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 105 | ← | Archive 107 | Archive 108 | Archive 109 | Archive 110 | Archive 111 | → | Archive 115 |
Just an FYI, that I created an article on RIS, and made subsequent changes to the template. I am not feeling bold enough to add RIS in Multiple Sclerosis but welcome those with more medical knowledge to do so. Happy for any suggestions or changes/comments etc. Thank you. Calaka ( talk) 00:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
The WHO cancer fact sheet from 2009 has been updated to its newest, 2018 version. This will impact many articles. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 11:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
This doesn't belong here. Discuss article content at Talk:Ketogenic diet. Discuss allegations of user misbehavior at WP:ANI. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
jameslucas, this isn't fringe medicine but an established treatment for refractory paediatric epilepsy and used by doctors from the finest children's hospitals in the world. I think it is funny that you wonder if the Epilepsy Foundation would accept it. Their Ketogenic Diet page and regular Keto-News page is written and edited by Dr. Eric Kossoff, Medical Director of the Johns Hopkins Hospital Ketogenic Diet Program, one of the world experts on dietary treatment for epilepsy. Have a guess which world expert I got to review the article prior to it receiving an FA. He went through it as thoroughly as if it were a review paper in a journal. I can find only one citation to Redox Biology and it is one of two sources for a very tame fact that "the ketogenic diet has also been suggested as a treatment for cancer". If there is consensus that this is a bad journal, I'm sure an alternative source can be found. Jytdog, wrt the MCT oil. I took the photo and do not own a pharmacy or have access to the zillion's of brands you claim. At the time, MCT and coconut oil was not a fad, so was not available at the health store or supermarket. In the UK, MCT oil is prescribed for, among other things, "ketogenic diet in management of epilepsy". The only oil listed in the NICE BNF that is available to be prescribed by doctors for this purpose is made by Nutrica Ltd. You can find the product details here. Note it is the same bottle. It is also the only picture of any MCT oil we have on Commons. Alexbrn, I have been highly critical of an earlier Cochrane review on the KD (you'll find a discussion in the talk page archive). I have only skimmed the update though I see two of the authors are the same and don't inspire me with their lack of qualifications. The fact that the newer version repeats the same nonsense about "Diets have been used in an attempt to control epileptic seizures throughout the centuries, indeed there is a biblical reference to prayer and fasting in epilepsy" demonstrates to me much you need to know about the care that went into this publication. A problem with Cochrane is that is designed round a very rigid protocol, language and the result is more "data" than directly clinically meaningful. It is very easy for those totally unfamiliar with the treatment of refractory childhood epilepsy to come to a wrong conclusion. However, they are not "equivocal". They clearly state that for the target group: children with refractory epilepsy who are not suitable for surgery, "a KD remains a valid option". This is borne out by recommendations/approvals by both UK's drug approval bodies (NICE and SIGN) and for insurance companies in the US. As I noted in my previous complaint, Neal et all 2008 remains the only RCT that directly looked at efficacy. The treatment group of 145 is small but proportional to the patient group: extremely ill children who have drug resistant epilepsy. This trial, published in Lancet Neurology, absolutely concludes "The results from this trial of the ketogenic diet support its use in children with treatment-intractable epilepsy." I would be interested to know if there are any studies looking at anticonvulsant drugs where the manufacturer says "You know what, getting drug approval is too easy. I like a challenge, and the bean counters worrying about how much we've spent developing this drug can go take a hike. Let's restrict our clinical trial to the most extreme forms of epilepsy. Those are found in children who often don't survive to adulthood and may not all survive to the end of the trial period. Lets make sure they have tried an average of six previous drugs without success. Let's not include any who might be candidates for surgery. Ensure many of the children are so neurologically and behaviourally troubled that compliance issues arise regardless. However, just to be sure, make our pill unpleasant to swallow and give the patients a tummy upset initially..." Context. That's what is entirely missing from the Cochrane report. Fortunately those who write clinical guidelines that actually matter are able to see the bigger picture when making their recommendations. There is absolutely no doubt that if you have a child with epilepsy, who is refractory to several drugs, and who is not a candidate for surgery, that your epilepsy specialist would recommend trying the ketogenic diet. It is more likely to work than anything else. If there are further questions about the diet or article, please write on the article talk page, and copy any of the above over if necessary. -- Colin° Talk 19:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
|
Over the past several years the bonanza in research into mindfulness meditation has been mirrored to give us a large amount of content here:
The content is popular: the main Mindfulness article currently averages over 2,300 hits/day. The content is also positive verging on brochure-esque and makes a number of therapeutic claims. In the main article Wikipedia states:
Clinical studies have documented both physical and mental health benefits of mindfulness in different patient categories as well as in healthy adults and children.[3][24][25] Programs based on Kabat-Zinn's and similar models have been widely adopted in schools, prisons, hospitals, veterans' centers, and other environments, and mindfulness programs have been applied for additional outcomes such as for healthy aging, weight management, athletic performance, for children with special needs, and as an intervention during the perinatal period."
