![]() | 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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 55 |
After this incident I have truly had enough of this place: [1]
My current GAs olfactory reference syndrome and leukoplakia need closure, unless another editor can be found to complete them. Apologies to LT and Ian Furst who have put effort into the review on Leukoplakia.
For your info, DangerousPanda, I was an experienced editor with over 12,000 edits, mainly to topics around oral medicine and oral pathology, and I was apparently one of the top 10 most active editors on medical pages in '13 ... but hey none of that matters. All that is important is that people like you their daily fix of belittling and bullying people who are trying to do the right thing. And, ofc you get to keep the obnoxious POV-pushing editors so good luck with that. Lesion 09:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes much of Wikipedia sucks and we all unfortunately have to deal with those part from time to time. Yes one needs a very thick skin to edit in certain areas. Remember " Illegitimi non carborundum" and we are here for our readers. Hope you change your mind. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I note with sadness that Lesion hasn't edited since 20 April. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 09:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone point me to a good site for finding dosing recommendations. Specifically, I'm looking for evidence about metro 500 bid v qid, but there's not much in pubmed and I couldn't find a link in the article. Ian Furst ( talk) 13:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Started discussion here [3] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: This article has just been created (not by me, I just noticed it). Perhaps someone at this site would like to check it over. — Anne Delong ( talk) 18:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I think that several people (because you might have some diversity of opinions) here should give their opinions about who is allowed to add citations to Cochrane papers in the discussion at Jimbo's talk page. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
One possible goal is having a Wikipedia article for each medical topic categorized in
wikt:Category:Medicine.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
16:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
ATC code N: Nervous system |
---|
|
ATCvet only |
|
Other ATC codes |
(Hover over links to see titles) |
So, I started
editing (mass-deleting text, sparing what I could, or replacing bad refs with reviews) this article... it was more or less a paragon of what MEDRS says not to do. IMO, it's now it's decent above
Nootropic#Miscellaneous, mixed good/bad in
Nootropic#Miscellaneous†, and abhorrently bad in every section below it. There's still a fair amount of redundancy that has yet to be deleted as well.
Given that this article is still somewhat of a
WP:MED/
WP:PHARM travesty, anyone want to lend me a hand? ;)
†Some have decent review refs. For the ones that don't, I thought I might be able to adequately ref them over the next week or so.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢ |
Maintained)
03:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Additional problem: the page's nav template - {{ Antihyperkinetics}} - more or less suggests that everything on there that isn't a psychostimulant (excluding clonidine/guanfacine which are nonstimulant ADHD drugs) has a cognition-enhancing drug effect. Based upon the template heading, it should just reflect the much smaller group of N06B ATC-coded drugs. Currently:155 drugs - should only have 36 listed.
Fixed the template above
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢ |
Maintained)
I just noticed that {{
nootropics}} is completely off as well...
ATC code N06 is the "Psychoanaleptics" group - we're calling it "Nootropics." The template doesn't look at all like the ATC classification for N06.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢ |
Maintained)
06:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject CRUK (involving
Cancer Research UK) is listed at
Wikipedia:Database reports/New WikiProjects.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
15:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
While doubtless a great source for many things, perhaps not meeting MEDRS?
List of 1560 links to the site, many not from medical articles of course. I'd make a medical articles only list if I were allowed.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 16:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC).
Hello! Medical students of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai are organizing a Wikipedia club. I have already met with some of them and will be joining their first editathon next week, scheduled for 14 May. Anthonyhcole, we were just talking about more transparency between the education program and WikiProject Medicine. This could be a pilot case for setting a precedent, and I could make an effort to do whatever we want to be our standard procedures.
Something unusual about this case is that these are students, but this is an extracurricular project organized by a group of classmates who want to learn Wikipedia for themselves and not as part of a class assignment. I still suggested to them that because they want to look at each others' work that using the education program course page would be right for them. Also, it is my understanding that when someone posts to the talk page of the course page, the entire class is notified of the message.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Additional eyes needed. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello - The amyloidosis article is a bit of a mess right now. The article confuses the generic term amyoidosis with the various different specific types of amyloidoses. It seems to me that this article should be describing the category of diseases that encompass the amyloidoses and that specific information about the various types (light chain amyloidosis or AA amyloidosis or whatever) should be contained in their own articles. I'm not really sure about how to go about doing this....would appreciate any help. Wawot1 ( talk) 16:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Bold rewrite done. A looking over would be appreciated. A source I don't have access to was removed, if important someone with access could add content and restore ref (see talk). Thanks.
PS considering doing some work on Septic shock guidance welcome. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 02:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
The article Biochemic tissue salt is a total MEDRS fail, needs some serious work. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 06:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Pelvic pain ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
One would have thought from the title this is a legitimate topic (though - is it? or is pelvic pain just an incidental consequence of other things). Anyway - this is one weird article. Salvageable? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 15:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I've received permission from Kelly Martin to post her comment in another forum here:
"I do occasionally look at Wikipedia after I finish doing my research, just to see what is there. In the case of Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor, the article materially misstates the survivability rates by lumping together several different categories of tumor with very distinct presentations and characteristics. Articles written professionally for laypeople honestly state that survivability is highly variable and difficult to predict due to the very low incidence of this class of tumors. Articles written professionally for practitioners give much more specific information, identifying factors (e.g. tumor size, tumor location, whether the tumor is rhabdomyoblastomatous) that allow the practitioner to reasonably advise their patients and their families as to the likely prognosis. The Wikipedia article mentions that rhabdomyoblastomatous tumors have a different name, but does not note that this is the single most significant factor in predicting survivability. In addition, the Wikipedia article is inconsistent with generally accepted practice guidelines, as published in 2012, which reflects the fact that all but one of the sources to the Wikipedia article are at least seven years old. (No excuse, though; they're also inconsistent with this well-balanced article for practitioners, from 2006.) The article's statements about the use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy are inconsistent with current best practice; recent clinical evidence has indicated that chemotherapy is problematic in patients with neurofibromatosis as chemotherapy agents may exacerbate existing benign neurofibromas (a critical fact that the article only hints at).
"I'm seriously glad I read the NIH material before I read this article; I would have been far less sanguine for the chances of my son living to see his next birthday had I read the Wikipedia article first. And I am even more glad that my son's doctors don't rely on Wikipedia for medical advice."
This is beyond me. Anyone? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Graduate students on the Mechanisms of Disease course at Roosevelt University have been editing Wikipedia in April to create and expand articles for diseases that are currently undocumented or under-documented on Wikipedia. See the Education Noticeboard here. They seem to be doing good work. For example, they turned the article on Renal vein thrombosis from this sorry state to this and created the article Otodental syndrome.
There are four drafts for completely new articles pending review at Articles for Creation. I am inclined to move them into article space, but would like this project's advice first.
Draft:Floating-Harbor syndrome (also known as Pelletier-Leisti syndrome)
Draft:Adult-onset immunodeficiency syndrome
Draft:Diabetes Mellitus Type 3. This one was declined by a reviewer solely on the basis that Diabetes mellitus already exists. However, Diabetes mellitus type 1 and Diabetes mellitus type 2 exist as separate articles.
Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 12:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Would members of this taskforce be amenable to adding to task force page:
- Scope
This task force covers pages relating to neurological disease and symptoms. It does not cover pages relating to peripheral or central neuroanatomy ( WP:ANATOMY, WP:NEUROSCIENCE) or physiology ( WP:PHYSIOLOGY).
Reasons:
I'm not advocating anything other than ensuring this task force focuses around disease and symptoms rather than being constantly tagged with all manner of neuro articles that are already well tended to at the active WP:NEUROSCIENCE, and to reduce the wasted efforts of future editors. I have posted this on the talk page for the neuro taskforce but closed that thread to centralise discussion. Thoughts? -- LT910001 ( talk) 23:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! Elephantiasis was recently made into a disambiguation page, and we are in dire need of medical expert help to fix about 70 incoming links from various articles. Please help if you can, thanks. bd2412 T 01:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Some are held in much higher regard than others. Is there a shortcut for readers outside the specialty to tell which are the most widely used and relied upon textbooks? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 05:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe there would be some point in creating a list of widely used medical books here, for reference purposes? Or a list of books that we find are exceptionally good?
CFCF (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
14:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, http://www.worldcat.org/, tells me what I want, I think. Thank you, Stuart. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Autism Research Institute ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tons of biomedical information with no MEDRS. Edit warring. I have worked up the references that are there and applied appropriate tags, made a detailed explanation on talk page, AN3RR report. A new editor has made a poorly formed (it doesn't even point to the article) Dispute Resolution Noticeboard filing, then proceeded to make multiple reverts without waiting for any input or doing any consensus building. This group continues to push the vaccine autism connection and has a laundry list of beyond questionable treatments including chelation for autism. For a little background on their current director see this QuackWatch article. See this publication from the organization for their ideas of biomedical treatments and research. Some quality project medicine input would be valuable. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 08:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm getting to the point where I hesitate to look up medical information on Wikipedia because nearly all the articles are too technical and seem geared to medical professionals and students rather than the average Wikipedia user. Is this the kind of thing that can be reviewed and changed by some kind of Wikipedia board or science group? Thank you very much. Rissa, copy editor 01:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at WIkimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk)
16:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if we should list specific things we are working on and looking for help with? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
"We aim for a future in which all health information on Wikipedia is accurate in every language version and backed by authoritative sources. Participants from all backgrounds are invited to join us in developing this general health reference. Globally, it is already the most-used source of health information citation needed which, for the first time in history, anyone can read. Doctors cannot be replaced, but everyone has a right to learn enough to make their own informed health choices and ask their doctor questions."
I'm not sure about the last sentence (too patient-directed?) and looking for a reference for the cn bit. Wiki CRUK John ( talk) 14:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
"We aim for a future in which all health information on Wikipedia is accurate in every language version and backed by authoritative sources. Participants from all backgrounds are invited to join us in developing this general health reference. Globally, it is already one of the most-used sources of freely available health information. Professional medical advice cannot be replaced, but everyone has a right to learn enough to make their own informed health choices and ask their advisors questions." Wiki CRUK John ( talk) 13:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
There are some serious issues with this paper:
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
One could easily interpret the results that Wikipedia is the gold standard and UptoDate has many errors (and the conclusion would be equally valid).
