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 Vatadoshu (talk | contribs) at 16:05, 28 March 2015 (→CKS, a service of NICE). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine
Recent changes in WP:Medicine
Articles and their talkpages:

Not mainspace:

 Top  High  Mid  Low  NA  ??? Total
 99  1,062  11,549  38,874  20,080 1,176  72,840 
List overview · Lists updated: 2015-07-15 · This box:

Sugar industry and dental caries

The sugar industry has influenced the scientific agenda of the National Caries Program in the United States.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup not really surprising. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
there more interested in "profit", than what the facts are--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That reminds me: In my ongoing delusion that I'm going to keep working on Candy and associated articles, I've looked for a really solid source that says candy causes dental caries... and I've come up empty-handed. We all know it (right?), but it appears that no reviews actually cover this basic point. If someone else has better luck, please fix the article or let me know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the literature usually revolves around sugar-containing foods, rather than using the word "candy", per se. See this AAP guideline, for example, though this webpage from the AAP mentions "candy" in particular. This review also seems to mention "candy" by name. Yobol (talk) 04:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dental caries in preschool children (as per above review) shows sugar industry starts early--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
try delivering better oral health; an evidence based toolkit for prevention [1]. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin cleansing myth article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Virgin cleansing myth#Quality Of Sources. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Backstory is at Talk:Virgin cleansing myth#Blood Libel And Racism. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

seems to be an interesting article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In its current state, I recommend not believing anything in that article unless you've personally checked the source to see that it is reliable (relative to the type of statement being made) and that the source actually verifies the statement. Flyer has noted a couple of sources that might be useful for expanding parts of the article. I've noted some others on the talk page, mostly about the fact that this idea started several centuries before AIDS was defined, and that it didn't start in Africa. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ill check the sources--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
if you look at references 1-14, none are review articles within 5 years (some aren't even journals), the only one that approximates is ref #10 (though not clear if review or primary),--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which doesn't matter, because there is almost no biomedical information in the article beyond "raping children doesn't cure HIV infection", which is WP:BLUE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Prevalence section is also subject to WP:MEDRS in part, but WhatamIdoing is clearly correct that not much of the article is subject to WP:MEDRS. Flyer22 (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multisystemic therapy

Concerning edits occurring. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heading of marketing of MST Services is paying someone to write that article. I trimmed issues priously but more likely needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
very much, COI--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting anecdote

Hi all. Just passing on a thing. We just had our very first request through the CRUK information nurse helpline to edit a Wikipedia page. It was from a survivor of a very rare leukaemia, who felt that the current page on the topic was unnecessarily negative and 'filled him with doom and gloom' (he's survived for 14 years - somewhat of an outlier given the overall statistics for the disease in general!). He didn't feel he was qualified to edit the page himself, hence the request to us. If anyone felt like having a look at the page with this in mind, that would be great - I'm not aware of any current refs that would substantially change its content but perhaps the tone could be a little less brutal in places to bear the newly-diagnosed in mind. Cheers, HenryScow (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma cell leukemia (for it is he) is pretty short, with no refs later than 2009, 2 cn tags & a 2010 refs needed tag. Plasma cell leukemia: consensus statement on diagnostic requirements, response criteria and treatment recommendations by the International Myeloma Working Group is probably the place to start, and there are other papers. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ill take a look at it over the weekend--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Excellent link - thank you! It appears that the current article's tone about prognosis pretty accurately reflects the relevant section of that working group report (e.g. from that abstract: "The clinical course is aggressive with short remissions and survival duration.") though the precise numbers could be updated. Exceptional good outcomes should not skew our article's content unless secondary sources express similar optimisim. -- Scray (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that article is properly presented with 2 references to give an opinion(even if more references were not to change the overall tone of the subject matter)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the information wouldn't change, then just one reliable source is sufficient. Encyclopedia articles aren't curated collections of sources, so the number of sources itself isn't a good measure of quality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
your correct, however there should be a standard while "x" numbers of references may be too much, 2 is a little short, will look at MEDRS to see if it has information to this respect--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RFC that may affect a page in this project

There is an RFC that may affect a page in this project at WikiProject Tree of Life. The topic is Confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)?