Buried in the "Scientific research" there is the caveat that "overall methological quality of meditation research is poor and thus yields unreliable results", but that doesn't stop the claims rolling on including that mindfulness meditiation leads to "a reduced risk of inflammation-related diseases and favourable changes in biomarkers". This last claim is sourced to a Frontiers journal and an alt-med journal. I'm seeing quite a lot of dodgy sourcing.
A recent Systematic review and meta-analysis ( PMID 29455695) found "For all psychiatric disorders it has been tested, MBIs were judged to have weak or no empirical support. The conclusion of the study is that the evidence-base for MBIs for CMDs in the acute phase is weak." (quoting the abstract - I can't get the full text). In general I think we have a bit of a walled garden and NPOV problem here.
Thoughts? Alexbrn ( talk) 07:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Chromium passed GA on April 29, 2009. The lead used to say the element is an essential human micronutrient. I reworded this to past tense and added the citation from EFSA from September 18, 2014. Just adding a !vote that nutrition belongs in this WikiProject. I am only a student but Cr6+ is highly toxic. Can anyone here help me fix Mineral (nutrient)? - SusanLesch ( talk) 18:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
List of mystery diseases – This article needs to be defined. The article says it is a list of "disease[s] for which the cause has not yet been identified". Is it a list of diseases that are a complete mystery, like "nodding disease" in the article, or should it include all diseases of undetermined cause, like chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and even major depression? The article description makes me think it is the latter, but I don't know if there's any need for an article on that topic. Natureium ( talk) 19:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
User trying to use a self published book by Ann Hibner Koblitz as a source. They also wrote the article about her and her publishing company Kovalevskaia Fund. Peoples thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
This news article:
Gellman, Lindsay (2018-03-22). "The Last Resort: Private clinics in Germany sell cancer patients hope — and mixed results — at exorbitant prices". Longreads. Retrieved 2018-03-24.
might be interesting to some editors here. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
What may also be notable is the phenomenon of private (oncology) clinics doing this — because the Hallwang clinic is far from the only. It also reminds me of a case where a woman had travelled to Germany for SLE treatment for a full bone-marrow transplant, an experimental and highly dangerous procedure. Fortunately for her it went well, but the marketing and atmosphere is remarkably similar to that in the article. I don't know where we could place such an article, but I think focusing too much on the single actor is only marginally useful.
In fact we have no article on Financial toxicity, which has been lifted to the forefront the past few years as a major negative effect of cancer treatment (then often focusing on the US). The current redirect is to Cancer#Economic_effect and only reads:
In 2007, the overall costs of cancer in the US—including treatment and indirect mortality expenses (such as lost productivity in the workplace)—was estimated to be $226.8 billion. In 2009, 32% of Hispanics and 10% of children 17 years old or younger lacked health insurance; "uninsured patients and those from ethnic minorities are substantially more likely to be diagnosed with cancer at a later stage, when treatment can be more extensive and more costly." [1]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
There is a whole lot more we could write about here. RationalWiki has an article on the Hallwang Clinic https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hallwang_Clinic (which is CC-BY-SA, but does not adhere to our sourcing standards). Carl Fredrik talk 12:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I've tried to remove the primary clinical studies (and been reverted) - but more generally the entire article is heavily based based on primary sources. There appears to be a dearth of secondary literature discussing resolvins in a therapeutic context, but there is some discussing it pharmacologically e.g. PMID 29352860. Could use eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
My editing on Resolvin viewed it as a biochemistry article in WikiProject Chemicals category rather than a medical or clinical article. Many articles on other bioactive fatty acid metabolites (e.g. see LTB4) are classified as such and focus on the biochemistry, biology, and preclinical aspects of the metabolites. While the Resolvin article is actually classified in the WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology category, it always focused on Resolvin biochemistry, biology, and pre-clinical studies that allow that Resolvins may someday become relevant to Medicine. Are you judging Resolvin from a overly medical viewpoint? Should the Resolvin article be re-categorized as WikiProject Chemicals? And, is there anything editorially that I can do to maintain Resolvin's biochemical, biological, and preclinical emphases? As always, I follow your judgements. joflaher talk(please sign your post..-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC))
The Sugar article currently contains the statement "From systematic reviews published in 2016, there is no evidence that sugar intake at normal levels increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases. [1] [2]". Both those refs are from a "supplement sponsored by Rippe Health". I'm not sure what that means. Is it a reliable medrs source, or a vanity publication?