Ian Furst ( talk) 19:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Have requested further details from the author. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
It's interesting to compare that paper to "Quality of information sources about mental disorders: a comparison of Wikipedia with centrally controlled web and printed sources" ( PMID 22166182). That paper found Wikipedia was the most accurate among 10 sources examined in each of two subject areas. The other sources included everything from Britannica to WebMD, the NIMH website, Mayo Clinic, even a major psychiatry textbook. The authors of that study didn't even seem surprised by the results, writing "These findings largely parallel those of other recent studies of the quality of health information on Wikipedia", and citing eight other studies. Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 04:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
← I don't doubt that we need to improve the accuracy of our medical articles, but I agree with James that this particular study is utterly meaningless and isn't worth the electrons it's printed on. Since "post-publication peer review" (aka "publish crappy studies and let the bloggers sort it out") is all the rage these days, here's mine:
I'm actually considering whether to write to the corresponding author and ask for a copy of the raw dataset. Partly because I'm intrigued, partly because I want to calculate an actual kappa statistic to confirm my impression of the lack of inter-observer agreement, and partly because I'd like to see if there are, in fact, significant errors in our coverage which need to be corrected. MastCell Talk 20:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Could you write a brief summary review for the upcoming Wikimedia Research Newsletter at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-04-30/Recent research? I think this paper is still not covered there. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
TenOfAllTrades FYI the definitions of similar and disimilar are located in Table2, but it doesn't help. Similar assertions are defined as an "implication or statement of fact found by both". But in table3, the number of similar assertions for each reviewer of a given article are never equal! Here's my review,
Choice of articles: The authors claimed to use the “corresponding articles” to The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s top 10 list of costliest diseases. However, several have not been used. For the disease “cancer”, Lung cancer was selected despite Wikipedia having an article called Cancer. For “heart disease”, coronary artery disease was used, despite the redirect going to cardiovascular disease. In some cases, there where GA or FA articles available when a lower rated article was used (e.g. “back pain” used instead of lower back pain for “back problems”). For “trauma”, the article concussion was used. In short, I don’t believe the selection of Wikipedia articles was as objective as the authors would lead the reader to believe. Significant selection bias may exist.
Choice of observers: Ten observers were either “internal medicine residents or rotating interns”. The distribution of articles to observers reads like a grade 8 math problem, ‘If ten articles are given to 10 observers, and each is asked to read 2 articles, how many times is each article read’. The result is a serious lack of consistency in the manner in which the observations and gold standard was applied.
Observations: Regardless of who made the observations, the application of a gold standard has horrible observational bias. Because the same person made the observation and determined the gold standard, there is a high probability that observational bias occurred. In other words, knowing that the article came from Wikipedia, the observer is likely to interpret it with a cognitive bias (depending on whether they believe Wikipedia to be accurate or not).
A gold standard: The gold standard is, in short, ridiculous. At the very least a gold standard should be consistent. E.g. what is the “truth”. In this case, the various observers were allowed to use almost anything in the world’s literature to determine “truth”. Wikipedia’s standards are far higher than this (secondary source rules). Given that the gold standard was inconsistent and inconsistently applied it was not a gold standard. Therefore, any comparison made to it is pointless.
Table 3: Is very misleading. They label Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2, where there were actually 10 reviewers. They also label similar assertions (e.g. both reviewers believed a statement in the Wikiarticle to be an assertion) and dissimilar assertions (e.g. only one or the other found a statement to be an assertion; see Table 2 for definitions) but the numbers don’t add up. One would expect the number of similar assertions should, by definition, be the same for reviewer 1 and 2 for any given article. They’re not. The interobserver variation is made obvious in this table. For “Major depressive disorder” Reviewer 1 found 72 assertions and Reviewer 2 found 172! Additionally, the number of “dissimilar” assertions (e.g. only one or the other found the statement) represents major portions of the total assertion pool. This means that a single person determined a unique gold standard to a major minority of the assertions in any article.
Stats: Someone with more knowledge could look at this, but I think the appropriate test is a chi-square (proportion of assertions that are similar) but I’m not sure.
The more I read this article the more I want to pull my hair out. The study design is, imo, horrible. Ian Furst ( talk) 19:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The author has not replied to my email. Not really surprising. Yes there is a lot of poor quality peer review literature that disagrees with our Wikipedia articles. That literature also disagrees with the best available literature. There is also a lot of old literature which disagrees with the newer literature. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
In this table it unclear how they are calculating their p values. http://www.jaoa.org/content/114/5/368/T3.expansion.html For depression one concluded that their was 72 statements of fact. The other concluded there was 172 statements of fact. No idea how they could have agreed with each other 93 times and disagreed with each other 79 times? Anyone have any idea what they are getting at here? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Jinkinson, when this article was posted, my first thought was that the process we use to improve Wikipedia articles might be flawed. I consider what they did analogous to a new diagnostic test. In other words, to determine whether or not an article is "good", have two reviewers compare it to peer reviewed literature with the current method being to put it through consensus and the GA process. So, I applied the same standards that I would when reading an article about any other diagnostic test to their methods. What I found, was that the scientific rigor of this article was extremely poor imo. Far from excluding it because it was inconvenient (as scientists, I think we all enjoy those "inconvenient" moments that lead to something greater), I do not value it's conclusions because I believe the methods are deeply flawed. Ian Furst ( talk) 19:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
" So what it seems like to me is that when Wikipedia is found to be in conflict with peer-reviewed studies, you try to dismiss the peer-reviewed studies as flawed simply because they are inconvenient for your constant pushing of the "Wikipedia-is-awesome" line. "
If anyone wishes to start Draft:The WikiProject Medicine discussion about that Osteopathic article then I will be right behind with other sources as I find them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
If the goal is to evaluated hundreds of articles, ideally, we would have a test that is easily done (or better yet automated) that can give us a “probability of goodness” with respect to the reliability of a medicine article. That way, the entire project is constantly monitored and poor articles improved. To create that, we need a gold standard and a test that can be validated. That way, the “test” itself doesn’t need to be labour intensive, just validated. I suspect there is some magical algorithm that measures frequency of updates, number and age of references and page views that when put together is proportional to the “goodness” of an article. Maybe the first step is to take some FA articles and compare the stats to some C-class articles and come up with some ideas about what might be used as the test? From there, we can come up with a gold standard to calculate the accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of the test Ian Furst ( talk) 01:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I haven't made myself clear. Sorry. I'm talking about painstaking review by highly-regarded experts in the relevant fields - an average of three different reviewers per article I would expect, in order to cover well all the sub-disciplines in each article. Yes, it will be expensive. (I'll be out of touch for a few hours.) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 02:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
This is a major turning point. Major. Thank you. That little icon is so cute. (Couldn't it be 4 times bigger?) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 07:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
It appears that emedicine has changed all of their urls without leaving redirect. We link to emedicine in most of our disease boxes.
Is it time we get a bot to change these links to something different? I am proposing we change all the links to patient.co.uk
Patient.co.uk lists everything on one page. Uses inline refs like us and doesn't have advertising. User:Boghog or User:Zad68? Could you do this? Emedicine also supposedly adjusts their content to appease advertisers. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
They actually changed their url structure way back and have now disabled the old redirects. Most of our links were added before the url change. Newer links that use 'article' as the specialty parameter still work (e.g. in autonomic dysreflexia). I don't think it is easily possible to let a bot change all the links, as the old and new article numbers did not seem to be related in any way. Also they have merged many articles, multiple old links would lead to the same article. The best short term option is probably to disable the infobox parameter. Furthermore, as we are going to do something about this, I would suggest moving the emedicine links to the external links section of the articles which seems a more proper place for them. -- WS ( talk) 16:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, medical experts. This AfC submission has a lot of primary sources, but there are some others as well. Are these suitable? If so, the primary ones can always be changed into a publication list. — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sigma Anti-Bonding Calcium Carbonate (SAC) - My gut says this looks like snake oil but I'm no expert - high school chemistry and physiology, almost 30 years ago, is as far as my education went in relevant fields. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 13:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Spamish. Should not have its own article. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if anyone else saw this, but Doc James just reached 100,000 edits. Thank you James. Ian Furst ( talk) 14:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible that someone has a look at Hereditary gingival fibromatosis. The article has 12 links to disambiguation pages that needs fixing. The author seems to be inactive for the moment. The subject is far out of my field of knowledge, so I keep my hands off it. Every bit of help is appreciated. The Banner talk 16:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
The Bannerdab fixed. the references are a mess, with the entire text of each repeated. I've cleaned up the first one but will have to do the others later. Ian Furst ( talk) 17:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, I've listed the Gynecomastia and Plantar fasciitis articles for peer review. Any constructive advice is welcomed. Just putting it out there if anyone is interested in reviewing some high importance articles that I think are approaching GA. Someone who hasn't worked on the articles a good amount would be preferable so new eyes are looking over the articles. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 22:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Is the Elsevier "Medicine" journal highly read? A standard source in the UK? Due to the title, it's incredibly difficult to source info in this AfC Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Medicine (journal). I can't tell whether it meets the journal notability standards, and all the info that's easy to turn up on it is in Elsevier sources. Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 08:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Just thinking it'd be good to buff this to Featured Article status. It was made a Good Article late last year but I think can be improved in its flow and comprehensiveness. I'd welcome some comments on the talk page. I did think about setting up a formal Peer Review but I am reluctant to split up the discussion for the time being as I feel there is a momentum there. All input welcomed. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, everyone, I've had Iatrogenesis on my watchlist for a while, and I can tell that it is imbalanced and very poorly sourced, but I don't personally know better sources to nudge it toward neutral point of view and more reliable sourcing. So I'll mention to all of you here that like most of the other articles on medical topics here, the Iatrogenesis article badly needs work. This one is used a lot as a "reference" in off-wiki advocacy, so maybe it deserves higher-priority attention from those of you who can help fix it. I will keep the article on my watchlist to make sure that the editing environment is constructive and aimed at fixing the article according to Wikipedia policy and sound sourcing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 13:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new to this so tell me where to go if this is the wrong place to put this. I've been doing a bit of reading on Epithelial-mesenchymal transition in cancer metastasis on WP as well as in a couple of journals. I came across this article [5] in the journal of cancer which doesn't conflict with but puts forward a very strong case for a different interpretation of current data. It's a trusted source and a fairly recent article so there's little else I could find on the same line. Personally I think it needs at least some mention on the EMT page and possibly others. The problem is I don't know if this is enough material to warrant mention and I could never do a good job of editing the page if it did. Moreover, the current Epithelial-mesenchymal transition theory in metastasis has been around so long it seems to be taken as fact on the page when this isn't necessarily true. Any help would be appreciated Edward.ward92 ( talk) 17:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Chunk5Darth ( talk · contribs · count) has been repeatedly adding the text " Dextromethamphetamine is the potent form in terms of dopamine-stimulation, although both forms are neurotoxic. [1]" to the Breaking Bad article. In spite of the controversial medical claim being made, is there anyone here that thinks this statement shouldn't require WP:MEDRS? Also, does anyone think that Livestrong is an even remotely satisfactory medical source? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
References
An editor has made very bold, large changes to this article, removing reviews, adding primary studies/editorials about rat brains, and removing any material that provides any positive information about the safety or efficacy of ADHD medications. The article was a MEDRS disaster area before, but I'm afraid it is getting worse now. More eyes and comments on the talk page would be welcome. Yobol ( talk) 19:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello cool wiki people,
We are medical students at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and we have just started a club for editing medical related pages on Wikipedia. Most of us are first years, and we are currently suffering through finals... But we still think wikiproject medicine is cool!
