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 115 | ← | Archive 118 | Archive 119 | Archive 120 | Archive 121 | Archive 122 | → | Archive 125 |
I can't think of the title, but I'm nearly sure we have at least one other article that's also about diseases of unknown etiology. Does anyone remember what the article is? Natureium ( talk) 15:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Addressing the question of whether practitioners of alternative treatments have an inherent COI when editing on their practices. Guy ( Help!) 15:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, I've been hired by
America's Health Insurance Plans to request some updates to its article. I'm also hoping to help address the {{
POV}}
flag on the article.
My requests are on the article's talk page. If anyone here is up for taking a look and offering feedback, I'd appreciate it tremendously. I've had some difficulty getting a response to my requests. Thank you!
Mary Gaulke (
talk) 04:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The MEDMOS says "See also: Avoid the See also section when possible; prefer wikilinks in the main article and navigation templates at the end." Can someone explain why this is? Natureium ( talk) 15:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
21:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Would like input on whether it's good to remove [4] 2015 Harrison's from acupuncture on the rationale that the 2018 one might say differently, and that it's too old because already have different 2016 sourcing.
Harrison's 2015 says "no evidence for efficacy" in tension-type headache. This contrasts with two 2016 Cochrane reviews already cited which found "moderate" evidence for efficacy -- so do we keep out Harrison's just because 2015 < 2016?
And in general should we be deleting uncontroversial 2015 Harrison's citations until we get a copy of the 2018? -- Middle 8 ( t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 19:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Prostate_cancer_related_articles regarding potential conflict of interest at some prostate cancer related articles. It may be helpful for editors with medical expertise to have a look and give an opinion. Thank you. Edgeweyes ( talk) 16:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Greetings, wanted to ask for comments on something that might be worthy of its own article.
I did just read this publication and it is a pretty straightforward and unremarkable laboratory experiment.
However, some of the sources citing it mention it as an example of how dangerous pathogens may be accidentally created in laboratories. I wonder if one could write an article on this topic (say Accidental creation of dangerous pathogens or something more specific such as Interleukin-4 transduced ectromelia virus experiment) or whether there is a more general topic on accidentally engineered biohazards. Thoughts? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent/Sussex Detoxification Center that might benefit from some experienced eyes - I found some sources, but they look a bit odd to me. GirthSummit (blether) 18:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
From Ian Coltard, Manager of Copyright, Licensing and External Publications:
"Our team has advertised a G5 position in Geneva. Despite the rather unexciting WHO job title “Assistant (Documents)”, this position will be at the heart of our work in digital licensing and distribution, and in particular our expanding work in the area of open access. We are also looking to improve the tracking of the use and uptake of our publications, so there will also be an opportunity to be part of this developing area of our work."
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 18:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
The World Health Organization is hiring a document manager to advance their open access program. This is a one year position and they are offering CHF 74,343 or ~ US$75,000. I think this could be relevant to Wikipedia's medical content if the person in this role would collaborate with Wikipedia. WHO has excellent content that no one reads, and Wikipedia has okay content that is maximally popular. Our organizations should collaborate to leverage each other's strengths.
I got this posting from @ John Cummings:, who is Wikimedian at UNESCO. He also is keen on suggesting the position to wiki editors. If there is anyone in our wiki social circle who would be interested in applying then I would support their candidacy with others from the meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network.
Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
The Social media addiction article needs attention from editors well-versed in MEDRS. I removed a number of statements which were clearly WP:SYN or unsourced, but some of the remaining sources may be speculative or not reflect current medical consensus. The overall article seems to be written as an argument in support of social media addiction instead of a balanced, detached description. Any help would be appreciated. – dlthewave ☎ 17:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I am having an issue with updating the Low-carbohydrate diet#Diabetes entry.
Recently the ADA released the "2018 consensus report on Type 2 Diabetes by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)" [1]
The
American Diabetes Association also released its "Professional Practice Committee: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2019."
[2]
These two documents mark a sea-change in ADA policy toward low carb diet. It is now included as an option for Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT), which is recommended by the ADA.
What's happening is that any attempt to accurately summarize these articles as they relate to LC diets is being instantly reverted or edited in very biased and slanted manner. The editor I am having this disagreement with suggested I request help here.
Here is the talk page: Talk:Low-carbohydrate diet
Thank you, CarbShark ( talk) 04:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Let me just say I admire the fact you are trying to update this article. But unfortunately I think you are taking out of context what is in these sources, I could be wrong about this but the user you talk about is an experienced editor and warned you about this [7]. I think the best thing to do would get the opinion of @ Doc James:. MatthewManchester1994 ( talk) 22:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
So I had a look at these references and this is interesting:
Studies have demonstrated that a variety of eating plans, varying in macronutrient composition, can be used effectively and safely in the short term (1–2 years) to achieve weight loss in people with diabetes. This includes structured low-calorie meal plans that include meal replacements (72–74) and the Mediterranean eating pattern (75) as well as low-carbohydrate meal plans (62). However, no single approach has been proven to be consistently superior (76,77), and more data are needed to identify and validate those meal plans that are optimal with respect to long-term outcomes as well as patient acceptability.
