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 140 | Archive 141 | Archive 142 | Archive 143 | Archive 144 | Archive 145 | → | Archive 150 |
Can I ask for more eyes and comments on this at Vitamin D. A well-respected editor has twice reverted the section which I have tried hard to give balance and due weight, when others have tried to rush in. There were a lot of primary research citations here to show the amount of interest (see the talk page). All of this is published, peer-reviewed articles, and the COVID-19 literature is moving too fast for systematic reviews. There are several narrative reviews, including one full review which unfortunately is in a Frontiers journal -- but the quality is excellent (yes I know that is my POV!) The mainstream press has picked up on this and there are articles for Time and the Times. I think we need to show the rationale for the current interest in this topic. Interestingly, pageviews went from 3000 to 7000 when the latest trial was in the press. All views appreciated! Jrfw51 ( talk) 18:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
As of October 2020 [update], there are several additional published reports of case series looking at direct associations between vitamin D deficiency, COVID-19 infection and severity, but only some of these have been further reviewed.It's absolute twaddle and doesn't advance the readers' understanding of the relationship between Vitamin D and COVID-19 one iota. This is another classic case of editors trying to keep up with breaking news and when there are no sources available yet to say anything new, they decide to write "there are no sources available yet to say anything new" as if that improved the article. It doesn't. -- RexxS ( talk) 01:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for these comments. Would someone at least correct the first sentence so the reason for this section is clear -- and allow the Editorial, and Time article. I note that some people think PMID 32758429 merits inclusion as a Review, which is why I replaced the unwanted primary articles on the associations with this. Regarding my Twaddle and the views in the last two comments, there are a lot of new sources, but then I am a scientist. I would ask you to read the backstory in the talk section where I have been the one trying to maintain WP standards. Do we allow editors to speculate on strange conspiracy theories even in the Talk pages? Jrfw51 ( talk) 08:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
One of the reasons I'm staying out of editing Covid articles is the battleground that has developed there, which tends to lead editors into making polarising statements that rather over-state one side of their argument. Lets be clear "If the [--] literature is moving too fast for systematic reviews, then it's moving too fast for inclusion in Wikipedia." is baloney. Systematic reviews are a rare thing, focus on very narrow aspects of medicine, and very often (including with NICE) conclude that there isn't enough good/great evidence about things that are actually used (successfully and otherwise) in practice. Only some bits of "medicine" is evidence based, and only some of that has robust evidence that is demonstrated by a formal systematic review that can build an argument from a wide collection of well designed studies.
Many such reviews, like the NICE one conclude that none of the studies they looked at either answered the question they want or were of sufficient quality. They find "we don't know" rather than "we know it does/doesn't work". The next step from "we don't know" to giving advice (which they do) is not an algorithm but just the committee giving its personal (hopefully experts) opinions. The NICE one decided not to emphasise supplementation any more than existing advice on the vitamin. But, like the other paper cited above, they could have decided "Popping a low dose vitamin D pill won't do any harm and might help you if you happen to be deficient". I note that NICE review says "Disclaimer: The content of this evidence review was up-to-date on 18 June 2020." which is a heck of a long time in Covid."
I agree we are an encyclopaedia not a news site or TV program (which is why I get my more than enough Covid information from those). But the existence or non-existence of a systematic review does not determine "inclusion in Wikipedia". It might determine what we say, but the question of whether we say something is WP:WEIGHT. -- Colin° Talk 09:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies" didn't you get? -- RexxS ( talk) 12:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
:-p
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 20:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)So there's no controversy about stating the conclusions of NICE (a top-quality secondary source). What I'm objecting to, and Colin and WAID are supporting, is adding another sentence effectively stating "two months later there's still no evidence of benefit against COVID-19, but there have been more studies". How does that improve the article? -- RexxS ( talk) 16:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)An evidence summary published in June 2020 by NICE for England and Wales, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support taking vitamin D supplements specifically to prevent or treat COVID-19. It was recommended that everyone continued to follow the advice on daily vitamin D supplementation during the COVID-19 pandemic to maintain bone and muscle health.
A growing body of circumstantial evidence now also specifically links outcomes of COVID-19 and vitamin D status.and doi:10.1530/EJE-20-0665
While the data are far from conclusive in attributing a role for vitamin D in influencing the risk and outcome of this disease, it is nevertheless also clear that more research would be timely and revealing.
In other words, it's a collection of speculation about the possible preventative and curative properties of vitamin D on COVID-19, based on guesswork from other diseases. There is zero evidence in that article of any effect, and it simply recommends avoiding vitamin D deficiency. How you can claim it "implicitly disagree with the NIH/NICE guidelines" is completely beyond me.Although not demonstrated for coronaviruses, such as SARS-CoV-2, for other viruses and other respiratory pathogens, activation of innate immunity leading to increased local 1,25(OH)2D production has been shown to enhance viral neutralization and clearance while modulating the subsequent proinflammatory response. Whether this sequence of events will be the case for SARS-CoV-2 remains to be seen.
Although these results come from studies with a variety of pathogens, viral and bacterial, the relevance of these protective actions on SARS-CoV-2 merits further investigation.
further studies evaluating the role of vitamin D in COVID-19-related cardiovascular and thrombotic events may prove critical to gaining insights into both mechanism and therapeutics.
The available clinical data, in brief, are still very preliminary with regard to vitamin D status and COVID-19 disease. Many reports, to date, have been published without rigorous peer-review, are retrospective, and only associative
An increasing number of clinical trials are being registered to investigate the effect of vitamin D supplementation or 25-OHD levels on various COVID-19 outcomes (159). Until the results of these trials are known, a prudent, general health measure is to ensure vitamin D sufficiency.
While the data are far from conclusive in attributing a role for vitamin D in influencing the risk and outcome of this disease, it is nevertheless also clear that more research would be timely and revealing.
Even in reputable medical journals, different papers are not treated as of equal value. Studies can be categorized into levels of evidence and editors should rely on high-quality evidence, such as systematic reviews. Lower quality evidence (such as case reports or series) or non-evidence (such as anecdotes or conventional wisdom) are avoided. ... Do not reject a high-quality type of study ... in favor of a source from lower levels of evidence ... because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions in the higher-level source.I can't be any clearer than that. -- RexxS ( talk) 15:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
There are three aspects to Vitamin D and COVID-19 that I think need separating: (1.) Has there been public interest in the topic? (2.) Is there reliable scientific evidence of any association for vitamin D levels on incidence, severity and outcome? (3.) Is there high quality consensus evidence that giving vitamin D will benefit people with or at risk of infection? MEDRS is clearly important for 3. I believe other types of review should address the scientific aspect. Jrfw51 ( talk) 17:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Both User:Berchanhimez and User:RexxS have put words into my (and WhatamIdoing's) mouth, claiming I am advancing a position I have not made. I am not directly supporting any specific text or source or version, nor am I "encouraging" any editor to do so. RexxS, defending the "bright line" does not mean we have to tell "lies to the children" to make them stop messing with an article. Nor is it necessary to quite so personally hostile towards those who disagree with you. -- Colin° Talk 19:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
If we do talk about Vitamin D and its relationship to COVID-19, we should make sure the discussion is balanced. e.g., by including references to the risks of too high vitamin D. [1] The "Frontline COVID Guide" (see section on "Looking for COVID-19 sources" above) put together by frontline physicians around the world does not mention any vitamin other than vitamin C. So I don't think that the importance/notability of "Vitamin D and COVID" is very high - not high enough to warrant getting ahead of expert consensus. I would vote for leaving out mention of COVID-19 and Vitamin D until the literature and secondary sources become more robust on the issue. If despite this line of consideration, we really want to write that "Vitamin D has no role in COVID-19" we should also write the same thing about all the other vitamins (except C). Jaredroach ( talk) 20:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
References
As a counterpoint to my own point above, the Washington Post just published this a few minutes ago (after I wrote the above paragraph): "[Conley] said the president completed his treatment “without incident,” and that Trump is also taking zinc, vitamin D, famotidine, melatonin and a daily aspirin. A team of experts is evaluating and advising the president, Conley said." If the president of the USA is taking Vitamin D for COVID-19, maybe that makes it "notable" even if not otherwise notable in the medical literature. But maybe he was taking vitamin incidentally, not directly related to his new diagnosis of COVID-19. Maybe create a brand new article on "Vitamins and COVID-19"? Jaredroach ( talk) 22:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Notability is not at issue when adding content in another already-created article. Notability refers to criteria for article creation not article content. We add content when that content meets sourcing guidelines and is significant to the article.
