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

Top viewed medical articles by language (with totals) for 2018

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Topviews2018byLang courtesy of Edgars. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Didn't thought they will make into wiki. Will make them prettier, add some wikistyle :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 13:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

More stats regarding the breakdown of total pageviews by language here Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Stats/Totals2018 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Nicely done. But what happened to Korean?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathglot (talk • contribs)

It is there, just not all the languages are turned into headings yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC about organizing the sections

Methylphenidate

• Talk:Methylphenidate#RfC_about_placement_of_content

• Also started a general conversation here [1]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Contacted a toxoicology/clinical pharmacology expert from Int Med, and attached his response, with my opinion too under discussion. Ian Furst (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Anisochromasia - Anisochromia

Hello WT:MED friends, which direction should Anisochromasia & Anisochromia be merged in? I don't know enough to make the call. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

My Stedman's Medical Dictionary (27th ed., 2000) lists anisochromasia but doesn't seem to mention anisochromia anywhere, even as a synonym. Note the two articles give subtly different definitions: Anisochromasia is described as non-uniform colour within individual red blood cells (consistent with Stedman's), whereas Anisochromia is implicitly described as non-uniform colour between different red blood cells. Whether that distinction is legitimate, I do not know. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Charring cigarettes again

May I informally request views on some COI edits made at Phillip Morris's request? See Talk:Electric smoking system#Suggested to shorten IQOS section HLHJ (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Charring cigarettes? That reminds me. Why the article has a funny title? The title of the article does not match the content. I cleaned up the very long section. It was bloated. I do not want a separate article created. QuackGuru (talk) 04:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I overreacted, QuackGuru. I'm feeling very frustrated with that article. In this case, I was upset to find that a Phillip Morris employee had been asked to choose what material to cut from a section on their product. Sarah at PMI and SimonDes are consistently friendly and charming while doing a job which leaves them facing a lot of hostility. I do not think it is ethical of PMI to misuse their talents promoting PMI on Wikipedia. I am really uncomfortable to see them recommending coverage of PMI's health-related marketing claims. Sarah at PMI recommended this text:

The emissions generated by IQOS contains some of the harmful constituents in tobacco cigarette smoke, though the levels are on average lower than those found in cigarette smoke.[10][11] According to government reports published in the Netherlands,[12] England,[13] and Germany[11], the IQOS product is likely less toxic or harmful than traditional cigarettes.

WP:UNDUE aside, this summarizes two of PMI's standard talking points. These points were also used historically in the marketing of ventilated ("light") cigarettes. It also implies two more talking points: the device produces "emissions", not "smoke", and is not a tobacco cigarette.

When these suggestions were merged into the article, some content in the old section which was incompatible with these marketing messages was removed or moved from the resulting section.

This is a particularly sensitive topic, and I think it would be appropriate to apply WP:COIRESPONSE particularly stringently. Could we agree on some scope of edit suggestions which should not be accepted from PMI? HLHJ (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

If you really are "feeling very frustrated" with that article then I think you could edit other topics. It is not healthy for anyone if they are very frustrated.

I expanded the article and now the content is very neutral without the mass failed verification content. There is content about smoke in the lede and body but we don't need to repeat it many times throughout the article. The section was way too long. QuackGuru (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Drug interactions on Wikidata

Almost all the drug interactions listed in Wikidata appear to be from a 2012 reference. There are quite a few drug interactions that I expected to find but were missing (e.g. fentanyl x amiodarone). Is Wikidata missing interactions, or is there a threshold of severity required that I'm overlooking? I've updated the wikdata item for fentanyl, so please revert if I've made an error. Additionally, is there any scope to use the qaualifier field to indicate the nature or severity of the interaction? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 07:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I suspect they are simply an omission, but wikidata:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Medicine is probably a better place to inquire about Wikidata standards. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: Jo-Jo Eumerus is right about the best location to discuss, but just as FYI for colleagues here who aren't familiar with Wikidata, each property on Wikidata has a discussion page that outlines its use and its original conception. So in this case, you can follow the links from fentanyl (Q407541) to significant drug interaction (P769) to the property talk page and see the sort of limits and constraints that are expected. For fentanyl, you'll have to use your expertise and judgement (or just cite a reference, as you did) to make the case that it meets the definition "a clinically significant interaction between two pharmacologically active substances (i.e., drugs and/or active metabolites) where one substance (so-called 'precipitant') alters the pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics of another substance (so-called, 'object'). The property should be used in this direction: <object> <drug action altered by> <precipitant>". HTH --RexxS (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus and RexxS: Thanks for the info and recommendations. I've also reposted over at WD Med. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Journal article needed

