![]() | 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 85 | ← | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | Archive 94 | Archive 95 |
So pneumonia is our 7th most read medical article this week. [1] We have been looking at pulling some data for the infoboxes from Wikidata as we make them more human friendly. User:DePiep switched the infobox for pneumonia to pull from there and here is what it gives for medications for pneumonia "simvastatin, ticagrelor, aztreonam, cholecalciferol, prednisone, sucralfate, acetylcysteine, sparfloxacin"
When I look at when this was added it is April 27, 2016 by a User:ProteinBoxBot. [2] Now everyone is allowed to make mistakes. The issue with Wikidata is that there is not the community to pick up the mistakes and fix them.
Supposedly this ref [3] says simvastatin is a major treatement for pneumonia? And this one say ticagrelor [4]. I do not even seen pneumonia mentioned. And they of course are not major treatments (or treatments at all). Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay figure out the ref [8]. When you click on "indications" and expand to 100, at the bottom pneumonia is listed. Specifically it says "PNEUMONIA D011014 EFO:0003106 PNEUMONIA 2". No idea what that means. Anyone else? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
|medicine=
in the en:wiki article. Editing as we know it). So far, this local input overwrites Wikidata input. (
pneumonia history). 3.
Doc James wants to discard (=not use) any Wikidata. At all. This might be reasonable, but I want that by talk outcome (WP:MED RfC?). 4. An other option is, I propose here: "use & track categorize MED articles that use Wikidata data" (suspected by definition I understand). -
DePiep (
talk) 22:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Dear Doc James and others: On behalf of the ProteinBoxBot initiative that has been doing the vast majority of uploading of biomedical data to Wikidata, let me offer some thoughts. First, I absolutely agree with the reversion of the template. While I appreciate DePiep's initiative (and agree that this is WP:BRD in action), data should only be pulled in from Wikidata after sufficient discussion and community consensus. Our team has tried to be extremely proactive when proposing drawing from Wikidata (for example, see discussions we initiated for genes [13] and compounds [14]). We did not feel ready to make a similar proposal for disease infoboxes yet, but it will be right here at WP:MED when we do.
Second, please note that the evidence/provenance for all wikidata claims can be incorporated as part of the query to retrieve content. Others have noted that in this particular case the evidence was traced back to ChEMBL, which should be treated as a research resource and not a clinical one. So, in the future when we do come to propose wikidata inclusion, we could (and likely should/will) restrict to only include statements that cite a clinically-reputable source (and in fact, we could use the advice of folks here to prioritize those reputable sources).
Third, I 100% agree that the issue of wikidata edits not showing up in the edit histories and watchlists here on Wikipedia is a critical one because it impedes oversight and transparency. In fact, just last week our team was having a discussion with Dario Taraborelli (Head of Research at WMF) about the need to make that happen. I can't speak to prioritization among either the WMF or Wikidata teams, but I can say it's a known issue on both ends. Of course, that will also be a key consideration for timing when our ProteinBoxBot team comes to propose greater use of Wikidata content.
I hope this context is useful, and of course additional discussion and feedback is welcome... Best, Andrew Su ( talk) 22:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
importScriptURI( '
https://www.wikidata.org/?title=User:Yair_rand/DiffLists.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' );
to
Special:MyPage/common.js) which can filter Wikidata changes on watchlists (for example, you can set it to show only edits to certain properties), which might help. --
Yair rand (
talk) 01:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)|Medicine=foo
trumps P1995). But what when enwiki input absent? Then hide the Wikidata P1995 value? Or do we trustfully show the Wikidata returns? (Again, I'd say we should track-categorize those issues). -
DePiep (
talk) 22:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
{{#invoke:WikidataIB|getValue|qid=Q670131|name=treats|P2175|fetchwikidata=ALL}}
→ hypertriglyceridemia, familial hyperlipidemia , Early-onset Alzheimer's disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, celiac disease, eye disease, MODY 2, glucose intolerance, atrial fibrillation, breast cancer, large intestine cancer , rectum cancer , sinusitis, cardiovascular disease, choroideremia, secondary progressive multiple sclerosis , pain, pneumonia, relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis , Smith–Lemli–Opitz syndrome, subarachnoid hemorrhage, insomnia, non-small cell lung carcinoma , sickle cell anemia, pulmonary hypertension, bipolar disorder, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, stomach cancer, sepsis, Vitiligo, human immunodeficiency virus infectious disease , migraine, polycystic ovary syndrome, septic shock, Intraventricular hemorrhage, arteriosclerosis, coronary artery diseaseAgree with User:Jytdog on this. Statins are NOT a treatment for pneumonia. WD does not get to invent their own English language. We have an excellent review that states "however, it remains unclear whether initiation of statins at time of diagnosis is beneficial." This means "statins are not a treatment for pneumonia" People call pull in data items as one offs from Wikidata at this point in time but we should not be pulling them in systemically for important deals. It is simply too risky at this point in time (and will make us look like idiots). They appear to speak a different language. Have removed from the template again [16] as it is dangerous. Wikidata by default for important stuff is also too dangerous. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
|diff=
four times? Is just the differential diagnosis input. -
DePiep (
talk) 20:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
(Cross posted from https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:ProteinBoxBot#Undo_bot_run) @ Jytdog and Doc James: apologies for the slow and brief reply -- busy IRL today. I still contest the label of "bad data", but concede that we don't have the data modeling quite right here yet. So we will remove those statements shortly and come up with a better data modeling plan. In the mean time, if either of you has a suggestion on definitive data sources that could be used to populated the "treats" properties that reflect current clinical best practices, we're all ears. (Right now, our team seems to be converging on dailymed...) More soon... (EDIT: the bot run to remove these statements is now complete. Please let us know if you notice any remaining issues.) Best, Andrew Su ( talk) 04:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I have to say that if this data is labelled 'treatment' and not 'has been studied' then it is not only bad data, but dangerously bad data. While the data itself might be accurate for one point it can still have horrendous effects if incorrectly labelled. Just because the data is properly sourced in the first place doesn't mean you can't break it by using it incorrectly and turning things into a pointless unusable cesspool. I agree that Wikidata needs something similar to WP:MEDRS, and it needs it now. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the [19]-page it now looks better. However it only lists two drugs: aztreonam and prednisone. While correct it gives only a sliver of what are accepted treatments. It would be better to show Drug class#Therapeutic class. For something like pneumonia a large range of different antibiotics can be used, all depending on resistance, type of bacteria, local treatment guidelines, and a number of other factors. The same can be said for glucocorticoids — for example in Sweden we never use prednisone, only prednisolone (which is marginally faster acting because it skips one step in the metabolization). This has a very minor effect on treatment, but it is a different substance — and a range of other alternatives are available such as betamethasone or dexamethasone. So it would be much better to show treatments as: glucocorticoids, antibiotics.
