![]() | 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 60 | ← | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | → | Archive 70 |
Have people seen this one yet?
PMID
25988604: Another study of publication bias, with a different statistical approach. Positive findings were on average 27% (95% CI: 18% to 36%) more likely to be included in the meta-analyses of efficacy than other findings. Outcomes showing no evidence of adverse effects had on average a 78% (95% CI: 51% to 113%) higher probability to enter the meta-analyses of safety than results showing that adverse effects existed.
(The pubmed commons comment is also interesting.)
Opabinia regalis (
talk)
22:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi everybody,
We’re preparing for the May 2015 research newsletter and looking for contributors.
Please take a look at:
WRN201505 and add your name next to any paper you are interested in covering.
As usual, short notes and one-paragraph reviews are most welcome.
Highlights from this month:
If you have any question about the format or process feel free to get in touch off-list.
Masssly, Tilman Bayer and Dario Taraborelli
—M@sssly ✉ 14:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
So, I've just flagged a news item at Talk:Reproducibility#New_analysis_in_Nature. In this article Monya Baker explains the ongoing scientific catastrophe (I don't think the term is too strong) with inconsistent antibody testing materials, earlier commented on in this item from Andrew Bradbury and Andreas Plückthun in February. The scale of the work invalidated (or at least called into question) is huge, going back for many years. Essentially, if a paper relied on commercial antibodies and has not been independently reproduced, it can not be trusted, no matter how sterling the reputation of the researchers. This is as clear an example as I've seen for why we should not trust primary sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
That said, getting anything "immuno-" (that is, "-blots", "-histochemistry", "-fluorescence", "-therapy") right is something that is hard. It takes care and caution. (See also all the dodgy ELISAs and bad technique that are used to support the primary fringe literature on so-called chronic Lyme and Morgellons.) TenOfAllTrades( talk) 13:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I had been watching some bad things happening to this article for a while, with content about health based on PRIMARY sources getting loaded into this. I worked this over today (and ending up merging a subarticle on health effects back into the main article). Would appreciate review of the article as it stands, and eyes on it going forward. People get intense about food. Jytdog ( talk) 02:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
working on this article,any help would be appreciated .thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 23:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I am proposing to add |PLLR=
to {{Drugbox}}.
PLLR is the new US FDA drug labeling rule regarding pregnancy and more. Discussed at
Infobox drug talk. -
DePiep (
talk)
02:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I have trimmed some unreffed trivia here Talk:Osteogenesis imperfecta#Long list of unreffed trivia. Wondering what others thoughts are? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I have been in discussion with the National Eye Institute. "Their" flickr stream [5] is inproperly tagged. I however have an email both from them and from a CC lawyer stating that these are truly in the public domain and the license listed on flickr is wrong. I asked them if they can correct this. If these images are being deleted let me know. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I would like your opinion about adding an external link to pages of invasive fungal infections ( mucormycosis, fusarium, yeast). It would be deep-linking directly to the respective fungus cases in FungiQuest, biggest database of invasive fungal infections cases, not available through Pubmed. Thank you. LuisaDG ( talk) 09:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
You have already brought it here [8] and [9] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I tried clicking through to the " Fusarium" section linked from the home page. As far as I can tell, this is simply a list of cases with a brief description of each case. The links to " Rhizopus", " Scedosporium" and " Trichosporon" have similar tables. These pages are not appropriate as external links for Wikipedia articles. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The links suggested fail WP:ELNO numbers 1, 2, 4, 9. These are searches in a database of primary sources and are particularly inappropriate for Wikipedia where our medical information is based upon secondary sourcing. In addition, LuisaDG is forum-shopping - see:
I've left a warning on their talk page. -- RexxS ( talk) 15:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Opinions requested regarding the most appropriate title for the WP article on the condition typically referred to as "TMD" (temporomandibular disorder) in North America and "TMJ-PDS" (temporomandibular joint pain-dysfunciton syndrome" in the EU; characterized by pain and dysfunction of the TMJ.
Temporomandibular disorder would seem more widely used, however pubmed, google books and google websearch results give a different picture. One thing I am almost sure of is that the current title, Temporomandibular joint dysfunction (a hybrid of both US and UK terms), is not as commonly used.
This is coming up again because I want to write an article covering pathology of the TMJ generally and not necessarily confined to this vaguely defined syndrome. Because not all disorders which affect this joint might cause pain and/or dysfunction. thoughts? Matthew Ferguson ( talk) 10:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Andy Tomlinson/sandbox is (or will be) a Draft article submitted to Articles for Creation, intended to exist alongside and separately from the existing Past life regression article. The reasons for this are explained in this posting at the Articles for Creation help desk by its author. Also some further discussion here on the talk page of a reviewer who declined the Draft. The proposed article contains text such as "psychiatrists and medical doctors have found it resolves blackouts [46] insomnia[47] migraine and unexplainable pain [48] asthma [49], and autoimmune disorder [50]", with citations to books by a publisher that I don't recognise. The Draft author also apparently cites work by himself in the Draft. Feedback on the Draft would be helpful at the help desk thread linked above (or here if that's easier). Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 13:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
One needs an excellent source for "A wide range of emotional problems have been resolved with regression therapy". Good to see it was declined. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I was dealing with some expired prods last week and came upon the article foot health practitioner, which was in a sorry state but seemed worth sending to AfD. The discussion hasn't seen much activity and there are comments about poor medical content on the talk page. I cleaned up some of the worst of it, but could anyone familiar with this practice take a look? It it is apparently a UK/Ireland thing and there seems to be a history of weird turf wars with podiatry. Thanks! Opabinia regalis ( talk) 08:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Probably preaching to the choir but here's an interesting read: I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here's How. -- NeilN talk to me 15:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
18:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for X-ray computed tomography to be moved to CT scan. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 22:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: Is this information about iodine levels covered in another article somewhere? Or is this a notable topic? The article is about to be deleted as a stale draft.— Anne Delong ( talk) 11:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, everyone,
An online discussion elsewhere in cyberspace made me aware of an external website run by a naturopath that appears to promote treatments for human disease based on patient testing for variants in the MTHFR (methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase) gene. There are patients who believe extraordinary claims regarding a gene × treatment (that is, gene × environment) interaction at that locus, which is not a replicated claim in the reliable sources on human genetics. I think it may be worthwhile for editors more informed than I am to take a look at the Wikipedia article Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase, which has had a rather quiet article talk page, to assess how well the better sources are reflected in that article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 15:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
See here Jytdog ( talk) 01:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
A series of "embedded navboxes" are present within all medical navboxes. These provide links to templates within a relevant area -- for example, all cardiovascular disease-related templates are linked alongside cardiovascular anatomy and treatment templates. This is designed to help readers navigate a large amount of medically-related articles grouped by template. This was previously announced here. The set of templates are here: Template:Medicine navs and during editing many medical editors have provided feedback.
