Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs)
259,776 edits
m Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 14d) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive7.
Request for opinions on rhythm/calendar naming and cervical cap article
Line 266: Line 266:


There's a question at [[Talk:Osteotomy]] about whether the images are really from an osteotomy. If you know something about this, please have a look. Thanks, [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a question at [[Talk:Osteotomy]] about whether the images are really from an osteotomy. If you know something about this, please have a look. Thanks, [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

== Article title: "Rhythm" or "Calendar"? ==
There's currently discussion on the article title for the rhythm/calendar methods. "Rhythm" appears to be both used for a specific method and the most common lay term for these types of systems. The World Health Organization uses "Rhythm" for a specific method but uses the term "Calendar-based methods" when referring to them as a group, and there's a question over whether [[WP:MEDMOS#Naming conventions]] would support the WHO term. [[Talk:Calendar-based methods#Name change]], scroll to near bottom of section. Any outside input would be appreciated. [[User:Lyrl|Lyrl]]<sup>[[User talk:Lyrl|Talk]] </sup> <sub> [[Special:Contributions/Lyrl|C]] </sub> 11:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

== Content of cervical cap article ==
Ongoing debate over the multiple issues regarding content of cervical cap article. A [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive7#Editors requested on cervical cap article|previous request]] generated helpful opinions, but unfortunately failed to take the discussion to consensus. Current topic is content of the infobox: [[Talk:Cervical cap#Terminology section a boon, any other issues?|discussion]]. [[User:Lyrl|Lyrl]]<sup>[[User talk:Lyrl|Talk]] </sup> <sub> [[Special:Contributions/Lyrl|C]] </sub> 11:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:29, 4 May 2008

Shortcut


Template:WPCM navigation
This page is to discuss anything related to WikiProject Medicine.
Threads older than 14 days are automatically archived (see list on the right).

Welcome to the doctor's mess! There are only a few rules:
1. Don't shout, remain civil and treat each other with respect.
2. Please wash any cups you use and clean up, let's not make a mess out of this mess!
3. The 7 o'clock news always has priority on the tv, except when The Simpsons are on.



Showcase

Featured articles are considered to be Wikipedia's very best work; they must pass through a review process as featured article candidates before being selected. Articles in bold indicate that the article has been featured on the Main Page on the date noted.

Featured lists are considered to be the best lists in Wikipedia; they must pass through a review process as featured list candidates before being selected.

Other featured content

Types of content other than articles—such as images, portals, sounds, and topics—can also achieve featured content status.

Articles pertaining to the project

Journal articles

Good articles

Good articles have been evaluated for their quality, but they have not been through the featured article process. For good articles in the biology and medicine category, see Wikipedia:Good_articles/Natural_sciences#Biology_and_medicine.


Input requested, one sentence in the M.D. article

I know we've been through all this already, but could people state their opinions on the following sentence, which appears in the doctor of medicine article.

United States and Canada

Source: "Physicians and Surgeons". Occupational Outlook Handbook. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Dept of Labor.

If this is done incorrectly, I apologize. The quote is correct/accurate but I am not familiar with the source that is quoted. The alternative to M.D. (allopathy) is D.O. (osteopathy). The former term is a reference to the use of antimicrobials which tend to put pathogens in an [opposing, if I remember correctly] environment to which the term "allo" refers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.188.20 (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thanks for your input. Bryan Hopping T 01:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligibility

I just wanted to drop in and ask if the members of this project can please make their articles more intelligible. I find (and I'm sure I'm not alone in this) that a lot of the medical-related articles are almost unreadable to the average person and tend to use far too much medical jargon to make sense of the subject. Are there any guidelines in this wikiproject regarding this? Thanks for letting me put in my 2 cents. Kristamaranatha (talk) 07:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our guidelines at WP:MEDMOS remind editors to aim for the "general reader". I think this is possible for most of a medical article, but there are some sections/topics that really are head-hurtingly difficult. If you let us know which articles you found unintelligible, then perhaps someone here can improve them. Thanks for the comment. Colin°Talk 09:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well ... ummmm ... this handy dandy new tool appeared at FAC, and although I haven't quite figured it out, I think I'm pretty depressed about it. Readability tool SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ran a couple of articles (higher readability score is better):
Not happy. Our featured articles are at a college level; is that where we want to be? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ima Hogg, readability score 52, ages 16–18 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You must really be more specific about the articles you are concerned about. Some of our better articles have very little jargon indeed, or do a great job at clarifying it. Would you expect any less jargon from other technical fields like engineering or mathematics? JFW | T@lk 21:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think these scores are great. Wikipedia is supposed to be written for adults, right? That means that anything around age 18-20 is right on target.
Also, the whole article doesn't have to be accessible to children or young teens -- or even to nonexperts. I fully expect a young teen to skip some parts of an article. My eyes glaze over on some paragraphs. That doesn't mean that I want them removed. We just need to have a simple paragraph at the beginning of a technical section that summarizes it, or a simple sentence at the beginning of a complicated paragraph.
I wonder whether it's possible to perform the same search on the less technical sections. I'd also like to know whether the algorithm fusses about vocabulary. Rhabdomyolysis is probably a "college-age or beyond" vocabulary word according to most lists, but you can hardly write the article without mentioning its name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One problem I see is that it needs to be readable to the editors themselves. Sure, we can go through an article and change a bunch of complex sentences into simple sentences by removing conjunctions. The result would be less words/sentence which would increase the Flesch Reading Ease score. Unfortunately, by doing so we would decrease access to the article because people don't want to sit around reading a bunch of 5 word sentences that could be combined into a single sentence.
Would you rather read that, or this:
translation of above: I see a problem. Editors need to be able to read their work too. Sure, we can edit an article. We can remove complex sentences. The result would be less words/sentence. This would increase the Flesch Reading Ease score. Unfortunately, less people would be able to read it. No one wants to read sentences like this. These sentences can be combined into fewer sentences.
The first paragraph has a score of 62.4 while the second one, which has the exact same information, has a score of 81. Personally, if I had a choice, I'd rather read the first paragraph. -JPINFV (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is of course the WP:Simple English Wikipedia (see Main Page and Simple English Wikipedia expanded description) for a younger reading-age audience, although relatively few articles have been stripped down for this project. Finally we generally write articles to the level of secondary-education/undergraduate level (i.e. the finer nuances of views and opinions in post-doctorial circles generally are not included in our articles, but neither do we litter articles with warnings to younger children "don't do this at home" or "ask an adult to supervise you") :-) David Ruben Talk 20:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, a thorny issue. To become featured, an article must be comprehensive. With medical articles, this invariably requires a significant amount of technical and specialist information. I'm inclined to agree with JPINFV. I'm not convinced that the automated assessment is a fair representation of readability.
Another criterion for FA is "brilliant prose". The FAC reviewers assess this at candidacy. Sandy, if you think that too many featured medical articles lack this quality, perhaps the problem lies with the FAC procedure? Do you think that the reviewers are not assessing prose quality stringently enough? Axl (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Our featured articles are at a college level; is that where we want to be?" — Sandy
In my opinion: yes. Otherwise the articles would not be comprehensive. Axl (talk) 11:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biological fluids

Biological fluids (not Body fluids) has an AfD that will close today. It didn't get listed on the sorting page for medicine. If you happen to be interested, please see the AfD notice on the article's page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It needed WP:BOLD - I have turned it into a redirect to bolidy fluid. JFW | T@lk 20:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting nightmare on Tumor Street

Atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor could use a good once-over by any editor. There's a lot of good, sourced information, but the formatting's strange in a few places and ==External links== takes up a full screen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This looks right up my alley; I can work on the layout and formatting issues that don't require medical knowledge, but I'm going to take a Very Big Red Pen to that External links section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It started as an upload of a patient (family) support article. I deleted / moved chunks of it already, but more is needed. Snip away. --Una Smith (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing a lot of basic cleanup; it would be good if the physicians went at it a few days from now, after I do some of the MoS and ce sort of stuff, so we don't get it in each others' way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unhappy. Diberri is returning faulty dashes (that is, hyphens instead of endashes) on page ranges, and is automatically wikilinking journal names. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can do; what a wreck. It's cleaned up to a place that the physicians should be able to do something with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what it was when I started, in case I lost anything important (I deleted all kinds of cruft, adverts, and there was a ton of WP:OVERLINKing.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Una Smith, I just checked in to see if anyone had improved the article, and confess I don't understand your edits. You eliminated the lead entirely, created two Prognosis sections (not in MEDMOS order, one at the top, one at the bottom), and created duplicate incidence and epidemiology sections (not in Medmos order, one at the top, one at the bottom). Perhaps your work got interrupted and you're not finished? It looked to me like the information you sectioned out of the lead was a correct summary of information included later in the article, per WP:LEAD, with perhaps the exception of Classification, where a section does need to be created. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

!? I just started working on it again, I checked the history first and I was the last editor, and I don't see what you describe. When an article needs a huge amount of work, I find it helpful to cut the lead back to the bare minimum and re-add summaries of key content after working on the content sections. That helps to focus the lead on the scope of the article. Okay? --Una Smith (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I add, this is especially important in a long article, because to edit the lead it is necessary to edit the entire article and that increases the rate of edit conflicts. --Una Smith (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the version I was referring to, before I moved some of the text back to the lead. It has a one-sentence lead (please see WP:LEAD, two prognosis sections (out of MEDMOS order) and two incidence sections (out of MEDMOS order). Because it was left in that state for many hours, I wasn't sure if you'd finished or been distracted, so I went ahead and eliminated the duplicate sections, by restoring the text to the lead. Cutting back the lead and re-building it is a reasonable way to edit, but the duplicate sections were certainly strange, and I wouldn't recommend leaving an article in that state while working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also curious why you stuck a cleanup tag on it after I spent more than four hours copyediting, cleaning up citations, and doing MoS compliance editing, leaving it clean.[1] It needs citations, as tagged, but I can't determine what cleanup is needed beyond the instances of cite tags and expansion of the article, neither of which are cleanup issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, because I think it needs still more cleanup? No reflection on you, SandyGeorgia. Anyway, why am I getting my ass chappped about any of this here? --Una Smith (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Usually when you put a cleanup tag, you should say what still needs to be cleaned up. As far as I can tell, the article needs to be expanded and needs to be cited, but that's a different beast than cleanup. "Ass chopped"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brain tumor is also a mess right now. For one, it does not identify the many kinds of brain tumors. --Una Smith (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does, in the second section, but much of it is a complete mess. Someone was doing work on it in the past but has evidently stopped doing so. JFW | T@lk 20:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pain

I think we could use extra eyes at Pain. So for those who haven't been along for the ride the last couple of weeks, Pain and nociception was split to Pain and Nociception. I don't have Nociception on my watchlist and don't know what's going on there. Pain has had an incredible number of circular conversations.

Recently, Robert Daoust wanted to exclude all uses of the word pain from the main Pain article except what we might call "physical pain". Pain would lead with a hatnote saying something to the effect that unless you meant physical pain, then you needed to go somewhere else. I opposed that: Pain is the main topic and should include all its parts, including metaphorical uses. However, the general feeling was that the article is a bit unwieldy, so the notion is to split Pain again. The question is how to split.

Two overlapping proposals turned up today (neither of us knowing what the other was doing): Pain (physical) and Pain (medical). These are just quick drafts, but they give the general outlines. I can't say that one is more expansive than the other: 'physical' proposes many more topics than just the physical nature of pain, and in fact appears to be an expansive version of the existing Pain article minus references to Suffering; 'medical' would include non-physical pain as appropriate to a medical setting, but not as much physiology, which could be left to Pain. We need to pick one approach or the other, or we'll have an undesirable content fork.