However this will not work in all cases, as some diseases have only a few accepted treatments. I have a hard time coming up how to balance these two different cases against eachother in Wikidata to ensure that we can both show drug classes when necessary and specific treatments when that is warranted. Thoughts? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
{{#invoke:WikidataIB|getValue|qid=Q12192|name=treat|P2176|fetchwikidata=ALL}}
→
acetylcysteine,
sparfloxacin,
sucralfateif not ref:find("Wikipedia") and not ref:find("ChEMBL") then refs = refs + 1 end
(or more likely I'd add a new call that took untrusted sources as parameters like "ChEMBL", "NDF-RT"). But that would ameliorate the problem only for en-wp. The whole point of Wikidata is that it's a central database that serves all the Wikimedia projects as well as third parties. It's far better to get properties like
drug or therapy used for treatment (P2176) populated with values genuinely useful to medics and lay readers, and there's no reason why related properties like "drugs studied in connection with" couldn't be created for the researchers. --
RexxS (
talk) 17:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I've been watching that long thread about Wikidata above, and I think that different people have different ideas about what the label 'used for treatment' means (or ought to mean). As someone noted above, the problem isn't necessarily collecting the information in Wikidata; the problem is when another group re-uses that information inappropriately because they didn't understand its limitations.
So: Statins aren't a treatment for pneumonia, because we have no evidence that starting a statin at the time of diagnosis is efficacious, right? Except – are we absolutely certain that they're not used for any kind of pneumonia, including cholesterol pneumonia?
For that matter, are we even absolutely certain that they're not used for treatment, by anyone? Even if it's generally considered useless? Mainstream medicine "uses" treatments all the time even when we know that they don't work. Arthroscopic knee surgery is useless for pain (as all the regulars are familiar with me saying). So is meniscus surgery. So is vertebroplasty. So is spinal fusion for herniated disks. And, sure, it's lovely and idealistic to think that "medicine" self-corrects when faced with the evidence, but the main reason fewer of these spinal fusions are being performed in the US now is because health insurance companies are outright refusing to pay for them, [22] not because any scientific self-correction was happening.
And then there's the issue of what "was used" but isn't any longer, or is only used in some countries or cultures.
I think it might be helpful to have a more abstract discussion about what "used for treatment" could mean (i.e., how people from different fields, cultures, etc. might interpret that phrase) and what treatment-related categories might be useful to us on Wikipedia. I could imagine, for example, separating "used for treatment" with date and place qualifiers to indicate outdated treatments, or "used without evidence" for non-evidence-based treatments, or "evidence-based treatments" for things currently believed to work. What would you find useful? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
In Wikipedia articles, I agree that we should be using plain English whenever that is reasonably possible (i.e., more often than when it's convenient).
However, on Wikidata, we might benefit from more detailed sub-categorizations. Rather than "restricting" (having less information on Wikidata), I'm thinking "splitting" (all the information, but divided up so it's easier to see what's typical/desirable/most salient). From the above comments, here's a few categories that might be useful in some circumstances:
What else could we add to this list? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Paracetamol toxicity, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I just came across this years-old article that seems to be written inappropriately as an essay/original hypothesis in violation of WP:OR. I'd like if other users could take a look at it. Everymorning (talk) 16:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I created a thread over on Talk:Needle remover that I would love to get some feedback on. I would like to change the citations from parenthetical to citation style 1. I think it would be easier to read the article (as citation style 1 is used all over Wikipedia). I'm not sure if there was a reason originally for using the style that the article currently uses. Please let me know if you guys think this is a good or bad idea, and if you know why the article uses the style it does. Zell Faze ( talk) 14:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 11:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Can we get some eyes from this project on Psychopathy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? We have "new editor" Petergstrom calling any and everything fringe, me pointing out that psychopathy is not a fringe topic and that it does not fall under WP:Fringe, and Penbat challenging a lot of deletions that Petergstrom has made to the article. Petergstrom is correct that we should not be relying heavily on primary sources, but I've seen him clash with editors at other medical articles and it's my opinion that his POV of certain medical topics often clouds his judgment. See Talk:Psychopathy#Neutral POV and lower for the discussions. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 13:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes there are quite a few colourful and relevant discussions at User talk:Petergstrom. User_talk:Petergstrom#Warning specifically mentions psychopathy.-- Penbat ( talk) 13:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Could a few more people put Cancer pain on their watchlists? It seems to attract simple vandalism. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Bulletproof_diet#Merger_proposal Jytdog ( talk) 03:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
At Talk:Phytodolor the question of whether this herbal product was notable enough (for Wikipedia purposes) came up. Since that talk page may not get much traffic I'd like to suggest that interested editors from this project have a look. Also, some related new pages may be of similar interest as well: SKI 306X, Gitadyl, and Avocado/soybean unsaponifiables. Deli nk ( talk) 11:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Since there is no clear distinction between the two I consider there should be a single sidebar for both. This functions well because it includes both and resolves the issue that some people may raise that x isn't alternative, or y isn't pseudo — effectively ensuring that they aren't included anywhere, or that the template is avoided because one would need two sidebars. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
More eyes needed at Circumcision in Africa Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
How are these terms related? Is one a symptom and the other a disease. Is it unusual that these articles don't reference each other? NickCT ( talk) 14:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Acupuncture#Petition_regarding_this_page... by The Acupuncture Now Foundation
This article may need a significant number of extra eyes in the near future.
Carl Fredrik
💌
📧 01:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
interested in folks' thoughts on the above. Jytdog ( talk) 07:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Parasympathetic rebound is a weird article. Five Pubmed hits but loads on Google in terms of popular culture references. I might ask a friendly neurophysiologist if this is a thing or not. JFW | T@lk 09:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)...IMO--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk) 11:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)This article needs some significant trimming. There may also be a number of related articles that we've missed over the years. This one has been tagged since 2007, with hardly anything done to it.
I also redirected Acupuncture point -> Acupuncture, we'll see if that holds. The sources in that article were even more abysmal and it was essentially a repeat of information on Acupuncture... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Fleshed out article on new drug; please review. thx. and happy new year everybody! Jytdog ( talk) 02:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
The International League Against Epilepsy has constructed a new classification system for seizure types. The new system is available here and it would be a lengthy process to modify the entire article. It would be helpful if editors contribute in this process. Vignyana talk 14:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, folks. We have a submission at Articles for Creation that addresses a topic within the scope of your project. We would greatly appreciate your input as to the acceptability of its sources, as well as the accuracy and readability of the text. We also have a question as to whether a stand-alone article on this topic is appropriate, or whether the draft largely duplicates material found in the existing articles on various types of brain cysts (a list of them appears in the Comments section of the draft). The submission is Draft:Brain cysts. Comments can be left on the talk page of the draft.
Thank you for any assistance that you can provide. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 19:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Happy 2017 WikiProject Medicine!
I left a comment on the talk page of the Hysterectomy article. If you have a chance, I would appreciate some feedback on how to best clean up this section.
