Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

List of archives



QuackGuru, I've just gotten through all this. Starting seven RfCs on one article in a dozen days makes it hard to keep up with responses. Could you slow down a bit on new RfCs, please? HLHJ (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Electric smoking systemEdit

See Talk:Electric smoking system#Aerosol and smoke. QuackGuru (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Marketing of electronic cigarettesEdit

See Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes#Proposal to redirect. Is the page a POV Fork? QuackGuru (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Electronic cigaretteEdit

See Talk:Electronic cigarette#Nicotine and Passive vaping sections. Should both sections be deleted? QuackGuru (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  • commented (on 2 of 3 of the above post)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Electric smoking systemEdit

See Talk:Electric smoking system#First sentence. Should we include the word "smoke", "nicotine" or "tar" in the first sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Article scopeEdit

An RfC on the scope of the article needs input, along with a logically-connected move request. Of course, the move request will close before the scope RfC...   HLHJ (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Electric smoking systemEdit

See Talk:Electric_smoking_system#Re-RfC_on_IQOS_content. QuackGuru (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Electric smoking systemEdit

See Talk:Electric_smoking_system#Re-RfC_on_pizza_image. QuackGuru (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Electronic cigaretteEdit

See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Safer_than_tobacco_claim. QuackGuru (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Question about Template:Abnormal_clinical_and_laboratory_findings_for_bloodEdit

Hi there. I'm a new editor, so sorry if this is a silly question. I've been working on an article about an abnormal blood smear finding, Draft:Critical green inclusions, and if the article is accepted at AfC I'd like to add it to Template:Abnormal_clinical_and_laboratory_findings_for_blood. However, the title of this template includes ICD-10 codes, so does that mean that only findings listed in ICD-10 are allowed in the template? And of course, any feedback on my draft would be appreciated. :) Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't comment on the template use, but I'd suggest using the medical tests manual of style to format the article as it currently exists. Nice work, and thank you for the contribution. Ian Furst (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Don't worry about the lack of a specific inclusion term in the ICD. Classifications can't cover everything. As a coder, I'd use R72 if I saw that finding (and it wasn't linked to another condition by the clinician). I forget which templates can be listed on draft space articles, but {{Infobox diagnostic}} or {{Infobox medical condition}} with {{medical resources}} might be of interest here. Little pob (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your help. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal - "Adrenaline" and "Epinephrine (medication)"Edit

I have proposed that the articles Adrenaline and Epinephrine (medication) be merged. Discussion and input is welcome here. --Kwekubo (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

was moved--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Requesting stub article for "embryotoxic" / "embryotoxicity"Edit

The term "embryotoxic" occurs a few dozen articles, and "embryotoxicity" in two or three.


Can we please make a stub article defining these terms? (Or make a redirect to an appropriate definition in an existing article.)

(I'm not asking for a definition of these terms here, I'm asking that a stub or redirect be created.)

Thanks - 2804:14D:5C59:8300:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Is Teratology an appropriate redirect for now? Little pob (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I think that's the closest we have. Fetotoxic and Fetotoxicity should be redirected there, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  Done All four redirected to teratology, and tagged with {{R from subtopic}} and {{R with possibilities}}. Little pob (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! - 2804:14D:5C59:8300:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Suicide awarenessEdit

Have raised some concerns on the talk page HERE.

Wondering others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Best link or redirect optionEdit

I am looking for the best option to link occupational health monitoring. Any suggestions? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I may have missed it, but there doesn't seem to be an over-arcing article on the health and safety agencies around the globe. So probably redirect to Occupational safety and health? Little pob (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
There is also Workplace health surveillance Waughd (talk) 10:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
That looks like the better option. Little pob (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Good enough for now. Thanks, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 19:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Lassa fever lead checkEdit

Hello. An article on Lassa fever has just been published in WikiJMed (doi:10.15347/wjm/2019.002). I've just used it to expand the Lassa fever Wikipedia article (before, after). I've also updated the infobox image to something a bit more dynamic. I know that WP:Med has additional guidelines on article leads. Could someone with more experience in this have a check whether any of the abstract here be useful for the lead? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 12:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Evolution and evolvability for this sort of effort to work WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS must be followed by the WJMED. In this case it was not. I am working to correct the changes. Do you want me to also correct the WJMED article? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Found some copyright issues unfortunately, so have rolled back the changes in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@Doc James: Thank you! Both significant problems and I've contacted the author and editors to notify them. The Copyvio issue seems to have been introduced after our copyvio check at submission so will need to be dealt with immediately. The MEDMOS issue is also a major shortfall. I've created a copy at this link and anyone at WP:MED welcome to direct edit or write a list of problems on its talkpage for the author to address - whichever you prefer. I'll also raise updating our procedures to prevent anything similar in future. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 01:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
If you compare the first draft to just to the WHO site it shows a 70.8 violation possible, but if run as a search it finds nothing. Much of the text at issue seems to be in both versions of articles. I can't figure out why Copyvio didn't see it in the first draft. Waughd (talk) 02:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