If we cannot source content to MEDRS compliant sources in a heath related article we can't add it. If there is no compliant research yet we don't say, there is no research yet, unless that statement is result of a MEDRS compliant source. Remember, in 2 years "yet" has no meaning unless the word is tethered to a source which provides the context of date and the research showing that whatever was carried out did not provide results indicating efficacy. At no point should we be adding content on other vitamins to somehow create "balance" for Vitamin D content assuming there is any. That's synthesis and creates original research.
Wikipedia is not meant to educate our readers per se. I have never allowed my students to use Wikipedia except as reference guide. Wikipedia is a guide, as is any encyclopedia, and informative, but educating is a big step past the information an encyclopedia provides.
And again, what our readers want is not what we keep in mind when writing an article. If we go this way we will sink into a morass of what we assume a readers wants, and then the question becomes: how do you know, which readers, when do we draw the line at what we think is wanted, which editor decides what the reader wants? We are a resource for published, verifiable, reliably sourced information. That is our very simple remit. All we can do is provide a beginning place to look for information. Littleolive oil ( talk) 23:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
There is a reliable secondary source (NICE) stating that there was insufficient evidence, so you shouldn't be using primary sources and opinion pieces to contradict itYou won't find anything made up in that. See WP:MEDPRI for the guidance I rely on. What's the guidance you're basing your accusation on? -- RexxS ( talk) 13:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I've redone Vitamin D § COVID-19 in this edit to try and make a middle ground here. I think part of the problem with this discussion here has quite frankly been that people have been treating it in two or more different extreme ways. On the one hand, RexxS is very correct that we are NOTNEWS, that we do not need to get everything right instantly, and that we must follow MEDRS to say things in Wikipedia's voice about medical statements. On the other hand, users like Jrfw51 are correct that this is being actively studied in many instances, ranging from multiple clinical trials to laboratory/literature examinations of potential cellular mechanisms. Jrfw51 is also correct that it is encyclopedic to include information about ongoing research when such research is well reported on in third party sources - and a simple google search would show anyone that the subject of Vitamin D and COVID is being discussed by many reliable sources. Headbomb is correct that for the evaluations we give (ex: "Hydroxychloroquine does not have use in COVID-19"), we need strong MEDRS compliant secondary sources, and we do not override those based on primary/"lower secondary" sources.
Colin is very correct that the weight is an issue here, and that we do not need to "wait" for systematic reviews or meta-analyses to edit an article. In my opinion, the weight of Vitamin D research section basically requires us to include more information than simply "it's not currently recommended for use based on insufficient evidence". Nowhere in MEDRS does it tell us "pick one source and don't use anything else" - we should include all due-weight information possible for the sake of completeness. For this reason, I have added a note about the fact both guidelines (NIH/NICE) recommend consideration of supplementation for those who are getting less sun exposure due to COVID-19, as well as a line about multiple review articles stating that further research is necessary before a conclusive outcome can be determined. I disagree fully with User:Littleolive oil - saying "no research has been done" or "research is ongoing" does not require a MEDRS source - that is in fact a primary statement that can be sourced to a study abstract/enrollment itself if there is one, or to a news article if there's not. Littleolive oil brings up a very good point, however, that we must qualify things such as "yet", "to date", or "currently" with specific date information.
RexxS has said multiple times that we are never to distrust the guidelines and good sources - if a guideline is wrong or incomplete, we still must use it completely, even if other perfectly fine MEDRS disagree with it. This is quite worrisome to me as it results in cases like this where literally hundreds of other sources, all saying different things, all with potentially encyclopedic information, are being ignored and not even considered for addition simply because "there's already a guideline". Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia where we have to limit ourselves to one sentence on things, and Jrfw51 is very correct that we serve the reader, who is going to want to know "well, if they said that in June, what have we learned since then?" Going along with this, Jaredroach is also correct that this topic is likely to be much more viewed by readers in the short term as the news that Donald Trump was taking it (even though I haven't seen it specified whether this was because of his COVID diagnosis or if he was taking it before). In this instance, saying "it's not recommended by two organizations currently" with no further information is basically equivalent to lying by omission to readers - it's not recommended now for the public because of a lack of evidence - not because it doesn't work. Given how politicized these treatments have become, that is quite frankly something that must be considered - we must word our prose on these treatments exceedingly cautiously, as well as consider when determining due weight the impact outside of the information being considered itself.
I've seen multiple people claiming things along the line of "we don't care what the reader wants". That's, to quote Colin, baloney. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia to serve the reader - it is not a clinical practice guideline to serve medical professionals, it's not a database of current trials to list every single trial ongoing, but it is an encyclopedia - for the readers. We can still provide up to date information without violating MEDRS, and in this case that is what needed done. The simple solution here is to add what multiple review articles stated: "research is ongoing" or "more research is needed to determine a definitive conclusion". However, the amount of vitriol I've seen in this thread led to this simple solution being drowned out by what seems like 75% misinterpretation/arguing and 25% people trying to be heard above the arguing with a valid idea - I think all of us who participated in this thread need to review what happened here with an eye towards improving further interactions. Please feel free to modify my edit to the article if you see fit or further discuss it, but I encourage everyone to think about whether the section as it stands now actually does violate any policies - because I spent a good 2-3 hours mulling over the changes before making them. If anyone thinks that section as it stands has something wrong with it, please ping me here and I'll do my best to attempt to explain why my interpretation of the policies is on the side of the current version as I edited it. Hopefully this can solve this issue and give this discussion a "defibrillation" and bring it back on track to improving the article. Thanks, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 14:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
We never in my opinion write to the opinions of anyone.Now this is again a misinterpretation or misunderstanding of MEDRS, overstretching it beyond Wikipedia policy. I discussed at length months ago an example with RexxS, which I never finished working on at habit cough. The consensus criteria for habit cough vs. somatic cough disorder vs. tic cough changed. The new criteria have been nothing but contentious since they were passed even by the very panel who passed them. It is impossible to describe where that debate stands today without expressing that there are different opinions held by different members of the panel. And because it is a poorly researched topic, there are not secondary sources to use exclusively without relying on the journal-published commentary from the different parties. (Well, I haven't checked in the last few months-- when I came across this many months ago that was the situation-- there may be something new by now, and I never finished fixing that article.) Similarly, we can absolutely write that ""The most fraught decision in the management of DLB relates to the use of antipsychotic medications", according to B.P. Boot, which is a well-grounded, consensus, but nonetheless opinion. We can also write that According to Boot (2013), "electing not to use neuroleptics is often the best course of action". We can also write that According to St Louis and Boeve, firearms should be locked away, out of the bedroom. All of these are opinions, but due weight opinions expressed in the highest quality sources that require attributon. Or According to Dickson, "Lewy bodies are generally limited in distribution, but in DLB, the Lewy bodies are spread widely throughout the brain, as was the case with Robin Williams." Ian G. McKeith, professor and researcher of Lewy body dementias, commented that Williams' symptoms and autopsy findings were explained by DLB.We write opinions all the time. Again, that MEDRS has been misused as a bludgeon and misunderstood is part of the problem we are looking at now wrt COVID, and it's too bad we let this misunderstanding go on for so long. Guidelines are best practices, suggestions, for how we implement policies. The underlying policies cannot be overridden by guidelines. It is not a matter of IAR; it is about understanding how a guideline explains best practices in support of policy. We have become so accustomed to whack-and-delete per MEDRS, that we are now in a position of not being able to add something coherent to serve our readers explaining the situation wrt Vitamin D and COVID, although we have a real WP:DUE matter and a need to say something more than "insufficient evidence". (But we can certainly view this as a good example of the things we need to iron out, and I'm confident we can do it without insulting each other for having different beliefs.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
The validity of their conclusions has been criticized as new data have been published? Moreover, your edits twice introduced the text
there are increasing numbers of published reports of case series showing direct associations between vitamin D deficiency, COVID-19 infection and severity.That is complete synthesis and a misrepresentation of the content of the sources you were citing, none of which concluded with any certainty that there was "direct associations between vitamin D deficiency, COVID-19 infection and severity". MEDRS applies to those efforts and yet, after being reverted, you still twice reinserted the disputed content. You're lucky you're not topic-banned from editing articles under the COVID-19 general sanctions. Let's see how many of the editors here leap to defend those three edits in their entirety instead of focusing on the sideshow about a single one of those sources. Colin, WAID, anybody? -- RexxS ( talk) 20:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
there are increasing numbers of published reports of case series showing direct associations between vitamin D deficiency, COVID-19 infection and severity. We have lost information about multivariate analyses including ethnicity, obesity, and vitamin D binding protein polymorphisms. This is not just about whether taking a supplement is recommended. Jrfw51 ( talk) 20:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
As with mask wearing [5], from an evidence-based prevention perspective one particular concern here may regard the balance of potential benefit versus potential harm. Not fully MEDRS-compliant perhaps (and scarcely agnostic), but the concluding remark here (PMID 32758429) seems pertinent:
...there is a chance that their implementation [to achieve reference intakes] might also reduce the impact of COVID-19 in populations where vitamin D deficiency is prevalent; there is nothing to lose from their implementation, and potentially much to gain.