Please feel free to comment there. SPACKlick (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

very interesting topic (I commented on page)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Suicide response

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Template talk:Suicide response#Requested move 19 March 2015. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

interesting subject (every opinion counts)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictions on Kauffman–White classification & Proteus (bacterium)

Kauffman–White classification states it is a classification system only for Salmonella, but Proteus (bacterium) mentions it as a method to classify it as well. Anyone knowledgeable? Also the KW classification article could use some love, currently it has citations to the German Wikipedia. Possibly a little fringe, but I'm putting it out here before I have a stab axing the uncited content. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the 8 proteus (bacterium) references are somewhat dated if im not mistaken, as per definition of Kaufman/white-[2] seems to define it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expert help needed at the AFC Help Desk

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#17:05:56.2C 22 March 2015 review of submission by MedResearchSF where the author of Draft:Bioelectronic Medicine needs help beyond the capabilities of (most) regular AFC reviewers. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the article cites 27 references...none are reviews that fall within a 5 year range, (see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ozzie10aaaa Thanks for replying, but posting here isn't really useful, you're just preaching to the choir. Please respond directly at the AFC help page where the draft author can find it easily. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no problem... done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three-parent baby article

as you may have heard by now the UK became the first country to legalize this practice [3] , should the article section on "ethics", add a subsection dealing with its possible legalization in other countries? why or why not?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

argh. see In_vitro_fertilisation#Cytoplasmic_transfer Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
interesting, several points to think about 1. with mitochondrial DNA (effect)...2.the baby's genes has elements of three parents--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that an Ethics section is appropriate for this subject. Legalization status in general should have a paragraph, but any long list of countries should be a separate article. Whether to put these sections in Cytoplasmic transfer, Three-parent baby, or merge the two articles is a more difficult question. Mamyles (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New course: Introduction to Psychology

Hi WikiMed,

Just announcing a new course working on medical topics: Template:Course link. It's an intro class. A small intro class, but as we know from past experiences, introductory psych classes can prove challenging. So we requested some additional support from our partners at APS, who were quickly able to connect this course to a psychologist with experience teaching with Wikipedia. Details are being worked out, but that seems worth mentioning. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is another great way, Wikipedia advances knowledge--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see all of the usual course design flaws, and narry a mention of WP:MEDRS-- perhaps it is there somewhere and I missed it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: What other usual course design flaws? If there are design flaws there, they will indeed be usual since that's a largely unmodified version of the Assignment Design Wizard output.
There's a section in the header linking to MEDRS and the editing medical articles brochure. It's also part of student training and they're mailed printed handouts. It may be a good idea to include it in the timeline somewhere, too, though. I have some ideas for what that might look like (having students use them along with the article evaluation exercise), but checking to see how difficult that would be to implement (we can make changes to the output, but I don't know what's involved in making certain blocks of text variable with the "will you work on medical articles" question. Will have to get back to you on that (i.e. it may be a mid-term rather than short-term thing). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A giant festival of primary sources

Mouse models of breast cancer metastasis (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Is this a viable topic for an article even? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is a viable topic, as with any model-organism, be it dictyostelium, mouse ,etc...even more in this case where you have a model-organism that has already been altered for research, hence-Breast Cancer metastatic mouse models (BTW while there are many non MEDRS, the #8 ref however is a fine review)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe it is a viable topic. Just to be clear, it is outside the scope of WP:MED so WP:MEDRS does not apply, but within the scope of WP:MCB where WP:SCIRS applies. Boghog (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A new editor who seems to know something about a complicated subject area! Quick, let's grab him/her. Is there anyone from MCB reading this? You might be able to recruit a new partner.
Personally, I'd have picked a slightly larger topic, like Mouse models in cancer research or Mouse models in breast cancer, but this is a fine place to start, and there are so many mouse models for breast cancer that there will be no trouble filling the page. (As a general rule of thumb, any model mammal that's been around for a few years is going to meet notability requirements). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cloves syndrome

The article Cloves syndrome has been nominated for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloves syndrome. Is there a notability guideline for diseases? Everymorning talk 23:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that's a shame there seem to be two good review articles on it [4] and [5] (maybe more)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Herd immunity improvements & GA

I've recently brought the Herd immunity article from start-class to B, and believe it could be GA. I'd like to know what could further be done to improve the article. Comments can be made here or on the article's talk page. ComfyKem (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the work bringing it up to B! Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the article looks good however there are "19 references" that lie outside the 5 year/review of MEDRS you may want to look for newer refs...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(added) [6] [7] these two reviews deal with herd immunity, these books [8] [9] [10] deal with herd immunity as well, you might find them useful. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability for medical students