Thanks very much. JenOttawa ( talk) 15:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
We have:
Seems to me that both of these articles (and there may be more like this) are about the drugs, not intMonoclonal antibody therapyerventions. Rename to something like Antisense drugs or more accurately Antisense biopharmaceuticals? Jytdog ( talk) 00:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Then again there is chemotherapy Jytdog ( talk) 00:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I also posted a small question on neuropathic pain talk page, looking for advice for an appropriate citation to replace a "citation needed" tag. Talk:Neuropathic pain#Anticonvulsants
Thanks~ JenOttawa ( talk) 17:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone! My instinct is that this page should ultimately be redirected to Adaptation (eye), but (despite the article title) someone's put a lot of effort into adding information on basic science that I think would probably be valuable if moved elsewhere first. Thanks, Sunrise ( talk) 17:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Nice write up here [42] Thanks to James Hare and User:Keilana as our Wikipedians in Residence.
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Please help merge Draft:Oroantral fistula and User:Justryingtohelp/Oroantral fistula, the latter is more recently edited, so please involve Justryingtohelp in the process. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 22:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I have a question about drug templates and I don't know where to find the information. The bottom of the templates says
#WHO-EM ‡Withdrawn from market Clinical trials: †Phase III §Never to phase III
But I'm not clear on how to use the clinical trials indicators. I'm assuming for a standard, FDA-approved drug, no indicator is used. For a drug that's in phase II clinical trials, is also nothing to be used? For a drug currently in phase III trials, the † is used. I assume that Never to phase III means the drug was abandoned during phase I or II of development? Can someone point me to where this is detailed or explain this to me?
Natureium ( talk) 22:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there a reliable source search template (like this one: Template:Reliable sources for medical articles) that auto-generates a search for the Cochrane reviews on the subject of the article? -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 00:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Good morning Wikiproject Medicine members! I just wanted to give you all a heads up that a new FAC has been opened for the acne vulgaris article. I would definitely appreciate multiple editors weighing in with support/opposition/suggestions. The FAC can be found here [46]. Thank you! TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 15:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
In the light of the court case discussed in this blog post, should our article Trachea (to which Trachea transplant redirects) and the BLP Thorsten Walles be updated? Are we sure that they represent a full and neutral account of the cases surgery involved? At the very least, some extra eyeballs, against future vandalism, or PoV edits, would be wise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, both. It may also be worth watching for the creation of Heike Walles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Emotional lability redirects to Pseudobulbar affect (PBA), which lists multiple alternative names most of which are synonymous with "emotional lability", but not actually PBA. [47] I'm a little surprised we don't have an article on emotional lability. Labile mood redirects to Mood dysregulation, which seems more appropriate than PBA. Thoughts on changing these terms to redirect to mood dysregulation instead of to PBA?
—PermStrump (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I would propose expanding emotional lability rather than labile affect as it is potentially broader as it not only encompasses what a clinician sees but by virtue of its name allows some more in depth discussion of the conditions and situations that one sees it (bipolar, borderline, acute stress reaction, frontal disinhibition etc.) Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Right, BAM let's go.... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
have a new user very enthusiastic about its potential to treat AD. More eyes would be good thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 02:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Research on the effects of violence in mass media#Latest edits. Permalink here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 15:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
We are having a discussion here regarding if old sources from the 1980s and early 1990s should be used instead of a Oct 2016 statement by the NIH. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I ran across the term eminence-based medicine to describe Argument from authority in medical decisions (basically, "Dr Famous (or "my attending") said that this drug works, so I'm giving it to all my patients"). Surely we have an article, or at least a section, somewhere on this pre-evidence-based system? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Exercise intolerance says, "Exercise intolerance is not a disease or syndrome in and of itself, but a primary symptom of chronic diastolic heart failure."
What do you think this is meant in the latter half of the sentence?
(I'm mostly looking for off-the-cuff POVs here, not sources.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
We really need more eyes here. thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 07:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks to be pertinent to the current season per WHO's latest update. It appears that their vaccine recommendation for 2016 included A/Hong Kong/4801/2014 which should be helpful. The article could use some attention to reflect updates. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I posted a comment on the bottom of the talk page for hysterectomy re removing a paragraph with primary data. No feedback recieved yet. If you have a chance, I would appreciate a second opinion before I delete the information! /info/en/?search=Talk:Hysterectomy#Primary_research_eVal_study JenOttawa ( talk) 18:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
We have separate articles for analeptic and psychoanaleptic. Are these two topics distinct enough to warrant separate articles, or can the two be merged? -- Ed ( Edgar181) 17:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I hope you are all doing well. Happy New Year!
Tyler could use some help improving the acne vulgaris article so he can achieve FA status. I made an initial comment over at the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acne vulgaris/archive2, posing several questions that need input from the whole med community.
The article also needs a good copy editor to clean it up too (not my strength).
Perhaps you call could help by commenting at the FA candidate link above? -- My Core Competency is Competency ( talk) 16:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
keep and expand or redirect to Stem-cell_therapy#Blindness_and_vision_impairment? Jytdog ( talk) 02:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
As a summary, my understanding of how wikimedical pages work is as follows, please correct me if I am wrong! -Systematic reviews are best, other high quality reviews accepted for medical content. In the "Research" sections of the medical pages, primary research articles from peer reviewed publications appropriate if a systematic review has not been published or conducted. Is this correct? Thanks again!! JenOttawa ( talk) 18:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Already redirected it to Limbal stem cell. May be a good idea to simply continue the merging. Very little evidence for the stuff. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
upon the request of another editor I created this disambig page, with supporting content in each of the targeted articles. Not confident i captured it correctly so please review. thx. Jytdog ( talk) 04:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Should I nominate Bipolar disorder research for deletion? As it's currently written, it doesn't add anything of value to the existing bipolar articles ( Bipolar disorder, Bipolar I, Bipolar II, Cyclothymia, Treatment of bipolar disorder, History of bipolar disorder, Bipolar disorder in children). I'm not sure if it has potential or if it would be redundant in any case. Thoughts? —PermStrump (talk)
Hi. I would like to edit some evidence-based information about long-term care interventions for older adults, but I am not sure in what wiki article I should include it.
The existing Long-term care wiki page describes it from an organizational point of view, not focusing on the benefits of the available interventions. Would it make sense to create new sections in this article focusing on evidence-based care for older adults? Or, are there other more suitable articles to include this sort of information? What are your thoughts about it? Thank you very much in advance. -- MonWiki ( talk) 21:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
In my work on alt med stuff, i sometimes look at cochrane reviews on this stuff and have been really surprised by what Cochrane folk have actually taken the time to look at, and some of their conclusions.
I also frequently come across people trying to add citations to University of Maryland's CAM website which is a woo-fest.
This just clicked and made sense to me. (from here): "The Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field, based at the University of Maryland Center for Integrative Medicine, coordinates all of the CAM-related activities of the Cochrane Collaboration, including the development of a database with information on more than 7,000 controlled trials of CAM therapies and modalities, and facilitates the preparation of CAM reviews and the promotion of these reviews, especially among the members of the CAM community."
Similar thing with Tom Jefferson doing Cochrane reviews on vaccines and anti-virals.
So, oy. The inmates are running the asylum in some places at Cochrane. Jytdog ( talk) 22:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Concerning the misuse of evidence in high quality sources we should keep a lookout for the next surgeon-general appointment. If this is anything to go by [57], we could really do with a tightening of MEDRS, pending an onslaught of inanity.
