Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

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

Should this article be moved?

Milia is plural for Milium. Given our current naming conventions, should the article be moved to something like Milium_(disease)? ----kilbad (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Think it should be moved to the singular form, not sure about the parenthesis. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 09:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Would someone consider moving this article? ---kilbad (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. As there is no page to which you wish to move it the little move button at the top should do the trick.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I want to decline moving it myself at this time. ---kilbad (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay moved it to the name you suggested.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Doc James nominated for adminship

Doc James is running for adminship, so cast your vote to support, oppose or be neutral, if you are interested. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to all those who voted and clarified issue involving my edit history.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Mixing medical, botanical, and herbal stuff

I was doing some work on Vitex agnus-castus when I realised that the article tries to cover 3 fairly distinct domains: Botanical description etc, traditional herbal use, and use in modern medicin.

The sources on modern medical usage are good enough that I am tempted to split the article and create something like Vitex medication. Does that sound like a good idea or should I keep stuffing everything into one article? Are there other examples?

In Germany it has the status of a prescription free "apothekenpflichtig" (available in pharmacies only) medication with standartised extracts manufactured by several companies. I have fairly good overview of clinical and research aspectss but little knowledge about classical herbal stuff.

What name would I choose for such an article? Richiez (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I would keep it in one article, unless you are going to add a lot of text. Although it covers three domains it is all about the same herb, so as long as it doesn't get too long there is no reason to split. --WS (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree: one article unless and until you encounter WP:SIZE problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What about adding templates like dopaminergics and melatonergics to the article? At least the dopaminergic effects are well establishd but I have not such a good feeling about doing that because what does this template then apply to? A particular extract, a plant? Richiez (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd refrain from adding those, actually—strictly speaking, these effects are produced not by the plant but by its constituents (vitexin, for instance, has radical scavenger and antithyroid effects) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So that would be a good reason to split away the article to botanical and medical articles? In the long term I would want to have normal templates apply to it. Richiez (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No; splitting should happen when the article size merits it. Vitexin already has an article; for other compounds isolated from the plant create a redirect to the plant article and put the redirect in whatever categories that compound belongs in. 66.167.45.150 (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

A similar discussion would be in order for Medicinal mushrooms, which article freely mingles discussion of mushrooms used in traditional medicine with discussion of specific constituents extracted from them. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma

I think the redirect is wrong. Although this type of lymphoma is associated frequently with Waldenström's macroglobulinemia, these two pathological entities are not interchangeable. The term Waldenström's macroglobulinemia identifies a hyperviscosity syndrome due to secretion of large amounts of monoclonal IgM. Therefore, this syndrome identifies alteration of a blood parameter and its consequences, but not its origin, which can be manifold. Instead, the term lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma identifies pathological entity, characterized by a tumor mass with typical histological changes and not always results in a Waldenström's macroglobulinemia. Sorry for my bad English. Have a nice day! :D --Ceccomaster (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. You are free to turn it into a stub, and it will be expanded eventually. Not all LPL causes WM. JFW | T@lk 19:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Trichotillomania

I've never encountered this "focused" vs. "automatic" classification: if anyone has access to the full text of PMID 15121993 , could they verify this text just added?

Trichotillomania is also subdivided into "automatic" versus "focused" hair pulling. Trichotillomania is often not a focused act, but rather hair pulling occurs in a "trance-like" state. This "automatic" pulling occurs in approximately three-quarters of patients with trichotillomania. Environment is a large factor which affects hair pulling. Sedentary activities such as being in a relaxed environment are conducive to hair pulling. A common example of a sedentary activity promoting hair pulling is lying in a bed while trying to rest or fall asleep. An extreme example of automatic TTM is found when some patients have been observed to pull their hair out while asleep. Children are more often in the automatic, or subconscious, subtype and may not consciously remember pulling their hair. Other individuals may have focused, or conscious, rituals associated with hair pulling, including seeking specific types of hairs to pull, pulling until the hair feels "just right", or pulling in response to a specific sensation.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like the full text of that article is freely available - am I wrong? MastCell ^Talk 21:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ack. Thanks :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you create new pages?