Following this discussion, I have prepared a draft for the Wikimedia Newsletter. Feel free to comment. Axl ¤ [Talk] 03:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this. Not very newsy in style. You should explain more about what the research did & concluded before getting the scalpel out. We should also say that WP is not intended to be a textbook for medical students. Johnbod (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Axl , you dissected that paper (in your response) with logic and objectivity very well done!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
John, thank you for your suggestions. I have added a couple of paragraphs at the beginning to describe the paper's findings. I also added my own opinion about students' use of Wikipedia at the end.
Ozzie, thank you for your endorsement. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's much better, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zinc deficiency and psychiatric disorders‎

Article has already been deleted once, at the creator's request (after it was redirected IIRC). It's now back, and is a weird grab-bag of topics that made me think 'someone's posting their term paper as an article'. Creator's userpage suggests exactly that, except the account's being shared by five people. Could use some guidance from someone who's had experience with student editing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Student editing is rather beside the point - per WP:ROLE policy, shared accounts aren't permitted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Yes. But these people are students who don't seem to have gotten much direction before starting their project, doing no harm beyond writing an article that's not that great, but above average by the standards of medical articles written by students. They should get their own accounts, read WP:MEDRS, write their articles in a sandbox, get linked up with the education program, etc. etc. Engagement with the educational angle would be much more effective than a block and an impersonal lecture about an unintuitive rule. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree if they are students then perhaps it would be best to engage them, (accounts, read MEDRS) than to block--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zinc after all does play a rather useful role in the brain, although zinc is a dark horse. Student editing in itself shouldn't be discouraged. They shouldn't be forced to link up with any education program or do any other red tape bureaucratic work that regular users don't need to do. --IO Device (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Deleted all the primary sources one. Gave advice and now they have added them all again. Anyone else interested? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected it Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Been restored. Would be useful for others to weight in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I userfied it and left them a note, which I suppose I should have done in the first place. Hopefully whoever is giving these assignments will clue in. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on the status of Wikipedia's "No Medical Advice" policy

An RFC which may affect the status of Wikipedia's "No Medical Advice" policy is located here. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

once again I am astounded as to how this issue can even come up, what part of no medical advice is it that's so hard to understand ,(this should be something that is not open for discussion}...
Nothing on Wikipedia.org or included as part of any project of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a medical opinion or otherwise engage in the practice of medicine.[11]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These debates have been kicking around for months. This is really about editors' behavior at the Reference Desk, and the real question appears to be more like "People keep asking questions that relate to medicine. How shall we respond, and what if I think we should take a harsh line and you think we should take a gentle one?" In particular, how do you respond to the questions that could be taken either way? If someone posts, "I am caring for a child with Type 1 diabetes. Exactly how many units of insulin should I inject at mealtime?" then it's pretty easy. The other end of the spectrum is also easy: "I'm writing a paper for school about this disease that I've never heard of. Please tell me about it."
But when someone posts, "I've got a bad cough. Does that cough syrup from the grocery store actually work?", then you could read it either way. Is that person looking for medical advice, or is that person just curious? What responses can you give that provide medical information but not medical advice? Some editors might benefit from some education on the distinction between the two, perhaps similar to the explanation given here.
(One thing I haven't seen in these discussions is that "go see a doctor" can be medical advice, as it orders an individual person to take a specific step to correct or maintain his or her health. That's why we don't write "If you have chest pain, go to the hospital" in articles, but instead write something like "Chest pain with shortness of breath is normally considered a medical emergency".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, and its quite human to help when one thinks its OK. However, to be safe, it would be better there be no gray area...perhaps the medical disclaimer needs to be displayed much more often at the Reference Desk...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only way to have no gray area is to have no people. No matter where you draw the line, reasonable people will disagree about whether Question X or Answer Y is on this side or that side of the line. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
sometimes i just love what you write, WAID. Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vaginal tightening and Vaginal laxity articles

The Vaginal tightening article is extremely poor. And, today, AbuseResearcher (talk · contribs), who is clearly not a new Wikipedia editor, created the Vaginal laxity article and made a bunch of vagina-related redirects. The Vaginal laxity article does not use the ideal medical sources named at WP:MEDRS. I ask: What should be done with these two articles? We don't need both, and we have the Pelvic floor, Female genital prolapse and Vaginal weightlifting articles. Note that, looking at its sources, I also have concerns about the Vaginal weightlifting article; I addressed that article at this WikiProject last year (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 49#Vaginal weightlifting article), but got no replies.

