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
Line 626: Line 626:


:Note, I just defended the statement in the context of the discussion there (i.e. that the OP should of course always stick to whatever his/her doctor prescribes). The issue is then simply mentioning that X can help with condition Y as a statement of fact instead of saying that "you should use X as a cure for Y". The latter is clearly not allowed. My problem with not allowing the former statement is that this amounts to censorship. There may still be problems with the way I suggested that SSRIs could help with the condition, but the objection to my statement suggests that even mentioning something more clear cut like e.g. that antihistamines can help to deal with allergies wouldn't be allowed because only doctors are in the business of prescribing antihistamines. That sounds over the top to me, as we're not prescribing medicines, only doctors can do that. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 19:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
:Note, I just defended the statement in the context of the discussion there (i.e. that the OP should of course always stick to whatever his/her doctor prescribes). The issue is then simply mentioning that X can help with condition Y as a statement of fact instead of saying that "you should use X as a cure for Y". The latter is clearly not allowed. My problem with not allowing the former statement is that this amounts to censorship. There may still be problems with the way I suggested that SSRIs could help with the condition, but the objection to my statement suggests that even mentioning something more clear cut like e.g. that antihistamines can help to deal with allergies wouldn't be allowed because only doctors are in the business of prescribing antihistamines. That sounds over the top to me, as we're not prescribing medicines, only doctors can do that. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 19:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

'''no medical advise to anyone, anytime'''--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 20:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


== AfD on [[Stem cell educator]] ==
== AfD on [[Stem cell educator]] ==

Revision as of 20:05, 28 June 2015

Shortcut

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
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine
Recent changes in WP:Medicine
Articles and their talkpages:

Not mainspace:

 Top  High  Mid  Low  NA  ??? Total
 99  1,110  11,517  38,586  19,152 1,023  71,487 
List overview · Lists updated: 2015-07-15 · This box:

Electronic cigarette

Drawing request

Electronic Cigarette

1st drawing:

Less serious adverse effects from e-cigarette use can include throat and mouth inflammation, vomiting, nausea, and cough.<ref name=Grana2014/> This text can be used for the drawing.

Possible 2nd drawing:

The most frequently reported benefits of e-cigarettes were reduced shortness of breath in comparison to traditional cigarettes, reduced cough, reduced spitting, and reduced sore throat.<ref name=Dagaonkar2014/> This text can be used for the drawing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking#/media/File:Adverse_effects_of_tobacco_smoking.svg

Something like this above. This will be for the Safety of electronic cigarettes#Adverse effects section. QuackGuru (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who can create the drawings? A little help please. QuackGuru (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru might have more luck here Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image request

Hon Lik, the inventor of the modern electronic cigarette.<ref name=Demick2009/> This text can be used for the image or drawing.

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-inventor-of-the-electronic-cigarette-hon-lik-smokes-his-news-photo/87962255

I request an image of the inventor of the e-cigarette for the Electronic cigarette#History section. QuackGuru (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume its this [1]...in regards to the drawing (drawing request in the first section) you might try User_talk:VHenryArt...this is the thread when they originally introduced themselves Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_58 (its almost at bottom of the page)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 58#Artist. It could be an image or a drawing for Hon Lik. User:VHenryArt, are you interested in making a drawing of Hon Lik? QuackGuru (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert A. Gilbert, inventor of the earliest electronic cigarette.<ref name=Bellis2015/> This text can be used for the drawing.

http://www.cleancigarette.com/what-is-the-ecigarette/electronic-cig-inventor.php

I request a drawing of Herbert A. Gilbert for the Electronic cigarette#History section. QuackGuru (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can get what you want. If someone looks at a photo and copies it by hand (e.g., makes an oil painting out of it), then it's a derivative and the original copyright still applies. And if the copy isn't close enough to the original for copyvio to apply, then it won't look like the person enough to be usable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone can create new drawing at different angles. QuackGuru (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I think what Whatamidoing indicated still applies...it would be a copyvio...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for thinking of me, but I am not really a portrait artist. I do more medical, scientific, and technical work. To comment on the topic of copyvio, I agree with the others that it is a risky move, with regards to copywrite, to do a portrait from a copywrited photograph. An artist could produce a unique portrait using multiple references, though, without being in violation, so long as the finished piece is unique and not a copy of any of the references. To do this would probably take a considerable amount of time (especially from someone like myself who does not do portraits often). Plus, "uniqueness" is somewhat open to interpretation and that is where the risk comes in. Should the copywrite holder of any photograph deem the piece to be too much like his/her material, the artist is likely to have to prove in court that it is not. Regardless of the outcome, it would be costly to have to build a case and go to court. This case is a good example: Obama 'Hope' Poster. VHenryArt (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this had been a request that was actually announced where it should have been: One of the electronic cigarette pages, then I could have been helpful with such an image, since i was just at a conference where Hon Lik was a speaker. Why is this being discussed/requested/deciderd here? --Kim D. Petersen 22:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request Uploads

https://www.flickr.com/photos/skooksie/17199255616/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lwr/16163676905/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeepersmedia/18748617245/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/23748404@N00/9491763732/

Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[2] I believe this is the link --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No medical references in "addiction" articles listed in Category:Behavioral addiction

Resolved

- nothing sketchy or entirely unsourced remaining. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I'm still working on addressing the ambiguity in a number of articles in which dependence and addiction are used interchangeably, so I don't really have the desire to salvage any article content which I find blatantly stupid and which lacks medical citations.

That said, I started to sifting through Category:Addiction and Category:Behavioral addiction to fix any incorrect categorization of dependence/addiction topics and noticed a number of unusual addiction entries involving various behaviors in the latter category. I've just started to work through these - the three 4 I've gone through so far had a complete lack of reliable medical references. In particular:

Articles with addressed issues
  1. Virtual reality addiction (somewhat new) - I deleted all the text and redirected to video game addiction.
  2. Love addiction - there's only one MEDRS-quality review on this topic on pubmed and it concluded that current evidence doesn't support this addiction model; I ended up deleting most of the article, as it contained a large number of medical claims without medical citations. Pubmed reviews containing that term
  3. Sex and love addiction - I read a few sentences in this article, looked at the refs, and then deleted all the text + replaced it with a redirect to love addiction for the reasoning in my edit summary.
  4. Information addiction - WP:PRODed for reasons listed in the prod template redirected to Internet addiction as suggestion in the discussion below
  5. Television addiction - minor copyedits + added medical review. Should be ok now.
  6. Hypermobility (travel) - deleted every medical claim/citation to it. Removed from category. No pubmed coverage
  7. Compulsive talking - deleted relevant text associated with an addiction. Removed from category. Left {{MEDREF}} there. No pubmed coverage
  8. Workaholic - deleted statements / citations relevant to addictions/medical claims. Removed from category. Left {{MEDREF}} there.


I could probably use some help sorting through these categories since I doubt the lack of medical referencing is confined to just these articles...

Articles that appear ok

Other articles in the category that aren't listed above may still have problems.

- Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Updated Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Updated Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the article Problem gambling is ICD-10/F63.0 [3]( will look at references)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about all the references that point to a biochemical cause in the brain? ...shoot, I just was reading about this. I'll take a time travel trip back through my editing history because I know I found it....OH! Its in the Sexual Intercourse article in some new content I added.
  Bfpage |leave a message  19:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two sources I used:
  • <ref name="Probstvan Eimeren2013">{{cite journal|last1=Probst|first1=Catharina C.|last2=van Eimeren|first2=Thilo|title=The Functional Anatomy of Impulse Control Disorders|journal=Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports|volume=13|issue=10|year=2013|issn=1528-4042|doi=10.1007/s11910-013-0386-8}}</ref>
  • <ref name="Natural and drug addictions">{{cite journal | author = Olsen CM | title = Natural rewards, neuroplasticity, and non-drug addictions | journal = Neuropharmacology | volume = 61 | issue = 7 | pages = 1109–1122 |date=December 2011 | pmid = 21459101 | pmc = 3139704 | doi = 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2011.03.010 | url = }}</ref>
  Bfpage |leave a message  19:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
those are both very good reviews for the Problem gambling article,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information addiction seems to essentially describe internet addiction. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected it to that page. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nephritis

did a few edits, any help would be welcomed, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think Ozzie10aaaa's initiative is a welcome one. Imo, this is an example of one of those generic disease-pages which although relevant are editorially tricky to frame. 'Nephritis' gets a roughly similar number of page views to Liver disease (~41,000 vs ~44,000 in the last 90 days), which is another awkward one, imo. 109.155.60.103 (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thank you (and thanks for pointing out liver disease it needs a lot of help)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedia Library donations

Hello all, I wanted to let you know of two recent donations we just opened up at the Wikipedia Library: WP:AAAS and WP:World Bank. Please sign up for the accounts if you think you can use them. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

great information...free--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Autofil of refs

The only one of the 4 that still seems to work is [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical) seems to have a number of issues--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes labs is down. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[5]...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emu oil

Can someone please have a look at the recent addition to Emu oil? It is purportedly based on a review article, but I can't verify the claims because I don't have access to the the full article. I suspect the source is being misrepresented to a certain extent and the article has a history of spammy, promotional, biased, and unreliable additions. Deli nk (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the conclusion of the Journal paper ... Despite such findings, there are no scientific reports available, to our knowledge, for the potential mechanisms of action of emu oil, so further in vitro and preclinical research is needed to render its mechanisms of action to treat various disorders. Frankly, it doesn't look like a proper interpretation of the 'review'. Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 17:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Deli nk. Adjusted the wording to match reality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. Deli nk (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

De-wiki's in-house radiologist

Malfunctioning template
Esophageal web in barium swallow (scrollable)
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
An example, scrollable at commons:User:Hellerhoff.

I came across Hellerhoff over at Commons, and found a treasure-trove of German-labeled radiographs. I found the scrollable images especially exiting. You can check out a really cool one at commons:User:Hellerhoff. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 20:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

these images can be very useful in several articles (the one posted could be used at Upper_gastrointestinal_series )--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Needs a way to scroll through the images. That java is required is an issue. This needs to be fixed before we use them I think. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Came across some of these for a few articles, e.g. eagle syndrome. Generally advice is that sometimes good quality medical images can be found on commons, but difficult to navigate because the categorization is so chaotic. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the client side, JavaScript is available in almost every browser. To make it more usable the JavaScript for this widget makes use of the jQuery library and that's commonly available on our wikis. What is problematic is that using the mousewheel really requires an extra JavaScript library to make it compatible with all browsers and that's probably going to be a stumbling block if we want to use this in other language wikis. --RexxS (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some kind admins at commons who helped me with the final JavaScript-code. I'm more a radiologist but a programmer even though I set up the basic version. You do not need the wheel, dragging with left is also possible.--Hellerhoff (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I imported the template to Template:Imagestack/Commons. As I'm not either a programmer I also ended up importing a number of multi-language modules. RexxS do you know if there is any way to get rid of the dependencies and to see if we can create something that is scrollable with the left mouse-button without taking this through the long process of importing that extension to en-Wiki? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help with the template Jackmcbarn! So, you can manually load the javascript by adding: 
mw.loader.load('https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-ImageStack.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
to your common.js.
James do you know if you can install commons:MediaWiki:Gadget-ImageStack.js as an administrator, or would that need to go through a community discussion first? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Installing gadgets is accomplished via discussion at Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals - you need to read Wikipedia:Gadget first. But note that the gadget on Commons just loads the JavaScript into a page when required - you'll still need to get the full script installed somewhere and it's not generally done at mediawiki:Common.js for the English Wikipedia (unlike on Commons). I usually talk to Edokter for advice on where's best. I have a full copy of Hellerhoff's JavaScript in my User:RexxS/common.js and I'm trying to work around the problem of incompatibilities between the way browsers handle mouse scrolling. If I get a good solution, I'll ping you. --RexxS (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gadgets can be split into a loader and the full core script that is loaded on-demand, as we have done with a few gadgets already. So there is no need to stash the code in Common.js. Why hasn't Commons picked up on this technique yet? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking comments on the placement of GMO safety consensus

RfC on the placement of GMO safety consensus - should it be located in the Controversy section? Here is the RfC. Thanks, petrarchan47คุก 23:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please give opinion (I gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone check an article for me?

Just a quickie - I don't have access to this publication without paying for it, and I'd like someone who has to check what it's about: [6] At a guess, it concerns cyberbullying (harassment via the internet etc) rather than the subject of our article on Electronic harassment - alleged mind-control run by the evil gummint and their Illuminati friends - but I'd like conformation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump: Either you're right, or my institution is in on the conspiracy and sent me a fake paper so I wouldn't find out what they're up to. It is 1) a series of semi-structured focus group interviews with teenagers and 2) a survey of high-school students in New Zealand about harassment via the internet and mobile phones. If the terminology in this article is common (cyberbullying as a subset of "electronic harassment"), then our surprisingly old conspiracy theory article needs a new title. Or maybe that's just what They want me to say. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Perhaps the article needs a (tinfoil?) hatnote linking the Cyberbullying article - I suspect that changing the title would just lead to it being recreated, and further feed the conspiracy-mongers who of course already assume that Wikipedia is in on the conspiracy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Red link#Proposal regarding redlinks in navigation templates; subsection is at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Revision proposal. A WP:Permalink for the matter is here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

opinions needed(I gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using epigenetics to completely remove memories of traumatic experiences

Hello, please could anyone offer comments on Draft:Epigenetics of Childhood Abuse and Trauma. It makes some claims that seem outlandish to me, but I am not very knowledgeable about epigenetics. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The claims are not actually outlandish -- this is a very active research area where quite amazing things are happening -- though some of them are based on very limited evidence. As an undergraduate essay this is one of the best I have ever seen, but as a Wikipedia article it has serious issues. Most importantly, the sources are largely primary research papers, and many important statements lack necessary references. There are also a few factual errors probably caused by the authors not fully understanding what they read. And there are some statements that are not entirely neutral. Looie496 (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The user already recreated this in article space at Epigenetics of Childhood Abuse and Trauma. And as I pointed out here, several lines are directly pasted from the sources. KateWishing (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Louie496 I agree I think Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view is a problem--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes full of copyright violations. Deleted. Class appears to be done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic Joint Syndrome

A new article with alt med sources that is not particularly described as alt med in the text. Probably needs work...