(my bold). Can you explain how this fits your claim that there is "a sea-change in ADA policy toward low carb diet"? I am not seeing any long-term health benefits from this diet in relation to diabetes, and the ADA contrary to what you claim on the talk-page is not specifically recommending this diet. MatthewManchester1994 ( talk) 22:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
'the ADA link should be clearly identified as their Standard of Care document'and
'just "ADA says"'? -- RexxS ( talk) 15:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
"all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source"and if I challenge text that explicitly draws attention to the weight due to ADA Standards of Care, then I expect the source that drew that conclusion to be produced, not some vague hand-waving about
"Wikipedians are the ones that should know if ADA Standards of Care is widely cited in the literature and is considered authoritative."The job of Wikipedia editors in that area is to evaluate what sources to use, not to impose their own interpretations on the article text.
WP:WEIGHT doesn't require an explicit reliable source saying "ADA Standards of Care carries weight". Nobody is asking for an third-party source to establish whether a particular source is good enough to use. But once you start writing text that contains the implication that 'ADA Standards of Care' carries more weight than another statement, you're going to have to back that up with external sourcing.
"When a statement is a fact (e.g. information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute), it should be asserted using Wikipedia's own voice without in-text attribution. "might help make up your mind? After all, the citation is just a click away, the same as it is for any other sourced fact.-- RexxS ( talk) 13:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
As WAID says: 'tis the season for increased interest in our diet articles. It appears there is some kind of Facebook group coordinating an effort to change Low-carbohydrate diet, and Jimmy Wales is being petition on twitter in parallel to this. Apparently Wikipedia is controlled by vegans - who knew! More eyes on this and our other diet articles could be helpful over the festive season. Alexbrn ( talk) 15:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Wrt WP:ASF, it is not clear cut, black and white, what is an opinion and what is a fact. The decision to include specific types of diet in a management nutrition therapy is based on opinion. That it is included in ADA's choices of MNT is a fact. That's ADA's report looked at various diets and discussed their efficacy is a fact. That one diet is better than another is an opinion. The efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness and relative attractiveness (first-line, second-line, etc) are all opinions -- were the trials large/good enough? What is the cost to society/health-service vs treatment (likely varies from country to country). What is the cost of a therapy (e.g. hiring dietitian support, paying for drugs). An "indication for" is just a medical opinion, though if it appears to be universally held, we may not bother with direct attribution and merely state it as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. Sometimes, though, it helps or is necessary to indicate that it is only "indicated"/recommended in some countries or by some bodies or some authors. That's why familiarity with the literature is needed.
Please note that this is the International English version of Wikipedia, read by people globally, so the convenience/popularity of a diet in Western English-speaking countries doesn't necessarily translate to other countries that have different eating patters or even religious restrictions on eating (something noted in the Ketogentic diet article). A quick search finds two examples: " the low carbohydrate diet is not recognized in Czech diabetology"; " All the three randomized controlled trials showed better glucose management with the carbohydrate restricted diet (vs energy restricted). Our study revealed that there is very little evidence on diets, particularly in Japanese patients with diabetes, and that the energy restricted diet, which has been recommended by the Japan Diabetes Society in the sole dietary management approach, is not supported by any scientific evidence.".
I am a bit concerned that the Low-carbohydrate diet article currently says [the ADA report] " found that a low-carbohydrate diet was not as good as a Mediterranean diet at improving glycemic control" [my bold]. I have looked at this report and cannot find any direct comparison between the two diets. Could someone point this out to me?
A look at this BMJ article suggests to me we should make more use of it in the article, which currently only uses it to highlight the difficulty of how to classify "what is a low carbohydrate diet" (again, another opinion). The paper notes that there's no one low carb diet -- they vary in quality and approach to what fats to include. Its key message says there is controversy over whether to prefer a LCD for type 2 diabetes, but that "there are calls to review this in light of emerging evidence on the potential benefits of low carbohydrate diets for weight management and glycaemic control". There are likely more guidelines and reviews that should be considered, not just the ADA. As WP:WEIGHT guides, a deep understanding how of we, as editors and writers, should include and what proportion to include, comes from familiarity with the body of literature on the topic. It does not come from finding or arguing over just one source or just one other source. -- Colin° Talk 09:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Noakes2017
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
They are all conspiracy theories being circulated on social media. The Skeptic from Britain was not a vegan. 82.132.231.126 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, the first I heard of any concerted effort to edit or manipulate wiki pages was after this dispute started and I followed links on talk pages. I am not part of any group or team. I used to be a regular contributor to the Medical Research into LC diets page, and stopped when that was being merged here. (although I did mention this dispute in a LC fb group) CarbShark ( talk) 04:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
|
