Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 99: Line 99:


::::You have worked wonders. It looks great. Thanks, [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
::::You have worked wonders. It looks great. Thanks, [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Colin it now seems to have more information then the PME disorders themselves. Hopefully in due course someone will edit the articles on the diseases themselves.


== Oral allergy syndrome ==
== Oral allergy syndrome ==

Revision as of 21:25, 6 February 2008

Shortcut


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

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



Showcase

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

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

Other featured content

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

Articles pertaining to the project

Journal articles

Good articles

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


Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology

This newish page, Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology, appears to need an editor (or several) to -- well, I basically think the whole article should be deleted, no matter what its primary author thinks about his favorite article. I'd be willing to entertain a merge with List of syndromes and diseases with unknown etiologies or other improvements, but the basic idea seems to be promoting some WP:SYNTH ideas. I really don't understand how it survived the original prod. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A hopeless WP:SYNTH - would support WP:BOLD and redirecting, but try to involve the original author Reasonablelogicalman (talk · contribs) before doing so. JFW | T@lk 00:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the primary author can give a little more clarity on the organization of this article, I would support you in WP:BOLD efforts. Djma12 (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD List of syndromes and diseases with unknown etiologies

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of syndromes and diseases with unknown etiologies - hopeless list IMHO. Please vote. JFW | T@lk 22:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of syndromes and diseases with unknown etiologies JFW | T@lk 02:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote now closed, outcome was list deleted. David Ruben Talk 04:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WPMED tag issue

Based on what I see here, we need an "FL" (Featured List) class parameter. Does anyone know how to make that happen? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think just expand Template:WPMED to include that class among the others. --Una Smith (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the template is protected, and can be edited only by administrators. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stevenfruitsmaak did the initial coding. Perhaps he can help. JFW | T@lk 17:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it is actually quite straightforward. The "class" parameter can now be "fl" (lowercase), which places the article in Category:FL-Class medicine articles. Hope this resolves matters. JFW | T@lk 17:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really confused - it seems to be working, but the category remains empty despite List of medical schools in the United Kingdom bearing a category link to it! Perhaps we should wait until the server has updated itself (yes, I've purged the cache for the template). JFW | T@lk 18:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The coding looks fine. From my past experience, it can sometimes take days for articles to be placed in newly added categories from templates. Making an edit to Talk:List of medical schools in the United Kingdom may cause immediate proper placement into the category, though this isn't necessary. I'm not sure if anyone cares, but I do not think {{FL-Class}} articles are included in the article statistics table. Also, why was Template:WPMED protected? --Scott Alter 18:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it just needed to have a change made to the Talk page to get the category updated. It's working now. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've manually added FL-Class to the statistics table. See if the WP 1.0 bot will update it for us. As for the protection, I am willing to consider unprotecting it, but on the other hand it is transcluded onto 1000s of pages, and vandalism to templates has historically been a major problem because they tend to be on few people's watchlists. Views invited. JFW | T@lk 20:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the WP 1.0 bot doesn't work that way. I just re-ran it for this WikiProject, and the FL-Class row you added is now gone. There has been some discussion about adding the non-standard classes (see Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Archive 15#List-class), but no decision has been made and the talk has died out for now. If we want FL-Class articles to be included, we would need to put them in an additional category (which is easy enough to do via {{WPMED}}). If the bot recognizes sub-categories (which I doubt it does), another option would be to have Category:FL-Class medicine articles as a sub-category of Category:List-Class medicine articles.
With regard to protection of high-visibility templates, most of the article assessment templates have become protected in the past few months. The only rationale I have heard is that they are potential targets of vandalism. Although these are widely-used templates, they are not in the main namespace and receive little vandalism (of which I have seen none). If any restrictions were placed on them, I would expect semi-protection and not full-protection. I used to be somewhat active in maintaining the assessment templates, but now it takes days or weeks to have administrators make changes using {{editprotected}}. --Scott Alter 21:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2