The assertion that "there is nothing to lose" may be somewhat overstated, but as with facemasks [6], plausible downsides would presumably need to be balanced against the potential gains. 86.172.165.218 ( talk) 16:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
One reason why I cite this point is to question the ultra-purist view that it's enough to identify 'best evidence', ratchet up a yes/no answer, and game over. If EBM worked like that irl, clinical decisions could all be decided (or passed over) by algorithm. And, like Trump and Company, we doubtless wouldn't even be bothered to use masks. This is potentially very relevant stuff which, imo, requires careful contextualization, and therefore nuanced explanation (with appropriate MEDRS-based sourcing), capable of addressing Wikipedia users' needs to know. 86.172.165.218 ( talk) 20:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
"Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject ... Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. If you want to discuss the subject of an article, you can do so at Wikipedia:Reference desk instead."The only way to improve an article is by making use of appropriate sources. -- RexxS ( talk) 12:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Of note, the rather more succinct NIH guidance [7], which also considers (in passing) the fact that "persons of Hispanic ethnicity and Black race [in whom Vitamin D deficiency is common]... are overrepresented among cases of COVID-19 in the United States", takes into consideration studies of high doses of Vitamin D administered to critically ill patients. At present, we make no mention in our COVID-19 section of the existence of this quite different strategy (something that might conceivably be sourced to a MEDRS-appropriate review). NICE guidance clearly cautions that "people should not take more than 100 micrograms a day because it could be harmful" (reliable medical information that might also be considered for inclusion here, imo). 86.190.128.126 ( talk) 13:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Ajpolino suggested somewhere that world health supranational organizations need some more coverage. After creating Global Certification Commission, I have realized this is something I may good at and may be able to help this project with. I have identified the following redlinks that could be turned blue: WHO Regional Office for the African Region, WHO Regional Office for the Americas, WHO Regional Office for the South-East Asia Region, WHO Regional Office for the European Region, and WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific Region. Also Pan American Health Organization and WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean need significant improvement.
Can anyone identify other organizations of greater importance for me to focus on first? --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area), I will move on to the other orgs such as those suggested above. --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
See samples at High-dose_estrogen#Side_effects, breaching MOS:DONTHIDE. Permalink. Too many of these for me to fix. They shouldn't be collapsed, and they would probably be better if right-justified. They are all over the estrogen-related articles. They are being created by AmazingCosima and @ Medgirl131:. They may also be using sources (primary) incorrectly (in this case, the template is plopping a primary study in to multiple articles and may need to be deleted.) Some of them may also be creating WP:NOT (advice) or WP:UNDUE issues. If anyone can take this on, we'll need a list. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
We need to deal with these, they are out of control, I am encountering them everywhere, is anyone aware of any place where their use is appropriate? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Every one of the 169 templates at Category:Medication templates that I have glanced at so far use primary sources. They are inserted into articles in breach of WP:DONTHIDE. And they are used in ways that are UNDUE and even off topic in most places I have checked. Their use is basically marring a huge number of articles. They are basically the work of AmazingCosima and @ Medgirl131:, pinged several weeks ago to this discussion, but who have not responded here. Many of us here believe the lot of them need to go to TFD. Does anyone disagree? That is, can anyone locate a correct and well-sourced and DUE and appropriate use of any one of these templates? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Status update? If we're all in agreement that everything in that category needs deleted, and nobody wants to take it on, I'm happy to pose a batch deletion request similar to what I did for the ICD10 copyvio lists, and I can follow up on comments/concerns with individual templates thereafter. In fact, given how little time I've had to work on my pet project of injection articles recently (COVID is spiking here leading to a lot of calls/extra work for me), this may just be something I can handle right now. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 05:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Berchanhimez/HIDE - I'm using this page to record the results of my perusal through Category:Medication templates. If the template has only a few transclusions and/or is a blatant violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I'm removing them all. If it may have some use, I'm either fixing the templates so they aren't hidden, substituting them into the article (if it's only useful for one article), or leaving them in my various "holding pens". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 00:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
These are articles for which templates have been substituted or replaced in which may need general cleanup, as observed during the process of cleaning up specifically these templates. This may include:
|
Articles for cleanup
|
I haven't followed this discussion in detail, so apologies if I've misunderstood something, but if one of the issues is that a different style (e.g., float right, center, or other) might be more appropriate in one article than another, then there is a better solution than just slurping the template content into the article, which has the disadvantage of leading to possible divergence and the problem of keeping multiple copies all in sync with each other.
That solution is to simply include a
template parameter, say, |style=
, and then you can code whatever style you want. Or, if "float" is really the only issue here, it could be reduced to |float=right
with the default set to =center
, or vice versa. If you're not familiar with template coding, I could change one of the templates for you and then you could just propagate it to the other templates. A minor change to the /doc page would be required, to document the change, but that can be copy/pasted as well. Let me know if you're interested in this option. (please
mention me on reply; thanks!)
Mathglot (
talk) 20:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree that it's copied from the source cited and that is likely violating the copyright - would you recommend CSDing it, TFD, or what's the best way to go about a template that's a copyvio? If you think CSDing is the best thing to do, and want to nominate it, feel free - I may have limited internet for a day or so. Thanks, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 22:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
(Moved from my talk to prevent fragmentation) CV9933 ( talk) 10:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was, that there was no copyvio infringement. I was also informed by the template and graphs originator, who created these in good faith, that charts, graphs and tables are not subject to copyright protection. I hope that clears things up a bit. CV9933 ( talk) 12:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Could we define induration and sort out the situation in the UK? We have a nine-year-old “preliminary” recommendation. I now know what induration is, because I have the full list of side effects, and because I speak romance languages (endurecer), but the general reader may not. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Everyone, just a note to see Rexx’s talk page: [10] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, seeking some opinions at this common venue about how to title procedure templates, which are currently titled in a varied format. In general my questions are:
I realise there will be some variation navbox-to-navbox depending on contents but would like opinions relating to some of these general themes so that I can get to work tidying up their contents. Cheers -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 03:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I am planning to create a new article about Black maternal mortality in the US with the current article Maternal mortality in the US as its parent. So far, I am thinking that the new article would include sections on historical context (subsection on trends to the present), access to peri- and post-natal care, intersection of race and SES, medical racism, and reproductive and sexual health and rights (subsection on access to abortion). Much more detailed information can be found in my user sandbox. I welcome any feedback! Thanks! Akandru ( talk) 04:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Currently, it is Supervised injection site.