Deletion has been proposed for one such template {{ Infestation navs}}, with a stated view to deleting the entire set. That discussion is here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_29#Template:Infestation_navs, please contribute. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 03:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
did a few edits on this article, should anyone like to lend a hand, please do. thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 19:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
In case anyone here would like to comment, I've opened a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Industry funding and ghostwriting of sources, with a view to adding something to the guideline. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Have trimmed a mass of primary sources from this article. Still more work needed if anyone wishes to help. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Lung cancer is the third most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Attention to lung cancer is especially relevant for the Medicare population, because the median age at diagnosis is 70 years. A suitable screening test has long been sought to accurately detect lung cancer at earlier stages, when treatments are more effective and survival is more likely. Currently, more than half of cases are diagnosed after the cancer has metastasized..i deem this a good read. [14]. thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 19:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering in regard to the extent to which articles labelled disorder may be expressing a negative POV.
I first raised related issues at
Talk:Sadistic personality disorder#Possible moves: "Sadistic personality" or similar where it was noted by
Mbcap who I think fairly expressed the view "this article may require the attention of a specialist, i.e. a psychiatrist
"
Of similar concern are the articles:
... the condition of experiencing recurring and intense sexual arousal in response to enduring extreme pain, suffering, or humiliation." and
... the condition of experiencing sexual arousal in response to the extreme pain, suffering, or humiliation of others."
For me I think that, to some extent, this may simply be a case in which the phrase different strokes for different folks may have an extremely literal application. Some people may respond to the gentle caress of fingertips while for other people a more violent form of stroking may alternatively/also be desired. In modern society any man or woman may only find sexual stimulation in a person of either their own or of the opposite sex and yet people are no longer widely described as having a disorder if they have homosexual tendencies and I think that the same issues may logically apply to articles perhaps with similar themes to those mentioned.
Articles that are arguably questionably placed in Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders include:
...having no sexual interests in other persons"
...a psychological typology of male-to-female (MtF) transsexualism"
...a formal diagnosis used by psychologists and physicians to describe children who experience significant discontent with their biological sex, assigned gender, or both."
is a psychoanalytic concept proposing the ability to gain sexual gratification outside socially normative sexual behaviors."
a psychiatric diagnosis applied to those who are thought to have an excessive sexual or erotic interest in cross-dressing;"
In many cases I think that there is little justification for placing the various topics into categories of disorder as, arguably, there may be circumstances in which problems may not universally be considered to be exhibited.
However see also:
... a paraphilia in which sexual arousal, facilitation, and attainment of orgasm are responsive to and contingent upon being with a partner known to have committed an outrage, cheating, lying, known infidelities or crime, such as rape, murder, or armed robbery."
In some cases sexual drives may be considered to lead to generally undesired outcomes.
I was wondering whether, in some cases, terminologies such as Psychological typologies might be used as alternatives in categories or whether different titles might be adopted in cases such as when word such as "disorder" are used. Greg Kaye 11:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
"Do you know why you can trust Wikipedia better than news sites? Because Wikipedia doesn’t obsess over the single most recent study. Are you starting to notice a theme?" [19] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Further comments appreicated here Talk:Lassa_fever#Lead_should_be_simpler Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I would like have created a bot that would check if Wikipedia is using old Cochrane reviews. The bot would go through all Cochrane reviews let's say every three months, it would pull the PMID from the citation template and put that number into Pubmed.
For example PMID 17943917 gives http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17943917
Than if the bot finds the heading "Update in" it would add to Wikipedia after that reference the Template:Update_inline. And than for "reason" it would add the PMID for the updated version of that review http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23990350
The bot would also created a page were all Cochrane reviews in need of updating are listed. Do people support this idea? If there is support I will try to have it built / get bot approval.