I think we have the same kind of problem with Template_talk:Obstetrical_procedures. It's tagged, but it's not getting placed in the correct category. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - different problem. The "C" in "class" was capitalized, and the template requires it to be in lowercase. I fixed this on the talk page. --Scott Alter 03:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Peer review/Concussion

I've submitted a peer review request for concussion, I was hoping someone familiar with neurotrauma could check it over for any factual errors or distortions that I may have introduced by accident (I'm not an expert). Thanks much! delldot talk 18:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

www.rothbartsfoot.info -- quackery or useful

We have an anonymous editor, 84.222.140.56 (talk · contribs · count), who's been adding links plus text to various articles such as Scoliosis, Low back pain‎, Fall prevention, etc. He's continued doing this despite requests to stop. Before we blacklist these links, I want to check with more knowledgeable editors as to whether these are links we want or not.

These links are being discussed at:

Thanks for any light you can shed on this. Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious COI spam. Any secondary sources that could help us? JFW | T@lk 23:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive myoclonic epilepsy

Can someone please add information as I have seen it a lot of times and there is not much on it besides links to other pages. I have also noticed that it says epilepsy instead of epilepsies.

I tried to make a few changes but I got confused. I am now using the copy and paste method to copy the formatting from other posts so this may end up in the wrong palce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.192.131 (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive myoclonic epilepsy looks like an extremely specialised topic. 137 papers on PubMed, most of them technical. What kind of information are you looking for? JFW | T@lk 22:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for the information on the genetics and how the diseases connect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.192.131 (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page already lists the three main causes, and the articles on these diseases mention the genetics for each. JFW | T@lk 23:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 90.192.192.131! I suspect JFW's PubMed search only found a fraction of the papers since there's little consistency in naming. This isn't one disorder, hence some authors use "epilepsies" when talking about the group of a dozen different diseases, and one probably wouldn't be diagnosed with PME as it isn't specific. Some authors (e.g., the International League Against Epilepsy) use the term "Progressive myoclonus epilepsies". For information, some lay-accessible web pages include Epilepsy.com: Progressive Myoclonic Epilepsies and WebMD: Progressive Myoclonus Epilepsy. Shorvon's book, "The Treatment of Epilepsy", says PMEs "account for approximately 1% of cases in referral centres, and are mostly due to inherited metabolic abnormalities." He goes on to list "mitochondrial encephalopathies and lipidoses as the most common causes." That 1% isn't of all epilepsies, but of the most difficult-to-treat epilepsies that get referred to the top hospitals and clinics. If you can get access to Engel's "Epilepsy: A comprehensive textbook", there's a chapter on it. That book is so big and expensive, I suspect only a university medical library would have it. Colin°Talk 23:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, it was a matter of time before Colin would end up dealing with this. JFW | T@lk 00:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to add to the article what I've found (but it will still be a stub). I didn't have time last night to do more than jot down the above. Colin°Talk 08:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'd appreciate if someone could read it over to check it all makes sense. Colin°Talk 23:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have worked wonders. It looks great. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Colin it now seems to have more information then the PME disorders themselves. Hopefully in due course someone will edit the articles on the diseases themselves.

Oral allergy syndrome

In the first two sentences, this article asserts that Oral allergy syndrome is an allergic reaction to various kinds of food, and that it is not a food allergy. Do we have anyone here who knows where, exactly, to draw this line? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aggh - Article is in a mess. Term "Oral allergy syndrome", as the article currently uses, would suggest specific food allergies to various fruits where associated with various pollen-allergies. However some papers on PubMed use term for any fruit-allergy even where no pollinosis, and some even for non-fruits (raw fish in Japan). The article need radical lead-in definition rewrite, or merger to Food allergy. I've posted a long series of discussion points and references at Talk:Oral allergy syndrome#Merge proposal with Food allergy. Please discuss there to help clarify use of the term, or whether to merge.David Ruben Talk 04:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

homeopathy quackery?