I've been contemplating some work on defining how we weigh grey literature, both within and between reports. E.g. just because acupuncture is mentioned as part of a 400-page report on back pain doesn't mean it merits a whole section (or even inclusion at all) in a 100,000 byte article. Strengthening the guideline and creating stricter criteria for WP:MEDWEASEL and WP:MEDDUE could be a start. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
My list of missing topics about medicine (and related pages) are updated - Skysmith ( talk) 15:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The article on Hyperthermia therapy is not at all in line with quality sources. Hyperthermia is a fringe practice akin to chronic lyme disease and the sort — yet our article currently states is can be used for chronic lyme disease, depression and cancer and has the image of a smiling lady sitting in a heat-suit. It reads as a shill piece and the article is in terrible shape and could use some more eyes and some extensive pruning. Basically everything in the lede is either wrong or a vast overstatement. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The review underscores the limited nature of the evidence; definitive conclusions are elusive. However, the promising results of RHT in the setting of intravesical chemotherapy, chemotherapy and radiotherapy show a trend towards legitimate efficacy.
Great thing in Nature News recently....
-- Jytdog ( talk) 17:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Greetings. I included a short paragraph that was intended to introduce readers of the Masturbation article to the NoFap article. I thought this would be an interesting contribution, particularly since the article on masturbation does not have a lot of information about abstaining from masturbation (apart from some limited treatment of old-fashioned anti-masturbation attitudes). For me, the NoFap community is the obvious centre of discussion about such abstention nowadays.
This did not go over especially well. Firstly, the NoFap community was founded in response to a somewhat dubious research article. One critic put the {{medrs}} template into the NoFap article in the relevant place. To that I say: fair enough. I'm interested in the community not primarily from a medical standpoint, but from a cultural and phenomenological standpoint. Of course, the medical and scientific aspects of the issue are also interesting and I think these should be reflected on Wikipedia when possible too. (E.g., research debunking the claims of the above mentioned dubious article might be included in the NoFap article itself.)
Subsequent discussion focused less on the {{medrs}} issue, and more on the idea that NoFap is a "fringe" group. WP:ONEWAY was mentioned (although I don't actually think that it applies). At the moment the conversation seems to have stagnated, without movement towards any consensus. I'd appreciate if people here who take an interest in the various related themes might weigh in on the discussion at Talk:Masturbation#MEDRS. Thanks! Arided ( talk) 02:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
At a glance, I think we've handled this poorly, and I'd like to talk about it because it's the kind of mess that's pretty typical for us. The basic facts seem to be these:
An accurate description of these facts is: Someone started an internet forum whose purpose is to encourage members not to masturbate, because he heard about a research paper that said not masturbating makes your testosterone go up.
The response from medical editors seems to focus on the "not masturbating makes your testosterone go up" part (hereinafter "the irrelevant part"). The actual story is: there might be a small social movement against masturbation. The irrelevant part is everything about the contents of the journal article. We could write the entire thing without talking about science at all.
But we're (not just one of us) leaping on the irrelevant part and saying that the irrelevant part needs a MEDRS-style source, even though that's neither relevant nor even factual. (Imagine that we actually had a gold-plated review on the effects of sexual continence on testosterone. Would the existence of that review change the fact that this guy was inspired to start an internet forum by the 2003 primary study?)
I know that this is a bit of a soapbox, but I'm asking again: when you are trying to decide whether something is WP:Biomedical information, please read the whole paragraph first. "Intervention X has biological effect Y" is potentially biomedical information. "This guy read a paper that claimed that intervention X had biological effect Y" is historical information (also BLP).
Arided, IMO the main problem with your proposed addition is that it gives too much attention to one small[1] internet forum. If it were a simple case of WP:Build the web – if your proposal had said something like "Some people choose not to masturbate for perceived health or personal benefits; for example, NoFap is a non-religious online community whose members avoid masturbation" under one of the multiple society/culture sections – then I think you might have had a small chance. But even that could be difficult at a large article. "There's this small online community, see?" is a lot less obviously relevant than things like "Multiple large religious organizations say that it's immoral".
(Also, someone mentioned the number of times that NoFap is linked in Wikipedia. It's presently linked in three navboxes: {{ addiction}}, {{ masturbation}}, and {{ pornography}}. Those templates presumably account for all, or almost all, of the incoming links.)
[1] Yes, small. 200,000 people is a lot if you're comparing it to, say, your high school, but for every account that subscribed to that internet forum around the world, over the space of years, there are two people in England and Wales alone alone who claimed to be Jedis on a single day. If your worldwide group is smaller than the Jedis in England and Wales, it's still small.
WhatamIdoing ( talk) 07:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Is this list really necessary when there's also Category:Breakthrough therapy? The list isn't up to date, and I don't want to bother if it's superfluous. Natureium ( talk) 17:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Be aware
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Use_of_Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine.2FApp.2FBanner_on_articles.
Best,
Carl Fredrik
💌
📧 21:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
we have a dual-IP using spammer edit warring at this article; some more eyes would be great. thx Jytdog ( talk) 05:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I completely rewrote this article - it went from this to what it is now - a typical drug article. Don't know how to convert the chembox to a drugbox.... Jytdog ( talk) 15:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
just worked this over tonight. crazy, crazy story.
If you want to play, first read the version that was there when I started: this.
Then look at this: Amifampridine#History. I knew nothing about this before I started and got to piece that story together tonight. But the old version was just bizarro marketing speak. Jytdog ( talk) 08:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Barotrauma lacks some sections recommended in MEDMOS. Would someone familiar with articles on trauma take a look and add the applicable headers? Cheers • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
A redirect is up for discussion here. [59]
Basically the question is should we redirect brands to generics. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
This discussion specifically concerns whether Tylenol should redirect to Paracetamol or the Tylenol (brand) article. Extremely few readers will be looking for the article about the brand and additional comments would be very helpful. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
the main topic is the medicine. The main topic is the brand which contains the active ingredient paracetamol. Boghog ( talk) 19:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
User:WhatamIdoing per "I've never yet heard someone claim that they've created an article about their particular brand on the grounds that Tylenol (brand) exists" Here is someone from Jan 11th, 2017 using just that justification in an attempt to create an article on Crocin. [60] And not the first time I have heard the arguement either. If someone from the N. America is searching for Tylenol they are most likely looking for acetaminophen. As most of our readers are from N. America we should take that into account. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The Spastic cerebral palsy article has only one source. My understanding is that spastic cerebral palsy is the most common type of cerebral palsy when you break CP down by 'type of damage incurred'. The main CP article says it's at 70% (with a source from 2000), the spastic CP page says it's at 90% (apparently unsourced). If it's the most common subtype-by-type-of-damage, spastic CP is clearly going to be a notable topic to cover. However... one source. I've been lightly updating parts of the main CP article for a while now, but this is beyond my skills. What should this article even contain, in comparison to the main CP article? Should WP:TNT be applied to the spastic CP article? -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 03:12, 15 January 2017 (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 85 | ← | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | Archive 94 | Archive 95 |
So pneumonia is our 7th most read medical article this week. [1] We have been looking at pulling some data for the infoboxes from Wikidata as we make them more human friendly. User:DePiep switched the infobox for pneumonia to pull from there and here is what it gives for medications for pneumonia "simvastatin, ticagrelor, aztreonam, cholecalciferol, prednisone, sucralfate, acetylcysteine, sparfloxacin"
When I look at when this was added it is April 27, 2016 by a User:ProteinBoxBot. [2] Now everyone is allowed to make mistakes. The issue with Wikidata is that there is not the community to pick up the mistakes and fix them.
