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

Proposal to split weight loss

Since July there had been a template at the top of the article on weight loss regarding a split proposal: Talk:Weight_loss#Splitting_proposal I removed the template but others might be interested in continuing the conversation there. It is currently listed as a high-importance article for the project. Biosthmors (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The proposal is to split it into intentional vs unintentional weight loss. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the split is a good idea. They are very different conditions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Quite an important split (intentional and unintentional). Whispyhistory (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Please comment there, so that it'll be easy for everyone to take your thoughts into account. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

commented ... Whispyhistory (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I posted as well but I have concerns about naming, etc. in case others would like to continue the discussion. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

same here, I too have concerns about naming--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Idea for new community workspace

Hi. I would like to create some kind of collaborative workspace where coordinators or members of various WikiProjects would gather and provide updates and information on what is going on at each wikiproject, i.e. regarding their latest efforts, projects, and where interested editors can get involved.

For those of you at this very active WikiProject, your input would be very helpful, so I wanted to get your input on whether you'd be interested in helping me to make this happen.

we are discussing this proposal right now at:

* Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Idea for new community workspace

Please feel free to let me know what you think of this idea, and please let me know your preference, regarding the options above. if you do not see any need for this idea, that is totally fine. However, I think that the majority of editors lack awareness of where the truly active editing is taking place and at which WikiProjects, and I would like to do whatever I can to help make people more aware of where the activity is, what they can do to help, and also which areas of Wikipedia offer ideas and efforts that might help them in their own editing activities. Please feel free to let me know.

• Would you be interested in an idea of this nature?
• If so, which option below seems most feasible to you?
  • Create a new page/talk page at the existing WikiProject Council, where members of various WikiProject can gather to offer updates, information and ideas on the latest efforts at each of their own WikiProject, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Town Hall.
  • Create an entirely new WikiProject with an inclusive name such as
    • Wikipedia:WIkiProject Town Hall,
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject Bulletin Board,
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject Water Cooler
  • Create a new collaborative page or forum, but not as a new WIkiProject, i.e. with some name like
    • Wikipedia:Town Hall or
    • Wikipedia:Water Cooler
  • Create a new sub-page in my own userspace, such as User:Sm8900/Town Hall
  • Create a subpage at an umbrella-type WikiProject that already covers a broad topical area, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Town Hall

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

interesting idea(s), thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Feedback on sources I cited in the Acupuncture article

Acupuncture

Would a couple of you take a look at citations I added to Acupuncture#Specific conditions - scroll down to the "Sleep" subsection. Please let me know if any of the journals I cited are not reliable sources. I can answer that question with regard to psychology journals but there are so many medical journals sometimes can't separate the wheat from the chaff. ;-) Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

they(citations) seem ok--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ozzie! If there one or two that are iffy, I'm sure someone will eventually notice.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Citation Template Woes

Am I the only one frustrated with citation templates? It seems they almost always include superfluous information, e.g., stating it's an English-language journal or including the ISBN for a journal, and at least one field always needs correction, e.g., the date format is wrong, or authors' first and last names are transposed. ¶ I am not a programmer (far from it!), so I have no idea how difficult it is to create a citation template. I imagine it's not easy. So please don't take this as a diatribe against the hard-working Wikipedians who create templates, which by and large make our work much easier. ¶ This is mainly a reality check for me. I find myself frequently copying an easy-to-produce citation from Google Scholar, PubMed, or Zotero and pasting it into Cite > manual > basic form, which is not a perfect solution because it loses many of the automatic hyperlinks the citation templates provide. But it's much faster than manually typing every author's first and last name and all the other data into Cite > manual > journal. I am open to suggestions. :) Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Markworthen: I wouldn't worry too much about superfluous fields. Some wiki-gnome will come along and fix those. For your own use, you might want to try out this tool that generates a citation from a PubMedID, PMCID, etc:

• https://tools.wmflabs.org/citation-template-filling/cgi-bin/index.cgi

and this one for Google books:

• https://reftag.appspot.com/

Hope those are helpful. --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I rather like this DOI-based citation generator. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Marielle's magical mw:citoid tool is one of the wonders of this wiki-age, even if it's never going to be perfect. Every time one website's description is fixed, another one rearranges its website. Most uses are from the URL, including for books (e.g., the Google Books URL) and journal articles (e.g., the PubMed URL). You can use some identifiers directly. ISBNs (most journals ought to be giving you an ISSN, not an ISBN) depend upon the WorldCat folks, who seem to have settled on down-casing titles and using French spacing in titles, which is common in libraries but isn't my preference. PMIDs all go through PubMed and are consistent with what we're used to (and we like what we're used to).

