Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 27

Tuberculosis at WP:GAN

Just finished a substantial update and would appreciate feedback / help making further improvements. This was our 8th most viewed article in the month of February.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

L-Field claims

There appear to be a number of dubious medical claims at the following articles: L-Field, Robert_O._Becker and Harold Saxton Burr. The claims can be summed up by lede of L-Field: L-field is a name proposed by the Yale Professor of Anatomy Harold Saxton Burr[1] for the electromagnetic field of any organism. Burr held that the study of this field offered great promise for medicine since it exhibited measurable qualities that might be used in prognosis of disease, mood and viability., which then goes on to claim that his successful work was ignored by other scientists: In his work with humans, he wrote papers detailing his successes in charting and predicting the ovulation cycles of women, locating internal scar tissue, and diagnosing potential physical ailments through the reading of the individual's L-field. As there was little interest in Burr's work, few other scientists even attempted to duplicate Burr's results. The Becker article claims that static electric fields can let frogs grow their legs back. opinions? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is a well-known, if dubious, discovery, related to Kirlian photography. Whether Burr deserves an article is doubtful. Becker has a lot more claim to notability. Speciate (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Glucojasinogen at DRV

You all may recall that some vandal inserted a plausible-sounding sentence into Diabetic neuropathy a long while ago, claiming that it was also called "glucojasinogen"—and that two journal articles copied these sentences word-for-word, making the hoax "verifiable". The term is now listed at the list of Wikipedia hoaxes, and what to do with the (potential) page Glucojasinogen is being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012_April_14#Glucojasinogen. Your comments, as always, would be welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I had never heard of that before. I do not know whether to cry or laugh!--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And now it's at RFD: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 April 22 for people who aren't giving up on the bureaucratic processes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

RFC forming on student editing

Please watchlist User:LauraHale/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Education Program. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not live yet-- just watchlist it!!

And, a spanking new noticeboard, where hopefully the issues with student editing can be improved:

• Wikipedia:Education noticeboard

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Medical/health/healthcare software categorization

Hello, your input is welcomed on a discussion on revising the way in which medical/healthcare/health software is categorized.

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_11#Category:Medical_software
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_11#Category:Healthcare_software

--KarlB (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

TED talk on publication fallacies and bias

Nothing you won't be familiar with, but a very nice and efficient overview of common problems: [1] Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes one reason why WP:MEDRS states we should use secondary rather than primary sources. But of course even this does not address it fully.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Using secondary sources does not address the problem at all. I'm going off memory but I think the main point of the talk was bias against publishing negative results. The only way to address it is to change how manuscripts are published. Maybe there were some other points and that is what you're referring to.--Taylornate (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The Cochrane collaboration / other systematic reviews occasionally look at unpublished literature. Read the method of this paper: Thaler, K (2011 Dec 7). "Second-generation antidepressants for seasonal affective disorder". Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (12): CD008591. PMID 22161433. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I just watched the video. Posting the link here is preaching to the converted. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Task force needed

It is possible that this has been raised before here: if so, my apologies. DSM-5 is due out in May 2013. WP:PSYCH is ineffective to worse, and most of the conditions diagnosed under the DSM are in the realm of WP:MED anyway. There are already all kinds of issues cropping up, and more that will need to be dealt with as we approach May 2013:

1. Several FAs will need to be updated, with Asperger syndrome likely to be changed. We have also (that I can think of off the top of my head) Major depressive disorder, Autism, Tourette syndrome, and Reactive attachment disorder. There has already been some disruptive editing at AS, since not all folks are happy about their potential change in status.
2. I don't know how many GAs may be affected.
3. Most pressing is that we are seeing promotional articles popping up everywhere, largely original research or overrelying on primary sources, used to promote certain draft proposals for the new DSM. Some, but not all, of these are resulting from psych course via the Educational Programs, and more feedback at WP:ENB from WP:MED editors would help.

How can we coordinate the updates that will be needed after May 2013, and management of the ongoing issues that will pop up in advance of May 2013. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes I was hoping to see a major update of are cardiology topic after the AHA/ILCOR guidelines where published in 2010. I did some work but we are just so few and the amount of literature just so great. I am working on efforts to increase our numbers through projects here [2] and here [3]. I think the only way we can address this is to find colleagues who are seriously willing to get involved, which is hard.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force was created in 2009. What it needs is people active in the area and watching its talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Dreading DSM V.....don't expect schizophrenia to change much, not so sure about MDD....Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I can handle any changes to Tourette syndrome (won't be much), but autism spectrum disorders will be a challenge. And I'm worried about the big picture, and the number of GAs that might be out there. Perhaps we can move this to the Psychiatry task force page, but I'm concerned that will get lost in the shuffle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, too quiet there definitely. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not often visit this page, but this thread caught my attention, you may be interested in the articles which are tagged DSM 5 in the CiteULike Autism research paper sharing group dolfrog (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Collaborative journal publication beginning soon!

This project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Collaborative_publication will be bringing new editors and producing new content soon (next six month to a year). Am in discusses with Open Medicine, JMIR and PLoS. The discussions with Open Medicine are the farthest along. They have agreed to publish articles in a Wikipedia style based on the WP:MED principle of we being "a tertiary source based on a review of secondary sources" following a further formal peer review. These articles will be pubmed index and this opportunity will be open to all editors here. Physicians within the 3rd year Emergency Medicine residency at the U of T (of which there are 15) will also be expect to bring one article through this process during their year of training. Comments / feedback appreciated. Details still being worked out.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi James. You're doing wonderful things here. I'm wondering if Wikipedia readers would be presented with the peer-reviewed version or the most recent Wikipedia update. If the latter, would there be an obvious link at the top of the Wikipedia article to the peer-reviewed version? Also, once a Wikipedia article has reached this level of quality, will it be permanently protected in some way (e.g., pending changes)? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedian's would be free to make further changes / additions. Medicine is always advancing and new studies coming out. The version in pubmed would be static but here it would not.

Protection mechanisms would be used the same as on other articles. If there is too much vandalism it would be either semi protected or if pending changes happens it could be used.

We would definitely place a link to the peer reviewed version on the talk page. Where we place it within the article is still up in the air. Probably in the references section but we could also look at the infobox. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Would pseudonymous editors have to out themselves, or will the journals credit the pseudonym? It could present some interesting problems. We might need to define a new justification for a good sock account. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes they will allow pseudonymous editors. They will request that they provide COI info for publication but do not need real life identity for those who do not wish to give it. If they do not provide COI they will state this. The lead authors will however always be a known person and will be taking responsibility for the text in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Self-published references used in this project

Hi, Some time ago I started a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Self_publishing_list and it eventually resulted in List of self-publishing companies. It seems that some of those publishers are used in this project, e.g. Vantage Press on Perinatal asphyxia, etc. I am sure there are others. I am asking a few projects to help turn the tide against the invasion of Wikipedia by self-published sources by:

• Adding more items to List of self-publishing companies and Wikipedia talk:List of self-publishing companies
• Looking for the use of these sources within project pages and dealing with them, as appropriate, e.g. by checking facts, deleting unsubstantiated items, or getting better sources, etc.

Eventually we will write a bot that checks these and leaves messages about them, and suggestions on that on Talk:List_of_self-publishing_companies will also be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia now used by nearly all doctors

http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/04/doctors-use-but-dont-rely-totally-on-wikipedia/ Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That's reflective of my own practice. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Which is why the failure of the Education Program to educate students about MEDRS is frustrating. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard&oldid=489175147#Sourcing_handout_could_be_updated We have enough problems without them being part of the introduction of more misinfo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That handout is invoked by Template:Course page/Resources/preload. Should be simple to link a new version if there's agreement on what to change it to.LeadSongDog come howl! 04:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Bots editing citations, and the Diberri format

This has come up many times here at WT:MED and on various article and editor talk pages, with bots run by several different editors that alter the Diberri style. Various bots alter the citation style used on many med articles, based on the Diberri template filler. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chris_Capoccia&oldid=489171755#Coturnism] It has come up again at Talk:Callous and unemotional traits#Citation style changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we should go with one consistent style across all medical articles. I like Deberri. I know some people use vcite as they say it is faster. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Why should "medical articles" have a consistent cross-article citation style when this is not required nor considered even desirable elsewhere on WP. And what is a "medical article"? You only have to read that discussion to see everyone has their own preferences. Some like list-defined-refs and others hate them. Some like templates and others hate them. Some split apart the author forename surname and others hate this. Our guidelines make it clear that folk shouldn't be turning up at an article and just altering citation styles to suit their tastes. If the editors actually working on an article want to change the style, by mutual agreement, then that should be fine. There's nothing "medical" about the above disagreement. I don't think we should prefer the "Diberri format" above any other. Colin°^Talk

I have asked if it would be possible to alter Mediawiki such that references display in the manner each prefers when they edit (by selecting this under preferences). However did not get any traction.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Although some degree of standardisation is welcome (and that's one reason for templates), there comes a point where it becomes over-prescriptive. For example, an article which relies heavily on multiple references to books will almost certainly be easier to reference and maintain if those citations are made in the harvard style, but it can still be done in the style that Diberri produces. It is also sensible to allow editors to use what mechanism they are comfortable with. Sandy seems to dislike list-defined refs because they don't have the whole reference at the point in the text that they support, while I prefer them because they make the edit text much easier for me to read. That's ok, as long as editors aren't going to fall out with each other because of personal preferences. We don't have to fight the wars of Lilliput and Blefuscu all the time if we have some give-and-take.

Even templates have limits to their usefulness and there's a collection of discussions at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Citation templates (technical) that clearly illustrates an upper limit to the number of {{cite}} templates in a page. There is also a possibility that reference tags could take on the work of the citation templates, yielding a large increase in speed - see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Wikipedia Citation Style #Demo of specific proposal. That would also allow a defined viewing style to be set on article-by-article basis and overridden by a user's preferences, which would meet most of the desirable outcomes. Sadly, it would require developer time to implement and it has not attracted much interest to date. --RexxS (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone need something copyedited?

No idea why, really, but I've really been in a "copyediting mood" lately. I think its fair to say I'm halfway decent at it, so if anyone has any requests, feel free to let me know at your convenience and I will "do my best to do my best" when I can. Hope you folks are all doing well. God bless. Very best regards from your friend: Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I have two articles at GA tuberculosis and gastroenteritis. Both could use a bit of a copyedit / GA review. Glad to hear you are doing well :-) --Doc James (talk

· contribs · email) 04:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha, James, and no prob. Will do gastroenteritis, then TB. By the way, love the new pic, ya big gristly stud :-)

Your buddy: Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I cleaned up all the sourcing at cognitive behavioral therapy, except the "History" section, but my writing stinks and I couldn't fix everything that was there ... it could use help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

When I get done with Studly James, you are next, sweetie :-)

Your fan:Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I've updated deep vein thrombosis lately. Please ignore the medical inpatients section it needs prose instead of lengthy quotes. Biosthmors (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice meeting you. You are 3rd in line.

Best regards:Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Journal

Any one have access to:

• Park, KK (2011 Jul). "Angular cheilitis, part 2: nutritional, systemic, and drug-related causes and treatment". Cutis; cutaneous medicine for the practitioner. 88 (1): 27–32. PMID 21877503. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Online archive is paywalled here, also available via ProQuest. OCLC 60626607 indicates most university libraries have access. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Neither of the two I have access to do :-( Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

If there's no response here, you can try Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. The track record there has been pretty impressive lately. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I requested the article. Will e-mail the PDF to you once I receive it. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Medref

How exactly is this template used? It looks like a talk page template, but part of the pages in Category:Articles lacking medical references or verification are articles. Should it be used in addition to {{refimprove}}, or instead? Is it appropriate for articles in the scope of WP:PHARM? Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the ways of seeing how a template is used is to follow the "What links here" in the toolbox of the template page. It seems to be used on both article and talk pages, Lung volumes and Talk:Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation are examples. It only has 21 transclusions, so standardising its use should be simple. Interestingly, one of the transcluded pages includes the announcement of its initial creation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 5#Template for medically-related articles that need references, where an undocumented parameter is mentioned. As you can see {{Medref|The foo is the problem.}} produces:

Since the link to "fix it" always aims at the article page, the template works as well on talk pages as on article pages. I'm pretty sure it's usable within WP:PHARM, especially as you can specify your exact concerns within the template. (PS I'll try to remember to nowiki the template before this page gets archived - feel free to do so if I forget). Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! I added a documentation page, recommending that the template should be placed on talk pages (since it looks like a talk page template, and the prototype {{Histref}} is used that way). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Disagree, it should be used on article pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Then should its layout be changed to something in line with {{Refimprove}}? I got aware of the template because of this, which definitely looked out of place for my taste. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Gotta agree with SandyGeorgia here. Had the misfortune to look at Methylphenidate via Related changes today. It has MEDRS and WEIGHT issues with overciting all over (often a sign someone's making a point), overriding focus on adverse effects, using very old/otherwise-poor sourcing. If we added this as a talk page template there I doubt those adding (or unsure about keeping) undue/unsourced medical content would take notice. On the article there's a higher chance. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay made request to change it on a sandbox subpage to mainspace-style (like {{refimprove}}), so we can see how it looks and reach a decision here. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Um, no, it should be changed to resemble everything else at Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles#Message boxes. I'd do it myself, but don't know how. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

My bad. I'll amend the request I made to have it look like the message boxes in your link instead, straightaway. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Edit: Done. When someone does the request I'll link the example template here. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

@ Sandy, I assume you mean it should have an exclamation mark instead of a book icon? I suppose you're right. I don't know how to do this either.

@ 228, could you show us your template? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There is also Template:RefimproveMED. Biosthmors (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It's the backend stuff like categorization by date, as well as optional "section" parameters that's complicated. I requested the changes over in a corner where template authors hang out & take requests. Changing it to use an exclamation mark alone is fairly simple: non-functional mockup here.
I didn't know about {{RefimproveMED}}, Biosthmors. It doesn't look like it was widely publicised or in wide use yet. I've a slight preference toward keeping the template Medref – after it's been amended and extended – with others redirected to it. Should I withdraw the amendment request? --92.6.211.228 (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It's done! Many thanks to Bility for help debugging my code as well as assisting in difficulties caused by the "overenthusiastic" Edit filter. Additional thanks to Thumperward.
You can see it at Template:Medref/sandbox. Usage examples are at Template:Medref/testcases.
Full docs are inside an internal comment at Template:Medref/doc and can replace the existing text if we do decide to use the sandbox version. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we're Live. Editors have begun migrating it to articles. Thank you to Nikkimaria for deleting the RefimproveMED template also. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all! Now it's really professional. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding link to NEJM clinical images

On a few select derm-related pages I would like to include a link to the following page: [4]. My questions are: (1) is this an appropriate type of external link and, (2) if so, how should I format it? Thanks in advance for your help! ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all great to see you again. It would be great if we could convince the NEJM or their authors to release those images under a CC license. I guess we could link some of them. Especially if we do not have any similar images.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

So how would you recommend I format the external link (i.e. what should the link text read? how should the URL be formated (what to do with all those % ?)? etc.)? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

We don't need them to be released under a CC license to put a link to the images under ==External links==. We only need a CC-compatible license if we're going to WP:UPLOAD them (e.g., to Commons).

My Core, the usual way to list such links is like this:

* [http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMicm1108474 X-ray image of achalasia] at [[New England Journal of Medicine]]

It is not normal to provide a full bibliographic citation per Wikipedia:External links#External links section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes but getting images released and uploading them here would be much better all around. I am hesitant to start adding links to others sites that have images as there are dozens of sites that have derm images / radiological images and we are not a collection of external links.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with James. NEJM is authoritative, but we're not a linkfarm. JFW | T@lk 23:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Child depression

maybe needs redefining - see Talk:Child depression Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

I am hoping to alter WP:MEDRS. Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

User continues to add old poor quality primary sources to eczema article

Comments appreciated. Discussion taking place on users talk page [5] I have been unable to find any high quality sources to support text in question.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

References to PubMed are not a "poor quality". Also some of the references are as new as 2008 and 2006. There plenty of the references in the same article that are older and less reliable then this two. Innab (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

We typically use secondary sources per WP:MEDRS and many secondary sources exist. Just because there are other poor refs does not justify adding more. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

And it continues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that I blocked Innab about an hour ago for violating 3RR. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Question

What is the general standpoint on the use of the "-oid" terms in articles describing modern peoples? I am currently engaged in a dispute with a Slovene IP at Tatars, who would like to include information regarding the "North" and "South Caucasoid" (1 result for each N S on JSTOR), "Mongoloid", and "Lapponoid" (13 results) faces of the group. It is my understanding that most experts outside of forensic anthropology have discarded such terminology; as such, it should not be used in articles. I removed the information as being grossly outdated and borderline racist, but the IP has been persistent in re-adding it, with the near-meaningless statement of "re-adding anthropology facts" being the only reasoning given. I will admit up-front that I have been curt and caustic in my minimal dealings with this user; I personally regard such terms as discredited trash and have low tolerance for their serious use. A third-party opinion from someone here would be appreciated. (I have posted this to all Wikiprojects listed at Talk:Race (classification of humans) to generate more discussion) ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This is unrelated to medicine. JFW | T@lk 21:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Read the note at the end: "I have posted this to all Wikiprojects listed at Talk:Race (classification of humans) to generate more discussion". If racial classification is not related to medicine, then you'd do well to remove that article from your project. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence appointed

I am thrilled to share with you that Consumer Reports, a longtime and highly respected U.S.-based non-profit, has this week appointed Lane Rasberry as its first Wikiipedian in Residence, as part of an initiative to improve the public's access to accurate information about medical tests and procedures. We expect a formal announcement from Consumer Reports within the next two weeks; but Lane will be beginning his outreach work to Wikipedians and others in the medical field in the meantime.