Or possibly deletion given the lack of hits on pubmed [7]. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the article is poorly sourced and as Matt says no PubMed articles come up when searching TJS. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
concur--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zero pubmed sources. Make up name. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arteriosclerosis

did a few edits, any help would be appreciated, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kumdang-2

This article was recently created after North Korea claimed it cures all sorts of diseases--"including AIDS, SARS, Ebola, skin rashes, diabetes, impotence, liver disorders, venereal disease, drug addiction, various cancers and tuberculosis." [9] It has been tagged as needing more medical references, but I don't think there are any peer-reviewed papers that could be used as sources here. I am posting here because I'm not sure how we should present NK's claims of effectiveness regarding this drug, or even if we should have an article on it at all. Everymorning talk 22:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag, there are no medical claims in the article as is. It only states that NK claims this. I'd be almost surprised if the medical community even took time to refute it.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
agree (however as it stands without MEDRS, there is no logical reason to have an unsupported article, it should be deleted)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it make clear that these are just claims I am okay with it right now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liver disease /mechanism section

I did a few edits on this article, however I can use some help with the mechanism section (references/text) thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sudden cardiac death

Article is High-importance, yet only Start-class after nine years. Could it get some eyes, please? LeadSongDog come howl! 03:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may find some useful sources here. Also, see Talk:Sudden death, as cardiac death doesn't have a monopoly on people (or animals – sudden death is a major veterinary issue) dropping dead unexpectedly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historical content subject to MEDRS?

At Kombucha, it is being claimed that "[Kombucha] was prized 220 BC during the Tsin Dynasty for its detoxifying and energizing properties" is a biomedical claim and therefore subject to MEDRS. I was hoping to get some clarity on this. Thanks, petrarchan47คุก 06:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: this has also been raised at WP:NPOV/N#History_of_Kombucha_.3D_POV.3F) From the opening of MEDRS: "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge" (my bold). So while of course it's fine to detail historical information according to our general WP:PAGs, care needs to taken to ensure anything which bears on current medical knowledge is properly sourced. Otherwise we have problems with statements of the type "in the 1950s, there were many successful reports of the use of rife machines to cure cancer", which from time to time have been attempted with the justification that historical observations don't need MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sticking to the matter at hand, "Kombucha was prized 220 BC during the Tsin Dynasty for its detoxifying and energizing properties" bears on 220 BC, nothing current about it. I'd be interested to hear from others, as I am pretty sure you are either not understanding this guideline, or are misusing it. petrarchan47คุก 07:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine so long as it's clearly stated as being knowledge relevant to that time, i.e., "for its ... properties" is not acceptable. Instead, what would be is "for the detoxifying and energizing properties which it was thought to possess at that time" is. The former represents currency in the medical portion of that statement. The latter does not. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have WP:MEDDATE for this type of thing; but it can be a case-by-case basis. Flyer22 (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it is something people believed, it must be presented as a belief, not as a fact. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't this edit solve the issue? By last count this very small wording issue is now being discussed at the article Talk page, NPOVN, and here. Why is this still being discussed? Zad68 15:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was reverted for being POV (that's why it went to the NPOV NB). It was claimed at that NB that the statement required MEDRS, so it seemed this project talk page would be the best place to get clarity on this. This thread isn't about solving the issue, it's about helping me to understand the MEDRS guideline. My question is specific: how does a statement about the beliefs of people in 220 BC - taken straight from the review - fall under the "biomedical information" category when it is clearly ancient history? This has nothing to do with POV, and it's doubtful people at the NPOV NB have a better understanding of MEDRS than the folks here. Does this make sense? If there is a better way to handle these separate concerns, let me know. MEDRS is not a very well understood or accessible guideline. In fact it has been suggested that a tutorial on MEDRS would be helpful, since it is causing a lot of confusion and making it difficult for non "medical editors" to participate in article building the way we did a few years ago. petrarchan47คุก 15:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this falls under MEDRS at all. Alexbrn's edit (which is still in the article) makes it a little clearer (although it probably needs to lose the scare quotes), but "what people believed 2200 years ago" is not WP:Biomedical information. This kind of information should come from a history book. And before anyone asks, antique claims that something "rectifies the humours" also do not constitute biomedical information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move for "Substance dependence" → "Dependence"

In case anyone cares to comment: Talk:Substance dependence#Requested move 21 June 2015
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please give opinion(I did)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time to stop displaying each individual archive in Template:MedTalkheader ?

I feel this display is getting out of hand (67+). Suggest remove the individual list of archive pages and replace with a single link (? this= Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive index ... although it doesn't seem to work), and the "search the archives" box. Thoughts? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about we just collapse it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with this. As a purely cosmetic concern, is it possible to have blue instead of green? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect been improved further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming research newsletter (June 2015): new papers open for review

Hi everybody,

We’re preparing for the May 2015 research newsletter and looking for contributors.
Please take a look at: WRN201506 and add your name next to any paper you are interested in covering.
As usual, short notes and one-paragraph reviews are most welcome.

Highlights from this month include:

  • An Examination of Health, Medical and Nutritional Information on the Internet: A Comparative Study of Wikipedia, WebMDand the Mayo Clinic Websites
  • Medical student preferences for self-directed study resources in gross anatomy

If you have any question about the format or process feel free to get in touch off-list.

Masssly, Tilman Bayer and Dario Taraborelli

Research:Newsletter
—M@sssly✉ 16:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

good info--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting [10]. They found that Wikipedia is as complete as WebMD and Mayo Clinic. But more difficult to read.
WebMD and Mayo however are plastered with advertising and give the actual content so little room. They also like clip art. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
more difficult to read, because more thought has been put into the articles, though the lede is being made simpler (when an opportunity arises with each article)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Input wanted for a small blinded study of the quality of WP:Med articles

Hi. I am planning on doing a small study of the quality of or cardiology articles with C- or B-status. A random sample of the articles will be selected, anonymise by reducing them to a text-only version, and be reviewed by blinded (MDs incl. cardiologist) reviewers (the do not know the articles come from Wikipedia). After each article they will be presented with a questionnaire with a couple of questions. The reviewers can chose an answer based on a 1 to 7 scale (3 increasing positives, 1 neutral and 3 increasing negative) e.g. Excellent, Very Good, Good, Neither good nor bad, Poor, Very poor or Terrible.

I am looking for input for the questions on the questionnaire. This is what I had in mind:

Please rate your overall opinion about the quality of this article
Compared to medical textbooks, such as Medicinsk kompendium (Danish golden-standard-textbook for internal medicine) or Harrison´s Principles of Internal Medicine, how would you rate the quality of this article
Compared to medical textbooks, such as Medicinsk kompendium or Harrison´s Principles of Internal Medicine, how would you rate the readability of and language used in this article
Are there important omissions or errors in the article?
Is the article adequate in its coverage of the subject?
Would you recommend this article to a source of patient information?
Would you recommend this article to a colleague?