(The |language= field is appreciated by translators, and the contents are auto-hidden from readers on enwiki, so I'd ignore that.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Good question @Markworthen:... I needed those answers too. Thank you. Whispyhistory (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Really the easiest thing to do is to put a database/identifier url (doi, bibcode, pmid, pmcid, etc...) between <ref></ref> tags and use WP:CE to expand things and clean them up. See also User:Headbomb/Tips and Tricks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks y'all! Very helpful. :0)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for lede

RfC. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hospitalized_cases_in_the_vaping_lung_illness_outbreak#Proposal_for_lede QuackGuru (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Identity disorders and Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 5#Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders. This is the result of an editor having tried to remove Category:Identity disorders and Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders from the Gender dysphoria article. I reverted, stating, "It should still be there as a matter of helping readers find this topic. The term [gender identity disorder] is still prominent as a historical name and redirects here. It's mentioned and bolded per WP:Alternative title. We might need to consider renaming the category." I also noted that the ICD-11 will not come into effect until 2022. As for the ICD-10, editors can refer to this section of the Gender dysphoria article. Later, Crossroads also reverted removal of the categories. As seen here, I then took the time to comment, "Wikipedia:CATV states 'should generally be uncontroversial.' 'Generally' (as in not always). We can't stop the fact that some categories will be controversial. And there is the fact that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders still has the title that it does and is defined the way it's defined in sources."

By mentioning the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders title, I was stating that gender dysphoria is still in a manual about disorders and is still considered a medical condition. Regardless of the DSM-5 renaming the condition to remove the word disorder to reduce stigma, the condition still technically falls under the definition of a mental disorder or psychiatric disorder (if one prefers the latter term) because of the distress involved. Also see the "Definition" section of the Mental disorder article. What other medical categorization do we have for it? We have Category:Transgender and medicine and Category:Psychiatric diagnosis. It's in those categories as well. Is it sufficient to just have them in those categories? Simply calling it a "condition" or "medical condition" is vague. A proposal to split "Sexual disorder" and "Gender identity disorder" might be considered sound. After all, we already have Category:Sexual disorders. But I question letting Category:Gender identity stand in place of Category:Identity disorders and Category:Gender identity disorders. I know that "Category:Gender identity disorders" doesn't exist. Also, the Gender dysphoria article is already in Category:Gender identity. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

"... ICD-11 will not come into effect until 2022." - WHO is not consistent about the ICD-11 "effective date". For example, the ICD-11 Implementation or Transition Guide (p. 1) states, "ICD11 is now available for implementation, following its adoption at the World Health Assembly on 25 May 2019...." In addition, even if we assume that ICD-11 "comes into effect" on 1 Jan 2022, that fact does not make ICD-11 content meaningless until then.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Never stated or implied that it is meaningless. We, however, shouldn't be putting the cart before the horse. Is WP:Med updating all of its medical articles to the ICD-11 when the ICD-11 has been stated to not come into effect until 2022? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

RFD activity

A bunch of redirects to Micropenis and a couple of medicine-related articles are at WP:RFD. Please look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

There's also a proposal to merge Small penis with Penis (disambiguation) at Talk:Penis (disambiguation). SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Our World in Data

User:Fæ has done an initial upload of .svgs. The first section is .tab (the underlying data) and the second section is the .svgs https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Our_World_In_Data

Lots pertain to health care. I will likely be adding many to articles as time goes on. The hope is eventually that we can get their data visualizer integrated into the Wikipedia world; however this could take years. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

very useful information--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Medicine noted in new science paper

• Arroyo-Machado, Wenceslao; Torres-Salinas, Daniel; Herrera-Viedma, Enrique; Romero-Frías, Esteban; Lozano, Sergi (10 February 2020). "Science through Wikipedia: A novel representation of open knowledge through co-citation networks". PLOS ONE. 15 (2): e0228713. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0228713.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Check figure 6, which shows Cochrane journals as a major part of Wikipedia's citation ecosystem.

Thanks to user:JenOttawa, liaison with Cochrane for doing so much to match Wikipedia editors with Cochrane publications. The collaboration with Cochrane has been among the most interactive and least controversial Wikipedia projects I can recall, and additionally, the content has been a good fit for Wikipedia's needs.

Thanks user:Daniel Mietchen for science journal surveillance and pointing this article out.

I am adding this article to science information on Wikipedia, an article I started after the model of health information on Wikipedia. We still do not have much science critique of Wikipedia. If anyone wants to see a profile of health papers on Wikipedia, check Scholia for "health information on Wikipedia". Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Blue Rasberry thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Identity disorders up for deletion

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 12#Category:Identity disorders. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

People can't math

(But we still need to put numbers in articles.)

User:Colin recommended this book:

Spiegelhalter, D. J.,. The Art of Statistics: How to Learn from Data (First US edition ed.). New York. ISBN 978-1-5416-1851-0. OCLC 1112668483. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

to me a little while ago, and I have borrowed it from the library. I haven't gotten very far, but so far, I like it.

In chapter one, Spiegelhalter talks about data presentation. Cancer outcomes in the UK are presented in terms of survival (50% live!). Cancer outcomes in the US are presented in terms of mortality (50% die!). Both are correct, and math adept folks will recognize that it's exactly the same.