Supposedly this ref [3] says simvastatin is a major treatement for pneumonia? And this one say ticagrelor [4]. I do not even seen pneumonia mentioned. And they of course are not major treatments (or treatments at all). Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay figure out the ref [8]. When you click on "indications" and expand to 100, at the bottom pneumonia is listed. Specifically it says "PNEUMONIA D011014 EFO:0003106 PNEUMONIA 2". No idea what that means. Anyone else? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
|medicine=
in the en:wiki article. Editing as we know it). So far, this local input overwrites Wikidata input. (
pneumonia history). 3.
Doc James wants to discard (=not use) any Wikidata. At all. This might be reasonable, but I want that by talk outcome (WP:MED RfC?). 4. An other option is, I propose here: "use & track categorize MED articles that use Wikidata data" (suspected by definition I understand). -
DePiep (
talk) 22:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Dear Doc James and others: On behalf of the ProteinBoxBot initiative that has been doing the vast majority of uploading of biomedical data to Wikidata, let me offer some thoughts. First, I absolutely agree with the reversion of the template. While I appreciate DePiep's initiative (and agree that this is WP:BRD in action), data should only be pulled in from Wikidata after sufficient discussion and community consensus. Our team has tried to be extremely proactive when proposing drawing from Wikidata (for example, see discussions we initiated for genes [13] and compounds [14]). We did not feel ready to make a similar proposal for disease infoboxes yet, but it will be right here at WP:MED when we do.
Second, please note that the evidence/provenance for all wikidata claims can be incorporated as part of the query to retrieve content. Others have noted that in this particular case the evidence was traced back to ChEMBL, which should be treated as a research resource and not a clinical one. So, in the future when we do come to propose wikidata inclusion, we could (and likely should/will) restrict to only include statements that cite a clinically-reputable source (and in fact, we could use the advice of folks here to prioritize those reputable sources).
Third, I 100% agree that the issue of wikidata edits not showing up in the edit histories and watchlists here on Wikipedia is a critical one because it impedes oversight and transparency. In fact, just last week our team was having a discussion with Dario Taraborelli (Head of Research at WMF) about the need to make that happen. I can't speak to prioritization among either the WMF or Wikidata teams, but I can say it's a known issue on both ends. Of course, that will also be a key consideration for timing when our ProteinBoxBot team comes to propose greater use of Wikidata content.
I hope this context is useful, and of course additional discussion and feedback is welcome... Best, Andrew Su ( talk) 22:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
importScriptURI( '
https://www.wikidata.org/?title=User:Yair_rand/DiffLists.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' );
to
Special:MyPage/common.js) which can filter Wikidata changes on watchlists (for example, you can set it to show only edits to certain properties), which might help. --
Yair rand (
talk) 01:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)|Medicine=foo
trumps P1995). But what when enwiki input absent? Then hide the Wikidata P1995 value? Or do we trustfully show the Wikidata returns? (Again, I'd say we should track-categorize those issues). -
DePiep (
talk) 22:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
{{#invoke:WikidataIB|getValue|qid=Q670131|name=treats|P2175|fetchwikidata=ALL}}
→ hypertriglyceridemia, familial hyperlipidemia , Early-onset Alzheimer's disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, celiac disease, eye disease, MODY 2, glucose intolerance, atrial fibrillation, breast cancer, large intestine cancer , rectum cancer , sinusitis, cardiovascular disease, choroideremia, secondary progressive multiple sclerosis , pain, pneumonia, relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis , Smith–Lemli–Opitz syndrome, subarachnoid hemorrhage, insomnia, non-small cell lung carcinoma , sickle cell anemia, pulmonary hypertension, bipolar disorder, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, stomach cancer, sepsis, Vitiligo, human immunodeficiency virus infectious disease , migraine, polycystic ovary syndrome, septic shock, Intraventricular hemorrhage, arteriosclerosis, coronary artery diseaseAgree with User:Jytdog on this. Statins are NOT a treatment for pneumonia. WD does not get to invent their own English language. We have an excellent review that states "however, it remains unclear whether initiation of statins at time of diagnosis is beneficial." This means "statins are not a treatment for pneumonia" People call pull in data items as one offs from Wikidata at this point in time but we should not be pulling them in systemically for important deals. It is simply too risky at this point in time (and will make us look like idiots). They appear to speak a different language. Have removed from the template again [16] as it is dangerous. Wikidata by default for important stuff is also too dangerous. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
|diff=
four times? Is just the differential diagnosis input. -
DePiep (
talk) 20:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
(Cross posted from https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:ProteinBoxBot#Undo_bot_run) @ Jytdog and Doc James: apologies for the slow and brief reply -- busy IRL today. I still contest the label of "bad data", but concede that we don't have the data modeling quite right here yet. So we will remove those statements shortly and come up with a better data modeling plan. In the mean time, if either of you has a suggestion on definitive data sources that could be used to populated the "treats" properties that reflect current clinical best practices, we're all ears. (Right now, our team seems to be converging on dailymed...) More soon... (EDIT: the bot run to remove these statements is now complete. Please let us know if you notice any remaining issues.) Best, Andrew Su ( talk) 04:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I have to say that if this data is labelled 'treatment' and not 'has been studied' then it is not only bad data, but dangerously bad data. While the data itself might be accurate for one point it can still have horrendous effects if incorrectly labelled. Just because the data is properly sourced in the first place doesn't mean you can't break it by using it incorrectly and turning things into a pointless unusable cesspool. I agree that Wikidata needs something similar to WP:MEDRS, and it needs it now. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the [19]-page it now looks better. However it only lists two drugs: aztreonam and prednisone. While correct it gives only a sliver of what are accepted treatments. It would be better to show Drug class#Therapeutic class. For something like pneumonia a large range of different antibiotics can be used, all depending on resistance, type of bacteria, local treatment guidelines, and a number of other factors. The same can be said for glucocorticoids — for example in Sweden we never use prednisone, only prednisolone (which is marginally faster acting because it skips one step in the metabolization). This has a very minor effect on treatment, but it is a different substance — and a range of other alternatives are available such as betamethasone or dexamethasone. So it would be much better to show treatments as: glucocorticoids, antibiotics.