I renamed needle exchange with the naming help from this project a while ago. Now I am seeking input on what to name the place where drug addicts go to shoot up, snort, smoke, drink or whatever to introduce illegal drugs into themselves under supervision?. They are known to go by various names such as "safe consumption space" "safe injection site". After learning that some locations are not restricted to injection only, the "supervised injection site" is no longer fitting. What is a globally accepted name for such to rename the article into and what additional redirects should be made for it? Graywalls ( talk) 02:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Background information about PathoGene
|
---|
As many of you are probably aware, I've been on a wikibreak to work on my startup company, which is commercializing third-generation DNA/RNA sequencers from Oxford Nanopore Technologies for clinical use in infectious disease diagnostics (NB: I have already discussed what we're doing with Oxford Nanopore Technologies in regard to licensing their tech). Technically, we're doing far more than just that, but I can't really discuss the specifics of our medical device or how the design allows for its use for specific use cases for another 3-4 months due to patent-related issues (i.e., prior art). I can say that we're designing it so that it'll be approved for use by nurses and doctors – as opposed to just trained medical technologists – for diagnosing all infectious diseases caused by microscopic pathogens (at least eventually - my initial plans are to work toward conducting 3 simultaneous multicenter pivotal trials for sepsis, meningitis, and pneumonia, as those diseases entail very high costs to hospitals), detecting all forms of antimicrobial resistance in pathogen genomes and the biofluid/tissue-site sample, surveilling all infectious diseases globally, and auto-reporting all notifiable diseases to relevant authorities (e.g., WHO/CDC for diagnostics in the US; Doc James actually motivated that idea, as he's a member of my corporate advisory board). I intend to work closely with BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs when we obtain funding to start our analytical studies since I want to ensure our device can diagnose emerging, rare, and/or highly lethal pathogens like the Marburg virus and Naegleria fowleri as well. Upon successful completion of our first 3+ multicenter pivotal trials and FDA approval of our PMAs, we're going to rapidly expand internationally by working to obtaining regulatory approval for our device in every country/regulatory region. Assuming my company successfully commercializes our device for the use cases I've described, we'd end up supplanting countless IVD devices and microbiological culture for infectious disease diagnostics with our tech in virtually all hospitals globally and revolutionize infectious disease diagnostics with precision medical tech; so, if that comes to pass, I apologize in advance for the workload I'm going to create for everyone in terms of updating the diagnostics sections of WP's infectious disease articles. |
With all that in mind, I need to move relatively fast on pursuing funding for this; while we're still programming the software right now, I need around $100,000 worth of seed funding to purchase the parts to build our prototype and hire a few consultants. We've already applied to Y Combinator's winter cohort (FWIW, despite the 2% acceptance rate, I'm very optimistic about our chances of acceptance due to a number of reasons), but I need to apply to additional accelerators in the event that doesn't pan out. I literally need to raise over $100 million USD for our series A round, which is a rather large amount for that funding round (for context, provided I can raise that amount, an extremely conservative DCF of our annual profits over the next 20 years - i.e., the lifetime of our device patent - is $4 billion USD), in order to commercialize the aforementioned device in this manner. An ideal accelerator for our purposes would put us face-to-face with a large number of venture capitalists.
In any event, I wrote this post for two reasons:
If anyone knows of any startup accelerators that'd be a good fit for us – and particularly if anyone has any connections to such accelerators that you're willing to allow us to leverage – I'd greatly appreciate your response. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 07:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Addendum: we're also pursuing grant funding from the US CDC and NIH through the SBIR and CRP program grants. If approved for both, that'll only net us about $4.5 million though, so we need VC financing regardless; to improve our odds of successfully raising the required funds, we really need to get into a good accelerator. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 07:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
What are your thoughts about adding content to each medication article that it was used to treat Trump for COVID-19? A concern was raised on the Remdesivir talk page and there is a discussion on the Dexamethasone talk page. -- Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 06:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Please see c:Commons:Photo challenge/2020 - September - Mobility aids for the handicapped/Voting. Voting is open to all registered contributors who have held accounts for at least 10 days and made 50 edits, and also to new Commons contributors who have entered the challenge with a picture. There are some good photos that would be useful for improving Wikipedia articles about mobility. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Multiple sclerosis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Is there any good content in this draft that should be merged elsewhere, or should it be declined and sent to the trash heap? Thanks, Calliopejen1 ( talk) 22:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
we carried out a genome-wide affiliation examine for ESCC using single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) as genetic markers.and
We also observed 5 new genome-wide great signals for smoking behavior, such as a variant in NCAM1 (chromosome 11) and a variant on chromosome 2 (between TEX41 and PABPC1P2) that has a trans effect on expression of NCAM1 in brain tissue. Really, the author did all that so they could write this draft? It is also poorly written to the point of being incoherent in places:
Disclosure to tobacco smoke is a built-up chance for lung malignant growth, albeit a potential job for hereditary powerlessness in the improvement of lung malignant growth has been deduced from familial bunching of the sickness and isolation investigation.??!!? I suspect it has been either machine translated or run through a content spinner, which would explain why I can't easily find the source of the copyvio... Spicy ( talk) 22:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Article | Source |
---|---|
These variations also confirmed affiliation with COPD, consisting of in humans with no history of smoking. The variety of copies of a one hundred fifty kb location containing the 5′ stop of (KANSL1), a gene that is necessary for epigenetic gene regulation, used to be related with extremes of (FEV1). We also observed 5 new genome-wide great signals for smoking behavior, such as a variant in NCAM1 (chromosome 11) and a variant on chromosome 2 (between TEX41 and PABPC1P2) that has a trans effect on expression of NCAM1 in brain tissue | These variants also showed association with COPD, including in individuals with no history of smoking. The number of copies of a 150 kb region containing the 5′ end of KANSL1, a gene that is important for epigenetic gene regulation, was associated with extremes of FEV1. We also discovered five new genome-wide significant signals for smoking behaviour, including a variant in NCAM1 (chromosome 11) and a variant on chromosome 2 (between TEX41 and PABPC1P2) that has a trans effect on expression of NCAM1 in brain tissue. Source |
A declared union of smoking-related methylation patterns in the F2RL3 gene with forecast in steady coronary heart sickness patients which has currently been described. Even so, surprisingly little concrete information on the epigenetic adjustments in the development of cardiovascular ailments and function of specific genetic editions in human beings who smoke has been concentrated |
A pronounced association of smoking-related methylation patterns in the F2RL3 gene with prognosis in patients with stable coronary heart disease has recently been described. Nonetheless, surprisingly little concrete knowledge on the role of specific genetic variants and epigenetic modifications in the development of cardiovascular diseases in people who smoke has been accumulated. Source |
The people conveying both hereditary hazard components could decrease their danger of ESCC up to 28-crease less (from 189.26 to 6.79) by restricting their liquor utilization and smoking. In any case, even without way of life chance variables, they despite everything have higher hazard than those without hereditary hazard factors who do smoke and drink liquor (OR of 6.79 and 3.44, separately) |
The individuals carrying both genetic risk factors could reduce their risk of ESCC up to 28-fold less (from 189.26 to 6.79) by limiting their alcohol consumption and smoking. However, even without lifestyle risk factors, they still have higher risk than those without genetic risk factors who do smoke and drink alcohol (OR of 6.79 and 3.44, respectively). Source |
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 140 | Archive 141 | Archive 142 | Archive 143 | Archive 144 | Archive 145 | → | Archive 150 |
Can I ask for more eyes and comments on this at Vitamin D. A well-respected editor has twice reverted the section which I have tried hard to give balance and due weight, when others have tried to rush in. There were a lot of primary research citations here to show the amount of interest (see the talk page). All of this is published, peer-reviewed articles, and the COVID-19 literature is moving too fast for systematic reviews. There are several narrative reviews, including one full review which unfortunately is in a Frontiers journal -- but the quality is excellent (yes I know that is my POV!) The mainstream press has picked up on this and there are articles for Time and the Times. I think we need to show the rationale for the current interest in this topic. Interestingly, pageviews went from 3000 to 7000 when the latest trial was in the press. All views appreciated! Jrfw51 ( talk) 18:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