But it's not quite the same once you leave the world of mathematics. People feel more optimistic when they're told the survival percentage than the mortality percentage. And they feel worse if you tell them that more than 56 million people died in 2015 (so many people died!), than if you tell them that 0.9% of the world's population did (why, almost nobody died!).

Just mimicking a chosen source's framing isn't "being neutral". It can also be abdicating responsibility for tone, and therefore for the neutrality of the Wikipedia article. I don't think that's our best option. Additionally, with the major stats coming from sources that have defined, for their own (sometimes political) reasons, a particular style used consistently, the word usage there does not necessarily reflect anything more meaningful than the geographic location of the author or publisher.

I remember suggesting once that some people are so bad at basic arithmetic that we should consider writing both sides of the equation for them: "60% of people with this cancer will survive at least five years, and 40% will die within five years", or "60% of people will die, and 40% will survive". Having read this, I'm now thinking that we should, at a minimum, write whichever side is larger: "60% of people will survive" or "60% of people will die", but specifically not just the minority outcome. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I am open to logical persuasion, but my first thought was that it would depend on what we were talking about. A success rate might be more appropriate when discussing a treatment, and a death rate might be more suitable for a disease. I accept that there are people out there who do not understand what percentage means. I have seen in real life a group of people trying to explain to a person the 0.2 and 20% are the same thing, without success, and two of them were professionals in adult education. My take from that is that there will always be people who don't get it. The other problem is that a some people do not get that a 60% chance of survival does not mean that you are going to be one of the 60% just because it is the bigger number, or that the published statistics often do not mention fairly important demographic conditions, and that risk can vary a lot depending on who you are. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The scary one was the paper that reported on giving qualified, practicing, doctors similar tests. About 5 years ago. Some did well, but eeek! Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure writing the larger number is the algorithm to use. Sure if you had a cure that worked 95% of the time, that sounds wonderful. If we compared your drug's 95% cure rate with my drug's 95% failure rate, people might be confused and better to compare 95% with 5%. Peter makes a good point about treatment vs disease. For disease prevalence, morbidity or mortality it is probably better to use the rate of occurrence. It would seem odd to say that 98.% of people won't get X in their lifetime, without good reason for wanting to put it like that.

How does using absolute numbers compare with percentages. Is it better to say 6 out of every 10 patients with X will survive 5 years, than to say 60% of patients? I have a feeling people can understand absolute number better than percentages, decimal fractions, ratios and odds. It works even better when we are discussing the change in risk, such as 6 people out of 10,000 will get X but if they drink Y regularly then the risk rises to 7 out of 10,000 people. IIRC the book also discusses presenting absolute risk vs relative risk (see this article for example). -- Colin°^Talk 12:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I learned in a clinical genetics lecture that "people are gamblers, not accountants", meaning that people interpret 6 out of 10 better than 60%.

The same lecturer said clinical geneticists should always give both sides in the manner WAID suggests. Apparently it's normal for a conversation to go "A woman of your age has a 1 in 20 chance of giving birth to a child with a significant disorder" — *GASP!* — "and a 19 in 20 chance of giving birth to a healthy child" — *Oh, whew!* What this means for Wikipedia, I'm not sure. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 21:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the "6 out of every 10 patients" is common. I've sometimes wished for a template or something that would show those numbers in picture form. Imagine it assembling 10 stick-figure people, color-coded to represent some situation, something vaguely like this:

Three out of five people with scaryitis will survive.

It would need multiple colors, so you could show things like "Will survive, will survive with treatment, will die even with excellent treatment". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if one's reaction to numbers depends on whether you are a glass-half-full sort of person or a glass-half-empty:-) -- Colin°^Talk 09:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

There's been discussion in the scientific literature about the best way to do this. Having all the affected people at one end is misleading and it has been suggested that you should randomly scatter affected cases throughout the non-affected cases. The choice of stick-figure icon is also an issue. Better that it's a gender neutral one unless there's a particular reason otherwise. Bondegezou (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Please update the "spread" info...

... on the main Coronavirus page! Per https://meaww.com/coronavirus-wuhan-virus-can-survive-on-inanimate-objects-for-up-to-nine-days-any-surface-patient, the virus can survive on surfaces for 4 to 9 days depending upon temperature and humidity. I can't seem to update the info; I've left a message on the main talk page and on Doc James' but he's on holiday and it needs to be checked and updated PDQ. Cheers! Shir-El too 10:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Had a quick look...my interpretation: CDC have it as unclear "if a person can get 2019-nCoV by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes."....The "up to 9 days" being referred to, comes from the research paper published in the Journal of Hospital Infection and is based on a review of research papers on OTHER coronaviruses ...compiled comprehensive findings from 22 studies on coronaviruses and their inactivation for a future textbook..."The aim of the review was to summarize all available data on the persistence of all coronaviruses including emerging SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV as well as veterinary coronaviruses such as transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV), mouse hepatitis virus (MHV) and canine coronavirus (CCV) on different types of inanimate surfaces and on the efficacy of commonly used biocidal agents used in surface disinfectants against coronaviruses"...not the new one. The 9 days with SARS of 2002/03 appears to come from this. "The experts assume that the results from the analyses of other coronaviruses are transferable to the novel virus. "Different coronaviruses were analysed, and the results were all similar". You could add to talk page of the virus article and see if anyone can word it appropriately or wait until more is known and an expert comments on it. I hope that helps. Whispyhistory (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Help with MEDRS-related decisions