However this will not work in all cases, as some diseases have only a few accepted treatments. I have a hard time coming up how to balance these two different cases against eachother in Wikidata to ensure that we can both show drug classes when necessary and specific treatments when that is warranted. Thoughts? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
{{#invoke:WikidataIB|getValue|qid=Q12192|name=treat|P2176|fetchwikidata=ALL}}
→
acetylcysteine,
sparfloxacin,
sucralfateif not ref:find("Wikipedia") and not ref:find("ChEMBL") then refs = refs + 1 end
(or more likely I'd add a new call that took untrusted sources as parameters like "ChEMBL", "NDF-RT"). But that would ameliorate the problem only for en-wp. The whole point of Wikidata is that it's a central database that serves all the Wikimedia projects as well as third parties. It's far better to get properties like
drug or therapy used for treatment (P2176) populated with values genuinely useful to medics and lay readers, and there's no reason why related properties like "drugs studied in connection with" couldn't be created for the researchers. --
RexxS (
talk) 17:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I've been watching that long thread about Wikidata above, and I think that different people have different ideas about what the label 'used for treatment' means (or ought to mean). As someone noted above, the problem isn't necessarily collecting the information in Wikidata; the problem is when another group re-uses that information inappropriately because they didn't understand its limitations.
So: Statins aren't a treatment for pneumonia, because we have no evidence that starting a statin at the time of diagnosis is efficacious, right? Except – are we absolutely certain that they're not used for any kind of pneumonia, including cholesterol pneumonia?
For that matter, are we even absolutely certain that they're not used for treatment, by anyone? Even if it's generally considered useless? Mainstream medicine "uses" treatments all the time even when we know that they don't work. Arthroscopic knee surgery is useless for pain (as all the regulars are familiar with me saying). So is meniscus surgery. So is vertebroplasty. So is spinal fusion for herniated disks. And, sure, it's lovely and idealistic to think that "medicine" self-corrects when faced with the evidence, but the main reason fewer of these spinal fusions are being performed in the US now is because health insurance companies are outright refusing to pay for them, [22] not because any scientific self-correction was happening.
And then there's the issue of what "was used" but isn't any longer, or is only used in some countries or cultures.
I think it might be helpful to have a more abstract discussion about what "used for treatment" could mean (i.e., how people from different fields, cultures, etc. might interpret that phrase) and what treatment-related categories might be useful to us on Wikipedia. I could imagine, for example, separating "used for treatment" with date and place qualifiers to indicate outdated treatments, or "used without evidence" for non-evidence-based treatments, or "evidence-based treatments" for things currently believed to work. What would you find useful? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
In Wikipedia articles, I agree that we should be using plain English whenever that is reasonably possible (i.e., more often than when it's convenient).
However, on Wikidata, we might benefit from more detailed sub-categorizations. Rather than "restricting" (having less information on Wikidata), I'm thinking "splitting" (all the information, but divided up so it's easier to see what's typical/desirable/most salient). From the above comments, here's a few categories that might be useful in some circumstances:
What else could we add to this list? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Paracetamol toxicity, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I just came across this years-old article that seems to be written inappropriately as an essay/original hypothesis in violation of WP:OR. I'd like if other users could take a look at it. Everymorning (talk) 16:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I created a thread over on Talk:Needle remover that I would love to get some feedback on. I would like to change the citations from parenthetical to citation style 1. I think it would be easier to read the article (as citation style 1 is used all over Wikipedia). I'm not sure if there was a reason originally for using the style that the article currently uses. Please let me know if you guys think this is a good or bad idea, and if you know why the article uses the style it does. Zell Faze ( talk) 14:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 11:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Can we get some eyes from this project on Psychopathy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? We have "new editor" Petergstrom calling any and everything fringe, me pointing out that psychopathy is not a fringe topic and that it does not fall under WP:Fringe, and Penbat challenging a lot of deletions that Petergstrom has made to the article. Petergstrom is correct that we should not be relying heavily on primary sources, but I've seen him clash with editors at other medical articles and it's my opinion that his POV of certain medical topics often clouds his judgment. See Talk:Psychopathy#Neutral POV and lower for the discussions. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 13:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes there are quite a few colourful and relevant discussions at User talk:Petergstrom. User_talk:Petergstrom#Warning specifically mentions psychopathy.-- Penbat ( talk) 13:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Could a few more people put Cancer pain on their watchlists? It seems to attract simple vandalism. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Bulletproof_diet#Merger_proposal Jytdog ( talk) 03:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
At Talk:Phytodolor the question of whether this herbal product was notable enough (for Wikipedia purposes) came up. Since that talk page may not get much traffic I'd like to suggest that interested editors from this project have a look. Also, some related new pages may be of similar interest as well: SKI 306X, Gitadyl, and Avocado/soybean unsaponifiables. Deli nk ( talk) 11:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Since there is no clear distinction between the two I consider there should be a single sidebar for both. This functions well because it includes both and resolves the issue that some people may raise that x isn't alternative, or y isn't pseudo — effectively ensuring that they aren't included anywhere, or that the template is avoided because one would need two sidebars. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
More eyes needed at Circumcision in Africa Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
How are these terms related? Is one a symptom and the other a disease. Is it unusual that these articles don't reference each other? NickCT ( talk) 14:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Acupuncture#Petition_regarding_this_page... by The Acupuncture Now Foundation
This article may need a significant number of extra eyes in the near future.
Carl Fredrik
💌
📧 01:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
interested in folks' thoughts on the above. Jytdog ( talk) 07:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Parasympathetic rebound is a weird article. Five Pubmed hits but loads on Google in terms of popular culture references. I might ask a friendly neurophysiologist if this is a thing or not. JFW | T@lk 09:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)...IMO--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk) 11:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)This article needs some significant trimming. There may also be a number of related articles that we've missed over the years. This one has been tagged since 2007, with hardly anything done to it.
I also redirected Acupuncture point -> Acupuncture, we'll see if that holds. The sources in that article were even more abysmal and it was essentially a repeat of information on Acupuncture... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Fleshed out article on new drug; please review. thx. and happy new year everybody! Jytdog ( talk) 02:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
The International League Against Epilepsy has constructed a new classification system for seizure types. The new system is available here and it would be a lengthy process to modify the entire article. It would be helpful if editors contribute in this process. Vignyana talk 14:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, folks. We have a submission at Articles for Creation that addresses a topic within the scope of your project. We would greatly appreciate your input as to the acceptability of its sources, as well as the accuracy and readability of the text. We also have a question as to whether a stand-alone article on this topic is appropriate, or whether the draft largely duplicates material found in the existing articles on various types of brain cysts (a list of them appears in the Comments section of the draft). The submission is Draft:Brain cysts. Comments can be left on the talk page of the draft.
Thank you for any assistance that you can provide. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 19:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Happy 2017 WikiProject Medicine!
I left a comment on the talk page of the Hysterectomy article. If you have a chance, I would appreciate some feedback on how to best clean up this section.