As of October 2020 [update], there are several additional published reports of case series looking at direct associations between vitamin D deficiency, COVID-19 infection and severity, but only some of these have been further reviewed.It's absolute twaddle and doesn't advance the readers' understanding of the relationship between Vitamin D and COVID-19 one iota. This is another classic case of editors trying to keep up with breaking news and when there are no sources available yet to say anything new, they decide to write "there are no sources available yet to say anything new" as if that improved the article. It doesn't. -- RexxS ( talk) 01:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for these comments. Would someone at least correct the first sentence so the reason for this section is clear -- and allow the Editorial, and Time article. I note that some people think PMID 32758429 merits inclusion as a Review, which is why I replaced the unwanted primary articles on the associations with this. Regarding my Twaddle and the views in the last two comments, there are a lot of new sources, but then I am a scientist. I would ask you to read the backstory in the talk section where I have been the one trying to maintain WP standards. Do we allow editors to speculate on strange conspiracy theories even in the Talk pages? Jrfw51 ( talk) 08:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
One of the reasons I'm staying out of editing Covid articles is the battleground that has developed there, which tends to lead editors into making polarising statements that rather over-state one side of their argument. Lets be clear "If the [--] literature is moving too fast for systematic reviews, then it's moving too fast for inclusion in Wikipedia." is baloney. Systematic reviews are a rare thing, focus on very narrow aspects of medicine, and very often (including with NICE) conclude that there isn't enough good/great evidence about things that are actually used (successfully and otherwise) in practice. Only some bits of "medicine" is evidence based, and only some of that has robust evidence that is demonstrated by a formal systematic review that can build an argument from a wide collection of well designed studies.
Many such reviews, like the NICE one conclude that none of the studies they looked at either answered the question they want or were of sufficient quality. They find "we don't know" rather than "we know it does/doesn't work". The next step from "we don't know" to giving advice (which they do) is not an algorithm but just the committee giving its personal (hopefully experts) opinions. The NICE one decided not to emphasise supplementation any more than existing advice on the vitamin. But, like the other paper cited above, they could have decided "Popping a low dose vitamin D pill won't do any harm and might help you if you happen to be deficient". I note that NICE review says "Disclaimer: The content of this evidence review was up-to-date on 18 June 2020." which is a heck of a long time in Covid."
I agree we are an encyclopaedia not a news site or TV program (which is why I get my more than enough Covid information from those). But the existence or non-existence of a systematic review does not determine "inclusion in Wikipedia". It might determine what we say, but the question of whether we say something is WP:WEIGHT. -- Colin° Talk 09:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies" didn't you get? -- RexxS ( talk) 12:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
:-p
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 20:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)So there's no controversy about stating the conclusions of NICE (a top-quality secondary source). What I'm objecting to, and Colin and WAID are supporting, is adding another sentence effectively stating "two months later there's still no evidence of benefit against COVID-19, but there have been more studies". How does that improve the article? -- RexxS ( talk) 16:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)An evidence summary published in June 2020 by NICE for England and Wales, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support taking vitamin D supplements specifically to prevent or treat COVID-19. It was recommended that everyone continued to follow the advice on daily vitamin D supplementation during the COVID-19 pandemic to maintain bone and muscle health.
A growing body of circumstantial evidence now also specifically links outcomes of COVID-19 and vitamin D status.and doi:10.1530/EJE-20-0665
While the data are far from conclusive in attributing a role for vitamin D in influencing the risk and outcome of this disease, it is nevertheless also clear that more research would be timely and revealing.
In other words, it's a collection of speculation about the possible preventative and curative properties of vitamin D on COVID-19, based on guesswork from other diseases. There is zero evidence in that article of any effect, and it simply recommends avoiding vitamin D deficiency. How you can claim it "implicitly disagree with the NIH/NICE guidelines" is completely beyond me.Although not demonstrated for coronaviruses, such as SARS-CoV-2, for other viruses and other respiratory pathogens, activation of innate immunity leading to increased local 1,25(OH)2D production has been shown to enhance viral neutralization and clearance while modulating the subsequent proinflammatory response. Whether this sequence of events will be the case for SARS-CoV-2 remains to be seen.
Although these results come from studies with a variety of pathogens, viral and bacterial, the relevance of these protective actions on SARS-CoV-2 merits further investigation.
further studies evaluating the role of vitamin D in COVID-19-related cardiovascular and thrombotic events may prove critical to gaining insights into both mechanism and therapeutics.
The available clinical data, in brief, are still very preliminary with regard to vitamin D status and COVID-19 disease. Many reports, to date, have been published without rigorous peer-review, are retrospective, and only associative
An increasing number of clinical trials are being registered to investigate the effect of vitamin D supplementation or 25-OHD levels on various COVID-19 outcomes (159). Until the results of these trials are known, a prudent, general health measure is to ensure vitamin D sufficiency.
While the data are far from conclusive in attributing a role for vitamin D in influencing the risk and outcome of this disease, it is nevertheless also clear that more research would be timely and revealing.
Even in reputable medical journals, different papers are not treated as of equal value. Studies can be categorized into levels of evidence and editors should rely on high-quality evidence, such as systematic reviews. Lower quality evidence (such as case reports or series) or non-evidence (such as anecdotes or conventional wisdom) are avoided. ... Do not reject a high-quality type of study ... in favor of a source from lower levels of evidence ... because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions in the higher-level source.I can't be any clearer than that. -- RexxS ( talk) 15:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
There are three aspects to Vitamin D and COVID-19 that I think need separating: (1.) Has there been public interest in the topic? (2.) Is there reliable scientific evidence of any association for vitamin D levels on incidence, severity and outcome? (3.) Is there high quality consensus evidence that giving vitamin D will benefit people with or at risk of infection? MEDRS is clearly important for 3. I believe other types of review should address the scientific aspect. Jrfw51 ( talk) 17:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Both User:Berchanhimez and User:RexxS have put words into my (and WhatamIdoing's) mouth, claiming I am advancing a position I have not made. I am not directly supporting any specific text or source or version, nor am I "encouraging" any editor to do so. RexxS, defending the "bright line" does not mean we have to tell "lies to the children" to make them stop messing with an article. Nor is it necessary to quite so personally hostile towards those who disagree with you. -- Colin° Talk 19:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
If we do talk about Vitamin D and its relationship to COVID-19, we should make sure the discussion is balanced. e.g., by including references to the risks of too high vitamin D. [1] The "Frontline COVID Guide" (see section on "Looking for COVID-19 sources" above) put together by frontline physicians around the world does not mention any vitamin other than vitamin C. So I don't think that the importance/notability of "Vitamin D and COVID" is very high - not high enough to warrant getting ahead of expert consensus. I would vote for leaving out mention of COVID-19 and Vitamin D until the literature and secondary sources become more robust on the issue. If despite this line of consideration, we really want to write that "Vitamin D has no role in COVID-19" we should also write the same thing about all the other vitamins (except C). Jaredroach ( talk) 20:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
References
As a counterpoint to my own point above, the Washington Post just published this a few minutes ago (after I wrote the above paragraph): "[Conley] said the president completed his treatment “without incident,” and that Trump is also taking zinc, vitamin D, famotidine, melatonin and a daily aspirin. A team of experts is evaluating and advising the president, Conley said." If the president of the USA is taking Vitamin D for COVID-19, maybe that makes it "notable" even if not otherwise notable in the medical literature. But maybe he was taking vitamin incidentally, not directly related to his new diagnosis of COVID-19. Maybe create a brand new article on "Vitamins and COVID-19"? Jaredroach ( talk) 22:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Notability is not at issue when adding content in another already-created article. Notability refers to criteria for article creation not article content. We add content when that content meets sourcing guidelines and is significant to the article.
