Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

List of archives


Nicotine eyes againEdit

Electronic cigarette

May I request some eyes on Talk:Electric smoking device (and suggestions for what on earth we should call the things)? There are currently four RfCs and 1.5 move requests there. Perhaps more importantly, I'd welcome views on Talk:Nicotine#Lede edits, where the inclusion of lede information on the health effects of nicotine on users is being discussed. HLHJ (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

There're a lot of issues with the current nicotine article. Seppi333 (Insert ) 15:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Nevermind. I excised almost all of the problematic content. Now the only remaining problem is that it’s missing information on side effects and OD symptoms. Seppi333 (Insert ) 20:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Nicotine could use your help!Edit

Or rather, I could use it. After deleting a ton of content from Nicotine#Adverse effects and Nicotine#Overdose, I now need to add a lot of content from the sources listed in the maintenance templates in those sections and the drug monographs listed in this talk page section. If you feel comfortable with editing/writing about these topics in drug articles, I would really appreciate some assistance, because this is going to require a lot of work.

The current revision contains no coverage of acute adverse effects and overdose symptoms. I don't really care where or how any new content on these topics is covered at the moment; I really could just use some help generating the content. I can fix any issues with formatting, wording, and text placement later. Seppi333 (Insert ) 00:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'm almost done. Seppi333 (Insert ) 11:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, Seppi333, I just saw this. I've got some sources for expanding the expansion-tagged sections already collected, but have been busy. I will try to add them soon. HLHJ (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Health claims in a fashion articleEdit

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Going commando. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

[1] ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was to merge this article to Underwear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Need third party input on whether WP:MEDRS applies to certain statementsEdit


Please see this thread. Thanks.   Seppi333 (Insert ) 06:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:CRAPWATCH expansion.Edit

I'm currently expanding the CrapWatch list to include sources other than Beall's list. I've added (see WP:CRAPWATCH/SETUP) a section on WP:CRAPWATCH/SETUP#Unreliable fields, as well as journals lying about being in the DOAJ and some based on Quackwatch's list of non-recommended periodicals. I've stuck to the 'fundamentally flawed' magazines and journals, but it could be expanded to cover more. I'm thinking Printed Newsletters, Electronic Newsletters, Newspapers, and Online Publications (minus HuffPo). I could include Journals/Magazines/Newsletters 'That Are Excellent Except for Too Many Poorly Reasoned Articles on "Complementary" and/or "Alternative" Medicine' (plus HuffPo), but I feel this would not be very useful.

Comments? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

(Note that this is still being developped and isn't near final. See this discussion for more.) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Quackwatch's "Journals, Excellent Except for Too Many Poorly Reasoned Articles on "Complementary" and/or "Alternative" Medicine" only names three journals: Annals of Internal Medicine, The BMJ, and one called Patient Care that may have stopped publishing, since the most recent article I can find at PubMed is from 1991. I would not recommend putting AIM and BMJ on your list of journals.
I'm honestly not even sure that all of the "fundamentally flawed" magazines would actually be appropriate. Muscle & Fitness isn't my idea of an ideal source for biomedical information, but that doesn't mean that it can't ever be cited appropriately in a Wikipedia article. (I did a quick check; Muscle & Fitness is mostly cited in BLPs, and it's likely appropriate for that purpose.) I'm concerned that in trying to cast a wide net, we might end up with so many false positives that we lose the main value of this project, which is quickly finding real problems. Alternatively, since there's been demand for a list of banned sources for years now, we may have editors misuse the list and try to enforce non-existent rules ("It's on the list, so it's banned"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Right now, I'm casting wide and I'm putting a lot of disclaimers on the list. In particular This list may therefore feature publications and publishers which... "... are problematic in some areas (e.g. promotes junk science), but reliable in others (e.g. biographies, general news)" and "... reflect Jeffrey Beall's or Quackwatch's good but imperfect judgment of what crap is (miscategorized as crap) would apply.
However, the end-point is indeed to have a list that is useful. So if say Muscle & Fitness is cited appropriately 95% of the time, there's probably a good case to remove it from the list. It's mostly why I stuck to the 'fundamentally flawed' publications for now, because I don't really know where the threshold should be, and like you, putting Annals of Internal Medicine/British Medical Journal (and possibly Patient Care, but I don't know that journal) on a crap list seems... odd at best. The newsletters seem complete crap though, but again, I'm not very up-to-date on medical crappery. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
BTW, Patient Care [2] merged with Geriatrics [3] in 2007 (not to be confused with the MDPI journal of the same name [4]). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Some questions. Is the Bob Livingston Newsletter [5] affiliated with Bob Livingston the politician. Or some other Bob Livingston? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Some other Bob. For one thing, if a relatively junior member of Congress had four heart attacks in two years, his constituents probably wouldn't have kept re-electing him. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
This is American politics we're talking about. They could spin having four heart attacks as stemming from a proper American diet, not those goddamn hippy gluten-free nonsense, and get elected that way :p. Anyway, I've updated the list accordingly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Vaccine "controversies"Edit

