Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Edit with VisualEditor

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

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

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 10 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

List of archives

Merged Archive WikiProject Preclinical medicine: 1 Merged Archive WikiProject Clinical medicine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 WikiProject Medicine Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171

NEJM Quick Take as an example of proliferating video culture

In light of prior discussions of videowiki, and perhaps not news to you all (sorry if I missed earlier discussion), I found this video on antiplatelet treatment after PCI interesting, as an example of the NEJM's increasing investment (behind a paywall, generally) in videos to convey information. — soupvector (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Nice video. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I plan on using videowiki when I find time to learn how to use it properly Although it would be nice if it had features to produce slightly more elaborate videos like NEJM (eg, partial reveal of an image at various timepoints) --Signimu (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not too difficult to do partial reveal simply by using a sequence of images that contain the partial reveal. — soupvector (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah but since we have to upload these files on wiki commons, that would mean that for an average of 5 partial reveals per image, you would look at multiplying all used files by 5 times! So not only this would needlessly increase the storage space, it's also very time consuming for the editor. And our first goal is to edit textual infos, if something is hard to do with video wiki, it usually won't be done (and I thought also the purpose was to make a tool to do video very easily for wikipedians ). But that said, I'm sure it would be easy to do for someone with javascript skills, an idea would be to do something based on imagemaps but then with javascript to hide/reveal dynamically instead of the linking purpose, this could easily and elegantly allow to do partial reveals --Signimu (talk) 08:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

More tools to allow us to do cool stuff easier will be built over time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah that's awesome to hear! But let me clarify that I already love Videowiki, I will certainly use it as it is now, I favor strongly adding introductory videos in entries as shown in NAFLD --Signimu (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The least resource-hungry method of doing simple animations like a partial reveal is by using an animated gif. It also avoids the problem that client-side JavaScript is normally not usable on mobile devices (and that's over half of our readership). I haven't tried it, so maybe somebody can check that Videowiki handles animated gifs properly. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes it handles animated gifs well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, great idea! The only downside is that it lowers the color palette, so for schema it's ok but for real pictures it may be visible. About Javascript, normally all modern mobile browser support javascript, and furthermore if it's using HTML5 canvas for example with simple functions, I expect it would work great on a lot of devices, but maybe not very old ones (but then animated gifs may also have issues). --Signimu (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

But the great advantage is that gifs are already supported according to Doc James and plus they allow more complex animations A nice example can be seen on Homeostasis[1] --Signimu (talk) 10:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Let me just remind (again) everyone here that Wikipedia is not YouTube. Specifically, Wikipedia is collaboratively edited, and its collaborative editing tools deal with text. The fancy animations in that NEJM video require

• graphic design software ideally offering a variety of template designs around a common look-and-feel
• software to easily synchronise the animation of such designs along with a soundtrack narration
• a library of clip art for such images conforming to a consistent style (arteries, nerves, syringes, tablets, patients, doctors, etc)
• a large body of people enthusiastically collaborating to use such tools and develop media that is constantly improving with daily edits

We have none of these and Videowiki offers none of these. The Homeostasis animated gif might have got someone excited on the internet last century but is pretty awful by modern standards. And it was developed by one person in their only ever edit to Wikipedia. The file history on Commons shows that nobody collaborated with this person to improve the animated image. For example, the GIF shows a smooth sinusoidal wave and where the only factors appear to be insulin and glucagon. In fact blood sugar is affected by what, when and how much we eat and drink and the pancreas reacts to the rise/fall in blood sugar levels that occurs as we digest the food or fall in blood sugar levels when we go hungry. The Blood sugar level article shows that glucose generally spikes rather than following any perfect sinusoidal wave. So there is much that a collaborative medical project could do to create a better animation of blood sugar level mechanisms in the body, and we clearly have no tools nor talent nor any desire to do that over the three years the gif has existed.

VideoWiki does not create engaging animated cartoon videos all by itself, nor has it inspired any community to do so. A handful of VideoWiki videos were created by a handful of people back in May/June this year. Nobody has created any more videos nor has anyone (beyond a test edit) engaged in improving those videos. In terms of what makes Wikipedia great and what Wikipedia is, Videowiki is a failure. -- Colin°^Talk 18:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• More video more experiments At wikiconference:2019 many external partners, including people at universities, libraries, nonprofit knowledge organizations, and our increasingly encroaching corporate interlopers were all talking about more video in Wikipedia. As more organizations external to Wikipedia invest more of their operating budget in video, I predict more video content coming to Wikipedia. Any discussion or precedent about video in Wikipedia which happens now is useful. Just as Wikidata has invited data contributions at scale, far beyond the organic growth of Wikipedia the prose text, so I also expect that when video comes to Wikipedia that also will come at scale. I have been impressed with the magic of TikTok's video editing features, and I think the video innovations in year 2017 are as much of a technological milestone as any of the other completely reorienting cultural interventions as have been appearing several times a year for the past generation. I am supportive of anyone's efforts to do experimentation in the usual way with video in Wikipedia articles. TikTok'rs say "OK boomer" when people criticize their videos. That phrase is a great response to anyone who advocates lack of response to rapidly changing technology which has the weight of industry behind it. I do not want risky or disruptive experimentation in Wikipedia we should have as many controlled pilots as our community can discuss. I do not expect Wikipedia to be at the forefront of video but I definitely expect Wikipedia in readiness to follow the trailblazers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Blueraspberry for the info! Colin, I feel like these arguments can be made for any Wikipedia article, and foremost for pictures. Hence, I strongly disagree with Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not YouTube, as much as I would with an essay that would be titled "Wikipedia is not Flickr". Nobody to my knowledge suggested that Wikipedia becomes a video-centric platform, but simply to complement it with videos where appropriate. Hence, I agree that complementing an article with a video must be on the ground of added value, but I disagree with the aforementioned essay that videos summarizing entries don't have any value, they do, the value conciseness, which provides a low literacy entry door (or a quick overview for those who don't have time). And I think you're too quick to call Videowiki a failure, most Wikipedia articles are dormant for years, if time was a factor, Wikipedia would be dead since a long time What Videowiki needs is more exposure, I for one did not know it existed until very recently, and I will surely use it. --Signimu (talk) 08:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

generally agree w/ Signimu--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Queen's University- Student editing initiative