Lane is active in Wikipedia editing and outreach, with a focus on clinical research ethics and open science. Lane's skills, experience, and passions will be a great asset to both Wikipedia and Consumer Reports; please join me in extending a warm welcome to him! -Pete (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC) (For context -- I announced this position here when the job listing was posted; and I have blogged about the specifics of the project here.)

Great glad to see this job was filled. Looking forwards to seeing him editing full time. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

OPCS-4

In rewriting the article for this procedural classification, I've noticed that the similar classification, Current Procedural Terminology, is listed on this project. Do I just add the WPMED tag to OPCS-4, or is it etiquette to get a consensus here first? Little pob (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC) In the mean time, someone has added the tag for me. Thanks Little pob (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Generally, articles that are clearly in the scope of WikiProject Medicine can be tagged as such by anyone. If you're unsure about whether an article actually does fall within the scope, then here is a good place to ask. If you're interested in developing or maintaining medical articles, then please feel free to add your name to the list of participants. There are also specialised task forces if you have a particular interest. Welcome! --RexxS (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

New steroid hormone navboxes

At Template talk:Estrogens and progestogens there is the beginnings of discussion of the recent replacement of {{Estrogens and progestogens}} and some others templates, like Androgens, by much larger templates {{progestogenics}}, {{androgenics}} and others. The templates replaced were part of the {{Medicine navs}} collection. Input from interested editors would be welcome. Zodon (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia from the medical perspective: lecture

Dear Fellow Editors,

I have recently launched an online course (based on the course I teach at the university) focusing on social media and medicine and one of the digital lectures is dedicated to Wikipedia from the medical perspective. This is a totally free course and we are trying to make it available to as many medical students globally as possible. It would be amazing if you could take a look at it and give me feedback. Thank you! NCurse _work 09:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I just watched it. It looks pretty inspiring. (By the way, there is a spelling mistake: "Sub" instead of "Stub".) I presume that a lecturer speaks over the slides? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm very glad you liked that! I made that correction. Thank you! NCurse _work 07:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The content is probably okay for newbies, but as a matter of dealing with the interface, I kept wishing for some way to tell how much progress I'd made. Was I just a few clicks from the end, or were there still a hundred slides to go? It would have been nice to have some status indicator. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you are saying this because the content if for newbies. The status indicator is a great idea! I'm pretty sure Prezi won't let us include something like this, but it could say approximately how much time it takes to watch a particular Prezi. What do you think? Thank you! NCurse _work 09:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That might help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

CMV and blood pressure

Hi. Where would be a good place for the info in this article: Cytomegalovirus Infection Causes an Increase of Arterial Blood Pressure ? Also, feel free to use it yourselves if you're interested. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

We need to wait for a review article to incorporate these finding. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I searched and it has been cited around 20 times and to multiple reviews so Bob it depends upon what the secondary sources say. Biosthmors (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Was this the list of 20 that you found?[6] --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, basically. And I'll also respond at your talk page in an attempt to move the conversation there. Biosthmors (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Class of PT students

We have a class of masters students adding content pertaining to physiotherapy. There additions are however supported by primary research and are often of to great of depth for a general overview article. Articles they have been working on include stroke and Parkinson disease. I do not know who the prof in question is. I have created them a subpage here so that they can than write in greater detail Rehabilitation in Parkinson's disease. Assistance would be appreciated.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Other articles include Spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, and Muscular dystrophy.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

As an example of what will happen here is an article on stroke recovery. It was edited last year by I assume a similar class of PT students and is now being edited again. All the issues that are present boggles the mind. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Improving Immunology Articles

Hi all, I am simply an editor who thinks some of the immunology articles on Wikipedia are far from complete and the quality can be easily improved. I'd love to do it all by myself, but it'd be even better to do it in a team, to be more efficient as well as to get a wider viewpoints (from the medical, molecular and cellular viewpoints for example). If you are interested, please go to here and just start editing. The purpose of the page (it's a new page) is simply to get everyone together and collaborate, as to ensure there's editors for different topics. I look forward to working with you soon, any help would be greatly appreciated. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 01:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

medical tourism

Hi, a bunch of content was recently added here Medical_tourism; the page itself is already a bit of a mess, but I'm not sure what to do with the additions; they appear to be made by the author of the book. Not sure what the policy is here. --KarlB (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes this is a relatively frequent problem. Authors come and add content referenced to their own work. I guess the question is, is it any good. Is this persons ref reasonable even though unformatted? Whether you fix or revert and put the content on his user page to fix is up to you. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Glucojasinogen

I don't know how to do it. Could someone please add this discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Article_alerts? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you'd have to put {{WPMED}} on the redirect's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverts, redirects over Behçet's syndrome

There are some drastic and contentious/possibly contentious edits lately and in the history of this and this title. Biosthmors (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverted. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Want to confirm image can be added to Wikipedia

The following article is under a 2.0 CC license: [7]; therefore, can the following image be added to Wikipedia: [8]? If so, could someone help me by adding this image? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it's OK[9] and just follow the steps here[10] (click next under the cute picture and it will ask for the file location). Biosthmors (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I can give you a hand in a couple of days when I find a proper computer if you are unable to figure it out.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Random trivia

Hey guys and gals,

I'm trying to think of a vocab word, and it's driving me a little crazy.

The definition of the word is "a disease that occurs as result of another disease. Or a disease/syndrome that have related etiologies". So for instance, many active TB infections occur because of HIV infections. So you say that the TB is _______ to the HIV. I used to think the right word was "co-morbid", but after reading a bit, I'm not sure that's correct. Any ideas?

P.S. Sorry for pestering you folks with random questions. Trying to think of this word is driving me nutty. NickCT (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Secondary or co-morbid, I think. You could also say that you have a co-infection (although that usually implies HCV/HIV), but that doesn't fit your sentence structure. In the case of mental health plus drug addiction, you'd probably choose to call it a dual diagnosis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. "Co-infection" sounds right, but what if you're not dealing with infections. Say, folks with autoimmune driven diabetes type I or more likely to have autoimmune driven hypothyroidism. Diabetes type I and hypothyroidism are __________. NickCT (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

That is comorbidity. It can refer to both synchronous conditions where the presence of one may impact the treatment or prognosis of the other, or the relationship between incidence of conditions; that is, that if the incidence of one condition is higher when another is present, there is a degree of comorbidity. If there is a logical order, the terms sequela(e), opportunistic, activation, and metachronous (usually used in describing tumors) may come into play. Word choice about temporal relationships is highly nuanced and so far, I'm not seeing exactly what you are after.Novangelis (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

@Novangelis - Ok thanks. I guess I'm a little confused b/c a number of sources defining "comorbid" specifically call out that comorbid diseases/conditions are diseases/conditions which are unrelated. See our own wikipedia entry saying "a medical condition existing simultaneously but independently with another condition" or Merriam Webster "existing simultaneously with and usually independently of another medical condition". If Diabetes type I and hypothyroidism are both caused by similar etiologies (i.e. autoimmune disorder), then aren't they "linked" or "not independent", then by definition, not co-morbid. NickCT (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said, it is nuanced. Don't overread "independent". All it means is that when a patient presents with A and you also discover B, reasonably you could have expected to see A without B or B without A; neither causes the other although there may be an underlying association (e.g. obesity, smoking) causing both. In contract to the HCV example above, you rarely see Pneumocystis pneumonia in non-immunocompromised patients. You would not describe PCP/HIV as comorbid. For an example of comorbid conditions that is closer to a causal relationship, you could have patient with peripheral arterial disease, coronary artery disease, neither, or both. A rough synonym would be non-syndromic. Dorland's has a slightly better definition than M-W, but. I'll have to dig up some of my epidemiology books; one had a great glossary of terms regarding co-presentation.Novangelis (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Type 1 diabetes and hypothyroidism are different kinds of autoimmune responses. Stiff man syndrome and Type 1 diabetes may be related in the way that you're thinking of, since both seem to have autoantibodies against the same target (so far as anyone can make out, which is probably not very far). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@Novangelis - re Don't overread "independent" - Yeah. I think that's the critical point here. I think I was reading "independent" to mean "unrelated", which was perhaps where I was getting confused. As you say, "independent" does not necessarily negate a causal/etiologic relationship. Thanks for working through a semantical conundrum with me! NickCT (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing - Folks with Type 1 diabetes are at greater risk of having hypothroidism(ref). If that's true, then they've got to be "linked" in some fashion, right? They may be "different kinds" of autoimmune responses, but in some folks with Type 1 and hypothroidism the etiology of the conditions is going to be the same. NickCT (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone has deleted 4 times the information I wrote about the antimicrobial role of curcumin against Vibrio vulnificus

Dear administrator. On the article Vibrio vulnificus the user who wrote the article has deleted 4 times the information I wrote on the section Treatment about the antimicrobial role of curcumin against Vibrio vulnificus, although it is a scientific study with reference on the PubMed. Perhaps the person who wrote the article thinks that it his/her own property and violates the guidelines of wikipedia where anyone can add or edit a reliable information. Or he/she may think that aan alternative treatment (such as curcumin, a yellow spice found in mustard) can't be added below antibiotic treatment (that relates topure medical treatment, i.e. drugs), although it is based in a scientific study. I think that alternative treatments have to be mentioned as well 688dim (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

please use review articles.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi 668dim, and welcome to Wikipedia.

You cited PMID 22092562 which used HeLa cells and mice to study the infection. This is early-stage preclinical work; it could be years before they reach human clinical trials (assuming they ever do). ==Treatment== sections aren't where we talk about preclinical research. Their purpose is to talk about the current treatments actually being used in humans, not to speculate on possible future treatments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find any secondary sources about this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed that information at least twice, because (as I said in the edit summary) this is information not yet sourceable to secondary sources. This is an encyclopedia and not a science news site. JFW | T@lk 20:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I agree that this is a preliminary in vitro study, however I would appreciate If you mentioned at the talk page of the article why you deleted it 4 times. I agree that it is under investigation and should be not mentioned as a treatment. However, I found no other appropriate chapter to put it. As for the fact that you can't ascertain the article, as you can see, it is an article published on the PubMed. As for the advice to use review articles, I do not believe that it is 100% right. I may use a metanalysis, or a double blind randomized study. Why should I only use a review? 688dim (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Lots of singular results exist. One positive study usually means nothing. This is why we rely upon third-party secondary sources for articles. Review articles and other major secondary sources such as textbooks are the standard applied to scientific and medical claims. Not every published paper needs to be mentioned on Wikipedia.Novangelis (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, to my mind the most reliable sources on medicine news are the metanalysis such as the ones that are referred to the Cochrane database (where they use metanalysis of double blind randomized controlled studies and also mention if a study has or has not good quality). You can ask an expert on statistics to ascertain this. A simple review does not mean that it is also reliable. I have written plenty of reviews. About my case, mentioning a study, even an in vitro preliminar study, as I did, does not mean that it is not reliable, but I agree that a single study, especially a preliminary, means nothing. However, that does not mean that you can't mention at all a study (even on wiki), especially if it is of good quality and it is interesting. About the textbooks, that you refer to as sources, I have to state that they mention studies published in the past and not contemporary studies that you can find e.g. on PubMed database on the internet, or a contemporary medical journal that refer studies that are released recently, contrary to the textbooks that refer studies of past years, and are not up to date 688dim (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

At present, a more appropriate place within Wikipedia for this sort of information about this potential new treatment option might be on the curcumin page. Rather than in a "Treatment" section that is intended to focus on well established therapies (curcumin isn't there yet). —MistyMorn (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I just added the study on curcumin. I guess that this makes us all happy688dim (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I suppose one could say that that's a further addition to a problematic (unencyclopedic?) list in a section where editorial concerns are already clearly tagged. But that's way way preferable, imo, to a misleading entry in a Treatment section. On such territory, we have a particularly strong editorial responsibility to avoid presenting information in potentially misleading ways. Hope that helps, —MistyMorn (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If you read WP:MEDRS, you'll find that meta-analyses are strongly endorsed as reliable sources (for appropriate purposes). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Longevity promoters

Telomere shortening rate reduction properties (that may have anti – aging properties) have the substances: Astragalus membranaceus (a herb)/ astragaloside IV/ Cycloastragenol (CAG; a saponine derived from astragalus, e.g. TAT2 – a study showed that cycloastragenol moderately increases telomerase activity) and TA-65 (telomerase activator; some claim that the largest component of TA-65 is Cycloastragenol). Sirtuin-activating compounds (STACs; these compounds, which were identified as activators of Sir2/SIRT1 NAD+-dependent deacetylases, extend the lifespans of multiple species in a Sir2-dependent manner and can delay the onset of age-related diseases such as cancer, diabetes and neurodegeneration in model organisms) are: butein, piceatannol, fisetin, quercetin, resveratrol. Resveratrol is contained in red wine and is a promising longevity promoting agent 688dim (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Incoming

Not sure what articles will be hit, but I'm 99% certain that this primary source is going to be coming out of the woodwork over the next few hours. Please keep a weather eye out:
Bruno Bernardes de Jesus, Elsa Vera, Kerstin Schneeberger, Agueda M Tejera, Eduard Ayuso, Fatima Bosch, Maria A. Blasco (2012 (in press)). "Telomerase gene therapy in adult and old mice delays ageing and increases longevity without increasing cancer". EMBO Molecular Medicine. doi:10.1002/emmm.201200245. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) LeadSongDog come howl! 22:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure enough, it cropped up in 2012_in_science, with an assertion that they had "proved that adult life extension is feasible", backed by a news source citation (Science Daily). My reading of wp:MEDRS is that such sources should be treated as independent but primary. As such, their use for backing such assertions seems inadequate. Unfortunately such choices seem to have been common on that page.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Qigong Sensory Training

Assistance as to what to do with this particular article is appreciated. This training technique appears to be of questionable notability. I can find no secondary sources to establish any notability in the medical literature, though the article cites positive results from trials from one group of researchers (who created this technique and run an "Institute" promoting it) in low impact journals, but no secondary studies. I boldly redirected it a couple of weeks back to Qigong but another editor restored the page, so I was hoping more experienced editors can weigh in. Yobol (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged the page as an advertisement, but I agree stronger action is required. However, I wouldn't know how to go about that either. All the main contributor's edits seem to regard the technique, prompting conflict of interest concerns. Personally, I agree that all the information would be better summarized in a sentence or two, maybe, on the Qigong page. —MistyMorn (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Dimenhydrinate

If someone's looking for a small project, Dimenhydrinate is a fairly short article that I think could use a once-over by someone with a little more pharmaceutical knowledge than I have. Just looking at it, I found a lot of irrelevant info in it about Diphenhydramine's effects which, while understandable in one sense since they're closely related, really didn't have all that much to do with Dimenhydrinate in the end. Even after making those changes, I thought there were some weaknesses, but I felt it might be better to ask someone with more experience and knowledge to look at it. Thanks! – RobinHood70 ^talk 12:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Acceptable Sources

Hello,

I work with Clear Passage Physical Therapy and attempted to edit some pages addressing the conditions we treat (e.g. fallopian tube obstruction, female infertility). The information I added, including citations from medical journals, was removed by an editor - the reason given was "we should be using secondary reviews, not primary studies."

The sources are I cited are recognized leaders in mainstream medical research – namely mainstream medical journals, and the U.S. National Library of Medicine. All of the journals which carry the cited information require independent peer-reviews by experts in the field. Several of the journals (Medscape General Medicine, Fertility and Sterility, Contemporary Ob/Gyn), are among the most respected journals in medicine. I'd like to get feedback on why these wouldn't be considered acceptable sources.

Thanks very much for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annaclear (talk • contribs) 14:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Anna - In answer to your question, please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Since you state that you are editing pages related to your company's services, please also look carefully at Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy so as to help guide your future contributions in the sector. Thank you for your clarity and understanding —MistyMorn (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Anna has been writing about The Wurn Technique, a little-known massage (sort of) approach to internal adhesions developed by this clinical group. It is at WP:Articles for deletion at the moment, presumably because the only two cited sources are not WP:Independent sources.

Anna, you might find WP:MEDCOI more useful than the general guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverse pharmacology

A new article (stub) written by an editor interested in Ayurveda. Any insights on this? The article lists about eight references that mention it. Also look here. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Merging into pharmacognosis or phytotherapy might be a good idea. While at it, does anyone have good ideas how to cleanly separate herbalism, phytotherapy and pharmacognosis? These terms mean different things in different places of the world or different "communities" which is the main problem making it hard for me to find good definitions. Many serious scientists do high quality phytotherapy/pharmacognosis research, then there is the historical aspect and plain quackery. Richiez (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

WWI history of medicine event - London, 16th June

Hi all.

A quick note about the upcoming World War I editathon at the British Library on Saturday 16th June. It's been organised by Wikimedia UK in partnership with JISC, who are keen to focus on some aspects of the war which aren't well-represented in online sources.

One of these is medical history and the way medicine developed during and as a result of the war; we've got two academics coming from KCL who are keen to work with Wikipedia editors to improve relevant articles. There are still spaces open, and if you're interested, please do sign up! (Help with travel expenses may be available for UK editors.) If you've any questions, please feel free to contact either The Land (talk · contribs) or myself.

Hope to see you there! Andrew Gray (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Is "KCL" King's College London? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies (I run away with my shorthand sometimes) - yes it is. One specialising in the history of nursing, one in military health, particularly psychiatric aspects (stress disorders, etc). Andrew Gray (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Massively parallel reactions?