I've been thinking about the RFA drought, and the negative effects that this has on our own work. (For example, I've got a list of pages that need to be moved to their correct titles.) Special:ListUsers shows me that several good editors here (e.g., Garrondo, LeadSongDog, RexxS, Leevanjackson) also don't have various editor privs (e.g., autopatroller, rollback, or reviewer) set. I suspect that the hassle of requesting these things is the biggest reason.

I know that some editors aren't interested in an RFA, so here's something easy and quick that any new-page-creating editor can do in less than five minutes. For those of us who create an occasional article, it's not so helpful, but if you fairly often create new articles (and if you've been around a while, you may not realize how many you've created), please consider this:

1. Click here.
2. Put your username in, and change the pop-up menu to "Exclude redirects".
3. If the result shows that you've created dozens or hundreds of non-redirect pages, then please click here to request the "autopatrolled" priv.

New pages normally end up in Special:NewPages, where volunteers attempt to look over each one of them. People who have a demonstrated track record of creating lots of pages (that don't end up getting deleted) can help reduce the New Page Patrol's workload by requesting this bit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I moved a few of the items on your list, a few others were already fixed. If you need more assistance, just let me know. --WS (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, WaId. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Subcats of Category:People by medical or psychological condition

In looking at the contents of Category:People by medical or psychological condition, is there a method to the madness (pun intended :) of the naming of the subcategories? There are "People diagnosed with Foo", "People with Foo", "Foo people", "Fooers", "Foo patients". Comments on a consistent naming style are welcomed. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not able to speak for the group, but I am much more interested in the diseases / conditions and consider those affected ( beyond one or two historical significant cases ) trivia. We could have people affected by the common cold but the list would include everyone. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Image correction?

I think File:Scrotal epidermoid cysts.jpg may be a photo of idiopathic scrotal calcinosis, NOT epidermoid cysts. You can see here for additional examples of idiopathic scrotal calcinosis. If the community agrees, perhaps someone could rename the file and add it to the correct article? ---kilbad (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

And here are pictures of scrotal epidermoid cysts per google [1]. They appear to look remarkably similar. I guess the deciding factor would be if they are solid of fluid filled? This however is beyond my experience. Have emailed the user. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Citing an entire journal

I would like to cite the entire issue of a journal, specifically, this journal issue. Could someone help me with this? Thanks in advance! ---kilbad (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not usually recommended to cite a whole book since it is hard to verify the info it supports, thus the need of saying the specific pages. I would say that similarly it is not a good idea to cite a whole issue: I would cite the specific article or articles supporting your claim and if you want to point that there is a whole issue on a related theme put it in the further reading section of the article as an external link. Citing a whole issue is most probably too general.--Garrondo (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, although I can see some uses. Why exactly do you need to cite the whole issue?

For 5-HT3 antagonist, I used the following format for a similar citation: See Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1989; 25 Suppl 1. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I want to put it in a further reading section. ---kilbad (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Bolognia Push update

We have made a lot of progress with the Bolognia Push, and I want to thank all of you who have contributed. I completed the letter "M" today, and suspect we are over halfway done. However, we still need more help! If you are interested in this effort, and would like to help with a letter, please contact me for details. ---kilbad (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Great project, hadn't noticed it before. Perhaps also a good moment to point out some of the other lists with missing articles: diseases, cancer dictionary, genome glossary and books on the history of medicine. --WS (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Medical sounds

I have a new stethoscope a Lippmann 3200 which can record. Here is my first uploaded sound. I still have some playing around to do to improve sound quality.