Rippe Health is in turn sponsored by producers of sugary foods, among others, like the Corn Refiners Association (sic). [3] The lead author of the second paper is James M. Rippe, the founder and director of Rippe Health. [4] [5] The other is written by John Sievenpiper [edit:name made into wikilink] and his postdoc. Dr. Sievenpiper has received media attention for the support he has received from the sugar industry. [6]
There is a better source. A Cochrane review found insufficient evidence to make any recommendations about low- glycemic index diets for cardiovascular health, because all the evidence was poor-quality. [7] But I'd like to know if the supplement should be used as a source at all, as it is also cited on sugar addiction (this paper [8]). The entire Rippe supplement seems to be open access, which is nice, but I can't see a copyleft.
Finally, should I take Ozzie10aaaa's advice and request a GA reassessment for the whole article? I don't think I can bring, or keep, the medical section up to standard by my own efforts.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
HLHJ ( talk) 18:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
In fact, the harmful effect of SSBs is likely driven by a collinearity with an unhealthy lifestyle as SSB drinkers consume more calories, exercise less, smoke more and have a poor dietary pattern.
his caused these investigators to conclude “the most obvious mechanism by which increased sugars might promote weight gain is by increasing energy consumption to an extent that exceeds energy output and restores energy balance… we observed that isoenergetic replacement of dietary sugars with other macronutrients resulted in no change in weight. This finding strongly suggested that energy balance is a major determinant of the potential for dietary sugars to influence measures of body fatness… the data suggests that the change in body fatness that occurs from modifying intake of sugars results from in alteration in energy balance rather than physiologic or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or disaccharides.”
Studies in animals have suggested that chronic consumption of refined sugars can contribute to metabolic and cardiovascular dysfunction. Some experts have suggested that refined fructose is more damaging than refined glucose in terms of cardiovascular risk. [1] Cardiac performance has been shown to be impaired by switching from a carbohydrate diet including fiber to a high-carbohydrate diet. [2]
Switching from saturated fatty acids to carbohydrates with high glycemic index values shows a statistically-significant increase in the risk of myocardial infarction. [3] Other studies have shown that the risk of developing coronary heart disease is decreased by adopting a diet high in polyunsaturated fatty acids but low in sugar, whereas a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet brings no reduction. This suggests that consuming a diet with a high glycemic load typical of the " junk food" diet is strongly associated with an increased risk of developing coronary heart disease. [4]
The consumption of added sugars has been positively associated with multiple measures known to increase cardiovascular disease risk amongst adolescents as well as adults. [5]
Studies are suggesting that the impact of refined carbohydrates or high glycemic load carbohydrates are more significant than the impact of saturated fatty acids on cardiovascular disease. [6] [7]
A high dietary intake of sugar (in this case, sucrose or disaccharide) can substantially increase the risk of heart and vascular diseases. According to a Swedish study of 4301 people undertaken by Lund University and Malmö University College, sugar was associated with higher levels of bad blood lipids, causing a high level of small and medium low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and reduced high-density lipoprotein (HDL). In contrast, the amount of fat eaten did not affect the level of blood fats. Incidentally quantities of alcohol and protein were linked to an increase in the good HDL blood fat. [8]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |last-author-amp=
ignored (|name-list-style=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |last-author-amp=
ignored (|name-list-style=
suggested) (
help)
Supplements: Symposia or workshop articles may be published as supplements in the EJN and are funded by their sponsors at a special rate. The EJN welcomes queries about the publication of supplements.
Published as a supplement to The Journal of Nutrition. The articles included in this supplement are derived from presentations and discussions at the World Dairy Summit 2003 of the International Dairy Federation (IDF) in a joint IDF/FAO symposium entitled ‘‘Effects of Probiotics and Prebiotics on Health Maintenance—Critical Evaluation of the Evidence,’’ held in Bruges, Belgium. The articles in this publication were revised in April 2006 to include additional relevant and timely information, including citations to recent research on the topics discussed. The guest editors for the supplement publication are Michael de Vrese and J. Schrezenmeir.
Guest Editor disclosure: M. de Vrese and J. Schrezenmeir have no conflict of interest in terms of finances or current grants received from the IDF. J. Schrezenmeir is the IDF observer for Codex Alimentarius without financial interest. The editors have received grants or compensation for services, such as lectures, from the following companies that market pro- and prebiotics: Bauer, Danone, Danisco, Ch. Hansen, Merck, Mueller Milch, Morinaga, Nestec, Nutricia, Orafti, Valio, and Yakult.