There is an RFC which will be of interest to wikiproject participants at Talk:Homeopathy#RFC: Should homeopathy be described as quackery in the intro? and heated discussion elsewhere on that talk page. Please weigh in. Thank you. MilesAgain (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeMent vs. Dement

Wikipedia has 2 articles: William C. Dement and William C. DeMent. Can one of you doctors please ask Dr. De[mM]ent how he wants his name spelled? Maybe it's a matter of contention within the family, but Wm. C. must have (had) a standard signature? We need to know which of these article titles to keep if we're to merge them. Please be so kind as to answer on one of the two articles' talk pages. Thanks. --Hordaland (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His website at Stanford does not capitalise the M. I am merging the pages into the former. JFW | T@lk 17:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General housekeeping comments/cleanup

Hey all. I might have missed this discussion already but I just wanted to ask a few things regarding the recent changes done:

  • Currently Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine has a soft redirect onto this page? Wouldn't it make more sense just to use a standard redirect?
  • Will there need to be a process where all the clinical medicine templates/userboxes etc get deleted?
  • What will happen to the articles already tagged with clinical medicine project templates? Are they already removed or will they automatically be removed upon deleting the template?
  • Is Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Collaboration and Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/categorizations still necessary? Should they be moved somewhere onto[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine?
  • As how clinical medicine project is done, should something also be done with Wikipedia:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine? (And like above, if it does get removed, should all the templates/userboxes/ etc also should be removed? Maybe the Preclinical aspects should be writen up somewhere along the main medicine wikiproject? (And additionally have the talk page archived into this talk page? As is done with clinical wikiproject)
  • Should a taskforce (of either preclinical or clinical medicine or both) be implemented as done by other wikiprojects? Or possibly only in the future if it is requested by a number of individuals?

Sorry if these issues have already been brought up/are fixed/on the process of being fixed. Comments are welcome :). Calaka (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re soft redirect - used whilst merger done and allows access still to its past hsitroy and subpages, until teh points you correctly set out above are/were completed :-) Yes the user boxes need merging .David Ruben Talk 14:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ClinMed's userbox now (hard) redirects to Template:User WPMed David Ruben Talk 14:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of a 'taskforce' approach. The Philosophy project seems to use that system, so that there's only one template for the large group, but you can specify that this article is supported by the ethics sub-group (for example). If there were a way to easily replace all the ClinMed tags with a "WPMED (ClinMed taskforce)" tag, I'd support that.
This might actually be useful for several 'child' projects, actually, especially if there are any dormant ones. It could also cut down on the stack of WikiProject tags on some talk pages. (Imagine a hypothetical drug that treats a viral eye infection in several animal species: that could easily acquire WPMED, Virus, Clin Med, Eye, Pharma, Vet Med, Dog and Cat tags). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second the task force idea for Clinical medicine. I also would support merging the child projects as task forces. Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Science#Medicine, the projects that would fit within Medicine include Clinical medicine, Preclinical Medicine, Anatomy, Dentistry(?), First aid, Gastroenterology, Medical Genetics, Nephrology, Ophthalmology, Pathology, and Radiology. Most of these projects appear inactive, but we still need to have discussions in each of their project talk pages for their opinions. The initial "takeover" could be as simple as moving the child WikiProject pages to sub-pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. This would be followed with the talk page banner integration with {{WPMED}} and changing the verbiage of the new child pages to reflect the status of a task force, rather than a separate WikiProject. --Scott Alter 23:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply so far people. Glad to know eventually everything will be sorted out with the clin med tags/userboxes etc. As for the task forces, I am surprised it got a response but I would more than be happy to support them being implemented into the main medicine wikiproject. Have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history for the large number of task forces implemented (far more organized than having 40 diferent sub history wikiprojects), and look here Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment for how the implementation of task forces is organized to give individual ratings of particular sub-groups (wow the history wikiproject should be featured status :P ). Anyway I have no objections for merging all the projects that you have suggested, I just don't know how active/inactive the projects are apart from pre-clinical (not very active I think) and anatomy (I got a assessment tag set-up but I didn't get around to tagging all the anatomy articles with the tag... No one else seemed to have gotten to doing it either :(, )... However having said that, a wikiprojects talk page and main page is not an indicator of how active the wikiproject is I think? (I.e. people might be working on the 'anatomy' articles by wikifying them, improving them etc with out actually needing to discuss the progress on the talk page... So dunno, I guess more opinions are needed :).