Until this gets settled, the main article really can't make any progress (because we won't know what's left in it, much less what it needs to link to). I think at this point that having some less-involved editors give an opinion might be helpful. (Please feel free to disagree with me in this discussion: candid and thoughtful opinions are wanted.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pain is physical unless specifically otherwise qualified. JFW | T@lk 20:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New user Jgervais118 (talk · contribs) has started by adding external links on multiple pages to http://www.uptodate.com/patients Now the site looks interesting, its articles credited to named authors, has an impressive list of contributing medical/paramedical editors and articles do cite sources. I've not heard of uptodate.com before now, so do people have any thoughts ? 3600 medical editors would seem impressive... we obviously can't have each & every medical website being allowed to have a link on each of wikipedia's medical articles, but we do allow the very comprehensive eMedicine... so I suppose the question is, is uptodate.com better, more comprehensive or more notable than eMedicine which we do allow in the {{Infobox Disease}} ? David Ruben Talk 18:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only the "patient information" pages meet WP:EL since the professional pages require a subscription. I agree the pages seem to be written and edited by good quality authors and the material looks OK too. However, I've yet to find a page that doesn't stumble on the EL "Links normally to be avoided" of "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." Comparing our featured articles with their patient articles, I either didn't find a free equivalent, or it was much less comprehensive. Looking beyond the a single article, the site's usefulness as a "resource" is limited because the internal links mostly lead off to subscription-only material (which is too advanced for the general reader anyway).
Does anyone here have access to the subscription material? How does it compare to a review article in a medical journal? The material is written by professionals and reviewed by an editorial system. I don't see anything that would cause those pages to fail WP:V or WP:RS. That's not to say there aren't better or more accessible sources. Colin°Talk 19:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UpToDate has become an indispensible resource for many physicians, at least in the US. It's extremely widely used as an informational resource by physicians. Basically, they have experts describe and summarize the primary evidence in an area into a concise, clinically useful page or two. They're quite well-established - I think they're much better and more useful than eMedicine - and they get real, nationally or internationally known experts to write and edit the pages, which is good. I find it difficult to live without UpToDate, as I suspect do many physicians of my geographical and generational niche.

I currently have access, though I'm not sure how long I will continue to since the price is becoming exorbitant. It's not quite like a review article in a journal - it's not peer-reviewed, and the content is constantly updated and not static - but it's a very reliable source of useful medical information and expert summary of medical evidence. For Wikipedia, I'd suggest that we should be mining it for citations rather than citing UpToDate directly, particularly as it's subscriber-only. I think this is a reasonable source in terms of WP:V and WP:RS, but probably not a great external link, largely because of the need for subscription. MastCell Talk 19:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dynamic aspect you describe also counts against its use as a source. Although we can mention the last-updated & when-cited dates for any source, these are of limited use if you can't retrieve that version using archive.org or some other facility. Colin°Talk 19:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have used uptodate in the past. It is reliable and well-respected among the medical community. However it is expensive, and certainly is not accessible to the general Wikipedia reader. I agree with MastCell. Axl (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone, I've posted to Jgervais118, and I think all but a couple of the free-for-patients links have now been removed. David Ruben Talk 00:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UpToDate has been around and respected for quite a while and used a lot here in Belgium too, but UpToDate for patients is quite new. Last December, a ran a little project to check Wikipedia's rank on Google and other search engines for health queries; UpToDate for patients scored poorly, so it is yet to become a notorious source of patient information. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the reliability of letters to the editor

