Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by InsaneHacker (talk | contribs) at 20:14, 21 October 2022 (→‎Input requested regarding merger of medical law into health law: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to top
Skip to bottom

    Edit with VisualEditor

    Shortcut

    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.

    List of archives

    CZ Biohub Organization Draft

    Hello! I'm here on behalf of Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, a nonprofit that partners with universities to advance medical science research. You can read my full COI disclosure on my user page.

    I've been searching for a helpful independent editor to review an Organization section I composed for the Biohub page. It combines parts of the page's existing History section with information about the Biohub's structure, how it operates, and the types of research projects it pursues. That request is available for review here and if you would like to review the full text of the Organization draft, which I uploaded to my user page, you can do so using this link. Would anyone at this WikiProject be interested in reviewing my request and/or draft? Any help or feedback would be deeply appreciated. Thanks! Patricia at GMMB (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    New to Editing: Draft for Consideration

    Hello, I'm new to editing Wikipedia and do not know the etiquette and process well enough.

    I was frustrated by how this article was basically a badly mangled press release from a company. I think the technology is notable as it is a very active area of research and the current article does not reflect that. I made a draft where I refreshed the entire thing from scratch.

    Could someone provide some feedback on it as I am very to new editing?

    How long should I wait for feedback?

    Should I make the changes all at once or is there a different process?

    Is there anywhere else I should post to get more input?


    Thank you for your time. DogMcBarkMD (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    You may be able to find additional citations among the 16 that are currently returned by this search: "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%22Responsive+neurostimulation+device%22". Also, you should be able to use Wikipedia's GUI to just type in the PubMed ID when you insert a reference, and it will be automatically inserted with the proper formatting (occasionally you'll need to further do a minor edit to the date format). The current references are formatted as if they just had a hurricane blow through. Jaredroach (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I decided to just go ahead and push the changes. I does not seem to be a heavily watched article so I do not think many people will have a lot to add. Feel free to go through the current page and update as you'd like. DogMcBarkMD (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this work, @DogMcBarkMD. I'm glad you decided to Wikipedia:Be bold. It looks like a big improvement over the old version.
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32936673/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34696676/ are both recent review articles on this subject that could be added to the article. It looks like one is WP:PAYWALLED, but perhaps someone will have access already. The other is free to read. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Splitting discussion for Soft diet

    An article that been involved with (Soft diet) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Pureed diet). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Post infidelity stress disorder

    Do we need an article on Post infidelity stress disorder? There seem to be several references to it, online. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    there are 3 for Pubmed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that it's another subtype of Interpersonal trauma, which can lead to PTSD. It could probably be included as a section in either article. I've just barely started this stub; feel free to expand it or to link to it in other articles. It looks like about 20 mention the term. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For now, I've added a (red) link to the list there, with a citation to one of the Pubmed articles linked above. Thanks, both. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Pseudo scientific practice of Yoga

    Our page on Yoga is a GA, yet it does not talk about the Pseudo scientific practice of Yoga. I have started discussion here. Talk:Yoga#GA_without_mentioning_any_cons. Posting this here in hopes that more experienced users can take a look and provide suggestions for improvement of the page Yoga from mainstream scientific perspective. Venkat TL (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Needless to say, I am getting strong pushback and frivolous templates for trying to improve that page. Venkat TL (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry about the template abuse VTL. I slightly disagree with your take on this, but I agree more participants in this dispute would be helpful. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Immune cycle

    Any thoughts on Immune cycle? Seems.. well.. not sure what the proper term is. There's a current AfD. Thanks. JMWt (talk) 10:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy has an RFC

    Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Nil Einne (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Mud bath and pseudoscience

    A few recent edits to Mud bath appear to make medical claims. The sources appear dubious and appear to be articles by mud bath spas. I undid the edits twice and was reverted twice. Would someone please take a look at it? Thanks Adakiko (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Adakiko, is this the medical claim that you're concerned about?
    "It has also been used as a method to relieve arthritis, but the practice of mud bathing has been shown to only reduce painful symptoms rather than treat the condition.[1]"
    1. ^ Mennuni, G.; Fontana, M.; Perricone, C.; Nocchi, S.; Rosso, R.; Ceccarelli, F.; Fraioli, A. (2021-07-05). "A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of mud-bath therapy on knee osteoarthritis". La Clinica Terapeutica. 172 (4): 372–387. doi:10.7417/CT.2021.2343. ISSN 1972-6007. PMID 34247222.