Oh and here is an example of how the 'task forces' are indicared in the assessment tags for the history wikiproject (Talk:Battle of Omdurman), just to give you an idea of how the task forces will appear on the assessment tag. Furthermore here is the actual page of a particular task force (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/African military history task force). So in reality it seemes to just make the whole thing more organized instead of having seperate amounts of wikiprojects. Cheers.Calaka (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CLINMED has for all intents and purposes been absorbed into WPMED. Whatever content remains can be merged here, with redirects to WPMED subpages. I'm not sure if CLINMED should be a taskforce of WPMED, but I can see the logic of groups of editors with a specialist interest becoming members of specific taskforces. We have several small WikiProjects (WP:GASTRO, inactive, and WP:RENAL, occasionally active) that actually come close to being taskforces of WPMED (or subprojects). There's no one perfect answer here. JFW | T@lk 07:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, perhaps for now maybe it can be left as it is, and in the future if it is demanded by a number of people, then taskforces or whatever can be implemented. The only reason I would think of suggesting those seperate wikiprojects as task forces is that this might give more opportunity for them to be noticed (as I assume this wikiproject would be the most viewed) in comparison to the leser known specialised ones... But then again I guess that wont guarantee increased activity just because they are subgrouped into this main wikiproject instead of being on their own..Hmmm your right JFW, no real correct way of thinking it. Oh well, whatever the case be, I will be for it. Thanks Calaka (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since CLINMED has been completely absorbed into WPMED, then it should be okay to remove {{CMedWikiProject}} from talk pages (and replace it with {{WPMED}}, if not already there). If there are no objections, I will begin this soon. --Scott Alter 19:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed this task. There should be no more talk pages with {{CMedWikiProject}} transclusions. --Scott Alter 23:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Preclinical Medicine

Regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine, does anyone here NOT want to merge with them? That project seems to have been inactive for almost a year now. As the parent of Preclinical medicine, WPMED should have the responsibility to absorb it if it is inactive and there is no opposition. Most of their intended scope, stated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine#Scope, is already covered by other projects:

There are currently 9 articles tagged with their template ({{WPPCM}}) and an additional 6 articles tagged with their expansion template ({{Medexp}}). The scope of the current preclinical medicine project is so narrow that it probably would not even warrant a task force here. Is there any opposition for a merger? If not, we can begin discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine and see if there is any response. --Scott Alter 23:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the status quo is already the way you have described. If you are happy to lead the way, I'm sure this merge will be pretty uncontroversial. JFW | T@lk 23:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good JOB Scott! Hehe I didn't think there would be so few articles taged with the clinical and preclinical tags :). As Jfdwolff said, feel free to begin incorporating the preclinical onto here. Calaka (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great! Tkjazzer (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine#Merger with WikiProject Medicine. If there is no opposition, I'll start the merger in a few days. --Scott Alter 03:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything should now be merged. All of the Preclinical Medicine project pages and templates now redirect here. --Scott Alter 00:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speciality (Consultant) "Emergency medicine"?