NAC:Article accepted after edits. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC) A review will be appreciated. Should this draft be accepted into article space? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I am giving a talk to a bunch of librarians from the National Network of Libraries of Medicine tomorrow about editing Wikipedia per here.
If you see new editors working on rare diseases and using sources like this https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases Please welcome them. Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Neilsmith38 ( talk) 20:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should Wikipedia contain video summaries of diseases? And how should they be presented? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
@ CFCF:, thanks for the move. But should you have put that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Osmosis RfC instead of at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Osmosis RfC? Because you put it at the talk page, I cannot ask this question ... on the talk page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Based on the feedback here and elsewhere:
Feel free to share this update were you see fit. Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it that may be of interest to Wikiproject Medicine contributors. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the editorial board for the next issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
I have noted that practically every gene I look up on Wikipedia shows a human and mouse gene in the panel on the right. The chromosome number given for the mouse ortholog position is always incorrect. Instead of the correct chromosome location, it always gives the human chromosome location in the place of the mouse chromosome location. I cannot figure out how to change this and is likely in error in the lookup code that populates that chromosome field for the mice.
For an example, look at this gene and view the summary data panel on the right: CRHR1
Eakhiro ( talk) 06:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I am currently writing an article on the electric bath (Franklinization). I can't get a handle on whether or not modern use is considered fringe. I started off with the premise that this was an archaic technique no longer used. However Tribology and Biophysics of Artificial Joints gives a definition of it as if it is a thing. There is also "The Clinical Observation of the Acupuncture Supplemented by Franklinism Treating Insomnia" and some other papers. Can someone suggest how I should treat modern uses in the article? Spinning Spark 21:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place that may be of interest to some members of this project at Talk:Hepatitis_D#Merger_proposal. — soupvector ( talk) 13:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm keen to get opinions from contributors to this group about the controversy described by the article 2017–18 Philippine dengue vaccination controversy and the one-line mention it receives in the article section Sanofi Pasteur#Philippine Dengue Vaccination Controversy. I am no a medical expert, but I have been asked by Sanofi Pasteur (on a paid basis via their PR firm, Purple Strategies, so I am mindful of my COI) to look into what should happen here. Naturally, I figured WP:MED should be my first stop.
The full article is not a bad summary of the situation as I've come to understand it: the Philippine government suspended a dengue vaccination program after Sanofi Pasteur said their vaccine poses higher risks for those who have not previously had the virus, and could worsen the disease in some cases; an investigation is pending. It also contains some potential WP:NOTNEWS reports of politicians weighing in; I wonder if others find this tick-tock excessive, or appropriate in the circumstances. It's complicated by the fact the principal writer (here pinged, in case they choose to weigh in) has a less-than-professional command of English.
Also, both articles contain similarly-worded statements that strike me as prejudicial, and WP:SYNTHESIS: Since the announcement by Sanofi, at least 20 children were killed, allegedly after being received a vaccination. The victims' parents blamed the dengue vaccine for the deaths of their children. As the cited source indicates, it is true that a few parents have made the claim; as other sources indicate, no public official has said anything like it. My question, then: should this sentence be included as-is, stricken, or rewritten? I'm prepared to help with article cleanup in both cases, if it will be of help to volunteers—however, I won't directly edit these pages. Best, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 16:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[removed for the second time - not relevant to this project] -- RexxS ( talk) 01:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi all,
The last sentence in the lead section for Mini-Mental State Examination mentions examples of other tools used for evaluating mental status in geriatric patients. One is the Geriatric Mental State Examination (GMS). Several days ago I had cited a source for the GMS that I'm not sure is an acceptable source even after reading through WP:Medrs guidelines. I have an alternate source that I'm not sure is better. N. Jain (talk to me) 23:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
April is cannabis month where at WP:420 WikiProject Cannabis organizes a drive to develop Wikimedia content about cannabis.
So far as I understand the world's most popular medical treatments are, in order:
References
Of course the US is not representative but this is the data I have. It is less uncertain what all these things treat or how they work, but users report a perception of positive outcomes.
