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 Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 05:11, 14 June 2015 (Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 66) (bot). 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
 100  1,109  11,527  38,660  19,903 1,099  72,398 
List overview · Lists updated: 2015-07-15 · This box:

Electronic cigarette

Drawing request

Electronic Cigarette

1st drawing:

Less serious adverse effects from e-cigarette use can include throat and mouth inflammation, vomiting, nausea, and cough.<ref name=Grana2014/> This text can be used for the drawing.

Possible 2nd drawing:

The most frequently reported benefits of e-cigarettes were reduced shortness of breath in comparison to traditional cigarettes, reduced cough, reduced spitting, and reduced sore throat.<ref name=Dagaonkar2014/> This text can be used for the drawing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking#/media/File:Adverse_effects_of_tobacco_smoking.svg

Something like this above. This will be for the Safety of electronic cigarettes#Adverse effects section. QuackGuru (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who can create the drawings? QuackGuru (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image request

Hon Lik, the inventor of the modern electronic cigarette.<ref name=Demick2009/> This text can be used for the image or drawing.

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-inventor-of-the-electronic-cigarette-hon-lik-smokes-his-news-photo/87962255

I request an image of the inventor of the e-cigarette for the Electronic cigarette#History section. QuackGuru (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume its this [1]...in regards to the drawing (drawing request in the first section) you might try User_talk:VHenryArt...this is the thread when they originally introduced themselves Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_58 (its almost at bottom of the page)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 58#Artist. It could be an image or a drawing for Hon Lik. User:VHenryArt, are you interested in making a drawing of Hon Lik? QuackGuru (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert A. Gilbert, inventor of the earliest electronic cigarette.<ref name=Bellis2015/> This text can be used for the drawing.

http://www.cleancigarette.com/what-is-the-ecigarette/electronic-cig-inventor.php

I request a drawing of Herbert A. Gilbert for the Electronic cigarette#History section. QuackGuru (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can get what you want. If someone looks at a photo and copies it by hand (e.g., makes an oil painting out of it), then it's a derivative and the original copyright still applies. And if the copy isn't close enough to the original for copyvio to apply, then it won't look like the person enough to be usable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone can create new drawing at different angles. QuackGuru (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I think what Whatamidoing indicated still applies...it would be a copyvio...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for thinking of me, but I am not really a portrait artist. I do more medical, scientific, and technical work. To comment on the topic of copyvio, I agree with the others that it is a risky move, with regards to copywrite, to do a portrait from a copywrited photograph. An artist could produce a unique portrait using multiple references, though, without being in violation, so long as the finished piece is unique and not a copy of any of the references. To do this would probably take a considerable amount of time (especially from someone like myself who does not do portraits often). Plus, "uniqueness" is somewhat open to interpretation and that is where the risk comes in. Should the copywrite holder of any photograph deem the piece to be too much like his/her material, the artist is likely to have to prove in court that it is not. Regardless of the outcome, it would be costly to have to build a case and go to court. This case is a good example: Obama 'Hope' Poster. VHenryArt (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging old Cochrane reviews for which there is an updated version

I would like have created a bot that would check if Wikipedia is using old Cochrane reviews. The bot would go through all Cochrane reviews let's say every three months, it would pull the PMID from the citation template and put that number into Pubmed.

For example PMID 17943917 gives http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17943917

Than if the bot finds the heading "Update in" it would add to Wikipedia after that reference the Template:Update_inline. And than for "reason" it would add the PMID for the updated version of that review http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23990350

The bot would also created a page were all Cochrane reviews in need of updating are listed. Do people support this idea? If there is support I will try to have it built / get bot approval.

Support

Oppose

Discuss

Just a passing comment: The most valuable "support" vote is always the one in which someone says something like, "If this existed, I personally would check the resulting category and update articles" (at least, when updates are actually appropriate; I suppose there might be situations in which the older is retained, maybe in a ==History== section). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There will be rare situations in which an old Cochrane review may be used but these should be the exception. I will personally check and update articles :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will the bot replace or add the updated review to Wikipedia or just tag the review? There are different ways to do this. If the bot replaces the old review the new updated review may have a different conclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will add [needs update] as am example. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a concern that bot notification will lead to "bot-like" updating, where editors change to the newer review without carefully checking that it fully supports all the statements it is used to reference. I'm not really worried about Doc James, but I have seen so many instances of editors "going botty" that I think it's something we need to keep an eye out for. Without careful checking, it's best to keep the reference that was actually used to write the article. Looie496 (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree this is something we will need to keep an eye on. All flags will be listed on a WPMED page so that we can review changes being made. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the XML from pubmed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16034857?report=xml&format=text it lists "UpdateIn" and provides a new PMID.
Sort of but I think the previous design is simplier. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see, clever, so the system is designed in anticipation that projects like Wikipedia will be able to detect updates and then respond accordingly. That makes me even more comfortable supporting this update because we are responding to a government provided service which is intended to improve the quality of our sourcing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wondering about also having the bot add to some parameter within the ref something like "Most recent as of X" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cochrane protocals as refs