      2. Medical claims that are followed by a citation to a review article in a good journal are generally considered desirable. What you've been reverting basically says "people with arthritis feel better when they soak their painful joints in something warm, but they still have arthritis afterwards". This should be in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The questionable text: It works by allowing the skin to absorb nutrients such as sulfur while also cooling the body. It was removed and seems to have remained so. Thanks Adakiko (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Adakiko, I'm not sure that's strictly a medical claim (no medical conditions are mentioned), but if you object to that one sentence, why don't you go restore everything except that one sentence, then? Surely that would be better than what you reverted back into the article, which is an unsourced claim that "Historically, mud baths have been used in Eastern and Western European spas, as a way to relieve arthritis." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Discussion link

      @Whywhenwhohow: Hello, you suggested to raise the discussion topic Talk:COVID-19_vaccine#doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.3581 here. As I think that the problem is more specific to the article COVID-19_vaccine I would suggest to continue a discussion at that talk page but that's only a suggestion.--Myosci (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      I suggested raising it at WT:MED. That is the talk page for the WikiProject Medicine project. It seems that your requests require a wider audience. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This is WT:MED. However, in my understanding the OP – who evidently has their own views about the science of myocarditis – has been arguing over several articles that we should be citing certain primary studies instead of review articles. It would probably help if they gave an explicit example of a change they want to make, but in general WP:MEDRS would forbid doing this. Bon courage (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I have replied on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Would someone please advise a new expert contributor

      Although only interested in anthropometry from a figurative art perspective, I have become drawn in to helping a subject expert who felt that the article Waist-height ratio to be seriously deficient. She (Dr Margaret Ashwell) has now proposed a replacement text and I now feel that it has gotten too far above my pay grade for me to continue (other than to finish transposing her MsWord draft into WP markup at her sandbox). I would greatly appreciate someone with a medical research or [non-fad] nutrition background taking over to advise on how best to take it forward, please? See User talk:Dr Margaret Ashwell#Another draft. (Dr Ashwell has a distinguished career and in this context is a member of the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence advisory panel.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      So much love <3 for your help. Thank you.
      Could we get PubMed id numbers or DOIs for the journal articles, or even just plain old URLs? We have automated that can convert most id numbers.
      @John Maynard Friedman, I very strongly recommend that you open the visual editor when you try to copy and paste from a MS Word or Google doc. Try this URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dr_Margaret_Ashwell/sandbox&veaction=edit WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You would have to ask Dr. Ashwell, I really wouldn't know.
      Thanks for the info re converting .docx files, though I hope never to have to do it again. I guessed there had to be an easier way. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Another factor that needs to be considered is how best and how much of the draft should be integrated into the article. I doubt that outright replacement would be accepted. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @John Maynard Friedman, the citation formatting has all been fixed. It looks like @Boghog spent a couple of hours cleaning it up. It looks like there is a paragraph that needs to be blanked (primary sources).
      Does Dr. Ashwell want to post the new article content herself? We could make it as simple as clicking here to see the wikitext code, and copying what's in the editing window. Then click here to see part of the code on the existing article. "Select all" and backspace to get rid of the old code in the window, and then paste in the code from the new article. Press the big blue button to put the new version out there. The rest is simple clean-up work that any passing editor can do for her (e.g., it'll create duplicate ==References== sections, but that's an easy fix), or she could even have a go at fixing it herself in the visual editor – it's really not much different from using MS Word, especially now that the references are already formatted. Otherwise, anyone could do this, but they should include an edit summary that says something like "Posted on behalf of [[User:Dr Margaret Ashwell]]" (this keeps the copyright folks happy with us). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The reason I asked for help here was not really the mechanics (I can do that) but rather about integration. It is not obvious to me that the article as it stands should be replaced outright and especially not when her draft is so very UK-oriented. It needs someone to make the judgement calls about what is (and is not) WP:DUE and select from her draft accordingly. And of course she can't really post it herself due to wp:COI given that she is joint author of a number of the papers cited. I'm sorry that I evidently failed to make that clear up front. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Well I see that Boghog and you have already done just that. Thank you. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I have reorganized the draft a bit and split out the UK specific guidelines into a UK section. In terms of guidelines, it appears that the UK is the only country that has made this ratio a formal guideline. In the US for example, the CDC emphasizes BMI, and mentions waste diameter without refering to the weight-height ratio. One remaining issue is that draft relies to heavily on primary sources. Per WP:MEDRS, secondary sources are required to support medical claims. I have marked all the sources as either primary (33) or secondary (11). The draft will need to be edited a bit more replacing where possible, primary with secondary sources. Boghog (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. This is better than what we had in the mainspace, so I've merged it there. I've cleaned up a few problems. Please feel free to continue improving the article directly in the mainspace. @Boghog, there's a ref error showing on the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 10#Category:International Digital Organization for Scientific Information academic journals