If anyone here has something to contribute to any article in Category:Medicinal use of cannabis then please feel free and report your contribution at the 420 project. These articles get a lot of traffic so anyone with anything to share can get their audience by participating. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Interesting piece here. [17] I'd love to see this extended to secondary articles. I wonder what proportion of material on Wikipedia is sourced to articles just based on a read of the abstract? Alexbrn ( talk) 16:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Looking for anatomy experts here. Does this exist in humans? Is there another name for it? Does it only exist in rats? Natureium ( talk) 03:50, 9 April 2018 (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 105 | ← | Archive 107 | Archive 108 | Archive 109 | Archive 110 | Archive 111 | → | Archive 115 |
Just an FYI, that I created an article on RIS, and made subsequent changes to the template. I am not feeling bold enough to add RIS in Multiple Sclerosis but welcome those with more medical knowledge to do so. Happy for any suggestions or changes/comments etc. Thank you. Calaka ( talk) 00:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
The WHO cancer fact sheet from 2009 has been updated to its newest, 2018 version. This will impact many articles. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 11:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
This doesn't belong here. Discuss article content at Talk:Ketogenic diet. Discuss allegations of user misbehavior at WP:ANI. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
jameslucas, this isn't fringe medicine but an established treatment for refractory paediatric epilepsy and used by doctors from the finest children's hospitals in the world. I think it is funny that you wonder if the Epilepsy Foundation would accept it. Their Ketogenic Diet page and regular Keto-News page is written and edited by Dr. Eric Kossoff, Medical Director of the Johns Hopkins Hospital Ketogenic Diet Program, one of the world experts on dietary treatment for epilepsy. Have a guess which world expert I got to review the article prior to it receiving an FA. He went through it as thoroughly as if it were a review paper in a journal. I can find only one citation to Redox Biology and it is one of two sources for a very tame fact that "the ketogenic diet has also been suggested as a treatment for cancer". If there is consensus that this is a bad journal, I'm sure an alternative source can be found. Jytdog, wrt the MCT oil. I took the photo and do not own a pharmacy or have access to the zillion's of brands you claim. At the time, MCT and coconut oil was not a fad, so was not available at the health store or supermarket. In the UK, MCT oil is prescribed for, among other things, "ketogenic diet in management of epilepsy". The only oil listed in the NICE BNF that is available to be prescribed by doctors for this purpose is made by Nutrica Ltd. You can find the product details here. Note it is the same bottle. It is also the only picture of any MCT oil we have on Commons. Alexbrn, I have been highly critical of an earlier Cochrane review on the KD (you'll find a discussion in the talk page archive). I have only skimmed the update though I see two of the authors are the same and don't inspire me with their lack of qualifications. The fact that the newer version repeats the same nonsense about "Diets have been used in an attempt to control epileptic seizures throughout the centuries, indeed there is a biblical reference to prayer and fasting in epilepsy" demonstrates to me much you need to know about the care that went into this publication. A problem with Cochrane is that is designed round a very rigid protocol, language and the result is more "data" than directly clinically meaningful. It is very easy for those totally unfamiliar with the treatment of refractory childhood epilepsy to come to a wrong conclusion. However, they are not "equivocal". They clearly state that for the target group: children with refractory epilepsy who are not suitable for surgery, "a KD remains a valid option". This is borne out by recommendations/approvals by both UK's drug approval bodies (NICE and SIGN) and for insurance companies in the US. As I noted in my previous complaint, Neal et all 2008 remains the only RCT that directly looked at efficacy. The treatment group of 145 is small but proportional to the patient group: extremely ill children who have drug resistant epilepsy. This trial, published in Lancet Neurology, absolutely concludes "The results from this trial of the ketogenic diet support its use in children with treatment-intractable epilepsy." I would be interested to know if there are any studies looking at anticonvulsant drugs where the manufacturer says "You know what, getting drug approval is too easy. I like a challenge, and the bean counters worrying about how much we've spent developing this drug can go take a hike. Let's restrict our clinical trial to the most extreme forms of epilepsy. Those are found in children who often don't survive to adulthood and may not all survive to the end of the trial period. Lets make sure they have tried an average of six previous drugs without success. Let's not include any who might be candidates for surgery. Ensure many of the children are so neurologically and behaviourally troubled that compliance issues arise regardless. However, just to be sure, make our pill unpleasant to swallow and give the patients a tummy upset initially..." Context. That's what is entirely missing from the Cochrane report. Fortunately those who write clinical guidelines that actually matter are able to see the bigger picture when making their recommendations. There is absolutely no doubt that if you have a child with epilepsy, who is refractory to several drugs, and who is not a candidate for surgery, that your epilepsy specialist would recommend trying the ketogenic diet. It is more likely to work than anything else. If there are further questions about the diet or article, please write on the article talk page, and copy any of the above over if necessary. -- Colin° Talk 19:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
|
Over the past several years the bonanza in research into mindfulness meditation has been mirrored to give us a large amount of content here:
The content is popular: the main Mindfulness article currently averages over 2,300 hits/day. The content is also positive verging on brochure-esque and makes a number of therapeutic claims. In the main article Wikipedia states:
Clinical studies have documented both physical and mental health benefits of mindfulness in different patient categories as well as in healthy adults and children.[3][24][25] Programs based on Kabat-Zinn's and similar models have been widely adopted in schools, prisons, hospitals, veterans' centers, and other environments, and mindfulness programs have been applied for additional outcomes such as for healthy aging, weight management, athletic performance, for children with special needs, and as an intervention during the perinatal period."
