawton ( talk) 15:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Can someone have a look at this article on an "offshore stem cell practitioner". As best I can make out it has been something of a battleground between those who want to promote and those say the subject is a con artist, and the content reads that way. Some expertise with the underlying topic would help.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 13:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hyperia (epilepsy) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperia (epilepsy) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Maralia ( talk) 15:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Your WP:Keep It Simple label, {{ User label WPMedicine}} is in danger of being deleted. See ( Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 6#Template:User_label.) If you still want it, you may wish to move it to project space, perhaps a redirect page Template:Label_WPMedicine or Template:Label_WikiProject_Medicine by placing {{db-move|Template:User label WPMedicine|[[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 6#Template:User_label]]}} above the redirect. Also see {{ user label}} for technical details. Feel free to review my planning page, User:PC-XT/KIS, and talk there if you have questions. PC-XT ( talk) 01:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I have a quick question. If a study has been published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and, shortly thereafter, the same authors publish an update of their findings in a different publication, which study, for Wikipedia, should be given precedence? Example of two studies provided below:
Thanks. FiachraByrne ( talk) 20:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
What's the process for weighing a systematic review which completely disagrees with the majority of literature including Cochrane reviews. Would such a paper be considered an "outlier" as it falls outside of mainstream consensus? DVMt ( talk) 22:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Please consider weighing in on this RFC about whether the United States National Health Care Act (the "single payer" bill, H.R. 676) article should include this polling data or not. Thank you! Neo Poz ( talk) 06:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm Daniela del Río and I'm working on a project at school for my Medical English Class.
Hi Im working on a school project :). Im Rodrigo Rafael Flores Mariñelarena from the Tec CCM.
Holaaaaa :D! I'm Xime!
Hi, I'm a medical student studying in Mexico. I'm doing a project for a medical english class and I'll be using WikiProject Medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nindasofia24601 ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm Israel Collado and I'm working in a Medical Project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Israel Collado ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The assignment is Medical English our teacher is User:Thelmadatter no we doesn't have WP:Course page , but that could be a good idea . See you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorras ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi! My name is Carolina. I'm working on an English Project and I ll be glad to help on the wikiproject of Medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolinapercas ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi! my name is Juan and i'am a student from Mexico sing in here for an English project, if someone could explain me the basic rules of behavoir and what things can i post in here i will be very greatfull :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by JhonnyDuffman ( talk • contribs) 17:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to all of you. If you want to see what a great article looks like, then please look over the ones at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine#Showcase. If you want some basic advice, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/How to edit or the links at {{ MedWelcome-reg}}. Good luck, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Another query I'm afraid. If a therapy has measurable efficacy but is not, in clinical terms, demonstrably more effective than other therapies, what formulation of words might best be used to communicate that in a wikipedian article? I'm think of findings that report, as per the section heading, a therapy that provides a benefit which is statistically significant but not clinically relevant. FiachraByrne ( talk) 12:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)I agree with the point made by WhatamIdoing in that "it doesn't work any better than anything else for chronic low back pain" doesn't mean the same as "it doesn't work at all". This cochrane review concludes that "High quality evidence suggests that there is no clinically relevant difference between SMT and other interventions...in patients with chronic low-back pain." and the plain language summary expands to say: "...spine manipulation appears to be as effective as other common therapies prescribed for chronic low-back pain, such as, exercise therapy, standard medical care or physiotherapy." Similarly, this secondary source concludes that spine manipulation achieves "equivalent or superior improvement in pain and function when compared with other commonly used interventions, such as physical modalities, medication, education, or exercise, for short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up." In fact, most secondary sources conclude that manipulation is 'as effective as other therapies', or that it is just simply 'effective' for back pain; for example [17] [18] [19]. Doc James has presented one source by one author that says spine manipulation is not effective for pain, but IMO this is a fringe view when discussing back pain specifically. The current text at the chiropractic article is "The scientific consensus is that chiropractic may be on a par with other manual therapies for some musculoskeletal conditions such as lower back pain", but the bulk of mainstream sources seem to indicate that manipulation is equally as effective as all other treatments, including standard medical care, for back pain. Puhlaa ( talk) 08:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
What's the process for weighing a systematic review which completely disagrees with the majority of literature including Cochrane reviews. Would such a paper be considered an "outlier" as it falls outside of mainstream consensus? DVMt ( talk) 22:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
you keep mentioning RfC would you be so kind as to provide a link to the RfC Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Represents the minority/outlier viewpoint.
Represents the mainstream, majority viewpoint. Note the interdisciplinary consensus with 39 of 41 authors agreeing with a common , mainstream, majority viewpoint.