I'm developing a script (see below) designed to highlight blacklisted/deprecated/generally unreliable/predatory/questionable sources in citations and elsewhere. Amongst other things is the need to highlight possible-dodgy-but-not-garanteed-awful citations. Note that this isn't a script to remove anything, simply to highlight potential issues. For instance, arxiv/biorxiv/etc. preprints, links to ResearchGate/Academia.edu, and so on, which will often by just fine, but also sometimes contains predatory publications, preprints, self-published nonsense, and the like. That part is working pretty well.

However there's another part which is more grey area, and it's sources that will often fail WP:MEDRS, but which might be otherwise be acceptable for more routine information. Typical examples of this grey area would be Frontiers Media and MDPI publications. Currently, on WP:CITEWATCH, there's a couple of venues that have been listed on Beall's list, but which aren't OMICS Publishing Group-levels of garbage. Those include publications that Beall removed from his list, and those that probably fit the 'questionable' more than the 'predatory' label. Those include

• MDPI
• Frontiers Media
• Hindawi Publishing Corporation
• Medknow Publications
• Bentham Science Publishers (or rather Bentham Open, which my script cannot distinguish from non-open Bentham)
• Dove Medical Press
• Baishideng Publishing Group
• Frontiers in Bioscience

So my question is, should all of those be flagged as sources that should be evaluated against WP:MEDRS? Or should I omit a couple of the above? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I welcome this kind of innovation and think that WikiProject Medicine participants have had many discussions in this space over the years. You have competency to make the tools and I want you to keep doing that. I appreciate that you have compiled a first list of journals to flag. Now that you have a model for how technical tool development meets social decisions, I think it should be the place of WikiProject Medicine to take this list out of your control and maintain it elsewhere, probably on its own Wikipedia page, and probably integrated with other existing services to evaluate the reliability of sources. There are multiple wikiprojects which would be interested in maintaining the list.

Jeffrey Beall compiled such a list of unreliable journals but when a hundred thousand people were watching, he took it down without comment. Everyone knows that the takedown meant that a corporation put legal pressure on him as an individual for producing a journal evaluation system which reported their publication as unreliable. Wikipedia has a precedent of identifying some journals as having quality standards below the level of acceptability in Wikipedia. We also know that by identifying journals as being of unacceptably low quality, we come into conflict with the business model and revenue stream of the corporation publishing the journal. I think we should take a clue from Jeffrey Beall's experience and keep a Wikipedia list of low-quality publications in its own place, under crowdsourced maintenance, and use the public and transparent Wikipedia editorial process to place and keep publications on the list. Whereas Beall somehow got in the position of having to talk to publishers and others in backchannels to defend his decision to list them as unreliable, in Wikipedia, we have the option to commit only to have public conversation about reliability judgments. By being open and transparent, our process should establish consensus and create records of evidence and leave no option for corporations to negotiate with fear tactics or to use money to gain non-objective privileges.

To do this, I think the next step would be to have a stand-alone list of sources on some page, then curate that list like we do with any list. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You're certainly free to fork the script, however, I'd much rather have a single script reflect what WP:MED feels like reflects how those publishers line up against WP:MEDRS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: You already split this off yourself! This is great!

• The Wikipedia SourceWatch, 31 March 2019
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1 <--- time to move to be a stand-alone space, or at least to not be a subproject of a subproject?

What a meeting of technology, community, and media! Can you think of a way to better match WikiProject Medicine with that list system you have there? Can WikiProject Medicine review journals in that system? Do you still like that page? It seems never to have been formally presented as a product ready for use. Is it, and how does SourceWatch connect to this what you are describing? Is it CITEWATCH, SOURCEWATCH, or what is this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what you're asking here. If you've read the Signpost article, then you know what the WP:CITEWATCH is (WP:SOURCEWATCH is an old name for it). Both WP:UPSD and WP:CITEWATCH are looking for similar things, dodgy citations. WP:UPSD is something that you can use as you read and edit articles, WP:CITEWATCH is slower (updated twice monthly) and more centralized which can be used to actively find problems. As far as reviewing anything, everything's open. As can be seen on both pages, WT:CITEWATCH and WT:UPSD are the places to discuss and review things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to start small, and therefore to omit all of the possibly-okay options. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Pretty easy to restrict this to MDPI/Frontiers for now if that's the preference here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I keep hearing that some of the Frontiers' journals are okay, and others aren't. So why include them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