Medical students at Queen's will begin to improve 16 medical articles over the next two weeks. This work will span from November 11 to November 25th (approx). I will be doing my best to support and moderate the content they are adding as we go (progressing from their sandboxes to article talk pages to improving the articles live). Each group of students are being supported (content-wise) by faculty member experts who will be primed on what sources are acceptable to use as evidence in WP and taught how to edit Wikipedia and help students in their sandboxes. I encourage the ProjectMed community to give these students a warm welcome and have some patience while they are learning. The group is excited to be contributing. Hopefully, we will be able to work together to improve the evidence that is shared in these 16 articles and give the students (and faculty) a positive experience on Wikipedia that so that some of them may stick around and help us with our efforts. If you have any questions or suggestions please do not hesitate to let me know. Here are some links with more information, including the class this and dashboard (WikiEdu Dashboard coming soon).Thank you!
Article List:

• Lightning injury
• Bipolar I Disorder
• Caffeine
• Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer
• Alpha-thalassemia
• Concussion
• Central retinal artery occlusion
• Merkel cell carcinoma
• Noonan syndrome
• Giant cell arteritis
• Polypharmacy
• Actinic keratosis
• Measles
• Hodgkin’s lymphoma
• Cannabis use disorder
• Delirium

JenOttawa (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

JenOttawa thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Welcome! I am an instructor working with the Wiki Education platform as well. My students are working on peer reviews currently. My experience has been positive so far and I look foward to seeing your students' work go live! UWM.AP.Endo (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for touching base, @UWM.AP.Endo:. I am interested in learning more about your course. We are working from this project page. It would be great to compare notes and learn from you as well. Thank you again. JenOttawa (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I am seeing zero edits as of Nov 6th[2] User:UWM.AP.Endo what are the students peer reviewing? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, User:Doc James. That link is not my course page - my group is working over here, and they are currently working in their sandboxes. UWM.AP.Endo (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The Queen's Students will be posting their proposed changes on the article talk pages by Nov 18th and editing the articles live Nov 25th (approx). I have created the following talk page guide for students to follow that includes excellent resources from WikiEdu. Please do not hesitate to reach out with suggestions. I will be monitoring all talk pages and articles daily. JenOttawa (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

will watch/give any suggestion on Alpha-thalassemia article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! The positive and helpful comments from the community of medical editors has been very helpful! JenOttawa (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Updating wikipedia knowledge ecosystem image

Following up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 118#Updating wikipedia knowledge ecosystem image

I've finally got around to updating the File:Wikipedia_publishing_interactions_2016.svg image. I've made two different versions of essentially the same info. I think I've fit the majority of the major WP:MED collaborations and projects in. Any ideas and feedback welcomed! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

very clear and informative[3]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Awesome, great work!!! It's very useful! Just a quick question: why in the first schema are some arrows duplicated? (eg, "Wikimedia chapters" has two arrows). Also, I did not understand at first the "Translators" -> "Other language Wikipedias" arrow, I thought the arrow was missing (because there are multiple overlapping arrows here). Maybe making such arrow with a different thickness would also help in following visually the path? --Signimu (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Signimu: Opps, that duplicated arrow was a copy-paste error (fixed now)! Thank you. Good idea with having the arrow from translators without borders a slightly different width for clarity. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, a question for everyone: are there any medical schools that should be mentioned by name (have been doing it the longest / most extensively)? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

UCSF School of Medicine is one of our longest collaborators. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Wikipedia:Touro have future planned activities and have been active for years. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I'll add tonight. I was originally hoping to add Scholia, but Wikicite overall feels to have stalled (with SourceMD offline) so I thin kit's best to wait before pointing people towards something with an unfinished dataset. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 05:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah these are really nice. Minor suggestions for the first pic, both arguable, take'em or leave'em:

• You could remove "in English" from bottom-centre, and change top-middle to "English Wikipedia", given that some of the partners and affiliates are specific to the English Wikipedia.
• You could decapitalise the second words of "Wikimedia Affiliates" and "Outside Partners", as they're general descriptive terms, not formal titles.

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry E&E, looks like I caused you to introduce a typo: Wikimedia affiliates at top left. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 21:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Ha, thanks for noticing! fixed now. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Dementia risk perception is in the news

See https://apnews.com/651cea6469de44778d212454b933977f on doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.3946. As with anything in the news, we might see some edits around it. Presumably someone is already on Twitter schooling the authors about the inverse relationship between self-reporting poor health and living long enough to develop an age-related dementia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I think it's time Alzheimer's gets recognized as a type 3 diabetes (or more generally as a metabolic syndrome), I may have a try after reviewing the literature, as I think this info would be better presented in context. --Signimu (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

It's probably best to start kicking around the idea of type 3 diabetes with a section on the Alzheimer's disease page discussing this hypothesis, which has been kicking around for a couple of decades but hasn't caught on with most of the Alzheimer's disease community. Klbrain (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Have not seen any major medical sources calling it "type 3 diabetes". This name has been floating around in the lay press for decades. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

We have an article at Type 3 diabetes. It appears to only get linked in lists and (especially) navboxes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you everyone I came to hear about the "type 3 diabetes" by reading reviews on metabolic syndrome and related diseases, and I was particularly convinced by the arguments (but I can't find the exact source that mentioned it, it was not my focus at the time ). It's the first time I really look into Alzheimer's disease, I tried to do a preliminary review of the literature, I'll try to summarize as succinctly as I can with some the best sources I've found (not all, there are more).

There are quite some serious reviews calling to name Alzheimer, or at least its sporadic late-onset variant (the most common one), a "type 3 diabetes", since at least 2005 and several others since then. Here is a notable excerpt that reflects the general sentiment: "The role of insulin resistance is so central to AD risk that some researchers have referred to AD as “type- 3 diabetes” or “diabetes of the brain” (Steen et al., 2005)." Epidemiology: links with metabolic syndromes such as type 2 diabetes or obesity, and Alzheimer, are well established (see for a meta-analysis and several reviews above mention other studies). But it seems, at least on pubmed, that since the 2010s, the term "brain insulin resistance" has more success in adoption, with an upward trend (about 160 studies[4], vs about 90 for "type 3 diabetes"[5]). The equivalence is explicited by Folch2018. A Nature review claims to introduce the term, but there are publications using this term before[6], and others after.. Several reviews propose to repurpose type 2 diabetes drugs for Alzheimer, but so far there is no evidence of effectiveness (here for IGF-1), which is not surprising if Alzheimer is NOT type 2 diabetes (bodily insulin resistance) but a brain insulin resistance: there may be overlap, but they may happen independently. (Personal note: other metabolic dysfunction diseases such as NAFLD also have no beneficial effect of diabetic drugs once the disease is there). Also, insulin is not assessed properly in most studies on Alzheimer, hence why progress may be slow. Indeed, brain insulin resistance mechanism was elusive until 2013, as before it was thought that the brain was insensitive to insulin. Now the most commonly accepted hypothesis in brain insulin resistance studies is that Alzheimer is NOT type 2 diabetes, but may share metabolic dysfunction pathways. Brain biometals imbalance may cause/interact with the metabolism (and cause a metabolic syndrome).