I happened to look at Low-fat diet and what I found was alarming. [9] This is further evidence of how diet nonsense has spilled into our content. The page was emblazoned with a warning that "Recent research has not supported the efficacy of low fat diets in lowering cholesterol and weight" and the second sentence informed readers that low-fat diets "have been shown" to cause obesity (with misrepresented source as a supporting citation). This misinformation has been there for over a year during which time the article had > 100,000 page views. Alexbrn ( talk) 10:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: I was reading the article Erythropoiesis, and when I came to the part about vitamin deficiency I clicked on the link to the article Reticulocytopenia. According to the first article, vitamin deficiency can lead to Reticulocytopenia, but the second article doesn't mention this, instead discussing only scarier causes. I was just being nosy, but if someone whose doctor has actually told them they have this health problem reads the article it might worry them needlessly. Should the Reticulocytopenia article included a sentence or two about vitamins, and if so, can someone who can express it clearly and can find an appropriate reference please make this change? Thanks.— Anne Delong ( talk) 16:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed that 'primary sources' are being frowned upon. I'm trying to write a stub of Cerebral folate deficiency. As far as I understand, the majority of research into cases of CFD (allegedly) caused by antibodies to the folate receptor has been carried out (and was pioneered) by a group led by Ramaekers et al. Would the inclusion of their papers as references be incorrect? Do I need instead rely on reviews written by other scientists? -- CopperKettle 13:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Cerebral folate deficiency has been associated both with auto-antibodies and gene mutations of the folate FR1 receptor.[..] This disorder is covered in more detail in Chapter 22 by Dr Fernando Scaglia
Hello, looking for advice about Lateral motor column neuron - should it be merged to motor neuron, or does it belong as its own article? ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the talk page. See Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol and liquid#Proposed merge to focus specifically on electronic cigarette aerosol. QuackGuru ( talk) 22:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:Electric smoking system#Older versions or January 12, 2019 version. QuackGuru ( talk) 00:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi wikiproject medicine. I need some help with how we get the very neutral very reliable sources on either this page, or social media addiction. At the moment, medicine is completely out of it. I need to develop consensus, or the articles as they stand, appear to be quite medically useless. Thanks! I know we can do it, it just involves careful thought, and we all need to consider own own cognitive bias, myself especially. E.3 ( talk) 12:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I tried adding an educational video link on creatine deficiencies (a group of three rare diseases) to the pages relevant with the reference and everything. I am told I cannot add the same video to multiple pages because it is considered spam. The video covers the symptoms, signs, and diagnostic of all three diseases. These diseases are massively under diagnosed and most of the times it takes years until families find a doctor that knows what they are so the video reference is very important for families and for medical professionals.
From my perspective it seems to make sense then to have the video linked in the independent conditions (
AGAT,
GAMT,
CTD) and the main
creatine deficiency article. I had added it to the main creatine page under the creatine deficiency section and I can see how that might be too much to list it there. What about the rests?
I am the parent of child with one of the rare diseases so yes I do want this information to be available to other parents like myself who looked on wikipedia when they got a diagnostic. What is your suggestion on how to best include this information? --
Auract (
talk) 23:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
If you are interested in the subject of new editors and their motivations, please see mw:Wikimedia Research/Showcase#January 2019 for Wednesday's Research Showcase. The YouTube version will be at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc51jE_KNTc WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Your input is welcome: WT:Vital articles/Level/4#Replace Substance abuse with Substance use disorder. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 23:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
This still needs additional input to generate consensus (a proposal like this needs a minimum of 5 support/0 oppose to pass). Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 01:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I've read several dozen research articles and reviews on Cerebral folate deficiency. I'm thinking of starting a separate article with that name. Do you think it's worth it, or is it better to add first a section in Folate deficiency? --- CopperKettle 06:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
5-methyltetrahydrofolate (5-MTHF) is an essential cofactor for methylation reactions in the brain and other organs via S-adenosylmethionine. It participates, for example, in the catabolism of dopamine to its final metabolite HVA. Cerebral folate deficiency (defined as low CSF 5-MTHF values with normal blood folate status) has been described as associated with different neurogenetic and environmental conditions (Pérez-Dueñas et al. 2011) and specifically to some mitochondrial disorders (Garcia-Cazorla et al. 2008a).[1] [2] [3]
When combined with a clinical picture of megaloblastic anemia and additional results of cobalamin levels, the serum folate concentration is the cheapest and most useful initial biochemical test to diagnose folate deficiency (see Table 39.2 ). The serum folate level is highly sensitive to folate intake, and a single hospital meal may normalize it in a patient with true folate deficiency. Rapidly developing nutritional folate deficiency first leads to a decline in the serum folate level below normal (less than 2 ng/mL) in about 3 weeks; it is a sensitive indicator of negative folate balance. However, isolated reduction of serum folate level in the absence of megaloblastosis (i.e., false-positive result) occurs in one-third of hospitalized patients with anorexia, after acute alcohol consumption, during normal pregnancy, and in patients on anticonvulsants ; unfortunately, these are the very groups at high risk for folate deficiency and the people who exhibit low serum folate levels when they become folate deficient. Conversely, in 25% to 50% of cases (predominantly alcoholics) with folate-deficient megaloblastosis, the serum folate levels may be below normal or borderline (2 to 4 ng/mL). The serum folate level alone should never dictate therapy. It is important to consider the clinical picture, peripheral smear, and bone marrow morphology and also to rule out underlying cobalamin deficiency.[4]
The numerous causes of the syndrome disrupt folate transport via the choroid plexus.Good luck with this! — soupvector ( talk) 19:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the literature we have https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/cerebral-folate-transport-deficiency aswell as a bunch of review articles. So yes I think it deserves its own article. Only 20 cases described so not common. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link) CS1 maint: others (
link)
The Conscious breathing article clearly touches on medical topics, and could do with a review. The AfD for coherent breathing might also be of interest. -- The Anome ( talk) 15:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey. Sorry -- I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia and I have a very huge interest in medicine. I saw West Nile virus and was eager to add a symptoms section to a seemingly under-developed article. Little did I know, there was a West Nile fever article, which contains an extremely thorough section explaining the symptoms of the WN Fever...