I will alert WP:Anatomy to this discussion to keep the discussion centralized (WP:TALKCENT). Flyer22 (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep the former, nominate the latter for deletion, (on the first article im certain with help it can go from "poor" to good)...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's also significant overlap between the vaginal laxity article and vaginal tightening article; a partial or complete merge might be in order. A lot of physicians don't ask their patients about vaginal laxity not only because of time constraints, but also because they haven't known of good treatment options; that goes to show how much connection there is between the two topics of problem and cure. By the way, vaginal laxity is not only a medical topic but also one that has attracted the attention of feminists and other social and cultural commentators. AbuseResearcher (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how your Vaginal laxity article is needed. As mentioned above, it uses poor sources for medical information, and is covered in one or more of the aforementioned articles with different names. It can be expanded on in the Vaginal tightening article if that article is kept. Right now, the Vaginal tightening article reads like a personal website. I'm not a fan of unnecessary WP:Content forking. I will almost always choose consolidation unless a WP:Spinout article is truly needed. Flyer22 (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is your specific proposal? Basically "address these concerns in a reasonable timeframe or it'll be converted into a redirect and/or nominated for deletion"? I would consider the overlap between the vaginal laxity and vaginal tightening article to look something like this, while the relationship between an article A and B, in which B is a fork of A, would look more like this. AbuseResearcher (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am 100% in favour of merge. I do not believe there can possibly be enough reliable material on either of these two subjects to justify independent articles. It is better if such content can be kept in a central place so interested readers don't have 5+ articles they have to pass by to engage with a topic. That is my 2c. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedic parts of the Vaginal tightening article could be merged into the Kegel exercise article once the vaginal tightening content is appropriately sourced. Parts of the Vaginal laxity article would also fit there; other parts of it would fit better in the Pelvic floor and/or Female genital prolapse articles. Flyer22 (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With this edit, I see that Stuartyeates took away the main unencyclopedic part of the Vaginal tightening article. Thanks, Stuartyeates. Flyer22 (talk) 07:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We also have the Human vaginal size article, but, at Talk:Human vaginal size in 2013, I suggested that the article be merged with the Vagina article. Given the support for the merge at that talk page, I would have merged the content by now if it weren't for the poor sources used at the Human vaginal size article. Then again, there are not a lot of good sources on that topic. Flyer22 (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Stuartyeates improved the article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AbuseResearcher is a WP:Sockpuppet of a WP:Banned editor, and the AbuseResearcher account is now indefinitely blocked; see here. Flyer22 (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at Ayurveda

There is an RfC at Ayurveda that is relevant to this project. The question is essentially, should WP present the information from sources that the modern practice of ayurveda is pseudoscience. Input there from knowledgeable editors with experience in articles on medical topics would be useful. Please note the editing restrictions on the article itself and on those on talk page discussion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is an interesting topic, (however, be aware of the editing restrictions on the article and talk page).thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i don't see any RfC there. Jytdog (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
me neither(I wonder why...)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry not technically an RfC see this section for a discussion with a defined question. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
be aware of the editing restrictions on the article and talk page thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfC STOP Bang Questionnaire

See Draft:STOP_Bang_Questionnaire Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a reasonable article. (We already have "Epworth Sleepiness Scale".) Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
its tagged with COI, besides AXL is right we do have Epworth Sleepiness Scale why bother--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very strange attitude, Ozzie! I note some of the ref papers specifically compare this to the Epworth and other "established" scales. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
on second thought, your correct (however initially it did have a COI [12])...the #1, #6, references are not within 5 year review per MEDRS. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(P.S. upon looking at PubMed I found very few reviews...after looking at some of the references in the draft, I found some are not reviews, I was unable (due to time) to check them all, however it would be best to see if any are MEDRS compliant)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
updated link as article has been moved to draft space. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
it does have a COI tag; i put it there. the article was created by postdoc in the lab that created the questionnaire. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Safety of genetically modified foods

Groupuscule has an extensive critique of the statement "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food" at his own research page.