See WP:CITEWATCH#Frontiers Media for the short of it. They're hit-and-miss, have very lax standards, and have sacked editors for being too rigourous. I've yet to see a Frontiers-backed claim survive a WP:MEDRS challenge. But all the script does is simply highlight those in yellow to indicate it's a marginal source that may or may not comply with WP:MEDRS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Frontiers is hit-and-miss according to reliable sources, so it shouldn't be included in a list of definitely bad things. Bondegezou (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's not a list of definitely bad things. It's a list of potentially bad things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it's unhelpful to mix definitely bad with possibly bad. Bondegezou (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Everything listed at WP:RSPSOURCES is possibly bad. Twitter is generally unreliable. That doesn't mean Twitter can't be cited. Context matters. It's no different here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is new, and I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

installed, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Installed. Appreciate it! --Recap&perforate (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Good Article nomination of Addison's Disease

An editor, User:Dino245, has nominated Addison's Disease, which is within the scope of this Wikiproject, for GA status. However, Dino has been blocked indefinitely. Would any of the editors in this project be interested in adopting the review? Otherwise, the nomination might have to be removed, since the nominator isn't around to reply to review comments anymore. Hog Farm (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

logic dictates the editors who contributed to the article in question[1] per their overall contributions should be the one(s) to take article to GA...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The nominator is a blocked troll whose only edits to the article were to edit war over an image, and at a glance the article contains a fair amount of unsourced and outdated material. I think it would be best to just remove the nomination. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination tag removed, I'd been directed to take it here at the WP:GAN talk page. Hog Farm (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

More coronavirus

There's a lot of eager editors adding the latest news of each experimental treatment of Covid-19. Some help reining in edits to conform to MEDRS would be useful. See Talk:2019-nCoV_acute_respiratory_disease#Management_content_dispute for the latest example. Bondegezou (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

have watchlisted--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

XX male syndrome article -- female genotype

XX male syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some back and forth going on between Natureium and Maneesh over this -- whether or not to use the "female genotype" terminology. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Gender dysphoria article discussion

Please see Talk:Gender dysphoria beginning with Let's move away from U.S.-centric articles (DSM-5 vs. ICD-11) for the debate.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 06:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

always useful in any talk page--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes indeed, as I learned again via some uncomfortable introspection—although the end result was good. ;o) I wrote a bit about my experience: "I was becoming grumpy and thinking of throwing up my hands in disgust and quitting Wikipedia. Fortunately, I recognized that these feelings and thoughts were probably a sign that something had gone awry with me. I therefore went on a reading spree, consulting Wikipedia essays and other articles that I thought might help me work through this grump-fest. (continued ...)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease to be moved to COVID-19. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

About the different versions of Template:Shock_types

There are 2 versions of Template:Shock_types. user:Opaque nociceptive neurons and I have different ideas about the preferred version. I would like to know your opinion for this.

• Version 1: The Underlying causes of each Shock types are listed. It is the current version and the version before 20 July 2019‎. (That version was built from Exert yourself). user:Opaque nociceptive neurons prefers this version because it "was comprehensive."

• Version 2: The Underlying causes of each Shock types are NOT listed. It is the version between 30 July 2019‎ and 15 February 2020. I prefer this version because the underlying cause will be described in the article.

--Wolfch (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Navigation pane allows people to see things at a glance. Also, for the sake of people's time, I have reported the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:Harassment.--Opaque nociceptive neurons (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• • Opaque nociceptive neurons is a sockpuppet and is banned.The template is restored to Version 2.--Wolfch (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Halotherapy article needs MEDRS review

• Halotherapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I did some cleanup on this short article, but I'd like others' to take a look at the claims and emphasis, especially the following paragraph: --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Salt's well known drying effect may also help to clean up bronchial secretions. Beyond short-term relief associated with dry environment for those trying to excrete sputum, Norman Edelman of the American Lung Association suspects reported improvement in the health condition of patients might simply be due to the placebo effect.

References

Battered woman syndrome vs. battered person syndrome

Battered woman syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Battered person syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are WP:Content fork concerns regarding these articles. In 2017, SlimVirgin redirected the Battered person syndrome article to Battered woman syndrome. In 2019, a new account restored it with additions. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Merkel-cell carcinoma article

Merkel-cell carcinoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP is removing content there. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for edit warring. Message left on talk page. --RexxS (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Promoting Request for Comment

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak

For the coronavirus outbreak, should we utilize the graph that shows "cases deaths and recoveries", the "case fatality rate" in a graph, both, or none, or an "epidemic curve" per WP:MEDRS WP:OR and WP:CALC --Almaty (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• comment-(2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has very heavy traffic) editors might want to look at several other important discussions going on at that article as well and participate, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia Project Grant Proposal on *Disinformation*

I'm proposing a Wikimedia Foundation Project Grant to study *disinformation* and provide actionable insights and recommendations.

Please check it out and endorse it if you support it.