Thanks very much. JenOttawa ( talk) 15:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
We have:
Seems to me that both of these articles (and there may be more like this) are about the drugs, not intMonoclonal antibody therapyerventions. Rename to something like Antisense drugs or more accurately Antisense biopharmaceuticals? Jytdog ( talk) 00:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Then again there is chemotherapy Jytdog ( talk) 00:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I also posted a small question on neuropathic pain talk page, looking for advice for an appropriate citation to replace a "citation needed" tag. Talk:Neuropathic pain#Anticonvulsants
Thanks~ JenOttawa ( talk) 17:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone! My instinct is that this page should ultimately be redirected to Adaptation (eye), but (despite the article title) someone's put a lot of effort into adding information on basic science that I think would probably be valuable if moved elsewhere first. Thanks, Sunrise ( talk) 17:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Nice write up here [42] Thanks to James Hare and User:Keilana as our Wikipedians in Residence.
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Please help merge Draft:Oroantral fistula and User:Justryingtohelp/Oroantral fistula, the latter is more recently edited, so please involve Justryingtohelp in the process. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 22:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I have a question about drug templates and I don't know where to find the information. The bottom of the templates says
#WHO-EM ‡Withdrawn from market Clinical trials: †Phase III §Never to phase III
But I'm not clear on how to use the clinical trials indicators. I'm assuming for a standard, FDA-approved drug, no indicator is used. For a drug that's in phase II clinical trials, is also nothing to be used? For a drug currently in phase III trials, the † is used. I assume that Never to phase III means the drug was abandoned during phase I or II of development? Can someone point me to where this is detailed or explain this to me?
Natureium ( talk) 22:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there a reliable source search template (like this one: Template:Reliable sources for medical articles) that auto-generates a search for the Cochrane reviews on the subject of the article? -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 00:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Good morning Wikiproject Medicine members! I just wanted to give you all a heads up that a new FAC has been opened for the acne vulgaris article. I would definitely appreciate multiple editors weighing in with support/opposition/suggestions. The FAC can be found here [46]. Thank you! TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 15:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
In the light of the court case discussed in this blog post, should our article Trachea (to which Trachea transplant redirects) and the BLP Thorsten Walles be updated? Are we sure that they represent a full and neutral account of the cases surgery involved? At the very least, some extra eyeballs, against future vandalism, or PoV edits, would be wise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, both. It may also be worth watching for the creation of Heike Walles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Emotional lability redirects to Pseudobulbar affect (PBA), which lists multiple alternative names most of which are synonymous with "emotional lability", but not actually PBA. [47] I'm a little surprised we don't have an article on emotional lability. Labile mood redirects to Mood dysregulation, which seems more appropriate than PBA. Thoughts on changing these terms to redirect to mood dysregulation instead of to PBA?
—PermStrump (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I would propose expanding emotional lability rather than labile affect as it is potentially broader as it not only encompasses what a clinician sees but by virtue of its name allows some more in depth discussion of the conditions and situations that one sees it (bipolar, borderline, acute stress reaction, frontal disinhibition etc.) Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Right, BAM let's go.... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
have a new user very enthusiastic about its potential to treat AD. More eyes would be good thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 02:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Research on the effects of violence in mass media#Latest edits. Permalink here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 15:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
We are having a discussion here regarding if old sources from the 1980s and early 1990s should be used instead of a Oct 2016 statement by the NIH. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I ran across the term eminence-based medicine to describe Argument from authority in medical decisions (basically, "Dr Famous (or "my attending") said that this drug works, so I'm giving it to all my patients"). Surely we have an article, or at least a section, somewhere on this pre-evidence-based system? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Exercise intolerance says, "Exercise intolerance is not a disease or syndrome in and of itself, but a primary symptom of chronic diastolic heart failure."
What do you think this is meant in the latter half of the sentence?
(I'm mostly looking for off-the-cuff POVs here, not sources.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
We really need more eyes here. thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 07:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks to be pertinent to the current season per WHO's latest update. It appears that their vaccine recommendation for 2016 included A/Hong Kong/4801/2014 which should be helpful. The article could use some attention to reflect updates. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I posted a comment on the bottom of the talk page for hysterectomy re removing a paragraph with primary data. No feedback recieved yet. If you have a chance, I would appreciate a second opinion before I delete the information! /info/en/?search=Talk:Hysterectomy#Primary_research_eVal_study JenOttawa ( talk) 18:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
We have separate articles for analeptic and psychoanaleptic. Are these two topics distinct enough to warrant separate articles, or can the two be merged? -- Ed ( Edgar181) 17:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I hope you are all doing well. Happy New Year!
Tyler could use some help improving the acne vulgaris article so he can achieve FA status. I made an initial comment over at the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acne vulgaris/archive2, posing several questions that need input from the whole med community.
The article also needs a good copy editor to clean it up too (not my strength).
Perhaps you call could help by commenting at the FA candidate link above? -- My Core Competency is Competency ( talk) 16:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
keep and expand or redirect to Stem-cell_therapy#Blindness_and_vision_impairment? Jytdog ( talk) 02:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
As a summary, my understanding of how wikimedical pages work is as follows, please correct me if I am wrong! -Systematic reviews are best, other high quality reviews accepted for medical content. In the "Research" sections of the medical pages, primary research articles from peer reviewed publications appropriate if a systematic review has not been published or conducted. Is this correct? Thanks again!! JenOttawa ( talk) 18:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Already redirected it to Limbal stem cell. May be a good idea to simply continue the merging. Very little evidence for the stuff. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
upon the request of another editor I created this disambig page, with supporting content in each of the targeted articles. Not confident i captured it correctly so please review. thx. Jytdog ( talk) 04:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Should I nominate Bipolar disorder research for deletion? As it's currently written, it doesn't add anything of value to the existing bipolar articles ( Bipolar disorder, Bipolar I, Bipolar II, Cyclothymia, Treatment of bipolar disorder, History of bipolar disorder, Bipolar disorder in children). I'm not sure if it has potential or if it would be redundant in any case. Thoughts? —PermStrump (talk)
Hi. I would like to edit some evidence-based information about long-term care interventions for older adults, but I am not sure in what wiki article I should include it.
The existing Long-term care wiki page describes it from an organizational point of view, not focusing on the benefits of the available interventions. Would it make sense to create new sections in this article focusing on evidence-based care for older adults? Or, are there other more suitable articles to include this sort of information? What are your thoughts about it? Thank you very much in advance. -- MonWiki ( talk) 21:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
In my work on alt med stuff, i sometimes look at cochrane reviews on this stuff and have been really surprised by what Cochrane folk have actually taken the time to look at, and some of their conclusions.
I also frequently come across people trying to add citations to University of Maryland's CAM website which is a woo-fest.
This just clicked and made sense to me. (from here): "The Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field, based at the University of Maryland Center for Integrative Medicine, coordinates all of the CAM-related activities of the Cochrane Collaboration, including the development of a database with information on more than 7,000 controlled trials of CAM therapies and modalities, and facilitates the preparation of CAM reviews and the promotion of these reviews, especially among the members of the CAM community."
Similar thing with Tom Jefferson doing Cochrane reviews on vaccines and anti-virals.
So, oy. The inmates are running the asylum in some places at Cochrane. Jytdog ( talk) 22:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Concerning the misuse of evidence in high quality sources we should keep a lookout for the next surgeon-general appointment. If this is anything to go by [57], we could really do with a tightening of MEDRS, pending an onslaught of inanity.
