Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Latest comment: 5 hours ago by Ajpolino in topic Source-finding links in {{Talk header}}
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Edit with VisualEditor

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

Add an Etymology parameter to infobox medical condition?Edit

As above, suggestion/discussion here: Template talk:Infobox medical condition#Etymology thanks Little pob (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thank you for post --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The label Named after has now been added to {{infobox medical condition}}. It will accept the parameters |named after= and |eponym=. Feel free to add to any articles you know as being eponymous. (Already added to Parkinson's disease, Down syndrome, and Alzheimer's disease.) Little pob (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Input requested for COVID-19 PandemicEdit

Input would be greatly appreciated at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic about the quality of sources for declaring end of pandemic.

To summaries, we've agreed with the WHO that it has no authority to declare pandemics, and they themselves have stated they're unlikely to ever come out and call it over. We're just stuck in a loop of whether we need primary and secondary medical sources or whether regular articles, citing reputable public health officials/health ministers will be good enough. Whether it is still a pandemic per WP:Weight is for later once we have a better consensus on sources to use. AndrewRG10 (talk) 09:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To summaries, we've agreed with the WHO that it has no authority to declare pandemics ← I don't think that's quite agreed, unless there's special emphasis on the odd word "declare". Whether a disease is pandemic or not is something the WHO is an excellent source for, for Wikipedia's purposes. Other MEDRS are of course also relevant. Newspaper articles, politicians, etc. are not however useful. I don't see how regional health bodies can be relevant to question of pandemic status (though probably relevant to their region). Add: it's also not right that WHO doesn't consider the end of pandemics. 2009 flu had a defined end for example.[1] Bon courage (talk) 09:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WHO have declared the PHEIC over, but the WHO documentation is very clear that COVID-19 remains a pandemic. Bondegezou (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Student editingEdit

I reverted several articles edited for Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Manitoba/PHMD 2040 Service - Learning Spring 2023 (Spring term) because the added text was dosing, guides, lists, or for the wrong audience (WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:MEDMOS). --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see there is a previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 165#Student_editing. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Whywhenwhohow, which articles were affected? Did you leave a note at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The affected articles are Beta2-adrenergic agonist, Apixaban, Pimozide, Tetrabenazine, Siponimod, Piroxicam, Flurbiprofen, Brexpiprazole, and Erdafitinib. I didn't know about the other page and posted the note here. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Steere-Williams quote in the endemic covid articleEdit

I believe the quote from Jacob Steere-Williams in the Endemic COVID-19 should be removed, as least as a definite statement on the definition of "endemic". It's an opinion piece published in an academic journal that has a grand total of five citations, not all of which cite it in relation to its argument. The sole editor defending its inclusion's argument is essentially "it's a reliable source, and we should treat it as representative of the entire medical community unless you provide sources disagreeing with it", which I don't think holds up. They are now refusing to respond to my comments on the talk page and told me to take the discussion here. Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like the text in question is whether to include this one sentence:
"According to historian Jacob Steere-Williams, what endemicity means has evolved since the 19th century and the desire to label COVID-19 as being endemic in early 2022 was a political and cultural phenomenon connected to a desire to see the pandemic as being over.[1]"
  1. ^ Steere-Williams J (May 2022). "Endemic fatalism and why it will not resolve COVID-19". Public Health. 206: 29–30. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2022.02.011. ISSN 0033-3506. PMC 8841151. PMID 35316742.
This claim feels plausible to me. Why do you want to remove it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eldomtom2 has misrepresented my argument, which is not that quotation is necessarily "representative of the entire medical community", but that it is DUE, being peer-reviewed research from an expert, in a high-quality journal, which is exactly on point for the topic. So far as I can see certain editors don't like this content because it goes against the grain of the "COVID's over and we're FREE" message they want to have in this article, delivered via a synthesis of newspaper snippets and factoids. Bon courage (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noting that there's a bit of discussion Talk:Endemic COVID-19#The_Steere-Williams quote about this sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, you have repeatedly claimed that it is "representative of the entire medical community" by claiming that, for instance, the article is "not contended at all" and "shows what the WP:BESTSOURCES are saying on this topic". We do not quote every single opinion article that is pulished in a scientific journal. The new quote added by a different editor is much more appropriate as it was chosen due to being heavily cited.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a lengthy discussion at the relevant Talk page. Bon courage is not the only editor to support this sentence. We do not base what to include on citation counts and 5 citations ain’t bad for a recent paper.
There are plenty of other actual problems with Endemic COVID-19 as an article. Bondegezou (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I am not the only editor to oppose the sentence.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback on a credibility design for Vaccine Safety citation screeningEdit

Please check this out:


What do you think of it as a topic/project-based credibility screening interface?