If we cannot source content to MEDRS compliant sources in a heath related article we can't add it. If there is no compliant research yet we don't say, there is no research yet, unless that statement is result of a MEDRS compliant source. Remember, in 2 years "yet" has no meaning unless the word is tethered to a source which provides the context of date and the research showing that whatever was carried out did not provide results indicating efficacy. At no point should we be adding content on other vitamins to somehow create "balance" for Vitamin D content assuming there is any. That's synthesis and creates original research.
Wikipedia is not meant to educate our readers per se. I have never allowed my students to use Wikipedia except as reference guide. Wikipedia is a guide, as is any encyclopedia, and informative, but educating is a big step past the information an encyclopedia provides.
And again, what our readers want is not what we keep in mind when writing an article. If we go this way we will sink into a morass of what we assume a readers wants, and then the question becomes: how do you know, which readers, when do we draw the line at what we think is wanted, which editor decides what the reader wants? We are a resource for published, verifiable, reliably sourced information. That is our very simple remit. All we can do is provide a beginning place to look for information. Littleolive oil ( talk) 23:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
There is a reliable secondary source (NICE) stating that there was insufficient evidence, so you shouldn't be using primary sources and opinion pieces to contradict itYou won't find anything made up in that. See WP:MEDPRI for the guidance I rely on. What's the guidance you're basing your accusation on? -- RexxS ( talk) 13:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I've redone Vitamin D § COVID-19 in this edit to try and make a middle ground here. I think part of the problem with this discussion here has quite frankly been that people have been treating it in two or more different extreme ways. On the one hand, RexxS is very correct that we are NOTNEWS, that we do not need to get everything right instantly, and that we must follow MEDRS to say things in Wikipedia's voice about medical statements. On the other hand, users like Jrfw51 are correct that this is being actively studied in many instances, ranging from multiple clinical trials to laboratory/literature examinations of potential cellular mechanisms. Jrfw51 is also correct that it is encyclopedic to include information about ongoing research when such research is well reported on in third party sources - and a simple google search would show anyone that the subject of Vitamin D and COVID is being discussed by many reliable sources. Headbomb is correct that for the evaluations we give (ex: "Hydroxychloroquine does not have use in COVID-19"), we need strong MEDRS compliant secondary sources, and we do not override those based on primary/"lower secondary" sources.
Colin is very correct that the weight is an issue here, and that we do not need to "wait" for systematic reviews or meta-analyses to edit an article. In my opinion, the weight of Vitamin D research section basically requires us to include more information than simply "it's not currently recommended for use based on insufficient evidence". Nowhere in MEDRS does it tell us "pick one source and don't use anything else" - we should include all due-weight information possible for the sake of completeness. For this reason, I have added a note about the fact both guidelines (NIH/NICE) recommend consideration of supplementation for those who are getting less sun exposure due to COVID-19, as well as a line about multiple review articles stating that further research is necessary before a conclusive outcome can be determined. I disagree fully with User:Littleolive oil - saying "no research has been done" or "research is ongoing" does not require a MEDRS source - that is in fact a primary statement that can be sourced to a study abstract/enrollment itself if there is one, or to a news article if there's not. Littleolive oil brings up a very good point, however, that we must qualify things such as "yet", "to date", or "currently" with specific date information.
RexxS has said multiple times that we are never to distrust the guidelines and good sources - if a guideline is wrong or incomplete, we still must use it completely, even if other perfectly fine MEDRS disagree with it. This is quite worrisome to me as it results in cases like this where literally hundreds of other sources, all saying different things, all with potentially encyclopedic information, are being ignored and not even considered for addition simply because "there's already a guideline". Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia where we have to limit ourselves to one sentence on things, and Jrfw51 is very correct that we serve the reader, who is going to want to know "well, if they said that in June, what have we learned since then?" Going along with this, Jaredroach is also correct that this topic is likely to be much more viewed by readers in the short term as the news that Donald Trump was taking it (even though I haven't seen it specified whether this was because of his COVID diagnosis or if he was taking it before). In this instance, saying "it's not recommended by two organizations currently" with no further information is basically equivalent to lying by omission to readers - it's not recommended now for the public because of a lack of evidence - not because it doesn't work. Given how politicized these treatments have become, that is quite frankly something that must be considered - we must word our prose on these treatments exceedingly cautiously, as well as consider when determining due weight the impact outside of the information being considered itself.
I've seen multiple people claiming things along the line of "we don't care what the reader wants". That's, to quote Colin, baloney. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia to serve the reader - it is not a clinical practice guideline to serve medical professionals, it's not a database of current trials to list every single trial ongoing, but it is an encyclopedia - for the readers. We can still provide up to date information without violating MEDRS, and in this case that is what needed done. The simple solution here is to add what multiple review articles stated: "research is ongoing" or "more research is needed to determine a definitive conclusion". However, the amount of vitriol I've seen in this thread led to this simple solution being drowned out by what seems like 75% misinterpretation/arguing and 25% people trying to be heard above the arguing with a valid idea - I think all of us who participated in this thread need to review what happened here with an eye towards improving further interactions. Please feel free to modify my edit to the article if you see fit or further discuss it, but I encourage everyone to think about whether the section as it stands now actually does violate any policies - because I spent a good 2-3 hours mulling over the changes before making them. If anyone thinks that section as it stands has something wrong with it, please ping me here and I'll do my best to attempt to explain why my interpretation of the policies is on the side of the current version as I edited it. Hopefully this can solve this issue and give this discussion a "defibrillation" and bring it back on track to improving the article. Thanks, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 14:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
We never in my opinion write to the opinions of anyone.Now this is again a misinterpretation or misunderstanding of MEDRS, overstretching it beyond Wikipedia policy. I discussed at length months ago an example with RexxS, which I never finished working on at habit cough. The consensus criteria for habit cough vs. somatic cough disorder vs. tic cough changed. The new criteria have been nothing but contentious since they were passed even by the very panel who passed them. It is impossible to describe where that debate stands today without expressing that there are different opinions held by different members of the panel. And because it is a poorly researched topic, there are not secondary sources to use exclusively without relying on the journal-published commentary from the different parties. (Well, I haven't checked in the last few months-- when I came across this many months ago that was the situation-- there may be something new by now, and I never finished fixing that article.) Similarly, we can absolutely write that ""The most fraught decision in the management of DLB relates to the use of antipsychotic medications", according to B.P. Boot, which is a well-grounded, consensus, but nonetheless opinion. We can also write that According to Boot (2013), "electing not to use neuroleptics is often the best course of action". We can also write that According to St Louis and Boeve, firearms should be locked away, out of the bedroom. All of these are opinions, but due weight opinions expressed in the highest quality sources that require attributon. Or According to Dickson, "Lewy bodies are generally limited in distribution, but in DLB, the Lewy bodies are spread widely throughout the brain, as was the case with Robin Williams." Ian G. McKeith, professor and researcher of Lewy body dementias, commented that Williams' symptoms and autopsy findings were explained by DLB.We write opinions all the time. Again, that MEDRS has been misused as a bludgeon and misunderstood is part of the problem we are looking at now wrt COVID, and it's too bad we let this misunderstanding go on for so long. Guidelines are best practices, suggestions, for how we implement policies. The underlying policies cannot be overridden by guidelines. It is not a matter of IAR; it is about understanding how a guideline explains best practices in support of policy. We have become so accustomed to whack-and-delete per MEDRS, that we are now in a position of not being able to add something coherent to serve our readers explaining the situation wrt Vitamin D and COVID, although we have a real WP:DUE matter and a need to say something more than "insufficient evidence". (But we can certainly view this as a good example of the things we need to iron out, and I'm confident we can do it without insulting each other for having different beliefs.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
The validity of their conclusions has been criticized as new data have been published? Moreover, your edits twice introduced the text
there are increasing numbers of published reports of case series showing direct associations between vitamin D deficiency, COVID-19 infection and severity.That is complete synthesis and a misrepresentation of the content of the sources you were citing, none of which concluded with any certainty that there was "direct associations between vitamin D deficiency, COVID-19 infection and severity". MEDRS applies to those efforts and yet, after being reverted, you still twice reinserted the disputed content. You're lucky you're not topic-banned from editing articles under the COVID-19 general sanctions. Let's see how many of the editors here leap to defend those three edits in their entirety instead of focusing on the sideshow about a single one of those sources. Colin, WAID, anybody? -- RexxS ( talk) 20:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
there are increasing numbers of published reports of case series showing direct associations between vitamin D deficiency, COVID-19 infection and severity. We have lost information about multivariate analyses including ethnicity, obesity, and vitamin D binding protein polymorphisms. This is not just about whether taking a supplement is recommended. Jrfw51 ( talk) 20:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
As with mask wearing [5], from an evidence-based prevention perspective one particular concern here may regard the balance of potential benefit versus potential harm. Not fully MEDRS-compliant perhaps (and scarcely agnostic), but the concluding remark here (PMID 32758429) seems pertinent:
...there is a chance that their implementation [to achieve reference intakes] might also reduce the impact of COVID-19 in populations where vitamin D deficiency is prevalent; there is nothing to lose from their implementation, and potentially much to gain.