Do any of you have suggestion to changes or comments to the questions? If so please let me know. By the way there will also be pre- and poststudy questionnaires. I know it is not the best study design and I was planning on doing a study with control articles taken from textbooks or e.g. NHS or WebMD (if very interested there is a previously post) but it turned out to be too much comparing oranges and apples. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As part of the post study questions would be good to determine how well the blinding worked. (ie ask the question "where do you think the content was from?") Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, good suggestion by Doc James. Effectively 'anonymizing' articles extracted from a publication with an editorial format/style as familiar as Wikipedia's could be a challenging task. 109.155.60.103 (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the questions seem to be objective as is the rating scale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jakob, did you consider trying to use a regular medical encyclopedia as the control? Also, rather than (or in addition to) asking "Are there important omissions or errors", it might be useful to ask "What's missing or wrong?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few quick thoughts about the *focus* of the questionnaire/survey. The questions seem to be aiming to assess doctors' expert opinions as an indicator of "quality" – an approach that has some intrinsic limitations as you're no doubt aware. The first question seems to be the most resonant one, but ultimately perhaps the most potentially misleading because of its extreme subjectivity ("quality" in what sense/context?). "Textbooks" like Harrison´s and "patient information" are normally two very different types of publication (and this sort of questionnaire will inevitably provide a "doctor-skewed" view). I wonder what your precise research question is. 109.155.60.103 (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • JakobSteenberg Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Research publications for what research has come before. My biggest objection to most Wikipedia health critiques is that Wikipedia articles are often compared to imaginary ideal sources rather than any existing comparable source. You say that you would compare Wikipedia to a medical textbook, and I think that is fine, but during the research I think you should dictate that to which Wikipedia is compared.
If possible, it would be nice if a given topic in Wikipedia could be compared 1:1 with a given source, but I recognize that to read Wikipedia content it is required to jump from article to article through links and perhaps in a textbook one would also need to check several chapters to cover a concept. If it were possible, I would prefer a solid comparison with a defined source. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Blue. There is no perfect source / no gold standard. All sources contain errors / become out of date. The problem with using a rating scale is it needs to also run on a comparator. I do not think their is a way around this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please, pleeaaase include at least one control source. I've read several studies that assess Wikipedia's content in comparison to, well, nothing, and I've found every one utterly worthless. They come up with some sort of number at the end, but there's no way of knowing whether that number is good or bad, and after a critical reading you feel like the whole thing was a waste of time. If you want to know whether Wikipedia is a good source for patients, compare it to WebMD or Mayo Clinic. If you want to know whether it's a good source for students, compare it to a textbook or some content from a MOOC. Just asking for a subjective comparison to a textbook isn't worth much if the reviewer has not also done a blind critical reading of the textbook content; you'd be largely testing their faith in the textbook. This is an outstanding example of how to conduct a study, though I recognise they had more resources available than most groups. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 00:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[fwiw]...fully concur with Adrian's observations; if there's no blinded comparison (textbook / website ?) the survey will inevitably regard doctors' *attitudes* to the content, and there'll be no way of disentangling the objective from the subjective. 5.80.198.100 (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC) (=109.155.60.103 above)[reply]
I also just wonder whether Jakob has considered the possibility of adopting a more exploratory approach (to explore perceived issues rather than simply assign "quality" rating/s). 109.155.60.103 (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes would be good to get concrete ideas of how to improve Wikipedia further. Would be good if those involved with the study were also improved with making the improvements. One could than finish the paper with, "and these issues have now been fixed" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I echo comments made by others. Important to test whether the blinding has worked. And what is the appropriate comparison? Is it a medical textbook, i.e. is Wikipedia trying to be a medical textbook? Or should it be compared with, say, a website aimed at the public? Bondegezou (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for your responses. It it much appreciated.
Blinding and improvements questions: I like the idea and will try to include a "where do you think the content was from?" and "what can be improved about the article"-type of question into the questionnaire. I think the first question should only be addressed in the post-study questionnaire while the latter should be part of the questionnaire immediately following the article/it review.
Yes, there should be a control group: I completely agree with you here. This was also my initial approach. But I have spend a couple of weeks looking for a control group (textbook, on-line source like WebMD and what have you) but I could not find any where it would make sense do a a 1:1 comparison even when if I have used a non-random sample (I tried looking up "main"-articles like acute coronary syndrome, angina pectoris and atrial flutter but still it was also to much oranges and apples to make any sense). That being said I will still try to make such a study but it is somewhere down the line.
For doctors or patients? ...and what the hell is quality anyway? As stated above quality should be measured against a control and being that Wikipedias is neither for doctors or patients in some sense this poses a problem. That is why I am trying to measure both parameters individually with the latter questions but also in a way combined with the first question.
To sum up: It is no where near the best methodology in the world. It is actually kind of shitty. It is however the best I can do at moment since I am only postgraduate student with very limited research experience who is doing this in my very limited spare time and have a tight deadline; for several reasons this study has to be done by fall. In my opinion it is still better than nothing and being that the research being conducted on the quality of Wikipedias medical content only amounts to a very limited number of pub-med indexed articles a year that mostly measures bias towards Wikipedia as a concept I still think it can provide some information of value.
Again, thank you for your responses and keep them coming. All help and comments are appreciated. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob, just wondering (again!) whether you might not be better off shifting your focus from "quality" to "attitudes"/"observations" of a certain relevant type of reader (eg some cardiologists). Personally, I feel it's always good to try to design a study capable of generating, after all limitations have been taken into account, some incremental/useful information, rather than just repeating... So I'm wondering whether it might be worth adjusting your aim (literally!). I'm sorry if I haven't expressed this very well. Best, 5.80.198.100 (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jakob, how many articles and reviewers are you going to attempt? Also, do you need to review whole articles, or could you give them only, say, the ==Diagnosis== or ==Treatment== sections? (It'd save your participants some time.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...(@WAID) hum, I think it could be hard for a reader to gauge, say, adequacy of coverage from an isolated (decontextualized) section. Pertinent content may be spread across different sections (even in articles that have reached FA, eg here/here). Also, judgements can vary on what constitutes, say, "Diagnosis": just relevant tests (and their predictive value) / or also clinical suspicion based on signs and symptoms etc. 5.80.198.100 (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I am making a suggestion in the wrong thread, but I believe a question should be in the evaluation that asks the cardiologists for whom do they believe the article was written? answers could be, the public, a person who has just been diagnosed with a cardiac condition, nurses, nurse practitioners, PCPs, or cardiologists. The audience matters! We are not writing for medical practitioners and I don't think we should be evaluated to that standard.
  Bfpage |leave a message  19:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Imo, Bfpage's suggestion regarding doctors' *perceptions* is a stimulating one... Imo, so much more interesting to go down that sort of *qualitative* research route than to attempt something that doesn't really seem feasible in the circumstances (ie reliable quantification of "quality"). Then you'd find yourself better placed to invest *creatively* in the relevance/originality of the research question/s. (Could I perhaps suggest also trying to contact User:HenryScow, who I happen to know has himself supervised readability research?) 5.80.198.100 (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page move help