Buried in the "Scientific research" there is the caveat that "overall methological quality of meditation research is poor and thus yields unreliable results", but that doesn't stop the claims rolling on including that mindfulness meditiation leads to "a reduced risk of inflammation-related diseases and favourable changes in biomarkers". This last claim is sourced to a Frontiers journal and an alt-med journal. I'm seeing quite a lot of dodgy sourcing.
A recent Systematic review and meta-analysis ( PMID 29455695) found "For all psychiatric disorders it has been tested, MBIs were judged to have weak or no empirical support. The conclusion of the study is that the evidence-base for MBIs for CMDs in the acute phase is weak." (quoting the abstract - I can't get the full text). In general I think we have a bit of a walled garden and NPOV problem here.
Thoughts? Alexbrn ( talk) 07:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Chromium passed GA on April 29, 2009. The lead used to say the element is an essential human micronutrient. I reworded this to past tense and added the citation from EFSA from September 18, 2014. Just adding a !vote that nutrition belongs in this WikiProject. I am only a student but Cr6+ is highly toxic. Can anyone here help me fix Mineral (nutrient)? - SusanLesch ( talk) 18:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
List of mystery diseases – This article needs to be defined. The article says it is a list of "disease[s] for which the cause has not yet been identified". Is it a list of diseases that are a complete mystery, like "nodding disease" in the article, or should it include all diseases of undetermined cause, like chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and even major depression? The article description makes me think it is the latter, but I don't know if there's any need for an article on that topic. Natureium ( talk) 19:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
User trying to use a self published book by Ann Hibner Koblitz as a source. They also wrote the article about her and her publishing company Kovalevskaia Fund. Peoples thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
This news article:
Gellman, Lindsay (2018-03-22). "The Last Resort: Private clinics in Germany sell cancer patients hope — and mixed results — at exorbitant prices". Longreads. Retrieved 2018-03-24.
might be interesting to some editors here. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
What may also be notable is the phenomenon of private (oncology) clinics doing this — because the Hallwang clinic is far from the only. It also reminds me of a case where a woman had travelled to Germany for SLE treatment for a full bone-marrow transplant, an experimental and highly dangerous procedure. Fortunately for her it went well, but the marketing and atmosphere is remarkably similar to that in the article. I don't know where we could place such an article, but I think focusing too much on the single actor is only marginally useful.
In fact we have no article on Financial toxicity, which has been lifted to the forefront the past few years as a major negative effect of cancer treatment (then often focusing on the US). The current redirect is to Cancer#Economic_effect and only reads:
In 2007, the overall costs of cancer in the US—including treatment and indirect mortality expenses (such as lost productivity in the workplace)—was estimated to be $226.8 billion. In 2009, 32% of Hispanics and 10% of children 17 years old or younger lacked health insurance; "uninsured patients and those from ethnic minorities are substantially more likely to be diagnosed with cancer at a later stage, when treatment can be more extensive and more costly." [1]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
There is a whole lot more we could write about here. RationalWiki has an article on the Hallwang Clinic https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hallwang_Clinic (which is CC-BY-SA, but does not adhere to our sourcing standards). Carl Fredrik talk 12:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I've tried to remove the primary clinical studies (and been reverted) - but more generally the entire article is heavily based based on primary sources. There appears to be a dearth of secondary literature discussing resolvins in a therapeutic context, but there is some discussing it pharmacologically e.g. PMID 29352860. Could use eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
My editing on Resolvin viewed it as a biochemistry article in WikiProject Chemicals category rather than a medical or clinical article. Many articles on other bioactive fatty acid metabolites (e.g. see LTB4) are classified as such and focus on the biochemistry, biology, and preclinical aspects of the metabolites. While the Resolvin article is actually classified in the WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology category, it always focused on Resolvin biochemistry, biology, and pre-clinical studies that allow that Resolvins may someday become relevant to Medicine. Are you judging Resolvin from a overly medical viewpoint? Should the Resolvin article be re-categorized as WikiProject Chemicals? And, is there anything editorially that I can do to maintain Resolvin's biochemical, biological, and preclinical emphases? As always, I follow your judgements. joflaher talk(please sign your post..-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC))
The Sugar article currently contains the statement "From systematic reviews published in 2016, there is no evidence that sugar intake at normal levels increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases. [1] [2]". Both those refs are from a "supplement sponsored by Rippe Health". I'm not sure what that means. Is it a reliable medrs source, or a vanity publication?