The assertion that "there is nothing to lose" may be somewhat overstated, but as with facemasks [6], plausible downsides would presumably need to be balanced against the potential gains. 86.172.165.218 ( talk) 16:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
One reason why I cite this point is to question the ultra-purist view that it's enough to identify 'best evidence', ratchet up a yes/no answer, and game over. If EBM worked like that irl, clinical decisions could all be decided (or passed over) by algorithm. And, like Trump and Company, we doubtless wouldn't even be bothered to use masks. This is potentially very relevant stuff which, imo, requires careful contextualization, and therefore nuanced explanation (with appropriate MEDRS-based sourcing), capable of addressing Wikipedia users' needs to know. 86.172.165.218 ( talk) 20:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
"Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject ... Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. If you want to discuss the subject of an article, you can do so at Wikipedia:Reference desk instead."The only way to improve an article is by making use of appropriate sources. -- RexxS ( talk) 12:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Of note, the rather more succinct NIH guidance [7], which also considers (in passing) the fact that "persons of Hispanic ethnicity and Black race [in whom Vitamin D deficiency is common]... are overrepresented among cases of COVID-19 in the United States", takes into consideration studies of high doses of Vitamin D administered to critically ill patients. At present, we make no mention in our COVID-19 section of the existence of this quite different strategy (something that might conceivably be sourced to a MEDRS-appropriate review). NICE guidance clearly cautions that "people should not take more than 100 micrograms a day because it could be harmful" (reliable medical information that might also be considered for inclusion here, imo). 86.190.128.126 ( talk) 13:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Ajpolino suggested somewhere that world health supranational organizations need some more coverage. After creating Global Certification Commission, I have realized this is something I may good at and may be able to help this project with. I have identified the following redlinks that could be turned blue: WHO Regional Office for the African Region, WHO Regional Office for the Americas, WHO Regional Office for the South-East Asia Region, WHO Regional Office for the European Region, and WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific Region. Also Pan American Health Organization and WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean need significant improvement.
Can anyone identify other organizations of greater importance for me to focus on first? --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area), I will move on to the other orgs such as those suggested above. --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
See samples at High-dose_estrogen#Side_effects, breaching MOS:DONTHIDE. Permalink. Too many of these for me to fix. They shouldn't be collapsed, and they would probably be better if right-justified. They are all over the estrogen-related articles. They are being created by AmazingCosima and @ Medgirl131:. They may also be using sources (primary) incorrectly (in this case, the template is plopping a primary study in to multiple articles and may need to be deleted.) Some of them may also be creating WP:NOT (advice) or WP:UNDUE issues. If anyone can take this on, we'll need a list. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
We need to deal with these, they are out of control, I am encountering them everywhere, is anyone aware of any place where their use is appropriate? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Every one of the 169 templates at Category:Medication templates that I have glanced at so far use primary sources. They are inserted into articles in breach of WP:DONTHIDE. And they are used in ways that are UNDUE and even off topic in most places I have checked. Their use is basically marring a huge number of articles. They are basically the work of AmazingCosima and @ Medgirl131:, pinged several weeks ago to this discussion, but who have not responded here. Many of us here believe the lot of them need to go to TFD. Does anyone disagree? That is, can anyone locate a correct and well-sourced and DUE and appropriate use of any one of these templates? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Status update? If we're all in agreement that everything in that category needs deleted, and nobody wants to take it on, I'm happy to pose a batch deletion request similar to what I did for the ICD10 copyvio lists, and I can follow up on comments/concerns with individual templates thereafter. In fact, given how little time I've had to work on my pet project of injection articles recently (COVID is spiking here leading to a lot of calls/extra work for me), this may just be something I can handle right now. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 05:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Berchanhimez/HIDE - I'm using this page to record the results of my perusal through Category:Medication templates. If the template has only a few transclusions and/or is a blatant violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I'm removing them all. If it may have some use, I'm either fixing the templates so they aren't hidden, substituting them into the article (if it's only useful for one article), or leaving them in my various "holding pens". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 00:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
These are articles for which templates have been substituted or replaced in which may need general cleanup, as observed during the process of cleaning up specifically these templates. This may include:
|
Articles for cleanup
|
I haven't followed this discussion in detail, so apologies if I've misunderstood something, but if one of the issues is that a different style (e.g., float right, center, or other) might be more appropriate in one article than another, then there is a better solution than just slurping the template content into the article, which has the disadvantage of leading to possible divergence and the problem of keeping multiple copies all in sync with each other.
That solution is to simply include a
template parameter, say, |style=
, and then you can code whatever style you want. Or, if "float" is really the only issue here, it could be reduced to |float=right
with the default set to =center
, or vice versa. If you're not familiar with template coding, I could change one of the templates for you and then you could just propagate it to the other templates. A minor change to the /doc page would be required, to document the change, but that can be copy/pasted as well. Let me know if you're interested in this option. (please
mention me on reply; thanks!)
Mathglot (
talk) 20:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree that it's copied from the source cited and that is likely violating the copyright - would you recommend CSDing it, TFD, or what's the best way to go about a template that's a copyvio? If you think CSDing is the best thing to do, and want to nominate it, feel free - I may have limited internet for a day or so. Thanks, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 22:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
(Moved from my talk to prevent fragmentation) CV9933 ( talk) 10:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was, that there was no copyvio infringement. I was also informed by the template and graphs originator, who created these in good faith, that charts, graphs and tables are not subject to copyright protection. I hope that clears things up a bit. CV9933 ( talk) 12:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Could we define induration and sort out the situation in the UK? We have a nine-year-old “preliminary” recommendation. I now know what induration is, because I have the full list of side effects, and because I speak romance languages (endurecer), but the general reader may not. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Everyone, just a note to see Rexx’s talk page: [10] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, seeking some opinions at this common venue about how to title procedure templates, which are currently titled in a varied format. In general my questions are:
I realise there will be some variation navbox-to-navbox depending on contents but would like opinions relating to some of these general themes so that I can get to work tidying up their contents. Cheers -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 03:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I am planning to create a new article about Black maternal mortality in the US with the current article Maternal mortality in the US as its parent. So far, I am thinking that the new article would include sections on historical context (subsection on trends to the present), access to peri- and post-natal care, intersection of race and SES, medical racism, and reproductive and sexual health and rights (subsection on access to abortion). Much more detailed information can be found in my user sandbox. I welcome any feedback! Thanks! Akandru ( talk) 04:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Currently, it is Supervised injection site.