Can someone (probably need an admin) sort out a page-move problem for me? Sphincter of oddi needs to be moved to Sphincter of Oddi, and its talk page, Talk:Sphincter of ampulla, should be moved to Talk:Sphincter of Oddi. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. We should really make you an admin :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jmh649 WhatamIdoing Hear hear. JFW | T@lk 17:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were an administrator.   Bfpage |leave a message  19:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I've been meaning to ask: How's your plan for the Haitian Wikipedia going? I see that you've been working on a couple of articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making progress, I think but not as quickly as I would like. I have started the translation of two of Project Med's priority articles that have been identified as needing translation: Female genital mutilation and Yellow Fever. Female genital mutilation is a long, and heavily referenced article in English. Even the references have to be translated because they contain so many notes. It is a featured article in English and I have been in contact with the major editor who brought to featured status. As for building community, I thought I would wait until I had a significant number of edits and then start looking for those editors who are active. The translatewiki.net 'people' first rejected my application. Then I reapplied and submitted 20 edits to show that I could translate. Then they 'accepted' me as a translator. THEN a few days ago I was informed that I was rejected (again) and unable to contribute. Translatewiki.net has only translated one medical article to haitian. I don't need to be a part of translatewiki.net (their loss, I suppose) to keep working on translating med articles. So far, no other active editor on the ht:Wikipedia has reverted any of my edits, but then again I am not sure I am getting any page views, either. Would you like me to keep you informed on my activities on the ht:Wikipedia with some kind of periodic report? I could just leave an informative weekly or biweekly message on your talk page. I could ping Doc James so he knows the progress that is being made on the translation of high priority med articles. Best Regards,
Do you want to get nominated to be an administrator? It looks like you have at least four editors who would support your nomination. I personally think it is a 'dirty' process where everyone looks for your 'Achilles heel' and all your past mistakes. I also think nomination is a spectator sport. But I am sure you would be a good administrator, especially when settling disputes.
  Bfpage |leave a message  14:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would just translate the leads (first three or four paragraphs) of articles. Will allow you to create a broader coverage of content in less time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Google

A pertinent read (imo) from the Guardian today, written by a thoughtful oncologist called Ranjana Srivastava [11]:

The modern cancer patient has typically Googled the diagnosis, the oncologist, prospective treatment and a whole lot more before setting foot in the office. This can mean that serious, life-changing issues compete with the frankly nonsensical.

Last week, between cajoling a patient to enter a hospice and treating a homeless man I heard a discourse on Mexican garlic, another on healing spinach juice and a patient demanded scans recommended by a popular blog.

I resent Dr Google being the silent spoiler in my life but only until I recognise how the internet has allowed patients to seek counsel that would have been unthinkable in another era, and access to often high-quality information written with the patient in mind. My last few patients have probably learned more about clinical trials from the internet than from me.

But look up “best treatment for cancer” and you have an astonishing 300 million offerings. Right there with rigorous, evidence-based sites there are those offering fermented foods and DIY cancer cure kits. ...worried patients need help to distinguish between sensible advice and fanciful claims.

109.155.60.103 (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the "popular press" (the Guardian)is not interested in facts ( worried patients need help to distinguish between sensible advice and fanciful claims )[12]...though in this case I must admit the patients situation was difficult--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(huh? - fwiw, this thread was intended as a reflection on the role of Wikipedia's medical content within the broader scheme of things) 109.155.60.103 (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Medicine is definitely changing. Patients now have decent access to health care information even though much of it is poor in nature. I; however, think this is generally a good change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Camel urine/blood and MERS

Hello, we've had someone asking us (editors on the wikiproject sanitation) about cultural practices relating to the consumption of camel urine and/or blood in the Middle East. It isn't really our focus, however, I have been talking to a virologist who says that this is considered to be a source of MERS. In briefly investigating wiki pages, I have not been able to find this mentioned on Urine therapy or the main Camel page. I don't think it is really my place to get into Middle East respiratory syndrome or any of the (possibly relevant) medical pages, but I was wondering if anyone might consider whether this should (or quite possibly should not) be added to some of these pages? There are a number of strong looking reviews talking about the link including this one in The Lancet. Thanks! JMWt (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

to begin the Lancet ref you indicate does not have full access...the closest I found was this [13] but I would prefer a better quality reference to comply with Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ozzie10aaaa, the NLM already has the Lancet "Seminar" article listed as a review (per PMID 26049252, publication types). I don't have access to the full paper, but I suspect it could be a strong candidate MEDRS, especially given the fast-moving circumstances. 109.155.60.103 (talk) 11:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
your right,...but we could use full access--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
is it not full access? I'm pretty sure I didn't need to login to see it. Edit: sorry, nope I was logged in without realising. JMWt (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JMWt, while open-access is always nice, it definitely *isn't* a requirement for MEDRS. 109.155.60.103 (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was a bit sneaky for Ozzie10aaaa to edit his/her comment to take out the claim that it was not a review. But anyway, as far as I can see (reading the whole paper) it is a secondary rather than a primary source. JMWt (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
it didn't look like one (theres nothing "sneaky" about it, for any article you need to show the reader what the reference is that supports the statement) because there is no full access you so indicated here [14]....MEDRS is very clear Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I am not writing any article including this paper, I am just highlighting that maybe it is something that should be addressed. Wikipedia:MEDRS does not specifically say that open access is needed, it is not my problem that you do not have access to the journal. Get access, or don't. It isn't my paper, I don't much care. JMWt (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ozzie10aaaa: Please see WP:REDACT - the guideline on how to edit your own talk-page contributions so that threads subsequently remain fully comprehensible to readers. 109.155.60.103 (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a question for you in regards to this User_talk:109.155.60.103 ...(Thanks Ozzie10aaaa! This logged-out editor isn't actually altogether "new". So I hope you don't mind me trimming your kind welcome message so as to avoid possible third-party misunderstandings. Best, 109.155.60.103 (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC))...I was under the impression only one account can be used?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes people get logged out by Wikipedia and thus are switched over to an IP. Typically it is not a big deal as long as someone is not trying to hide edit warring or get an extra "vote" in a discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll leave it to you to think about. JMWt (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A cultural practice such as drinking camel urine or blood is not a medical claim and therefore does not need a MEDRS compliant source. Thanks User:JMWt for bringing this here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but clearly the risks of MERS from camels is a medical claim. JMWt (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes agree. By the way this is an excellent source [15] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

→ Just in case anyone does want to look into this, my virologist contact has also offered this paper which might (or might not) be relevant. JMWt (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

chromosome interactions/condensin

[16] recently published,i deem this a good read, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia + Reddit

A bit ago Lane posted an idea to try to integrate Wikipedia with Reddit. Just today I have formalized a draft proposal with the basic ideas which I would like some input on from anyone. The basic idea is I think we should make content such as videos and other other interesting content for people to enjoy. the overall goal is to educate the public on how Wikipedia works behind the scenes to provide good content. We have seen many studies where a vast majority use Wikipedia in the healthcare sector but do not state they trust it. While this is meant to improve brand image, it also would serve as an editor recruitment tool. While most of the time we try to actively tell people to edit Wikipedia with little success, perhaps we should want them to do so organically?

