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

In one sentence

In one sentence can someone summarize our current convention with regard to when the possessive vs nonpossesive forms of eponymous disease names are used for article titles? This is for my own education, and to help guide my editing. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• There are more important things to worry about. [That's the policy, btw, not me being rude about your question]. Colin°^Talk 20:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Yes: "There is a consensus to have no rule about that." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Medicine is moving away from "eponymous disease" names and we should too at about the same rate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Recently discussed on WT:MEDMOS. I think eponyms are here to stay, because the alternatives are often unpronounceable or unrememberable (unless the disease is named after a an unrepentant Nazi). JFW | T@lk 10:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Our current convention is to follow ICD-10 orthography. Application of the convention is left as an exercise to the reader. --Arcadian (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Assessment of Silent stroke

User 7Mike5000 has asked if this article could be assessed. He's expecting "stub". I don't know how that happens. Can anyone help? (I don't have any online time at the moment.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have assigned it "start" class. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Anthony (and anyone else), the directions are at WP:MEDA. Anyone is welcome to have a go at assessing articles for Stub, Start, C-class, or B-class. (GA and FA use an outside process, and we don't do A-class.) Please feel free to look through Category:Unassessed medicine articles and assess whatever you like. You can ping me on my talk page or the usual suspects at WT:MEDA if you are uncertain. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

widespread addition of links to external site

Editor Firassalim (talk · contribs) has been adding variations on a commercial link to a large number of pages that fall within our scope. Should this go straight to AN/I? -- Scray (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

They are inappropriate ELs. User has had this explained to them. Hopefully they will follow this advice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If the user doesn't stop, you can get help at WP:ELN, where a couple of the anti-spam folks hang out. You can also follow the directions at WP:BLACKLIST, as an internet chatroom is basically never going to be acceptable as an external link, but blocking the one user is probably the simpler solution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This was very educational for me (though the reversions were a bit tedious). I would have assumed that blacklisting would be efficient, but having read the info I came to appreciate how much better it is to educate the editor (basically, an extension of WP:AGF). Thanks! -- Scray (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Choice in medicine

Just finished an excellent book on choosing and have come across this review [1]. Wondering where on Wikipedia should something like this be discussed? It goes against the US paradigm. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Health care proxy certainly needs work, and the current Annals of Internal Medicine article you cite would be a good addition. That said, I don't see much in that article that is (a) surprising or (b) contrary to any "US paradigm". Making end-of-life decisions is stressful. -- Scray (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

End-of-life care is another option. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Please Review Edits to Diabetes Template Page

I recently tried to add glycated albumin as another blood test for diabetes on Template:Diabetes...My edit was promptly reverted. I'm not sure what the reason was, but I have found several reference laboratories that provide this test for doctors (listed below). I think that it is fully appropriate to add glycated albumin to the list.

http://www.arupconsult.com/Topics/DiabetesMellitus.html?client_ID=LTD#tabs=5
http://www.clevelandcliniclabs.com/reflab/SearchDetails/tabid/4698/Default.aspx?ID=2056
http://www.pacbio.com/biomarker/assay_detail.php?id=112
http://www.questdiagnostics.com/hcp/testmenu/jsp/showTestMenu.jsp?s=G&test_code=96099&fn=5032X.html&labCode=SJC

I'm new to editing wikipedia articles, so I'm not sure if it is appropriate to present this issue here or directly with the user that reverted my edits. I would appreciate it if you could let me know if I should go about this differently. Thanks! Jymorale (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A page on Glycated protein should probably be created where this among others is discussed.[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not the best source but this says GP is the same as fructosamine [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have also come across similar descriptions online, and I believe that they are misleading. Fructosamine is a general term used to refer to numerous serum proteins that have undergone glycation (Glycated Serum Proteins or GSP). While glycated albumin (GA) is a major component (80%) of what is referred to as “fructosamine,” GA is only one of the many glycated proteins that are measured in the fructosamine assay. Specific assays for glycated albumin do actually exist: Exocell manufactures an ELISA kit (Glycaben) and the labs listed above offer affinity column chromatography tests (and other formats) for clinical use.