Preliminary studies here on, not to add to the article, but interesting to have some perspective: Even APOE4, the major genetic marker for Alzheimer, was recently demonstrated to interrupt brain insulin signaling in animals. So it seems that even the biggest genetic factor for AD interacts with brain insulin signaling. In humans, there is good recent preliminary evidence that metabolic dysfunction, including insulin, precedes Alzheimer. (Could we use this last ref? It's a primary study, but on 7700 brains, that's crazy!). Less pertinent but connected, there is some preliminary evidence that diet can induce Alzheimer features, and it's different from genetically induced Alzheimer (reminds of metabolic syndrome diseases...) Interestingly, there is a preliminary link with NAFLD in animals.

So from that, I think we could update the Alzheimer article, to mention this hypothesis along with others (currently there is not even a single mention of insulin or hyperinsulinemia!). IMO, "type 3 alzheimer" instantly evoked metabolic syndromes for me and the idea that it is a long-developing illness that can be worsened by bad lifestyle practices, and that's why I personally think it's an appropriate name, so I was not surprised when I read in WAID's source that "research has shown that regular exercise, a good diet, limiting alcohol and not smoking make dementia less likely. Supplements have not been shown to help. We really haven’t done a good job of getting the word out that there really are things you can do to lower your risk". I still need to find the guidelines confirming what the authors said, so that's next on my todo list. About the type 3 diabetes, yes I saw it after posting here, but it's a stub that likely should be integrated in Alzheimer's disease as one of the hypotheses, along with the updated sources I listed above. What do you guys think? --Signimu (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

PS: it's not to say that AD is caused solely by insulin, we don't know at this point (so my previous statement that AD should be recognized as such is indeed "too soon"), and surely AD is a complex multifactor disease, but it seems well established now that insulin signalling disruption is a key component of AD. (Maybe I should have started my "summary" by writing that :-p) --Signimu (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

References

WP:CITEWATCH#ScopeMed

Detection have been added for citations to the predatory ScopeMed publisher. They can be found at WP:CITEWATCH#ScopeMed, help cleaning those up would be appreciated. Currently there are 41 such references on Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

thanks, Im certain editors here will work to clean up these retracted articles--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

You can easily find them with this search. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Health effects of Fitbit

A discussion regarding if these should be mentioned in the article is here Talk:Fitbit#Effects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Paying for high quality dermatology images

We are looking at a partnership with Cochrane, were Cochrane will provide a stipend for high quality skin disease related images under an open license. The images will need to come with stuff like a biopsy with histopathology to verify that they are what is claimed.

Well we within the Wikimedia movement do not pay for content, I am just verifying that we are okay with accepting content that others may have paid for? Images will go on Commons. No guarantee that we will use them in Wikipedia of course.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Notified the wider community.[7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• It's not obvious what you mean by "we within the Wikimedia movement do not pay for content" - but there's vast quantities of stuff used on Wikipedia that someone got paid to make (for instance, everything with the PD-US-gov tag, which many of us have contributed to paying for). If the owner makes it CC-BY, how/why they became the owner shouldn't matter. Someone paying for something and licensing it CC-BY isn't different than them creating it and licensing it CC-BY, as far as re-use goes. WilyD 16:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• This seems like any sort of archival donation. There have been hundreds of media archive collections brought into Wikimedia Commons through partnerships. Cochrane and Wikipedia have already been collaborating since about 2013. This seems like a routine media exchange from an established partner for the purpose of doing routine wiki curation. I guess what is unusual about this is that either Cochrane or Wikipedia might suggest sorts of images which are needed, and Cochrane would financially sponsor the creation of those images. Normally in Wikipedia we take whatever is free and available, but if Wikipedia can actually identify what the public needs and what does not already exist as free media, then I can see how that information would be useful to Cochrane also. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• There are people at Featured Pictures and Commons that sell rights to their images by withdrawing either higher resolution, RAW files or the ability to escape CC-BY-SA. I don't see a problem with it, as long as the decision to use those images is made by volunteers on the basis that they are the best available illustrate the subject matter. (FPC is one way those decisions get made.) (For the record, my objections against paid editing in general are editorial independence and alignment of incentives. Neither of these is valid.) MER-C 17:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• So long as someone is willing to properly license high-quality educationally useful images, I don't think we care about much else. GMG^talk 17:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Concerns about money and open source content are twofold: that involving monetary concerns in content creation will affect the choice of content or the creative process itself; and that it will hinder open-sourcing of content, as high quality providers will now see a market for paid content. As long as the needs are dictated by the community rather than the donor, the first shouldn't be an issue (and its good that it was brought to the wider community's attention, as should any future arrangement of this sort). The second is harder to predict, but I think in the current climate is unlikely. All in all, I support the initiative. François Robere (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• looking at it as a donation, why not?...seems like a good idea...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• As long as it is under a license acceptable for Commons, the fact that the content was paid for or not is irrelevant IMHO. --Signimu (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with all of the above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Could we ask them to particularly, or even exclusively, focus on pictures involving darker skin? There is a serious shortage of such images, and it's not just us. Derm textbooks have a serious shortage of these images. We need a large volume of images on "medium brown" and "very dark" skin much more than we need any extra "pale white skin" images (although I'd like to have dozens of images, in every skin tone, for every skin condition). The formal confirmation will also be much more valuable for images of darker skin. We'll also want them to publicly confirm that informed consent was obtained (because otherwise someone will complain later, and we'll lose time dealing with the dispute). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

+1 to WhatamIdoing, but I would not say exclusively, high-res images are always valuable, but we are indeed lacking dark skin ones. --Signimu (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes that is the plan. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

This came up in IRL discussion a couple of weeks ago, but it would be helpful if there was a way to catalog skin tone in structured data on Commons, so that we could just run some kind of insert computer magic and tell exactly how representative our image usage on human-related topics is. Like...if you had a structured data element that gave you the "dropper" tool from image editing programs, and you could select the portion of the image containing "skin". We could then use the hex for the color selected to do all kinds of fancy analysis I'm sure. GMG^talk 18:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Keegan (WMF), what do you recommend for helpful magic on Commons? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I am currently working on a collaboration to get diagrams of medical conditions with people who are East Indian uploaded to commons. We have a number here.