Recently, the article Sustanon was turned into a dab page after being moved to Testosterone propionate/testosterone phenylpropionate/testosterone isocaproate/testosterone decanoate and a separate article created at Testosterone propionate/testosterone phenylpropionate/testosterone isocaproate. Both of these article titles are horrendously cumbersome, and certainly not WP:COMMONNAMES. I think they should be merged under the title Sustanon again, notwithstanding the usual guideline of listing drugs under generic names. (Pinging @Medgirl131:, who created the dab page.)

I don’t want to formally propose the merge myself, as my schedule is unpredictably intermittent these days. — Gorthian (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

We generally go with generic not brand names per WP:PHARMMOS
User:Medgirl131 edits are compliant with the guidelines so restoring them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Bioelectromagnetic medicineEdit

An interesting fresh article needing more eyes. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 11:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

A collection of woo. I removed a number of claims based on primary or animal studies, and that didn't leave much. It really needs somebody who knows what the best sources are to check further. --RexxS (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I didn't mention that, but, it's the reason I posted the notice, of course.  I'm not an MD, but remember of the use of vibrations for bone healing, and of course radiotherapy and magnetic resonance; the rest seemed dubious... —PaleoNeonate – 18:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Public Health Emergency of International ConcernEdit

Hi anyone...I have nominated this for dyk...would anyone like to edit or expand? Whispyhistory (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

did a few edits[1]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
thank you Whispyhistory (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Anatomy schematics (2nd edition)Edit


a few days ago (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_123#Anatomy_schematics) I mentioned interesting anatomy charts being published by the University of Geneva. I am delighted to announce that Unige has agreed to publish these documents under a Cc-by-sa licence, and that they are now online on Commons. They are currently in PDF form, we can convert to PNG and especially in SVG to translated the labels into languages other than English and French.

I hope you enjoy them. Cheers! Rama (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Rama very good news, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree thanks for your work on this User:Rama Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Super, —PaleoNeonate – 18:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't mind playing around with some of them to convert to SVG with multilingual labels. Are the pdf's the only image type we will receive? (If so, I'll need to remove the existing labels and recreate with svg text - but if we have blank diagrams, it will save some work). Ian Furst (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I work at the universtiy of Geneva and I'm the one who drew the diagrams. I used illustrator and still have the original files that I can share with you. Which format you prefer? Is SVG OK? Rom1D13 (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rom1D13:The svg files would be perfect, or the .ai format is fine too as I also use illustrator. My plan is to move the labels to the bottom of the svg code, and put them in <g> blocks with code to look at the system language preference. If you want to email me through the Wikimail, we can find somewhere to share the files. Thank you again for doing this!Ian Furst (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


StatPearls publishes fairly simple overviews / reviews of topics. They have 4,676 that are currently pubmed indexed.[2] They cover broad topics that other review article may not and additionally they are under an open license specifically CC BY 4.0. Well not a perfect source an okay starting point in my opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

[3]yes a good source--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:Australian anesthesiologists has been nominated for discussionEdit


Category:Australian anesthesiologists, of interest to this project, has been nominated for possible renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC).

Watchlist managementEdit

I've been trying to reduce the size of my watchlist, the hope that I'll use it more. I just found out about an option in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist to "Add direct unwatch/watch markers (×/+) to watched pages with changes" option. It might make it easier to edit your watchlist as you go. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, WAID, that's handy. Alternatively, if you already have Navigation popups enabled (and why would anyone not have them enabled?), then you can hover over any page name in your watchlist and pick 'actions → un|watch' from the resulting popup. --RexxS (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Auto-fill based on PMIDEdit

This appears to be broken for some time now per Wikipedia_talk:RefToolbar#Auto-fill_based_on_PMID_is_down.

This backups appears to be down.[4]

But this one by User:Nephron appear to be still working.[5]. Nephron wondering if you could help fix ours?