Meta:Grants:Project/Misinformation_And_Its_Discontents:_Narrative_Recommendations_on_Wikipedia's_Vulnerabilities_and_Resilience

Cheers! -Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

seems like a good proposal, encourage others to endorse--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Situating Wikipedia as a health information resource: review

Amazing study, I recommend everyone here read it

• Smith, Denise A.; Triberti, Stefano (18 February 2020). "Situating Wikipedia as a health information resource in various contexts: A scoping review". PLOS ONE. 15 (2): e0228786. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0228786.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

conclusion from the paper -

The literature positions Wikipedia as a prominent health information resource in various contexts for the public, patients, students, and practitioners seeking health information online. Wikipedia’s health content is accessed frequently, and its pages regularly rank highly in Google search results. While Wikipedia itself is well into its second decade, the academic discourse around Wikipedia within the context of health is still young and the academic literature is limited when attempts are made to understand Wikipedia as a health information resource. Possibilities for future research will be discussed.

Wikimedia Foundation grant service paid the open access fee of about US$1500 so it has a CC-By-4.0 license.

• meta:Grants:Project/Rapid/Mcbrarian/Situating Wikipedia as a health information resource in various contexts: A systematic review of the literature

Thanks Mcbrarian of McMaster University for doing and publishing this powerful research paper. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this wonderful recommendation Bluerasberry! This publication is the culmination about about 7 months labour and it is lovely to see it's finally broadly and publicly available. Please do have a read. Mcbrarian (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

👍--Recap&perforate (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• The following is one section all editors can take on board:

General assessments of quality. General assessments of the quality of Wikipedia’s health information, those that do not take into consideration the impact of its quality on a specific population, comprise approximately 18% (n = 16) of the articles included in this review (S3 Appendix, Table 5). Despite claims that English Wikipedia’s health content is written in plain, accessible language, assessments of its quality, regardless of context, share a common finding: while Wikipedia does well to remain current [26,41,44], its medical content uses technical terms that result in readability levels too low to accommodate the very people it stands to benefit most. The readability of the easiest articles has been reported to be around ninth grade [25,30,40]. Some studies find that Wikipedia’s medical content requires at least a college reading level or is considered highly difficult [34,43]. Other studies simply report Wikipedia’s readability as higher than that of other health information sources such as WebMD, MedlinePlus, or MayoClinic [44,64].

Johnbod (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Given how metrics influence behaviour, I wonder how different Wikipedia's language level would be if instead of just raw edit number and byte change stats, everyone knew their net change in readability metrics. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 00:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Conflicting evidence: does biological half-life of medication varies with the route of administration?

1. "Drug Half-life Explained: Calculator, Variables & Examples". Drugs.com. 2019-03-07. Retrieved 2020-02-20. Drug-Specific Variables That May Affect Half-Life: How the drug is administered (half-life may be different with IV administration, compared to intranasal or oral administration)
2. "Pharmacokinetics 2 - Absorption" on YouTube: It's important to know the half-life of a drug is the same regardless of the route of administration. This is because the half-life is a property of a drug, not a route.

Which source is correct?

Thanks!

--Recap&perforate (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I haven't found a good source (and neither of these are good sources).

I wonder if it might depend upon how it's eliminated. I can imagine a short half-life, eliminated via excretion through the kidneys, being different if it's PO or IM vs IV, because the drug in the IV case can go straight out the kidneys, but in the oral or IM versions has to first get absorbed into the bloodstream. I wouldn't expect this to be as significant a factor if the liver is involved (because in that case, availability of enzymes is more likely to be the rate-limiting factor). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Depends a lot upon how a drug is distributed, metabolized, and eliminated, but if half-life does differ by RoA for a drug, it will also have different half-lives in different fluid compartments (e.g., plasma vs cerebrospinal fluid). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Recap&perforate: I can point you to a good example, with MEDRS sourcing, that demonstrates that the YouTube video is talking complete bollocks. Our own article has a section Biological half-life #Peripheral half-life which notes that oxytocin has a half-life of about three minutes when administered intravenously, but a half-life of between two and four hours when administered intranasally, along with five good references. --RexxS (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

There's probably a lot of examples of this; e.g., phenethylamine comes to mind too. Also, I feel like we've had this conversation at WT:PHARM before. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the information but I haven't found it. Would you please give more hints? Thank you! --Recap&perforate (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you all for the discussion! I just found some references as follows and I still feel confused as of now.