Zad
68
18:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
He made one here: Talk:Spinal_manipulation#RfC_Effectiveness_of_SMT_for_LBP — raeky t 00:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)In a recent discussion on this talk page (
#Weird article: Homogenized Milk and Atherosclerosis), it was apparent that other editors gave more credence to four search results on
PubMed than to 8,690 search results on
Google Scholar, implying that PubMed has higher quality as a reference source than does Google Scholar. I have been accustomed to believing that Google Scholar delivers results of high quality, at least in comparison with regular
Google Search results. PubMed is hosted by the United States government. What is the policy of this WikiProject in regard to the relative credibility of these two search options, and on what is that policy based?
—
Wavelength (
talk)
00:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The top red links report in medical content has been regenerated to be more helpful. Feel free to see if redirects or articles are appropriate for the topics listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Red links. Biosthmors ( talk) 21:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Alternapedia describes itself as "the online encyclopedia where researchers, educators and practitioners in naturopathic and other forms of integrative medicine edit and create the encyclopedia entries." I am not suggesting this as a source for Wikipedia articles, but its information might give editors ideas for improving Wikipedia's coverage of some topics.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
21:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Does anybody have a bad case of editcountitis at the moment? A whole bunch of biographies and organizations have been incorrectly rated as "Mid" importance on our tags. I've cleared out almost a hundred, but if someone else wants to take over, then please start at the letter D. Basically all articles about people and organizations are low importance for this project (by which we really mean low priority for us to work on, not exactly "importance") per WP:MEDA.
Fixing this just means going to the talk page of any person- or organization-sounding article and changing the |importance=Mid
to its correct setting, which is |importance=Low
. There are probably a couple hundred to be done, and it only takes a few seconds each.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
01:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
01:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Stem cell educator ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Would appreciate someone with some expertise to take a look at the article and see if my recent edits were appropriate. Thanks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I think is yet a research subject. It will be wonderful if we can educate stem cells, but is just a trial. Doc Elisa ✉ 08:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Red Pen - I don't think your edits are appropriate, you should go back and search for better sources for the content you removed. It is good practice to search for secondary sources to support content currently supported by primary sources, or failing this use the tag {{primary source-inline}} to highlight the need for better sources to a future editor who may perform this search, if you are too busy. Some editors prefer to delete content immediately. In time, editors non familiar with MEDRS will add back the removed material referencing more primary sources and the cycle begins again. The best way to improve an article is to preserve content where ever possible, and substitute less favorable sources with better ones. This is responsible editing. Lesion ( talk) 13:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
see talk:Infant where the title of the article is in question -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 15:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
It seems to have been taken down or moved and their articles were used as sources. see Template:Medcyclopaedia. Feral mage ( talk) 21:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I thought I understood this but apparently not. I want to enter K04.8 [39] this is what I think it should be...{{ICD10||K|04|8|k|04}}. Help? Lesion ( talk) 17:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
{{ICD10|K|04|8|k|04}}
An editor, User:YvelinesFrance, has added the words "Female circumcision" to the infobox of the Female genital mutilation article as the primary title, as well as to the beginning of the lead as the primary title, [40] [41] despite (whether YvelinesFrance knows it or not) the fact that "female genital mutilation" is the WP:COMMONNAME and the WP:COMMON MEDICAL NAME for these procedures. Not to mention that having "Female circumcision" listed as the first name doesn't conform to the title of the article, and the Terminology section mentions that "female genital mutilation" is the more common name for the procedures. Having looked at the current discussions on the article's talk page about the title, it has been mentioned there that the title has been discussed/debated extensively times before...and that the WP:CONSENSUS is to leave the article titled Female genital mutilation. So because of that, and because the topic of the procedures is so sensitive, I feel that more eyes from this project are needed on that article.