There is a small section called "in medicine" in Massive_parallel_processing#In_medicine and it does not seem to fit there, given that as on talk there, that page is mostly about supercomputing. If that is a medical issue then could one you please make a separate page for it? It does not fit there and I do not want to just delete it, but if it is not a medically notable issue I will, given that I am going to clean up that page a little and rename it to "massively parallel computing". Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for notifying us. I've taken a rapid glance. To my (very) layman's eyes, the first paragraph of the Massively parallel lede (ie "Massively parallel is a description that appears in computer science, life sciences, medical diagnostics, and other fields") assumes prior familiarity with the term. Although major dictionaries like the OED tend to define 'massive parallelism'/'massively parallel' solely in terms of computer science, its applications are clearly important in the life sciences [11]. So I suspect that an informed editorial decision needs to be taken regarding what to do with Massively parallel. Should it basically be a disambiguation page succinctly introducing the concept of massive parallelism and pointing to Massive parallel processing (which currently redirects there), Massive parallel sequencing, and high-throughput sequencing, etc? Or do we need an article in its own right on the concept of massive parallelism as applied different fields? In which case your Massive parallel processing and Massive parallel sequencing could presumably be subarticles. That's about as far as my 2c will take me, I fear. —MistyMorn (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Now that you mentioned a dab page, that might be the easiest way to handle it. A top level dab that mentions both computing and life sciences. Then in time if someone wants to write on life sciences they can do that. In the meantime I can clean up the supercomputing aspects. Unless there are objections, I will make a dab in day or two and then clean up the massively parallel computing page, leaving the life science issues to someone else to write about. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

On that note, as in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Static_vs_dynamic_topics:_seriously_outdated_articles how is the situation with out of date articles here, e.g. the high-throughput sequencing page, etc.? If someone wants to comment on WP:VP about that to give a perspective. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I also like the idea of a dab page. Keeping abreast of changes is certainly a big challenge for everyone. As regards biotechnology articles in particular, I'm not sure that this project is the best forum for the issue. Although applied biotechnologies are hugely relevant to modern medicine, the technological aspects tend to be within the realm of specialized biologists. Maybe they should get a massively parallel question too? —MistyMorn (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will make a dab page for it tomorrow. As for biology, I had posted the VP link there and a few other projects (chemistry etc.) too anyway. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Prostate-specific antigen

PSA testing is in the news, and this article is in need of some attention. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Medical Council of Jamaica and other licencing bodies

I started an article on the Medical Council of Jamaica after I realized that many licencing bodies in smaller countries don't have articles. Names of some other medical organizations can be seen at Medical Council and Talk:Medical Council. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Gulf war syndrome

If anyone is interested, there's an IP making questionable edits at Gulf War syndrome, including replacing dubious external links, cherry picking old primary studies while ignoring contradictory (and more recent) secondary sources and synthesizing a whole lot of primary sources to butress a conclusion that uranium is the cause of GWS. My objections can be found on the talk page here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that uranium had anything more to do with GWS than the observed increase in birth defects among the soldiers from the coalition countries which used pyrophoric uranium tactical weapons. Those rates are obscured in the review WLU prefers which summarizes the birth defect rates in children of both combat and non-combat soldiers from all countries of the coalition, including those such as Australia and France which did not use uranium weapons and had no increase in birth defects among soldiers' children. Uranium was first identified as a teratogen by Maynard in 1949 and confirmed as such the following year. Multiple secondary sources such as [12] have reached the conclusion which WLU says I am trying to buttress. I should point out that an uninvolved third party agreed with my specific inclusions of the odds ratios involved, and the results of the US Veterans Administration Chief Epidemiologist's review of medical records, at WP:NPOVN. The differing parties have agreed to informal mediation and are seeking a mediator. 71.212.246.55 (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Genetic studies

I'm traveling for a few more days, and wonder if someone is available to deal with this: Talk:Tourette_syndrome#Nonsense statements ... simple stuff, but there's an attitude that may require more time online than I have for the coming week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation endorsing Access2Research

Hey all

The Wikimedia Foundation has decided to endorse Access2Research and its petition to make research funded by the US government publicly accessible. This will be done by way of a blog post on Friday morning PST; as noted, we are not trying to speak on behalf of the community, but just the Foundation itself. You can read more in the FAQ, and leave any comments or questions you might have on its talkpage.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Globalization proposal

Hi WikiProject Medicine members, A few of us are trying to get a WikiProject Globalization up and running. Members of this project would work together to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia on Globalization, global issues and related topics. If you're interested in globalization, please come by and check out our proposal. We'd appreciate any feedback about our ideas, and of course your support if you were interested in lending it. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Gray's Anatomy images

There is an ongoing discussion regarding Category:Gray's Anatomy images. Additional clarification and constructive suggestions would be highly appreciated at the discussion. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Pretectal area

Could a few people take a look at this page? A student of mine edited this as a class project. It reads well from a (rat) visual research perspective, but it might not fully conform to WikiMedicine standards or cover the major clinical applications of this region. Thank you ProfRox (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Sellick maneuver and Sellick manoeuvre

I suggest that the articles Sellick maneuver and Sellick manoeuvre should be merged 688dim (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge completed (although still needs tidying up) at Sellick manoeuvre, but now needs moving to cricoid pressure to comply with WP:MEDMOS. Can someone with admin rights complete this? If not, i'll post it at requested moves. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 09:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

More eyes on Hypercholesterolemia

I would appreciate more eyes on this article. There appears to be an attempt to add undue weight to fringe ideas about the role of saturated fats to this article. Yobol (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree and as it is a top importance article could use some improvements generally.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been off the radar for a few days. I have opened threads on the talkpage and the user's talkpage, although I'm starting to wonder whether he has gone out for some fresh air. JFW | T@lk 11:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Journal Club

Howdy folks! I've been MIA for such a long time that I've lost touch with so many of you. Tragic! In any case, I wanted to explain my absence by way of introducing an exciting new project I've been working on. Some time ago a few stray editors had suggested adding landmark clinical trials to Wikipedia. There would be COPERNICUS, SOAP II, etc., all existing in the main Wikipedia namespace. That caught on to a small degree, as evidenced by Category:Clinical trials. However, Wikipedia's encyclopedic nature doesn't quite lend itself to true journal club-style discourse. So a few colleagues -- Tim Plante from Georgetown University and Manny Lam of Stanford University -- and I have created Wiki Journal Club, a collaborative journal club summarizing and critiquing landmark clinical trials in medicine. We're off to a great start and have been featured in the Stanford School of Medicine blog Scope [13] and the UCSF School of Medicine newspaper Synapse [14]. Since this project grew out of fundamental wiki principles, I'd love to hear the thoughts of my fellow Wikipedian physicians, and would even more so love to see some -- or all! -- of you pop in and say hello and maybe even write an article summary or two. ;-) --David Iberri (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Would be great to have a WMF project that does this. There is something similar proposed here that could accommodate this sort of effort nicely. http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Journal_%28A_peer-review_journal_to_allow/encourage_academics_to_write_Wikipedia_articles%29 This project is also looking at the possibility of publishing primary and secondary research. The primary research bit of course would tie into Wikidata. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Priority pages

As the old-timers may remember, a group of editors called the WP:1.0 team periodically produces an offline release of the best and most important articles on the English Wikipedia. Another release is planned for (I think) sometime this fall. Naturally, all of us here would like the medicine-related articles that are included to be the best feasible quality, and since we're looking at something like 1,300 medicine-related articles, I think we need a bit of a head start.

This link will show you the ones that are currently deemed likely.

The determination depends in part on WPMED's own priority assessment: we can pretty much assume that all of our top-priority and most of our high-priority articles will be included. And that means that we need to get our ratings corrected. For example, there are a number of purely anatomical articles in this list that need to be tagged for WP Anatomy rather than WPMED. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree. And some of the pages that are purely WP:MCB should be tagged with just that as well IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Since I don't have time to do all this myself, here's a reminder that anybody is welcome to do this. There is extensive advice at WP:MEDA, and you can always ping me or Doc James or any of the other MEDA regulars with any difficult questions.

Also, quality ratings matter. If your favorite page looks underrated (lotta "former stubs" need re-rating), then please fix it or let us know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

request to review good article status of Post-concussion syndrome, and request for help making this article better

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
For the four reasons which I give, I am proposing that our article on Post-concussion syndrome no longer meets the criteria for a good article. Please participate in this discussion if you have the time and interest. And also please help make the article better, so that if we do 'demote' the article so to speak, perhaps we after we improve it, we can again list it as a good article. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Great you have found the right spot to post. You will need to provide more details regarding your concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the directions. Okay, my concerns are on Talk:Post-concussion syndrome page, primarily in the "GA Reassessment" section. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

1RR proposal at circumcision

I invite you to vote in this proposal for a 1 revert rule limit to the circumcision article. Pass a Method talk 00:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of deleted article requested

Dear Wikipedia editors,

Extensive advertising content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you for your oversight and consideration of the content about the Wurn Technique (WT), a patent pending manual physical therapy practiced at Clear Passage Physical Therapy® (CP) affiliate clinics in several U.S. locations. We would like to address specific concerns that appeared on this discussion page prior to deletion, most of which had to do with “only two” independent secondary sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Wurn_Technique). Of the dozens of references of the WT found in literature and the media, we will provide here a truncated list that includes 23 written secondary sources (14 citations in consumer reference literature, and 9 studies and citations on the WT published in respected independent medical journals). Television coverage on the evening news in cities throughout the U.S. has also been fairly extensive. Based on the significant amount of independent secondary coverage documented as follows, we respectfully request the return of the deleted citations and pages noted. Wiki editor comment: Delete Promotional, not notable. Nothing but press releases at Google News. This is an alternative-medicine technique (and like many alternative-medicine techniques, it claims to be effective for an astonishing variety of unrelated issues, ranging from infertility to endometriosis to fallopian tube occlusion). It was invented (and apparently is only practiced) by a husband-and-wife team of physical therapists. --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Regarding the comment “This is an alternative-medicine technique”: This is inaccurate as the WT is a physical therapy protocol. Physical therapy is considered mainstream medicine by the American Medical Association. Regarding the comment “it claims to be effective for an astonishing variety of unrelated issues, ranging from infertility to endometriosis to fallopian tube occlusion”: We feel that effectiveness in several areas should not be a reason for deletion. This therapy has a single intent – to decrease adhesions. Adhesions are a major cause of female infertility and fallopian tube occlusion, and implicated as a cause of endometriosis pain. Adhesions cause pain or dysfunction in many systems of the body. Given this fact, it is understandable that the WT has improved these and other adhesion-related diagnoses, with results measured and reported in respected peer reviewed journals. The fact that WT has been shown to improve these adhesion-related conditions is noteworthy. We believe that excluding a therapy simply because it has been shown to be effective in several venues does not promote knowledge. Regarding the comment “It was invented (and apparently is only practiced) by a husband-and-wife team of physical therapists”: This is inaccurate as licensed physical therapists practice the WT in a growing number of clinics locations throughout the U.S. Patients travel for the therapy from all US states, and internationally (see map, info and links at http://www.clearpassage.com/about/locations/). Regarding the comment “Search of "Reviews" in PubMed shows no reviews available. -- Yobol (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)”: We are unsure how the editor got this information. Entering “Wurn” in Pubmed’s search bar brings up several studies on the work. (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=wurn) Regarding the comment “Delete, per concerns noted above regarding a lack of secondary sources and potential promotion and conflict of interest. The only two sources included in our article are the initial 2008 publication of the technique in a low-impact alt-med journal (Alternative therapies in health and medicine has a 2010 impact factor of 1.215 [2]) and a 2006 conference poster presentation.” --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)”: This is inaccurate, as there are nine published studies and citations in respected peer-reviewed journals on this work (three cited in PubMed). We are glad to add those to the Wiki articles, where appropriate. Regarding the comments “Delete: Lacks evidence of independent coverage. The only reliable sources available appear to be primary sources directly affiliated with the subject. Could be recreated if/when independent secondary-source coverage is available.” MastCell Talk 17:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC) and “Promotion of non-notable method without sufficient coverage in secondary reviews. We can't use primary sources for a non-notable technique. If this gets much better coverage we can reconsider. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)”: Considering the above, and the following citations, we herein present evidence that the technique is notable, with coverage in reliable secondary sources than previously thought. We respectfully request that the deleted text be reviewed and recreated. We are glad to add additional published studies to the text, including footnotes, where appropriate. A note on our published studies: Nine studies or citations about this therapy appear in some the most respected journals in their particular branch of medicine, including Medscape General Medicine, Fertility and Sterility, Contemporary Ob/Gyn, Journal of Endometriosis, Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine. Before publication, all studies had to pass peer-review by medical and scientific experts in the field covered by that journal. Part of each reviewer’s task was to determine if the data and scientific methods were valid and reasonable, if the studies add valuable information to medical knowledge, and if they are important enough to share with physicians and the general public, via publication in their journal. Thus, passing peer review provides a de facto endorsement of the validity of the data, from independent (secondary) medical experts in the field. Since these published citations passed independent scientific and medical peer review sufficient for publication in respected medical journals, we request that the text entries and articles be re-posted in Wikipedia. Several of the published studies on the WT appear in the U.S. National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine (NIH-NLM). Three are easily searchable by entering the search term “Wurn” at www.pubmed.com and others can be accessed using the URLs noted below. Following are citations, with website references, and comments about the journals and authors where appropriate. 1. “Treating Female Infertility and Improving IVF Pregnancy Rates With a Manual Physical Therapy Technique” is cited in NIH-NLM at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1395760/ 2. “Increasing Orgasm and Decreasing Dyspareunia by a Manual Physical Therapy Technique” is cited in NIH-NLM at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1480593/ These studies were published in Medscape General Medicine. At the time of its publication, Medscape was the largest physician-subscribed online medical journal in the world, with 2.4 million physician subscribers in 239 countries. The editor who published studies on the WT is George Lundberg, MD, editor-in-chief of the esteemed Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) for 17 years before becoming editor of Medscape General Medicine, and publishing our studies. (see http://www.medscape.com/public/bios/bio-georgelundberg) Credibility: Medscape General Medicine is owned by WebMD, consistently recognized as a leader for the credible information it provides. Forbes Best of the Web recognized WebMD among the top health information sites in 2007 (the year after our publication). It also received the Frost & Sullivan Market Leadership Award for its market leading Personal Health Record and the WebWare 100 Awards for being one of the top reference websites, along with several other awards. In 2006, at the Consumer Directed Health Care Conference, WebMD received recognition as the Best Web Site for Consumer Health Information. More recently, in 2011 WebMD ranked number one for the Most Trusted Consumer Brand in the U.S. (Millward Brown Global Stud), Most Trusted U.S. Consumer Brand and Most Trusted and Recommended Internet Brand. (see http://www.webmd.com/about-webmd-policies/awards) The study “Treating fallopian tube occlusion with a manual pelvic physical therapy” was published in Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, a respected peer reviewed medical journal. This study is cited in NIH-NLM at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18251317 Due to its importance to gynecologic physicians, the above study was further cited in Contemporary Ob/Gyn, a peer-reviewed journal of most U.S.-based gynecologists and obstetricians: http://contemporaryobgyn.modernmedicine.com/about. The journal, which presents important new evidence-based studies to U.S. physicians, ranked number two in market share, per an IMS report (11/2009). The citation titled “News: Can noninvasive pelvic physical therapy open occluded fallopian tubes?” can be viewed at: http://www.modernmedicine.com/modernmedicine/article/articleDetail.jsp?ts=1337614540855&id=510093. (You must register, at no charge, to view the article.) The two studies titled “Decreasing Dyspareunia and Dysmenorrhea in Women with Endometriosis via a Manual Physical Therapy: Results from 2 Independent Studies” recently published in the international Journal of Endometriosis can be found at: http://www.j-endometriosis.com/public/JE/Article/Article.aspx?UidArticle=3BD6D1B2-6020-424E-9FD0-E17AF8FD400C. Three pilot studies were independently reviewed and considered important enough to be published in Fertility and Sterility, a leading peer-reviewed medical journal in obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive medicine, first published in 1950. These are titled: 1. “Treating endometriosis pain with a manual pelvic physical therapy” 2. “Treating hydrosalpinx (blocked fallopian tubes) with a manual physical therapy” 3. “Improving sexual function in patients with endometriosis via a pelvic physical therapy” Fertility and Sterility is the professional journal of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine and the leading journal of Reproductive Endocrinologists (physicians with an advanced specialty in reproductive medicine). The studies are available for viewing to reproductive specialists at http://www.fertstert.org/search/quick. Authors of the various published studies have excellent credentials, including: C. Richard King, MD, Research gynecologist for 40 years, and former Chief of Staff of North Florida Medical Center, Gainesville, Florida, USA. Marvin Heuer, MD, former Director of Worldwide Clinical Research as SmithKline, Beecham, and former Research Director at Integramed (Nasdaq: INMD), the largest public provider of in vitro fertilization (IVF) in the US. Jonathan J Shuster, Ph.D., biostatistician, has authored 220 published NLM studies in journals including The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Clinical Cardiology, Pediatric Neurology, and the British Journal of Haematology. Dr. Shuster regularly oversees and/or acts as Principal Investigator for $10-30 million in funded NIH research. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=shuster%20JJ Eugenia Scharf, PhD With a Doctorate in Tests and Measurements, Dr. Scharf served as researcher/writer for Time-Life Books’ The Medical Advisor, before leaving that post to become Editor of The Women's Health Digest under Morris Notelovitz, MD, PhD, internationally known expert in osteoporosis research and treatments. Mark Kan, MD, board certified reproductive endocrinologist, faculty of UC Irvine’s College of Medicine. The Advisory Board to WT and CP clinics includes faculty (physicians and PhD scientists) at noted medical schools (Harvard, Columbia, Northwestern), and the founder of the Endometriosis Association. (see http://www.clearpassage.com/about/advisors.php) Other independent secondary printed citations: In addition to the above studies, the therapy has been cited in the media in many consumer sources that are used as references by people looking for credible information for their healthcare needs. A truncated list follows: Consumer reference books by physicians and PhD scholars: 1) Women’s Bodies, Women’s Wisdom – this NY Times bestseller by gynecologist Christiane Northrup cites the Wurn Technique, or Clear Passage Physical Therapy (clinics where the work is performed) as a treatment for pain or infertility in seven separate locations, one noted below: “Find a physical therapist trained in the Wurn Technique, a noninvasive, nonsurgical type of deep tissue massage that’s performed by specially trained physical therapists.” 2) New Hope for Couples with Infertility Problems, by T DiGeronimo and P Gindorf, MD "the procedure (Wurn Technique) offers much hope for women whose medical history indicates possible adhesion or micro-adhesion formation or poor biomechanics, and women whose infertility is unexplained." 3) What to do When the Doctor Says it’s Endometriosis, by Thomas Lyons, MD “The Wurn Technique®. . . a non-surgical soft tissue technique, has been effective in treating women with infertility problems." 4) Stay Fertile Longer, by Mary Kittel and Deborah Metzger, MD, PhD "Fertility Visionaries, Clear Passage Therapies: Even health care practitioners who themselves had had no success with medical and surgical infertility treatments came, and had successful pregnancies." 5) Do you want to have a baby? Natural Fertility Solutions & Pregnancy Care, by Sarah Abernathy and Linda Page, PhD "While long believed that surgery procedures were the only way to even partially decrease these problems [pelvic adhesions, blocked tubes, or other types of trauma or inflammation in the reproductive organs], bodywork therapists (Wurn Technique) have found deep tissue work can not only decrease mechanical blockages, but also reduce pelvic pain and improve sexual arousal and orgasm for women. What a bonus!" Consumer reference magazines: 6) Utne Reader "Best sex ever: A holistic treatment results in really hot sex” "The Wurn Technique® is an internal and external form of manual manipulation of the body's soft tissue and fascia (connective tissue), that aims to break up adhesions. This process, the Wurns believe, is what helps bring the pleasure back to sex." 7) Psychology Today "Pressing Flesh" "Ninety-one percent of the participants in a recent peer-reviewed study of the Wurn Technique experienced an overall improvement in sexual function; 56 percent reported an increase in the intensity and duration of orgasm." 8) Health "The Right Touch Boosts Fertility" "The (Wurn) technique, originally developed to treat musculoskeletal and postsurgical pain, may help reverse inflammation that can upset normal reproductive function." 9) Natural Health "Massage Delivers Babies" Deep-tissue massage therapy (The Wurn Technique®) is showing promise as a treatment for some types of infertility. . . . Statistics show this effect is more than a coincidence." 10) SELF, "Having Trouble Getting Pregnant?" "Get a massage. But not just any massage – try the Wurn Technique®" 11) Conceive "Rubbed the right way" "Clear Passage Therapies was developed as a method to repair pelvic adhesions that can prevent a woman from conceiving or carrying a pregnancy to term....To date, 167 [confirmed] babies have been born to mothers who received the treatment [early 2007].” 12) Massage & Bodywork "Hands of Hope: Massage for Infertility" "Clearly, the breakdown of adhesions through such non-invasive, less-expensive means has its benefits, including restoration of fertility, decrease in pain, and an overall improvement in the quality of life." 13) Physical Therapy Advance "PT for Infertility: A new manual therapy technique could be an effective treatment for infertility" "Results compiled by a professional researcher and former senior health policy advisor with the NIH, indicated infertility reversal for a significant percentage of women who have received the treatment." 14) Massage & Bodywork "Soft Tissue Massage: Infertility Treatment of the New Millennium?" "As a treatment for adhesions and tubal obstruction, the non-invasive approach of the Wurn Technique® is considered a safe and cost effective therapy." TV News specials: The Wurn Technique® (WT) and Clear Passage Physical Therapy® (CP) have been featured on the evening TV news in 80 U.S. cities, with additional coverage by Fox-TV News crews in several cities: New York City, Miami, Orlando (twice), Tampa and Gainesville, Florida and Toledo, Ohio. We did not pay for this coverage; the stations carried the features due to the newsworthiness of the therapy. We are glad to send you whatever film we possess, if you like.