What do people think of these as refs [2]. They provide an overview, have a DOI, but are not pubmed indexed. They are protocals for a systematic review that is planned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

they look informative, (in terms of non-PubMed indexed, perhaps we could make an exception in this case?)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on how the paper is used. A lot of this paper has more to do with the culture of research in a field and a summary of what research is routinely conducted. I am not seeing a lot of health claims, so WP:MEDRS would not apply to most of it anyway.
This is a statement by professionals. A large amount of health information is not PubMed indexed, particularly in areas like this where the health information is what professionals in the field take for granted that everyone knows. It is a good paper for what it is. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what I've used these protocols for is not any kind of claims to the effectiveness of the intervention, but simply the background information in the article. I've read a ton of Cochrane reviews and the background seems to be on par in quality with other reviews - so I think it's worthy of exception provided it's only being used for background. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I am happy than. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yay, thanks for getting this all clarified! :) Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This issue has come up once before. The concern was that no-one was sure if the protocol has yet undergone a peer review. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paternal age effect

Have trimmed a mass of primary sources from this article. Still more work needed if anyone wishes to help. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

will look (have trimmed...not only primary but also very dated references)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we might need to allow up to 15 years for reviews as it is not an actively researched area. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disorders of magnitude - POV question

I was wondering in regard to the extent to which articles labelled disorder may be expressing a negative POV.

I first raised related issues at Talk:Sadistic personality disorder#Possible moves: "Sadistic personality" or similar where it was noted by Mbcap who I think fairly expressed the view "this article may require the attention of a specialist, i.e. a psychiatrist"

Of similar concern are the articles:

  • Sexual masochism disorder described as being: "... the condition of experiencing recurring and intense sexual arousal in response to enduring extreme pain, suffering, or humiliation." and
  • Sexual sadism disorder described as being: "... the condition of experiencing sexual arousal in response to the extreme pain, suffering, or humiliation of others."

For me I think that, to some extent, this may simply be a case in which the phrase different strokes for different folks may have an extremely literal application. Some people may respond to the gentle caress of fingertips while for other people a more violent form of stroking may alternatively/also be desired. In modern society any man or woman may only find sexual stimulation in a person of either their own or of the opposite sex and yet people are no longer widely described as having a disorder if they have homosexual tendencies and I think that the same issues may logically apply to articles perhaps with similar themes to those mentioned.

Articles that are arguably questionably placed in Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders include:

  • Analloerotic, described as "...having no sexual interests in other persons"
  • Blanchard's transsexualism typology described as "...a psychological typology of male-to-female (MtF) transsexualism"
  • Gender identity disorder in children described as "...a formal diagnosis used by psychologists and physicians to describe children who experience significant discontent with their biological sex, assigned gender, or both."
  • Polymorphous perversity, described as "is a psychoanalytic concept proposing the ability to gain sexual gratification outside socially normative sexual behaviors."
  • Transvestic fetishism, described as "a psychiatric diagnosis applied to those who are thought to have an excessive sexual or erotic interest in cross-dressing;"

In many cases I think that there is little justification for placing the various topics into categories of disorder as, arguably, there may be circumstances in which problems may not universally be considered to be exhibited.

However see also:

  • Hybristophilia, described as "... a paraphilia in which sexual arousal, facilitation, and attainment of orgasm are responsive to and contingent upon being with a partner known to have committed an outrage, cheating, lying, known infidelities or crime, such as rape, murder, or armed robbery."

In some cases sexual drives may be considered to lead to generally undesired outcomes.