We welcome you to come and check out the pages we edit, and give us feedback and encouragements. We would greatly appreciate your support!
Thanks!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruirui511 ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello to all at the Medicine Project. I made a copy edit of this page a while ago. More recently a fellow editor made a very thorough expansion of the section scientific debate. (It falls in the realm of psychology and MRI studies). Our joint enquiry to you, now, is whether or not you think the section should be re-written in a more encyclopaedic style. I think it carefully could be to the advantage of the article. I feel that my good wiki-colleague, David A, places importance on presenting the detail of the studies, such as their methodology and I respect his conviction. If you have a spare moment, might you take a look and give us some guidance? Regards, Myrtle G Myrtlegroggins ( talk) 09:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
An edit-a-thon on Neuroscience will take place on Saturday, 7 June 2014 from 10:30 to 13:30, see the event page. The form of the event will different from our previous events aimed at scientists, and those with an interest in science, who wanted to learn about editing Wikipedia. This time there will be smaller groups of scientists and experienced Wikipedians who will work together to improve articles. So there will not be the usual workshop-style training, though the scientists attending will certainly come to understand Wikipedia editing processes. We also welcome online participants, and suggestions of important articles in a poor state. Wiki at Royal Society John ( talk) 18:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Please see Atherogenic Diabetic Dyslipidemia and NGR-hTNF (antitumor recombinant protein). The first article probably needs additional citations, and latter article appears unduly promotional of the company MolMed (which also needs review), especially with excessive citations of press releases. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 21:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I put a "citation needed" notice on the Dysbiosis article recently. In truth I do not know whether the statement I marked (the first sentence in the article) is valid information lacking a source OR whether it is "fantasy information" for which no reliable source exists.
It is a specialized subject. I cannot fix this myself as I would not know how to find a reliable source in the field.
I'm raising my concern here as I suspect the article does not get much attention from editors and that the "citation needed" notice could linger for a long time unnoticed and unattended to.
To be specific, I wonder if "dybiosis" is a diagnosible medical condition or just a concept. The first sentence seems to try to define dysbiosis in general terms. After the first sentence, the article is about dysbiosis in specific body areas, not dysbiosis in general. I get the feeling that wool is being pulled over my eyes with this approach.
I would much appreciate your attention to this concern. CBHA ( talk) 21:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Are there any DOs, DPTs, DCs or physiatrists here willing to comment on manual therapy interventions for MSK conditions? Regards, DVMt ( talk) 23:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
A good start when dealing with controversial topics is for everyone to use high quality secondary sources per WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
DVMt, I’ve reread the paper. The main point of the paper was to identify what percentage of chiropractors have “unorthodox” views because it has been shown to hamper interprofessional relations (specifically with orthopaedic surgeons). Unorthodox was defined as a belief that subluxation is “an obstruction to human health”. They also asked about anti-vaccine and excessive radiograph use because those are also major concerns for interprofessional relations (all this is from the paper – not speculation). 18.8% believed in subluxation as “an obstruction to human health” and there was a strong correlation between this belief, the overuse of radiographs and anti-vaccine beliefs (see regression analysis Table 2). It was speculation that the number who believed in 1 of the 3 opinions would be greater than 18.8% but that’s only because the data was not in the paper. We can email the author if the paper is going to be included. However, I am still amazed at the high percentage of chiropractors that hold these beliefs. Ian Furst ( talk) 20:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
At
Talk:Low_back_pain#Manual_therapy_and_acupuncture_for_LBP, editor
DVMt is suggesting that every article published in a medical organization's journal is endorsed by the medical organization. For example, DVMt is suggesting that a statement in an article published in JAMA carries the full force of recommendation by the AMA.
Yobol pointed out, there is this statement, written in every single journal of JAMA, which reads, "All articles published, including editorials, letters, and book reviews, represent the opinions of the authors and do not reflect the policy of the American Medical Association, the Editorial Board, or the institution with which the author is affiliated, unless this is clearly specified."
Input please?
Zad
68
20:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Could somebody take a look at polychlorinated biphenyl (both the lead section, and the "Cancer link" section) and how its possible connection with non-Hodgkin lymphoma is covered?
This is a followup to my recent request; @ WhatamIdoing: responded to that, and after doing independent research, rewrote the relevant section on the NHL article: non-Hodgkin lymphoma#Causes. That effort satisfies my concerns about the NHL article, but the PCB article still covers the relevant science in a way that is misleading.
As I mentioned before, I am connected to a lawsuit that involves this issue, and I have been advised to avoid making substantial changes to the articles myself. I hope this is a straightforward enough request, that somebody with relevant expertise can make some much needed changes to the article. Please let me know if you have questions or comments. - Kdelay13 ( talk) 05:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Those of you working in medicine may be interested in
ORCID. ORCID is an open system of identifiers for people - particularly researchers and the authors of academic papers; but also contributors to other works, not least Wikipedia editors. ORCIDs are a bit like ISBNs for books or DOIs for papers. You can register for one, free, at
http://orcid.org As well as including your ORCID in any works to which you contribute, you can include it in your user page using {{
Authority control}} thus: {{Authority control|ORCID=0000-0001-5882-6823}}
(that template can also include other identifies, such as VIAF and LCCN - there's an example on my user page). ORCID identifiers can also be added to biographical articles, either directly or via Wikidata.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
12:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: Is this old AfC submission about a notable topic, or should it be deleted as a stale draft? — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
After hearing about this paper, I looked at the WP articles Inuit diet and Atkins diet and I was struck by the number of health claims made without MEDRS sourcing. Neither is tagged for this project, though Nutrition is. Do we need to do a scan of all the diet articles? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: Here's one more of those old Afc submissions soon to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this information covered somewhere in another article, and if not, is this a notable topic that should be kept and improved? — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Here's the rough draft of the video for new editors. Thought I'd share before working on the more technical stuff. Ian Furst ( talk) 22:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Have added content per here [ [11]]. Further opinions requested. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
New article, which appears to be a mash of dubious sources ( Max Gerson as a MEDRS?) promoting yet another form of alt med. Might be a neologism. May need to be taken to AFD, is there anything worth salvaging? Yobol ( talk) 00:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia for everybody but many, if not most, of the medical entries read like they are journal articles or textbooks. They are way too technical for the vast majority of Wikipedia users.
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
"Scientific journals and research papers. A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead (and also maybe the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text.
"Academic language. Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible."
For example, this is from the entry under Myocardial perfusion imaging
"Interestingly, the concern over radiation hazard has undermined the risk associated with the allergic potential of radiocontrast (dyes) used in CT angiography and coronary angiography. In myocardial perfusion imaging, radioisotopes are used in nanomole quantities, practically devoid of any risk of allergy with normal saline being used as the vehicle and no known adverse reaction to the chemical molecules (sestamibi or tetrofosmine)."
This article wasn't written for the average Wikipedia user, it was written for medical professionals. Plus, it is missing numerous citations and links that might make it easier to understand.
I used to come here whenever I had a medical or health-related question but many times the articles are so full of jargon as to make them incomprehensible to anyone not possessing a degree in medicine or nursing. I often get the feeling that the people who are writing these entries believe their target audience is their peers.
I don't oppose Wikipedia supplying a special place where medical professionals and students can engage in ideas and discussion (a blog?) but where are the articles written for the average user?
I think this issue needs careful examination and discussion, and a wholesale rewriting of the entries that are too complex for most people. Thank you.
Rissa, copy editor 23:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Here's a request at the Help Desk that relates to a medical article. — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: The information in this old draft supposedly was copied from Antigen-presenting cell#APCs and Atherosclerosis and then returned, but I don't see this information in the second article. If it's not there, should the draft be made into an article instead? If not, it will soon be deleted as stale. — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello all, if anyone would be interested in reviewing plantar fasciitis for GA, I would be very grateful. Regarding the review, I ask only two things and I think both are reasonable. The first is to offer only constructive advice to help improve the article and the second is that if improvements need to be made to achieve GA status, please put it on hold and I will make those corrections in a timely manner. It saves everyone time instead of having to do it all over again. Thanks :) TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 17:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I have opened a thread at WP:ANATOMY regarding whether we should be calling these structures by their eponymous names (Wolffian, Mullerian) or as the mesonephric/paramesonephric ducts. I invite other users to comment, and the discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy#Mesonephric_duct_.2F_Wolffian_duct. Kindly, -- LT910001 ( talk) 11:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, do consider joining the discussion. LT910001 alerted WP:MED to this discussion at my suggestion. I suggested it because these topics also concern the medical field and therefore Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Article titles, and because WP:MED has a lot more participants than WP:Anatomy and is significantly more active as a WikiProject than WP:Anatomy. Flyer22 ( talk) 12:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Editors are invited to comment at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability#Developing a style guide (version of
14:35, 21 May 2014).
—
Wavelength (
talk)
14:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I just made Clinical trials on glucosamine and chondroitin. I created this entirely by cutting and pasting information about clinical trials on osteoarthritis from the articles on glucosamine and chondroitin.
In some fields of medicine Wikipedia tends to collect reports and critiques of medical research. The German acupuncture trials was one instance of this happening, and this is similar.
I posted on the talk page of that article why I did this. I am informing this board of what I have done because a lot of the information which I posted to that article is like a bad literature review by a non-scientist, and yet I thought it would be better to keep the content in its own article than argue for its removal. Now that it is in that space, at least people can develop the content in one place rather than try to integrate it into the Wikipedia articles for glucoasamine, chondroitin, or conditions like osteoarthritis. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The commitment to reliable health and medical information on the internet img HON was founded to encourage the dissemination of quality health information for patients and professionals and the general public, and to facilitate access to the latest and most relevant medical data through the use of the internet.
http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Conduct.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.237.229 ( talk) 23:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Wikidata is a Wikimedia project which provides a database back end for other Wikimedia projects. It currently only manages interwiki links between various language versions of Wikipedia, but when it is more developed, it will do all kinds of things.
On the Gender Gap mailing list there is discussion about new Wikidata games which are live now. Players get asked questions which help sort Wikidata entries, and which soon will be integrated into Wikipedia articles.
I encourage anyone here who wants to see a Wikidata application to check this one out, and also to begin thinking about how we can use any similar system to sort our 20,000+ health articles in some way.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
See the archived emedicine discussion. The links to emedicine were removed. The question now is, should we add new links to patient.co.uk? Is anyone already planning or working on doing this? Klortho ( talk) 15:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Super-spreader is a person who spreads a lot of disease. There is controversy at that article which has gotten more than the average amount of attention, but I thought I would share here.