Dear colleagues from the English wiki; concernig our article on Emergency medicine I don't know, if "emergency medicine" is in anglo-american countries (for example the US) really a speciality like surgery or urology? - Redlinux (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the UK, although only recently developed its own Royal College and specialty examinations. Axl (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Axl, to enable us to compare it with the German speciality examinations; do You know how long it - approximately - takes to achieve the title "emergency medicine"? 2 years, five years? Many greetings Redlinux (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the U.S., emergency medicine is a recognized specialty, accredited by the American Board of Emergency Medicine. The residency is typically 3 years following graduation from medical school, though some are 4 years. It's a relatively new specialty but a fairly popular one. MastCell Talk 18:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You for Your answer. I don't know much about the US- system of accreditation. In our country a speciality can just be accredited by the "chamber of physicians"; so a speciality of a "Board of Surgeons" or "Board of Emergency medicine" would not officially be recognized, although there are also non-official organisations doing similar. So my questions - is this different in the United states? Who accreditates an official speciality maybe like surgery, internal medicin, urology and so on; also a similar "Board of surgery"? - Maybe this question sounds silly in Your ears, but I'd ask You to answer, cause otherwise, I cannnot compare the education of Your country and ours. We also have the speciality "Emergency medicine" in in many German countries; but it is of less value then surgery or urology; we call those specialities "additional speciality". So for example in my case, I have the speciality "Internal medicine" and some additional specialities like "Sportsmedicine, Emergency medicine ..." Many greetings Redlinux (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Emergency medicine used to be predominantly a surgical subspecialty, but it is now attracting more physicians as well. The British Association for Emergency Medicine is the "Royal" College as David indicated. Under Modernising Medical Careers, emergency medicine has its own core training ("acute care common stem") that includes intensive care, acute general medicine, emergency medicine and so on. I have the feeling this is going to be a temporary thing. JFW | T@lk 07:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, the BAEM and the College for Emergency Medicine are merging this months and are applying for Royal Charter: http://www.emergencymed.org.uk/Merger/ - wish them luck. JFW | T@lk 07:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You for the hints; so I think, what we call speciality is the same as a Consultant. - So can a physician became a Consultant in Emergency medicine, Sportmedicin or so on? Redlinux (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coronary stents

I was updating some info on CABG and PCI today and came across the coronary stent and drug-eluting stent articles. The DES page appears to have been largely created as a marketing page by one of the device companies - it has since been cleaned up by other users. The coronary stent page was a stub and did not meet wiki guidelines. A lot of the information on the DES page should be moved onto the PCI or coronary stent page. The DES page should be about the drug-eluting stents themselves; the info on placement and complications should be on the PCI page, the history of stents should be on the coronary stent page. The credit for the picture of the stent on the DES page is the FDA - the FDA may not be the originator of the picture - it could be used with permission of Boston Scientific. I have already made some of these changes, but there is still more to be done - more eyes looking at it would be good. Dlodge (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the readership would be best served if we merged everything into coronary stent (or even percutaneous coronary intervention). There would be ample space to discuss the bare metal vs drug-eluting stent controversy. We need a place to discuss the rationale for a choice between stents (e.g. it is better to use bare metal stents in situations where anticoagulation for other indications in ongoing, e.g. in atrial fibrillation, and 1 year of clopidogrel in addition to warfarin would give an unacceptable bleeding risk). JFW | T@lk 07:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still think DES deserves its own article, but a lot of the content of that article can definitely be merged into a coronary stent article, again separate from PCI. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random hypertension phases

Has anyone ever heard of Random hypertension phases? Google's only hits are derived from copies of this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've prodded it. The original creator seems to have left, and it is unverifiable waffle. JFW | T@lk 07:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder of the Philip Greenspun Illustration project

Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects.

Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.