Though I personally believe my section on symptoms for the WNV shouldn't really be removed because it seems to be a simpler explanation of the symptoms (such as the prevention section on the WNV page) and the WNV page receives a lot more views than the WN Fever page (so, people wanting to find symptoms on the West Nile virus can easily fulfill their need by checking the symptom section I wrote).
But alas, I'm new to this whole "Wikipedia-editing" business, so, I'm asking the WikiProject Medicine community on this. Thanks for the comments. -- Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 18:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, yes, now that I've looked through this and several other virus pages. -- Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
{{Main|West Nile fever}}
to get a fancy link to the main article on the disease.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 02:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I just created this. If you know of journals that would belong in that category, please add them. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Hymen reconstruction surgery#Recent article move. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 08:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I'm new to the Wiki community. I saw there was no info on telemedicine/remote heath on the Management of Parkinson's Disease page, so I added some information about teleneurology research. Would someone mind taking a look at my addition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spreadsheetz ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
From the GDB website you can get an enormous set of data for diseases where you can get their prevalence, incidence, sex ratio, age distribution for almost all countries in the world. You can have a visualization tool to get the scale of the project: https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare/
And best of all, all these data are under the Open Data Commons Attribution License ( http://www.healthdata.org/about/terms-and-conditions).
In fact, most of these data are already inside Wikipedia, because links to this site are often found in the "epidemiology" section for a great number of disease pages on Wikipedia. But I'm asking myself about a more complete use of these data. What about a massive table with all the prevalence for each country for example, with sex ratio? or one about incidence?
Thanks for your opinon about this! Linuxo ( talk) 20:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
They are not using an open license "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License" User:Linuxo
The license issues would need to be figured out first. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes#Issues have not been resolved for discussion. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The word "controversy" in the title is problematic for a number of reasons, it seems plausible that a better title could be found. Please weigh in with suggestions. Guy ( Help!) 14:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to pester James for his reply, so I'm going here to ask for opinions. Thoughts? -- Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to post an interesting article about Wikipedia interactions (preprint):
Shi, Feng; Teplitskiy, Misha; Duede, Eamon; Evans, James (29 November 2017). "The wisdom of polarized crowds". Nature Human Behaviour. 3 (4): 329–336. arXiv: 1712.06414. doi: 10.1038/s41562-019-0541-6. PMID 30971793.
In summary, it says that conflict is adversive, but it makes article content better. I hope some of you will find this cheering. The authors welcome feedback. HLHJ ( talk) 22:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Interesting piece. I was struck by one ex-board member's criticism that Cochrane SRs are "largely synthesised information from industry sponsored studies". Not sure what (if any) implications these ructions have for how we use Cochrane content as a source. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
References
Orangelioncat ( talk · contribs) is a new account. Some here might want to review Orangelioncat's edits to articles like Venous leak and Erectile dysfunction. Looking at images and sources he's used, there appears to be a WP:Conflict of interest aspect to the editing. Since Orangelioncat is also editing anatomy articles about the penis, I'll drop WP:Anatomy a line about this as well. I've already welcomed Orangelioncat with a WP:Med template. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
We have an edit-a-thon planned in collaboration with a bunch of folks. Please see HERE for further details. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Instead of using {{retracted|{{PMID|123456}}}}
, the new code is {{retracted|pmid=123456}}
. It also supports |bibcode=
, |doi=
, |pmid=
, and |pmc=
. Thanks.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 18:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Dental implant#Merger discussion Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
New article created on Cardiac allograft vasculopathy. Please feel free to add or amend...anyone. Whispyhistory ( talk) 19:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello friends, once again I'm looking for help with some medical stubs that are also orphans.
Can Myocytolysis be merged somewhere, perhaps to Myocardial infarction or Myocyte? Or should it remain its own article? Like a lot of the medical stubs I've found, it feels like the kind of thing that would work better as a paragraph in a larger article that can give it more context.
In a similar vein, Malleolar canal looks like a it could possibly be merged to Flexor retinaculum of foot or Malleolus.
As always, I'm happy to do the legwork, I just like to be pointed in the proper direction. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I was approached by an administrator on my talk page for apparently copying licensed material in Alkhurma_virus#Epidemiology (the paragraph which describes Saudi Arabia's process to combatting the Alkhurma virus). This admin added an attribute statement, which I removed since I didn't copy word-from-word but rather I tried my best to put it into my own words. I asked the admin for her response/review, but no response was given. So, I'm going here to simply double check to make sure my section in this article is acceptable to WP guidelines and policies. I'd like to make it clear that I did my best to put it in my own words by changing the sentence structure and substituting a lot of words with synonyms.