A professor blogged that her student was trying to improve the article but the edits were reverted. The professor makes some serious accusations of hostility against WikiProject Medicine member Malke 2010 who reverted the student Dballouz, including exercising their seniority and personal gender bias. Based on what I see in the article's history for April 2014, it seems that Malke 2010 reviewed the students' edits piecewise and gave what by community standards is the usual sort of criticism of why those pieces were reverted. The student and Malke talked on the article's talk page, but the discussion did not go far.
I am not at this time going to comment on how the Wikipedia platform's inherent gender bias harmed this new user's experience other than to say that the claim should be taken seriously. A problem more concerning to me is that there was some failing which resulted in the student's contribution history showing that this student did not feel comfortable addressing their problems on Wikipedia. I regret that Wikipedia did not seem welcoming enough for this student or the professor to respond on-wiki. It would be my wish that when any user's content is reverted and they are given an explanation why it was reverted then in those circumstances they would realize that they can respond to the criticism on-wiki without escalating the issue to the Wikimedia Foundation's senior staff, and it seems by the posting on the Gender Gap mailing list that this happened. As this case exemplifies a problem affecting the education program and medical content, I am posting on those boards. I thought you all should know.
It would be my wish that everyone involved in this understand that the Wikipedia community supports them and that problems here are the failing of Wikipedia as a communication platform, and not because of failings of individuals who intend to improve Wikipedia and participate in the community. Malke especially is being harshly criticized and I do not want this person to have a bad experience. It is not immediately obvious to me that Malke did anything out of the ordinary or against Wikipedia community standards, and even if something is wrong, I do not like seeing a good contributor treated badly on-wiki and off by people who feel empowered to deliver punishment and shame. Even when something goes wrong Wikipedia is supposed to be a supportive place. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
it would be pretty simple to make a quick video tutorial for people who are going edit on medicine project articles. make the length 4min or so with the essentials of editing medicine. exclude most of the technical stuff (which can be learned elsewhere) but go over why we do what we do. Ian Furst ( talk) 17:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
We could have it automatically applied to everyone who edits a medical article with a red link for a talk page? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Editors are invited to examine "
Draft:Potential complications of tooth extraction".
—
Wavelength (
talk)
21:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Editors are invited to examine "
Draft:Tooth staining".
—
Wavelength (
talk)
21:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I've just tagged diabetes and testosterone to be merged into androgen replacement therapy. Both are problematic, apparently with some real-world drama going on around lawyers, Lancet, NEJM, a large study group, and claims that a paper reporting adverse effects was defective. Additional eyes would be helpful, particularly if they grok endocrinology. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place on the title of this article at Talk:Melancholia#Requested_move. All input welcome. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 11:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Could someone with maybe ten or fifteen minutes on hand please go to this section: Polychlorinated biphenyl#Cancer link and strip out anything that seems to be supported (or, ideally, supportable) only by primary sources? I'm not exactly worried about lower-quality sources (like the Mayo Clinic website: technically, that's a secondary source); I'm currently only concerned about the long strings of primary sources.
There are two inexperienced editors watching this section related to a court case about whether PCBs cause cancer, so I'd like to have this done by someone who is not connected to the court case and has not been involved in the discussions so far, but who does know what MEDRS says about secondary sources. I think that doing this would make it easier to figure out what to put in, even if stripping out the bad stuff means that we end up with an entirely blank section for now (although that's not necessarily going to be the result). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Would members of this taskforce be amenable to adding to neurology task force page:
- Scope
This task force covers pages relating to neurological disease and symptoms. It does not cover pages relating to peripheral or central neuroanatomy ( WP:ANATOMY, WP:NEUROSCIENCE) or physiology ( WP:PHYSIOLOGY, WP:NEUROSCIENCE).
Reasons:
This task force, like WPMED already does, should keep a tight focus, and neuro articles are already well-tended at the active WP:NEUROSCIENCE. I suggest this change to reduce the fruitless workload of well-intentioned future editors. I have posted this on the talk page for the neuro taskforce but closed that thread to centralise discussion. I have also reinstated this thread after it was automatically bot-archived shortly after I posted. Thoughts? -- LT910001 ( talk) 04:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this should be merged with any of the other reflex articles, such as Withdrawal reflex... Draft:Cutaneous reflex in human locomotion. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 16:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I have opened a conversation on WT:MEDRS about the reliability of journals not indexed in MEDLINE – Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)##MEDLINE versus other databases. If you have a moment, I would certainly welcome your input. Thank you, NW ( Talk) 14:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
FYI, The usage of Dr. Oz ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Mehmet Oz -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 15:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Where does this stuff come from? LeadSongDog come howl! 06:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: Here's yet another of those old drafts. Is this a notable publication? — Anne Delong ( talk) 23:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Is under discussion. Others thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
User appears to be repeatedly added content not supported by the refs they are using. Further opinions needed. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The "cite" button in the editing panel has disappeared. I particularly miss the autofill PMID and DOI functionality. Does anyone know why? JFW | T@lk 10:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I've done something a little unorthodox on amphetamine#Pharmacodynamics and Adderall#Mechanism of action. I was wondering anyone had objections or feedback related to linking between a technical description and a lay description using different articles on drugs/chemicals with identical MoA/pharmacodynamics. Accessibility is a concern because I'm still trying to get amphetamine to FA status. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Two editors are squabbling over these articles. The subject seems to be rather important to me (inclusion of criticisms and ethical considerations) and I think their discussion could benefit from the input of some knowledgeable editors here. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 18:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I thought those working on the E-cigarette article would be interested to know that a new review article out of UCSF on the topic is out. http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/129/19/1972.full TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 14:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
There has been some disagreement regarding some edits to the Isotretinoin article, some of which is MEDRS related. I was wondering if we could get some more eyes on this and some input on the article Talk page. The discussion to date on the article talk page begins with the section entitled Edits of "May 10-17 2014" Many thanks Formerly 98 ( talk) 12:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Sahaja Yoga ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There is substantial biomedical information in this article that does not meet MEDRS. I made a substantial comment on the talk page listing this info and explaining how MEDRS applies here. Some help clarifying this would be appreciated also if an uninvolved editor thinks this information should be removed that would be helpful. I hesitate to make such cuts as I have been involved in ongoing discussion on talk. I'd like to hear what some Project Med editors think. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 04:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I've started an RFC at Talk:Super-spreader#Outdated_sources about applying WP:MEDDATE to that article. All opinions are wanted. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Minutes ago, I saw this edit by FeatherPluma at the Child abuse article with regard to the ACE Study. The text could use the help of WP:MED editors before and after it is transported to WP:Mainspace. I'm also sure that, per WP:TITLE, the title of the article should be Adverse Childhood Experiences Study (or lowercase?), not ACE Study. Flyer22 ( talk) 18:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
This really needs some attention from specialist editors... Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 19:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Bluerasberry, I, and others are intent on creating a newsletter for WPMED in order to engage users, mark our progress, and communicate information about the project. This directly follows on from a newsletter started a year ago at a meta level. The newsletter is currently in a very rough draft form here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter, and is intended to be released at the end of this month. I invite users to comment on the newsletter's talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter -- LT910001 ( talk) 03:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
While the newsletter is in progress, it has been under the moniker The revival. Are there any other suggestions for the name of our nascent newsletter? -- LT910001 ( talk) 03:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I count six users in favour of "The pulse" (including at the newsletter's talk page) so I have made the change. -- LT910001 ( talk) 22:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello all, it was recently brought to my attention that under the anatomy section of WP:MEDMOS is a statement that says the following: "A link to the common's image category for images may be provided in the 'see also' section. If article makes use of anatomical terminology, please add
or
as the first link in the 'see also' section." I personally don't think this particular policy or guideline makes all that much sense. This is basically saying that this anatomy terms link should go at the bottom of the page. This makes little sense to me since readers who would have use for such a link would likely have struggled through the article by the time they reach this link and may not even bother going that far. I think it makes a lot more sense to put such a link offering a page detailing anatomical terminology near the top of the page instead.
So, I would like to hear other opinions in the Wikiproject Medicine Community and see what you all think. Please weigh in-do you agree with the policy and think this link should be kept at the bottom of the page or do you think it makes more sense to have it higher up where it's more visible and more likely to be used by readers who would need such a link? Comments will be more helpful if you explain your answers and don't simply just say which one you like better. Citing Wikipedia policy is always helpful, but I think this is an instance in which we might want to consider revising this guideline. Thoughts? TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 08:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I've created a subsection to do this justice, as this topic is one that I've been focusing on for a while and feel quite passionately about.
It is impractical to link all instances of anatomical terms, as Flyer22 alludes. We should assume that users have some acquaintance with the terms in the articles they're looking. We do the same with medical articles that have medical terminology, linking only to concepts rather than medical terms. There is an entire anatomical vocabulary and I think it is very impractical to link each term -- as it is, for one thing, piecemeal. Technical language is used in specific sections of the article and may be more prominent in more technical articles: in anatomy articles, this is usually the blood supply/innervation etc. sections, and is a topic we've discussed previously re. Pharmacology articles. In this case, if a user knows the names of the blood vessels or nerves, we really ought to assume that users are somewhat familiar with terms used to describe them. In addition, if we do link these terms, they should be pointed to wiktionary, as they are definitional, but if they are definitional (eg in other articles), then users could surely look them up themselves. Many of these terms are found in almost every anatomical article, and I think it would definitely be overlinking to link them in most articles. In addition, we have over 4,500 articles in WP:ANATOMY's scope and a better solution is a systemic one, rather than one that must be applied individually to each article. Lastly, most of the definition pages link to disambiguation, and editing content with piped links is much more cumbersome.
For that reason, CFCF and I created the {{ Anatomy-terms}} template and worked on anatomical terminology and the related articles. This can be put in articles so that users can be aware of the issue and can be linked to an article that has an entire overview, but so that authors don't have to link every instance of Anatomy terms. If users visit any articles about muscles now, they will see the link in the infobox itself. It has been my plan for a while to, with consensus, add this link to the anatomy infobox, however I haven't really got around to proposing it.
With regard to a hatnote link, I think there is a policy somewhere (possibly HATNOTE?) that states we shouldn't put terminology or explanatory links at the top of articles, which is why it hasn't been done already.
Lastly, wherever possible anatomical terms should be simplified. I have a Wikiessay in my sandbox here: User:LT910001/sandbox/Simplifying anatomical terminology and invite you to contribute. -- LT910001 ( talk) 10:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be some consensus for this change. Unfortunately {{ Infobox anatomy}} is completely protected, so we need to wait for a user who has template-editing rights to make this change. The specific change would be to add this code to the template: | belowstyle = font-style:italic; font-weight:bold | below = [[Anatomical terminology]] -- LT910001 ( talk) 23:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Draft:Pressure ulcer risk and dressing treatment options in adults with spinal cord injury. Looks like OR and how-to, but maybe some of it is worth keeping? FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 02:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a disagreement over the phrasing. Please comment here. Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:51, 28 May 2014 (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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 55 |
After this incident I have truly had enough of this place: [1]
My current GAs olfactory reference syndrome and leukoplakia need closure, unless another editor can be found to complete them. Apologies to LT and Ian Furst who have put effort into the review on Leukoplakia.