Look forward to hearing everyone input! Peter.C • talk • contribs 16:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like a great idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PMID3

This is up for deletion in case anyone is interested. Discussion here. There's apparently a new template that's easier to type that offers the same external link, but no internal one. Sarah (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we not simply use cite journal templates? Having so little data in the ref is a problem IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ease of use is important for simply getting it introduced, but it should promptly be replaced by substituting a more substantial citation that provides robust redundancy against error, vandalism, etc. In most cases {{cite journal}} is the best answer for WPMED, though some editors would disagree. Even one other parameter, such as |title= vastly improves the robustness of the citation.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
this is a template for talk pages, not articles. Cite templates aren't even relevant to the discussion. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This template was never intended to be used in articles. Only on talk pages where a short link to a in-text citation is adequate to get the point across and where including a full citation might be overkill. Boghog (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is used in article space though. If there is a bot that would auto replace this template when used in mainspace I would support keeping it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, this template has only been used in a single article, Veganism compared to the dozens of uses on talk pages. It probably is not worth the effort to write a bot script to detect a highly unlikely occurrence. However it is straight forward to detect which name space this template is included (see for example {{Namespace detect}}), and if it is used in article space, it would display an error message (for example PMID3 error, this template should not be used in articles). Combined with the following caution on the {{PMID3}} template documentation page:
should be enough to deter most editors from including this template in article space. Would this be sufficient? Boghog (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. We should add that to all three of the Template:PMIDs IMO Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sure, but why bother? This template has 50ish transclusions and was used in one article with otherwise manually formatted citations. The problem being solved here is....? The odd article or two might have citations in a slightly unusual format? This discussion plus the TfD must be more words than the collective set of talk page posts using this template. Yes, I know I'm making it worse... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I will soon nominate this template for the Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Templates ;-) In any case, I have now added code to generate an error message if the template is used in an article. I have also added support for multiple PMIDs, something that the PMID magic word does not do. These changes should address the two major arguments that have been raised against the template, overlinking and that the template is redundant. Boghog (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The multi-PMID function is a great idea. In a non-lame world I'd complain about generating unnecessary errors in mainspace, but I can live with a red bike shed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Almost everyone who'd supported deletion has now changed to neutral or keep, and keep has a truckload of support. I think a bold admin could close this. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vascular disease

did a few edits on this article, any help would be appreciated, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology edit-a-thon in September

Just came across this event folks here might be interested in (or would want to be ready for): Wikipedia Edit-a-thon - Psychology (22 September 2015). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

great information,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JAMA and dopecruft

SandyGeorgia and anyone else facing dopecruft edits might like this week's JAMA. Several reviews on medical cannabis and related evidence or lack thereof. JFW | T@lk 18:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She said she was travelling, I think for about that time, so we can hope for her return. Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have updated a bunch of pages based on the one review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Financial toxicity/cancer merge

Hi all, I'm suggesting that the stub on Financial toxicity be merged with Cancer's section on economic effects. Cancer is protected so I've held back on moving forward. The page on financial toxicity has minimal sources, both articles by the same co-author, but I'm not super familiar with medicine, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Your help is appreciated! Fuzchia (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a neologism of questionable merit to me. And the 'Economic effect' section in the cancer article needs globalising, if it is merited at all - our readers aren't all from the U.S. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need a good general article on the financial effects of illness. Cancer isn't the only expensive disease out there (for example, dialysis due to kidney failure). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in some research on financial aspects of cancer once. While I've not heard term financial toxicity, there is a bit of literature on tjhis topic. Really should be dealt with in society and culture section of disease articles, but a dedicated article would also be valuable imo. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jfdwolff redirected it. Jytdog (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog Yes, it was a good candidate for WP:BOLD. JFW | T@lk 12:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
agreed! was just noting it. Jytdog (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everyone, for your help! I'll be bolder in the future. Fuzchia (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-writing an article?

Hey, I need some people to help with the article for Litten's sign (lung). It'd been tagged as a hoax but from what I can see this is a term that's used. That's about the extent of my knowledge of this as I don't really know what to put aside from that and this desperately needs to be edited by someone who is familiar with the term as it applies to lungs. I have no problem with this being merged into the main article for Litten's sign, which is currently only about the term as it applies to eyes. It looks like this term was applied to both, so maybe they can be merged? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the Litten's sign (diaphragm phenomenon) article does have a good MEDRS #1 reference, however it is dated (old)... (the #4 is in Spanish, and 2 and 3 are non-MEDRS compliant)... In regards to merging [17]they are different anatomical ailments. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing on Pubmed for Litten sign. I think it is too obscure for its own article. JFW | T@lk 12:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
hm there are a whole slew of these that i didn't know existed, and even a template for them: Template:Eponymous medical signs for respiratory system. Jytdog (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: Oy gevald my eyes. Most of those "signs" are diagnostic tests (e.g. Kveim test) or X-ray findings (Hampton/Westermark/Kerley). That template really needs renaming. JFW | T@lk 16:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and most of them are stubby. i wonder if we should merge/redirect each of them into the condition they are used to diagnose or something similar. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: I suppose that depends entirely on the nature of the sign. If a sign is "pathognomonic" for a certain condition there is little point in having a separate article and merging might be entirely appropriate. JFW | T@lk 21:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guillain-Barré on GAN

Having had a bit of a Wikibreak I have now been spending some time on Guillain-Barré syndrome and I've just nominated it for GA. It would be great if we could take it to featured article before 2016, when the original report is exactly 100 years old. Many thanks in advance to whoever decides to review it! JFW | T@lk 21:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a very interesting article (nervous system disorder)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentals of Robotic Surgery

Peoples thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

seems interesting/important [18]...however the article could use more prose and less numeration, also the references with the possible exception of #2, need attention...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not an encyclopaedic article, and not a topic I'd expect to see in an encyclopaedia. Robotic surgery is clearly a topic meriting coverage, and (given sufficient coverage in third-party sources) the teaching of robotic surgery might well be - but an article on a curriculum for the teaching of robotic surgery? Surely not. Wikipedia is not a web-hosting service... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why we don't apply WP:Note here. If the "curriculum" is notable it deserves an article. That said most of the sources are self-referential and could do with pruning. Also I would agree with Ozzie, it's far more important that we bring Robotic surgery to a decent standard, so if nothing could be salvaged here we can just redirect the page. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 05:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I would propose deleting most of it and merging the little bit left into Robotic surgery. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like..that is exactly what I proposed in the discussion.   Bfpage |leave a message  18:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin D and cardiovascular disease

New article just landed:

Side gripe: the {{al}} template now expands with a link that uses the "visual editor" - take care! Alexbrn (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in regards to references #2, 3, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are non-MEDRS compliant, further #6 is cited twice...aside from that the text could use some trimming, thank you --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Copied and pasted from sources same as everything else this user has created. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Predatory / poor quality journals

This morning I was invited to be on the editorial board of the "Journal of Emergency Medicine and Intensive Care". I looked into the Elyns Publishing Group and it is out of some guys apartment per [19]. They appear to be a money making scheme.