Rippe Health is in turn sponsored by producers of sugary foods, among others, like the Corn Refiners Association (sic). [3] The lead author of the second paper is James M. Rippe, the founder and director of Rippe Health. [4] [5] The other is written by John Sievenpiper [edit:name made into wikilink] and his postdoc. Dr. Sievenpiper has received media attention for the support he has received from the sugar industry. [6]
There is a better source. A Cochrane review found insufficient evidence to make any recommendations about low- glycemic index diets for cardiovascular health, because all the evidence was poor-quality. [7] But I'd like to know if the supplement should be used as a source at all, as it is also cited on sugar addiction (this paper [8]). The entire Rippe supplement seems to be open access, which is nice, but I can't see a copyleft.
Finally, should I take Ozzie10aaaa's advice and request a GA reassessment for the whole article? I don't think I can bring, or keep, the medical section up to standard by my own efforts.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
HLHJ ( talk) 18:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
In fact, the harmful effect of SSBs is likely driven by a collinearity with an unhealthy lifestyle as SSB drinkers consume more calories, exercise less, smoke more and have a poor dietary pattern.
his caused these investigators to conclude “the most obvious mechanism by which increased sugars might promote weight gain is by increasing energy consumption to an extent that exceeds energy output and restores energy balance… we observed that isoenergetic replacement of dietary sugars with other macronutrients resulted in no change in weight. This finding strongly suggested that energy balance is a major determinant of the potential for dietary sugars to influence measures of body fatness… the data suggests that the change in body fatness that occurs from modifying intake of sugars results from in alteration in energy balance rather than physiologic or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or disaccharides.”
Studies in animals have suggested that chronic consumption of refined sugars can contribute to metabolic and cardiovascular dysfunction. Some experts have suggested that refined fructose is more damaging than refined glucose in terms of cardiovascular risk. [1] Cardiac performance has been shown to be impaired by switching from a carbohydrate diet including fiber to a high-carbohydrate diet. [2]
Switching from saturated fatty acids to carbohydrates with high glycemic index values shows a statistically-significant increase in the risk of myocardial infarction. [3] Other studies have shown that the risk of developing coronary heart disease is decreased by adopting a diet high in polyunsaturated fatty acids but low in sugar, whereas a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet brings no reduction. This suggests that consuming a diet with a high glycemic load typical of the " junk food" diet is strongly associated with an increased risk of developing coronary heart disease. [4]
The consumption of added sugars has been positively associated with multiple measures known to increase cardiovascular disease risk amongst adolescents as well as adults. [5]
Studies are suggesting that the impact of refined carbohydrates or high glycemic load carbohydrates are more significant than the impact of saturated fatty acids on cardiovascular disease. [6] [7]
A high dietary intake of sugar (in this case, sucrose or disaccharide) can substantially increase the risk of heart and vascular diseases. According to a Swedish study of 4301 people undertaken by Lund University and Malmö University College, sugar was associated with higher levels of bad blood lipids, causing a high level of small and medium low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and reduced high-density lipoprotein (HDL). In contrast, the amount of fat eaten did not affect the level of blood fats. Incidentally quantities of alcohol and protein were linked to an increase in the good HDL blood fat. [8]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |last-author-amp=
ignored (|name-list-style=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |last-author-amp=
ignored (|name-list-style=
suggested) (
help)
Supplements: Symposia or workshop articles may be published as supplements in the EJN and are funded by their sponsors at a special rate. The EJN welcomes queries about the publication of supplements.
Published as a supplement to The Journal of Nutrition. The articles included in this supplement are derived from presentations and discussions at the World Dairy Summit 2003 of the International Dairy Federation (IDF) in a joint IDF/FAO symposium entitled ‘‘Effects of Probiotics and Prebiotics on Health Maintenance—Critical Evaluation of the Evidence,’’ held in Bruges, Belgium. The articles in this publication were revised in April 2006 to include additional relevant and timely information, including citations to recent research on the topics discussed. The guest editors for the supplement publication are Michael de Vrese and J. Schrezenmeir.
Guest Editor disclosure: M. de Vrese and J. Schrezenmeir have no conflict of interest in terms of finances or current grants received from the IDF. J. Schrezenmeir is the IDF observer for Codex Alimentarius without financial interest. The editors have received grants or compensation for services, such as lectures, from the following companies that market pro- and prebiotics: Bauer, Danone, Danisco, Ch. Hansen, Merck, Mueller Milch, Morinaga, Nestec, Nutricia, Orafti, Valio, and Yakult.