For your info, DangerousPanda, I was an experienced editor with over 12,000 edits, mainly to topics around oral medicine and oral pathology, and I was apparently one of the top 10 most active editors on medical pages in '13 ... but hey none of that matters. All that is important is that people like you their daily fix of belittling and bullying people who are trying to do the right thing. And, ofc you get to keep the obnoxious POV-pushing editors so good luck with that. Lesion 09:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes much of Wikipedia sucks and we all unfortunately have to deal with those part from time to time. Yes one needs a very thick skin to edit in certain areas. Remember " Illegitimi non carborundum" and we are here for our readers. Hope you change your mind. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I note with sadness that Lesion hasn't edited since 20 April. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 09:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone point me to a good site for finding dosing recommendations. Specifically, I'm looking for evidence about metro 500 bid v qid, but there's not much in pubmed and I couldn't find a link in the article. Ian Furst ( talk) 13:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Started discussion here [3] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: This article has just been created (not by me, I just noticed it). Perhaps someone at this site would like to check it over. — Anne Delong ( talk) 18:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I think that several people (because you might have some diversity of opinions) here should give their opinions about who is allowed to add citations to Cochrane papers in the discussion at Jimbo's talk page. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
One possible goal is having a Wikipedia article for each medical topic categorized in
wikt:Category:Medicine.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
16:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
ATC code N: Nervous system |
---|
|
ATCvet only |
|
Other ATC codes |
(Hover over links to see titles) |
So, I started
editing (mass-deleting text, sparing what I could, or replacing bad refs with reviews) this article... it was more or less a paragon of what MEDRS says not to do. IMO, it's now it's decent above
Nootropic#Miscellaneous, mixed good/bad in
Nootropic#Miscellaneous†, and abhorrently bad in every section below it. There's still a fair amount of redundancy that has yet to be deleted as well.
Given that this article is still somewhat of a
WP:MED/
WP:PHARM travesty, anyone want to lend me a hand? ;)
†Some have decent review refs. For the ones that don't, I thought I might be able to adequately ref them over the next week or so.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢ |
Maintained)
03:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Additional problem: the page's nav template - {{ Antihyperkinetics}} - more or less suggests that everything on there that isn't a psychostimulant (excluding clonidine/guanfacine which are nonstimulant ADHD drugs) has a cognition-enhancing drug effect. Based upon the template heading, it should just reflect the much smaller group of N06B ATC-coded drugs. Currently:155 drugs - should only have 36 listed.
Fixed the template above
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢ |
Maintained)
I just noticed that {{
nootropics}} is completely off as well...
ATC code N06 is the "Psychoanaleptics" group - we're calling it "Nootropics." The template doesn't look at all like the ATC classification for N06.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢ |
Maintained)
06:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject CRUK (involving
Cancer Research UK) is listed at
Wikipedia:Database reports/New WikiProjects.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
15:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
While doubtless a great source for many things, perhaps not meeting MEDRS?
List of 1560 links to the site, many not from medical articles of course. I'd make a medical articles only list if I were allowed.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 16:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC).
Hello! Medical students of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai are organizing a Wikipedia club. I have already met with some of them and will be joining their first editathon next week, scheduled for 14 May. Anthonyhcole, we were just talking about more transparency between the education program and WikiProject Medicine. This could be a pilot case for setting a precedent, and I could make an effort to do whatever we want to be our standard procedures.
Something unusual about this case is that these are students, but this is an extracurricular project organized by a group of classmates who want to learn Wikipedia for themselves and not as part of a class assignment. I still suggested to them that because they want to look at each others' work that using the education program course page would be right for them. Also, it is my understanding that when someone posts to the talk page of the course page, the entire class is notified of the message.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Additional eyes needed. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello - The amyloidosis article is a bit of a mess right now. The article confuses the generic term amyoidosis with the various different specific types of amyloidoses. It seems to me that this article should be describing the category of diseases that encompass the amyloidoses and that specific information about the various types (light chain amyloidosis or AA amyloidosis or whatever) should be contained in their own articles. I'm not really sure about how to go about doing this....would appreciate any help. Wawot1 ( talk) 16:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Bold rewrite done. A looking over would be appreciated. A source I don't have access to was removed, if important someone with access could add content and restore ref (see talk). Thanks.
PS considering doing some work on Septic shock guidance welcome. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 02:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
The article Biochemic tissue salt is a total MEDRS fail, needs some serious work. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 06:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Pelvic pain ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
One would have thought from the title this is a legitimate topic (though - is it? or is pelvic pain just an incidental consequence of other things). Anyway - this is one weird article. Salvageable? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 15:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I've received permission from Kelly Martin to post her comment in another forum here:
"I do occasionally look at Wikipedia after I finish doing my research, just to see what is there. In the case of Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor, the article materially misstates the survivability rates by lumping together several different categories of tumor with very distinct presentations and characteristics. Articles written professionally for laypeople honestly state that survivability is highly variable and difficult to predict due to the very low incidence of this class of tumors. Articles written professionally for practitioners give much more specific information, identifying factors (e.g. tumor size, tumor location, whether the tumor is rhabdomyoblastomatous) that allow the practitioner to reasonably advise their patients and their families as to the likely prognosis. The Wikipedia article mentions that rhabdomyoblastomatous tumors have a different name, but does not note that this is the single most significant factor in predicting survivability. In addition, the Wikipedia article is inconsistent with generally accepted practice guidelines, as published in 2012, which reflects the fact that all but one of the sources to the Wikipedia article are at least seven years old. (No excuse, though; they're also inconsistent with this well-balanced article for practitioners, from 2006.) The article's statements about the use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy are inconsistent with current best practice; recent clinical evidence has indicated that chemotherapy is problematic in patients with neurofibromatosis as chemotherapy agents may exacerbate existing benign neurofibromas (a critical fact that the article only hints at).
"I'm seriously glad I read the NIH material before I read this article; I would have been far less sanguine for the chances of my son living to see his next birthday had I read the Wikipedia article first. And I am even more glad that my son's doctors don't rely on Wikipedia for medical advice."
This is beyond me. Anyone? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Graduate students on the Mechanisms of Disease course at Roosevelt University have been editing Wikipedia in April to create and expand articles for diseases that are currently undocumented or under-documented on Wikipedia. See the Education Noticeboard here. They seem to be doing good work. For example, they turned the article on Renal vein thrombosis from this sorry state to this and created the article Otodental syndrome.
There are four drafts for completely new articles pending review at Articles for Creation. I am inclined to move them into article space, but would like this project's advice first.
Draft:Floating-Harbor syndrome (also known as Pelletier-Leisti syndrome)
Draft:Adult-onset immunodeficiency syndrome
Draft:Diabetes Mellitus Type 3. This one was declined by a reviewer solely on the basis that Diabetes mellitus already exists. However, Diabetes mellitus type 1 and Diabetes mellitus type 2 exist as separate articles.
Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 12:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Would members of this taskforce be amenable to adding to task force page:
- Scope
This task force covers pages relating to neurological disease and symptoms. It does not cover pages relating to peripheral or central neuroanatomy ( WP:ANATOMY, WP:NEUROSCIENCE) or physiology ( WP:PHYSIOLOGY).
Reasons:
I'm not advocating anything other than ensuring this task force focuses around disease and symptoms rather than being constantly tagged with all manner of neuro articles that are already well tended to at the active WP:NEUROSCIENCE, and to reduce the wasted efforts of future editors. I have posted this on the talk page for the neuro taskforce but closed that thread to centralise discussion. Thoughts? -- LT910001 ( talk) 23:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! Elephantiasis was recently made into a disambiguation page, and we are in dire need of medical expert help to fix about 70 incoming links from various articles. Please help if you can, thanks. bd2412 T 01:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Some are held in much higher regard than others. Is there a shortcut for readers outside the specialty to tell which are the most widely used and relied upon textbooks? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 05:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe there would be some point in creating a list of widely used medical books here, for reference purposes? Or a list of books that we find are exceptionally good?
CFCF (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
14:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, http://www.worldcat.org/, tells me what I want, I think. Thank you, Stuart. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Autism Research Institute ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tons of biomedical information with no MEDRS. Edit warring. I have worked up the references that are there and applied appropriate tags, made a detailed explanation on talk page, AN3RR report. A new editor has made a poorly formed (it doesn't even point to the article) Dispute Resolution Noticeboard filing, then proceeded to make multiple reverts without waiting for any input or doing any consensus building. This group continues to push the vaccine autism connection and has a laundry list of beyond questionable treatments including chelation for autism. For a little background on their current director see this QuackWatch article. See this publication from the organization for their ideas of biomedical treatments and research. Some quality project medicine input would be valuable. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 08:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm getting to the point where I hesitate to look up medical information on Wikipedia because nearly all the articles are too technical and seem geared to medical professionals and students rather than the average Wikipedia user. Is this the kind of thing that can be reviewed and changed by some kind of Wikipedia board or science group? Thank you very much. Rissa, copy editor 01:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at WIkimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk)
16:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if we should list specific things we are working on and looking for help with? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
"We aim for a future in which all health information on Wikipedia is accurate in every language version and backed by authoritative sources. Participants from all backgrounds are invited to join us in developing this general health reference. Globally, it is already the most-used source of health information citation needed which, for the first time in history, anyone can read. Doctors cannot be replaced, but everyone has a right to learn enough to make their own informed health choices and ask their doctor questions."
I'm not sure about the last sentence (too patient-directed?) and looking for a reference for the cn bit. Wiki CRUK John ( talk) 14:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
"We aim for a future in which all health information on Wikipedia is accurate in every language version and backed by authoritative sources. Participants from all backgrounds are invited to join us in developing this general health reference. Globally, it is already one of the most-used sources of freely available health information. Professional medical advice cannot be replaced, but everyone has a right to learn enough to make their own informed health choices and ask their advisors questions." Wiki CRUK John ( talk) 13:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
There are some serious issues with this paper:
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
One could easily interpret the results that Wikipedia is the gold standard and UptoDate has many errors (and the conclusion would be equally valid).