Considering all of the above, we respectfully request reposting of all deleted text and articles. We will add additional study references to all articles, where appropriate. We also request to know whether it is appropriate to also create an entry for “Clear Passage Physical Therapy,” which is equally cited, that defines the clinics that are licensed to perform this work.

Thank you, again, for your oversight and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annaclear (talk • contribs) 17:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:TLDR but, in general, we have a guideline for notabiliy (being "notable" means it is "important" enough to have an article) here and the reliable sources we use are listed here. For example, being mentioned on the nightly news doesn't make something medically important. It takes medical sources to establish that. I have no opinion on this matter yet. But if you can show that multiple reliable medical sources that are independent of the subject give detailed coverage/analysis of these subjects then there is an argument for notability. Biosthmors (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Books that publish physician opinions are not WP:MEDRS unlike a clinical practice guideline from a recognized authority, for example. Biosthmors (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I should emphasize that we need reliable independent, secondary sources, which include medical reviews per WP:MEDRS. Responding to the comment directed at me above, I note that none of the Pubmed sources are secondary sources, but are primary one and do not establish notability. Any discussion about the organization Clear Passage should meet notability criteria for organizations. Note the need for independent sources to establish notability. Yobol (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wurn Technique was a pretty clear close. To challenge this, Wikipedia:Deletion review is the proper venue. I'd suggest such a laundry list of marketing materials will not go over well with most Wikipedia editors--we don't care for excessive promotion. It's quite clear this is a marketing venture...please be aware of our conflict of interest guidelines. — Scientizzle 18:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONFLICT Wikipedia: NOTYOURS circumcision

Hello, There are big problems on the page circumcision... Particularly, the rules are not followed by user:Jakew : WP:CONFLICT He has just published a study with Brian Morris proposing to Asian (and especially Chinese and Japanese) the establishment of the U.S. practice of routine circumcision : http://www.nature.com/aja/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/aja201247a.html Wikipedia: NOTYOURS http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Circumcision Why the rules are not enforced on this page? I think that contributors should not be activists (pro or anti) but all the members of the WikiProject Medicine...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Suwq Ede (talk • contribs) 00:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a controversial topic. Some of us have provided feedback at different point of time. Along as all are using the best available evidence. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Suwq, I do not understand your question about "Why the rules are not enforced on this page?"

The COI guideline says, "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest" (at the WP:SELFCITE section) and go on to say that a published expert is welcome to cite his own publications. Therefore the rules are being enforced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Anatomy

WikiProject Anatomy seems to be mostly dead. Almost a month ago I proposed a few relatively major changes on its talk page but no-one has responded since. Could anyone here take the time to check out my ideas and highlight potential flaws (as well as generally say if it's a good idea)? In a nutshell, I'm trying to propose the merger of several stubby articles on anatomy (for example subcostal artery and intercostal artery) into bigger articles on topographical anatomy, (like Chest wall which I'm working on right now). An alternative I've since thought of would be to keep the stubs but place links in their leads.

In each case the more general anatomy articles need attention and as WP:anatomy seems to be mostly dead, I also proposed asking for attention (or possibly even folding into) wp:med. Thoughts? Elennaro (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Having overview articles with sub articles linked from them IMO is the best strategy. If you check our the article on obesity we have sub articles on Classification of obesity, Genetics of obesity, Management of obesity, Epidemiology of obesity etc. where each of these issues are discussed in greater detail.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

By that you mean you would favor keeping the stubs? I have nothing against doing just that - creating better topography articles and linking to the anatomical entities in question - but I'm rather afraid most of the articles are going to be, well, stubby. Though there might be something in it too: we can't put the detailed course of every single vein in a general anatomy article, and some structures cross anatomical compartments. Elennaro (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Globalization

The article Globalization has undergone major re-structuring. WikiProject Medicine members are invited to review and comment on the article and add relevant missing information or sections in which your project may have an interest. Also, you may be interested in reviewing the updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Globalization proposal for a new WikiProject. Regards, Meclee (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Input needed on accuracy of vaginal anatomy

Hi, all. As the heading of this section shows, input is needed with regard to presenting vaginal anatomy in the Vagina article as accurately as possible. Your help, even if just commenting on the matter, is very much needed. See Talk:Vagina#Changes about anatomy and sexual activity. Flyer22 (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a couple of people are trying to sort this out, but if anyone's got a decent textbook on gynecological anatomy, I'm sure they'd appreciate hearing from you. Apparently the sources to date have been along the lines of howstuffworks.com. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hm.. anyone working on it? It is severely lacking in some parts as it is now. Richiez (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I am waiting for you to respond to my comments, Richiez. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

And I am waiting for Axl to respond to me while Axl is waiting for you to respond to him, LOL. Although I already figured that was the case, he let me know on my talk page that he was waiting for you and that this is why he hasn't yet commented on how he would tackle the mucous membrane issue (since some anatomical/medical sources describe the vagina as being a mucous membrane or having mucous membranes). I was planning on using Axl's sources for not only that information (whether I used the term mucous membrane or not), but other information that should have high-quality sources backing it as well. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Too much politeness from all editors.. reminds me of the dining philosophers problem;) I thought I would keep my fingers away from it as it looked like others are taking good care of it. Will look over the talkpage again and try to answer any questions. Richiez (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL, Richiez, it does remind me of that. I assure you that I would have eventually taken care of the issues, though. Like I stated, I was planning on using Axl's sources (the ones that I need)...as well as ones Axl did not provide. After trading out a few sources and simply adding others, I would have contacted Axl about the mucous membranes issue...seeing as we need to figure out the way we are going to describe the structure of the vagina without using the term "mucous membrane(s)." Axl's Wheater's Functional Histology, fifth edition source uses the words "mucosal layer," so I'm not sure if you or Axl would accept that instead, for example. I also note to WhatamIdoing that the article mostly has scholarly sources. The health.discovery.com (howstuffworks.com) source isn't the worst non-scholarly source, but it and the poor-quality ones I mentioned on the talk page will be replaced. It's a matter of including high-quality sources that essentially say the same thing as, or more than, the health.discovery.com source (such as the information about the "outer one-third of the vagina, especially near the opening, [containing] nearly 90 percent of the vaginal nerve endings and therefore [being] much more sensitive to touch than the inner two-thirds of the vaginal barrel." A lot of people don't know just how few nerve endings the vagina has, which is one reason why so many men and women are perplexed when a woman doesn't get much physical pleasure out of vaginal intercourse and barely or will not reach orgasm from it. As someone very familiar with that topic, I was confused as to why it wasn't already in the Vagina article...and this is one of the ways that the health.discovery.com source became a quick fix for the article (along with the quick-fix scholarly source and quick-fix Go Ask Alice! source backing it). Flyer22 (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

As of the mucosal layer, I would avoid all mention of anything that could confuse the reader into thinking there is a mucous membrane. The best we can do describe what PMID 19598112 says which is stratified squamous epithelium in adults. Some years ago I did a literature search about the development, specifically of the vaginal epithelium but looking at the new sources my older findings are probably all obsolete;) As of the "three layers of tissue" this can not stay like that. It is not at all clear from the text if it is about epithelial layers or epithelium/myoepitheluim or some other structuring. To make it more complicated the number of layers depends on stage of maturation, vaguely recall that prepubertal girls have fewer layers.. which would be important to describe if I manage to find that source. The issue of the lower and upper vagina is an interesting one, I thought that they correspond to portions resulting from mullerian vagina and the portion formed from the urogenital sinus. However, looking at PMID 20638775 this may not be so easy and it might turn out difficult to find good sources. Richiez (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

But what about the modern-day sources, such as the ones Axl provided, that do describe "mucous membrane" in relation to the vagina? I'm wondering if the Mucous membrane article shouldn't simply be expanded with different definitions. On Wikipedia, we don't just give one definition for a term when there is more than one. If we don't use "mucous membrane" or "mucosal layer," what do we use in place of what these sources are describing about the vagina? And good point about the "three layers of tissue" bit; that should definitely be specified, elaborated on. As for the lower and upper vagina bit, every reliable source I have read on the matter makes clear that most of the vagina's nerve endings (which, again, are few) are present near the opening of the vagina.

Also, should we continue to work out all of this here or at the Vagina talk page? Should I transfer this discussion there? Or should we finish the matter here and just note that the other matters were worked out here? Flyer22 (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you guys (Flyer22 & Richiez) mind copying your statements to "Talk:Vagina"? It is preferable to keep the entire discussion in a single place to help other readers follow the flow. Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No objections whatever you do with it. Richiez (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania

By the way is anyone here planning on going to Wikimania this year? I have booked my flight down July 11th and home the 15th. Would be great to meet fellow medical Wikipedians. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll be there. --RexxS (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I will be there and I also want to meet fellow WikiProject Medicine members. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Great that will be three of us anyway. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Dyslexia

The Dyslexia and related article which are in need of revising are being decimated by s group of editors from the So called Disability project. Thye have little or no idea about what dyslexia is and only want to mkae the article look good regardless of content for a peer review. Could you keep an eye on this. As you are no doubt aware, do to the communication disabiliyt that causes my own dyslexia i am not able to copy edit an article to wikipedia standards, but can only provide the support citations, etc. I am not able to put into words what I understand successfully. So when so it seems that there is now a need for some good quality editing on all of the Dyslexia dyslexia project articles before this develops into an editor war. dolfrog (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

X-ray computed tomography

IP adding a bunch of primary research much not even mentioning CT. And now edit warring to put it back in place. Comments appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Coral calcium

More eyes on article appreciated, a new editor adding unsourced and dubiously sourced information to article. Yobol (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Warned at his talkpage for COI.LeadSongDog come howl! 06:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Our content published by someone else without appropriate attribution

This book [15] look very much like our articles on HIV and AIDS. And was of course published after we wrote our article. Gupta, Priya (2012). Understanding and Management of Special Child in Pediatric Dentistry. JP Medical Ltd, 2012. p. 264. ISBN 9350256312. The bigger question is regarding how this effects verifiablity going forwards. This cartoon is coming true http://xkcd.com/978/ Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

"Looks very much like our articles"? It's blatant plagiarism! Well spotted. The entire "Virology" section and much of the "Transmission" section of "HIV" has been copy-pasted into the textbook. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole chapter is copy-pasted from Wikipedia's articles from the time of the author's activity. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the editor of the book is the one who wrote the chapter, I would guess it is very likely that large sections of the book have been lifted from other sources. Looks like the author/editor is based out of India, as is the publisher. Canada Hky (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It could be listed at Wikipedia:Republishers. There's a talk page tag, {{backwardscopy}}, to indicate when an article has been cited by/used by another source, so perhaps that's what we should do. There are three footnotes (search for Wikipedia and Wikimedia) that cite WMF websites, but those pages are unreferenced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

And if you read the first pages of the book the publisher claims ownership. The whole book however must be under a CC BY SA license per the "share alike requirement". I have added notes to the two talk pages in question.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

_{Hmm, does that mean that I can copy their whole book and sell it for my own profit, provided I acknowledge it as CC BY SA? Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)}

Yes you can. The whole book is now under a CC BY SA copyright. I assume most of it is from Wikipedia anyway. By the way are you the editor of much of the virology content? I am just touching base with Amazon regarding this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL. No, I have not edited those articles much. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

A couple of people have already posted "reviews" of the book on Amazon, declaring the plagiarism. I have added my comment, although it will be a couple of days before it appears. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes here is the link to amazon [16] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Response from the publisher

Dear Dr. Heilman and Mr. Cohen

We have received your mails concerning text in Understanding and Management of Special Child in Pediatric Dentistry. We have taken the matter up with the editors of the book and the contributors to the chapter in question. We take care to ensure the veracity of texts, but in this case our systems appear to have failed. However, we have decided to permanently withdraw the book from sale, and we will remove the title from our website and recall the book from our wholesalers and distributors. Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. Yours Sincerely Tarun Duneja Director:Publishing

Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers Pvt Ltd

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, what a score! How did you do this? Did you write only to the publisher, or to Amazon also? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrote to both. And a little newspaper from the USA. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Score indeed! Well done. :-)--MrADHD | T@1k? 22:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

In the NYTs here [17] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Wowowowowowow! Thanks for sharing the newspaper link! That's fantastic! Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not a first for Doc James. You should look into the Rorschach test dispute a couple of years ago; Doc James (and others) were in the newspapers quite a lot all over the world.--MrADHD | T@1k? 00:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen that and the discussions about that are very entertaining. I like that the article on the plagiarism mentions the translation project, because that is going to be the big project in all the newspapers once it gets a little better established. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Jargon reduction

I noticed, while looking into Coral calcium, that (for example) drugboxes and geneboxes link to a list of synonyms. We could more or less automatically check each of these for redundant articles that should be merged and for missing redirects. There must be a number of similar simple broad strategies that could improve our general level of legibility. Suggestions? LeadSongDog come howl! 05:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am not following. Can you give an example of where coral calcium is lined to symptoms, and which articles are redundant? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"Synonyms", not "Symptoms". It wasn't directly in coral calcium, but in calcium carbonate. The {{chembox}} at the top of that article includes |OtherNames=Limestone; calcite; aragonite; chalk; marble; pearl. Now in that specific case, each of those synonyms has a legitimate article. But take another case: the {{drugbox}} at paracetamol lists at |tradename =Aminofen (USA), Anacin Aspirin Free (USA), Apra (USA), Crocin (India), Feverall (USA), Genapap (USA), Panadol (Australia), Panamax (Australia), Tylenol (USA)

(wikilinking mine). Of these, several are simply redirects to paracetamol. Panadol and Tylenol find articles about branded products, but Panamax and Apra find completely unrelated topics that need hatnotes or dablinks added. Crocin while it is about an unrelated compound, does have a hatnote "This article is about a naturally occurring compound. For the Indian brand of painkiller of same name, see paracetamol", as it should. Anacin Asprin Free lacks a redirect. Similarly the IUPAC names have no redirects. Under |identifiers= there are numerous external links, but a wikipedia search for some of the identifiers would not bring the reader to this page. Searching DB00316 or 362O9ITL9D would put the user one click away, while 103-90-2 gets him a near miss, and a search for 1906 sends him on a wild-goose chase. But examining this case manually takes quite some time to identify the actions needed. Some powertools to aid the effort would help. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

My answer has little to do with medicine, but the solution being developed is the meta:Wikidata project. Linking like content is a tough problem and I do not know what the historical or current best solution is, but I think it has been to manually do one's best in the infobox. Here is a Signpost article on that project, which aims to associate metadata with each article so that there can be automated connections between articles covering the same subject matter, even in different languages. This would generate universal navigation boxes and automatically generate links between Wikipedia article infoboxes and external databases. If you are interested in this, there is a very simple pilot about this coming up related to library databases and it could use commenting. It will be with Template:Authority control - check the example at the bottom of the article and watch the page for the next few weeks if you like, or let me know and I will let you know when the proposal is made and open for comments. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Confusing redirect?