Just a passing comment: The most valuable "support" vote is always the one in which someone says something like, "If this existed, I personally would check the resulting category and update articles" (at least, when updates are actually appropriate; I suppose there might be situations in which the older is retained, maybe in a ==History== section). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Will the bot replace or add the updated review to Wikipedia or just tag the review? There are different ways to do this. If the bot replaces the old review the new updated review may have a different conclusion. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment Wondering about also having the bot add to some parameter within the ref something like "Most recent as of X" Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The article Immune Cycle was recently created. I'm not sure if all the sources in the article are reliable per MEDRS. Some eyes would be appreciated. Everymorning talk 13:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I just came across this page, which doesn't seem to be linked or transcluded anywhere. I didn't think we gave this kind of information, and I'm not sure if there are more of these pages. Can anyone shine some light on this? Sam Walton ( talk) 11:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
have added a few edits any help would be appreciated-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 15:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Hum... I'm largely ignorant about WP categorization, but I rather suspect (broadly per WP:OVERCAT?) that "Category:Etiology" could usefully be a subcategory of "Category:Epidemiology". Given that medical etiology is a key aspect of epidemiological research, I find it hard to imagine a page that could reasonably be categorized under "Category:Etiology" but not under "Category:Epidemiology". Best, 109.146.70.40 ( talk) 16:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page. Thanks, and happy editing! User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa
Scottperry has suggested reverting the article Psychiatry to a revision of 28 June 2012. The editor argues that this is necessary to address issues of WP:UNDUE in the controversy section of the current version of the article. They also argue that the article has experienced a general degradation of wording and phrasing compared to the 28 June 2012 revision. Regardless of whether the proposed reversion is justified, in the interests of article stability, it might be worthwhile to solicit a wider spectrum of opinion before applying such wide-ranging changes. Hence, I've begun a RFC on this issue. A more detailed presentation of the arguments for this change can be found at the article talk page or in the following diffs [21] [22] [23]. Thank you. FiachraByrne ( talk) 11:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes thanks. Rather than revert why not just move the content to a subapge? I have done this. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Management of androgenic alopecia and Management of hair loss need massive trimming of primary sources and merging. Anyone interested in helping... Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
[24] I deem this a good read, thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 13:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Please see In silico clinical trials, also a DYK nomination.
Dame Etna ( talk) 08:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone!
I've applied for a renewal of the IEG- (Individual Engagement Grant) I received last year as part of the Medical Translation Project. We had great success during those months, but I would like to keep working within the project, to make sure we can reach some of our long-term goals as well. I plan to dedicate my summer, and a large portion of my time this fall towards the project, and hope you think it's worthwhile. I'd be very happy if you took some of your time to take a look and to add your comments on the project – perhaps what could be improved and if you see anything you like.
Renewal request:
Some of the articles we translated last year:
My previous IEG final-report:
Best,
CFCF ..I think you do a great job, with these articles...These efforts exemplify how chapters and thematic projects such as Wiki Project Med can effectively work together, each bringing their specific expertise to a joint initiative. We would love to see other groups emulate this promising model. [25]...during the coming summer weeks we should all feel inspired to help -- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 17:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
A Request for Comments is now in progress at Talk:Ayurveda concerning whether [[Category:Pseudoscience]] should be added to the article on Ayurveda. Participation in the RFC is encouraged. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Wondering if others can weight in here Talk:Amphetamine/Archive 5#Issues Thanks Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a long standing and poor redirect to Sex reassignment surgery. I have left a comment on the redirect target's talk page to that effect. I do not, however, have the required knowledge to create a useful article, even as a stub. Please will a member of this project take up the challenge? Fiddle Faddle 20:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone, Jytdog and I have been discussing the utility of having manufacturing/administration safety data in various drug articles, and decided to ask for some wider input here. OSHA has set permissible exposure limits for workers who are involved in manufacturing certain drugs, and there are other health concerns for workers who may be exposed to drugs like chemotherapy drugs. Aspirin currently has an example of what I'd like to insert in several of these articles. I think this is relevant to include because it concerns the manufacture of the drug and it also concerns the health of the workers manufacturing it. But before including it in any more drug articles, it'd be nice to have some input. If its place isn't in the drug articles, is there another place where this important information could go? Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) ( talk) 02:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Know The Glow (
http://knowtheglow.org) is a program to identify signs of eye diseases.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
16:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The National Institutes of Health has suspended all manufacturing of medical products after finding some were contaminated with fungus. [28]...Inspectors from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigated the NIH facility between 19 and 29 May in response to an anonymous complaint. In reports dated 29 May and 2 June, the FDA outlines numerous problems with quality control and staff training....dated June 5th [29] -- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 16:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Another discussion on simplified language in the leads. Wondering if others have opinions. Talk:Cysticercosis#Simple_wording_in_the_lead Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I am wondering if we should have a wider discussion on this issue. For example WAID suggested we have:
People usually get cysticercosis after they eat food or drink water that has tapeworm eggs in it.
rather than
Cysticercosis is usually acquired by eating foods or water contaminated by tapeworm's eggs.
Do people feel this sort of general simplifying of our leads is positive?
I have run into resistance from a number of editors regarding this. Some have stated that this is "dumbing down" our content, [31], that if people do not understand our content they should simple use a dictionary, [32], and that people who want simpler content should just go to simple Wikipedia. [33] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes so this maybe better than?
Cysticercosis is usually acquired by eating food or drinking water that has tapeworm eggs in it.
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
People most often get cysticercosis because they have eaten food or drunk water that has tapeworm eggs in it.
Might be the meaning you're looking for? -- RexxS ( talk) 11:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The most common cause of cysticercosis is tapeworm eggs in food or water.
The most common cause of cysticercosis is eating food or drinking water with tapeworm eggs in it.
I have recently performed a major overhaul of the E-meter article in an effort to bring the article into what I see as "compliance with WP:Due and WP:Undue policies". While none of the other editors there have denied my concern about the article's aparent non-ccompliance with WP policy, no other editor there has yet endorsed my wholesale overhaul of the article. I have essentially restored the article to a "properly contemporized" 2007 edition of the article, in order to achieve this. The question there is whether or not to keep the major overhaul edition of the article, which I am calling the "restored" article, or to merely try to make gradual edits to the "pre-restored" version to bring about WP Policy compliance. Which path is best? The major overhaul path, or the incrimental path? Any input at the E-meter article's RFC from editors here would be most appreciated.