I am trying to get hold of the full text of PMID 29268618. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment redacted since I’m not really supposed to link to that website. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Seppi; that was easy. Had by student editing once again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:School and university projects/IIT SSSUP polo Valdera SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Just as an update: see Wikipedia talk:School and university projects/IIT SSSUP polo Valdera for the issues raised so far (copyright violations and sourcing biomedical claims to primary sources). I've not had what I would consider a positive response so far, and I've not had time to examine all of the medical articles affected by this course (among those listed at Wikipedia:School and university projects/IIT SSSUP polo Valdera #Groups and assignments), so if anybody has a little time to scan some of those articles for the issues mentioned and add their opinions, I'd be grateful. --RexxS (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Diannaa:, is this group's work already on your list of pages to check for copyvio concerns? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

No. I work from the list of https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en, not from lists of participants in school groups. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

There work should get run like all the rest of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Biography of a doctor

Input from subject matter experts would be appreciated on Draft:John Layke. If the doctor should be in (is notable), move the draft to mainspace. If the doctor should be out, leave a note on the draft's talk page. Thanks. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Others can take a look, but it reads like an "About" page from their website. I don't think it meets WP:GNG and should not be published. The primary editor has done little more than this article - so it may be inexperience but I'm concerned about a COI. I'd also note the the quote, "He is also a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons." is referenced with a citation from Hollywood Life, speculating on Khloe Kardashian's nose where Dr. Layke is quoted as saying, ""That picture is 100% face-tuned,” Dr. Layke says. “Just saw her near the office not too long ago and her nose was nowhere near that narrow.” Gasp!" Many of the references have similar issues and are less than ideal. Ian Furst (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

First two refs are not really about him, but simple him commenting on other subjects. Not seeing evidence of notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Kommenting on a Kardashian? Of course that makes him Knotable! NRPanikker (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Ralph Northam article

As you may remember, physician Ralph Northam drew a lot of criticism for his remarks on letting the parents and their physician decide how to proceed when a nonviable deformed fetus is born. The talk page is working on a RfC draft after the first one failed to reach a consensus. It would be good to have a few people with medical experience look it over. Gandydancer (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

important topic, we need more opinions--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

College of American Pathologists and Lab Developed tests (LDTs)

Can we take a closer look at what these folks are up to? This as just published: http://web.archive.org/web/20190521191008/https://documents.cap.org/documents/general-ldt-faqs.pdf ! US-regulation-wise, LDTs are to medical lab testing as Nutritional supplements are to pharmaceuticals. The wild west, buyer-beware. And it indicates these foxes are the henhouse guards and are trying to keep it that way by opposing any meaningful regulation. It states that they're opposing any "attempt to regulate the practice of medicine", they think the wild west situation is cool and should be retained with a "grandfather provision", yet there's a shit ton of quack testing done. When I look around at what's advertised, whether to consumers or clinicians, most of the testing advertised are quack LDTs! This confirms that their interests align with pathologists who want to want to have to do as little work as possible. (Note the lack of caveats.) So there's a massive conflict of interest wherein they run the SAAS system that evaluates lab quality and where it exists, auditing! (Note: It effectively doesn't for LDTs.) We're talking irreplicable hair testing, heavy metal testing, etc. --24.130.170.132 (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

We have an article at Laboratory Developed Test. It looks like it could be expanded.

I wonder whether there are obviously legitimate uses. For example, if you use a test as part of a formal clinical trial, and that wouldn't normally be used in clinical practice, is that an LDT, or something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

There are many, many legitimate LDT's in clinical use. Almost all clinically available genetic testing, including single gene testing, panels and exomes are LDTs. Anything targeted for the rare disease community is an LDT. Many assays used in newborn screening are LDTs Some of the tests on the list of dubious tests provided above are legitimate and the primary test to diagnose metabolic disorders. The LDT article could certainly be expanded, but the original post on this topic is not neutral. Canada Hky (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

) A lot of totally evidence-free statements there, Canada. I'm unconvinced. Just because (someone claims that) much of (gene, newborn... or all of - rares) a kind of testing is LDTs doesn't mean that portion of the testing is legit. The claims on quackwatch site aren't by some pseudonymous editor. They're by MDs and are backed by logic and citations.

The lack of regulation given the billions spent is horrifying. For the most part, there's simply no reasonable assurance that such tests are analytically, let alone clinically, valid. One example: ovarian cancer screening tests offered to asymptomatic patients were shown not to work only after patients unnecessarily underwent major surgeries with significant recovery and side effects. http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm519540.htm 2601:643:8680:158F:52F:BC2D:BBE:5BBD (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Drug distribution

Some additional attention would seem to be needed, particularly to the subtopics of drug diversion, cold-chain distribution of vaccines and other biologics (for instance, there's some interesting news at https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-05-life-saving-vaccines.html), and the rapid distribution of radioactive pharmaceuticals. These areas present a major challenge in the elimination of diseases from reservoirs in less-developed areas. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

method creates light, durable, and compact doses that would be ideal for shipping Ebola vaccine, for example, to affected regions of Africa[2] very good info for article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Nurse_practitioner

There has recently been an influx of opinionated new editors at Talk:Nurse_practitioner. The situation could use some experienced eyes, even tempers, and relevant domain knowledge. Thanks in advance. - MrOllie (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a mess.