NAC:Article accepted after edits. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC) A review will be appreciated. Should this draft be accepted into article space? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I am giving a talk to a bunch of librarians from the National Network of Libraries of Medicine tomorrow about editing Wikipedia per here.
If you see new editors working on rare diseases and using sources like this https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases Please welcome them. Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Neilsmith38 ( talk) 20:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should Wikipedia contain video summaries of diseases? And how should they be presented? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
@ CFCF:, thanks for the move. But should you have put that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Osmosis RfC instead of at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Osmosis RfC? Because you put it at the talk page, I cannot ask this question ... on the talk page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Based on the feedback here and elsewhere:
Feel free to share this update were you see fit. Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it that may be of interest to Wikiproject Medicine contributors. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the editorial board for the next issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
I have noted that practically every gene I look up on Wikipedia shows a human and mouse gene in the panel on the right. The chromosome number given for the mouse ortholog position is always incorrect. Instead of the correct chromosome location, it always gives the human chromosome location in the place of the mouse chromosome location. I cannot figure out how to change this and is likely in error in the lookup code that populates that chromosome field for the mice.
For an example, look at this gene and view the summary data panel on the right: CRHR1
Eakhiro ( talk) 06:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I am currently writing an article on the electric bath (Franklinization). I can't get a handle on whether or not modern use is considered fringe. I started off with the premise that this was an archaic technique no longer used. However Tribology and Biophysics of Artificial Joints gives a definition of it as if it is a thing. There is also "The Clinical Observation of the Acupuncture Supplemented by Franklinism Treating Insomnia" and some other papers. Can someone suggest how I should treat modern uses in the article? Spinning Spark 21:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place that may be of interest to some members of this project at Talk:Hepatitis_D#Merger_proposal. — soupvector ( talk) 13:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm keen to get opinions from contributors to this group about the controversy described by the article 2017–18 Philippine dengue vaccination controversy and the one-line mention it receives in the article section Sanofi Pasteur#Philippine Dengue Vaccination Controversy. I am no a medical expert, but I have been asked by Sanofi Pasteur (on a paid basis via their PR firm, Purple Strategies, so I am mindful of my COI) to look into what should happen here. Naturally, I figured WP:MED should be my first stop.
The full article is not a bad summary of the situation as I've come to understand it: the Philippine government suspended a dengue vaccination program after Sanofi Pasteur said their vaccine poses higher risks for those who have not previously had the virus, and could worsen the disease in some cases; an investigation is pending. It also contains some potential WP:NOTNEWS reports of politicians weighing in; I wonder if others find this tick-tock excessive, or appropriate in the circumstances. It's complicated by the fact the principal writer (here pinged, in case they choose to weigh in) has a less-than-professional command of English.
Also, both articles contain similarly-worded statements that strike me as prejudicial, and WP:SYNTHESIS: Since the announcement by Sanofi, at least 20 children were killed, allegedly after being received a vaccination. The victims' parents blamed the dengue vaccine for the deaths of their children. As the cited source indicates, it is true that a few parents have made the claim; as other sources indicate, no public official has said anything like it. My question, then: should this sentence be included as-is, stricken, or rewritten? I'm prepared to help with article cleanup in both cases, if it will be of help to volunteers—however, I won't directly edit these pages. Best, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 16:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[removed for the second time - not relevant to this project] -- RexxS ( talk) 01:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi all,
The last sentence in the lead section for Mini-Mental State Examination mentions examples of other tools used for evaluating mental status in geriatric patients. One is the Geriatric Mental State Examination (GMS). Several days ago I had cited a source for the GMS that I'm not sure is an acceptable source even after reading through WP:Medrs guidelines. I have an alternate source that I'm not sure is better. N. Jain (talk to me) 23:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
April is cannabis month where at WP:420 WikiProject Cannabis organizes a drive to develop Wikimedia content about cannabis.
So far as I understand the world's most popular medical treatments are, in order:
References
Of course the US is not representative but this is the data I have. It is less uncertain what all these things treat or how they work, but users report a perception of positive outcomes.
If anyone here has something to contribute to any article in Category:Medicinal use of cannabis then please feel free and report your contribution at the 420 project. These articles get a lot of traffic so anyone with anything to share can get their audience by participating. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Interesting piece here. [17] I'd love to see this extended to secondary articles. I wonder what proportion of material on Wikipedia is sourced to articles just based on a read of the abstract? Alexbrn ( talk) 16:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Looking for anatomy experts here. Does this exist in humans? Is there another name for it? Does it only exist in rats? Natureium ( talk) 03:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)