Thanks for your time. -- Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 02:52, 22 January 2019 (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 115 | ← | Archive 118 | Archive 119 | Archive 120 | Archive 121 | Archive 122 | → | Archive 125 |
I can't think of the title, but I'm nearly sure we have at least one other article that's also about diseases of unknown etiology. Does anyone remember what the article is? Natureium ( talk) 15:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Addressing the question of whether practitioners of alternative treatments have an inherent COI when editing on their practices. Guy ( Help!) 15:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, I've been hired by
America's Health Insurance Plans to request some updates to its article. I'm also hoping to help address the {{
POV}}
flag on the article.
My requests are on the article's talk page. If anyone here is up for taking a look and offering feedback, I'd appreciate it tremendously. I've had some difficulty getting a response to my requests. Thank you!
Mary Gaulke (
talk) 04:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The MEDMOS says "See also: Avoid the See also section when possible; prefer wikilinks in the main article and navigation templates at the end." Can someone explain why this is? Natureium ( talk) 15:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
21:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Would like input on whether it's good to remove [4] 2015 Harrison's from acupuncture on the rationale that the 2018 one might say differently, and that it's too old because already have different 2016 sourcing.
Harrison's 2015 says "no evidence for efficacy" in tension-type headache. This contrasts with two 2016 Cochrane reviews already cited which found "moderate" evidence for efficacy -- so do we keep out Harrison's just because 2015 < 2016?
And in general should we be deleting uncontroversial 2015 Harrison's citations until we get a copy of the 2018? -- Middle 8 ( t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 19:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Prostate_cancer_related_articles regarding potential conflict of interest at some prostate cancer related articles. It may be helpful for editors with medical expertise to have a look and give an opinion. Thank you. Edgeweyes ( talk) 16:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Greetings, wanted to ask for comments on something that might be worthy of its own article.
I did just read this publication and it is a pretty straightforward and unremarkable laboratory experiment.
However, some of the sources citing it mention it as an example of how dangerous pathogens may be accidentally created in laboratories. I wonder if one could write an article on this topic (say Accidental creation of dangerous pathogens or something more specific such as Interleukin-4 transduced ectromelia virus experiment) or whether there is a more general topic on accidentally engineered biohazards. Thoughts? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent/Sussex Detoxification Center that might benefit from some experienced eyes - I found some sources, but they look a bit odd to me. GirthSummit (blether) 18:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
From Ian Coltard, Manager of Copyright, Licensing and External Publications:
"Our team has advertised a G5 position in Geneva. Despite the rather unexciting WHO job title “Assistant (Documents)”, this position will be at the heart of our work in digital licensing and distribution, and in particular our expanding work in the area of open access. We are also looking to improve the tracking of the use and uptake of our publications, so there will also be an opportunity to be part of this developing area of our work."
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 18:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
The World Health Organization is hiring a document manager to advance their open access program. This is a one year position and they are offering CHF 74,343 or ~ US$75,000. I think this could be relevant to Wikipedia's medical content if the person in this role would collaborate with Wikipedia. WHO has excellent content that no one reads, and Wikipedia has okay content that is maximally popular. Our organizations should collaborate to leverage each other's strengths.
I got this posting from @ John Cummings:, who is Wikimedian at UNESCO. He also is keen on suggesting the position to wiki editors. If there is anyone in our wiki social circle who would be interested in applying then I would support their candidacy with others from the meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network.
Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
The Social media addiction article needs attention from editors well-versed in MEDRS. I removed a number of statements which were clearly WP:SYN or unsourced, but some of the remaining sources may be speculative or not reflect current medical consensus. The overall article seems to be written as an argument in support of social media addiction instead of a balanced, detached description. Any help would be appreciated. – dlthewave ☎ 17:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I am having an issue with updating the Low-carbohydrate diet#Diabetes entry.
Recently the ADA released the "2018 consensus report on Type 2 Diabetes by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)" [1]
The
American Diabetes Association also released its "Professional Practice Committee: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2019."
[2]
These two documents mark a sea-change in ADA policy toward low carb diet. It is now included as an option for Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT), which is recommended by the ADA.
What's happening is that any attempt to accurately summarize these articles as they relate to LC diets is being instantly reverted or edited in very biased and slanted manner. The editor I am having this disagreement with suggested I request help here.
Here is the talk page: Talk:Low-carbohydrate diet
Thank you, CarbShark ( talk) 04:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Let me just say I admire the fact you are trying to update this article. But unfortunately I think you are taking out of context what is in these sources, I could be wrong about this but the user you talk about is an experienced editor and warned you about this [7]. I think the best thing to do would get the opinion of @ Doc James:. MatthewManchester1994 ( talk) 22:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
So I had a look at these references and this is interesting:
Studies have demonstrated that a variety of eating plans, varying in macronutrient composition, can be used effectively and safely in the short term (1–2 years) to achieve weight loss in people with diabetes. This includes structured low-calorie meal plans that include meal replacements (72–74) and the Mediterranean eating pattern (75) as well as low-carbohydrate meal plans (62). However, no single approach has been proven to be consistently superior (76,77), and more data are needed to identify and validate those meal plans that are optimal with respect to long-term outcomes as well as patient acceptability.