Thanks,
Scott P. ( talk) 09:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
gave opinion(give yours/ please read ArbCOM information on talk page-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 13:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Concerned about this category. Others thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
21:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
22:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Protein Sparing Modified Fast has recently been expanded with new content. It could probably benefit from input or review by knowledgeable editors from this project. Thank you. Deli nk ( talk) 12:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi this is my first post on a talk page (hopefully there aren't to many errors), I have been updating the Wikipedia:Cochrane Collaboration/Cochrane UK/Cochrane Reviews page with the latest Cochrane evidence that might be of interest to the Wiki community. I have also added suggestions for pages that could be updated. Also any feedback on how to improve our project pages would be much appreciated. Thanks HMill88 ( talk) 13:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The article impalement talks about impalement as a torture "method". Should a another article impalement injuries be made? 96.52.0.249 ( talk) 04:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
be it impalement injury or penetrating trauma , either could benefit with information from Impalement. it could be useful,due to the fact that some cases might be accidental while others intentional ("methods" section from Impalement might be useful...Impalement typically involves the body of a person being pierced through by a long stake, but sharp hooks, either fully penetrating the body, or becoming embedded in it, have also been used) [40]..in regards to this being a CONTENTFORK,Content forking can be unintentional or intentional. Although Wikipedia contributors are reminded to check to make sure there is not an existing article on the subject before they start a new article, there is always the chance they will forget, or that they will search in good faith but fail to find an existing article, or simply flesh out a derivative article rather than the main article on a topic. Wikipedia's principle of assume good faith should be kept in mind here. If you suspect a content fork, give the creator of a duplicate article the benefit of the doubt. Check with people who watch the respective articles and participate in talk page discussions to see if the fork was deliberate [41] I do not believe it meets this definition .IMO-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has been going on too long. More opinions please. Many thanks. Matthew Ferguson ( talk) 07:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you to those who commented, the discussion is now closed with, imo, a logical and favorable result. Matthew Ferguson ( talk) 17:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
University of Adelaide researchers have discovered cerebral palsy has an even stronger genetic cause than previously thought, leading them to call for an end to unnecessary caesareans and arbitrary litigation against obstetric staff. In an authoritative review published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, members of the Australian Cerebral Palsy Research Group, based at the University of Adelaide’s Robinson Research Institute, argue that up to 45% of cerebral palsy cases can have genetic causes. This builds on research published in February this year by the group which found at least 14% of cerebral palsy cases are likely to be caused by a genetic mutation. And the group expects the percentage of genetically caused cerebral palsy cases will continue to increase as genetic sequencing techniques evolve. The University of Adelaide’s Emeritus Professor Alastair MacLennan, leader of the research group, says the realisation by courts that many cases of cerebral palsy cannot be prevented by differences in labour management should reduce the adverse influence of obstetric litigation. “For many years it was assumed, without good evidence, cerebral palsy was caused by brain damage at birth through lack of oxygen.,” [43]-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 18:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Doc James, a contributor here at WikiProject Medicine, has been elected to the board of the Wikimedia Foundation. More information can be found in these places.
James announced his candidacy on this board.
James would comment about this whenever he wished to do so, but leaving aside anything that James has done, here are some possible implications of his being elected:
I list these things just as being possible outcomes of being able to say "the Wikimedia Foundation has a medical doctor on its board and this person endorses Wikipedia as a channel for distributing health information". I say this because in the past, certain demographics on Wikipedia have benefited from having board representation, even without actually interacting with the relevant board member.
If anyone has thought of proposing any kind of project on-wiki related to health, or of encouraging any group or organization to develop Wikipedia's health content, now might be a good time to think more of doing that. The Wikipedia brand is a powerful thing that opens a lot of doors off-wiki. Speaking of the WMF board's connection to health could be useful also. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I am wondering if Robert Ira Lewy would fall within the scope of this Wikiproject. The subject of the article, Lewy himself, created the article back in 2007 and has been editing off and on since then. However, he is now aware of WP:COI so he has stopped editing and moved to discussing things on Talk:Robert Ira Lewy instead. I and some others have been trying to help him out, but I do not have much experience with BLP's about medical doctors/researchers so I'm not sure how to best proceed. Any feedback or suggestions from the editors of this Wikiproject would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 13:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
This article made me want to categorize it in "category:outdated medical terms", or similar. Does such a category exist, and if no then should it be started? Matthew Ferguson ( talk) 21:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Just published today [46] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
did a few edits, any help would be appreciated .thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 21:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
[47] I deem this a good read, enjoy-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 11:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I am concerned about the use of this study in this article. It is cited several times, but it doesn't seem to meet MEDRS, so I think it should be removed. What do others think? Everymorning talk 00:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
heterogenous vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus (hVISA) looking for a good ref (definition) for this, opinions? (here or at article/talk page [51]) thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 11:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I've fixed, I think, an implied medical claim in the lead [52], but I have ongoing concerns about the appropriateness of Coulrophobia#Research. Thoughts? 109.146.70.40 ( talk) 09:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
CFCF's work on the WP:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force was mentioned early in the m:WMF Metrics and activities meetings (underway now; it's right after the brief report on the Lyon Hackathon). The link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skCBCYArUaA if you want to see it. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The latter article does not seem to mention calcification is possible. 92.22.167.143 ( talk) 22:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Requested here Talk:Vitamin_D#Vitamin_D_and_Cancer Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The Lancet has just published the new Global burden of disease report but looking at the Results section of the wiki page, I think the existing information is wrong. It is talking about the 2013 report, which as far as I can tell does not give the results to 2013 but 2010 (the one just published in 2015 is to 2013, they take some time to collate the information). The last edit was before the Lancet published this report (and the 2013 report just published in 2015 is not cited on the wiki page). I therefore think this section needs checking and rewriting - just a warning in case anyone is watching and wonders what I'm doing. JMWt ( talk) 09:47, 12 June 2015 (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 60 | ← | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | → | Archive 70 |
Have people seen this one yet?