Are "letters to the editor" published in peer-reviewed journals considered reliable sources on Wikipedia? I was told that some letters are "vetted" when the journal editor(s) accept them for publication. I am wandering whether this one is "vetted" because I'm using it as a source of criticism in the article "Paleolithic diet". Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're okay there. Think of it as being more like a magazine article than a scientific report. You're allowed to cite The Economist or New Scientist, and this material has similar qualities. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Letters are typically not peer reviewed, just reviewed by the journal editors. This effectively reduces their scientific power, but not dramatically. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an important point - they're reviewed in the same sense that letters to the editor published in a reputable newspaper are reviewed. An editor thought they made an interesting or debatable point. They are not vetted extensively for scientific accuracy, and they naturally tend to reflect the specific opinion of the letter writer. They are potentially citable, but we should be careful not to put them on the same level of reliability/weight as actual journal articles. BTW, "Rapid Responses" from the BMJ seem to make frequent appearances when there's a minoritarian POV to be pushed - these are a special case and are no more reliable than lightly-moderated blog commentary. MastCell Talk 22:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about NEJM? They ran a blatantly inaccurate full journal article on Tourette's once, they never retracted, but they did run one letter to the editor the next month from a neurologist, who pointed out that their article was just Wrong. How did that happen? In this case, the Letter to the editor was more accurate than the peer-reviewed journal article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fact check request

Could someone with medical expertise give a quick fact check to the new pulmonary contusion article? I'm sort of a layperson and I'm concerned I may have unintentionally introduced errors or distortions. Thanks much, delldot on a public computer talk 05:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Informed assessment of Action potential as a Featured Article

I would appreciate commentary and critique on whether the current action potential article is worthy to be a Featured Article. It's a long article, I know, but please read through it and vote your conscience, Keep or Remove, at its FAR. If you don't like it, then let me know what needs to be fixed! Willow (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised my vote. Well done. JFW | T@lk 20:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Board certification

Board certification claims to be a US-specific thing, until the last section, which mentions other countries. Do non-US specialists get board certified, or is there another term? Is there a way to internationalize this article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last section is not about other countries, but (I think) the American orgianisations recognising doctors in foreign countries. In UK specialisation is via training time as a Registrar and relevant Royal College examinations - pass the examinations and one is a specialist and able to have that recorded in the General Medical Council register (list of doctors). However the threshold for passing the revelant college exams is, as far as I know, fixed each year to allow a set number through supposedly to maintain standards, but the cynic in me thinks just to get resit examination fee income for the colleges - my year of sitting the MCQ paper (many years ago) of some 200 questions, just 13 questions discriminated between distinction and a "poor fail"... not that I'm bitter... not :-) - anyway thats my perspective as a GP - but would need hospital doctor to give actual current details. David Ruben Talk 04:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK entry to the specialist register by the GMC is by certification of the completion of training (CCT), which is awarded after registrar work for a set duration and meeting a set curriculum. Contrary to David, the exams are typically required prior to entry into a specialist training programme (apart from MRCPath, which is an exit exam). Some specialties are now introducing a knowledge-based exam prior to CCT. JFW | T@lk 07:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(I stand corrected) So Part 1 Membership of the Royal College of Physicians (assuming that is what it is still called) is nowdays done when? and what about completing MRCP - previously done around SHO to Registrar step up, but now that SHO/Registrar post are merged, how has this changed ? Indeed can one now gain CCT without seeking to join the relevant Royal College (in same way a GP can complete General Practice Vocational Training without opting to try and join the RCGP) ?David Ruben Talk 18:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Part 1 is done from 18 months after qualifying, and Part 2 (Written) and PACES soon afterwards. In the past PACES could only be done after 18 months of unselected acute medical take (some people tell me this has changed). But PACES is not a prerequisite (more a desiderata) for entry into the ST3 (formerly specialist registrar) grade. In practice, one is still expected to hold PACES (i.e. full membership) by the end of ST3 as it is a marker of career progression too. JFW | T@lk 10:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine Collaboration of the Forthnight

 Thank you for your support of the Medicine Collaboration of the Week.
This week Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was selected.
Hope you can help…


NCurse work 10:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS FAR

Wikipedia:Featured article review/AIDS has been up for over a month now; would editors please visit, discuss whether issues have been addressed, and enter a Remove or Keep declaration as appropriate? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hemostatic agent article and Antihemorrhagics