1. Foye, William (2008). Foye's principles of medicinal chemistry. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 233. ISBN 978-0-7817-6879-5. OCLC 145942325. The elimination half life is a pharmcokinetic property of a drug and it is independent of the size of the administered dose when the administered drug exhibits characteristics of a first order process.
2. Shaw, Leslie (2001). The clinical toxicology laboratory : contemporary practice of poisoning evaluation. Washington, DC: AACC Press. p. 101. ISBN 978-1-890883-53-9. OCLC 47049942. PHARMACOKINETICS Absorption Cocaine may be administered intranasally (IN), by smoking (SM), intravenously (i.v.), and orally (PO).
3. Levine, Barry (2003). Principles of forensic toxicology. Washington, DC: AACC Press. p. 216. ISBN 978-1-890883-87-4. OCLC 52166155. Elimination Cocaine follows first-order elimination after IV and SM administration using both one- and two-compartment models. For both routes, the average half-life for cocaine, based on the literature, is about 60 min... indicating that the elimination rate of a drug is proportional to plasma concentration. After a single dose of cocaine, 64-69% of a dose of cocaine was recovered in urine within 3 days regardless of route of administration.
4. Downie, George (2008). Pharmacology and medicines management for nurses. Edinburgh New York: Elsevier/Churchill Livingstone. p. 129. ISBN 978-0-7020-3333-9. OCLC 181926459. After administration of a drug, its plasma level rises; the more rapidly the drug is absorbed, the faster its plasma level rises (Fig ... Thus, most of a drug (almost 97%) is eliminated in five half-lives, regardless of the dose or route of administration.
5. Bustad, Leo (1964). Biology of radioiodine : proceedings of the Hanford Symposium on the Biology of Radioiodine : sponsored by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and the Hanford Laboratories of the General Electric Company, Richland, Washington, July 17-19. Oxford: Symposium Publications Division, Pergamon Press. p. 137. ISBN 978-1-4832-8276-3. OCLC 890946142. NaI crystal. Rates and per cent of uptake and effective half-life were similar following the oral, intravenous and subcutaneous routes of administration. A lower uptake and a longer effective half-life were seen following topical administration.
6. Pasero, Chris (2011). Pain assessment and pharmacologic management. St. Louis, Mo: Elsevier/Mosby. p. 177. ISBN 978-0-323-08263-1. OCLC 796812985. Half life is the time it takes for the amount of concentration to be reduced by 50%. After starting a drug or increasing its dose, 4 to 5 half lives are required to approach a steady state level in the blood irrespective of the dose, dosing interval, or route of administration.
7. "ATROPINE- atropine sulfate solution/ drops". DailyMed. 2017-11-20. Retrieved 2020-02-21. Terminal half-life of l-hyoscamine was not affected by route of administration and was calculated to be 3 ± 1.2 hours (intravenous) and 2.5 ± 0.8 hours (topical ophthalmic). Following intravenous administration, the mean (± SD) elimination half-life (t1/2) of atropine was reported to be longer in pediatric subjects under 2 years (6.9 ± 3.3 hours) and in geriatric patients 65 to 75 years (10.0 ± 7.3 hours), compared to in children over 2 years (2.5 ± 1.2 hours) and in adults 16 to 58 years (3.0 ± 0.9 hours). (see 8.4 Pediatric Use).

--Recap&perforate (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Heroin and clindamycin, for example, have multiple routes of administration with identical elimination half-lives. --Recap&perforate (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that the much of the confusion here arises because of the differences in what researchers and clinicians are measuring; for example, whether half-life from the time of administration, post-absorption or post-distribution. Notice that the many of those sources use the concept of terminal half-life (the half-life measured after absorption and distribution, the first two parts of ADME); it is this measurement which is independent of the route of administration. Attempting to measure a half-life earlier runs into the problem that the kinetics don't follow exponential decay, and so the half-life depends on other factors including the dose and route of administration; during this period the half-life isn't constant, so isn't a reliable concept. So, terminal half-life is constant is a relatively safe statement. Klbrain (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Many drugs have identical half-lives regardless of route of administration. Some don't.
• For all drugs, regardless of what the half-life for that route of administration is (minutes? hours? days?), and regardless of what the dose is (a typical dose? a tenth of that? ten times the typical dose?) [but, see the caveat about first-order processes], four or five half-lives gets it out of your body.
• Using the oxytocin example, this means that it's out of your body in 15 minutes if it was delivered via IV (5 × the three-minute half life for IV), in 10 to 20 hours if was delivered intranasally (5 × the 2–4 hour half liife for IN). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The disaster that is Medical simulation

This article has some massive problems, being composed jointly of what is basically an essay, advertising space, and a very small amount of genuinely encyclopedic information. Anyone feel like cleaning it up? I do not feel comfortable fixing it beyond the basic cleanup I did a few months ago. --—moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 14:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I've seen a few news articles related to this in the last year, and it might be possible to do some decent work. I think the first step is probably finding the sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Endorsements requested: Project Grant

I've just submitted a project grant that will fund our library's efforts to get faculty and researchers on board with contributing their expertise to Wikipedia's medical content. If you're thinking what I'm thinking, which is, health professionals, particularly academic ones, don't have incentive. Well, DORA, which was recently signed by a major health research funder (CIHR), could change that, and I'll be teaching our faculty all about it. Mcbrarian (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Endorsed!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

An apparent deficiency in our medical content: gastrointestinal ulceration

To be more specific, we appear to have no article that covers signs+symptoms/diagnosis/treatment/prognosis/etc. of intestinal ulceration (in any segment of the small intestine past the duodenum) or colonic ulceration (i.e., large intestine and sigmoid colon).