Feedback please... questions/comments/questions/suggestions? Ocaasi t | c 17:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Headbomb, I wonder if you would be interested in the list of "unknown domains" at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety/Reports#Frequent use of unknown domains. Some of them are obvious enough (,,, and I'm not sure that some others should be included at all (,, – also, is actually but I suspect that a number of these could be classified pretty readily. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ocaasi, looking at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety/Perennial sources#Expanding the vocabulary of source assessments I think it's difficult to talk about whether the sources are "reliable". We use this term to mean two different things:
  • This scholarly book is a reliable source, because it's likely to be acceptable for the kinds of ways that experienced Wikipedians would normally use it.
  • This self-published, non-independent social media post is a reliable source, because it's appropriate for the specific sentence that it's supporting, even though you would normally not recommend such a source for general use.
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources tends to mark mainstream media sources, in particular, as being reliable in the first sense, but that doesn't mean that they're reliable for the particular statements that the source is supporting. In vaccine-related articles, a news source is reliable for statements about a business but not for statements about (e.g.,) side effects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop Mandatory VaccinationEdit

So I'm not really good on the confluence of news and WP:MEDRS. This article is following the newspapers in the implication that the group caused the death of a child by spreading misinformation about tamiflu. The thing is that tamiflu doesn't really do that much and there is a cochrane review saying so. I can see why pulling in the MEDRS cochrane review hits up against WP:DUE, and sort of puts wikipedians in the role of "fact checker". I incidentally think we would do a better job than fact checkers... but that's an aside.

I found an opinion piece that points this out while also mention the story so I'm citing that. I don't know how this should work. I don't think having the page making up misleading MEDRS'y claims about tamiflu is okay either way. I dislike that I've used an opinion piece for the MEDRS'y claim when I could have used the cochrane review.

I imagine this sort of thing must have come up with COVID - was there an approach there? Page merging to deal with WP:DUE violations is one hack, but it's clearly a hack (e.g. we might pull most of the details into flu and then talking about the effectiveness of tamiflu suddenly becomes due). Talpedia 01:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure that we really need an entire article about this website, but if we're going to have one, it's possible that the key point in this story is "the mother trusted unqualified people on the internet more than the pediatrician, and her child died" rather than the specific brand-name drug in question.
I think the article might benefit from a quick copyedit for concision. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Medical claim at British PakistanisEdit

Would someone with more expertise on medical studies be able to assess the claim added in this edit to British Pakistanis ("British Pakistani couples are 10 times as likely to birth children with genetic defects than all other ethnic groups in the general UK populace") and whether it's justified based on the source cited? Thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm - the ultimate source here is a rather small primary study on a Derbyshire health authority in 2002 - I think it was 53 Pakistani heritage children with genetic defects in the group. But there is other research - this 2015 paper summarizes a lot of it. Some form of the rather scary figures should go in the article. It is a very sensitive issue, with some in the community pushing strongly for recognition, and others very intent on ignoring or hiding it (the 2015 paper covers both views). Someone better qualified than me should work out how best to summarize the state of research. But it is clear from the 2015 paper that awareness of the issue is low among many who would potentially be affected. Johnbod (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As is often the case, the Relative risk is probably not the best way to present scary figures. The absolute risk is given in the 2015 paper that Johnbod linked (2–3% for unrelated couples and 4–6% for consanguineous couples (Cousin marriage, from the looks of it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cordless Larry has used this section to justify removing all material on the topic at the article. I don't think this is what we are saying here. Ideally someone should craft a few sentences on the issue, fully referenced. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No I haven't. What I did was revert an editor who was repeatedly adding the material against consensus, telling them to discuss it on the article's talk page instead. On the talk page, I linked to this discussion so that they were aware of it. Unfortunately they've since been blocked as a sockpuppet. The rest of the section remains in place and I agree that a non-blocked editor should probably add to this. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excitement at ClobenzorexEdit