If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 16:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raynaud's

Raynaud's phenomenon and Raynaud's disease disagree about the proper name for secondary Raynaud's: whether it is Raynaud's phenomenon or Raynaud's syndrome, and if it's the former, what to call the concept that embraces both primary and secondary. I made some lengthy comments on both talk pages, and built a tentative Dab at Raynaud's (replacing a worse Rdr). But i refrained from making any changes to the substance of the two articles, leaving that to someone who has some idea what they are doing.
It is also unclear to me whether Raynaud's is worth 2 or 3 articles: the 3 would be primary, secondary, and an article they would both lk to, stating the aspects they have in common and defining the core distinction.
They probably also lack Cat tags, and all the incoming Dabs and Rdrs should be checked against editor's responses to the belief that R's p and R's d are synonyms.
--Jerzy•t 09:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah: it's probably worth trying to get separate pics where the patients have secondary and primary respectively. (As it is, i guess the shared pic could be primary without either article's caption lying, but it looks suspicious, and sleazy even if the suspicions are unfounded.)
--Jerzy•t 09:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raynaud's phenomenon may occur in primary and secondary Raynaud's syndrome. I would only refer to primary Raynaud's as "Raynaud's disease", as all secondary causes are diseases themselves (e.g. scleroderma). I think the whole kaboodle can easily be merged without loss of information. For instance, it is easier to make comparisons (e.g. that secondary Raynaud's is more likely to lead to ulceration and gangrene) and we can discuss the treatments en bloc. JFW | T@lk 21:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Action Potential

Action potential has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Maze procedure

I have recently had personal discussion with Jamie McClelland regarding the naming of Maze procedure, particularly if it should be renamed back to the original minimaze. A discussion can be found on the talk page. Unless there is objection, could someone with admin privileges rename maze procedure to minimaze and move the associated history. Dlodge (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Rhabdomyolysis is on peer review. Please offer your comments on Wikipedia:Peer review/Rhabdomyolysis. JFW | T@lk 15:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy

Requesting assistance at Pregnancy - some questions and issues have recently arisen concerning the accuracy and layout of the article (see current discussions on talk page). Also, the article was originally written in British English, and I suspect much of the spelling is now American, so Brit members of the project would have a dual task - it would be helpful if you would "correct" any inconsistencies in spelling. Thanks in advance - KillerChihuahua?!? 19:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rotavirus

I'm going to list this article for FAC. So now's the time for input. I've had a lot of help already, (see the talk page). I hope that any issues can be resolved before submission. Please help where you can. --GrahamColmTalk 22:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hereditary multiple exostoses

Forgive me as I'm still getting used to the conventions used here. What I want to suggest is that the line which reads - A person with HME is also more likely to develop a rare form of bone cancer called chondrosarcoma as an adult, be edited to say the same thing but with a rewording of 'more likely'. I say this because it reads at present as though it's more likely that someone with the disorder WILL get bone cancer than NOT - if you see what I mean? I stress the importance of phrasing it such as I have four children who all suffer from the abnormality. When reading it, I wouldn't want them thinking they were 'more likely' to get cancer than not get it which is one way the current form of the sentence can be interpreted (and that would scare the life out of any kid reading it who suffers from the condition). I don't want to go ahead and do it myself as someone has obviously worked hard to get it into its current form. Thanks. OzScot (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to address this in the article. Let's finish the conversation on the article's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Athanasius Kircher FAR

Athanasius Kircher has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epinephrine vs Adrenaline (again)

With no clear consensus (IMHO) in past discussions to use Adrenaline over Epinephrine and with WP:MEDMOS giving clear guideline to stick with INN, the article recently got moved. I have reverted back, to what IMHO the WP:MED & WP:PHARM projects would generally consider as a useful approach set out in our WP:MEDMOS guidelines. As previously, Google results being cited, but if this is to be the case, then paracetamol would be Tylenol and penicillin would be whatever is the No 1 US brand (Google reflecting the US-predominant internet) and we would have no use of any generic names, let alone INN terms.