There are also a number of videos that may be uploaded. Have not got to them yet in part as we have a few people here who take a very negative person on video. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Provided that the media is released under an appropriately open license, it doesn't matter if someone was paid to release it under that license. We care only what the license is, not how it came to be that way. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Seraphimblade that does not appear to be everyone's position here which is why we are having this discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

It is Commons' position, and since that's presumably where they would be going, that's what matters. They explicitly chose to opt out of the requirements for disclosure of paid editing, and they're happy to have commercially produced images donated as long as they end up under a free license. They do not object to content that was paid for. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Just making sure we have had a discussion here as there have previously been complaints by some regarding insufficient opportunities for people to weight in on projects Wiki Project Med Foundations is working on with outside organizations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Spinal disc desiccation

Do we have an article or section on spinal disc desiccation? Redirecting that term and disc desiccation to the relevant place would be a good idea if so. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks[8][9] like it's a cause of degenerative disc disease. Little pob (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Postbiotic

I found this article - Postbiotic - while looking at the list of articles needing assessment. I am a bit concerned about the article's use of primary sources. Some review papers are cited, e.g. [10], [11], [12], but in other places, primary sources like these [13] [14] are used to support claims like "postbiotics play a role in general health and well-being and for improving host immune function like that of probiotics". Hoping an experienced editor can take a look at this. Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

left note[15] w/ editor who created article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

MEDPRICE

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Product pricing. For current discussion see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Current wording. QuackGuru (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

commented(product pricing[16])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion on that page is ongoing but I have discovered specific issues with the widely used source: International Medical Products Price Guide. This is cited as a reference for wholesale prices in the developing world. The problem is we are misusing it, as what our articles claim is just plain incorrect. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#International Medical Products Price Guide. There are similar problems with our use of (retail) prices in the US from Drugs.com. Never mind your views on whether Wikipedia should offer price information, what our articles are currently doing is wrong on so many levels and for so many years that it is rather embarrassing to WP:MED. Please discuss on the guideline talk page. -- Colin°^Talk 18:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I've been rather shocked at all this. --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

This characterization is incorrect. The source in question gives the Defined Daily Dose and prices for LMIC.[17] For sodium valproate the price is about US$0.40 as of 2015 per day. We also have these values published in a book co published by the World Health Organization and MSH.[18]

We have NADAC prices from the US government for many medications. And we have pharmaceutical textbooks that list the appropriate consumer price.[19]

Sure we can do better in the area of health economics. Just because we do not do a perfect job and are not able to also update immediately does not mean we should do nothing in this area. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

We're only going to do better if we follow policy: content and behavioral.

The characterization that editors may be seeing perfection, or want nothing is incorrect and misleading. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

And what is incorrect about "Defined Daily Dose and prices for LMIC"? It is based on a World Health Organization published source.

This is the price from the IDA Foundation that is being reported. And they are a wholesaler that sells to LMIC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Working so hard to make a case looks like desperation and WP:BATTLE. It's pretty clear at this point that there's no simple, general solution. --Ronz (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Meh. Nothing wrong with working hard to write encyclopedic medical content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Ronz, I also think this is not simple. I read both sides arguments, and I think there are merits for both. I think everyone agrees that a perspective on prices (eg, how price evolved over time, variation across countries, etc) is often/always admissible given reliable sources. But I think the point of contention is whether or not drug prices, without any perspective, should be admissible per se, by considering them as facts. Regardless of the debate about whether industries try to prevent this info out, it's difficult for me to say for sure whether this has encyclopedic value. But there are indeed cases where this is accepted, for example age is considered factual and does not require any perspective to be admissible on biographies, or the chemical composition of compounds. Should price be considered a fact in a similar sense? At this point, I cannot decide. But I think it can merit a new RfC to foster discussion on this. --Signimu (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Signimu, the problem with an RFC right now, is that don't actually have something factual, concrete to ask people's opinion about. Earlier people were asked "Do you want prices" and Wikipedia said no and WP:MED ignored that. Now, I'm demonstrating that "Do you want prices" isn't even a sensible question to ask. James hasn't quite got there yet. -- Colin°^Talk 16:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

IMO, Doc James makes a better case--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

We could use these sorts of sources.[20] But they are not as uptodate. Prices there come from the "Red Book: Pharmacy’s Fundamental Reference" which we could use directly and are up to date. But it requires paying for access.

We can use this source from MSF for discussing the prices of HIV meds.[21]

By the way LMIC represent 85% of the global population.[22] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

James, "The price of what?". This is your problem with all your sources. They give the price of something with a bar code. They have separate entries for each of those things, but you have randomly picked just one. A particular mg size of tablets in a particular size of bottle made by a particular company. There is no way to relate any individual one of those "what"s to a drug article. The drugs are used differently depending on condition, circumstance, weight, age group, renal function, etc, etc. I think you have forgotten that a drug is just a chemical that we can measure in milligrams. But nobody sells milligrams of drugs from pharmacies, they sell specific tablets or syrups. And there is no one dose. James is misusing Defined Daily Dose in a way that the WHO explicitly disallow. There is a reason why none of our sources do what James did: it is just nonsense. The reason why we have WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOR is to stop this kind of nonsense. -- Colin°^Talk 16:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Lets look at the definition of defined daily dose "The DDD is the assumed average maintenance dose per day for a drug used for its main indication in adults."[23]

The DDD is listed here as 1.5 G for sodium valproate. Is that a reasonable dose for adults? Well lets look at a monograph, yup falls in the range of used in adults.[24]

Source gives the price for 500 mg tablets and a price per tablet of 0.1339 as of 2015. The IDA Foundation ships to more than 130 LMIC at this price.[25]