Hemostatic agent was originally created to focus on topical antihemorrhagic products like QuikClot. It is now starting to focus on other antihemorrhagics as well. Since there is no article on antihemorrhagics, I am currently proposing that this article focus on the ATC code B02 drugs in addition to the topical products. Any input you have would be welcomed at Talk:Hemostatic agent#Focus of article. --Scott Alter 22:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hatzfeldt Syndrome

Calling all WikiDocs... :) The above article, which has been around since November 2007 and appears quite clearly a hoax to me, is up for deletion. Any comments are welcome, as are additions or corrections over at Fuzzform's detailed critique of the article at my Talk page. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S3 and S4 split/merge

I have proposed a split (or perhaps a merge) of the information for heart sounds S3 and S4. Discussion is at Talk:Heart sounds; please opine there. - Draeco (talk) 05:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help, fast

I'm going to be out all afternoon, but I put a placeholder for Coeliac disease at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests when an opening came up. Somebody please go over there fast and finish it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celiac ganglia

Hello Residents of the Mess:

I just stumbled on the article Celiac ganglia, while using the "Random Article" "button".

I realize this is a technical matter but could there be a sentence or two or three in the article devoted to an indication in laymen's terms of what this Celiac ganglia thing is.

Perhaps, to be more specific, could there be a small section entitled: "To put that more simply" or "If you did not follow that" or "In other words" or "In plain English" or some such thing.

This section might have a sentence on the function of this body part, one on how big it is, where it is (just below the lungs and at the front), what it looks like, what would happen if a person did not have these (but only if that can be expressed simply).

Just an idea. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made some small improvements to the lead. It would be great if someone else could add to that effort. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitlist

These have been on my list for a while, and I'm just not getting to them. If anyone knows something about these subjects, please feel free:

Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myelofibrosis and polycythemia are on my to-do list. I know something about them. Once things in real life quiet down, I will prioritize them. MastCell Talk 16:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, MastCell.
I don't suppose that we have a cardiologist in the house? AV reentrant tachycardia means nothing to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot adding DOIs

Please see User talk:Smith609 for discussion of some issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I reverted the misguided bot's edit to "Lung cancer". Axl (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge suggested of Pannus and Cutis pleonasmus

So I'm looking through some stuff for one of my classes and I came across a month old proposed merge with zero discussion. The proposed merge is to move Cutis pleonasmus into Pannus. I figured I might as well let everyone else know that that had been proposed. -JPINFV (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style in medical journals?

What is the most widely used citation style in medical journals? Many thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals are widely followed. They require the use of the Vancouver style for citation formatting. See this summary. PubMed follows this style, though they drop any restriction on the length of author lists (et al), which is understandable since they are a database, not paper. Colin°Talk 21:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review request for Pulmonary contusion

If someone with medical expertise could participate in Wikipedia:Peer review/Pulmonary contusion/archive1, I would be much obliged. Thanks! delldot talk 16:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osteotomy

There's a question at Talk:Osteotomy about whether the images are really from an osteotomy. If you know something about this, please have a look. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article title: "Rhythm" or "Calendar"?

There's currently discussion on the article title for the rhythm/calendar methods. "Rhythm" appears to be both used for a specific method and the most common lay term for these types of systems. The World Health Organization uses "Rhythm" for a specific method but uses the term "Calendar-based methods" when referring to them as a group, and there's a question over whether WP:MEDMOS#Naming conventions would support the WHO term. Talk:Calendar-based methods#Name change, scroll to near bottom of section. Any outside input would be appreciated. LyrlTalk C 11:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content of cervical cap article

Ongoing debate over the multiple issues regarding content of cervical cap article. A previous request generated helpful opinions, but unfortunately failed to take the discussion to consensus. Current topic is content of the infobox: discussion. LyrlTalk C 11:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Physicians and Surgeons. Occupational Outlook Handbook. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Dept of Labor. [2]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=210086291"