Anyway could WP:MED members comment at Talk:Epinephrine David Ruben Talk 12:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

Second opinion doesn't exist. Is there an article on this general subject somewhere? I've tried several names with no success. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think an article on that subject should be under that name anyway. It's going to be a sweet darling to populate, because I'm not sure which kind of primary studies addressing the impact of "getting a second opinion" in general have been performed. Still, PubMed gives 700 results for "second opinion" and 55 reviews, but a quick look shows that most of these results are very specific to one particular modality or disease. Best of luck. JFW | T@lk 22:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we get >1500 words and references, suggest it for Template:Did you know. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Disease

I've posted a heads up at Template talk:Infobox Disease re a proposed infobox for phobias, which IMHO might be best merged with this template. Also I have then floated the idea of adding a classification parameter for field-of-medicine (eg Cardiology, Neurology).. David Ruben Talk 03:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Face Foundation

COuld someone do an external links/spam check on Baby Face Foundation? I suspect that this article's existence is related to a minor edit war in microtia earlier this month. My vision is screwed up in that about-to-have-a-migraine way, so it's time for me to sign off. (I'll be fine. I get the world's mildest migraines for about two hours, once every year or two -- nothing to worry about.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean Little Baby Face Foundation? It looks like it's about more than just microtia. It seems to have an international reach and is probably notable on those grounds. Is there press coverage related to its work? Much of the Google links to its work are YouTube/Myspace/Veoh videos. JFW | T@lk 07:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for figuring out what I was talking about. I couldn't see most of the screen while I was typing. Let's take up the notability discussion on the article's talk page. It's the idealist.org link that caught my eye; idealist is kind of an overgrown chatboard/advertising service/volunteer recruiting website for nonprofits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medical news on Portal:Medicine

Thanks to Wikinews Importer Bot, health stories from Wikinews are now listed automatically on Portal:Medicine. You're all welcome to have a look, and of course if you come by any important health stories, in the news or in articles you read, you're welcome to suggest them to me -or better yet, you can write an article on Wikinews! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mnemonics

For a little while now I have been removing mnemonics from articles when they are not of the GET SMASHED calibre. I'm sure every medical school has another rude mnemonic for the cranial nerves, and I would be hesitant to accord these any degree of encyclopedicity. Does anyone disagree on this? I'm asking because of this edit to Whipple's disease. I am not saying that all mnemonics are outlawed, but I would limit this to mnemonics with such a large support base (e.g. GET SMASHED) that verifiability is the least of their problems. JFW | T@lk 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any encyclopaedic purpose. Even the GET SMASHED example is poor. There are no sources for that section and you have to read to the bottom to find out that alcohol and gallstones are the most significant causes in the west. The inventor of such a mnemonics will at times have to pick a less obvious word, to make it fit, or to select a less common cause/sign rather than a more common one simply because the letter isn't available. I'd much rather read some prose that contained the information X: 60%, Y: 30%, Z: 5%, others ... The geographical differences between west and east, or the differences between rich and poor countries is much more interesting to me than some lame mnemonic. The reader doesn't have to sit an oral exam afterwards :-) Colin°Talk 17:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Colin. Axl (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree, but I was considering exceptions to a complete ban on mnemonics. My reason for quoting GET SMASHED was because it can be found even in highly authoritative textbooks and very popular handbooks (such as Longmore's OHCM) - this is evidently not the case with most other mnemonics I've been removing.
I will update WP:MEDMOS to specifically exclude mnemonics. JFW | T@lk 17:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, I'm anti-mnemonic in medical articles. However, in a few cases, it may be acceptable to include the mnemonic without actually labeling it: an article "just happens" to list potential signs in the same order as a common acrostic. This might be an acceptable way of including the information for those who will recognize it, without giving it undue weight. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other option is to leave these mnemonics out of the articles themselves and just create a list of medical mnemonics, including only those that can be shown (via sourcing) to have achieved a wide currency. MastCell Talk 22:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I share your concerns about undue weight for the sake of convenience, WhatamIdoing. Regarding MastCell's proposal: I can feel my listcruft alarm going off already. Quick, sister, some haloperidol! JFW | T@lk 23:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While there does seem to be a recent epidemic of hypohaldolemia on Wikipedia these days, I don't think JFW meets the diagnostic criteria. MastCell Talk 23:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with haldol is an idiosyncratic reaction displayed by trolls (Homo sapiens trollis). For them, generous doses of lorazepam may be more suitable. JFW | T@lk 23:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!
Respected JFW,
I thank you for your message.
The reason why I added that mnemonic in Whipple's_disease was for students. Except that no other hidden meanings.
"GET SMASHMED" and etc - Well... I like them. But I will no more add them...
I just wanted to help students.
I respect your opinions, and I do agree with wikipedian thought.
Thanking you
AnThRaX Ru (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you agree. Your contributions are otherwise very much welcomed! Stay around & help out - there's plenty more to do. JFW | T@lk 22:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computer/Wikimedia problem