Looking at YvelinesFrance's contributions, which show extensive blanking/removal of things he does not like, even when those things are reliably sourced, his conduct is something suited for discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Flyer22 ( talk) 18:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Any of you willing to weigh in on the title of this article? After getting a brain freeze some minutes ago, I decided to check out Wikipedia's article on the subject and was surprised to see it titled Ice-cream headache. I'm not the only one who is surprised by that, considering that the talk page discussions about the title are mostly in support of having the article titled Brian freeze. The latest discussion about the title is Talk:Ice-cream headache#Brain Freeze, where I've already commented. I'm not sure if I ever visited this article before, despite this being a common effect and my having been at Wikipedia for years. Flyer22 ( talk) 06:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I have been working on the History of medicine article and note that for most articles on diseases there is little in the way of history. Historians in recent decades have been using a social history approach that has generated a solid scholarly literature. Unless people object, I propose adding a few (usually one or two) citations in the "Further reading" section to history sources on the specific topic of the article that will be of use to the general reader (say, undergraduates). These resources are hard for beginners to find. This approach is explicitly authorized as Wikipedia policy by WP:Further which states Further reading: "An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of editor-recommended publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. Editors may include brief annotations." Rjensen ( talk) 08:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
16:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I could see adding this to the sub articles that specifically pertain to history of medicine. We could put all sorts of things in the "further reading" section, key primary research papers, recent systematic reviews, textbooks etc but we do not. I would rather people use references to write encyclopedic content. If one finds good refs place it on the talk page if you do not wish to use it yourself. The sections at the end are not places to part sources for others to add to the article. Typically I see this as a section for a couple of books that cover the condition generally (which if they do would also cover the history of the condition). With respect to the history of medicine this is more recent source which has gone through a couple of editions [43] but which amazon does not sell either.
The issue I have encountered is that we get authors, there publisher, or there family adding their book to dozens of articles in this section as a method of promotion. Whenever I see the exact same book adding to more than half a dozen articles IMO their should be consensus. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23432369
From the abstract:
"Nephrology articles on Wikipedia were relatively comprehensive, with 70.5% of ICD-10 codes being represented. The articles were fairly reliable, with 7.1 ± 9.8 (mean ± SD) references per article, of which 59.7 ± 35.0% were substantiated references. Finally, all three readability indices determined that nephrology articles are written at a college level. Wikipedia is a comprehensive and fairly reliable medical resource for nephrology patients that is written at a college reading level. Accessibility of this information for the general public may be improved by hosting it at alternative Wikipedias targeted at a lower reading level, such as the Simple English Wikipedia."
That's quite a variability in substantiated references. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk] #_ 12:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
" That's quite a variability in substantiated references. "
— UseTheCommandLine
The statistical analysis is flawed. "Substantiated references" is a binary, qualitative variable. Each reference either is substantiated, or it is not. Standard distribution can only be applied to continuous variables, not qualitative variables. I suspect that an author dropped the data into a spreadsheet, perhaps assigning "0" for unsubstantiated and "1" for substantiated.
Regarding the references per article, the SD is unusually large compared to the mean. One SD distance lower than the mean is less than zero. The explanation here is that the data is not normally distributed. Indeed this is what I would expect. The data is probably positively skewed. The vast majority of articles have only a few references each, while a handful of well-developed articles (such as featured articles and good articles) have a large number of references each, bringing the mean value (of references per article) much higher than the median.
I have read only the abstract, not the full paper, so I am unable to comment on the use of SEM here. All too often though, I have seen SEM (mis)used to reduce the apparent value of the SD, giving a visually more appealing result than the SD, lending greater credibility to a result, especially to a less discerning reader. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is about a published article discussing Wikipedia and health information. It was even written by user:Jfdwolff, one of our own and the person who founded WikiProject Medicine. Whenever anyone here finds such a paper, please list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Wikipedia and medicine. We should keep a log of these things and that link is the most central place we have yet. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
In the last several days I have found recently registered users doing important additions to treatment of multiple sclerosis, a featured article, (User:Wonglilian), Pathophysiology of multiple sclerosis (user: Desolateflame) and management of Parkinson's disease (User:Przemyslaw.kosinski). Editions are of quite good quality, although have typical mistakes of newcomers including occasional use of primary sources. I have contacted Wonglilian and he is part of an assigment (educational I suppose) which does not seem to be registered. Moreover, I suspect that the other 2 users are also in the same assigment per the type of articles and additions and that there are probably others out of my radar. Has anybody noticed this pattern in other articles? I am going to treat with Wonglilian, but taking into account the extensive additions they are making, it would be great if others contacted the other editors. I see quite a lot of potential but guidance would still be needed.-- Garrondo ( talk) 15:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I regret to say that this article is currently experiencing a flareup of its chronic disease and might benefit from medical attention. Looie496 ( talk) 00:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Category:Medical outbreaks and subcats needs to be renamed to something a bit better. It is a bit like an outbreak of peace! -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 04:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I did a request for Lower limbs venous ultrasonography to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. I would like to improve this article to a class A. Thank you all for your collaboration. Doc Elisa ✉ 09:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Right now, {{ MedTalkheader}} says "We are not able to provide any medical advice; please see your local health professional. Questions about medical subjects in general should be asked at the reference desk." It also says "This page is a place to discuss issues related to Wikipedia's medical articles and related policies..." and then it asks for questions to be placed at the reference desk.