This user is requesting comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Food_and_drink#Questionable_food_safety_claims_at_several_genetic_engineering_articles on the accuracy of that statement. At this point, I think the goal is to workshop just that one sentence summary of scientific consensus, since it appears in so many popular articles.

I agree that this is an important sentence. Groupuscule, you have put a lot of thought into this, but I do not see a counterproposal from you, other than perhaps to remove that sentence and say nothing. I note that you do have recommendations. Would you be willing to propose an alternative to that one sentence which summarizes what scientists are saying? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so this review article [13] seems to back-up that statement, however this does not mean that there may exist research findings to the contrary.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes, that has been there too long. Tried to have it deleted but no go. It is a tour de force of post-modern literary criticism, which is not what we do here.. Most importantly, there was an RfC on the statement of the scientific consensus on the relative safety of currently marketed food that took groupuscule's lit crit into account. The RfC is here. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of this prior RfC,Jytdog thank you --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no basis in reliable sources for changing the current content. There is a social media/PR campaign going on specifically attacking the notion that there is a scientific consensus (see here for example) and we have had to deal with people bringing that PR crap at the GM-related articles. But nothing has changed scientifically since the RfC was held. We follow the reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

revive

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_61#excoriation_disorder i made a response to ozzie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vatadoshu (talk • contribs) 21:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i say , since the DSM-5, excoriation disorder is classified as L98.1 ICD code . (before this DSM-5 it was classified F63 ICD code). i think it need to be change in the article...

Vatadoshu I believe you are correct,(je parle un peu français, any question you have just ask)thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CKS, a service of NICE

i posted a message there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Institute_for_Health_and_Care_Excellence#clinical_knowledge_summaries
please, note that i make suggestions (in my messages) and i will not modificate "en.wikipedia.org". my english is too confuse. Vatadoshu (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vatadoshu I think your first suggestion is better...CKS is a service of NICE. "NICE Clinical Knowledge Summaries: Welcome to the NICE CKS service which provides primary care practitioners with a readily accessible summary of the current evidence base and practical guidance on best practice in respect of over 300 common and/or significant primary care presentations." http://web.archive.org/web/20140111035349/http://cks.nice.org.uk/ ...is O.K.

@Ozzie10aaaa: ok. je sais que la source est ok. j'ai mis un webcache parce que "hors angleterre" il est impossible de s'y connecter (et je suis en France).
ma question n'est pas de savoir si la source est correcte ou non.
je ne modifie pas sur votre wikipedia (en). j'ai déjà du mal à me faire comprendre, alors je ne vais pas insérer des phrases dans les articles.
de plus, le wikicode n'est pas le même, et je ne le connais pas ici, et je suis incapable de me renseigner sur le wikicode, je comprends rien aux pages d'aide anglaises.
j'aurai donc souhaité:
j'espère que ton niveau de français sera suffisant pour que tu me comprenne.
Vatadoshufrench 09:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK in regards to the Wikicode [14] I think this link should help, if not we can find another, therefore these three points you bring up...
  • you insert a sentence in the article on the CKS National_Institute_for_Health_and_Care_Excellence with the link.
  • you insert a phrase on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the article National_Health_Service.
  • you change the classification of excoriation disorder in the section in "Classification and external resources" and can be explained this change in the article.
now then these [15] [16] [17] are links to the same page above with instructions, however its translated to French, see if this helps, it should ,if not we will try something else, good luck, let me know--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
si je le fait, ça va être moche (et il y a une chance sur deux que je me fasse réverter). mais puisque tu insiste, je le ferai. et je te mettrai les diffs(tu pourra améliorer/reformuler). (j'ai été réverté plusieurs fois et ça m'a refroidi, en partie à cause de la langue et du wikicode). Vatadoshufrench 11:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
one diff: HERE and the wikicode don't work:
the REF-> [1] .
the citation is not empty, look wikicode ; and i put an accessdate
j'ai mis les deux sites pour que ceux qui sont à l'extérieur de grande bretagne puissent aussi y avoir accès. Vatadoshufrench 11:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ok I put in request,(I have to wait for answer)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

okVatadoshufrench 12:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


OK ...Moxy is over at that article helping with the wikicode--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Est tous ok maintenant???