There is a substantial amount of literature that shows that GA is directly involved in the pathogenesis of diabetes complications and that a specific GA assay is clinically beneficial for diabetes monitoring [4], especially in patients with red blood cell abnormalities [5],[6]. Considering all this, I think it would be appropriate to clearly differentiate fructosamine from glycated albumin (I'm working right now on writing an article for Glycated Albumin, which inaccurately redirects to Fructosamine). Jymorale (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

So GA is a type of fructosamine. May be this should be added as a subsection in the fructosamine article than split off into its own article when large enough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm...adding GA to the fructosamine article is a great idea, since it is a type of fructosamine (FA). But I think I just realized what's causing the confusion here. The contents in the fructosamine article (except for the 3 lines of intro) are specific to the fructosamine assay, not the fructosamine molecules. Perhaps it would be best if the fructosamine page was renamed to "Fructosamine Assay" or maybe even split it into two articles: "Fructosamine" and "Fructosamine Assay". Adding GA to the page as it is now would probably mislead readers to believe that the GA and FA assays are one and the same. Jymorale (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because it is current written primarily about an assay does not mean that it should not be rewritten to be about the molecule which IMO it should.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that one article is likely to be better. The article could then split the sections into ==Chemistry== and ==Assays== (or something like that). I think the primary advantage of putting it all on one page is that it would be easier for the reader to figure out that the test is not the molecule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. The Fructosamine article should be reorganized so these differences are clear. GA can then be listed as a type of fructosamine, and then link out to the full article when it is available. Thanks for all the feedback! Going back to the original purpose of this post though... Since GA is a stand-alone blood test for diabetes, I think it appropriate to list it on the template:diabetes page. This is a separate issue from the details about the contents of the individual articles. Jymorale (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure once that page exists. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

HIV-positive people

I believe that image on HIV-positive people (here) need to be changed. The United States should be coloured red, as it once was from the version history, as the US still bands people with HIV from entering under the Visa Waiver Program and from US Visas. See Travel and residence regulations for people with HIV and AIDS - 2008-2009 here. The version history appears to state the ban was lifted in Jan 2010. So perhaps further clarification is needed. Regards, KiloT 22:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

May be ask the person who created it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

My favorite web search engine says that the rules changed in January 2010. See [7][8]. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Parkinson's disease at FAC: More reviewers needed

Parkinson's disease has been at FAC for a month. While most reviewers have stated their support to the candidacy of this vital article there is at least an editor which believes it is not ready. More reviewers that could give their opinion on whether it is a FA and/or how to improve it would be of great help.--Garrondo (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to me? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, answered at your talk page.--Garrondo (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Soon after this post the article was promoted.

How would you cite this document?

I want to cite the following document: [9]. Could someone help me generate the citation? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The answer depends on the citation format used in the article, but try this:

{{citation
| title = The Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Pocket Guide: Treatment Algorithms and Management Options
| author = Van Voorhees, Abby, Steven R. Feldman, John Y. M. Koo, Mark G. Lebwohl, and Alan Menter
| publisher = [[National Psoriasis Foundation]]
| url = http://www.psoriasis.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=354
| edition = 3
| year = 2009
| page = 
}}

If you need a different style, then let me know. A "pocket guide" could also be handled like a book, if you wanted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have an image we can use?

Does anyone have an image of Uncombable hair syndrome we can use on Wikipedia? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Image for OCD

Wondering if some more people could comment on this image discussion [10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Serial killer#African American serial killers

Psychological/medical sources are usually used to identify serial killers, with the occasional exception of law enforcement. Generally, news sources are not the best sources to use for a topic such as this, per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#News organizations. Yet, the section in question uses news sources and writers. The first source in the section already inaccurately describes two people as serial killers. The editor who added the section, however, feels that the section should stay because it is "verifiable." The question is...whether or not this editor's sources should be considered good enough simply because they are "verifiable."

Opinions are definitely needed on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I want to stress that the topic of serial killers is often related to the medical field, as in psychological evaluation and all that, which is why I listed it here. If it somehow falls outside of the scope of this WikiProject, an explanation as to why would be much appreciated. Otherwise, opinions on the matter are still needed...even though the matter of WP:UNDUE is resolved. Flyer22 (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Converting Template:Lung size/activity to list?

With increased growth, the Template:Lung size/activity has started to become a burden to the articles it transcludes to rather than a help. I suggest moving the contents to a new article that will be titled, for example, List of terms describing lung activity, that is linked from all those articles in their See also-sections. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

• John Smith (2000). "How to Put Things into Other Things". Journal of Foobar. 1 (2): 3–4. arXiv:0123456789. ASIN 0123456789. Bibcode:0123456789. doi:0123456789. ISBN 0123456789. ISSN 0123456789. JFM 0123456789. JSTOR 0123456789. LCCN 0123456789. MR 0123456789. OCLC 0123456789. OL 0123456789. OSTI 0123456789. PMC 0123456789. PMID 0123456789. RFC 0123456789. SSRN 0123456789. Zbl 0123456789. |id=____. {{cite journal}}: Check |arxiv= value (help); Check |asin= value (help); Check |bibcode= length (help); Check |doi= value (help); Check |issn= value (help); Check |jfm= value (help); Check |mr= value (help); Check |ol= value (help); Check |osti= value (help); Check |pmc= value (help); Check |pmid= value (help); Check |rfc= value (help); Check |ssrn= value (help); Check |zbl= value (help)

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)