Is there a better representation of the cost of this medication you wish to see Colin? Or is your opinion that it is impossible to represent pricing information for medications? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Per "There is a reason why none of our sources do what James did" that is easy to prove false. Here is a source that gives estimates of prices for medications.[26] The price of a month of valproic acid is roughly US$50 to 100 per month in the United States as of 2019. With a dose of 1.5 gm per day (180 * 250 mg tabs per month) this arrives at the same price. 72 USD per month.[27] This also gives prices in this range for the US.[28] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Doc James, you link several sources. The first I can't read all of but seems to have some code with the number of $ signs perhaps indicating cost like TripAdvisor restaurants. The Drugs.com link does not give the price information like you did. It gives individual prices for individual products just like I said: it gives one lot of prices for the 250mg capsule x 100 and another lot for the 250mg/5ml syrup, with six prices for six different bottle sizes. The last link is a lay medical website that doesn't meet MEDRS. It has articles like "Don’t Like Vegetables? It May Be Your Genes" and "Skipping Breakfast Before Your Workout Could Help You Burn Fat", and wrongly claims Depokete is valproic acid (it is divalproex sodium) But hold on a second. The DDD of valproic acid is 1.5g per day. And Healthline claim "following prices are the average cost of a one-month supply for each drug". But they quote prices for "ninety 250-mg tablets of Depekene", "ninety 500-mg tablets of Depakote" and "sixty 500-mg tablets of Depakote ER". These are all different doses. -- Colin°^Talk 17:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Colin — You really seem clueless here. You're accusing Doc James of arbitrarily choosing his statistics — when he is advocating the use of the WHO-supported defined daily dose. To me this looks like a tempest in a tea-pot, brewed by someone who is in far too deep water. Carl Fredrik ^talk 18:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

CFCF please look at the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles and search for "Introduction to Drug Utilization Research 2.6 Drug costs". You will find that the WHO themselves explicitly warn not to use the DDD for this kind of drug pricing. For example, WHO says "For example, the cost per DDD can usually be used to compare the costs of two formulations of the same drug. However, it is usually inappropriate to use this metric to compare the costs of different drugs or drug groups as the relationship between DDD and PDD may vary". So, giving a cost per DDD of Carbamazepine in one article and a cost per DDD of Lamotrigine in the lead of its article, is just the sort of thing we shouldn't do. We can use it to say that the 150mg pack of one drug works out more expensive to meet the DDD than a 500mg pack. Or we can use it for drug usage research, which is what it is for. The problem, CFCF, is that you and James seem keen to do an argument-to-authority by saying "my source is WHO" or "this is a WHO metric" but you don't actually stop to work out what the source said or what the WHO metric is for. Carbamazepine is used for epilepsy, neuropathic pain, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Which of those many indications do you think the DDD is for? Do you think the same dose is used for them all? -- Colin°^Talk 18:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Lets bring in the entire quote "Total drug costs; cost per prescription; cost per treatment day, month or year; cost per defined daily dose (DDD); cost per prescribed daily dose (PDD); cost as a proportion of gross national product; cost as a proportion of total health costs; cost as a proportion of average income; net cost per health outcome (cost-effectiveness ratio); net cost per quality adjusted life-year (cost-utility-ratio) Data on drug costs will always be important in managing policy related to drug supply, pricing and use. Numerous cost metrics can be used and some of these are shown in the box above. For example, the cost per DDD can usually be used to compare the costs of two formulations of the same drug. However, it is usually inappropriate to use this metric to compare the costs of different drugs or drug groups as the relationship between DDD and PDD may vary."

We are not using the DDD to "compare the costs of different drugs" but we are simple providing the "cost per defined daily dose (DDD)" which is recognized by WHO as on cost estimate. Should we include other cost estimates? Yes certainly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

You mentioned carbamazepine dosing for different indications. Let looks at this for adults:[29]

Epilepsy 400 to 1600 mg per day Trigeminal neuralgia 200 mg to 1200 mg Mania 400 mg to 1600 mg per day Bipolar 400 mg to 1600 mg per day. The DDD is for the most common indication and in adults. The typical doses for all listed indication are very similar. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

And look the DDD is 1 gram. Seem perfectly reasonable.[30] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

James you are conducting original research. If you'd read carefully, you'd know that DDD is the based on a maintenance dose in adults, not the initial/maximum doses you quote above. It is this sort of carelessness with figures that has got us into this mess. Please read Problems using the defined daily dose (DDD) as statistical basis for drug pricing and reimbursement" See the bit about "drug pricing" in the title. They explain "The defined daily dose is an artificially and arbitrarily created statistical measurement used for research purposes in comparing the utilization of drugs.", "in most cases, the DDD differs greatly from the typical PDD of the drug in question. In some cases, this gap may be exacerbated by the fact that a drug may be prescribed in two vastly different dosages and the DDD represents the average of those outliers." they also say "For most drugs there is no single dose but rather multiple variations prescribed depending on the severity of the patient’s condition or the level of tolerance. Moreover, prescribing practice and medical customs differ from country to country. As a result, an international compromise must be made that often has little to no relevance to actual prescribing practice from one country to another." The WHO says "Basing reimbursement, therapeutic reference pricing and other decisions on ATC/DDD classifications is a misuse of the system. Defined Daily Doses are not designed necessarily to reflect therapeutically equivalent doses." What you are trying to do in the lead is give a therapeutic reference price. Don't. -- Colin°^Talk 19:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

This is not "therapeutic reference price". This is what that term means "Therapeutic reference pricing (TRP) places medicines to treat the same medical condition into groups or 'clusters' with a single common reimbursed price."[31]

We already know that the pharmaceutical industry do not want easily and publicly avaliable pricing of medications. That one of their industry groups that you quote International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations also holds that position is not surprising.

That you are pushing the industry position to try to WP:CENSOR Wikipedia is concerning. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, James, you just win the Wiki-Godwins-Law prize for using WP:CENSOR in an argument for including something in an article. You asked earlier for civility: you are just acusing me of being an industry shill. You forget James, I'm having a discussion and have not edited the price any one of those articles. I don't have an agenda, unlike you, who have declared yours openly. Ok, I accept I got TRP wrong. However, the text about misusing DDD comes from WHO, not any pharama body. You can read how it is calculated here and how it should be used here. Please read it carefully. We are talking about price here. It wasn't intended for that purpose. It is a very complex technical measurement and its subtlies will not be apparent to our readers who read about two different drugs at two different prices per "dose" and not realise they can't be compared. You are trying to use this research tool metric in a general-reader encylopaedia, and as I keep saying, there is a reason why nobody else does this. -- Colin°^Talk 20:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

From the 1st link given by Colin[32]: "Drug utilization data presented in DDDs only give a rough estimate of consumption and not an exact picture of actual use. DDDs provide a fixed unit of measurement independent of price, currencies, package size and strength enabling the researcher to assess trends in drug consumption and to perform comparisons between population groups." After reading both links, I think ATC/DDD have encyclopedic value IMO, being standard approximate measures of consumption, just like we consider incidence and prevalence as encyclopedic infos. And we'd need articles to clearly describe what these measures are, since they can be misunderstood by the general public, as they are more targeted towards researchers (didn't check, maybe they already exist). But indeed, the WHO clearly defines DDD as a measure independent of price, so if that's the goal, it seems like we would need another measure for that. Signimu (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