Three vaccine"controversy" articles have now been renamed to remove the word "controversy", which gave undue weight to fringe ideas.

I put this through CFD rather than simply move them so that the bot will do the spadework. Please give your opinion on this category change. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Good stuff. I was surprised how much our content was presenting vaccine safety an active scientific "debate" (now getting fixed by these and other changes). Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I noted that I don't see "controversy" as endorsing the validity of the fringe claims. "Controversy" is not meant to imply that what the overwhelming majority of scientists state about the matter is controversial. It's meant to get across the point that Wakefield caused controversy. His paper is controversial. But, anyway, whatever Wikipedia decides on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2019‎ (UTC)
I agree with the moves, and would note that the word "controversy" is very broad, and can encompass controversial matters that have nothing to do with hesitancy. The testing of vaccines in third-world countries is controversial without implicating the propriety of vaccination. The concentration of vaccine manufacturing in private for-profit entities can be controversial precisely because this can lead to production shortages or predatory pricing, which impact people who want to receive vaccinations. bd2412 T 17:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox medical condition nominated for merging.Edit

The above template has been nominated for deletion merging into {{Infobox medical condition (new)}}. Discussion is over at TfD (link also on the template's page). Little pob (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

This looks more like a merge proposal for Template:Infobox medical condition and Template:Infobox medical condition (new) than a nomination for deletion. It is based on User:DePiep's change to the /doc page to declare the first as deprecated (in favor of the second). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
{{Infobox medical condition}} is tagged with the deletion banner; but yes, it's more accurately a merger proposal. Apologies for any confusion (amended above). Little pob (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
TfD is at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_7#Template:Infobox_medical_condition. Discussion is there. -DePiep (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


Is omniscan a drug ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayank batra stud (talkcontribs) 07:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Please, see Gadodiamide. Ruslik_Zero 14:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Gadodiamide#Adverse effects looks like it needs some attention from a disinterested editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay updated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Updated stats for WPMEDEdit

Avaliable here Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Stats Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

great info and numbers for Wikiproject Medicine--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing this. JenOttawa (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Health Survival paradox articleEdit

Some editors here might want to have a look at Health Survival paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which was recently created. It uses primary sources. Also, per WP:Article titles, I'm thinking that the "survival" part of the title should be in lowercase. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

agree should use MEDRS were appropriate--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
For the record, this page has been moved to Health survival paradox. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 12:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Medical research literature in Internet-in-a-boxEdit

A large number of medical articles are published under open licenses, and should soon be published in machine-readable formats. If we upload them to a Wikisource category, they could trivially go into Internet-in-a-box. This seems potentially useful (e.g., for offline medical center intranets).

The WikiJournals are developing formats for academic articles, but there is no such data structure on Wikisource. We're talking about a template or two. The WikiJournals will need automated PMC upload (eventually); automated PMC download would be a first step.