The main points of contention seem to fall into nursing versus non-nursing issues. For example, how can nurse practitioners be a so-called Mid-level practitioner when they have the biggest scope of practice within the entire nursing profession? (Answer: Because the highest level of practice within nursing isn't the same as the highest level of all types of healthcare practitioner.) And why are we comparing physician training against NP training? (Answer: Because they do some of the same things, and people need to understand the differences, including the differences in their education.)

I've left a note at WT:GA to see whether someone could close the long-stalled Good Article nomination review. That might have been the trigger for the sudden attention to the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Oral cancer

Oral cancer has had a major overhaul. I'd appreciate a 2nd set of eyes to give it a copy-edit, and look at the structure. Ian Furst (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

references look ok(deleted EL's/kept the WHO diagnostic--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Probable cite spam

Hello, I came across some probable cite spam, see search results for author name. Many/most of the sources seem to be primary research articles, but I am not sure which of these citations meet WP:MEDRS standards (and add relevant information in due weight). I have removed a few obvious issues, but it would be great if a topic expert could look into the remaining linked list and assess some of the more complicated usages - I'd rather not delete some valuable content by accident, even if the source was spammed. GermanJoe (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Hum thanks User:GermanJoe.Betham is a predatory publisher. Received some spam emails from them today.

Came across the same spamming IP as you.76.171.9.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• 76.90.11.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from the same range.
• 149.142.103.148 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from the same location. So yah and they have been at it a long time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC on how to summarize the immune effects of tonsillectomy

Tonsillectomy

• Talk:Tonsillectomy#Immune_function_2

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Missing article: Gee's Linctus

Gee's Linctus is mentioned in two articles: Laudanum and Over-the-counter drug. Laudanum says, '"Gee's Linctus" is also available from most UK pharmacies, especially the Independent stores'. Over-the-counter drug says, 'Frequently, customers buying larger-than-usual doses of [P] medicines (such as DXM, promethazine, codeine or Gee's linctus) will be queried, due to the possibility of abuse'. I don't think either statement is true.

WP:OR. I first remember Gee's Linctus from the mid 1950s, when I may have been 6 or 7. I lost my voice. My best friend's mother, who was a pharmacist, gave me a teaspoonful, and it came back as if by magic. I feel pretty sure that it was available OTC as a cough remedy and expectorant into the 1960s. It then became restricted: I recall in the late 1960s or early 1970s being accosted outside a chemist's shop by a bedraggled young woman who asked me to buy a bottle for her (she had the money; I declined). I'm not sure if it's available nowadays even on prescription, or even if it's still in the British Pharmacopoeia.

I think it contained tincture of opium. You can see the problem.

I know nothing about Dr Gee or his formulation. It may have been a UK variant of paregoric. This might be an interesting research project for someone. Narky Blert (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not in BNF, but I did find a BMJ paper from 1959 stating it contained 0.65mg anhydrous morphine.[3] Rxlist.com lists paregoric as a alternative name, although the dose and formulation looks different to that listed in the BMJ source. Little pob (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I've just talked to a pharmacist at my local Boots, who confirmed that it is no longer available and hasn't been for years. Narky Blert (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be the official label. It looks like it went prescription-only before disappearing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Blimey, I remember as a child (in the '70s) whenever I had a cough my mother would say it was time for the Gee's Linctus and dose me good & proper. And speaking to Mrs Alexbrn just now, she confirms at boarding school (also in the '70s) it would be liberally administered by Matron. It wasn't very nice. Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

It is one of the 1000s of cough medicines. Will redirect there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Health for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Health is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Health until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Pizza

RfC on Talk:Electric_smoking_system#Pizza_image. QuackGuru (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Quack, two months ago, in closing a different RFC that also discussed this same image, User:Sunrise told you not to start RFCs on that page when you could just have a plain old discussion. And today, you opened two new RFCs on that page. Please don't do that. Please actually try to talk to the editors watching that page before starting an RFC. If a normal discussion can solve it, then you will waste less of everyone else's time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

A possible Science/STEM User Group

There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo), yes very valuable to the wikiprojects, thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Statin denialism

Some eyes needed at Talk:Statin#"Statin Denialism". I think this issue can be presented in an NPOV & WEIGHT kind of way, but I don't think we're getting it right yet. JFW | T@lk 16:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Cripes. For a high-profile article, this is surprisingly crappy. Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Doctor who?