PMID
25988604: Another study of publication bias, with a different statistical approach. Positive findings were on average 27% (95% CI: 18% to 36%) more likely to be included in the meta-analyses of efficacy than other findings. Outcomes showing no evidence of adverse effects had on average a 78% (95% CI: 51% to 113%) higher probability to enter the meta-analyses of safety than results showing that adverse effects existed.
(The pubmed commons comment is also interesting.)
Opabinia regalis (
talk)
22:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi everybody,
We’re preparing for the May 2015 research newsletter and looking for contributors.
Please take a look at:
WRN201505 and add your name next to any paper you are interested in covering.
As usual, short notes and one-paragraph reviews are most welcome.
Highlights from this month:
If you have any question about the format or process feel free to get in touch off-list.
Masssly, Tilman Bayer and Dario Taraborelli
—M@sssly ✉ 14:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
So, I've just flagged a news item at Talk:Reproducibility#New_analysis_in_Nature. In this article Monya Baker explains the ongoing scientific catastrophe (I don't think the term is too strong) with inconsistent antibody testing materials, earlier commented on in this item from Andrew Bradbury and Andreas Plückthun in February. The scale of the work invalidated (or at least called into question) is huge, going back for many years. Essentially, if a paper relied on commercial antibodies and has not been independently reproduced, it can not be trusted, no matter how sterling the reputation of the researchers. This is as clear an example as I've seen for why we should not trust primary sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
That said, getting anything "immuno-" (that is, "-blots", "-histochemistry", "-fluorescence", "-therapy") right is something that is hard. It takes care and caution. (See also all the dodgy ELISAs and bad technique that are used to support the primary fringe literature on so-called chronic Lyme and Morgellons.) TenOfAllTrades( talk) 13:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I had been watching some bad things happening to this article for a while, with content about health based on PRIMARY sources getting loaded into this. I worked this over today (and ending up merging a subarticle on health effects back into the main article). Would appreciate review of the article as it stands, and eyes on it going forward. People get intense about food. Jytdog ( talk) 02:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
working on this article,any help would be appreciated .thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 23:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I am proposing to add |PLLR=
to {{Drugbox}}.
PLLR is the new US FDA drug labeling rule regarding pregnancy and more. Discussed at
Infobox drug talk. -
DePiep (
talk)
02:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I have trimmed some unreffed trivia here Talk:Osteogenesis imperfecta#Long list of unreffed trivia. Wondering what others thoughts are? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I have been in discussion with the National Eye Institute. "Their" flickr stream [5] is inproperly tagged. I however have an email both from them and from a CC lawyer stating that these are truly in the public domain and the license listed on flickr is wrong. I asked them if they can correct this. If these images are being deleted let me know. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I would like your opinion about adding an external link to pages of invasive fungal infections ( mucormycosis, fusarium, yeast). It would be deep-linking directly to the respective fungus cases in FungiQuest, biggest database of invasive fungal infections cases, not available through Pubmed. Thank you. LuisaDG ( talk) 09:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
You have already brought it here [8] and [9] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I tried clicking through to the " Fusarium" section linked from the home page. As far as I can tell, this is simply a list of cases with a brief description of each case. The links to " Rhizopus", " Scedosporium" and " Trichosporon" have similar tables. These pages are not appropriate as external links for Wikipedia articles. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The links suggested fail WP:ELNO numbers 1, 2, 4, 9. These are searches in a database of primary sources and are particularly inappropriate for Wikipedia where our medical information is based upon secondary sourcing. In addition, LuisaDG is forum-shopping - see:
I've left a warning on their talk page. -- RexxS ( talk) 15:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Opinions requested regarding the most appropriate title for the WP article on the condition typically referred to as "TMD" (temporomandibular disorder) in North America and "TMJ-PDS" (temporomandibular joint pain-dysfunciton syndrome" in the EU; characterized by pain and dysfunction of the TMJ.
Temporomandibular disorder would seem more widely used, however pubmed, google books and google websearch results give a different picture. One thing I am almost sure of is that the current title, Temporomandibular joint dysfunction (a hybrid of both US and UK terms), is not as commonly used.
This is coming up again because I want to write an article covering pathology of the TMJ generally and not necessarily confined to this vaguely defined syndrome. Because not all disorders which affect this joint might cause pain and/or dysfunction. thoughts? Matthew Ferguson ( talk) 10:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Andy Tomlinson/sandbox is (or will be) a Draft article submitted to Articles for Creation, intended to exist alongside and separately from the existing Past life regression article. The reasons for this are explained in this posting at the Articles for Creation help desk by its author. Also some further discussion here on the talk page of a reviewer who declined the Draft. The proposed article contains text such as "psychiatrists and medical doctors have found it resolves blackouts [46] insomnia[47] migraine and unexplainable pain [48] asthma [49], and autoimmune disorder [50]", with citations to books by a publisher that I don't recognise. The Draft author also apparently cites work by himself in the Draft. Feedback on the Draft would be helpful at the help desk thread linked above (or here if that's easier). Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 13:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
One needs an excellent source for "A wide range of emotional problems have been resolved with regression therapy". Good to see it was declined. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I was dealing with some expired prods last week and came upon the article foot health practitioner, which was in a sorry state but seemed worth sending to AfD. The discussion hasn't seen much activity and there are comments about poor medical content on the talk page. I cleaned up some of the worst of it, but could anyone familiar with this practice take a look? It it is apparently a UK/Ireland thing and there seems to be a history of weird turf wars with podiatry. Thanks! Opabinia regalis ( talk) 08:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Probably preaching to the choir but here's an interesting read: I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here's How. -- NeilN talk to me 15:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
18:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for X-ray computed tomography to be moved to CT scan. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 22:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: Is this information about iodine levels covered in another article somewhere? Or is this a notable topic? The article is about to be deleted as a stale draft.— Anne Delong ( talk) 11:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, everyone,
An online discussion elsewhere in cyberspace made me aware of an external website run by a naturopath that appears to promote treatments for human disease based on patient testing for variants in the MTHFR (methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase) gene. There are patients who believe extraordinary claims regarding a gene × treatment (that is, gene × environment) interaction at that locus, which is not a replicated claim in the reliable sources on human genetics. I think it may be worthwhile for editors more informed than I am to take a look at the Wikipedia article Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase, which has had a rather quiet article talk page, to assess how well the better sources are reflected in that article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 15:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
See here Jytdog ( talk) 01:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
A series of "embedded navboxes" are present within all medical navboxes. These provide links to templates within a relevant area -- for example, all cardiovascular disease-related templates are linked alongside cardiovascular anatomy and treatment templates. This is designed to help readers navigate a large amount of medically-related articles grouped by template. This was previously announced here. The set of templates are here: Template:Medicine navs and during editing many medical editors have provided feedback.