Hi all--I'd like it if some of you could have a look at the recent history of the article and the dispute on the talk page, including the history of that talk page. I posted already at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology#Dispute_at_Talk:Clobenzorex and Tryptofish suggested I post here also; you may be interested in their remarks. Thanks so much: I believe some article improvement can help settle whatever that dispute is about. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This amphetamine prodrug is legal in Mexico, so a Spanish speaker with a couple of hours to look for sources might be helpful.
There are also some unfortunate allegations of COI (e.g., telling people on other websites that it's safe to import) that, if true, would suggest that the article might need to be on a lot more watchlists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tea component theanine and its putative cognitive effectsEdit

Theanine is a 1-2% constituent of dried green tea leaves, is sold as a dietary supplement (~250 mg), and may act alone or combined with caffeine in tea or supplements to improve alertness, reaction time, and other cognitive effects.

A sentence in the theanine article states that theanine and caffeine combined produce 5 cognitive effects, such as "faster simple reaction time, task switching, sustained attention, and faster numeric working memory reaction time", with 7 primary sources (each with n < 50 published 11-15 years ago) supporting the statement.

Issues raised with this sentence:

  • the combined effects of theanine and caffeine stated in the sentence do not allow understanding of theanine by itself - the object of the article.
  • 4 of the 7 primary sources were included in a 2014 review ("Camfield") which one editor refuses to use. The review does not synthesize clearly what the cognitive effects of theanine in isolation are.
  • the Camfield review states that "there were insufficient studies to conduct meta-analysis on the effects of L-theanine in isolation", while one small 2008 study found no effect of theanine alone on alertness (250 mg), and another in 2008 reported improved alertness 2 hrs after ingestion of theanine by itself (200 mg).
  • a 2021 review in Cureus was proposed as the most authoritative review on theanine's cognitive effects. This review concludes that combined theanine and caffeine improve several cognitive measures, while theanine itself showed minor improvements in a cognitive test (from one 2008 primary source). Cureus remains as a red flag source on WP:CITEWATCH, and is not MEDLINE-indexed.

What do medical editors think of this sentence ("faster simple reaction time, task switching, sustained attention, faster numeric working memory reaction time and improved sentence verification accuracy") in the theanine article, the use of 7 primary sources to support it, and absence of conclusive evidence from two reviews on the cognitive effects of theanine in isolation?

Should the review(s) be used to make a statement that the putative cognitive effects of theanine alone have not been established, as only a few primary studies have been conducted and not replicated or reviewed with firm conclusions since their publication more than a decade ago? - an unsatisfying, unencyclopedic statement for the general user, imho. Perhaps it's better to eliminate the existing sentence with only primary sources, and say nothing at this point of such limited research. Zefr (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If everyone did decent research and got clear results, it would be much easier to write some of these articles. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. Having claims sourced to a shopping list of old primary sources and dodgy journals (Cureus? seriously?) was not great. I just expunged it. From a quick look, there just isn't any decent sourcing on the effects of theanine supplements on brain power. Bon courage (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Watchlisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This already in progress WP:DRN#Theanine. — Invasive Spices (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So we have Dispute resolution and a Reliable sources noticeboard post, neither of which were in favor of these additions based on marginal and primary sources, [2] [3] and yet today we have another addition of content from a WP:CITEWATCH, MDPI, non-PUBMED indexed source. [4] I've been watchlisting now for several days, and it seems we need more eyes before this ends up in topic bans.[5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Rotator cuff tear#Requested move 11 May 2023Edit

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rotator cuff tear#Requested move 11 May 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 05:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:MED NewsletterEdit

It's back. This month's issue is below. I won't be posting these to WT:MED to avoid spamming those who don't care, so if you'd like to receive this fine monthly missive, add your username to the delivery list.

WikiProject Med Newsletter - Issue 21 - June 2023
Issue 21—June 2023

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter

Hello all. Another irregular edition of the newsletter; pardon the six-month gap. I was inspired to collect this after seeing how much activity there is in the GA space on the medicine front. Please review a GAN if you have time, and help to welcome more medicine editors into the fold:

Recognized content (since January 1!)