What about the median price ratio mpr and international reference price? See page 12 of [33] Signimu (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Article vs Sources

Above CFCF claims I'm accusing James of arbitrarily choosing his statistics. And further that James uses the WHO-supported defined daily dose. Let's see if that equates with reality:

• Carbamazepine. "between 0.01 and US$0.07 per dose". The source has a low of $0.00121 per tablet and a high of $0.0683 per tablet. The tablet is 200mg and the DDD is 1000mg. The article seems to be using the 200mg tablet as a "dose". However, if you search for Carbamazepine in 2014 you get three database entries: one 100mg/5ml syrup, one 200mg tablet and one 200mg sustained release tablet.
• Lamotrigine. "about 3.57 USD per month". The source has a median price of $0.1178 per 100mg tablet. This works out at $3.58 per month for one 100mg tablet a day. But the DDD is 300mg. If you search for Lamotrigine 2015 you get three database entries: one 25mg tablet, one 50mg tablet and one 100mg tablet.
• Lorazepam. "typical dose by mouth is between US$0.02 and US$0.16". The source has a low of $0.0242 per 1mg tablet and high of $0.16. This matches the article. But the DDD is 2.5mg. If you search for Lorazepam 2014 you get two entries: one 1mg table and one 2mg tablet.
• Ethosuximide. "about US$27.77 per month" The source has a sole price of 0.1845 per 250mg tablet. The DD is 1250mg, which is 5 tablets. This is $28.05 per month using the DDD which is close to the article figure. There is only one record for Ethosuximide and only one supplier, ASRAMES, which only supplies the Democratic Republic of Congo. The claim this is "The wholesale cost in the developing world" is here based on one supplier to one African country, and we have the nerve to quote it to four significant figures.

So there is no consistency in which definition of "dose" James has used -- sometimes the tablet and sometimes the DDD. And he has each time arbitrarily chosen one of many possible tablet sizes. For example, Lamotrigine is given as a price for a month but based on only 1 tablet a day, at a dose three times less than the DDD. So yes, James is arbitrarily choosing his statistics and doesn't seem to have any consistent day-to-day concept of a "dose". Which isn't surprising since there isn't a one "dose" for any medicine. Just lookup the BNF for a drug and you will find a couple of pages of dosage advise. James has tried to simplify a complex concept into just one number. It doesn't work. -- Colin°^Talk 18:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes for carbamazapine I used the cost of the least expensive table, I agree switching to price per day of DDD would be good and have done so.

If we were consistently use price per day of DDD (for long term medications) would you satisfied?

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah for Ethosuximide I used 30 days for a month rather than 31 days. Okay...

This this data was added gradually over many years. Happy to discuss moving to consistency as much as possible. But I am not sure that is what you are looking for... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Firstly I'm looking for you to accept that most of the existing prices are based on the price for one arbitrarily chosen pill size. You had multiple options and seemed to pick one at random. You claim you picked the least expensive tablet. So you could have written that instead of "dose", which is wrong. This is a basic mistake and it would be good for you to admit you made a mistake in the lead section of several hundred articles. No, DDD is not a valid metric for this and WHO says that. I asked you to find sources that say things like "The wholesale cost in the developing world is about US$0.07 to US$0.24 per day as of 2015" in their introductions, or indeed, anywhere. You still haven't found any. Find me a source that consistently uses the cost per DDD in its methodology for presenting drug prices for all the hundreds of drugs that source lists -- and only one price per drug please, just like we do. Find me a source that gives the price of "a drug" rather than a specific size of pill, bottle size and brand. They don't exist and we should follow the sources.

You are still claiming that IMPPG is a reference for the min and max prices for drugs in the developing world. It isn't, as I explained at length on the other page. And you are still juxtaposing wholesale prices in the developing world with retail prices in the US (but without saying the US price is retail). And Ethosuximide still falsely claims the price in the developing world is "about US$27.77 per month". James, I am asking for basic maths and basic source->article honesty. Your source gives the price in the DRC and that is all. That is not "the price in the developing world". And Ethosuximide is far from the only article that stretches "one or two suppliers" or "the contract price in one or two nations" to become "the price in the developing world". -- Colin°^Talk 19:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

No not arbitrarily chosen...

This source lists price of HIV regimens per person per year.[34] And goes on to say "Prices are rounded up to the third decimal for unit price and to the nearest whole number for price per person per year (PPPY). The annual cost of treatment PPPY has been calculated according to the WHO dosing schedules, multiplying the unit price (one tablet, capsule or millilitre) by the number of units required for the daily dose, and by 365." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

James, this still isn't what I asked for. The article does not say they use WHO Defined Daily Dose. They have doses for adults and children separately. Of the retroviral drugs I have looked at, they all have trivial dosage regimes. Mostly 1 tablet a day for any adult. This isn't something where you start off on 5mg and we see if that isn't enough to prevent you dying. It is pretty much a fixed dose and cross your fingers and hope not to die. The article you link has a handful of drug sizes x a small number of suppliers giving up to a dozen prices per drug. The linked article doesn't claim this handful of suppliers represents the most and least expensive suppliers in the entire developing world, as you have done hundreds of times in our articles. There is a reason why our reliable sources give pricing in such a complex matrix of tables and footnotes and *exceptions. It is more complicated than you want it to be. -- Colin°^Talk 20:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Step by step

Doc James I think the approach where I list everything that is wrong with what is in our article text and then you adjust/argue just one point alone isn't working. So let's take this one step at a time

1. The source is not a reference for all prices in the developing world. Therefore a statement that "The wholesale cost in the developing world is between US$0.02 and US$0.16" cannot be derived from it. This is because what you wrote claims a minimum and maximum price "in the developing world". We sometimes have a single price, a few prices or a handful of prices. So do you want to give a price range or just a single price? If a price range, we're going to have to describe the source of values better. Something like "The International Medical Products Price Guide gives prices in the developing world for a 1mg tablet that range from XX to YY". If you want just a single price, then how would you calculate it? Btw, if you are thinking that this is getting a bit wordy, let's consider that we really should be writing article body text first, so let's worry about that for now. -- Colin°^Talk 08:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Lets look at the text in question "The wholesale cost in the developing world of a typical dose by mouth is between US$0.02 and US$0.16 as of 2014."