Muscle stiffness (shome mishtake, shurely? ed) —MistyMorn (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

This links to Delayed onset muscle soreness, which is the jargon term for soreness after exercise. It seems like an appropriate redirect to me, although I might recommend that "muscle stiffness" be added to the list of alternative terms for that condition in the first sentence. I checked Flexibility (anatomy) and found no better article for describing muscle stiffness. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hypertonia may perhaps be a better target? At least, it does mention "stiffness" as part of the condition. Mikael Häggström (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't muscle stiffness in itself a symptom rather than a condition? —MistyMorn (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "muscle stiffness" is somewhat vague. Its most frequent use probably refers to discomfort after exercise, i.e. delayed onset muscle soreness. "Hypertonia" is definitely not appropriate; this refers to a neurological sign, typical of upper motor neurone diseases. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks guys. Maybe it's not a big deal! —MistyMorn (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Alkaline ionized water

Alkaline ionized water looks like pseudoscientific crap to me. Any second opinions? Peacock (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

... and also the related new article Alkaline water ionizer machine. Peacock (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I have redirected both to Water ionizer. Yobol (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That looks like the right thing to do to me. Thank you. Peacock (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"Tay–Sachs disease" vs. "Tay–Sachs"

Is "Tay–Sachs" a suitable abbreviation for "Tay–Sachs disease"? Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Project proposal - Health Article Review Project

Hello WikiProject Medicine. My name is Lane Rasberry and I was recently hired by Consumer Reports as their outreach:Wikipedian in Residence. I have not made a formal announcement about the scope of what I am doing with them but I wanted to share one project with WikiProject Medicine now. If anyone has input into this then I would appreciate advice.

I am proposing a Wikipedia:Health Article Review Project (WP:HARP) in which medical residents, during their classes and at their instructor's behest, use a template to review health-related Wikipedia articles on that article's talk page. They would be doing this in small groups in about 20 minutes with no prior Wikipedia editing experience and with no support from an experienced Wikipedian. This project would be advertised in a very popular course curricula distributed throughout the United States. I am presuming that medical residents ought to be able to read a health article and have valuable opinions on how the articles might be improved, and that they could share those opinions on the talk pages of articles with little difficulty if they were guided by a written tutorial at the project page, and that trying this project is unlikely to have a bad result even if unexpected things happen.

I would like to think that this project supports the interests of WikiProject medicine but I express some concerns and doubts on the talk page for that project. What do you all think of this proposal? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Lane. This was done by Google a number of years ago with little benefit for Wikipedia per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Google_Project. We all know that many of our pages are of poor quality. The lack of further review is not the issue. The issue is the number of volunteer editors is so small. And it is a huge amount of work to bring a single article to GA quality.

The second issue is that many people come and wish to add a primary research study that is neither notable or due weight.(for example which is better Tango or Foxtrox for Parksinson's based on a sample of 58 [18] added a half dozen times by a group of grad students [19]) Many people (including most graduate students) do not understand the difference between a review article and a peer reviewed article (I did not realize they where not the same when I first arrived either). So IMO instructions on Wikipedia's medical referencing requirements and how to find review articles on pubmed would be the first step. This followed by some time spent on our manual of style WP:MEDMOS and how to properly format a reference using the good tool in the top of the edit box or diberri's tool [20] when that is down (which occurs frequently). People could than take a review article and start improving a Wikipedia article using it. If you need a list of articles in need of improvement drop me a note. Also if you could give us a list of article they are working on that would be great too. And once again welcome. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I certainly have my doubts about this project but I do want to explore your objections.

I have no need for a list of articles in need of improvement because I know of no way to industrialize the process of turning new Wikipedia users into the kinds of people who could easily improve medical articles, and I know of no population of current Wikipedians who is requesting such a big project. I need a much simpler task to introduce people to Wikipedia.

One difference between this and the Google project is that the review would be done by volunteers rather than mandated staff, so there would be a lot more reviews. Also the process of reviewing is helpful to the reviewer, whereas the Google experts might not have been inherently interested in providing reviews which may not get a reply soon.

I know the Foxtrot story and I agree that learning the difference between good and bad sources is not something that graduate students can inherently do, and this is why I am not proposing that any participants in this project actually edit articles. I am not sure how much time a person needs to study Wikipedia before editing Wikipedia, but it is certainly a number of hours over a period of days. I designed this project based on resources - an audience of medical residents who each have 20 minutes - and based on the likelihood that the project participants could do something that would not cause harm, would cause some good (however small), would be a fun and practical introduction to Wikipedia, and which would be able to be incorporated into a classroom.

You say that learning Wikipedia referencing, finding an article on pubmed, and reviewing the MEDMOS are all together the first step. This is a lot to ask of anyone who has never even before considered editing Wikipedia, and even more to ask of first-year medical residents who are known for having their schedules very full. What you are proposing about adding a reference seems like an hour commitment at least, and even then there are lots of people who read these things for hours and still do things improperly. You are asking for a minimum of a few hours as an introduction, right? That is a hard sell to drop on unsuspecting residents - can you think of anything else they might do in less time and with less commitment? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes agree. And if the reviews are posted on the talk page as you say it will cause no harm. I am not opposed to your idea and it would be a learning experience for the residents.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Counter proposal

Supposing that one could communicate anything to a large number of medical residents (which are new doctors who just received their medical degrees) and that the message was certain to only be targeted to this population because this would only be advertised by a curricula-producing medical society. This group of hundreds of students would be in class, and they would have 20 minutes to do something on Wikipedia. That 20 minutes includes learning how to use Wikipedia and will not mandate any follow-up, and voluntary follow-up is unlikely. The request could be made perpetually for many school terms for so long as the students actually did something on Wikipedia and outcome of the request was enjoyed by Wikipedia.

Who has ideas for how this could be a valuable resource? Can it be a valuable resource? The best idea I had was to have this population review articles. Whatever any class of medical residents is studying, they can review articles related to their class. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

How about us creating a one page overview on how we work and a few suggestion on simple things one can do to help? Residents can than decide which they wish to do. I agree that providing a review may "hook them". A review will get them to realize how much work needs to be done and than maybe they will come back latter and fix it. We just need to emphasis that review article / major textbooks should be used as references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I have invited NCurse to comment. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If you are proposing this as a giant one-off, then I think everyone's 20 minutes could be spent somewhere else. What you are proposing sounds like putting into writing on a review page what everyone already knows - some articles suck. I think you either need to come up with something where they actually contribute, or leave things be. A bunch of mini-reviews by first year residents aren't likely to improve the information on the article. If it is in the curricula with sources they can use, and articles they can add them to - awesome, but for them to just mark up the talk page of a random medical article doesn't seem like a good use of anyone's time. Canada Hky (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Two thoughts:

• The anatomy-related articles might be easier than disease-related articles. For example, most anatomy articles could do with a small section that tells readers what diseases appear if the given bit of anatomy is screwed up. (Whether this is added on the talk page or the article page is unimportant to me; I think that identifying problems and proposing solutions on the talk page is a perfectly fine activity for a newbie.)
• My #1 priority for all medical students, at a practically-ought-to-be-on-the-boards level, is to understand what "anyone can edit" means, i.e., that the patient waving a print out of a Wikipedia article under your nose might well have written that article himself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Those are great points. If it is to be an exercise for students, rather than reviewing articles - I would suggest they find a factual or interpretive error in a medical article and take steps to correct it - even if it doesn't involve editing the article, but just pointing it out on the talk page and providing a source. Canada Hky (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree it would be nice to come up with something that would both improve Wikipedia and be a learning experience for them. As mentioned it however can take some education before people are ready to edit. At least this will cause no harm and maybe they will come back latter and fix the article to match the review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

@Canada Hky - This is the best use I could imagine of 20 minutes of each students time with no training and no in-person support. There are two decisions to make - one is to either accept or reject their offer to do something on Wikipedia, and then the second decision is that if this offer is to be accepted, then what do we ask them to do. I would prefer them to edit articles but I have not yet identified any way to get a Wikipedia newcomer to contribute meaningfully without studying and preparing for at least hours, and the only commitment I have at this point is that instructors will ask residents to do something in class in small groups for 20 minutes. This does not have to be a one-off - the curricula could go out to the majority of first-year medical residents in the United States perpetually for as long as the students like it and for as long as Wikipedians like it. I also would like for students to be able to provide sources to correct an error, but the problem is limited time and uncertain interest. The residents will be going into class not knowing anything about Wikipedia and then their professor will confront them with this in-class project. I think that many medical residents will be excited about getting to participate in Wikipedia for their first time, but I think they would be less excited if this meant hours of commitment at their first encounter. I am told that it is unlikely that medical residents would consistently have time for unrelated Wikipedia homework after class. I certainly am hoping that they can find errors in articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing I also think that the biggest value in this project is raising awareness among health professionals of how Wikipedia works. The 20 minutes is going to be more beneficial to the individual who spends it on Wikipedia than it will be to Wikipedia, but I still expect that this will not harm Wikipedia and will usually provide some small good to Wikipedia. I anticipate that anyone will have limited ability to influence which articles residents edit. This project will go out as an optional exercise in a curricula for hundreds of students, and any class could be studying anything. Probably the residents would review articles related to whatever the class is discussing on that day. In some cases the students would see articles in the "suggested review" section and be persuaded by that advertisement to review that, but the choice belongs to the residents. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to comment on this. It may sound strange what I'm going to say but I think any efforts, time or energy spent on the medical Wikipedia entries by medical professionals should be highly valued. We cannot expect this project to significantly improve the thousands of medical entries but we can expect many residents to 1) become interested in being a Wikipedian and 2) improve plenty of entries to some extent. I support it and let me know how I can facilitate the process. NCurse _work 09:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks NCurse. I also have thought about this as a long-term project wherein these residents do something on Wikipedia now, then finish their residency after a few years and start practicing for a few years then when their lives are less hectic they remember their Wikipedia experience and come back. I am hoping that this project can start them off in a way that allows them to contribute some small but useful good and that they would be able to think about their experience and know that they are welcome to return for more if they like. I would like to stay in good communication with you and everyone else on WikiProject Medicine about this, so if you want to help facilitate this, then perhaps let's chat by phone or Skype and you could grill and quiz me to try to stomp out crazy impractical ideas I might have about this. More than anything else I want to support anyone who wants any part in this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

@Blue Rasberry: I'll closely follow this discussion and as soon as we have a consensus, I'm ready to talk with you about the details and how I can help. NCurse _work 07:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have read WP:HARP and I watched the short video. The goal is reasonable. However I have a concern.

" They would be doing this in small groups in about 20 minutes with no prior Wikipedia editing experience and with no support from an experienced Wikipedian. "

— Blue Rasberry

I'm not convinced that someone with no prior experience with editing Wikipedia can actually write a constructive review in 20 minutes. They can certainly give their opinion on "what is missing", but I suspect that that may include primary source-based information, WP:NOTHOW, drug doses and perhaps even WP:CRYSTAL.

The people who edit medical articles are typically more experienced. Many are also healthcare professionals. For these editors, such a review will be useless. In the case of "casual" editors, some points may be relevant, but such editors are unlikely to read a review on the Talk page and act on it. Rather, these editors add in information that they believe is appropriate.

If the consensus is to proceed with the project, I recommend a pilot exercise, of perhaps a dozen reviewers/articles. We should then have a look at the reviews. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I also am not convinced that someone can give a constructive review in 20 minutes, but since this project only targets medical residents, I think they are more likely to give a good review than other groups. I thought about a pilot also but it would be harder for me to organize a pilot than it would be to send this project out to the majority of medical residents in the country. The marketing of this project will be done by a leading creator of medical residency learning materials, and they proposed that they send something out in their curricula. This Wikipedia project could supplement any lesson - whatever the residents are studying, the instructor could say, "Now get into small groups and check what Wikipedia says about this." If I were to organize a pilot I would have to convince individual instructors to do something radical, whereas doing this nationwide means that we (I and my coworkers) only had to convince major medical societies that Wikipedia is where the public is getting information.

I am concerned about potential danger, and that is why I directed everything to WP:HARP and am not proposing that instructors themselves know anything about the project. If instructors teach the project, then who knows what they might tell the students to do. Since the instructors only tell the residents to go to a website and follow instructions, if there is a problem then anyone can change the instructions they are following. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the idea of newbies doing something harmless as their first edit is great. And getting them to think about an article and what was good/bad/missing is also useful. But 20 minutes is a tiny amount of time. Click on some of the "requested reviews" links on the project page. I think you will do well to properly, critically, read a short article in 10 minutes. And if you happen upon an GA/FA medical article, then your 20 minutes is very unlikely to do it any justice. If their time really is that limited, then the questions need to be much more focussed. And if you want them to become Wikipedians, then perhaps, rather than leaving a passive review to an anonymous supposed future editor, then it would be more useful to get them thinking about proposing a few changes they would like to make themselves. And what are these editors expected to do afterwards? Where is the support for them if they decide to fix the article in their own time? They face a big learning curve. Colin°^Talk 12:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Will you or the reviewers be reporting their results in any formal way to Consumer Reports? Will this form the basis for a review of Wikipedia medical articles, or a comparison of Wikipedia articles with textbooks and other encyclopedias? I'd welcome that, assuming Consumer Reports is as independent and competent as their British and Australian equivalents, but I'd prefer the articles to be reviewed by subject experts if that's the intention here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

@Colin Unrelated to this project, I think the GA/FA review process is burdensome. I think more people would be willing to provide some review if they knew that they did not have to provide a total review. I think that more voices providing partial review on aspects of articles is preferable to fewer comprehensive reviews. More related to this project - a 20 minute review by a newcomer will not do justice to any article but I do not think it will hurt and I hope that it would provide some good. New editors do face a huge learning curve. Related to this project, I am working with various medical specialty societies to train their staff to become Wikipedians. Many societies have some mission to educate the public on some aspect of medicine - a disease, a body part, a condition, or whatever. These societies are feeling some pressure to participate more online, and I would like for them to begin to recognize that if they want to educate the public about health then they should check what is on Wikipedia and support development of the articles related to their field of expertise. I would like to think that in coming years, any society which has an educational mission to the public will support Wikipedia articles, and a great way for them to do that would be to support students and residents who edit Wikipedia articles within their field. Besides that long-term plan, I am doing what I can to improve all the processes related to training new editors. Some of the projects I support include the WP:TEAHOUSE, the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Libraries program, and the campus ambassador program. I am interested in supporting new editors, especially highly educated and motivated new editors, and frankly there is not existing infrastructure to support them at this time. If we did this 20-minute program, and someone liked it, then there is no good system in place for them or anyone else to learn Wikipedia in a hurry. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole For this project articles would only be reviewed by people who just got their medical degrees in the United States. The kind of tracking that Consumer Reports is interested in is the response from the Wikipedia community (i.e. there should be few complaints and it would be nice if the project was helpful) and the response from the medical residents (the number of reviews will be counted, and informally we will ask whether students enjoyed doing this). There are no plans to have anyone actually critique the quality of the residents' reviews. We do have other plans to get other medical groups to participate in Wikipedia, and a lot of the strategies we are discussing are ways to encourage health educators to become Wikipedians and support other health educators in disseminating information from large, non-controversial health campaigns with broad consensus. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. Just to be perfectly clear, though. Consumer Reports seems to mostly be in the business of reviewing consumer products. Its Australian (Choice) and British (Which?) equivalents compare products in a class. The quality assessment generated by the reviewers isn't going to form part of such a quality comparison article in Consumer Reports is it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Consumer Reports (the name of both the magazine and the organization) also reviews and consolidates reviews of pharmaceuticals, healthcare procedures, and other information of use to consumers when they make healthcare decisions. The situation is that since Wikipedia is the world's most consulted source of health information and since Consumer Reports' mission is to provide as much information as possible of whatever sort that consumers want, then the organization is considering more interaction with Wikipedia as a way to fulfill its non-profit mission. The only plans made about reviewing these articles is to check whether residents like making them and whether the Wikipedia community likes receiving them. I am quite happy to talk more about this on this board or by phone and would love feedback on the project concept. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of having them identify something that's missing. (Perhaps "confusing" could also be added to the list.) Twenty minutes is plenty enough time to discover, for example, that there's no ==Prognosis== section, and to leave a note saying that page 123 in My Textbook says the prognosis is _____. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, spotting something is missing is generally a very hard thing to do. That's why checklists were invented. Which comes back to my point that in 20 mins, the task has to be focused and possibly come with preparatory items to check, targeted at the type of article (because an infectious disease is different to an article on healthcare in the US). Colin°^Talk 08:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I like Colin's idea of having them "propose a few changes they would make themselves" and follow this by "a reference(s) which supports these changes" as WAID mentioned. I am sure we here can easily review their suggestions if we can get a list of pages they have worked on.