Ian Furst ( talk) 19:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Have requested further details from the author. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
It's interesting to compare that paper to "Quality of information sources about mental disorders: a comparison of Wikipedia with centrally controlled web and printed sources" ( PMID 22166182). That paper found Wikipedia was the most accurate among 10 sources examined in each of two subject areas. The other sources included everything from Britannica to WebMD, the NIMH website, Mayo Clinic, even a major psychiatry textbook. The authors of that study didn't even seem surprised by the results, writing "These findings largely parallel those of other recent studies of the quality of health information on Wikipedia", and citing eight other studies. Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 04:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
← I don't doubt that we need to improve the accuracy of our medical articles, but I agree with James that this particular study is utterly meaningless and isn't worth the electrons it's printed on. Since "post-publication peer review" (aka "publish crappy studies and let the bloggers sort it out") is all the rage these days, here's mine:
I'm actually considering whether to write to the corresponding author and ask for a copy of the raw dataset. Partly because I'm intrigued, partly because I want to calculate an actual kappa statistic to confirm my impression of the lack of inter-observer agreement, and partly because I'd like to see if there are, in fact, significant errors in our coverage which need to be corrected. MastCell Talk 20:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Could you write a brief summary review for the upcoming Wikimedia Research Newsletter at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-04-30/Recent research? I think this paper is still not covered there. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
TenOfAllTrades FYI the definitions of similar and disimilar are located in Table2, but it doesn't help. Similar assertions are defined as an "implication or statement of fact found by both". But in table3, the number of similar assertions for each reviewer of a given article are never equal! Here's my review,
Choice of articles: The authors claimed to use the “corresponding articles” to The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s top 10 list of costliest diseases. However, several have not been used. For the disease “cancer”, Lung cancer was selected despite Wikipedia having an article called Cancer. For “heart disease”, coronary artery disease was used, despite the redirect going to cardiovascular disease. In some cases, there where GA or FA articles available when a lower rated article was used (e.g. “back pain” used instead of lower back pain for “back problems”). For “trauma”, the article concussion was used. In short, I don’t believe the selection of Wikipedia articles was as objective as the authors would lead the reader to believe. Significant selection bias may exist.
Choice of observers: Ten observers were either “internal medicine residents or rotating interns”. The distribution of articles to observers reads like a grade 8 math problem, ‘If ten articles are given to 10 observers, and each is asked to read 2 articles, how many times is each article read’. The result is a serious lack of consistency in the manner in which the observations and gold standard was applied.
Observations: Regardless of who made the observations, the application of a gold standard has horrible observational bias. Because the same person made the observation and determined the gold standard, there is a high probability that observational bias occurred. In other words, knowing that the article came from Wikipedia, the observer is likely to interpret it with a cognitive bias (depending on whether they believe Wikipedia to be accurate or not).
A gold standard: The gold standard is, in short, ridiculous. At the very least a gold standard should be consistent. E.g. what is the “truth”. In this case, the various observers were allowed to use almost anything in the world’s literature to determine “truth”. Wikipedia’s standards are far higher than this (secondary source rules). Given that the gold standard was inconsistent and inconsistently applied it was not a gold standard. Therefore, any comparison made to it is pointless.
Table 3: Is very misleading. They label Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2, where there were actually 10 reviewers. They also label similar assertions (e.g. both reviewers believed a statement in the Wikiarticle to be an assertion) and dissimilar assertions (e.g. only one or the other found a statement to be an assertion; see Table 2 for definitions) but the numbers don’t add up. One would expect the number of similar assertions should, by definition, be the same for reviewer 1 and 2 for any given article. They’re not. The interobserver variation is made obvious in this table. For “Major depressive disorder” Reviewer 1 found 72 assertions and Reviewer 2 found 172! Additionally, the number of “dissimilar” assertions (e.g. only one or the other found the statement) represents major portions of the total assertion pool. This means that a single person determined a unique gold standard to a major minority of the assertions in any article.
Stats: Someone with more knowledge could look at this, but I think the appropriate test is a chi-square (proportion of assertions that are similar) but I’m not sure.
The more I read this article the more I want to pull my hair out. The study design is, imo, horrible. Ian Furst ( talk) 19:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The author has not replied to my email. Not really surprising. Yes there is a lot of poor quality peer review literature that disagrees with our Wikipedia articles. That literature also disagrees with the best available literature. There is also a lot of old literature which disagrees with the newer literature. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
In this table it unclear how they are calculating their p values. http://www.jaoa.org/content/114/5/368/T3.expansion.html For depression one concluded that their was 72 statements of fact. The other concluded there was 172 statements of fact. No idea how they could have agreed with each other 93 times and disagreed with each other 79 times? Anyone have any idea what they are getting at here? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Jinkinson, when this article was posted, my first thought was that the process we use to improve Wikipedia articles might be flawed. I consider what they did analogous to a new diagnostic test. In other words, to determine whether or not an article is "good", have two reviewers compare it to peer reviewed literature with the current method being to put it through consensus and the GA process. So, I applied the same standards that I would when reading an article about any other diagnostic test to their methods. What I found, was that the scientific rigor of this article was extremely poor imo. Far from excluding it because it was inconvenient (as scientists, I think we all enjoy those "inconvenient" moments that lead to something greater), I do not value it's conclusions because I believe the methods are deeply flawed. Ian Furst ( talk) 19:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
" So what it seems like to me is that when Wikipedia is found to be in conflict with peer-reviewed studies, you try to dismiss the peer-reviewed studies as flawed simply because they are inconvenient for your constant pushing of the "Wikipedia-is-awesome" line. "
If anyone wishes to start Draft:The WikiProject Medicine discussion about that Osteopathic article then I will be right behind with other sources as I find them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
If the goal is to evaluated hundreds of articles, ideally, we would have a test that is easily done (or better yet automated) that can give us a “probability of goodness” with respect to the reliability of a medicine article. That way, the entire project is constantly monitored and poor articles improved. To create that, we need a gold standard and a test that can be validated. That way, the “test” itself doesn’t need to be labour intensive, just validated. I suspect there is some magical algorithm that measures frequency of updates, number and age of references and page views that when put together is proportional to the “goodness” of an article. Maybe the first step is to take some FA articles and compare the stats to some C-class articles and come up with some ideas about what might be used as the test? From there, we can come up with a gold standard to calculate the accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of the test Ian Furst ( talk) 01:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I haven't made myself clear. Sorry. I'm talking about painstaking review by highly-regarded experts in the relevant fields - an average of three different reviewers per article I would expect, in order to cover well all the sub-disciplines in each article. Yes, it will be expensive. (I'll be out of touch for a few hours.) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 02:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
This is a major turning point. Major. Thank you. That little icon is so cute. (Couldn't it be 4 times bigger?) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 07:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
It appears that emedicine has changed all of their urls without leaving redirect. We link to emedicine in most of our disease boxes.
Is it time we get a bot to change these links to something different? I am proposing we change all the links to patient.co.uk
Patient.co.uk lists everything on one page. Uses inline refs like us and doesn't have advertising. User:Boghog or User:Zad68? Could you do this? Emedicine also supposedly adjusts their content to appease advertisers. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
They actually changed their url structure way back and have now disabled the old redirects. Most of our links were added before the url change. Newer links that use 'article' as the specialty parameter still work (e.g. in autonomic dysreflexia). I don't think it is easily possible to let a bot change all the links, as the old and new article numbers did not seem to be related in any way. Also they have merged many articles, multiple old links would lead to the same article. The best short term option is probably to disable the infobox parameter. Furthermore, as we are going to do something about this, I would suggest moving the emedicine links to the external links section of the articles which seems a more proper place for them. -- WS ( talk) 16:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, medical experts. This AfC submission has a lot of primary sources, but there are some others as well. Are these suitable? If so, the primary ones can always be changed into a publication list. — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sigma Anti-Bonding Calcium Carbonate (SAC) - My gut says this looks like snake oil but I'm no expert - high school chemistry and physiology, almost 30 years ago, is as far as my education went in relevant fields. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 13:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Spamish. Should not have its own article. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if anyone else saw this, but Doc James just reached 100,000 edits. Thank you James. Ian Furst ( talk) 14:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible that someone has a look at Hereditary gingival fibromatosis. The article has 12 links to disambiguation pages that needs fixing. The author seems to be inactive for the moment. The subject is far out of my field of knowledge, so I keep my hands off it. Every bit of help is appreciated. The Banner talk 16:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
The Bannerdab fixed. the references are a mess, with the entire text of each repeated. I've cleaned up the first one but will have to do the others later. Ian Furst ( talk) 17:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, I've listed the Gynecomastia and Plantar fasciitis articles for peer review. Any constructive advice is welcomed. Just putting it out there if anyone is interested in reviewing some high importance articles that I think are approaching GA. Someone who hasn't worked on the articles a good amount would be preferable so new eyes are looking over the articles. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 22:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Is the Elsevier "Medicine" journal highly read? A standard source in the UK? Due to the title, it's incredibly difficult to source info in this AfC Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Medicine (journal). I can't tell whether it meets the journal notability standards, and all the info that's easy to turn up on it is in Elsevier sources. Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 08:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Just thinking it'd be good to buff this to Featured Article status. It was made a Good Article late last year but I think can be improved in its flow and comprehensiveness. I'd welcome some comments on the talk page. I did think about setting up a formal Peer Review but I am reluctant to split up the discussion for the time being as I feel there is a momentum there. All input welcomed. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, everyone, I've had Iatrogenesis on my watchlist for a while, and I can tell that it is imbalanced and very poorly sourced, but I don't personally know better sources to nudge it toward neutral point of view and more reliable sourcing. So I'll mention to all of you here that like most of the other articles on medical topics here, the Iatrogenesis article badly needs work. This one is used a lot as a "reference" in off-wiki advocacy, so maybe it deserves higher-priority attention from those of you who can help fix it. I will keep the article on my watchlist to make sure that the editing environment is constructive and aimed at fixing the article according to Wikipedia policy and sound sourcing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 13:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new to this so tell me where to go if this is the wrong place to put this. I've been doing a bit of reading on Epithelial-mesenchymal transition in cancer metastasis on WP as well as in a couple of journals. I came across this article [5] in the journal of cancer which doesn't conflict with but puts forward a very strong case for a different interpretation of current data. It's a trusted source and a fairly recent article so there's little else I could find on the same line. Personally I think it needs at least some mention on the EMT page and possibly others. The problem is I don't know if this is enough material to warrant mention and I could never do a good job of editing the page if it did. Moreover, the current Epithelial-mesenchymal transition theory in metastasis has been around so long it seems to be taken as fact on the page when this isn't necessarily true. Any help would be appreciated Edward.ward92 ( talk) 17:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Chunk5Darth ( talk · contribs · count) has been repeatedly adding the text " Dextromethamphetamine is the potent form in terms of dopamine-stimulation, although both forms are neurotoxic. [1]" to the Breaking Bad article. In spite of the controversial medical claim being made, is there anyone here that thinks this statement shouldn't require WP:MEDRS? Also, does anyone think that Livestrong is an even remotely satisfactory medical source? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
References
An editor has made very bold, large changes to this article, removing reviews, adding primary studies/editorials about rat brains, and removing any material that provides any positive information about the safety or efficacy of ADHD medications. The article was a MEDRS disaster area before, but I'm afraid it is getting worse now. More eyes and comments on the talk page would be welcome. Yobol ( talk) 19:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello cool wiki people,
We are medical students at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and we have just started a club for editing medical related pages on Wikipedia. Most of us are first years, and we are currently suffering through finals... But we still think wikiproject medicine is cool!