Category:Unassessed-Class medicine articles is down to two pages: the project page and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive5. The problem in the archive appears to be in one of my own comments, which refs the category without a leading colon. I've tried to fix it... but the page doesn't somehow recognize the change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a colonoscopy. There was another instance of the category link without a colon. Should be fixed now. JFW | T@lk 00:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reactive attachment disorder

Hi. This article has passed GA and been peer reviewed. I'd be most grateful if someone with knowledge of the subject could pass their beady eyes over it before I nominate it for FAC. Thanks. Fainites barley 14:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AS again

Asperger syndrome has been subjected to extensive off-Wiki canvassing on numerous autism activist websites, and may need sustained attention from knowledgeable editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the non-initiated, could you describe the nature of the advocacy being solicited, just so I know what to be on the lookout for? MastCell Talk 16:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's mostly WP:UNDUE issues, giving extra weight to minority viewpoints, and advocacy claims that the article is dominated by "NT"s. If you want specific links to the off-Wiki posts, pls e-mail me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suicidality and Antiepileptic Drugs

A recent edit to Phenytoin inserted news from the FDA of an increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviours in patients taking antiepileptic drugs. The source was yahoo news, but better sources are the FDA news and FDA Information for Healthcare Professionals. I initially removed this insert since (a) the editor had added it only to phenytoin and (b) the FDA report didn't look at any studies involving phenytoin. The news has been reinserted with a clarification that the FDA expect all antiepileptics to have the same problem. A news item on MedlinePlus has feedback from two experts, one of whom expected it and the other who questioned it.

Now, I'm sure the FDA know what they are doing, but I'd love to know (and read) the research. From a quick search, I've been unable to find the published study behind this. I'm puzzled about the existence of a set of patients with epilepsy who are taking only placebo pills. This generally isn't done as it is unethical. Most drugs are studied as add-ons initially, and later in comparison with a known antiepileptic drug. I'm aware these drugs are also tested on healthy volunteers, but the report specifically mentions patients with epilepsy. So I'm curious about how they reached this conclusion. Any help in this matter would be appreciated.

Assuming this adverse effect is notable, should it be added to all our anticonvulsant drug articles, and how? Colin°Talk 14:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was the closest thing I found, and it doesn't say that they're all like that. Did they really say that epileptic people were taking placebo pills?--Rmky87 (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found that, but it is just one guy from Moscow. The US FDA study looks like a meta-analysis and would probably require loads of authors. The FDA Information for Healthcare Professionals contains the most info. They group the studies by "Trial Indication" and say "the relative risk for suicidal thoughts or behavior was higher for patients with epilepsy compared to those patients with psychiatric or other disorders" (relative risk being defined "Incidence of Events in Drug Patients/Incidence in Placebo Patients"). I'm puzzled. Sure there are studies that involve placebo pills, but they are taken on-top of existing medication, so nobody in these studies, with epilepsy, is off drugs. Sorry, guys, if this is a bit off-topic, but I'm hoping some Wikidoc has access to the journal that contains this study. Unless, it isn't published yet... Colin°Talk 18:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=189585349"