• David Bull (doctor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not sure if MOS / MEDMOS, etc has anything to say about usage of (doctor) as a dab term for a BLP. It seems to me that such usage makes an implicit claim to notability as a medical practitioner, with the potential to mislead the general public: cf Talk:David Bull (doctor) (TV doctor and politician).

86.190.132.158 (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that MEDMOS addresses this at all, but Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Disambiguation might have some advice. The most important thing is that it's different from all of the other David Bulls. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks WAID. After posting I realized that WP:NCPDAB is the relevant general guideline for dab terms (the page has now been renamed to [[David Bull (politician)]]). Fwiw, the more general concern behind my original post here was that a loosely used dab term such as (doctor) may have the potential to seriously mislead readers by inappropriately framing a subject's notability (e.g. by implying that a Bachelor of Medicine graduate without any full clinical qualification is actually a notable physician). 86.190.132.158 (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to reduce links to PubMed Central

Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#RfC_on_linking_title_to_PMC proposes to make the links to PMC less visible. Nemo 10:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be a question about how {{cite journal}} should behave. Namely, if the citation template doesn't have a URL, but it does have a PMC id (which means that it has a link to a free-as-in-beer copy of the full article at PubMed Central), should the article title be linked to the free PMC copy, or be left unlinked?

Including the link might result in more people reading the source; omitting it will likely have the opposite effect. Editors who already know what those strings of unexplained id numbers at the end of the citation do seem to be assuming that this is general knowledge. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Buzzwords

These four articles:

• Chronic care management
• Contraceptive security
• Essilor
• National Center for Medical Intelligence#Mission

are the only ones tagged by WPMED and for containing an excessive number of buzzwords. If you are looking for a potentially satisfying copyediting task, please consider cleaning up one of these today. It's just a matter of finding buzzwords in the article, and making them buzz off. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Burnout

The news media seem to have suddenly noticed that the WHO has assigned an ICD-11 code number to the idea of Occupational burnout (just like it did in ICD-10). The same chapter has codes for "my dog died when I was a kid" and "there are no schools around here". Please be on the lookout for well-meaning people who forget that "has a code number" is not the same as "is a disease". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm reliably informed that ICD-12 will have a code for the condition of 'forgetting that "has a code number" is not the same as "is a disease"'. --RexxS (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Hot Zone that would benefit from your opinion. Please come and help! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  22:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Vaccine hesitancy

• Vaccine hesitancy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Vaccine hesitancy#Stopping the Spread of Misinformation on Vaccines

A new account posted this article-like post. I suspected a possible copyviolation but a quick search didn't show me an obvious match. It may also be a complex edit request and is interesting, eyes welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 04:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Med articles with no references

Hello! In my amblings through Category:All articles lacking sources, I've stumbled upon a number of articles on medical topics that are completely unsourced. I suspect that some of these could be easily sourced, while others may be best merged/redirected elsewhere. If someone with more know-how than me could take a look, that would be great. The ones I've found so far are pasted below (I tried to limit to medical topics. Let me know if you're interested in medical personnel or medical schools...). Any help would be much appreciated! Feel free to remove items from the list or strike them through if you address them to avoid duplicating our efforts. Thanks all! Ajpolino (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Abdominal wall
• AKT-4 kit
• Angiology
• Atony
• Baffle (medicine)
• Basal (medicine)
• Bone wax
• Bulging flanks
• Chaperone (clinical)
• Corex
• Dead on arrival
• Denudation (medicine)
• Dermal patch
• Disease causative agent
• Drainage (medical)
• Ectopia (medicine)
• Fetal disease
• GABA receptor agonist
• Gonadal vein
• Granulomatous prostatitis
• Guaifenesin/phenylephrine
• Human anti-chimeric antibody
• Jactitation (medicine)
• Lingual tonsils
• List of human anatomical features
• List of human anatomical regions
• List of veins of the human body
• Local blood flow regulation
• Medical direction
• Medical escort
• Multiple gender attraction
• Nodule (medicine)
• Organ perforation
• Oriental Medicine
• Otoscope
• Patrick's test
• Pediatric surgery
• Pharmacotherapy
• Physical disorder
• Physiological condition
• Piskacek's sign
• Plica syndrome
• Post-anesthesia care unit
• Propafenone
• Pulmonary carcinoid tumour
• Pulmonary-to-systemic shunt
• Pyaemia
• Radical perineal prostatectomy
• Resuscitation
• Retroperistalsis
• Scaption
• Sinus (anatomy)
• Skin allergy test
• Spondyloepiphyseal dysplasia congenita
• Stabilization (medicine)
• Stenvers projection
• Subcutaneous implant
• Symptomatic treatment
• Table of epithelia of human organs
• Tactical emergency medical services
• Tardive
• Terminal cisternae
• Tertiary referral hospital
• Tyrosinemia type III
• Urinary bladder (Chinese medicine)
• Urosolvine
• Urothelial papilloma