(my bold). Can you explain how this fits your claim that there is "a sea-change in ADA policy toward low carb diet"? I am not seeing any long-term health benefits from this diet in relation to diabetes, and the ADA contrary to what you claim on the talk-page is not specifically recommending this diet. MatthewManchester1994 ( talk) 22:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
'the ADA link should be clearly identified as their Standard of Care document'and
'just "ADA says"'? -- RexxS ( talk) 15:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
"all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source"and if I challenge text that explicitly draws attention to the weight due to ADA Standards of Care, then I expect the source that drew that conclusion to be produced, not some vague hand-waving about
"Wikipedians are the ones that should know if ADA Standards of Care is widely cited in the literature and is considered authoritative."The job of Wikipedia editors in that area is to evaluate what sources to use, not to impose their own interpretations on the article text.
WP:WEIGHT doesn't require an explicit reliable source saying "ADA Standards of Care carries weight". Nobody is asking for an third-party source to establish whether a particular source is good enough to use. But once you start writing text that contains the implication that 'ADA Standards of Care' carries more weight than another statement, you're going to have to back that up with external sourcing.
"When a statement is a fact (e.g. information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute), it should be asserted using Wikipedia's own voice without in-text attribution. "might help make up your mind? After all, the citation is just a click away, the same as it is for any other sourced fact.-- RexxS ( talk) 13:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
As WAID says: 'tis the season for increased interest in our diet articles. It appears there is some kind of Facebook group coordinating an effort to change Low-carbohydrate diet, and Jimmy Wales is being petition on twitter in parallel to this. Apparently Wikipedia is controlled by vegans - who knew! More eyes on this and our other diet articles could be helpful over the festive season. Alexbrn ( talk) 15:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Wrt WP:ASF, it is not clear cut, black and white, what is an opinion and what is a fact. The decision to include specific types of diet in a management nutrition therapy is based on opinion. That it is included in ADA's choices of MNT is a fact. That's ADA's report looked at various diets and discussed their efficacy is a fact. That one diet is better than another is an opinion. The efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness and relative attractiveness (first-line, second-line, etc) are all opinions -- were the trials large/good enough? What is the cost to society/health-service vs treatment (likely varies from country to country). What is the cost of a therapy (e.g. hiring dietitian support, paying for drugs). An "indication for" is just a medical opinion, though if it appears to be universally held, we may not bother with direct attribution and merely state it as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. Sometimes, though, it helps or is necessary to indicate that it is only "indicated"/recommended in some countries or by some bodies or some authors. That's why familiarity with the literature is needed.
Please note that this is the International English version of Wikipedia, read by people globally, so the convenience/popularity of a diet in Western English-speaking countries doesn't necessarily translate to other countries that have different eating patters or even religious restrictions on eating (something noted in the Ketogentic diet article). A quick search finds two examples: " the low carbohydrate diet is not recognized in Czech diabetology"; " All the three randomized controlled trials showed better glucose management with the carbohydrate restricted diet (vs energy restricted). Our study revealed that there is very little evidence on diets, particularly in Japanese patients with diabetes, and that the energy restricted diet, which has been recommended by the Japan Diabetes Society in the sole dietary management approach, is not supported by any scientific evidence.".
I am a bit concerned that the Low-carbohydrate diet article currently says [the ADA report] " found that a low-carbohydrate diet was not as good as a Mediterranean diet at improving glycemic control" [my bold]. I have looked at this report and cannot find any direct comparison between the two diets. Could someone point this out to me?
A look at this BMJ article suggests to me we should make more use of it in the article, which currently only uses it to highlight the difficulty of how to classify "what is a low carbohydrate diet" (again, another opinion). The paper notes that there's no one low carb diet -- they vary in quality and approach to what fats to include. Its key message says there is controversy over whether to prefer a LCD for type 2 diabetes, but that "there are calls to review this in light of emerging evidence on the potential benefits of low carbohydrate diets for weight management and glycaemic control". There are likely more guidelines and reviews that should be considered, not just the ADA. As WP:WEIGHT guides, a deep understanding how of we, as editors and writers, should include and what proportion to include, comes from familiarity with the body of literature on the topic. It does not come from finding or arguing over just one source or just one other source. -- Colin° Talk 09:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Noakes2017
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
They are all conspiracy theories being circulated on social media. The Skeptic from Britain was not a vegan. 82.132.231.126 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, the first I heard of any concerted effort to edit or manipulate wiki pages was after this dispute started and I followed links on talk pages. I am not part of any group or team. I used to be a regular contributor to the Medical Research into LC diets page, and stopped when that was being merged here. (although I did mention this dispute in a LC fb group) CarbShark ( talk) 04:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
|