We welcome you to come and check out the pages we edit, and give us feedback and encouragements. We would greatly appreciate your support!
Thanks!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruirui511 ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello to all at the Medicine Project. I made a copy edit of this page a while ago. More recently a fellow editor made a very thorough expansion of the section scientific debate. (It falls in the realm of psychology and MRI studies). Our joint enquiry to you, now, is whether or not you think the section should be re-written in a more encyclopaedic style. I think it carefully could be to the advantage of the article. I feel that my good wiki-colleague, David A, places importance on presenting the detail of the studies, such as their methodology and I respect his conviction. If you have a spare moment, might you take a look and give us some guidance? Regards, Myrtle G Myrtlegroggins ( talk) 09:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
An edit-a-thon on Neuroscience will take place on Saturday, 7 June 2014 from 10:30 to 13:30, see the event page. The form of the event will different from our previous events aimed at scientists, and those with an interest in science, who wanted to learn about editing Wikipedia. This time there will be smaller groups of scientists and experienced Wikipedians who will work together to improve articles. So there will not be the usual workshop-style training, though the scientists attending will certainly come to understand Wikipedia editing processes. We also welcome online participants, and suggestions of important articles in a poor state. Wiki at Royal Society John ( talk) 18:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Please see Atherogenic Diabetic Dyslipidemia and NGR-hTNF (antitumor recombinant protein). The first article probably needs additional citations, and latter article appears unduly promotional of the company MolMed (which also needs review), especially with excessive citations of press releases. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 21:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I put a "citation needed" notice on the Dysbiosis article recently. In truth I do not know whether the statement I marked (the first sentence in the article) is valid information lacking a source OR whether it is "fantasy information" for which no reliable source exists.
It is a specialized subject. I cannot fix this myself as I would not know how to find a reliable source in the field.
I'm raising my concern here as I suspect the article does not get much attention from editors and that the "citation needed" notice could linger for a long time unnoticed and unattended to.
To be specific, I wonder if "dybiosis" is a diagnosible medical condition or just a concept. The first sentence seems to try to define dysbiosis in general terms. After the first sentence, the article is about dysbiosis in specific body areas, not dysbiosis in general. I get the feeling that wool is being pulled over my eyes with this approach.
I would much appreciate your attention to this concern. CBHA ( talk) 21:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Are there any DOs, DPTs, DCs or physiatrists here willing to comment on manual therapy interventions for MSK conditions? Regards, DVMt ( talk) 23:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
A good start when dealing with controversial topics is for everyone to use high quality secondary sources per WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
DVMt, I’ve reread the paper. The main point of the paper was to identify what percentage of chiropractors have “unorthodox” views because it has been shown to hamper interprofessional relations (specifically with orthopaedic surgeons). Unorthodox was defined as a belief that subluxation is “an obstruction to human health”. They also asked about anti-vaccine and excessive radiograph use because those are also major concerns for interprofessional relations (all this is from the paper – not speculation). 18.8% believed in subluxation as “an obstruction to human health” and there was a strong correlation between this belief, the overuse of radiographs and anti-vaccine beliefs (see regression analysis Table 2). It was speculation that the number who believed in 1 of the 3 opinions would be greater than 18.8% but that’s only because the data was not in the paper. We can email the author if the paper is going to be included. However, I am still amazed at the high percentage of chiropractors that hold these beliefs. Ian Furst ( talk) 20:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
At
Talk:Low_back_pain#Manual_therapy_and_acupuncture_for_LBP, editor
DVMt is suggesting that every article published in a medical organization's journal is endorsed by the medical organization. For example, DVMt is suggesting that a statement in an article published in JAMA carries the full force of recommendation by the AMA.
Yobol pointed out, there is this statement, written in every single journal of JAMA, which reads, "All articles published, including editorials, letters, and book reviews, represent the opinions of the authors and do not reflect the policy of the American Medical Association, the Editorial Board, or the institution with which the author is affiliated, unless this is clearly specified."
Input please?
Zad
68
20:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Could somebody take a look at polychlorinated biphenyl (both the lead section, and the "Cancer link" section) and how its possible connection with non-Hodgkin lymphoma is covered?
This is a followup to my recent request; @ WhatamIdoing: responded to that, and after doing independent research, rewrote the relevant section on the NHL article: non-Hodgkin lymphoma#Causes. That effort satisfies my concerns about the NHL article, but the PCB article still covers the relevant science in a way that is misleading.
As I mentioned before, I am connected to a lawsuit that involves this issue, and I have been advised to avoid making substantial changes to the articles myself. I hope this is a straightforward enough request, that somebody with relevant expertise can make some much needed changes to the article. Please let me know if you have questions or comments. - Kdelay13 ( talk) 05:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Those of you working in medicine may be interested in
ORCID. ORCID is an open system of identifiers for people - particularly researchers and the authors of academic papers; but also contributors to other works, not least Wikipedia editors. ORCIDs are a bit like ISBNs for books or DOIs for papers. You can register for one, free, at
http://orcid.org As well as including your ORCID in any works to which you contribute, you can include it in your user page using {{
Authority control}} thus: {{Authority control|ORCID=0000-0001-5882-6823}}
(that template can also include other identifies, such as VIAF and LCCN - there's an example on my user page). ORCID identifiers can also be added to biographical articles, either directly or via Wikidata.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
12:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: Is this old AfC submission about a notable topic, or should it be deleted as a stale draft? — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
After hearing about this paper, I looked at the WP articles Inuit diet and Atkins diet and I was struck by the number of health claims made without MEDRS sourcing. Neither is tagged for this project, though Nutrition is. Do we need to do a scan of all the diet articles? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: Here's one more of those old Afc submissions soon to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this information covered somewhere in another article, and if not, is this a notable topic that should be kept and improved? — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Here's the rough draft of the video for new editors. Thought I'd share before working on the more technical stuff. Ian Furst ( talk) 22:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Have added content per here [ [11]]. Further opinions requested. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
New article, which appears to be a mash of dubious sources ( Max Gerson as a MEDRS?) promoting yet another form of alt med. Might be a neologism. May need to be taken to AFD, is there anything worth salvaging? Yobol ( talk) 00:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia for everybody but many, if not most, of the medical entries read like they are journal articles or textbooks. They are way too technical for the vast majority of Wikipedia users.
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
"Scientific journals and research papers. A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead (and also maybe the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text.
"Academic language. Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible."
For example, this is from the entry under Myocardial perfusion imaging
"Interestingly, the concern over radiation hazard has undermined the risk associated with the allergic potential of radiocontrast (dyes) used in CT angiography and coronary angiography. In myocardial perfusion imaging, radioisotopes are used in nanomole quantities, practically devoid of any risk of allergy with normal saline being used as the vehicle and no known adverse reaction to the chemical molecules (sestamibi or tetrofosmine)."
This article wasn't written for the average Wikipedia user, it was written for medical professionals. Plus, it is missing numerous citations and links that might make it easier to understand.
I used to come here whenever I had a medical or health-related question but many times the articles are so full of jargon as to make them incomprehensible to anyone not possessing a degree in medicine or nursing. I often get the feeling that the people who are writing these entries believe their target audience is their peers.
I don't oppose Wikipedia supplying a special place where medical professionals and students can engage in ideas and discussion (a blog?) but where are the articles written for the average user?
I think this issue needs careful examination and discussion, and a wholesale rewriting of the entries that are too complex for most people. Thank you.
Rissa, copy editor 23:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Here's a request at the Help Desk that relates to a medical article. — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: The information in this old draft supposedly was copied from Antigen-presenting cell#APCs and Atherosclerosis and then returned, but I don't see this information in the second article. If it's not there, should the draft be made into an article instead? If not, it will soon be deleted as stale. — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello all, if anyone would be interested in reviewing plantar fasciitis for GA, I would be very grateful. Regarding the review, I ask only two things and I think both are reasonable. The first is to offer only constructive advice to help improve the article and the second is that if improvements need to be made to achieve GA status, please put it on hold and I will make those corrections in a timely manner. It saves everyone time instead of having to do it all over again. Thanks :) TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 17:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I have opened a thread at WP:ANATOMY regarding whether we should be calling these structures by their eponymous names (Wolffian, Mullerian) or as the mesonephric/paramesonephric ducts. I invite other users to comment, and the discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy#Mesonephric_duct_.2F_Wolffian_duct. Kindly, -- LT910001 ( talk) 11:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, do consider joining the discussion. LT910001 alerted WP:MED to this discussion at my suggestion. I suggested it because these topics also concern the medical field and therefore Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Article titles, and because WP:MED has a lot more participants than WP:Anatomy and is significantly more active as a WikiProject than WP:Anatomy. Flyer22 ( talk) 12:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Editors are invited to comment at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability#Developing a style guide (version of
14:35, 21 May 2014).
—
Wavelength (
talk)
14:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I just made Clinical trials on glucosamine and chondroitin. I created this entirely by cutting and pasting information about clinical trials on osteoarthritis from the articles on glucosamine and chondroitin.
In some fields of medicine Wikipedia tends to collect reports and critiques of medical research. The German acupuncture trials was one instance of this happening, and this is similar.
I posted on the talk page of that article why I did this. I am informing this board of what I have done because a lot of the information which I posted to that article is like a bad literature review by a non-scientist, and yet I thought it would be better to keep the content in its own article than argue for its removal. Now that it is in that space, at least people can develop the content in one place rather than try to integrate it into the Wikipedia articles for glucoasamine, chondroitin, or conditions like osteoarthritis. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The commitment to reliable health and medical information on the internet img HON was founded to encourage the dissemination of quality health information for patients and professionals and the general public, and to facilitate access to the latest and most relevant medical data through the use of the internet.
http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Conduct.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.237.229 ( talk) 23:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Wikidata is a Wikimedia project which provides a database back end for other Wikimedia projects. It currently only manages interwiki links between various language versions of Wikipedia, but when it is more developed, it will do all kinds of things.
On the Gender Gap mailing list there is discussion about new Wikidata games which are live now. Players get asked questions which help sort Wikidata entries, and which soon will be integrated into Wikipedia articles.
I encourage anyone here who wants to see a Wikidata application to check this one out, and also to begin thinking about how we can use any similar system to sort our 20,000+ health articles in some way.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
See the archived emedicine discussion. The links to emedicine were removed. The question now is, should we add new links to patient.co.uk? Is anyone already planning or working on doing this? Klortho ( talk) 15:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Super-spreader is a person who spreads a lot of disease. There is controversy at that article which has gotten more than the average amount of attention, but I thought I would share here.