There are a number of tools available to help with citation placement and formatting, some of which are internal tools and scripts while others are available from external sites. For example reFill and Reflinks edit references by adding basic information to bare URLs in citations. Another example is Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books that converts a long Google Books URL into a filled-out {{cite book}} template ready to be pasted into an article. -- Moxy (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Templates are edited individually at each Wikipedia language and often have different parameters and rules if a template even exists at two languages. There is often documentation on the template page like Template:Cite web. English months are written in upper case and templates may check for this in accessdate. The English equivalent of fr:Modèle:Citation is {{Quote}} but its formatting is not suited for placement inside a reference. However. {{Cite web}} has a quote parameter, and also archive-url and archivedate. This works: [2] PrimeHunter (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moxy has removed what i had put: diff why not just adding his références, why remove mine that are the webcite of the CKS of the NICE juste see the url i had posted: http://'''cks.nice.org'''.uk
ok i will compare to see my errors (i don't have understand all what you said, but a part yes).

the rules are not the same , the modeles are not the same. yes it is difficult ok not the modele quote but juste "|quote=" inside the cite web modele. "upper case"?? accessdate didn't work just because of this March? - (in french wikipedia with the visual editor, it is not possible to put a quote in the modèle web cite or article or book, the quote need to be another modele, with the modele "citation" or "citation bloc") - even if the visual editor seem to be the same, all is different.

thanksVatadoshufrench 15:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the lowercase month issue to the page linked in the error message for "27 march 2015".[18]. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Better to use a medical publication by a third party to confirm what National Institute....no good to sources all back to the organization (Mieux vaut utiliser une publication médicale par un tiers pour confirmer ce que dit l'Institut national .... pas bon de haver toutes les sources de l'organisation).-- Moxy (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Mieux vaut utiliser une publication médicale par un tiers pour confirmer ce que dit l'Institut national"
@Moxy: "Mieux vaut utiliser une publication médicale par un tiers pour confirmer ce que dit l'Institut national" je suis d'accord moxy, néanmoins tu aurait pu ajouter sans enlever. l'article CKS n'existe pas, donc je ne peux pas mettre le "lien de l'organisme" en "lien externe" . le mettre en référence permet aussi d'avoir le site de l'organisme. (même si "il dit des conneries"). Vatadoshufrench 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could not ....I did not feel right using a source or quoting something I can't see (Je ne pouvais pas .... Je ne me sentais pas bonnes sources ou citant quelque chose que je ne peux pas voir) -- Moxy (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy:"quoting something I can't see"-> you can see with webarchive.
also there is google "cache" to see the actual website if you prefere: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vZImLsrJAlsJ:cks.nice.org.uk/+&cd=1&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=fr
j'avais mis le lien webarchive dans l'article, mais si tu préfère l'enlever c'est ok, je comprends ta position. Vatadoshufrench 18:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All I see is "

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z" -- Moxy (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: yes it is normal. in this link http://web.archive.org/web/20140111035349/http://cks.nice.org.uk/, if you clic on the letters, you have on the right the diseases and disorders. the lettres C you have candida, carbon... you first clic on the letter, then you clic on the disorder, then you have the webpage. all the page of this webcite have not been archived. but some yes. exemple: A-> acne vulgaris-> acne vulgaris full page->and then on the left you can clic diagnostic/management/summary/references/etc... if you clic on letters using the link "google cache" it will not work, only the link webarchive works. -> web archive Vatadoshufrench 21:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC) re-web archive ->this works. under the letters there is this quote: "Welcome to the NICE CKS service which provides primary care practitioners with a readily accessible summary of the current evidence base and practical guidance on best practice in respect of over 300 common and/or significant primary care presentations. The service is being regularly maintained and upgraded as and when significant new evidence emerges and up to 10 new topics will be added each year.". the service is just a database.Vatadoshufrench 08:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy:; @Ozzie10aaaa:; @PrimeHunter: hey and now WTF :
"Since the DSM-5 (2013), excoriation disorder is classified as "L98.1 Excoriation (skin-picking) disorder" in ICD-10;[3] and is no longer classified in "Impulse control disorder" (f63)"." i have put this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excoriation_disorder#Classification.
i have done the same you show me, where is my error? the reference show bad. Vatadoshufrench 13:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I have added the lowercase month issue to the page linked in the error message for "27 march 2015".[19]. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC))...Prime Hunter answered this yesterday...did it make any difference, did it help?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if for any reason , this doesn't help the last option is the village pump, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical) they take care of all types of technical issues (bonne chance, si ils ne peuvent pas aider juste revenir ici et nous allons trouver une autre solution)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vatadoshu: Your reference code ends |<!-- https://psicovalero.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/dsm-v-ingles-manual-diagnc3b3stico-y-estadc3adstico-de-los-trastornos-mentales.pdf -> full texte for verification}}. I'm not sure of your intention but the comment syntax is <!-- ... --> and not <!-- ... ->. Adding the missing - in --> will still produce an error because there will be an unnamed parameter with value "full texte for verification". Maybe you meant the whole thing to be a comment and should have ended: |<!-- https://psicovalero.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/dsm-v-ingles-manual-diagnc3b3stico-y-estadc3adstico-de-los-trastornos-mentales.pdf full texte for verification -->}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ozzie10aaaa:@PrimeHunter:hey it was that , a - was missing. now it look good. it's ok. thanks.