So yes it provides a range. But a range does not necessarily mean an absolute maximum and an absolute minimum. Frequently ranges in health care are 1) one standard deviation ie the confidence intervals 2) the highest and lowest value in a set. What we have here is the second one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I think Colin has a valid point about attribution here, James. If I understand the argument, then the suggestion would be that we should be writing a section of the article that contains reliable sourced pricing information, which is attributed to the source, rather than asserted as a simple fact.

I can see that something like "The <ABC price guide, published by the WXY,> gave prices for <this drug> in <whatever year> for <a particular region> of <this many dollars/cents (or range)> per <tablet/dose/etc.> ref:whatever" would be an obviously neutral formulation. By utilising the formulations imposed by the source, we avoid any hint of analysis on our part. In the article text, there is less need to be concise, and we could include more than one source, allowing the reader to form their own conclusions. Unless, of course, we also have reliable sources specifically commenting on particular pricing for particular drugs (perhaps as we might find for insulin?), when we could expand the section with a summary of that commentary. What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

If we parse the text "The wholesale cost in the developing world of a typical dose by mouth is US$0.02 and US$0.16 as of 2014."

• 1 mg is a typical oral dose. This is common knowledge but sure we could state 1 mg.
• "wholesale cost in the developing world" does not mean absolutely every single possible country simple that these represent some of the wholesale prices in the developing world, which they do

Per adding "ABC price guide, published by the WXY". Imagine if we were required to start every sentence on Wikipedia by stating the journal that published it. The year of publication. The authors who published it. The institution the authors come from. All the caveats for the data in question including the patient population that the data comes from such as their country or origin, ethnicity, sex breakdown, age breakdown etc.

We do not do this but rather we attempt to provide a reasonable summary and people can look at our sources for more details. Pricing data is actually no more complicated than any other statement we make on Wikipedia.

I would be satisfied with the rest of the suggestion "The prices in <whatever year> for <a particular region> of <this many dollars/cents (or range)> per <tablet/dose/DDD etc.> ref:whatever" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

For example we summarize "Male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa." based on this Cochrane review[35]

We do not say "A 2009 Cochrane review by Siegfried et al of three RCTs of 2,274, 4,996, and 2,784 men from the general population in South Africa, Uganda, and Kenya carried out between 2002 and 2006 at 12 months and 21 or 24 months resulted in an incidence risk ration of...."

The second of course is also entirely correct. And one could argue that each bit is critically important, our goal is to provide a reasonable summary and give our readers the ability to dive deeper.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Knowledge equity

Part of the core of this issue is one of knowledge equity. It is by far easier to write about content that is of "importance" to people in the United States and Europe. The fact that the list price of onasemnogene abeparvovec is more than $US2.1 million is easy to support using the popular press.[36][37] This medication is of course not avaliable in LMIC. I am not seeing anyone (without a connection to industry) seriously arguing that we should remove pricing information from this article.

Writing articles about medications that are approved in LMIC but not approved in the US or EU is much more difficult but in my opinion is equally important. Using sources from the World Health Organization is perfectly appropriate to discuss issues in LMIC. And no it is not surprising that the Western popular press frequently does not cover issues of importance in LMIC. Does not mean we shouldn't either, of course not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

List of mobile phone prices

I think a list of prices for mobile phones might be workable if enough sources were found. Some of these phones are very expensive. QuackGuru (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Are people taking these as a medical treatment? --RexxS (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

People are accessing medical content using their mobile phone. QuackGuru (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

It's true that WP:Other stuff exists all over the English Wikipedia, e.g., the inclusion of the manufacturer suggested retail price in places such as iPhone#History and availability. However, the price of mobile phones is not relevant to this particular group of editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

See "Mobile phones have shown some promise in modifying health behaviour, such as smoking cessation and alcohol intake, to such an extent that their use is being increasingly considered in healthcare interventions.7,8"[38]

The mobile phone is used in healthcare interventions. Not sure which article this content would be appropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't believe there is a single person in the whole world who bought a mobile phone in order to make healthcare interventions. They will already have one and can use the relevant apps, or they won't. The price of the phone is completely irrelevant to our medical and health content. --RexxS (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Long-acting reversible contraception

Hi anyone...I reverted one edit on this but saw there is also a previous edit that looks unusual using phrases like "If you". I wasn't sure how to tidy it... Whispyhistory (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Whispyhistory thanks. Lots of all caps content. Poorly referenced. Gah Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thx...felt a little bold reverting that massive edit. Also feel guilty leaving gaps of missing citations. Might tackle it in future. Whispyhistory (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

You should never worry about reverting unverifiable conspiracy theory stuff about how IUDs get "sneaked" into women. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

MDPI back into PubMed?

I just came across this study on PubMed: PMID 28758964, which I found a little weird after reading the abstract, and in fact I then saw it was from MDPI, a predatory publisher listed in WP:CRAPWATCH. I thought MDPI was delisted from PubMed? Since when were they relisted? Should we consider MDPI OK now that it is relisted? --Signimu (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

PubMed is essentially just a search engine, MDPI has always been there (and worse). Alexbrn (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Pubmed is not selective. You're thinking of MEDLINE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

yes MEDLINE is different[39]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems there are MDPI journals even in MEDLINE: [40]. I tried to find a setting to filter those kind of predatory journals on pubmed but it seems either it's too selective (filtering also Nature papers) or not enough (showing MDPI journals accepted by MEDLINE). So I think I'll just continue to open my eyes and watch out by myself --Signimu (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

MDPI is also a cut above Omics. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Although originally on Beall's list, MDPI was removed by Beall after a successful appeal. Not a particularly good publisher, but apparently not directly predatory either. --Randykitty (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, best avoided. Alexbrn (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, thank you all for the precisions --Signimu (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

MDPI has higher standards than shady publishers like Elsevier. Nemo 16:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. You may disagree with Elsevier's commercial policies, but their journals are generally rigorously edited by competent people with high professional standards (with the huge number of journals they publish, the occasional problem is to be expected - and Elsevier has a track record of addressing any problems as soon as they become apparent). Same goes for SpringerNature, Wiley, Sage, and Taylor & Francis/Routledge. MDPI is in a very different (lower) class. --Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Predatory cleanup, help needed!

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Help cleaning up 'remainder' of predatory journals cited on Wikipedia and help cleanup citations to predatory sources on Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Access to all medical articles in an Alphabetical/Advancement order

Hi my name is Sami My team and I are currently building a medical social website that aims to give free and reliable medical knowledge to students, patients, physicians and any curious mind. Wikipedia has been one of the first inspiration for this project since the beginning and that's why we are asking for help in this talk toady

We need an access to all the reliable Medical sciences's related articles on wikipedia, from a bacteria subspecie to the latest drug made on the market, our goal is to have access to every single Bit of medical information on the web (wikipedia included) to give it back to an enlightened and curious audience. We know regrouping all the data is hard but for now we have access to WHO and Mayoclinic, combined with wikipedia that could be a solid start for our project.