The proposal should be in a consistent format. Eg. "I propose we add text X to section Y of this article supported by reference Z (ISBN and page number, or PMID)" or "I propose we replace text A with text B in section Y of this article supported by reference Z (ISBN and page number, or PMID)". This should be doable in 20 min. They can concentrate on one section of an article rather than the whole thing and all they need to know is our referencing requirements. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Definitely think this is a good idea, and you did a much better job of putting into words what I was trying to say. Basically - rather than just pointing out problems - get them to offer a solution as well. This removes them from learning the intricacies of formatting and reference styles, and provides a filter to weed out primary sources before they hit an article if needed. Canada Hky (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Variant proposals, with request for citation

Several people, including Canada Hky, Doc James, WhatamIdoing, and Colin, are suggesting that for the WP:HealthReview project students also add a reference. Here are two different proposals for incorporating this idea along with the original proposal for comparison - could I have comments on which one is preferable?

1. (original proposal) Medical residents post a review of a health article and are not asked to provide any statement or citation.
2. Medical residents post a review of a health article according to instructions which encourage them to also provide a statement with a citation.
3. Medical residents post a review a health article only if they can provide a statement with a citation, and are discouraged from giving a review if they are unable to provide the statement and citation.

I agree that the project would be tremendously more useful if it made students actually propose an improvement through the addition of cited statements, but I feel that even providing a review without a reference would have some benefit to Wikipedia and some benefit to the medical residents who experience this as their first time participating in Wikipedia. It seems most likely that if this project were given to a large number of classes, then there would be some students who find a citation for their statement and some who do not. I would like for all residents who attempt to participate in this project to have high certainty that they can contribute something, and it is easier to get a review than a review and a citation.

How would everyone feel about strongly encouraging the students to propose a statement with a citation in their review, but still gratefully accepting reviews without citations? This would be variation 2 in the list above. Are there other possible variations of this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• I would feel best with proposal 3. Without a reference, someone else has to chase the info down to 1) find out if it is correct and 2) appropriately source it. These are students, they might make mistakes, especially if it is something complex - if we can easily track down their source, they have probably still left us with something useful. Also, having given assignments with both required and optional portions - even when it is required, some people will leave it out. Make it optional and for no extra credit, and everyone will leave it out. Canada Hky (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this project is for United States doctors in their first year after receiving their medical degrees, so grades and credit do not matter at this point and all stated options are optional, for no extra credit, and with no penalty for refusal. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand that, but if we want them to do something useful - we should tell them the ideal way (besides them becoming full-time editors) for them to contribute. If they choose to do it - great, if they choose to do a little bit less - well, we still have something to work with. But, if we don't ask for it, we will almost certainly not get it. Canada Hky (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Doc James did it first, but beyond his additions I updated the template which would prompt a user for input. It asks for a review, a fact to be inserted, and a reference. I fully support everyone being asked to provide a reference. I have some uncertainty about how this should go so I still want to hear from anyone who feels that it is best to turn editors away if they cannot provide a reference. Please provide other objections if you have them. What do you think of the prompts at this point? Could they be more forceful in asking for a reference? Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

IMO #2 is good enough. For one thing, the problem might not actually be a "source" issue. Suggestions on how to replace jargon with plain English would be heklpful and not require a source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

My experience with first year residents is that converting jargon to plain English is not their strong point. They are great at going the other way, though. Canada Hky (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Canada my position is that #3 is best.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• I also think that it would be nice if they made suggestions about replacing text for clarity and that would not require a source, but I am starting to feel like even if option #2 is good enough then option #3 is better and still feasible. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• Just to note, I didn't suggest they supply a reference or new text. They can if they want to, but again I think the time limit makes this difficult. Also, I want to say that adding a quick review on a talk page is likely to be generally harmless, but we shouldn't think this can never hurt. It is quite possible that a cursory scan of an article, done in a hurry, could lead the reviewer into pointing out "missing" things that aren't really missing, or that don't actually have sufficient weight, or belong in another article. And worse, they could suggest including or changing the text in a way that really shifts the POV or weight. This could waste editors time arguing against such a review (only for them to be talking to thin air, as the reviewer has gone). Writing a good article is really hard, and in general our articles are so bad that it should be easy to fire shots at them. That might just discourage anyone who has worked on the article. Which is why I think it best if the reviewer does a "notes to self" kind of improvement list, and hopefully they become a Wikipedian and fix it. Colin°^Talk 08:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You raise good points about the potential problems from hurried review of an entire article, especially among a population which does not know Wikipedia culture. I do not want to discourage past article contributors and you are right, pointing out obvious problems is not too productive. Doc James said the same thing above. and I want everyone involved in this to have a good experience.

I want to help develop a project with an immediate benefit, but long-term I hope that if doctors use Wikipedia for the first time, then become more aware that their patients use Wikipedia as a source of information. I hope that after they finish residency and then practice for a few years then they will think of returning to Wikipedia. No one becomes a Wikipedian suddenly and everyone starts with a first edit, and I hope that this project gets some first edits out of doctors.

What do you mean a "notes to self" improvement list? Who should read such a list, where would it be posted, and what should be done with it? How would this be different from a review? I am very interested in hearing alternatives to the review process I proposed. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, pointing out obvious problems can be very useful. Anyone who's been around much has had the experience of discovering age-old vandalism that wasn't noticed at the time. That's partly because so many active editors quit reading articles. We see a problem in a diff and go off to fix it, or we happen to notice the red warning about a busted ref tag when we are adding a category, or something like that, but we almost never sit down and actually read one sentence after another, from the top of the page to the bottom. A note on the talk page often alerts me to problems that I missed.

Perhaps I'm not like the rest of you, but I'm not discouraged when someone adds a note saying "I think this article needs some information about ____". I might or might not act on it, but it never makes me feel underappreciated. In fact, it makes me think that someone actually is interested in the article enough to leave a note, which is generally a positive thing. Do any of you actually feel sad when a newbie adds a note about a concern on the talk page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

This was my original thought in proposing the project because I expected that any kind of review or comments would be good both for the article and to teach people to make their first edits. I originally thought that it would not be possible for anyone to find and provide a reference in a short time on their first attempt to edit Wikipedia, and I am still not convinced, but if this project can actually work this way then that would be awesome. If anyone can do this then medical residents can do this, and if it works a little then I think I can arrange support to make it work better.

What you are proposing seems valuable also. Some people have said that since so many of the health articles are bad, that most of the comments will be just pointing out that the articles are missing things which anyone can see ought to be there. If it happened that people were able to read well-trafficked articles which have not had review in a while, that sounds useful also.

Hmm... I am not sure what is best. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If we are requesting that they point out stuff that needs improving maybe we should have them work on either GAs or FAs (would be useful for them to learn our grading scale). If they work on our poor quality articles, we already know their are problems there.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If a reference is required

Is there anyone who would be unhappy if this project required a reference?

Suppose that we went with option 3 to require a reference within a contribution. How forceful should the language be in WP:HARP? Right now, the project asks students to post a template onto the talk page of an article and the template asks for a statement and a reference. Here are some options for handling this:

1. The template asks for a reference but does not say it is required. It may be awkward to leave that blank since that is one of only three prompts, but students are not dissuaded from doing so.
2. There could be a notice or bolded text somewhere emphasizing that a reference is required.
3. There could be text which says for someone to not make a post or participate if they cannot provide a reference.
4. The first step of the tutorial, even before telling them to register an account, could be to find a reference to cite.
5. The template could, instead of asking for a statement then a reference, ask for a reference first then a statement
6. The page could prompt the students with a link to PubMed or some other sources so that they can easily find a reference

Thoughts on these? Should any of these be included or excluded from the instructions students read?

Unrelated to this project, Canada Hky has a proposal to create the opposite of Simple English Wikipedia, Jargon Wikipedia. We could recruit medical residents to convert normal Wikipedia articles into doctorspeak. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh God, no! That was a joke! Canada Hky (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I would support 1 and 5, and 6. I proposed Jargon Wikipedia when I first got here (called it Clinical Wikipedia than though) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Save that idea for 1 April... :-) Seriously though, some discussion of jargon reduction is probably needed, so the new thread below. OTQ:Just asking for a reference isn't going to be very helpful, they have to understand that we need secondary sources, even if they don't get all the subtleties of MEDRS. The last thing we need is to have a truckload of new primary sources added to medical articles. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It probably will not be possible to teach much about the difference between primary and secondary sources considering that most participants will be first-time Wikipedia editors and their participation is likely to end within 20 minutes. One level of screening on this is that their proposals will go to talk pages, and not into articles. Another mitigating factor could be that we make it easier for them to find online review articles. How does one do a search and find review articles? I would like to propose some options on the project page so that if someone is looking for sources then they find review articles first, regardless of whether they understand the difference between primary and secondary sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Pubmed makes it very easy to find reviews especially now that they have rearranged the site. If one was to search for obesity for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Obesity on the left of the screen you will see a way to search by article types and "review" is one of the options. One can also limit to the last 5 or 10 years. Unfortunately of course this only finds you the abstract. So the next step is that I have set up google scholar (under settings -> library links and added my university libraries) When I paste the article title into google scholar it than shows me links to ones I have free e-access at my library.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not know that Google Scholar did that. I set up a link to PubMed on the page with instructions on narrowing to review articles. I think setting up Google Scholar is too much to ask considering the time constraint, but I do think a tutorial and suggestion for doing that ought to be somewhere. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Status summary

Would someone please sum it up what the situation is right now? Many thanks! NCurse _work 08:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

To summarize how the project has changed from its initial proposal, initially the project design asked medical residents to write any opinion on any health article on that article's talk page. Now it seems that WikiProject Medicine members recommend asking them to instead add a reference and a statement to the talk page. There are some other opinions on what else residents might do, and how the project should ask residents to do things, but no one has opposed the idea of adding references and statements. No one has said that the project is likely to cause harm to Wikipedia or the residents. There are a lot of things left unsaid. If you or anyone else want to contact me personally then email me and we can talk by phone, Skype, or in any other media, but also I will post any news about this to this board. I am doing this in haste because the opportunity arose and would appreciate advice about how this should be. Thanks for your attention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

When do they begin and will it be possible to list which pages they work on? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I had not previously stated this, but the reviewers at the medical society want a solid proposal by the end of June. In the times I have talked to them they have been eager without reservation, but still they have final say on whether they publish this in the curricula they distribute. If they do decide to accept this project then Wikipedians can still make changes to it because the only thing the society would be doing is endorsing the project and the article link by making it a suggested project in the class outline which instructors see.

The society is interested in two metrics - do the residents like the project and does the Wikipedia community like the project. Somehow this will have to be determined by the residents' contributions, so the residents' work needs to be open for view. Since the only communication I can coordinate with project participants is through that curricula and through the WP:HARP page, the only way I can find participants is if they self-identify. The page asks students to create an account and put their username on a line. Through the contribution page of users' accounts, their work can be found and a list of pages on which they worked could be manually created.

I would presume that most medical residents would begin this project at the beginning of the next academic year. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary! We could create a sub-page for the project where students can add themselves therefore their contributions can easily be followed. And regarding metrics, I can create a Surveymonkey survey myself at the end of the project, which both students and our editors could fill in and I would create a report for your university. How does that sound? NCurse _work 09:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I also had in mind to move the signatures of participants to a subpage so that the main project page would remain clear while linking to a complete list of all past participants. You are welcome to create a SurveyMonkey page and track anything; if you did I would be happy to do this with you or share any role in this. I should clarify that I am not a student and this is not a university project - it is a national campaign. I work for Consumer Reports and this project is in partnership with a medical society which has reach to almost every medical school in the United States, and it could be possible that the majority of first-year medical residents in the country have exposure to this project. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Adverse effects of a component of a medical procedure.

1. Suppose that a medical procedure M have a component C that is delivered at a dose D.
2. Suppose that an appropriate source S exist for an adverse effect A of the component C at dose D.
3. Suppose however that source A does not mention the medical procedure M.

Is it allowed to include the adverse affect A in the adverse effect section of the Wikipedia article of the medical procedure M?

79.182.215.205 (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing yes, but you'd have to give a specific example. Saying something like "M involves using C at D concentrations which has been linked to A" should be ok. As long as all of those assertions are reliably sourced, even if M and A aren't specifically linked in literature, I don't know of any policy which would say you can't mention them together. NickCT (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Example M=CT scan, C=ionizing radiation; D=120mGy,350mGy, or 4000mGy.

79.182.215.205 (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I am very concerned about the risk of original research and synthesis here. Particular observations about dose should be very tightly linked (in a single source, ideally) with the ramifications of dosing. After all, if someone has daily low-dose CT scans, the risk of malignancy is probably still much increased.

We run the very real risk of saying things that we can't back up. Just a hint: Wikipedia articles are read by 1000s of people, and I would not want to be responsible for people refusing clinically necessary imaging because of a nebulous fear of a cancer in the remote future. All we can currently really say is that the risk of cancer after people exposed to ionising radiation (as cancer therapy or as part of diagnostic imaging) is increased, and that clinicians wishing to expose patients to radiation need a good valid reason to do so, ideally making a numerical risk-benefit analysis (insofar as that's possible). What I am certain of is that commercial providers offering CT scans for screening of the "worried well" have a great deal of explaining to do! JFW | T@lk 09:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It would have been more ingenious, 79.182, if you had told us about your dispute on X-ray computed tomography upfront. JFW | T@lk 09:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

JFW, I read a study that stated, that CT scans are many time preformed due to commercial and legal reasons, and not because of clinical necessity. This means that many people are unnecessarily exposed to risk, and thus many people eventually suffer the consequences of that risk, and in the end, I don't know, but their number could out number the benefiting from CT. I guess that is what you meant by: "What I am certain of is that commercial providers offering CT scans for screening of the "worried well" have a great deal of explaining to do!".

I also read a study that stated that people that clinically need a scan do not refuse a scan after explained the risks. Thus, who really need it would still get it after evaluating the risks of a CT scan against the risk stemming from his/her condition. I think, that that evaluation should be performed, and Wikipedia could help the informing of the public to the risks, thus contributing to that the evaluation will be made. I read that many doctors are not aware of the risks.

There are alternative scans to CT, (e.g MRI, ultrasound) which are not using ionizing radiation.

79.182.215.205 (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

To answer the original question: the conclusion drawn constitutes WP:SYNTH. Thus it is not appropriate in Wikipedia's articles. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

An other example M=iodinated contrast CT scan; C=iodinated contrast; D=40mL.

79.182.215.205 (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

What Axl said - it's really important that complex risk-benefit issues be reliably sourced in their own right without recourse to dangerous WP:SYNTH. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

MistyMorn, risks and benefits are something that should be evaluated on a case by case basis, and should include the risks of the medical procedure M, which include the risks from its component C at dose D. Do you suggest to hide the risks from its component C at dose D, in the Wikipedia article about M, thus possibly influencing the risk benefit analysis?

79.182.215.205 (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

79.182, the condescending tone of that comment was unnecessary ([21]). —MistyMorn (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The solution is to find a reliable source that states "Adverse event A may follow from procedure M." If no reliable source can be found to assert that, it should not be asserted in Wikipedia's articles. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate more eyes on X-ray computed tomography. This IP appears to be adding dubiously sourced information and would appreciate more eyes to evaluate. Yobol (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Axl, if a reliable source state that adverse effect A may follow C at dose D, and M do C at dose D, then certainly the adverse effect A may follow M. I hope that everyone here are able to understand that.

I understand that it would be ideal to find a reliable source, that states "Adverse event A may follow from procedure M.", however, you can't expect researchers of component C, to conduct experiments with every medical procedure M that use C, and you can't undermine the side effect A of C, just because C is delivered during a certain medical procedure M. If it was logical to do that, then it would have been logical to undermine every adverse effect, because of irrelevant properties, such as the date, weather, mood, etc. that are different between the execution site of C and the adverse effect experiment site.

79.182.215.205 (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not a question of ideal, but a question of necessary. That's how things work here. If there's no reliable source that says "event A may follow from procedure M" then we remain silent on the matter. We're writing an encyclopedia, not conducting medical research. It's explained quite clearly at WP:SYN, but if there's anything there that is puzzling you, please feel to ask. --RexxS (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I ask - I am puzzled, that you think that concluding from M->(C,D) and (C,D)->A , that M->A, is a medical research. That is a simple law of logic, and is always true.