  Trinidad Arroyo nom. Thebiguglyalien, reviewed by Mike Christie
  Mycobacterium nom. BluePenguin18, reviewed by Ealdgyth

Nominated for review

  Hanhart syndrome nom. Etriusus, under review by Dancing Dollar
  Persistent stapedial artery nom. X750
  Howard Florey nom. Hawkeye7
  History of penicillin nom. Hawkeye7
  Cataract surgery nom. Pbsouthwood
  COVID-19 pandemic nom. Ozzie10aaaa, under review by Shibbolethink
  Mohamed Hamad Satti nom. FuzzyMagma
  El Hadi Ahmed El Sheikh nom. FuzzyMagma
  Mansour Ali Haseeb nom. FuzzyMagma
  Sinus tarsi syndrome for peer review by Pear1020


  • Wikipedia:Good article reassessment is back in business, with a new process and new coordinators. If you see medicine-related GAs that may no longer meet the GA criteria, feel free to nominate them for attention/reassessment (please, not too many at once, lest we get overwhelmed). I'll incorporate them into the listings above.
  • Major depressive disorder, Schizophrenia, and Dengue fever are featured articles that need updating. Feel free to chime in at the talk pages or WT:MED if you have the time/bandwidth to help update. They'll likely go to featured article review for more feedback in the near(ish) future (probably in the order listed).

  Newsletter ideas, comments, and criticisms welcome here.

You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

If folks have thoughts, feedback, or ideas for the newsletter feel free to post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter (or in this thread). Enjoy. Ajpolino (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a good opportunity for me to post an update on our 2023 reference campaign. Please sign up! Points are retroactive, even if you sign up late.
Looking at the leaderboard, it appears that our current winners are JenOttawa, SomeoneOK, and V3ganf3lix, who have added a total (net) 331 refs to WPMED-tagged articles so far this year. (Only inline citations using ref tags are counted, and re-use is counted the same as a separate source.) At the other end of the leaderboard, Firefangledfeathers, Julius Senegal, and Ajpolino are leading the "defense against the dark arts" group, having removed 262 more refs than they have added to WPMED-tagged articles. We need both the addition of good refs as well as the removal of inappropriate ones, so I offer congratulations and thanks to both of these groups.
Joining the contest should take less than a minute. (The password is qyoufwds if it asks you to enter it separately.) Once you sign up, everything else is automatic. It's really quick and easy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Green nail syndromeEdit

So, I've been trying to do my part in cleaning up... this mess... and I came across the page green nail syndrome. It looks to me like "" is some kind of fly-by-night aggregator site that fails WP:MEDRS, but it's cited repeatedly. There's also something from an osteopathy group, a nail-makeup magazine... The page could use attention. XOR'easter (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

did a few edit[6]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extra help needed at the Concussion articleEdit

Hi, can a few other people add Concussion to their watchlists? I moved some material on Earthquakes being a risk factor to the talk page (as the source did not reflect this) and there is repeated editing back in of the same material. Recent edit . I am hesitant to revert it again as I do not have experience with back and forth edit disagreements. Thanks. JenOttawa (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks JO. I also reverted, posted at talk, and watchlisted the article. Ajpolino (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I left a long comment on the editor's User talk: page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dementia#Risk factorsEdit

In the (unlikely) event that anyone has a spare moment (yea, right), anemia is missing as a dementia risk factor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed deletion of Accessible imageEdit


The article Accessible image has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

attempted to find sources unsuccessfully; not verifiable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source-finding links in {{Talk header}}Edit

Hi all, currently when {{Talk header}} is on a talk page with our project's tag, it replaces the standard "Find sources" links with {{Find medical sources}} which looks like this:

The intended purpose is to help guide newer editors to reliable sources on the given medical topic. I'm wondering if to that end, we should trim a few of the links, to focus a newer editor on the resources that are most likely to get them to the best sources most easily. Personally, I use Pubmed far more than those other links (and I'm curious to hear what you all prefer). The Cochrane link seems dispensable as Cochrane reviews show up on a Pubmed search. I don't know much about DOAJ, but testing it on "Prostate cancer" (use the example links above), I can't seem to filter to just reviews or books, so I'm being swamped with primary sources that wouldn't be ideal for the article. Gale also seems unhelpful for medicine topics. It searches magazines, which is neat for many topics, but probably rarely helpful for us? I never use the links to the individual publishers (ScienceDirect, Springer, Wiley) but now that I click, they actually do have some potentially useful eBooks that wouldn't come up on Pubmed. So I'd propose cutting the links to Cochrane, DOAJ, and Gale. But I'm curious if others have thoughts, and if I'm overlooking the value of these links. Ajpolino (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]