Deletion has been proposed for one such template {{ Infestation navs}}, with a stated view to deleting the entire set. That discussion is here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_29#Template:Infestation_navs, please contribute. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 03:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
did a few edits on this article, should anyone like to lend a hand, please do. thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 19:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
In case anyone here would like to comment, I've opened a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Industry funding and ghostwriting of sources, with a view to adding something to the guideline. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Have trimmed a mass of primary sources from this article. Still more work needed if anyone wishes to help. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Lung cancer is the third most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Attention to lung cancer is especially relevant for the Medicare population, because the median age at diagnosis is 70 years. A suitable screening test has long been sought to accurately detect lung cancer at earlier stages, when treatments are more effective and survival is more likely. Currently, more than half of cases are diagnosed after the cancer has metastasized..i deem this a good read. [14]. thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 19:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering in regard to the extent to which articles labelled disorder may be expressing a negative POV.
I first raised related issues at
Talk:Sadistic personality disorder#Possible moves: "Sadistic personality" or similar where it was noted by
Mbcap who I think fairly expressed the view "this article may require the attention of a specialist, i.e. a psychiatrist
"
Of similar concern are the articles:
... the condition of experiencing recurring and intense sexual arousal in response to enduring extreme pain, suffering, or humiliation." and
... the condition of experiencing sexual arousal in response to the extreme pain, suffering, or humiliation of others."
For me I think that, to some extent, this may simply be a case in which the phrase different strokes for different folks may have an extremely literal application. Some people may respond to the gentle caress of fingertips while for other people a more violent form of stroking may alternatively/also be desired. In modern society any man or woman may only find sexual stimulation in a person of either their own or of the opposite sex and yet people are no longer widely described as having a disorder if they have homosexual tendencies and I think that the same issues may logically apply to articles perhaps with similar themes to those mentioned.
Articles that are arguably questionably placed in Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders include:
...having no sexual interests in other persons"
...a psychological typology of male-to-female (MtF) transsexualism"
...a formal diagnosis used by psychologists and physicians to describe children who experience significant discontent with their biological sex, assigned gender, or both."
is a psychoanalytic concept proposing the ability to gain sexual gratification outside socially normative sexual behaviors."
a psychiatric diagnosis applied to those who are thought to have an excessive sexual or erotic interest in cross-dressing;"
In many cases I think that there is little justification for placing the various topics into categories of disorder as, arguably, there may be circumstances in which problems may not universally be considered to be exhibited.
However see also:
... a paraphilia in which sexual arousal, facilitation, and attainment of orgasm are responsive to and contingent upon being with a partner known to have committed an outrage, cheating, lying, known infidelities or crime, such as rape, murder, or armed robbery."
In some cases sexual drives may be considered to lead to generally undesired outcomes.
I was wondering whether, in some cases, terminologies such as Psychological typologies might be used as alternatives in categories or whether different titles might be adopted in cases such as when word such as "disorder" are used. Greg Kaye 11:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
"Do you know why you can trust Wikipedia better than news sites? Because Wikipedia doesn’t obsess over the single most recent study. Are you starting to notice a theme?" [19] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Further comments appreicated here Talk:Lassa_fever#Lead_should_be_simpler Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I would like have created a bot that would check if Wikipedia is using old Cochrane reviews. The bot would go through all Cochrane reviews let's say every three months, it would pull the PMID from the citation template and put that number into Pubmed.
For example PMID 17943917 gives http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17943917
Than if the bot finds the heading "Update in" it would add to Wikipedia after that reference the Template:Update_inline. And than for "reason" it would add the PMID for the updated version of that review http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23990350
The bot would also created a page were all Cochrane reviews in need of updating are listed. Do people support this idea? If there is support I will try to have it built / get bot approval.