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Might be related to this Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try that, I've been using this one for just PMID and a different one for DOI. Waughd (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
The ref tool bar still works for DOIs Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC on whether or not women are overwhelmingly the victims of domestic violence/intimate partner violence on a global scaleEdit

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Domestic violence#Request for Comments on whether women are globally the overwhelming victims of domestic violence. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested page name changeEdit

Have requested a page name change from Pneumatosis to its given aka Emphysema. Emphysema was previously merged to COPD. Normally it would be a simple case of WP:COMMON NAME. Any thoughts or input would be welcome here. Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Emphysema commonly means COPD. It is less commonly and technically used to mean pneumotosis. The usage stats of this term we see via Google hits is not for this article specifically but for COPD. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal for Medical technologist and Medical laboratory scientistEdit

I've proposed that Medical technologist be merged with Medical laboratory scientist. If you'd like to comment on the proposal you can do so here. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


I'm not even sure this is the right place to ask this but can someone with more medical knowledge than me (the bar is low, I don't understand any of this) take a look at this grade-A garbage? I took out some refspam and I'm inclined to agree with this ip's assessment as well. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: This is indeed the right place to ask. I was part-way through surgically removing all the bits of woo sourced to primary studies and to the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (I wonder why they don't have an article</sarcasm>), when Doc James took an axe to it. --RexxS (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes redirected this brand name to the generic name for what is being discussed. User in question has added links around Wikipedia which I am cleaning up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Semi-relatedly, I wonder if WP:MED doesn't need to have a writing guide similar to WP:JWG (and its COI advice). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Headbomb I think they do, WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDCOI. Waughd (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah that's what I had in mind. WP:MEDCOI is a bit short, but it doesn't necessarily have to be longer. If you feel the 'how to' table of WP:JWG#COI is worth important, feel free to steal it! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on Mayo Clinic on the reliable sources noticeboardEdit

There is a discussion on the reliability of Mayo Clinic on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Mayo Clinic. — Newslinger talk 22:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Draft talk:CredibleMeds#Opinions of subject matter experts soughtEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Draft talk:CredibleMeds#Opinions of subject matter experts sought. Worldbruce (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I've left my opinion. CredibleMdds is a really valuable resource and has adequate secondary coverage. The draft, currently a stub, is encyclopaedic enough in its current state but could do with expansion, especially given the volume of references found to support the text so far. PeaBrainC (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

AFC Reviewer neededEdit

The draft looks good to be honest, but I want to ensure that this is not a hoax. It'd be pretty terrible of me to approve an article like this without ensuring the information within is completely accurate. Ping for response. Cheers, –MJLTalk 17:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

reads like an 'ad'[6]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Not a hoax, but part of a bigger "liquid biopsy" initiative that's very early in development from Johns Hopkins (just based on ready, I have no personal knowledge of the topic). UroSEEK, CancerSEEK, and PapSEEK. I cannot find who is funding all of this from the article but I think it's something we should look into. E.g. should the generic 'liquid biopsy' where genetic mutations are detected in the fluids from around a tumor, or some other term be used. Or specific pages for each cancer that can be detected in this way? Also, is it clear to everyone in the article that this is still in trials? That's what I understand from the articles. Ian Furst (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Found the link to the research group. Ian Furst (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Some of it's been paid for by the US taxpayers, and more of it will (eventually) be venture capital, if their results with CancerSeek are anything to go by. At a glance it looks like pretty typical arrangements for commercializing research done through a major research university. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ian Furst: makes a good point about using a more generic name for the page title. Maybe with papSEEK as a subheading? Or maybe this should be paired down and added to Pap test? (although it is not a PAP test so maybe not). Based on a pubmed search, it seems to be relevant enough that there should be something on WP that covers it, but at that same time it appears to be basically a technique of running PCR on samples. I have not read the cited articles, but it seems like a toned down version should be included somewhere. Waughd (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Tbh, it seems like a novel approach to cancer detection and (imo) certainly deserves an article. My only concern is that xxxSEEK terminology appears to be unique to this group (at present, maybe it will get wider acceptance like CRISPR). Can @Cholee2019: give some guidance. (1) if user is affiliated with Johns Hopkins, (2) what the preferred name for the generic process is called. From what I can see, it's not a patented process, or trademarked term so could well have a space on here. Ian Furst (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the Pap test. It's more like the CA-125 test, except using DNA and having a chance at being useful as a screening test. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Medicine".