Does this sound worth doing? Have I missed anything? HLHJ (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

People at the point of care are often looking for a summary of the literature. Primary sources are more for researchers than clinicians.
Not sure how much usage this would garner in comparison to Wikipedia. We have talk about adding the open access sources that are used as references by Wikipedia... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Massive collection of primary sourcesEdit

Was here. I have rewritten much of the article.

Discussion on these primary sources are here Talk:Tonsillectomy#Primary_sources

Further opinions appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox medical condition (new) vs. alternative names in the leadEdit

Doc has been updating medical articles with Template:Infobox medical condition (new). While doing that, he has also moved a number of alternative names out of the lead and into the synonyms field of the new infobox, such as here and here. But considering that our medical articles often go by the scientific/medical name, the scientific/medical name isn't always the common name. For example, in the case of myocardial infarction, "heart attack" is the common name and the article currently states "commonly known as a heart attack." I think that "heart attack" should continue to be mentioned and bolded in the lead of that article. In cases like that one, where the topic is dealing with a very common name, or an otherwise significant alternative name, I think that the alternative name should remain in the lead. I'm not stating that three or more names need to be in the lead, though. I understand how that can make the lead cluttered. WP:Alternative name states, "If there are three or more alternative names – including alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historic names, and significant names in other languages – or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended."

Anyway, while updating these articles with the new infobox, Doc has also left the alternative name in the lead in some cases. For example, here, here and here.

Thoughts? And, Doc, are you weighing the benefits of keeping the alternative name in the lead in some cases? Is that why you have left the alternative name in the lead in some cases but not in others? The old infobox has a synonyms field as well, but we still kept the alternative name in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 Reborn if the alternative name is simple a minor spelling difference IMO that does not need to be in the first sentence. If the alternate name is the more common one it should remain in the first sentence. So I agree heart attack should remain in the first sentence of MI.
"dorsopathy" is a term that no one really uses so should go in the infobox IMO. If people feel strongly that certain ones should be in both places as commonly used feel free to add it as such. I am going through a lot of articles doing this update and of course would love help :-) About 1500 left to go. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Doc, yeah, I agree. Thank you for updating so many articles; I know the work that you've put into it. If I had the time, I would help as well. I mainly only have enough time to catch up on my watchlist, tweak a few things, and address some matters on talk pages when catching up on what I've missed while away from Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Leptospirosis as MEDRS microcosmEdit

There is an issue with leptospirosis#Treatment and at first sight it could be dealt with simply by deletion of unsupported content. On reflection, and in my role as Wikimedian in Residence looking at MEDRS, it looks more like a case study.

The issue is antimicrobial treatment for leptospirosis, a bacterial infection that includes Weil’s disease, which is probably better known as a term. It is on the WHO radar as having the potential to become one of its recognised “neglected zoonotic diseases”, by the accumulation of evidence.[6] A 2012 Cochrane review (details below) found no clear benefit to patients from treatment with a selection of prominent antibacterials. On the other hand the article here states: "Effective antibiotics include penicillin G, ampicillin, amoxicillin and doxycycline. In more severe cases cefotaxime or ceftriaxone should be preferred." Hence the problems.

(1) One problem, certainly, is with WP:MEDDATE and a 2012 review. It can't be ruled in as a source, by the letter of the guideline, but it can hardly be ruled out either. There may be later clarifications in the review literature. But this MEDLINE query for leptospirosis+doxycycline (reviews from the last five years) apparently produces nothing very definite. The wording in the abstracts about prophylaxis isn't really convincing.

(2) Another issue is that Wikidata holds no information on drugs used to treat leptospirosis. So, if there is a MEDRS-compliant source about doxycycline or other treatment, Wikidata can be improved.

Under (2), such information could be used in infoboxes. Leptospirosis has Wikipedia articles in 65 languages, and many of those already have infoboxes. The English Wikipedia infobox, not drawing from Wikidata, cites antibiotic treatment to PMID 20628664, a review article published in 2010, before the Cochrane systematic review of 2012 which is PMID 22336839. There was also a 2011 comment on the paper PMID 21391357.