I renamed needle exchange with the naming help from this project a while ago. Now I am seeking input on what to name the place where drug addicts go to shoot up, snort, smoke, drink or whatever to introduce illegal drugs into themselves under supervision?. They are known to go by various names such as "safe consumption space" "safe injection site". After learning that some locations are not restricted to injection only, the "supervised injection site" is no longer fitting. What is a globally accepted name for such to rename the article into and what additional redirects should be made for it? Graywalls ( talk) 02:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Background information about PathoGene
|
---|
As many of you are probably aware, I've been on a wikibreak to work on my startup company, which is commercializing third-generation DNA/RNA sequencers from Oxford Nanopore Technologies for clinical use in infectious disease diagnostics (NB: I have already discussed what we're doing with Oxford Nanopore Technologies in regard to licensing their tech). Technically, we're doing far more than just that, but I can't really discuss the specifics of our medical device or how the design allows for its use for specific use cases for another 3-4 months due to patent-related issues (i.e., prior art). I can say that we're designing it so that it'll be approved for use by nurses and doctors – as opposed to just trained medical technologists – for diagnosing all infectious diseases caused by microscopic pathogens (at least eventually - my initial plans are to work toward conducting 3 simultaneous multicenter pivotal trials for sepsis, meningitis, and pneumonia, as those diseases entail very high costs to hospitals), detecting all forms of antimicrobial resistance in pathogen genomes and the biofluid/tissue-site sample, surveilling all infectious diseases globally, and auto-reporting all notifiable diseases to relevant authorities (e.g., WHO/CDC for diagnostics in the US; Doc James actually motivated that idea, as he's a member of my corporate advisory board). I intend to work closely with BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs when we obtain funding to start our analytical studies since I want to ensure our device can diagnose emerging, rare, and/or highly lethal pathogens like the Marburg virus and Naegleria fowleri as well. Upon successful completion of our first 3+ multicenter pivotal trials and FDA approval of our PMAs, we're going to rapidly expand internationally by working to obtaining regulatory approval for our device in every country/regulatory region. Assuming my company successfully commercializes our device for the use cases I've described, we'd end up supplanting countless IVD devices and microbiological culture for infectious disease diagnostics with our tech in virtually all hospitals globally and revolutionize infectious disease diagnostics with precision medical tech; so, if that comes to pass, I apologize in advance for the workload I'm going to create for everyone in terms of updating the diagnostics sections of WP's infectious disease articles. |
With all that in mind, I need to move relatively fast on pursuing funding for this; while we're still programming the software right now, I need around $100,000 worth of seed funding to purchase the parts to build our prototype and hire a few consultants. We've already applied to Y Combinator's winter cohort (FWIW, despite the 2% acceptance rate, I'm very optimistic about our chances of acceptance due to a number of reasons), but I need to apply to additional accelerators in the event that doesn't pan out. I literally need to raise over $100 million USD for our series A round, which is a rather large amount for that funding round (for context, provided I can raise that amount, an extremely conservative DCF of our annual profits over the next 20 years - i.e., the lifetime of our device patent - is $4 billion USD), in order to commercialize the aforementioned device in this manner. An ideal accelerator for our purposes would put us face-to-face with a large number of venture capitalists.
In any event, I wrote this post for two reasons:
If anyone knows of any startup accelerators that'd be a good fit for us – and particularly if anyone has any connections to such accelerators that you're willing to allow us to leverage – I'd greatly appreciate your response. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 07:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Addendum: we're also pursuing grant funding from the US CDC and NIH through the SBIR and CRP program grants. If approved for both, that'll only net us about $4.5 million though, so we need VC financing regardless; to improve our odds of successfully raising the required funds, we really need to get into a good accelerator. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 07:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
What are your thoughts about adding content to each medication article that it was used to treat Trump for COVID-19? A concern was raised on the Remdesivir talk page and there is a discussion on the Dexamethasone talk page. -- Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 06:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Please see c:Commons:Photo challenge/2020 - September - Mobility aids for the handicapped/Voting. Voting is open to all registered contributors who have held accounts for at least 10 days and made 50 edits, and also to new Commons contributors who have entered the challenge with a picture. There are some good photos that would be useful for improving Wikipedia articles about mobility. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Multiple sclerosis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Is there any good content in this draft that should be merged elsewhere, or should it be declined and sent to the trash heap? Thanks, Calliopejen1 ( talk) 22:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
we carried out a genome-wide affiliation examine for ESCC using single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) as genetic markers.and
We also observed 5 new genome-wide great signals for smoking behavior, such as a variant in NCAM1 (chromosome 11) and a variant on chromosome 2 (between TEX41 and PABPC1P2) that has a trans effect on expression of NCAM1 in brain tissue. Really, the author did all that so they could write this draft? It is also poorly written to the point of being incoherent in places:
Disclosure to tobacco smoke is a built-up chance for lung malignant growth, albeit a potential job for hereditary powerlessness in the improvement of lung malignant growth has been deduced from familial bunching of the sickness and isolation investigation.??!!? I suspect it has been either machine translated or run through a content spinner, which would explain why I can't easily find the source of the copyvio... Spicy ( talk) 22:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Article | Source |
---|---|
These variations also confirmed affiliation with COPD, consisting of in humans with no history of smoking. The variety of copies of a one hundred fifty kb location containing the 5′ stop of (KANSL1), a gene that is necessary for epigenetic gene regulation, used to be related with extremes of (FEV1). We also observed 5 new genome-wide great signals for smoking behavior, such as a variant in NCAM1 (chromosome 11) and a variant on chromosome 2 (between TEX41 and PABPC1P2) that has a trans effect on expression of NCAM1 in brain tissue | These variants also showed association with COPD, including in individuals with no history of smoking. The number of copies of a 150 kb region containing the 5′ end of KANSL1, a gene that is important for epigenetic gene regulation, was associated with extremes of FEV1. We also discovered five new genome-wide significant signals for smoking behaviour, including a variant in NCAM1 (chromosome 11) and a variant on chromosome 2 (between TEX41 and PABPC1P2) that has a trans effect on expression of NCAM1 in brain tissue. Source |
A declared union of smoking-related methylation patterns in the F2RL3 gene with forecast in steady coronary heart sickness patients which has currently been described. Even so, surprisingly little concrete information on the epigenetic adjustments in the development of cardiovascular ailments and function of specific genetic editions in human beings who smoke has been concentrated |
A pronounced association of smoking-related methylation patterns in the F2RL3 gene with prognosis in patients with stable coronary heart disease has recently been described. Nonetheless, surprisingly little concrete knowledge on the role of specific genetic variants and epigenetic modifications in the development of cardiovascular diseases in people who smoke has been accumulated. Source |
The people conveying both hereditary hazard components could decrease their danger of ESCC up to 28-crease less (from 189.26 to 6.79) by restricting their liquor utilization and smoking. In any case, even without way of life chance variables, they despite everything have higher hazard than those without hereditary hazard factors who do smoke and drink liquor (OR of 6.79 and 3.44, separately) |
The individuals carrying both genetic risk factors could reduce their risk of ESCC up to 28-fold less (from 189.26 to 6.79) by limiting their alcohol consumption and smoking. However, even without lifestyle risk factors, they still have higher risk than those without genetic risk factors who do smoke and drink alcohol (OR of 6.79 and 3.44, respectively). Source |