I happened to look at Low-fat diet and what I found was alarming. [9] This is further evidence of how diet nonsense has spilled into our content. The page was emblazoned with a warning that "Recent research has not supported the efficacy of low fat diets in lowering cholesterol and weight" and the second sentence informed readers that low-fat diets "have been shown" to cause obesity (with misrepresented source as a supporting citation). This misinformation has been there for over a year during which time the article had > 100,000 page views. Alexbrn ( talk) 10:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: I was reading the article Erythropoiesis, and when I came to the part about vitamin deficiency I clicked on the link to the article Reticulocytopenia. According to the first article, vitamin deficiency can lead to Reticulocytopenia, but the second article doesn't mention this, instead discussing only scarier causes. I was just being nosy, but if someone whose doctor has actually told them they have this health problem reads the article it might worry them needlessly. Should the Reticulocytopenia article included a sentence or two about vitamins, and if so, can someone who can express it clearly and can find an appropriate reference please make this change? Thanks.— Anne Delong ( talk) 16:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed that 'primary sources' are being frowned upon. I'm trying to write a stub of Cerebral folate deficiency. As far as I understand, the majority of research into cases of CFD (allegedly) caused by antibodies to the folate receptor has been carried out (and was pioneered) by a group led by Ramaekers et al. Would the inclusion of their papers as references be incorrect? Do I need instead rely on reviews written by other scientists? -- CopperKettle 13:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Cerebral folate deficiency has been associated both with auto-antibodies and gene mutations of the folate FR1 receptor.[..] This disorder is covered in more detail in Chapter 22 by Dr Fernando Scaglia
Hello, looking for advice about Lateral motor column neuron - should it be merged to motor neuron, or does it belong as its own article? ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the talk page. See Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol and liquid#Proposed merge to focus specifically on electronic cigarette aerosol. QuackGuru ( talk) 22:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:Electric smoking system#Older versions or January 12, 2019 version. QuackGuru ( talk) 00:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi wikiproject medicine. I need some help with how we get the very neutral very reliable sources on either this page, or social media addiction. At the moment, medicine is completely out of it. I need to develop consensus, or the articles as they stand, appear to be quite medically useless. Thanks! I know we can do it, it just involves careful thought, and we all need to consider own own cognitive bias, myself especially. E.3 ( talk) 12:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I tried adding an educational video link on creatine deficiencies (a group of three rare diseases) to the pages relevant with the reference and everything. I am told I cannot add the same video to multiple pages because it is considered spam. The video covers the symptoms, signs, and diagnostic of all three diseases. These diseases are massively under diagnosed and most of the times it takes years until families find a doctor that knows what they are so the video reference is very important for families and for medical professionals.
From my perspective it seems to make sense then to have the video linked in the independent conditions (
AGAT,
GAMT,
CTD) and the main
creatine deficiency article. I had added it to the main creatine page under the creatine deficiency section and I can see how that might be too much to list it there. What about the rests?
I am the parent of child with one of the rare diseases so yes I do want this information to be available to other parents like myself who looked on wikipedia when they got a diagnostic. What is your suggestion on how to best include this information? --
Auract (
talk) 23:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
If you are interested in the subject of new editors and their motivations, please see mw:Wikimedia Research/Showcase#January 2019 for Wednesday's Research Showcase. The YouTube version will be at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc51jE_KNTc WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Your input is welcome: WT:Vital articles/Level/4#Replace Substance abuse with Substance use disorder. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 23:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
This still needs additional input to generate consensus (a proposal like this needs a minimum of 5 support/0 oppose to pass). Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 01:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I've read several dozen research articles and reviews on Cerebral folate deficiency. I'm thinking of starting a separate article with that name. Do you think it's worth it, or is it better to add first a section in Folate deficiency? --- CopperKettle 06:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
5-methyltetrahydrofolate (5-MTHF) is an essential cofactor for methylation reactions in the brain and other organs via S-adenosylmethionine. It participates, for example, in the catabolism of dopamine to its final metabolite HVA. Cerebral folate deficiency (defined as low CSF 5-MTHF values with normal blood folate status) has been described as associated with different neurogenetic and environmental conditions (Pérez-Dueñas et al. 2011) and specifically to some mitochondrial disorders (Garcia-Cazorla et al. 2008a).[1] [2] [3]
When combined with a clinical picture of megaloblastic anemia and additional results of cobalamin levels, the serum folate concentration is the cheapest and most useful initial biochemical test to diagnose folate deficiency (see Table 39.2 ). The serum folate level is highly sensitive to folate intake, and a single hospital meal may normalize it in a patient with true folate deficiency. Rapidly developing nutritional folate deficiency first leads to a decline in the serum folate level below normal (less than 2 ng/mL) in about 3 weeks; it is a sensitive indicator of negative folate balance. However, isolated reduction of serum folate level in the absence of megaloblastosis (i.e., false-positive result) occurs in one-third of hospitalized patients with anorexia, after acute alcohol consumption, during normal pregnancy, and in patients on anticonvulsants ; unfortunately, these are the very groups at high risk for folate deficiency and the people who exhibit low serum folate levels when they become folate deficient. Conversely, in 25% to 50% of cases (predominantly alcoholics) with folate-deficient megaloblastosis, the serum folate levels may be below normal or borderline (2 to 4 ng/mL). The serum folate level alone should never dictate therapy. It is important to consider the clinical picture, peripheral smear, and bone marrow morphology and also to rule out underlying cobalamin deficiency.[4]
The numerous causes of the syndrome disrupt folate transport via the choroid plexus.Good luck with this! — soupvector ( talk) 19:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the literature we have https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/cerebral-folate-transport-deficiency aswell as a bunch of review articles. So yes I think it deserves its own article. Only 20 cases described so not common. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link) CS1 maint: others (
link)
The Conscious breathing article clearly touches on medical topics, and could do with a review. The AfD for coherent breathing might also be of interest. -- The Anome ( talk) 15:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey. Sorry -- I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia and I have a very huge interest in medicine. I saw West Nile virus and was eager to add a symptoms section to a seemingly under-developed article. Little did I know, there was a West Nile fever article, which contains an extremely thorough section explaining the symptoms of the WN Fever...