So, I'm interested here in the expert verdict via on the referencing in the existing article of the treatment information, via MEDASSESS and MEDDATE. I also have some detailed comments on the drug-disease information that does exist on Wikidata, but perhaps they are matters better raised on d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Medicine. Lastly, it would not be surprising if people here were wondering how ScienceSource is getting on with a MEDRS algorithm. Well, there is a version zero that takes into account publisher, publication type and date information, with allowance for a MEDDATE (or other good cause) whitelist; and version 1 will filter to take out retracted papers. Whitelisting and more case analysis, for neglected diseases (how to define?) and rare diseases (more easily defined) are ways forward to better versions.

Charles Matthews (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's a MEDRS problem here. The "5 year" rule-of-thumb is only for areas of research which are active, and Cochrane reviews are regarded more leniently in any case as they are assumed (perhaps optimistically) to be updated if there's a significant shift in the evidence. As to Wikidata - it has zero policy bearing on what we write in our articles here. Personally, I ignore it completely as a waste of time. Alexbrn (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Added the Cochrane review about the lack of strong evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Charles, is your "publisher" field generally going to contain the organization that sponsors the publication (an "Academic Society of Researchers"), or the publishing house (e.g., Elsevier)?
As for the MEDDATE question, Alex is correct about what the guideline says, but in practice, some editors revert anyone who dares to use their best judgement to determine that a six-and-a-half-year-old source in an under-researched area is acceptable for a specific statement. :-/ WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: The "publisher" is determined by going paper -> journal -> publisher defined by "organization or person responsible for publishing" e.g. Elsevier. What we are actually doing, for open access papers which are the focus, is relying on the Directory of Open Access Journals to filter out the predatory publishers. On your "best judgement" point, yes indeed, something could be done here, if "under-researched" had a more tangible definition.
Effectively, operating by blacklists (e.g. predatory publishers) and whitelists (cases for lenient application of MEDDATE) is all about lists and how they are compiled. For actual Wikipedia lists, there is what is said at WP:LSC, i.e. clearcut criteria. The incidence of uncompromising reverts, as you describe them, could be reduced by being more explicit, in other words. For example, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases gives a definite list on this page, that includes leptospirosis, where the WHO list has a narrower focus. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure that is quite right, but User:DGG is far more informed on this subject than I am. Consider a case such as Journal of the European Economic Association, which was created after a dispute between the European Economic Association and Elsevier: Wiley-Blackwell is certainly the publishing house. Would you also call Wiley-Blackwell the publisher, or would you call the EEA the publisher?
The problem with making a list of journals for MEDDATE leniency is that the journal is irrelevant. A paper in Journal X that is 5 years old can be out of date. A paper in that same Journal X, but twice as old, can be the not merely up to date, but also the best possible source for a given claim. In practice, a reasonable starting point is to go to PubMed and search for the material in question. If the currently cited article is in the five most recent review articles (or primary sources, if it's a subject that can be acceptably supported by a primary source), and you didn't see anything in the list that appeared to contradict the content, then it's probably fine, even if it's more than ten years old. In short, you can't evaluate MEDDATE unless you consider both the availability of newer sources and WP:RSCONTEXT. It is not really something that can be easily automated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Journals change publisher. We include the information on the article for the journal. For the purposes of a single term in a citation, the publisher is the publisher at the time the article was published. As for what sources to use , and how far back to include references, I agree wholeheartedly with WhatamIdoing that it needs judgement, not fixed rules or automation. We list the date and the journal and the authors, and the readers are given the information to judge. Just like everywhere in WP , we do not judge for them. There are very few parts of human knowledge where there are simple answers that cannot be expected to change with time. The general concept is known asprogress. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: @DGG: That was actually not what I meant, so I'll expand. For the purposes of MEDDATE, and MEDREV, one can compile a list of exceptions to be treated differently, calling it a whitelist if the treatment is lenient, a blacklist to exclude. Instead of a case-by-case whitelist of papers, one can use the "main subject" property on Wikidata, and create a list of subjects, in relation to which one will show leniency. So that addresses the "neglected disease" concept, which is an example of what we are used to calling systematic bias, within the biomedical literature. The main point is that it is possible to correct for that bias in applying MEDRS, and this is common ground. So the next point is exactly how to do that.
Putting it another way, the phrase used above "only for areas of research which are active" can be turned around to ask "what medical areas are there (with a serious global burden of disease) where research is (undeservedly) relatively inactive?", and use that as a working definition of "neglected disease". Operationally, one then needs a reasonable consensus definition in terms of a list. Leptospirosis is an example for which the WHO is still making up its mind. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Just as long as we avoid the homeopaths' attempts to steal leptospirosis as a claimed validation of magic water (kleptospirosis?). Guy (Help!) 14:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The nature of the most reliable sources will change with the subject, not just from field to field, but within the many special areas making up the broad field of medicine. The general rule has always been that we use the best we can find, as long as it meets the basic criteria of being a publisher with editorial control. I understand the reasons why this project has very reasonably thought it necessary to limit itself to a subset of possible sources, but unless this is interpreted very flexibly it can be in some degree of conflict to the basic principles of WP. I appreciate the recognition that there are fields whee the medical orthodoxy is still uncertain The problem JzG mentions is not that uncommon here or elsewhere-:it's the general problem where the majority of the available sources in a subject represents an unusual or nonscientific prospective. Within our policies, there is sometimes no easy solution, except making sure our articles on the questionable sources indicate their nature. Overall,I don't think we're in basic disagreement. DGG ( talk ) 11:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Which version to go with at the Empathy article?Edit