This one has an impact factor of 0.11 [20]. There are; however, companies that award bogus impact factors [21]

Anyway interesting stuff. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately there is good/bad in everything (OMG)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yup it's possible to find a journal for pretty much anything these days! (and then to find a Wikipedia editor arguing for using it, he added cynically) Alexbrn (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. These are the issues that Kombucha exemplifies. Wikipedians trying to push extraordinary claims using questionable sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the issue that the Kombucha discussion exemplifies is a different one, namely the opacity of MEDRS to many editors coming from outside of wikiproject medicine. Some may intentionally boost a bad review to promote their POV, but for others, a significant part of the problem is that MEDRS doesn't put forth a clear framework for evaluating reviews that are on the borderline - impact around 1 to 2. These would be RS in other parts of the encyclopedia, but as long as project medicine is setting medical refs to a higher standard, it should make that standard transparent and as objective as possible.Dialectric (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure so a step by step process for finding reliable sources? I will begin drafting one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck, but, ack. This is the kind of subtlety you either already know or won't fully understand from a wiki FAQ. The best guideline would leave it at "If you're not absolutely confident that both your source and your understanding of its conclusions are impeccable, you should discuss it on the talk page instead of editing the article." Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The guide sounds like a step in the right direction. Opabinia regalis, your guideline is going in the opposite direction with something of the same goal. There will always be a few editors who think their understanding is impeccable, and setting some outer bounds on acceptability shouldn't limit editors - what I would ideally like to see is a hard position taken on specific quality indicators, ie. review sources with an impact rating less than 1 should not be used. The 5 year point called out in MEDDATE is a move in this direction, and if there were just a few more criteria agreed upon by a majority, it would make sourcing less of a grounds for endless argument. And Sword and Skeleton is a lot better than it was a few years ago. They ran an excellent piece recently on the role mummies played in Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact.Dialectric (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be to hard to list a bunch of sources that are definately okay and than a bunch of sources that are definately not okay. We will still have a grey area but it will give people a starting point Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A list sounds less useful than a guide. Over 5000 journals are indexed for Medline.Dialectric (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and maybe 100 are of very high quality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge mepirodipine with Barnidipine

Please merge mepirodipine with Barnidipine. Snipre (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

since they are both calcium channel blockers it might be best to place them atCalcium channel blocker, mepirodipine appears to be the generic name of the latter [22]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kombucha again

There are efforts to extensively use a non pubmed indexed review to support medical content at the Kombucha article. This review also appears to misquote / overstate the position of the FDA. I have removed it but it appears to be controversial. Wondering what others opionions are? Talk:Kombucha#Non_pubmed_indexed_source Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference meets WP:MEDRS but...

Okay, I'm still learning the intricacies of proper sourcing. I have found a review article that is quite fascinating. I was searching for info on STIs and this article proposes alternative, successful treatments that I've never heard of. And its not the only article that refers to these treatments. Now aren't there about a billion people in China, and wouldn't they consider these therapies valid, especially since their efficacies are evaluated with these reviews?

  Bfpage |leave a message  18:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Impact factor is not very high. Thus not a very good source. We should generally stick with sources from reputable publishers with a significant track record of publishing high quality research. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree except this review-level article is just the tip of the iceberg. These Chinese therapies ARE showing up from reputable publishers. And the impact? Well, since a billion people might be using these therapies I would say the impact could be quite high. If I find other review-level articles from reputable publishers (is there a list of these?) on the same topic with the same or conflicting conclusions, would citing these articles then be appropriate?
  Bfpage |leave a message  19:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A list of high quality journals include: JAMA, NEJM, BMJ, Lancet, Cochrane, Circulation, Pediatrics, and Annals of Internal Medicine. Often I specifically look for reviews from these publishers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:oral pathology layout change

This nav template was getting out of hand so the layout has been tweaked with collapsing sections. I feel this is an improvement and could be used on other similarly large medicine templates. Only concern is it is not immediately obvious what the template has to offer readers in its completely collapsed state, which would be the default appearance. Thoughts? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

looks like a good idea, but as you indicated not immediately obvious what the template has to offer readers --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I changed one of the parameters to "autoexpand" and this seems to have done the trick. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this kosher?

Primo-vascular system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bonghan ducts as the actuality of "meridians"? Really? Guy (Help!) 11:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, delete. Also how can it not be until the late 2010's that the findings were corroborated? That hasn't even been yet.. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
concur, delete--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not Kosher, rather Haram. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 12:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is a French version of this article. I'm not fluent enough to take up the discussion there, but maybe someone who is could? fr:Système primo-vasculaire

I tried to delete it under speedy deletion, but the reviewers requested an explanation. It wouldn't be hard to give one, but I can't. Maybe we should post on the French WT:MED page? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

$$$ Reward levels for editing the science out of alt med articles? Need for sources on alt med marketing schemes.

This edit says, "Classifying Alternative Medicine as pseudoscience... Wikipedia is on a misinformation campaign against alternative health and the healing arts... Natural health deserves fair representation.... We’re going to set the record straight. We need your help and invite you to get involved in the process. Please check the various reward levels to discover how to participate."

An editor on the alt med talk page suggested more is needed on these kind of marketing schemes by alt med promoters, to create the illusion of scientific justification, biological plausibility, or that there may be energies undiscovered by physics that alt med studies can reveal by "systematic reviews" that admit to using imperfect studies, yet get published as showing efficacy anyway. Does anyone have RS sources for these marketing strategies? FloraWilde (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

rather curious "marketing"--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is our friends from NaturalNews. see WikipediaWarning.com. they pulled the plug on their kickstarter campaign at the end of April. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 drug reports out today

The UNODC 2015 World Drug Report and the 2015 European Drug Report are out today. These may be helpful sources for recreational drug related articles. Sizeofint (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

very useful article information--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes excellent source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An officially "reasonable" medical option?