A professor blogged that her student was trying to improve the article but the edits were reverted. The professor makes some serious accusations of hostility against WikiProject Medicine member Malke 2010 who reverted the student Dballouz, including exercising their seniority and personal gender bias. Based on what I see in the article's history for April 2014, it seems that Malke 2010 reviewed the students' edits piecewise and gave what by community standards is the usual sort of criticism of why those pieces were reverted. The student and Malke talked on the article's talk page, but the discussion did not go far.
I am not at this time going to comment on how the Wikipedia platform's inherent gender bias harmed this new user's experience other than to say that the claim should be taken seriously. A problem more concerning to me is that there was some failing which resulted in the student's contribution history showing that this student did not feel comfortable addressing their problems on Wikipedia. I regret that Wikipedia did not seem welcoming enough for this student or the professor to respond on-wiki. It would be my wish that when any user's content is reverted and they are given an explanation why it was reverted then in those circumstances they would realize that they can respond to the criticism on-wiki without escalating the issue to the Wikimedia Foundation's senior staff, and it seems by the posting on the Gender Gap mailing list that this happened. As this case exemplifies a problem affecting the education program and medical content, I am posting on those boards. I thought you all should know.
It would be my wish that everyone involved in this understand that the Wikipedia community supports them and that problems here are the failing of Wikipedia as a communication platform, and not because of failings of individuals who intend to improve Wikipedia and participate in the community. Malke especially is being harshly criticized and I do not want this person to have a bad experience. It is not immediately obvious to me that Malke did anything out of the ordinary or against Wikipedia community standards, and even if something is wrong, I do not like seeing a good contributor treated badly on-wiki and off by people who feel empowered to deliver punishment and shame. Even when something goes wrong Wikipedia is supposed to be a supportive place. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
it would be pretty simple to make a quick video tutorial for people who are going edit on medicine project articles. make the length 4min or so with the essentials of editing medicine. exclude most of the technical stuff (which can be learned elsewhere) but go over why we do what we do. Ian Furst ( talk) 17:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
We could have it automatically applied to everyone who edits a medical article with a red link for a talk page? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Editors are invited to examine "
Draft:Potential complications of tooth extraction".
—
Wavelength (
talk)
21:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Editors are invited to examine "
Draft:Tooth staining".
—
Wavelength (
talk)
21:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I've just tagged diabetes and testosterone to be merged into androgen replacement therapy. Both are problematic, apparently with some real-world drama going on around lawyers, Lancet, NEJM, a large study group, and claims that a paper reporting adverse effects was defective. Additional eyes would be helpful, particularly if they grok endocrinology. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place on the title of this article at Talk:Melancholia#Requested_move. All input welcome. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 11:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Could someone with maybe ten or fifteen minutes on hand please go to this section: Polychlorinated biphenyl#Cancer link and strip out anything that seems to be supported (or, ideally, supportable) only by primary sources? I'm not exactly worried about lower-quality sources (like the Mayo Clinic website: technically, that's a secondary source); I'm currently only concerned about the long strings of primary sources.
There are two inexperienced editors watching this section related to a court case about whether PCBs cause cancer, so I'd like to have this done by someone who is not connected to the court case and has not been involved in the discussions so far, but who does know what MEDRS says about secondary sources. I think that doing this would make it easier to figure out what to put in, even if stripping out the bad stuff means that we end up with an entirely blank section for now (although that's not necessarily going to be the result). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Would members of this taskforce be amenable to adding to neurology task force page:
- Scope
This task force covers pages relating to neurological disease and symptoms. It does not cover pages relating to peripheral or central neuroanatomy ( WP:ANATOMY, WP:NEUROSCIENCE) or physiology ( WP:PHYSIOLOGY, WP:NEUROSCIENCE).
Reasons:
This task force, like WPMED already does, should keep a tight focus, and neuro articles are already well-tended at the active WP:NEUROSCIENCE. I suggest this change to reduce the fruitless workload of well-intentioned future editors. I have posted this on the talk page for the neuro taskforce but closed that thread to centralise discussion. I have also reinstated this thread after it was automatically bot-archived shortly after I posted. Thoughts? -- LT910001 ( talk) 04:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this should be merged with any of the other reflex articles, such as Withdrawal reflex... Draft:Cutaneous reflex in human locomotion. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 16:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I have opened a conversation on WT:MEDRS about the reliability of journals not indexed in MEDLINE – Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)##MEDLINE versus other databases. If you have a moment, I would certainly welcome your input. Thank you, NW ( Talk) 14:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
FYI, The usage of Dr. Oz ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Mehmet Oz -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 15:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Where does this stuff come from? LeadSongDog come howl! 06:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: Here's yet another of those old drafts. Is this a notable publication? — Anne Delong ( talk) 23:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Is under discussion. Others thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
User appears to be repeatedly added content not supported by the refs they are using. Further opinions needed. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The "cite" button in the editing panel has disappeared. I particularly miss the autofill PMID and DOI functionality. Does anyone know why? JFW | T@lk 10:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I've done something a little unorthodox on amphetamine#Pharmacodynamics and Adderall#Mechanism of action. I was wondering anyone had objections or feedback related to linking between a technical description and a lay description using different articles on drugs/chemicals with identical MoA/pharmacodynamics. Accessibility is a concern because I'm still trying to get amphetamine to FA status. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Two editors are squabbling over these articles. The subject seems to be rather important to me (inclusion of criticisms and ethical considerations) and I think their discussion could benefit from the input of some knowledgeable editors here. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 18:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I thought those working on the E-cigarette article would be interested to know that a new review article out of UCSF on the topic is out. http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/129/19/1972.full TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 14:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
There has been some disagreement regarding some edits to the Isotretinoin article, some of which is MEDRS related. I was wondering if we could get some more eyes on this and some input on the article Talk page. The discussion to date on the article talk page begins with the section entitled Edits of "May 10-17 2014" Many thanks Formerly 98 ( talk) 12:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Sahaja Yoga ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There is substantial biomedical information in this article that does not meet MEDRS. I made a substantial comment on the talk page listing this info and explaining how MEDRS applies here. Some help clarifying this would be appreciated also if an uninvolved editor thinks this information should be removed that would be helpful. I hesitate to make such cuts as I have been involved in ongoing discussion on talk. I'd like to hear what some Project Med editors think. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 04:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I've started an RFC at Talk:Super-spreader#Outdated_sources about applying WP:MEDDATE to that article. All opinions are wanted. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Minutes ago, I saw this edit by FeatherPluma at the Child abuse article with regard to the ACE Study. The text could use the help of WP:MED editors before and after it is transported to WP:Mainspace. I'm also sure that, per WP:TITLE, the title of the article should be Adverse Childhood Experiences Study (or lowercase?), not ACE Study. Flyer22 ( talk) 18:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
This really needs some attention from specialist editors... Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 19:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Bluerasberry, I, and others are intent on creating a newsletter for WPMED in order to engage users, mark our progress, and communicate information about the project. This directly follows on from a newsletter started a year ago at a meta level. The newsletter is currently in a very rough draft form here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter, and is intended to be released at the end of this month. I invite users to comment on the newsletter's talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter -- LT910001 ( talk) 03:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
While the newsletter is in progress, it has been under the moniker The revival. Are there any other suggestions for the name of our nascent newsletter? -- LT910001 ( talk) 03:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I count six users in favour of "The pulse" (including at the newsletter's talk page) so I have made the change. -- LT910001 ( talk) 22:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello all, it was recently brought to my attention that under the anatomy section of WP:MEDMOS is a statement that says the following: "A link to the common's image category for images may be provided in the 'see also' section. If article makes use of anatomical terminology, please add
or
as the first link in the 'see also' section." I personally don't think this particular policy or guideline makes all that much sense. This is basically saying that this anatomy terms link should go at the bottom of the page. This makes little sense to me since readers who would have use for such a link would likely have struggled through the article by the time they reach this link and may not even bother going that far. I think it makes a lot more sense to put such a link offering a page detailing anatomical terminology near the top of the page instead.
So, I would like to hear other opinions in the Wikiproject Medicine Community and see what you all think. Please weigh in-do you agree with the policy and think this link should be kept at the bottom of the page or do you think it makes more sense to have it higher up where it's more visible and more likely to be used by readers who would need such a link? Comments will be more helpful if you explain your answers and don't simply just say which one you like better. Citing Wikipedia policy is always helpful, but I think this is an instance in which we might want to consider revising this guideline. Thoughts? TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 08:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I've created a subsection to do this justice, as this topic is one that I've been focusing on for a while and feel quite passionately about.
It is impractical to link all instances of anatomical terms, as Flyer22 alludes. We should assume that users have some acquaintance with the terms in the articles they're looking. We do the same with medical articles that have medical terminology, linking only to concepts rather than medical terms. There is an entire anatomical vocabulary and I think it is very impractical to link each term -- as it is, for one thing, piecemeal. Technical language is used in specific sections of the article and may be more prominent in more technical articles: in anatomy articles, this is usually the blood supply/innervation etc. sections, and is a topic we've discussed previously re. Pharmacology articles. In this case, if a user knows the names of the blood vessels or nerves, we really ought to assume that users are somewhat familiar with terms used to describe them. In addition, if we do link these terms, they should be pointed to wiktionary, as they are definitional, but if they are definitional (eg in other articles), then users could surely look them up themselves. Many of these terms are found in almost every anatomical article, and I think it would definitely be overlinking to link them in most articles. In addition, we have over 4,500 articles in WP:ANATOMY's scope and a better solution is a systemic one, rather than one that must be applied individually to each article. Lastly, most of the definition pages link to disambiguation, and editing content with piped links is much more cumbersome.
For that reason, CFCF and I created the {{ Anatomy-terms}} template and worked on anatomical terminology and the related articles. This can be put in articles so that users can be aware of the issue and can be linked to an article that has an entire overview, but so that authors don't have to link every instance of Anatomy terms. If users visit any articles about muscles now, they will see the link in the infobox itself. It has been my plan for a while to, with consensus, add this link to the anatomy infobox, however I haven't really got around to proposing it.
With regard to a hatnote link, I think there is a policy somewhere (possibly HATNOTE?) that states we shouldn't put terminology or explanatory links at the top of articles, which is why it hasn't been done already.
Lastly, wherever possible anatomical terms should be simplified. I have a Wikiessay in my sandbox here: User:LT910001/sandbox/Simplifying anatomical terminology and invite you to contribute. -- LT910001 ( talk) 10:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be some consensus for this change. Unfortunately {{ Infobox anatomy}} is completely protected, so we need to wait for a user who has template-editing rights to make this change. The specific change would be to add this code to the template: | belowstyle = font-style:italic; font-weight:bold | below = [[Anatomical terminology]] -- LT910001 ( talk) 23:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Draft:Pressure ulcer risk and dressing treatment options in adults with spinal cord injury. Looks like OR and how-to, but maybe some of it is worth keeping? FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 02:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a disagreement over the phrasing. Please comment here. Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)