Just a passing comment: The most valuable "support" vote is always the one in which someone says something like, "If this existed, I personally would check the resulting category and update articles" (at least, when updates are actually appropriate; I suppose there might be situations in which the older is retained, maybe in a ==History== section). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Will the bot replace or add the updated review to Wikipedia or just tag the review? There are different ways to do this. If the bot replaces the old review the new updated review may have a different conclusion. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment Wondering about also having the bot add to some parameter within the ref something like "Most recent as of X" Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The article Immune Cycle was recently created. I'm not sure if all the sources in the article are reliable per MEDRS. Some eyes would be appreciated. Everymorning talk 13:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I just came across this page, which doesn't seem to be linked or transcluded anywhere. I didn't think we gave this kind of information, and I'm not sure if there are more of these pages. Can anyone shine some light on this? Sam Walton ( talk) 11:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
have added a few edits any help would be appreciated-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 15:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Hum... I'm largely ignorant about WP categorization, but I rather suspect (broadly per WP:OVERCAT?) that "Category:Etiology" could usefully be a subcategory of "Category:Epidemiology". Given that medical etiology is a key aspect of epidemiological research, I find it hard to imagine a page that could reasonably be categorized under "Category:Etiology" but not under "Category:Epidemiology". Best, 109.146.70.40 ( talk) 16:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page. Thanks, and happy editing! User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa
Scottperry has suggested reverting the article Psychiatry to a revision of 28 June 2012. The editor argues that this is necessary to address issues of WP:UNDUE in the controversy section of the current version of the article. They also argue that the article has experienced a general degradation of wording and phrasing compared to the 28 June 2012 revision. Regardless of whether the proposed reversion is justified, in the interests of article stability, it might be worthwhile to solicit a wider spectrum of opinion before applying such wide-ranging changes. Hence, I've begun a RFC on this issue. A more detailed presentation of the arguments for this change can be found at the article talk page or in the following diffs [21] [22] [23]. Thank you. FiachraByrne ( talk) 11:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes thanks. Rather than revert why not just move the content to a subapge? I have done this. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Management of androgenic alopecia and Management of hair loss need massive trimming of primary sources and merging. Anyone interested in helping... Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
[24] I deem this a good read, thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 13:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Please see In silico clinical trials, also a DYK nomination.
Dame Etna ( talk) 08:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone!
I've applied for a renewal of the IEG- (Individual Engagement Grant) I received last year as part of the Medical Translation Project. We had great success during those months, but I would like to keep working within the project, to make sure we can reach some of our long-term goals as well. I plan to dedicate my summer, and a large portion of my time this fall towards the project, and hope you think it's worthwhile. I'd be very happy if you took some of your time to take a look and to add your comments on the project – perhaps what could be improved and if you see anything you like.
Renewal request:
Some of the articles we translated last year:
My previous IEG final-report:
Best,
CFCF ..I think you do a great job, with these articles...These efforts exemplify how chapters and thematic projects such as Wiki Project Med can effectively work together, each bringing their specific expertise to a joint initiative. We would love to see other groups emulate this promising model. [25]...during the coming summer weeks we should all feel inspired to help -- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 17:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
A Request for Comments is now in progress at Talk:Ayurveda concerning whether [[Category:Pseudoscience]] should be added to the article on Ayurveda. Participation in the RFC is encouraged. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Wondering if others can weight in here Talk:Amphetamine/Archive 5#Issues Thanks Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a long standing and poor redirect to Sex reassignment surgery. I have left a comment on the redirect target's talk page to that effect. I do not, however, have the required knowledge to create a useful article, even as a stub. Please will a member of this project take up the challenge? Fiddle Faddle 20:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone, Jytdog and I have been discussing the utility of having manufacturing/administration safety data in various drug articles, and decided to ask for some wider input here. OSHA has set permissible exposure limits for workers who are involved in manufacturing certain drugs, and there are other health concerns for workers who may be exposed to drugs like chemotherapy drugs. Aspirin currently has an example of what I'd like to insert in several of these articles. I think this is relevant to include because it concerns the manufacture of the drug and it also concerns the health of the workers manufacturing it. But before including it in any more drug articles, it'd be nice to have some input. If its place isn't in the drug articles, is there another place where this important information could go? Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) ( talk) 02:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Know The Glow (
http://knowtheglow.org) is a program to identify signs of eye diseases.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
16:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The National Institutes of Health has suspended all manufacturing of medical products after finding some were contaminated with fungus. [28]...Inspectors from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigated the NIH facility between 19 and 29 May in response to an anonymous complaint. In reports dated 29 May and 2 June, the FDA outlines numerous problems with quality control and staff training....dated June 5th [29] -- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 16:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Another discussion on simplified language in the leads. Wondering if others have opinions. Talk:Cysticercosis#Simple_wording_in_the_lead Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I am wondering if we should have a wider discussion on this issue. For example WAID suggested we have:
People usually get cysticercosis after they eat food or drink water that has tapeworm eggs in it.
rather than
Cysticercosis is usually acquired by eating foods or water contaminated by tapeworm's eggs.
Do people feel this sort of general simplifying of our leads is positive?
I have run into resistance from a number of editors regarding this. Some have stated that this is "dumbing down" our content, [31], that if people do not understand our content they should simple use a dictionary, [32], and that people who want simpler content should just go to simple Wikipedia. [33] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes so this maybe better than?
Cysticercosis is usually acquired by eating food or drinking water that has tapeworm eggs in it.
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
People most often get cysticercosis because they have eaten food or drunk water that has tapeworm eggs in it.
Might be the meaning you're looking for? -- RexxS ( talk) 11:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The most common cause of cysticercosis is tapeworm eggs in food or water.
The most common cause of cysticercosis is eating food or drinking water with tapeworm eggs in it.
I have recently performed a major overhaul of the E-meter article in an effort to bring the article into what I see as "compliance with WP:Due and WP:Undue policies". While none of the other editors there have denied my concern about the article's aparent non-ccompliance with WP policy, no other editor there has yet endorsed my wholesale overhaul of the article. I have essentially restored the article to a "properly contemporized" 2007 edition of the article, in order to achieve this. The question there is whether or not to keep the major overhaul edition of the article, which I am calling the "restored" article, or to merely try to make gradual edits to the "pre-restored" version to bring about WP Policy compliance. Which path is best? The major overhaul path, or the incrimental path? Any input at the E-meter article's RFC from editors here would be most appreciated.