The United States National Institutes of Health says "acupuncture appears to be a reasonable option".[23] Here is some of the history[24]. Wikipedia has an article on reason. Please comment and contribute to changing the lead first paragraph of the acupuncture article here. note: I modified this opening comment with the intended link to where to comment and participate, after User:AndyTheGrump commented immediately below. FloraWilde (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles on many things. None of them are relevant to our article on acupuncture however, since we don't cite Wikipedia as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
very interesting...The effects of acupuncture on the brain and body and how best to measure them are only beginning to be understood. Current evidence suggests that many factors—like expectation and belief—that are unrelated to acupuncture needling may play important roles in the beneficial effects of acupuncture on pain.[25]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ozzie10aaaa, what I am not understanding is that each of the "systematic reviews" showing some mysterious new "energy" source or proposed "biomechanism" for the "effects" (which TCM practitioners just happened to have come across by application of incorrect traditional Chinese anatomy, Chinese Astrology, and numerology, to start sticking needles in people to fight disease), notes that there was not a single truly double blinded study included in the systematic review, yet they went ahead and published the review as if there were such studies, and got the "efficacy" conclusion published in the abstract, without mention that the review included zero double blind studies, as if there were real double blinded studies being reviewed. FloraWilde (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and agree with you, however now NIH is stating the above quote. In other words though one might be of a different opinion, NIH is starting to take a position on this( and who knows what else)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be two different voices speaking for NIH, one made by biomedical science spokespersons, the other made by alt med promoters and practitioners, per this history[26]. FloraWilde (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
to be clear, the site linked above is the NCCIH which is not exactly the same as its sister institutions nor the NIH per se. it is useful to attribute accurately. that said, i do think they are expressing the medical consensus that one finds stated more and more frequently - acu is useful and safe enough as an adjunct to conventional med for some pain conditions and some side effects of chemo... situations that conventional med doesn't handle well and where placebo is powerful. it is not that big of a scandal. Some people are horrified by that and others want to take that and run way too far with it... but WP deals with the world as it is, not anybody's ideal world. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am unclear how the NCCIH part of NIH, that is by lawdominated by WP:NPOV violating alt med promoters and practitioners and is "independent" of the biomedical part of NIH, can be accepted as MEDRS, when it admits that the "reasonable" systematic reviews it relies on, did not find a single correctly double blinded study to include in the review, yet analyzed the defective studies showing efficacy as part of a "systematic review" anyway. By definition, a systematic review can include only correctly double blinded studies. Then this NCCIH body made of political appointees picked to promote and practice alt med, makes a declaration under NIH's banner that this is "reasonable". This makes no sense under WP:MEDRS standards. FloraWilde (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
well for starters NPOV doesn't apply to anybody but WP editors. :) I know you are frustrated, I hear that. And if you search the archives for "NCCAM" you will see that the point you are raising has been raised before. There has always been some tension between whether our articles should emphasize evidence (the "biomedical reviews" part of the definition of "secondary" in MEDRS) or consensus (the "statements by major medical and scientific bodies" part of the definition of "secondary"). Generally those two align, but in cases just like this, what I have seen quackfighters do is emphasize evidence when discussing sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
hmm...with some CAM interventions such as acupuncture (unlike with, say, homeopathy) plausible biological mechanisms beyond placebo do exist[sorry, I don't have the RS to hand] other than the traditional/quack theories/explanations. 5.80.198.100 (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is the plausible biological explanation as to how acupuncture treats various cancers, assorted bacterial infections, viruses, and all the other diseases it claims to treat by sticking needles in specific locations? What biologically plausible explanation would lead anyone to ever first think of sticking an acupuncture needle in a specific point to treat a runny nose or ear infection, etc.? FloraWilde (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FloraWilde: sorry, poorly expressed... I meant "intervention" within a PICO context. What I meant was that *certain* claims for acupuncture may be biologically plausible, whereas for homeopathy no clinical claim is plausible beyond placebo (or talking, etc). I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that's why WP rules about editing homeopathy content are so tight. 5.80.198.100 (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes agree. It is a significant effort to keep our alt med content well references and reflecting mainstream scientific opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is getting way too long. acu-proponents wave their hands at neurotransmitters or neurohormones as possible mechanisms and some even murkier stuff. there is no scientific explanation for meridians/qi etc. the evidence for the indications the NCCIH mentions are from empirical studies with problematic placebos and results were barely significant over placebo. but both placebo and acu were much better than standard of care. and nobody serious talks about all those things you list (viruses etc) - that is what quacks push and they are pretty much strawmen/big waste of time in any serious discussion. but we constantly have to deal with people making those claims and with other people over-obsessing on them. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know, a web search engine can find someone saying almost anything, so there probably is someone who thinks that acupuncture cures the common cold, but it's my impression that people mainly see acupuncturists for pain and fatigue. Fatigue is probably helped quite a lot by lying still on a table for an hour, and pain is notoriously affected by expectations and theatrical elements like the mood of the provider. It probably "works", if by "works" you mean "the patient feels better (for a little while) afterwards". And the side effects of conventional treatments for serious pain are not to be overlooked: Acupuncture isn't 100% harmless, but fentanyl kills people.
Also, it's worth remembering that systematic reviews don't have any standards at all, except for what's declared in the methodology section. You could do a systematic review of the number of words in the abstracts of acupuncturists whose first names start with "E", if you wanted to. "Systematic review" is not just some fancy spelling for 'good source'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Among many epidemiologists at least, Bradford Hill's position remains, I think, a fairly widely respected scientific POV:

It will be helpful if the causation we suspect is biologically plausible. But this is a feature I am convinced we cannot demand. What is biologically plausible depends upon the biological knowledge of the day. [27]

The fact that a proposed mechanism is nebulous does not logically disqualify the possibility that one may exist. In such cases, failure to source/reflect the best available evidence – complete with limitations – would, imo, ultimately be a failure in NPOV. 5.80.198.100 (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WAID you know i was talking about people coming to WP and wanting to add those kinds of claims to our article. the POV-pushing is all around on those articles. Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eculizumab

has been the subject of some non-WP:MED not-to-mention-ax-grindy editing. my cleanup project for the weekend... Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have tried to summarize and update some of the medical aspects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coherent Breathing

I was about to AfD this article, entirely based on self-published single source. I suspect it is a quackery, but decided that you may know better what to do with it. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is just a single persons idea. No idication it is even significant in the alt med world.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no references (at least not usual ones)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

facts vs. value/nejm

[28] I deem this a good read, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

diabetic nephropathy

did a few edits on this article, any help would be appreciated.thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS issues

Euphorbia hirta seems to me to need attention by someone who understands WP:MEDRS. Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the references (in the medicinal uses section) #3-8 are non MEDRS compliant.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the "Experiment" section, which was egregiously out of place, but other improvements could probably be made as well. Looie496 (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

medical advice on the refdesks

Posting here because I wonder if any of you have experience dealing with people giving medical advice on Wikipedia. In articles it seems rather straightforward, but what about on a talk page or other non-article venue on Wikipedia? On the reference desk talk page there's a discussion of what constitutes medical advice and the kinds of medical advice that should not be allowed on the reference desks (or on Wikipedia).

It started with this thread (linking to old version of the page because someone has since removed the advice, but well after the OP responded in a way that clearly took it as medical advice): Possible to stop eyes from watering?

The gist: a user posted a question explaining that he views himself as unemotional and wanted a method to avoid having his eyes water during emotional parts of films per expectations of masculinity. Clearly any direct answer is going to be fraught, but a refdesk regular quickly responded with simply "SSRIs should work well" and went on to defend that as not being in conflict with Wikipedia's medical disclaimer.

Seeking additional eyes/thoughts, especially from those who may have more experience dealing with medical advice on Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I just defended the statement in the context of the discussion there (i.e. that the OP should of course always stick to whatever his/her doctor prescribes). The issue is then simply mentioning that X can help with condition Y as a statement of fact instead of saying that "you should use X as a cure for Y". The latter is clearly not allowed. My problem with not allowing the former statement is that this amounts to censorship. There may still be problems with the way I suggested that SSRIs could help with the condition, but the objection to my statement suggests that even mentioning something more clear cut like e.g. that antihistamines can help to deal with allergies wouldn't be allowed because only doctors are in the business of prescribing antihistamines. That sounds over the top to me, as we're not prescribing medicines, only doctors can do that. Count Iblis (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no medical advise to anyone, anytime--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on Stem cell educator

I've nominated this for deletion here: [[29] Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=669088627"