I think these two points should be merged to say "This page is a place to discuss things related to improving Wikipedia's medical content. We do not provide medical advice; please see your local health professional. If you are trying to learn something from a Wikipedia medical article that you think should be there per this and this, feel free to point out that perceived omission below for consideration."
I'll go ahead and make that edit and some others. Biosthmors ( talk) 19:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Wondering if anyone else can comment? There appears to be efforts to remove the conclusion of this systematic review [45] in this edit [46] by User:DVMt Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
All the evidence of efficacy for CAM interventions has been deleted and removed here [47] and again here [48]. All material that was deleted was systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews from 2011-2013. I'm afraid there has been a loss of editorial objectivity. DVMt ( talk) 22:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Coatrack? Biosthmors ( talk) 01:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
It looks to me like there's a whole lot of non- AGFing going on here. Can we maybe nip that in the bud? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk] #_ 01:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
This user is adding lots of books such as master thesis [49] and this 10 page pamphlet [50] which contains no content our article doesn't already as ELs. Thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I am teaching a Medical English class this semester and my students have started working on Wikipedia. We put some photos up on Commons and now are translating articles from en.wiki to es.wiki. You can see what we are up to here User:Thelmadatter#Medical_English_Spring_2013 If any of you are active on es.wiki as well, we can use your help! We may put articles in en.wiki, depending on how things go. Thelmadatter ( talk) 20:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Very curious. The seem the same to me. LCS check ( talk) 16:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Some time ago I added some content to the article Antipsychotic from a primary source. It was from a then fairly recent study by Nancy Andreasen on the impact of antipsychotic dosage on brain volumes over time. There are superior secondary sources that look at this issue but I really don't feel competent at summarising their contents. If another editor or editors competent in this area would consider revising the text to match current research I'd be extremely grateful. You'll find more details - including some relevant secondary sources - at the relevant talk page discussion: Talk:Antipsychotic#Side effects vs structural effects; primary vs secondary sources; unsourced section. Thank you. FiachraByrne ( talk) 22:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
No doubt you'll all be delighted to hear of this requested page move which I've initiated. Relevant talk page discussion can be found here. Apologies in advance. FiachraByrne ( talk) 02:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
G'day everyone, my name's Pete. I'd like to ask for your assistance, if you're a medical professional.
I suffer from severe anomic aphasia and loss of lip motor control. These are the undocumented side-effects of long-term use of dextropropoxyphene and (very recently) Lyrica (as adjunct treatment for chronic neuropathy due to a 30-year-old stabilising thoracic laminectomy, with sufentanyl supplied intrathecally by an implanted programmable pump) . Unfortunately, while I'd like to get these effects documented and investigated, I've run into a brick wall at every turn, and continue to suffer from these effects socially.
My physician and all the specialists I've worked with have laughed it off (gently, they do respect me) or shrugged their shoulders. The manufacturers don't appear to be interested - I've contacted both Pfizer and Eli Lily, and when I get to speak to someone, they refer me back to my physician!
Please understand, I am NOT seeking treatment per se : I'm trying to get an extremely severe and completely repeatable side-effect that's been completely undocumented documented (if that sentence makes sense!). Anomia is apparently of high interest to various investigative neurologists, and the lip control thing is (as far as I can tell) completely unknown as a complication!
So I'm a target, looking for hunters, but I can't be seen. I think that about overs it.
I understand I can't document these issues here, even on the appropriate pages - after all, there's only one (not widely respected enough) referent!
So is anyone able to offer any suggestions here?
As a smalltime editor and contributor here, I sincerely apologise for asking this kind of thing here, but I've run out of alternatives, and you all seem like reasonable, intelligent, good-looking, sophisticated....
Thanks for your understanding, and feel completely free to delete or report this! -pete Cephas Atheos ( talk) 00:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
My thanks to everyone who read or responded. From the documented responses, I can agree with most or all of you - this ain't the place to ask, but having asked, it's almost certainly a side-effect affecting a very small population, and there are some reporting schemes that I was unaware of. I'll investigate those options. My sincere thanks for understanding my position. Now, back to some real work... Cephas Atheos ( talk) 01:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Aoki Mariko phenomenon is based off several Japanese sources. I can't find anything in the English literature. Could someone confirm the terminology/the existence of this in the literature? (Also asked at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Aoki_Mariko_phenomenon). Smallman12q ( talk) 23:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)