Wondering how best we wish to format these?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

dashes

I just moved Frank-Starling law of the heart (with a hyphen rather than a dash) to Frank–Starling law of the heart (with a dash). Then, as always, I clicked on "what links here". I fixed the double redirects. I found a huge number of articles linking to the incorrect (i.e. former) title and very few to the title with the dash. I have long suspected that there are some subject-matter communities within Wikipedia that this particular standard hasn't reached yet, even today. (See WP:MOS on dashes and hyphens. Dashes are used in ranges of numbers including years, pages, etc., and in contexts like the title of this article, and also for parenthetical offsets. Hyphens are to be used in certain other kinds of contexts.) The lopsided results on "what links here" make me suspect what one of those communities is. Could others help fix those links? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Many of the links arise from from Template:Cardiovascular physiology - just fixing that now. --RexxS (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

When you click on "what links here", I think links arising from templates may not be up to date until maybe about 24 hours later. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach Test (2010)

The RFC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach Test (2010) has been filed concerning "Is publishing the Rorschach test images and responses in keeping with Wikipedia's long-term mission and purpose? Does doing so make the article more useful or less useful? What do sources tell us?". Your input is solicited. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Buerger's Image

Forgive my errors I'm new at this. I'm not even sure if this is the correct place to post this, if it is wrong please direct me and I'll repost. Thanks. I was looking at the image in the Beurger's Disease page and I'm not sure it is relevant to the disease. If it is relevant, there should be some text that explains why it is relevant. Don't get me wrong, it's a terrific image, I just don't see what it has to do with that disease. I don't want to delete it without some other opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bstrockb (talk • contribs) 21:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It shows complete occlusion of the right and stenosis of the left femoral artery which can occur in Buerger's disease as described in the text. It could do with a better caption. --WS (talk) 09:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

ALS and NYT

In a classic example of why we need WP:MEDRS, the NYT gets it all wrong, and editors are inserting misinfo at ALS-- more eyes needed at Talk:Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis#Misdiagnosis of some traumatic brain injury as ALS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Similar occurring of course at Lou Gehrig. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes why it is always best to go most of the way to the source and reference a review article... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This is such a great example, that perhaps we should reference it at WP:MEDRS to illustrate why we don't trust even pubications like The New York Times to get medical info correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oddly, while PubMed still shows PMID 20720505 as an epub ahead of print, the authors listed include all but one author of a related 2009 review PMID 19535999 with the exception being Santini VE. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, perhaps you could weigh in at Talk:Statin, where the reliability of newspaper journalism is under discussion. JFW | T@lk 19:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be more than welcome. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

HIV exceptionalism

There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HIV exceptionalism about what to do with the stub HIV exceptionalism. I think it would benefit from the involvement of people who know more than I do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a fairly limited subset, and one that I'm not sure I belong to, but I will take a look anyway. :) MastCell ^Talk 19:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

'disease' vs 'defect'

Hi, I've noticed a bit of vagueness and confusion between articles dealing with diseases and those dealing with congenital defects. I'm wondering if there's any consensus on whether a disease generally means something acquired after birth and a defect is something someone is born with? Particularly in reference to the heart-related articles. Thanks very much.--TyrS (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is consensus here. A defect is a chemical or physical abnormality that may or may not cause any particular symptoms, while the disease may be caused by such a defect but is almost by definition symptomatic. Cleft palate, for instance, is regarded as a defect. An atrial septum defect is often asymptomatic. Then there is "syndrome", which is another story. JFW | T@lk 19:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we find any source at all for that? I'd like to expand Disease#Terminology. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"Disease is the aggregate of those conditions which, judged by the prevailing culture, are deemed painful, or disabling, and which, at the same time, deviate from either the statistical norm or from some idealized status." This is from: King, L.S. What Is Disease? Philosophy of Science 21, 193-203 (1954). It was an interesting read on how our values shape what the idealized state is, for example foot binding in China or seers with hallucinations being regarded as prized members of society. But I agree, there is no "real" definition and the concept of disease is debated. Defect on the other hand would probably be the latter half of the disease and would therefore be less specific than disease and perhaps therefore less ethereal: a deviation from the statistical norm or from some idealized status. Give me your email on my talkpage if you want a copy of the article. Kallimachus (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Check it out...

User:Anomie has created an automatically updating graph of dermatology-related artlce and redirect creation. I think it is very cool and wanted to show off his work. ---kilbad (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)