      Please comment. This is related to the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 31#Category:Academic journal categories containing exclusively redirects, of interest to this project. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


      Merging Cup-to-disc ratio into Optic cup (anatomical)

      Hi guys, I feel like we can't really justify 2 separate articles for this. So I want to take the content from the CDR article, place everything at the cup article, do some copy editing to make the single article make sense, and redirect the CDR to the cup article, leaving some signposting for attribution. If there are any objections, please feel free to disagree. Otherwise if nobody objects after a few days I'll just do it. Thanks! Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      I agree with the merging and redirect. PatrickOConnor (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Forgot to mark this as  Done Dr. Vogel (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Good posture vs bad posture

      It's a bit odd that good posture and poor posture are separate articles. Especially since there is no agreement about what good posture is or whether "bad" posture even causes back pain or other ailments. Overdue for a merge to spinal posture or something? (t · c) buidhe 03:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Or even just posture, judging by the content of the dabpage. Dr. Vogel (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Both pages should be merged into posture or something similar. No reason to differentiate. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Anti–vascular endothelial growth factor therapy

      This is really quite a mouthful, when in reality it's simply called anti-VEGF. Does WP:COMMONNAME apply here, or is it superseded by a different policy? Dr. Vogel (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      As long as both of them are mentioned prominently in the article, I don't think it's hugely important which one is in the title. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I agree it's all good as long as both are mentioned prominently. What I'm trying to find out is whether there is something specific about titles in our wikiproject that supersedes WP:COMMONNAME, in the same way that for example our reliable sources policies supersede Wikipedia's more general ones. Because otherwise it feels much more natural (to me) to move this the far simpler and more common title Anti-VEGF. It's not a hugely important issue, I just wanted to see what more experienced editors and med-editors thought about this. That's why I'm asking here rather than start an RM. Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, WikiProjects don't actually make rules, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Article titles says to prefer the INN for drugs, but doesn't say anything about abbreviations. This article is kind of about "use of" rather than the compounds themselves anyway. I'd say there's no rule against having a shorter name. Would you like to start a Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion on the article's talk page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for explaining. I think it would be nicer to have the shorter name, so I'll start an RM as you're saying and see how it goes. I think it's fine either way, really. Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      RM here. Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Potentially good articles

      Here's a list of articles that have been nominated for Wikipedia:Good articles. Please consider reviewing one or more of these.

      WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Medical–industrial complex Page

      Hi all, I am a student at Rice University editing the Medical-Industrial Complex article. I have details about my plans on my user page, as well as a draft of my proposed plans in my sandbox. This article fits into the WikiProject Medicine category and is currently rated mid-importance. CatherineGCC (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Input requested regarding merger of medical law into health law

      I have created a proposal that medical law be merged into health law. Since the article topic falls within the subject matter area of WPMED I invite anyone interested to contribute to the discussion. InsaneHacker (💬) 20:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=1117452207"