Thanks,
Scott P. ( talk) 09:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
gave opinion(give yours/ please read ArbCOM information on talk page-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 13:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Concerned about this category. Others thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
21:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
22:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Protein Sparing Modified Fast has recently been expanded with new content. It could probably benefit from input or review by knowledgeable editors from this project. Thank you. Deli nk ( talk) 12:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi this is my first post on a talk page (hopefully there aren't to many errors), I have been updating the Wikipedia:Cochrane Collaboration/Cochrane UK/Cochrane Reviews page with the latest Cochrane evidence that might be of interest to the Wiki community. I have also added suggestions for pages that could be updated. Also any feedback on how to improve our project pages would be much appreciated. Thanks HMill88 ( talk) 13:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The article impalement talks about impalement as a torture "method". Should a another article impalement injuries be made? 96.52.0.249 ( talk) 04:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
be it impalement injury or penetrating trauma , either could benefit with information from Impalement. it could be useful,due to the fact that some cases might be accidental while others intentional ("methods" section from Impalement might be useful...Impalement typically involves the body of a person being pierced through by a long stake, but sharp hooks, either fully penetrating the body, or becoming embedded in it, have also been used) [40]..in regards to this being a CONTENTFORK,Content forking can be unintentional or intentional. Although Wikipedia contributors are reminded to check to make sure there is not an existing article on the subject before they start a new article, there is always the chance they will forget, or that they will search in good faith but fail to find an existing article, or simply flesh out a derivative article rather than the main article on a topic. Wikipedia's principle of assume good faith should be kept in mind here. If you suspect a content fork, give the creator of a duplicate article the benefit of the doubt. Check with people who watch the respective articles and participate in talk page discussions to see if the fork was deliberate [41] I do not believe it meets this definition .IMO-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has been going on too long. More opinions please. Many thanks. Matthew Ferguson ( talk) 07:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you to those who commented, the discussion is now closed with, imo, a logical and favorable result. Matthew Ferguson ( talk) 17:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
University of Adelaide researchers have discovered cerebral palsy has an even stronger genetic cause than previously thought, leading them to call for an end to unnecessary caesareans and arbitrary litigation against obstetric staff. In an authoritative review published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, members of the Australian Cerebral Palsy Research Group, based at the University of Adelaide’s Robinson Research Institute, argue that up to 45% of cerebral palsy cases can have genetic causes. This builds on research published in February this year by the group which found at least 14% of cerebral palsy cases are likely to be caused by a genetic mutation. And the group expects the percentage of genetically caused cerebral palsy cases will continue to increase as genetic sequencing techniques evolve. The University of Adelaide’s Emeritus Professor Alastair MacLennan, leader of the research group, says the realisation by courts that many cases of cerebral palsy cannot be prevented by differences in labour management should reduce the adverse influence of obstetric litigation. “For many years it was assumed, without good evidence, cerebral palsy was caused by brain damage at birth through lack of oxygen.,” [43]-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 18:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Doc James, a contributor here at WikiProject Medicine, has been elected to the board of the Wikimedia Foundation. More information can be found in these places.
James announced his candidacy on this board.
James would comment about this whenever he wished to do so, but leaving aside anything that James has done, here are some possible implications of his being elected:
I list these things just as being possible outcomes of being able to say "the Wikimedia Foundation has a medical doctor on its board and this person endorses Wikipedia as a channel for distributing health information". I say this because in the past, certain demographics on Wikipedia have benefited from having board representation, even without actually interacting with the relevant board member.
If anyone has thought of proposing any kind of project on-wiki related to health, or of encouraging any group or organization to develop Wikipedia's health content, now might be a good time to think more of doing that. The Wikipedia brand is a powerful thing that opens a lot of doors off-wiki. Speaking of the WMF board's connection to health could be useful also. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I am wondering if Robert Ira Lewy would fall within the scope of this Wikiproject. The subject of the article, Lewy himself, created the article back in 2007 and has been editing off and on since then. However, he is now aware of WP:COI so he has stopped editing and moved to discussing things on Talk:Robert Ira Lewy instead. I and some others have been trying to help him out, but I do not have much experience with BLP's about medical doctors/researchers so I'm not sure how to best proceed. Any feedback or suggestions from the editors of this Wikiproject would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 13:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
This article made me want to categorize it in "category:outdated medical terms", or similar. Does such a category exist, and if no then should it be started? Matthew Ferguson ( talk) 21:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Just published today [46] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
did a few edits, any help would be appreciated .thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 21:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
[47] I deem this a good read, enjoy-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 11:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I am concerned about the use of this study in this article. It is cited several times, but it doesn't seem to meet MEDRS, so I think it should be removed. What do others think? Everymorning talk 00:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
heterogenous vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus (hVISA) looking for a good ref (definition) for this, opinions? (here or at article/talk page [51]) thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 11:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I've fixed, I think, an implied medical claim in the lead [52], but I have ongoing concerns about the appropriateness of Coulrophobia#Research. Thoughts? 109.146.70.40 ( talk) 09:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
CFCF's work on the WP:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force was mentioned early in the m:WMF Metrics and activities meetings (underway now; it's right after the brief report on the Lyon Hackathon). The link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skCBCYArUaA if you want to see it. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The latter article does not seem to mention calcification is possible. 92.22.167.143 ( talk) 22:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Requested here Talk:Vitamin_D#Vitamin_D_and_Cancer Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The Lancet has just published the new Global burden of disease report but looking at the Results section of the wiki page, I think the existing information is wrong. It is talking about the 2013 report, which as far as I can tell does not give the results to 2013 but 2010 (the one just published in 2015 is to 2013, they take some time to collate the information). The last edit was before the Lancet published this report (and the 2013 report just published in 2015 is not cited on the wiki page). I therefore think this section needs checking and rewriting - just a warning in case anyone is watching and wonders what I'm doing. JMWt ( talk) 09:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)