We also need a way to differentiate the articles written for professionals and those written to educate the general population. Is there a way we can find out how advanced a article is on wikipedia?

Finally we need to sort the information by alphabetical order to make the research experience simpler

Thank you for your support and if my message is unclear or you would like to know more about the project feel free to let me know

User:Theaderal it is complicated. We have some stats for medical articles here.[41] How did you get permission to us Mayo? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sami. When you asked this question a month ago, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 128 #Access to reliable medical information, I gave you pointers to Category:Health and Index of health articles. Did you have problems following those links? --RexxS (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

And if you can't traverse the category by yourself, in https://download.kiwix.org/zim/wikipedia/ one can also find several medicine-focused openZIM dumps such as https://download.kiwix.org/zim/wikipedia/wikipedia_en_medicine_nopic_2019-10.zim , from which you can extract both titles and content all nicely packaged. Kiwix can be used to get a preview of the content without need of command-line manipulation. Nemo 16:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi RexxS sorry for to bother for that again i lost the links and couldn't find the last talk in the archives thank's again for helping! Do you know Anything about a rating system of wikipedia articles? Also are you interested by the idea or are you just a very helpfull person ?

Hi (talk The Aderal Project Doesn't aims to monopolize or steal data from other website, Rather than absorbing all the net's scientific data we redirect data from reliable website such as mayo that will be quoted and sourced. We also have Medline and plan to add Wikipedia and Frontier Content. We also rely mostly on members to publish, share and edit content. See it as A Medical encyclopaedic research engine mixed with Social network. If you have more information about copyright infringement or anything that could make this project sabotage itself feel free to let us know thank you this project can only be brought to it's final form by the vision and help of potential members so thanks again User:Theaderal 18:41 26 November UTC+2 ~26~11~2019~ .

With respect to copyright, you are free to use Wikipedia content as long as you attribute and indicate that it is under an open license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System

This article needs review, particularly the assertion in the lede that there are doctors calling for an unvaccinated control group in the United States. That seems like quite a fringe view to me. BD2412 T 12:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is saying that doctors are calling for an unvaccinated control group (though there are anti-vaccine people who espouse this nonsensical trope). I have updated the source to a better source and trimmed some of the weasel wording. I think it's better now. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Permission to Move to Mainspace (with your assistance)

At the beginning of this term I asked for all of your permission to once again be part of the WikiEd initiative and have my students edit pages (as groups) devoted to notable figures from the History of Psychology (which is the course I am teaching). The students went through all the training modules, created their pages in sandboxes with each team member focused on one aspect of "What makes for a good Wikipedia article?" (e.g., Neutrality of tone, etc). They then peer-reviewed the work of six other groups, while their work was also reviewed by six groups. The feedback was used to revise their articles which now reside within their "Captain's" sandboxes.

As per the agreed upon rules we have not transferred these articles yet to mainspace. Rather, we agreed to wait until some of you looked at the articles to confirm they are "good to go". Thus, below is a list of the handles for the Captain's sandboxes. If any of you have the time could you take a look and do your editor thing ... leaving any comments on their Captains' talk page and, most importantly, letting them know if you believe the article is ready for mainspace. I've instructed them to wait for such a statement before transferring it.

From my perspective it felt like everything went well, and I am very hopeful you will find these articles a great addition to Wikipedia. Obviously if you find them lacking I will ask my students to respond directly to all comments. I very much appreciate your time and, once again, your willingness to allow me another go at this.

Here are the relevant sandboxes along with the historical figure they represent ...

History of Psychology Article Edits

Sandox Handle		Historical Figure
Ozolf		William M. Biddle
Mmilto1		Edna Heidbreder
Skinners Boxer		William John crozier
Icey_cy98		Jennifer Eberhardt
Graduate Scholar		Hermine Hug-Hellmuth
Roommyy		Charles Lasegue
Fruitfulmind		Robert Zajonc
Shamwow786		Simon Gandevia
yikes99		Adrian Furnham
Arimas99		Charles E. Osgood
DetheaDu		Naomi Weisstein
Saiedray		Nalini Ambady
WanyingFeng		Virgilio Enriquez
AncientAnkles		Muzafer Sherif
BellaGB		Miriam Polster
AChanster		Max Friedrich Meyer
RawanHedefa		Joyce Brothers
Alisanforever		Charles Henry Thompson
Perrywoof		Helen Thompson Woolley
Mandoo Dumpling		Eleanor Gibson
Halloween2019		Kurt Koffka
sike-ology		Joseph Delboeuf

SteveJoordens (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi SteveJoordens, thanks for doing this. Would you be willing to provide links to the sandboxes to make the process easier? I was going to do this myself, but I ran into some problems - e.g. User:Mmilto1 and User:Icey_cy98 aren't registered. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Here are the students enrolled in Joordens' course. And here are the articles:

• Hermine Hug-Hellmuth
• Joseph Delboeuf
• Miriam Polster
• Muzafer Sherif
• Jennifer Lynn Eberhardt
• Helen Woolley
• Naomi Weisstein
• William John Crozier
• William W. Biddle
• Edna Frances Heidbreder
• Virgilio Enriquez
• Robert Zajonc
• Joyce Diane Brothers
• Adrian Furnham
• Kurt Koffka
• Max Friedrich Meyer
• Ernest-Charles Lasègue
• Robert Zajonc
• Simon Gandevia
• Nalini Ambady
• Charles Egerton Osgood
• Charles Henry Thompson
• Eleanor Jack Gibson

Note: I just laid my eyes on these articles for the first time but I plan on putting in some work to fix formatting/layout issues. I'll also drop a line to Women in Red, as several of these would interest them. Any help fixing content issues would be appreciated. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Dysthymia

Based on recent editing, there appears to be some thought that dysthymia should instead use the term persistent depressive disorder. I don't know if there is consensus in the medical community (in general or here at Wikipedia) that term "dysthymia" is outdated, but if so I suggest WP:RM. Deli nk (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The last consensus on a similar case was that this should be discussed on a case-by-case basis on the article's talk page directly As a hint, it's possible to use pubmed to track the number of citations per year: for dysthymia[42], for persistent depressive disorder[43]. Seems like dysthymia is still largely more popular there by 2 orders of magnitude, so a move would seem to me to be way too premature. --Signimu (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)