We need some opinions about which version of the Empathy article we should go with -- the current version or the version seen at User:Benteziegen/sandbox. Of course, we don't have to go with either version and could develop the article in another way. But the current one is the current one. Discussion is at Talk:Empathy#Theory and empirical section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a note, in case it isn't clear to anyone who takes a glance at the article. The Empathy article deals with a number of medical/health topics, ranging from autism, borderline personality disorder, schizophrenia, psychopathy, and so on. I pointed this out on the talk page after Benteziegen questioned the topic being a medical topic. I'll go ahead and contact WP:Neuroscience about weighing in as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Request category creationEdit

For these two. -Category:Electronic cigarette aerosol carcinogens -Category:Tobacco smoke carcinogens QuackGuru (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Ketogenic Diet for successfull management of ObesityEdit


At present , one of successful treatment for obesity is ketogenic diet .

What is principle ? Low carbohydrate diet , formation of ketene bodies , but not up to dangerous levels .

Mechanism ? At low carbohydrate diet , body depends on storage fats in our body.

Dangers in diabetes ? Ketogenic diet helpful fro diabetic patients by reduce hyperglycemia . Ketoacidosis will not formed due to normal levels of glucose in blood (Subrahmanya preethamm (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC))

it is a review[7], however...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
MDPI!? Crap journal - ignore. We have a some really good sources on this topic (see recent discussion at Talk:Ketogenic diet). Alexbrn (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
yes that's what I thought--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Yup no "predatory" journals. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyright / Reliable sourcing issueEdit

The website Drugbank includes text copied and pasted from Wikipedia. They do it somewhat correct in that they attribute us but they do not do the "share alike" part appropriately.[8] I have followed up with them on that part.