I noticed this because I recently generalized the description of a perforated ulcer, but couldn't find any article or SIA to link which is specific to gastrointestinal ulceration. I remember from reading a paper on colonic ischemias – one cause colonic ulceration – that they account for something around 1 in 1000 of all ER visits. There's other etiologies of colonic ulceration as well (e.g., ulcerative colitis), so shouldn't we have a page that covers ulceration in other segments of the GI tract besides mouth ulcer and peptic ulcer disease (scope: lower esophagus, stomach, duodenum)? NB: intestinal ulcer redirects to peptic ulcer disease (this is a bad redirect; that redirect target only suffices for duodenal ulcer) and colonic ulcer does not exist.

I'm kind of surprised that we don't seem to have article content on colonic ulceration given that perforated ulcers in that segment of the GI tract are surgical emergencies which I suspect carry a relatively high risk of bacterial sepsis compared to perforations (w/ a non-infectious etiology) in other regions of the GI tract due to extremely high microbial concentrations in that segment (e.g., the human colon contains ~1 trillion bacterial cells/ml of luminal content, which is several orders of magnitude higher than microbial concentration on any other internal/external surface of the human body).

Anyone want to take a stab at addressing this? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Preauricular_sinus_and_cyst conc. Geswein hole

How to proceed? I just read the abstract of the publication.... Remove the reference? (in case of a reply: please answer at my talk of the German Wikipedia....) --Filiusque (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

US Cochrane Center has changed to US Cochrane Network

Hi-- I have a conflict of interest so I cannot edit the US Cochrane Center article however the information it contains is largely inaccurate now. Just wondering if someone wants to update it who is not conflicted like I am. Essentially the US Cochrane Center in Baltimore has closed and been replaced by a A US Cochrane network of 12 (and growing) US Cochrane affiliate sites scattered across the nation. See https://www.hcinnovationgroup.com/clinical-it/evidence-based-care/news/21084692/cochrane-launches-network-of-us-institutions-to-promote-evidencebased-healthcare Rdellavalle (talk • contribs) 16:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Endorse DORA?

I saw in Mcbrarian's post (above) mention of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. On the Signers page, I noticed that Wikimedia Italia and Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. have endorsed DORA, but no other WikiMedia entities. Does anyone know if there are discussions about other Wikimedia entities signing the Declaration?   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I haven't heard of any such discussions.

Some folks here have a long history of rejecting sources because of the journal's WP:Impact factor, and more recently, we're seeing editors remove content and sources because other journals handled by the same publishing house have attracted criticism. We're not really in a position to cast any stones in this area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Parental divorce related to autism

Could someone with access please confirm that Factor, Reina S.; Ollendick, Thomas H.; Cooper, Lee D.; Dunsmore, Julie C.; Rea, Hannah M.; Scarpa, Angela (December 2019). "All in the Family: A Systematic Review of the Effect of Caregiver-Administered Autism Spectrum Disorder Interventions on Family Functioning and Relationships". Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 22 (4): 433–457. doi:10.1007/s10567-019-00297-x. ISSN 1573-2827. PMID 31363949. reports that the divorce rate among parents of autistic people is not unusually high? It cites PMID 21590433, but I can't read the review article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing That's not what it says at all. "Although debated (Freedman et al. 2012), some studies indicate that the divorce rate for parents of children with ASD is twice as high as the rate for parents of [typically developing] children (Hartley et al. 2011)." Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Perhaps Hartley is the source of the oft-repeated but never-cited claim that 80% of parents with autistic children get divorced (with people assuming divorce rate, which is around 40% in the US, is the actual chance of a divorce, which it isn't; it's the ratio of all marriages registered to all divorces granted in a given time period). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The Hartley et al. 2010 primary paper has Parents of children with an ASD had a higher rate of divorce than the comparison group (23.5% vs. 13.8%). Its from a longitudinal study presenting results from 391 families, baseline data in 1994-1996, then followup in 2004-2006. So, the 40% to 80% extrapolation would be a very long bow to draw. Klbrain (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Especially given that 23.5% is only a 70% increase above 13.8%, hardly "twice as high". Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

References

EMRBots

Would someone be willing to take a look at this article, EMRBots, which I'm presuming is within your purview since it's about electronic medical records. The background section is unsourced, while the next section, academic use has over 35 citations. The image in the lead and the first two references in the lead also happen to be the name of an editor who has extensively edited the article, as shown in the page history . Some of the other references used in the article, are either authored by him, or mention him. His talk page also has a COI notice and concerns about self-promotion. If this isn't the right venue to raise this issue, let me know, and I'll move the discussion elsewhere. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Video Games + WikiProject Medicine

Video games came up twice recently in medicine so I wanted to share the situations here

Prices of drugs

We have a discussion live now (please comment) on including drug prices. The video game community has similar discussed including video game console prices. I invited that WikiProject to the drug price RfC.

• WikiProject Video games#WikiProject Medicine + WikiProject Video Games
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices

Video game sales as indicator of disaster

Various sources are reporting that coronavirus affects video game sales. Previously journalists reported in many ways that a 2011 earthquake greatly affected video game culture.

• WikiProject Video games#On VGs and the coronavirus
• 2020 in video games#Impacts of the coronavirus outbreak
• Impact of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami on the video game industry

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)