I've been contemplating some work on defining how we weigh grey literature, both within and between reports. E.g. just because acupuncture is mentioned as part of a 400-page report on back pain doesn't mean it merits a whole section (or even inclusion at all) in a 100,000 byte article. Strengthening the guideline and creating stricter criteria for WP:MEDWEASEL and WP:MEDDUE could be a start. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
My list of missing topics about medicine (and related pages) are updated - Skysmith ( talk) 15:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The article on Hyperthermia therapy is not at all in line with quality sources. Hyperthermia is a fringe practice akin to chronic lyme disease and the sort — yet our article currently states is can be used for chronic lyme disease, depression and cancer and has the image of a smiling lady sitting in a heat-suit. It reads as a shill piece and the article is in terrible shape and could use some more eyes and some extensive pruning. Basically everything in the lede is either wrong or a vast overstatement. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The review underscores the limited nature of the evidence; definitive conclusions are elusive. However, the promising results of RHT in the setting of intravesical chemotherapy, chemotherapy and radiotherapy show a trend towards legitimate efficacy.
Great thing in Nature News recently....
-- Jytdog ( talk) 17:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Greetings. I included a short paragraph that was intended to introduce readers of the Masturbation article to the NoFap article. I thought this would be an interesting contribution, particularly since the article on masturbation does not have a lot of information about abstaining from masturbation (apart from some limited treatment of old-fashioned anti-masturbation attitudes). For me, the NoFap community is the obvious centre of discussion about such abstention nowadays.
This did not go over especially well. Firstly, the NoFap community was founded in response to a somewhat dubious research article. One critic put the {{medrs}} template into the NoFap article in the relevant place. To that I say: fair enough. I'm interested in the community not primarily from a medical standpoint, but from a cultural and phenomenological standpoint. Of course, the medical and scientific aspects of the issue are also interesting and I think these should be reflected on Wikipedia when possible too. (E.g., research debunking the claims of the above mentioned dubious article might be included in the NoFap article itself.)
Subsequent discussion focused less on the {{medrs}} issue, and more on the idea that NoFap is a "fringe" group. WP:ONEWAY was mentioned (although I don't actually think that it applies). At the moment the conversation seems to have stagnated, without movement towards any consensus. I'd appreciate if people here who take an interest in the various related themes might weigh in on the discussion at Talk:Masturbation#MEDRS. Thanks! Arided ( talk) 02:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
At a glance, I think we've handled this poorly, and I'd like to talk about it because it's the kind of mess that's pretty typical for us. The basic facts seem to be these:
An accurate description of these facts is: Someone started an internet forum whose purpose is to encourage members not to masturbate, because he heard about a research paper that said not masturbating makes your testosterone go up.
The response from medical editors seems to focus on the "not masturbating makes your testosterone go up" part (hereinafter "the irrelevant part"). The actual story is: there might be a small social movement against masturbation. The irrelevant part is everything about the contents of the journal article. We could write the entire thing without talking about science at all.
But we're (not just one of us) leaping on the irrelevant part and saying that the irrelevant part needs a MEDRS-style source, even though that's neither relevant nor even factual. (Imagine that we actually had a gold-plated review on the effects of sexual continence on testosterone. Would the existence of that review change the fact that this guy was inspired to start an internet forum by the 2003 primary study?)
I know that this is a bit of a soapbox, but I'm asking again: when you are trying to decide whether something is WP:Biomedical information, please read the whole paragraph first. "Intervention X has biological effect Y" is potentially biomedical information. "This guy read a paper that claimed that intervention X had biological effect Y" is historical information (also BLP).
Arided, IMO the main problem with your proposed addition is that it gives too much attention to one small[1] internet forum. If it were a simple case of WP:Build the web – if your proposal had said something like "Some people choose not to masturbate for perceived health or personal benefits; for example, NoFap is a non-religious online community whose members avoid masturbation" under one of the multiple society/culture sections – then I think you might have had a small chance. But even that could be difficult at a large article. "There's this small online community, see?" is a lot less obviously relevant than things like "Multiple large religious organizations say that it's immoral".
(Also, someone mentioned the number of times that NoFap is linked in Wikipedia. It's presently linked in three navboxes: {{ addiction}}, {{ masturbation}}, and {{ pornography}}. Those templates presumably account for all, or almost all, of the incoming links.)
[1] Yes, small. 200,000 people is a lot if you're comparing it to, say, your high school, but for every account that subscribed to that internet forum around the world, over the space of years, there are two people in England and Wales alone alone who claimed to be Jedis on a single day. If your worldwide group is smaller than the Jedis in England and Wales, it's still small.
WhatamIdoing ( talk) 07:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Is this list really necessary when there's also Category:Breakthrough therapy? The list isn't up to date, and I don't want to bother if it's superfluous. Natureium ( talk) 17:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Be aware
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Use_of_Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine.2FApp.2FBanner_on_articles.
Best,
Carl Fredrik
💌
📧 21:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
we have a dual-IP using spammer edit warring at this article; some more eyes would be great. thx Jytdog ( talk) 05:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I completely rewrote this article - it went from this to what it is now - a typical drug article. Don't know how to convert the chembox to a drugbox.... Jytdog ( talk) 15:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
just worked this over tonight. crazy, crazy story.
If you want to play, first read the version that was there when I started: this.
Then look at this: Amifampridine#History. I knew nothing about this before I started and got to piece that story together tonight. But the old version was just bizarro marketing speak. Jytdog ( talk) 08:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Barotrauma lacks some sections recommended in MEDMOS. Would someone familiar with articles on trauma take a look and add the applicable headers? Cheers • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
A redirect is up for discussion here. [59]
Basically the question is should we redirect brands to generics. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
This discussion specifically concerns whether Tylenol should redirect to Paracetamol or the Tylenol (brand) article. Extremely few readers will be looking for the article about the brand and additional comments would be very helpful. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
the main topic is the medicine. The main topic is the brand which contains the active ingredient paracetamol. Boghog ( talk) 19:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
User:WhatamIdoing per "I've never yet heard someone claim that they've created an article about their particular brand on the grounds that Tylenol (brand) exists" Here is someone from Jan 11th, 2017 using just that justification in an attempt to create an article on Crocin. [60] And not the first time I have heard the arguement either. If someone from the N. America is searching for Tylenol they are most likely looking for acetaminophen. As most of our readers are from N. America we should take that into account. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The Spastic cerebral palsy article has only one source. My understanding is that spastic cerebral palsy is the most common type of cerebral palsy when you break CP down by 'type of damage incurred'. The main CP article says it's at 70% (with a source from 2000), the spastic CP page says it's at 90% (apparently unsourced). If it's the most common subtype-by-type-of-damage, spastic CP is clearly going to be a notable topic to cover. However... one source. I've been lightly updating parts of the main CP article for a while now, but this is beyond my skills. What should this article even contain, in comparison to the main CP article? Should WP:TNT be applied to the spastic CP article? -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 03:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)