Though I personally believe my section on symptoms for the WNV shouldn't really be removed because it seems to be a simpler explanation of the symptoms (such as the prevention section on the WNV page) and the WNV page receives a lot more views than the WN Fever page (so, people wanting to find symptoms on the West Nile virus can easily fulfill their need by checking the symptom section I wrote).
But alas, I'm new to this whole "Wikipedia-editing" business, so, I'm asking the WikiProject Medicine community on this. Thanks for the comments. -- Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 18:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, yes, now that I've looked through this and several other virus pages. -- Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
{{Main|West Nile fever}}
to get a fancy link to the main article on the disease.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 02:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I just created this. If you know of journals that would belong in that category, please add them. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Hymen reconstruction surgery#Recent article move. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 08:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I'm new to the Wiki community. I saw there was no info on telemedicine/remote heath on the Management of Parkinson's Disease page, so I added some information about teleneurology research. Would someone mind taking a look at my addition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spreadsheetz ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
From the GDB website you can get an enormous set of data for diseases where you can get their prevalence, incidence, sex ratio, age distribution for almost all countries in the world. You can have a visualization tool to get the scale of the project: https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare/
And best of all, all these data are under the Open Data Commons Attribution License ( http://www.healthdata.org/about/terms-and-conditions).
In fact, most of these data are already inside Wikipedia, because links to this site are often found in the "epidemiology" section for a great number of disease pages on Wikipedia. But I'm asking myself about a more complete use of these data. What about a massive table with all the prevalence for each country for example, with sex ratio? or one about incidence?
Thanks for your opinon about this! Linuxo ( talk) 20:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
They are not using an open license "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License" User:Linuxo
The license issues would need to be figured out first. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes#Issues have not been resolved for discussion. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The word "controversy" in the title is problematic for a number of reasons, it seems plausible that a better title could be found. Please weigh in with suggestions. Guy ( Help!) 14:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to pester James for his reply, so I'm going here to ask for opinions. Thoughts? -- Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to post an interesting article about Wikipedia interactions (preprint):
Shi, Feng; Teplitskiy, Misha; Duede, Eamon; Evans, James (29 November 2017). "The wisdom of polarized crowds". Nature Human Behaviour. 3 (4): 329–336. arXiv: 1712.06414. doi: 10.1038/s41562-019-0541-6. PMID 30971793.
In summary, it says that conflict is adversive, but it makes article content better. I hope some of you will find this cheering. The authors welcome feedback. HLHJ ( talk) 22:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Interesting piece. I was struck by one ex-board member's criticism that Cochrane SRs are "largely synthesised information from industry sponsored studies". Not sure what (if any) implications these ructions have for how we use Cochrane content as a source. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
References
Orangelioncat ( talk · contribs) is a new account. Some here might want to review Orangelioncat's edits to articles like Venous leak and Erectile dysfunction. Looking at images and sources he's used, there appears to be a WP:Conflict of interest aspect to the editing. Since Orangelioncat is also editing anatomy articles about the penis, I'll drop WP:Anatomy a line about this as well. I've already welcomed Orangelioncat with a WP:Med template. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
We have an edit-a-thon planned in collaboration with a bunch of folks. Please see HERE for further details. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Instead of using {{retracted|{{PMID|123456}}}}
, the new code is {{retracted|pmid=123456}}
. It also supports |bibcode=
, |doi=
, |pmid=
, and |pmc=
. Thanks.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 18:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Dental implant#Merger discussion Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
New article created on Cardiac allograft vasculopathy. Please feel free to add or amend...anyone. Whispyhistory ( talk) 19:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello friends, once again I'm looking for help with some medical stubs that are also orphans.
Can Myocytolysis be merged somewhere, perhaps to Myocardial infarction or Myocyte? Or should it remain its own article? Like a lot of the medical stubs I've found, it feels like the kind of thing that would work better as a paragraph in a larger article that can give it more context.
In a similar vein, Malleolar canal looks like a it could possibly be merged to Flexor retinaculum of foot or Malleolus.
As always, I'm happy to do the legwork, I just like to be pointed in the proper direction. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I was approached by an administrator on my talk page for apparently copying licensed material in Alkhurma_virus#Epidemiology (the paragraph which describes Saudi Arabia's process to combatting the Alkhurma virus). This admin added an attribute statement, which I removed since I didn't copy word-from-word but rather I tried my best to put it into my own words. I asked the admin for her response/review, but no response was given. So, I'm going here to simply double check to make sure my section in this article is acceptable to WP guidelines and policies. I'd like to make it clear that I did my best to put it in my own words by changing the sentence structure and substituting a lot of words with synonyms.
Thanks for your time. -- Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 02:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)