(the original with visual editor was |<!-- https://psicovalero.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/dsm-v-ingles-manual-diagnc3b3stico-y-estadc3adstico-de-los-trastornos-mentales.pdf -> full texte for verification-->}} but it seem there was a bug). i am happy that you seem to understand me well.

"(I have added the lowercase month issue to the page linked in the error message for "27 march 2015". PrimeHunter (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC))...Prime Hunter answered this yesterday...did it make any difference, " ok i have understand that, but here i have put no date, so it was another thing.Vatadoshufrench 15:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • before living, if you don't have the DSM-5 you could download the pdf here 1 -> mais des carrés apparaissent en fin de ligne ou des caractères bizarres s'affichent

ou here 2 to download, clic on "CkayaTb" (russe/russian) in green (en haut à droite/up and right)-> this one is better.

Vatadoshufrench 16:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "NICE Clinical Knowledge Summaries". Retrieved 27 march 2015. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)"NICE Clinical Knowledge Summaries". Retrieved 27 march 2015. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) {{citation}}: Empty citation (help)
  2. ^ "NICE Clinical Knowledge Summaries". Archived from the original on 11 January 2014. Retrieved 27 March 2015. Welcome to the NICE CKS service which provides primary care practitioners with a readily accessible summary of the current evidence base and practical guidance on best practice in respect of over 300 common and/or significant primary care presentations.
  3. ^ Donald W. Black, M.D., Jon E. Grant, M.D., M.P.H., J.D (2014). DSM-5 Guidebook: The Essential Companion to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. American Psychiatric Pub. pp. page 870. ISBN 1585624659. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

social distancing /unvaccinated -nejm

[20] very recent article I deem this a good read, enjoy.thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A good read indeed. I hope someone in the lay media picks this up and rewrites it from the paradigm of patients, as a message to parents who refuse to vaccinate their children -- that their decision has effects far beyond their own families, and its consequences are more complicated than simply leaving their children unprotected from preventable diseases. Not that it would have any measurable effect on a group whose beliefs are immune to facts; but possibly worth the effort. I might do it myself. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help with article on bioelectronic medicine

Hello, I recently submitted an article on bioelectronic medicine that was rejected. It was suggested that someone on this talk page could assist me through the process of improving it in order to get it approved. The draft is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bioelectronic_Medicine I've already removed the 'offending' reference noted by the first reviewer as well as made some other changes that I thought would both tighten the article and improve accuracy - but beyond that, I'm pretty stuck. Any advice/guidance/suggestions/specific editorial help is greatly appreciated. With despair and humility, MedResearchSF (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reference 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11,13,15,17,18,19,21,22,23,24,25,26 are not MEDRS compliant (references 2, 10,12,14,16 may however in many cases its because only the abstract/or summary was available)...furthermore reference #20 (irrespective of primary/secondary) is curious as to its correlation with "endotoxemia" but may be the only good reference I see...I believe you should get a second opinion.thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Other metabolic pathology

Template:Other metabolic pathology has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

interesting template (give your opinion)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI for psychiatry editors: I've been finding dead links to American Journal of Psychiatry and Psychiatric Services articles and broken DOIs for Psychiatric Services articles. Looks like American Psychiatric Publishing recently migrated their online publications from Silverchair to Atypon without providing redirects. Other resources at psychiatryonline.org may have broken links, too. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 20:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking here, [21] but I don't see it marked as so ?(this may help Wikipedia:Link_rot)...for DOI maybe this [22] --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=653904631"