79.182.215.205 (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Simple law of logic or not, Wikipedia is not the place to make the initial claim. If you can find a reliable, secondary source (basically - someone else) that says M --> A, then that should definitely be added. If you cannot find such a source, then it has no place here. It's not a question of logical truth or medical research, it's a question of what merits inclusion in an encyclopedia based on criteria established long before this particular dispute arose. Canada Hky (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

So you say that logic don't have a place? If that is what you say, then I can understand why it should be impossible for me to reason with you. I don't believe that Wikipedia have the same opinion. This is just an argument about things that are as simple as semantics, e.g. instead of M, M can be called a D source, in which case all the secondary sources regarding adverse effect of D would apply to it.

79.182.215.205 (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

79.182.215.205, you continue to produce straw man arguments. I direct you again to WP:SYNTH. My solution is not an "ideal" solution; it is the only solution that is compatible with Wikipedia's rules. Indeed if the connection is as obvious as you claim, you should have no difficulty in finding an appropriate source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not just a matter of whether it's true; it's a matter of whether it's WP:DUE. If no reliable source has ever thought it worth mentioning in this particular context, then it's not worth us mentioning it, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

As there is a clear consensus on not including this material, I ask that someone please remove said material from the article, which the IP has edit-warred in. I am at 3RR and am unable to remove it. More eyes on other dubious additions by the IP would be much appreciated as well. Yobol (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Axl, I don't see how it is WP:SYNTH. Referencing WP:something without explaining how it applies, is a way of saying something without saying anything at all. If you are able to explain, be my guest. No one have explained yet, so you would be the top of the bunch. If someone eat poison, he will have adverse effects, and it is enough to source the poison. Now, you come, and tell me, oh no, it is not enough to source the poison, you need to source the machine that produced the poison too. This is ridiculous.

Axl, You said that finding your type of sources should not be a problem, but if you would look at the sources I found, you would see that it should take at least 20 years to complete them, or to repeat them. So if they would be repeated with CT, the results would be presented only 20 years from now. I don't think that it would be ethical to repeat an experiment that was found to hurt people, especially since the experts don't think that there is a significant difference in terms of the effect of the ionizing radiation on the human body, if you call the source a CT, an X-ray tube, or some other source name.

Looking at the other side of the coin, no one has proved ionizing radiation to not have the said adverse effect, and I think, that with adverse effects it should be guilty until proven innocent. If there isn't any clinical trial that prove that something is safe it should be regarded as not safe. Omitting such a fact from publish, is equivalent to saying that the procedure is safe from the adverse effect, which is a big lie. Is Wikipedia in favor of deceiving the public? Are you?

79.182.215.205 (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You asked for our views. You got our views. You didn't tell us that you were involved in an edit conflict on X-ray computed tomography. Now you are disagreeing with our views and making arguments based on the precautionary principle that do not necessarily stand up to scrutiny. Can I suggest the discussion is continued on Talk:X-ray computed tomography, rather than here? JFW | T@lk 20:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, more straw man arguments. No further discussion will be constructive. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

JFW, Thank you for your view. NickCT agreed with my view, and your comment "Particular observations about dose should be very tightly linked (in a single source, ideally) with the ramifications of dosing" seems to agree with my view too. OK, you wrote that before you knew that I am involved in an edit conflict on X-ray computed tomography, but what does that have to do with anything? I apologize if I made anyone violate some WP:always_support_your_friends_in_an_editing_conflict policy, when I didn't disclose up front that I am involved in an editing conflict on X-ray computed tomography. That said, the discussion on Talk:X-ray computed tomography continues, and I think that our discussion here has more to do with editing policy, than with any particular article. Let me know if there is a better place to discuss policy.

79.182.215.205 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This discussion was about the application of policy to a very specific situation, namely the kind of discussion you are having with regards to X-ray computed tomography. Apart from one respondent, there is a widespread perception from other editors that what you are suggesting is quite clearly against accepted policy. Please accept that we can only support content that can be sourced to WP:MEDRS-compatible high-quality secondary sources. Good day. JFW | T@lk 23:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

JFW, In the specific situation, I did find WP:MEDRS high-quality secondary sources for (C,D)->A and for M->(C,D). I think that that should be enough. I think that anyone who responded without prior knowledge of the conflict agreed, including you.

79.182.215.205 (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Au contraire, what you are engaging in is original research. I pointed this out before taking a moment to review your edit history and discovering the edit war on X-ray computed tomography. JFW | T@lk 08:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Unusual moves regarding Fallopian tube pages

Tone.itdown1901 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making moves of pages related to Fallopian tube to pages named Uterine tubes, and has appeared to move-war against another editor who moved them back. Wanted to bring this to everyone's attention, not sure how to handle it as I do not understand the rules regarding moving pages here. Yobol (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a good-faith case of Terminologia Anatomica vs. WP:COMMON.

So: what to do? Leave them at the new titles, or revert the moves? -- The Anome (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Status quo is not tenable; some titles use fallopian tubes, some use uterine tubes due to their moves. WP:COMMONNAME appears to be the overriding Wikipedia policy here. Yobol (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the pages back, and left a note on Tone.itdown1901's talk page, asking them to discuss this here before making any more unilateral page moves. -- The Anome (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

7-Keto

Could someone with medical knowledge and familiarity with WP:MEDRS, etc. please have a look at the relatively new article 7-Keto. It is well referenced, but I'm concerned that there has been cherry picking of primary sources to make unrealistic medical use claims to support its sale as a "dietary supplement" and promote its popularity. Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I've started working on it, but it definitely needs a lot of work, and any additional eyes would be appreciated. MastCell ^Talk 17:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I realize the cleanup isn't done yet, and that it can be a tough job (especially when opposed by someone with a likely conflict of interest), but I just wanted to say I appreciate the work you've done and I'm glad that we have someone like you around here that can take on tasks such as these when someone like me wouldn't really know where to even start. Deli nk (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Alexia (acquired dyslexia) is not a condition but a shared symptom

Hi Alexia is the term used for acquired dyslexia, resulting from brain injury, such as stroke, or a progressive illness, dementia. (Unfortuantely there are other articles using the name alexia) Sometime ago the name of the article was changed from Alexia (acquired dyslexia) to Alexia (condition) which is an incurate title for both article and category, especially as the alexia category is a sub category of the dyslexia, aphasias, and agnosia categories. Can someone more familiar with the hidden working of wikipedia help resolve this problem. dolfrog (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The obvious names are either "Alexia (some qualifier)" or just "Acquired dyslexia". I think a lot depends on what medical science considers alexia to be -- is it a condition, a disorder, a syndrome, a symptom, or something else? Or is "Acquired dyslexia" sufficiently synonomous with alexia that it will suffice? I don't know enough to be able to tell, but I'm sure the participants here can sort it out.

Once we have agreement about this, we will have the correct name for the article. If alexia is a condition, it should stay in place. If something else, then moving the article and changing the links can be performed through the standard Wikipedia:Requested moves process. -- The Anome (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The first reference from "Alexia (condition)" defines alexia as "the presence of a reading disorder that prevents comprehension of written language." There is no mention of the requirement of an "acquired" defect.

From Black's Medical Dictionary, 41st edition: "Alexia is another name for word blindness." And "Word blindness: Alexia, a condition in which, as the result of disease in the brain, a person becomes unable to associate their proper meanings with words, although he or she may be quite able to spell the letters." Again, in this definition, "acquired" is not mentioned.

This reference has a different, more subtle, distinction: "In describing acquired dyslexia, the two terms alexia and dyslexia can be used more or less as synonyms, although some researchers prefer to use dyslexia for developmental disorders that manifest themselves in early childhood and alexia for disorders acquired in adulthood." Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The ICD-10 lists alexia and dyslexia as symptoms within category R48 Dyslexia and other symbolic dysfunctions, not elsewhere classified. The only exclusions are for Specific developmental disorders of scholastic skills, which takes us away from the "acquired" nature of the symptom. The original name of "Alexia (acquired dyslexia)" was using a definition as a disambiguator, which was inappropriate. I presume this was the reason for the rename. I suggest that a better disambiguator would be Alexia (symptom). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Alexia is about those who have lost the ability ot read, or as described above " Alexia, a condition in which, as the result of disease in the brain, a person becomes unable to associate their proper meanings with words, although he or she may be quite able to spell the letters." so the dyslexia was acquired as a result of a disease affecting rthe brain. Dyslexia is about having problems with a mana made communication system the visual notation of speech, or having problems with the graphic symbols society chooses to represent the sounds of speech. Various writing systems have evolved requiring subtly different cognitive skills to perform the task of reading, and further still there are different langauges in each of the writing systems which more variations of the cognitive skills required to perfom the tak of reading based due to the varying comlexity of the language structure or orthography. So dyslexia is langauge dependent. There are two types of dyslexia, developmental dyslexia which has a genetic origin, and at least three cognitive subtypes: auditory, visual, and attentional; which means that an auditory processing disorder, a visual processing disorder, an attention disorder or any combination of the can cause the dyslexia symptom. Alexia or acquired dyslexia is the result of brain injury, substance abuse, stroke, or progressive illness, where the individuals havfe lost their previously developed reading abilities, so the yhave acquired dyslexic symptom. In societies that do not use the visual notation of speech as a form of communication there is no dyslexia, but the underlying issues that cause the dyslexic symptom do exist in these communities. Dictionaries are only as good as the sources used to create them, and usually well behind advances in research and technologies that explain many complex medical issues, and are guide to the visual notation of speech used by a specific comunity. dolfrog (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You might like to have a look at

• Cherney LR (2004). "Aphasia, alexia, and oral reading". Top Stroke Rehabil. 11 (1): 22–36. PMID 14872397.
• Temple CM (2006). "Developmental and acquired dyslexias". Cortex. 42 (6): 898–910. doi:10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70434-9. PMID 17131596. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Leff AP, Behrmann M (2008). "Treatment of reading impairment after stroke". Curr. Opin. Neurol. 21 (6): 644–8. doi:10.1097/WCO.0b013e3283168dc7. PMID 18989106. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Sinanović O, Mrkonjić Z, Zukić S, Vidović M, Imamović K (2011). "Post-stroke language disorders". Acta Clin Croat. 50 (1): 79–94. PMID 22034787. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Kazui H, Takeda M (2011). "[Language impairment and semantic memory loss of semantic dementia]". Brain Nerve (in Japanese). 63 (10): 1047–55. PMID 21987562. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

as a sample of some of the research avialable dolfrog (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

and the reference mentioned above from 1977

• Damasio AR (1977). "Varieties and significance of the alexias". Arch. Neurol. 34 (6): 325–6. doi:10.1001/archneur.1977.00500180019003. PMID 860934. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

The WikiProject Dyslexia has been inactive for some time now, but you might like to have a look at the last set of objectives set out in 2010, which includes three lists of the various ways alexia has been classified Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Proposed organization dolfrog (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

These sources do support your statement "Alexia or acquired dyslexia is the result of brain injury, substance abuse, stroke, or progressive illness, where the individuals havfe lost their previously developed reading abilities, so the yhave acquired dyslexic symptom." One question in my mind is this: if someone who had never learned to read in the first place (for example through lack of educational opportunity) and then had an adult injury or disease affecting these areas of the brain, effectively rendering his illiteracy permanent (barring heroic effort), would he not also be alexic? Most of these definitions in effect say no, he must first have learned to read before this term applies. The Black's definition for "alexia" via "word blindness" on the other hand says yes. The more basic issue though, is that by using the prefix "a-" to mean "acquired dys-" one loses the root meanings (of "a-" = "not-", which should be kept distinct from "dys-" = "bad-") which seriously confuses the reader. We'd be better off to Use English without the Greek loanwords, titling the article "word blindness" with redirects from "alexia" and "acquired dyslexia". No objection to an explanation under whatever article name, but I don't think that's enough. Further, given that there is a high likelyhood that this article will be of special interest to people who have difficulties reading, there are special reasons for avoiding obscure language in this case. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

From the sounds of it, you could cherry-pick sources to support whatever definition you wanted. Different fields have different definitions. An expert in educational difficulties uses a different definition than the experts in other areas. I think the first step is going to be deciding what the article is actually about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

For an additional recent review source, I'd suggest Sinanović O, Mrkonjić Z, Zukić S, Vidović M, Imamović K (2011 Mar). "Post-stroke language disorders". Acta Clin Croat. 50 (1): 79–94. PMID 22034787. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) which has a nice discussion on the various aphasias.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes that article provides a very good review of the issues especially realted to the Acute aphsia (stroke) issues, and also helps explain the issue you raise "One question in my mind is this: if someone who had never learned to read in the first place" there are various medical barriers with regard to learning to use the visual notation of speech, the written word and these issues can be genetic which is developmental dyslexia, or acquired dyslexia as a result of brain injury and this casn happen at a very young age say as a result of transient ischemic attack (TIA) i am aware of an infant girl who suffeeed from TIA, which would mean that she had an acquired form of dyslexia. And there are also those who have can acquire say an auditory processing disorder as a result of otitis media with effusion, who would also have an acquired dyslexia. There is nominal issue with the phrase "word blindness" as this implies only a visual deficit, and omits the auditory related problems that can be part a reading disability, dyslexia. So may be the best option would be "Acquired dyslexia" with redirects from the various other multiple options. There are also the various subtypes of alexia which have variouis names most include either dyslexia or alexia in their names, there is only one subtype that includes "word blindness" in the various alternative name options and that is Pure Alexia which is also known as "Pure word blindness". An other issue is after reading our artlce readers may wish to carry out more research, and they would be best served to research under the tile "acquired dyslexia" or "alexia" as opposed to "word blindeness" especially when searching for research resources. Educationists need to work with the clinically diagnosed issues which can cause these types of disabilities, to help understand and to help develop the alternative cognitive compensating skills and abilities each individual may be able to use to work around trheir problems. Currently much of educationalist appraoaches are based more on the marketing of remedial programs rather than identifying the real needs of the dyslexic based on a clinical medical assessment. dolfrog (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not certain that your TIA example is correct. An brain injury occurring in the developmental period is commonly considered to be the same as one arising from other causes.

To give an example, if you had two people, one age 17 and one age 19, who incurred identical cases of severe brain damage leading to a substantial loss of IQ (say, due to near-drowning or a motor vehicle accident), then the first has "mental retardation" and the second does not, because MR is defined as substantial intellectual problems with evidence that they appeared before age 18 ("during the developmental period"). There is no exclusion based on the cause. Down syndrome in babies and car wrecks in 17 year olds are treated identically by the people writing the definitions. (IMO they shouldn't be, but they are.) I suspect that the definitions for dyslexia run the same way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this one of these national issues that varies from country to country, never head of it before dolfrog (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

So which is the preferred title for this article and resulting category? I can see that my preferred option Alexia (acquired dyslexia) is a non starter. From the currently existing redirect pages from my perspective the next best option would be Acquired dyslexia with mention of "also known as Alexia" in the lead sentence. This will also help explain how some of the subtypes are either called dyslexia or alexia, depending on the various forms of classification. Another suggestion has been Alexia (symptom), which is true for all dyslexia, but does not differentiate from developmental dyslexia other main type of dyslexic symptom. Which do you prefer Acquired dyslexia or Alexia (symptom) ? dolfrog (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Medical query: Talk:Anal sex#Encyclopedic tone and WP:HOWTO

Comments are needed about whether or not saying that anal sex "generally requires a generous application of a personal lubricant to prevent tearing, since the anus does not have sufficient natural lubrication" is a how-to violation/doesn't belong in the lead or possibly in the article. One view is that it is unencyclopedic; the other view is that it is a medical fact worthy of mentioning. Flyer22 (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This issue seems well-discussed and to have reached consensus. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Health insurance mandate

OK, I realize that this is a politically controversial topic, and it's U.S. election season, so you're probably well-advised to stay far, far away, but... I think our article on Health insurance mandate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs work. In my personal opinion, it's focused almost entirely on presenting one side of the current U.S. political debate about mandates, and lacks things a general reader might expect from an encyclopedia article.

There are a number of good sources, including a recent piece in the New Yorker by Ezra Klein. Unfortunately I'm having a somewhat difficult discussion on the talk page (see Talk:Health insurance mandate#History of mandate), so additional input and eyes would be much appreciated to help move things forward, whether or not you agree with my edits. MastCell ^Talk 17:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I had severe problems with that editor on the paroxetine article, where he personalized issues to the point of asserting I was mentally ill. He edits from a strong health freedom movement-based POV. Eventually I gave up. Skinwalker (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Now that I look at it, the health freedom movement article is an utter disaster. Separate issue, though. Skinwalker (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I took a brief look at Talk:Paroxetine (a brief look was all I could stand), and I think the same issues are operative here (namely, excessive personalization and WP:OWNership). I don't really have the energy to tackle the article by myself in the face of that sort of behavior, but if others are willing to help moderate and provide a sanity check I'd be interested. MastCell ^Talk 19:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be little activity on the paroxetine page fore some time. I find this site to be useful for refs for medication related articles http://www.drugs.com/monograph/paxil.html Doc James (talk · contribs · email)(please leave replies on my talk page) 19:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't SCOTUS supposed to announce its ruling on the health insurance mandate next week? I'd put off any work on that article until then, because it will have to be re-done then anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. I actually went to the article because I figured it would get a lot of hits when the decision comes out, and I was sort of disappointed at the state it's in. I was working on a few paragraphs on the political/intellectual history of the mandate, because I figured that would be relevant no matter how the decision goes. And of course we all know they're going to strike down the mandate by a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, so we may as well get a head start. :| MastCell ^Talk 03:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The Supreme Court, deciding things politically? Unpossible! Yobol (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Quiet down and eat your government-mandated broccoli. :P MastCell ^Talk 17:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS at GA

Have nominate this page for GA. Feedback / help appreciated especially with virology / pathophysiology and history / society sections. Once improvements are completed this articles will be translated to other languages per [22] Doc James (talk · contribs · email)(please leave replies on my talk page) 18:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I added a link to an international media article and made a comment on the talk page. A problem the article has is lack of information about social response in non-Western societies, and that link helps a little. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hypomania

Article history

An assistant professor of psychiatry, John Gartner, wrote a book diagnosing Bill Clinton with hypomania. Then another, wherein he attributes the success of various historical and living people to hypomania.