The problem is that we are using this ref 4,000 times.[9] And we are thus like just referencing Wikipedia with Wikipedia :-( Citogenesis has become a reality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It appears they use Wikipedia a fair bit but often reference it a little worse. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay Drugbank has agreed that they have copied and pasted from us. The difficulty is that they do so across many articles.
They have stated that they are unable to move to an actually open license (currently they use CC BY SA NC). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Consider adding it to WP:FORK. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


The BGR-34 article is currently a Biology and Medicine Good Article Nominee. It concerns an Ayurvedic drug which appears to have received quite a bit attention in the lay press (largely in India) but very little in peer-reviewed medical journals. Accordingly, the long list of references is largely to articles in the lay press. I'm just wondering what the stance is on WP:MEDRS for this sort of article. I haven't been much involved in pharma articles so far, and even less so in articles on alternative therapies and wondered if this still applied. These kinds of sources seem to be very thin on the ground for this drug based on a quick PubMed search despite the drug appearing to be a notable subject and well worth including in the encyclopaedia. Secondly, what do others think of the neutrality? The article is quite critical of the drug which is probably justified, but I wondered if others felt that it was too slanted in this direction.

I was tempted to have a go at doing a Good Article review for this one, but wanted some opinions on sourcing and neutrality beforehand.

Also notifying the main contributor to the article. @Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks, PeaBrainC (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your willingness to do the GAR.
IMHO, MEDRS is applicable only if I wish to make a claim that the drug works or cures some disease or the like. That there is no MEDRS related to the drug is one of the core locus of criticism (and the article).
As to the negative slant, anything otherwise falls in FALSE BALANCE territory, IMO. Every report on the drug, that came out after the initial buzz, has been uniformly critical of it and the process invested in it. I also have two more sources (atleast one of which is more scathing than any I have read) but are sitting behind lofty paywalls:(WBGconverse 11:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Brugada syndrome versus Sudden unexpected nocturnal death syndrome versus Sudden unexplained nocturnal death syndrome versus Sudden arrhythmic death syndromeEdit

Hi, so there appears to be separate bodies of research on SUNDS and Brugada, although I believe the Brugadas themselves are actively doing research that Brugada syndrome is SUNDS. @Doc James: I think prefers to use NIH sources that makes this assertion. However, I believe we should also address that physicians in East Asia had known SUNDS for 60 years before Brugada, the indigenous peoples possibly centuries before that, and while very important work was done in the 1980s, it would be UNDUE to only focus on research by Western physicians and to exclude the history of SUNDS (pre 1980) from discussion at Brugada syndrome. I am not sure exactly why Doc James wants to remove this discussion from Brugada syndrome, and certainly I believe Sudden unexplained nocturnal death syndrome should redirect to Sudden arrhythmic death syndrome. I_Na is not SCN5A, so neither is SUNDS the same as Brugada. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The requests were:
(1) use sources that fulfill WP:MEDRS and lots are avaliable as we have discussed on the talk page
(2) the exact same term can be used for a number of medical conditions, so yes SUNDS can be used by various people to refer to BOTH Brugada syndrome and to the wider category of sudden arrhythmic death syndrome. As such a disambig is perfectly fine.
(3) the final request was to write in easier to understand language and to put most of the discussion of mechanism in the mechanism section. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Nearly all my sources except one (which was from an established investigative news journal) are peer-reviewed, and the secondary source (review article) tying in the contextual history is from JAHA in 2018. I don't get why Doc James wants to remove the contextual history tying together SUNDS and Brugada, and I was planning to add sourced material that further clarified what is linked and what is not. AFAIK, BrS is primarily diagnosed by ECG (e.g. to investigate unexplained vasovagal syncope) whereas SUNDS is diagnosed by manner of death or history of sudden unexplained ventricular arrhythmia / aborted sudden cardiac death. This second diathesis was known to the indigenous peoples of Asia hundreds of years before the Brugadas arrived with their ECG analysis. Naturally, this leads to some divergence. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I respect the NIH as an authoritative and trusted source as much as anyone, and some of my past income was funded by NIH grants, but the NIH is a human institution and I don't think it's fair to think of any authoritative institution as completely immune from systemic bias, e.g. the type that might lead to ignoring or glossing over the work of non-Western researchers and cultures. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
We are looking for "review articles" not just "peer reviewed". How does "SUNDS is also used to mean Brugada" have anything to do with "ignoring or glossing over the work of non-Western researchers and cultures"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

New template: {{Erratum}}Edit

It's designed to be used in a very similar way to {{Retracted}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Medicine".