British Socialist (talk · contribs) has assigned the symptom to a litany of people in the article, Hypomania, all based either on speculations in one of Gartner's books or on reviews of Gartner's books.

It all seems utterly inappropriate to me - remotely diagnosing living (or dead) people, and even mentioning Gartner's book in this article. But I don't have the energy or taste for this one. So I'm unwatching and leaving this here in case others are up to it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Since it's attributed WP:INTEXT as one source's opinion, I could go either way, but if it's kept, it at least wants a link to retrospective diagnosis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This would seem to be a WP:BLP issue as well. Are we really going to add information about supposed psychiatric diagnoses on here based on the speculation of one author? Yobol (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Salmon patch, stork bite, port-wine stain

Salmon patch and stork bite should both be redirected to nevus simplex. At present they redirect to variations on the Latin term "nevus flammeus", which is something different - a port-wine stain. An NF/PWS is life-long and can be associated with certain syndromes, while an NS is benign and usually disappears soon. The sources currently on those articles are unreliable, probably because the terms have been used incorrectly in the past (as mentioned in the JAAD article I linked). The term "Midline nevus flammeus" seems to be original research as it can't be found anywhere online except in pages derived from wikipedia, and in any case, a mark on the eyelid is hardly in the midline. I have found three newer reliable sources, so hopefully you guys will agree and fix the articles. Newborn Skin, AAFP 2008 - see NEVUS FLAMMEUS and NEVUS SIMPLEX sections halfway down the page; Stanford photo gallery; and Juern et al. JAAD 2010 (PDF for those of you without access) 78.148.150.205 (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

X-ALD vs. N-ALD vs. AMN

Pages in question:

• Adrenoleukodystrophy
• Neonatal adrenoleukodystrophy
• Adrenomyeloneuropathy
• User:Canada_Hky/XALD

When I stumbled upon these pages, NALD was lumped in (and a redirect) to ALD. AMN is a separate page. I have already split NALD onto its own page (currently a very pathetic stub), but wanted some input before redirecting / merging the info from AMN into the ALD page. I have also started rewriting ALD in my userspace, but that is kind of an aside. I can't think of any good examples to look up for a disease with distinct phenotypes but no genotype-phenotype correlations. My personal preference would be to keep the conditions based on a single genetic defect as a single page. I was wondering if there was any precedent for this situation. AMN + ALD with NALD as a separate entity is consistent with OMIM's setup. Canada Hky (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

source quality

Are these two sources of sufficient quality for WP:MEDRS?

first source http://www.icrp.org/docs/Tissue%20Reactions%20Report%20Draft%20for%20Consultation.pdf

second source http://www.icrp.org/docs/icrp%20statement%20on%20tissue%20reactions.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenpog (talk • contribs) 16:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The International Commission on Radiological Protection is generally reputable, but the first is an unapproved draft, which isn't usually the best choice. I didn't look at the second. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Most quality reviews are similarly unapproved drafts since the commission didnt approve them. Why this extensive review should be considered any less?

The second source is an official approval of some of the first source. See this link: "At its meeting in Seoul in April 2011 the International Commission on Radiological Protection approved a Statement on Tissue Reactions." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.219.16 (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

While the first reference mentions CT scans the second does not. And as this is what you are hoping to use it to support it must. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 02:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The two sources are linked and the intention is to publish them in a single document: "The intention is to publish this Statement in the Annals of the ICRP together with the report “Early and late effects of radiation in normal tissues and organs: threshold doses for tissue reactions and other non-cancer effects of radiation in a radiation protection context” once consultation comments on the latter have been taken into account."

I still don't see a valid reason to consider the first source less good than any other review.--Nenpog (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The first is an unpublished draft. It should not be used as a source. Yobol (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If it isn't published, then what is this publication page?

Sure, it doesn't have the approval stamp of the ICRP for all its content, but it is just as good a review as any other, and some of the conclusions were approved by the stamp of the ICRP by the second source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenpog (talk • contribs) 03:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Article Reassessment Request

Would anyone be willing to reassess the Touro University California page please? I recently nominated it for good article status (it was definitely understandable why it failed) and it is currently ranked a C-class article (it was previously ranked higher and probably didn't deserve the higher rating) but I have worked on the page considerably and though I don't think it's ready for good article status just yet I think it can go up to B class at least. I would deeply appreciate it if someone could reassess the page and give me comments on how to further improve the article. I can be reached at my talk page. Thank you! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I gave it a C-class rating because I felt like it was probably incomplete. If someone has a different opinion, then I don't mind it being changed.

You might look at some similar articles (e.g., in Category:Pharmacy schools in California) to see if you can find ideas. Also, a lot of the page is sourced to the school's own website, which is of course self-published and non-independent. To the extent that it's feasible, you should look for independent sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The article went through GA review and a lot of the advice given there was not taken. Besides the sources being self published the references are bare urls, which makes evaluating the sources more difficult. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Savient pharmacies

This company via User:Gout2012 appears to be trying to increase knowledge about Refractory chronic gout with the launch of their new medication pegloticase [23]. We already discuss this medication here [24] in the main gout article. IMO this should be a redirect as it is mostly a cotract.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 23:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not know whether Refractory chronic gout and gout as concepts need separate articles, but I can see that the sources used on chronic refractory gout mostly refer to gout. I proposed a merge. It might be that the entirety of that new article repeats content from gout. Let's see if the new user responds on that article's talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes basically does and uses sources that are not as good. Thus merged. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 23:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Collaboration with the WHO ICD 11

The WHO's person leading the efforts to develop the ICD 11 is interested in working with us. I guess one of the things we will need to resolve is copyright issues at the WHO. I am in the process of writing a piece on the topic. If others are interested in helping please drop me a note. A further description is here Wikipedia:MED/ICD11Doc James (talk · contribs · email)(please leave replies on my talk page) 19:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know, James! I also talked with the WHO official, the fact that they use copyright while our content is under CC license, will make things a bit complicated, but we should find a solution. NCurse _work 09:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes the solution will hopefully be that they will either use public domain or CC BY SA or simply CC BY. They are starting to get some heat about their copyright stance especially with the World Bank now being more liberal / open.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 00:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully, they will soon make this step, it would make their job much easier. NCurse _work 06:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Organic food

More eyes on this article, please. A couple of IPs are edit warring in dubiously sourced material about the health effects of organic food. Yobol (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The article is now semi-protected and the issue is resolved for now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Invitation: WikiProject Globalization

Hello, WikiProject Globalization is a new project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of aspects of Globalization and the organization of information and articles on this topic. We would like to make a special invitation to WikiProject Medicine members to join this effort in strengthening articles related to the globalization and disease and other transboundary health and medicine issues. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Thank you, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

We are already working on a project to increase our global medicine coverage here [25] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 23:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Can I get a little help?

I am not saying that I am in the right, but I am getting several notifications on my talk page stating that photos I uploaded are going to be deleted. This includes two that I took myself (see: File:Plaque of mycosis fungoides 1.jpg (already deleted; can we get this one back?), and File:Plaque of mycosis fungoides 2.jpg). Can someone look over these warnings on my talk page and determine if the images should be deleted? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears that someone believed that the images weren't taken by you. The second CSD was declined as "ridiculous", which is not an inappropriate description, given that it's linking to a Wikipedia WP:MIRROR. The usual thing to do is to contact the deleting admin and ask him how to label a picture so that when you say "I created this work entirely by myself", he will actually know that you mean "I created this work entirely by myself". I'd have thought it tolerably obvious, but apparently he did not think that those words meant what they say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

And what about the other images? *1*

• File:Lichen nitidus.jpg
• File:Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis.jpg
• File:Factitious dermatitis.jpg

The journal states "This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited." So do they have to be deleted? -- My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Plaque of mycosis fungoides 1.jpg appears to have been deleted with the rationale that it is copied from http://explow.com/mycosis which the images at that link appear as copyrighted, as stated at the bottom of the page. However; the image is not from what I can see, found on this page or even at the Wikipedia mirrored article at that site, which is not under their discretion to copyright. I have restored the image and removed the tag and will note this at the image's talk page. Calmer Waters 04:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That picture is indeed on the explow.com page, third row from the bottom. It links to the Wikimedia page Plaque_of_mycosis_fungoides_2.jpg. This image is the only one on the page that links from Wikimedia Commons. (One of the pictures links to a page that is flagged by my antivirus as an attack page.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You are right Axl. I swear my eyes must have been playing tricks on me last night :). Calmer Waters 18:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at the three images above also. It appears that http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/copyright/ states that unless specifically stated, all images submitted should be considered under copyright by their prospective submitters. File:Lichen nitidus.jpg it does state that it is copyrighted by IJD and that they release their works under the CC as long as the work is properly cited per http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2887524/figure/F0001/. The same with File:Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis.jpg at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763760/figure/F0004/. However I am weary of File:Factitious dermatitis.jpg because all I can see is that it is an open access journal, It has not stated under what license it has released any of its images under and the image itself does not give any information either within the article or when clicking on upon. Calmer Waters 05:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that the three images at *1* above are probably OK. For example, for File:Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis.jpg we arrive ultimately at this page which has a clear CC licence. Likewise I would be wary of File:Factitious_dermatitis.jpg.

I wish to defend my use of the word "ridiculous" - see the speedy tag. The image is accused of being a copyvio from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4f/Plaque_of_mycosis_fungoides_2.jpg but that is the actual name of the full size version of the image. Don't you agree that it is ridiculous to accuse an image of being a copyvio of itself. Sorry about deleting File:Plaque of mycosis fungoides 1.jpg - I saw two thumbnails side by side in CAT:CSD - they looked identical so I deleted one as a duplicate upload.

My Core …: will you now please tag File:Plaque of mycosis fungoides 2.jpg for deletion - we do not need two almost identical images. And will you please stop uploading here - the Commons is the proper place for free-use images. Also learn to create wikilinks with spaces rather than underscores. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help looking into this matter, and RHaworth, I will work to improve me editing based on your feedback here (and with regard to uploading images into the commons, I had been uploading here due to problems logging into the Commons due to a software bug, but that issue is now resolved). I will tag one of the MF photos for deletion. Can I remove the "missing evidence of permission" tags from the other three images at *1*? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Do a similar edit to this one to File:Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis.jpg. I have fixed File:Factitious dermatitis.jpg. As for Commons - serve you right for choosing such a … user name. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I tagged them originally because they weren't a http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov document, just a window to a foreign journal (Indian J Dermatol) - following that link I arrived at http://www.e-ijd.org/article.asp?issn=0019-5154;year=2008;volume=53;issue=4;spage=221;epage=222;aulast=Mehta, which has on it's page a box that says "(C) Get Permissions for Commercial use" - following that link to http://www.copyright.com/openurl.do?sid=Medknow&issn=0019-5154&servicename=all&WT.mc_id=Medknow shows a "pay per use" page - thus it appeared that Commercial Use was not included, and hence not suitable for Wikipedia.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A "smart" recent changes page for WP:MED articles

I see at WP:MED there are two links to recent changes pages, but I see drawbacks to each and I was thinking a "smarter" version could be more efficient. I was thinking of something that appears like Tim1357's page. The main difference I am proposing is that there would be a # of certain trusted users who could approve recent changes to articles tagged under WP:MED, thus making them invisible. That way we know what really needs attention, and we would longer waste time double/triple etc. reviewing things. I've spent a little bit of time here looking at recent changes to medicine articles, but one reason I haven't done as much lately is because it seems inefficient. In a future page, I imagine higher quality articles could appear more urgent, with maybe GAs italicized and FAs bolded. An essay could be developed to describe when one would and wouldn't clear a recent change. If a "trusted user" becomes untrusted, maybe there could be WT:MED discussion with an uninvolved admin to close the discussion to eliminate access. Of course, even if developed there's no guarantee this tool would be successful, but the potential payoff seems big enough to try. Biosthmors (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you proposing that we start using existing tools or that a developer should create new tools? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't make that clear. I'm proposing a new tool, and I wonder if there is any interest in having it developed. I imagine it could be an efficient way to sift through recent changes. If I'm missing out on existing tools, let me know. The two I've seen are listed at the WP:MED page (at the bottom of "Other ideas") section. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds a little like Pending changes? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 18:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, except it would just be an optional additional watchlist tool for those with familiarity with MEDRS and MEDMOS. Biosthmors (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that I should be on any list of trusted users. Double-checking is often a good thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Double checking is good, so I'm not proposing any change to current watchlists. I just don't like the idea of people triple/quadruple/etc. checking harmless recent changes, though I'm not sure how often this happens in practice. Biosthmors (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd use this if reviewed changes were simply marked "Reviewed by: User X, User:Y" but not invisible. It wouldn't stop me from double-checking their work, but would highlight changes that have been overlooked by experienced med editors. The reviewer would need to tick a box. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Artificial heart valve

Resolved

 – I think. Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate another opinion on this edit. It looks like puffery for a valve that's not yet received approval. I reverted a similar edit a couple of days ago. It's too late here for me to give it due attention. Perhaps I'm misreading. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Politely removed per WP:MEDRS and WP:ADVERT, not to mention WP:UNDUE. —MistyMorn (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The last sentence in particular is merely promotion. I don't think there's any need to mention this specific brand of valve, probably best to get rid. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

TED talks as references

A user is wondering if this is appropriate for prostate cancer

Diet has been implicated in the development of prostate cancer, and stress management and diet can slow or reverse the progression of cancer.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 02:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It's obviously not the best possible/most academic source, but is the last half even true? This might be a significant DUE violation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The user in question has subsequently attempted to remove a bunch of review articles from 2010 and 2011 stating that they are old [26]. Have submitted a 3RR. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 03:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt that for the Ornish video to be considered a reliable source, its authority must lie solely with the expertise of the author, since there is no visible editorial or peer-review process for the works that appear on ted.com. Dean Ornish is a notable academic with strong views on the influence of lifestyle on health, but looking at his publications, I'm not seeing much beyond a series of primary studies dating back to the 1990s that cannot be used to refute the conclusions of recent secondary sources. I think there may be just about sufficient weight to use his attributed view where there is a clear controversy, but otherwise it seems to be on a par with Linus Pauling and vitamin C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RexxS (talk • contribs) 16:41, 6 July 2012‎

Edits on Anesthesia

There appears to be an attempt to promote OMFS as practitioners of anesthesia on that page. Outside comments would be helpful. The same editor has been edit warring to include this gem on the OMFS page, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Yobol (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

On the anaesthesia page he provides a source that sounds incredulous from a UK perspective. It makes out oral and maxillofacial surgeons like superheroes. Perhaps in the USA they actually do administer their own general anaesthesia and manage the airway. JFW | T@lk 22:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the reference. I would normally regard it as a reliable source, but the claims seem rather ... bold. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Prostate cancer

User above is now attempting to remove review articles from 2010/2011 saying that they are old and out of date. Extra eyes appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 21:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you and the editor in question have worked out the immediate issue - is that correct? MastCell ^Talk 05:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Beginning too. Extra eye however are appreciated.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 06:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I echo Doc James' call for more eyes. Would also benefit from eyes on Mammography, Breast cancer and Breast cancer screening where this editor has also been editing. This editor has a particularly "aggressive" style of editing, and seems to be under the impression that any opinion not published in the last year is "outdated". Yobol (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Or that anything not published by the Cochrane group is not suitable for Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 00:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Here [27] he states he thinks only Cochrane should be used. Here he calls a review from 8 months ago "old" [28]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 01:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to watch all these pages and also related ones. NCurse _work 06:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 13:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Childbirth

I would appreciate more eyes on this page. A familiar editor to those who have been watching the prostate cancer and breast cancer pages recently has been adding information to WP:SYNTHesize dangers of induction of labor before 39 weeks using primary studies. Some of the material also does not appear to be supported by the sources provided. Yobol (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I saw that primary research paper and that he added it. Am meaning to see if there are secondary sources that support this.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 03:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There are dangers for inducing labor at any point. There are also dangers for not inducing labor. This is really a question of balancing benefits and risks. For example, in the presence of preeclampsia, you may well have a choice between inducing early or planning a funeral.

James, when you look for sources, please see whether you can find sources that differentiate between early inductions "for cause" and early inductions for convenience. The recent changes in the article seem to be using all early inductions and claiming that it proves something specifically about early inductions in healthy mothers. It seems likely to me that the serious medical problems that lead to many early inductions might be more likely to produce the harms that are being touted here than the isolated fact of slightly early delivery. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That was my impression. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 13:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate more input on the talk page of the article, especially regarding the appropriateness of primary studies in the article, the recent additions to the lead, and the single-minded focus and WP:WEIGHT on the dangers of pre-39 week induced labor. This editor continues to add disputed content, and would appreciate input on whether I'm misreading policy. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes agree much of it needs fixing. The headings are too long. The sources need fixing up. etc. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 02:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)