I was wondering whether, in some cases, terminologies such as Psychological typologies might be used as alternatives in categories or whether different titles might be adopted in cases such as when word such as "disorder" are used. GregKaye 11:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • From a medical point of view, I would say that if an entity is defined as a disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5) or the ICD, then it is desirable to have a "disorder" article. This certainly applies to sexual masochism disorder and sexual sadism disorder. If the standard authorities don't define something as a disorder, then the question is more complex -- it basically comes down to whether or not MEDRS-quality sources exist that label it as a disorder. Looie496 (talk) 11:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree...a disorder is defined as derangement or abnormality of function; a morbid physical or mental state.[3]...therefore the two articles in question fall under this category, Sexual masochism disorder is the condition of experiencing recurring and intense sexual arousal in response to enduring extreme pain, suffering, or humiliation[4] and Sexual sadism disorder, has a very similar introduction/meaning....IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be a simpler way to think about it: The English Wikipedia doesn't care whether something "should" be considered a disorder. It only cares whether it "is" (currently, subject to change) considered a disorder (by mainstream professionals).
    Also, categories don't define the subject. They're navigation aids. The idea is that if you're interested in reading about "Sexual and gender identity disorders", then you should be able to find most of the articles that you're interested in by looking at that category (including subcats). Putting a page in that category doesn't mean this "is" a disorder; it only means that a person who is interested in these disorders is probably going to be interested in this page, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looie496, Ozzie10aaaa, WhatamIdoing Thank you all for your comments on this matter. I would be interested on your opinions on the potential applicability of other wording such as "(medical) condition" which (while, admitedly, reference may come from a wide range of books) seems to enjoy a lot of support in Ngrams. I can imagine that a certain individual may potentially have a very sadistic or masochistic (or both) physiological-psychological make up and yet have no desire to cause "hurt" (in the human suffering sense) to anyone.
In potential parallel to this topic, I personally consider that the high rate of news results on a search on homosexuality (cure OR illness OR disorder) may be cause for external concern and am wondering about parallels to content as presented in the article Homosexuality and psychology. I do not personally view "disorder" to be a neutral term but recognise that, in p & g on article titles, WP:AT#Use commonly recognizable names is given one step up in the content pecking order in comparison to WP:AT#Use commonly recognizable names. None the less, I think that if a word like "condition" might be applied then this may present greater neutrality. GregKaye 10:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
right...so medical condition is defined as A disease, illness or injury; any physiologic, mental or psychological condition or disorder (e.g., orthopaedic; visual, speech or hearing impairments; cerebral palsy; epilepsy; muscular dystrophy; multiple sclerosis; cancer; coronary artery disease; diabetes; mental retardation; emotional or mental illness; specific learning disabilities; HIV disease; TB; drug addiction; alcoholism). A biological or psychological state which is within the range of normal human variation is not a medical condition.[5]...what your indicating is that the article Homosexuality_and_psychology uses the term disorder in its place (and in so , give the example to [6] news link ) I think you could be correct that the article might use a more neutral tone, I for my part would support such a move (but not everyone might see it this way) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that WP should use whatever terminology reliable sources use regardless of what the common sense understanding of the term is. This might mean that there needs to be qualifications indicating that this term is a neutral descriptor and doesn't imply a negative judgment. But people interpret terms differently and I think we should be using the terms that medical and psychological studies use rather than preferred, more "neutral-sounding" words. Liz Read! Talk! 15:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, the Wikipedia concept of "neutral" doesn't mean using the positive-sounding words for a negatively viewed subject. It means accurately and fairly representing the reliable sources. If the sources use negative-sounding words, then we should too. If they use positive-sounding words, then we should too. If the reliable sources consistently call something "a disorder", then we must follow their word choice. This is just a stick-to-the-sources issue. Individuals (including editors) might disagree with our sources' word choice, but individual opinion just don't matter. We can no more remove the potentially stigmatizing but very mainstream label of "disorder" from this subject than we can remove the definitely stigmatizing and equally mainstream labels of "massacre" and "rebellion", even if someone personally believes that "legitimate military action against military personnel illegally fighting without wearing their uniforms" and "freedom fighters" would be more neutral. (Also, because of the problem of overmedicalization, some individuals might disagree with calling it a "medical condition" at all.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I commented about the matter on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again to all. As a potentially alternative route forward I was wondering if the content and presentation of the articles could be looked into so that, if they are labelled as disorders, they present disorders. I personally do not feel qualified to make appropriate changes or to assess whether they need to be made. In the American Psychiatric Association's The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (2013), the third page ref in this link presents the first part of a description on "Sexual Masochism Disorder", misses a page and then seems to present the second part of a description on "Sexual Sadism Disorder". In the first case "Diagnostic Criteria" are presented as "A" and "B". Do both of these need to be fulfilled for the definition "Disorder" to be correctly applied? Any other thoughts? GregKaye 06:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
in regards to the article it would be connected to ( Sexual masochism disorder), I think it best to cite both A and B (with link) so the reader can get a good idea of the criteria that must be met,(for the disorder)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

lung cancer screening/medicare coverage nejm

Lung cancer is the third most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Attention to lung cancer is especially relevant for the Medicare population, because the median age at diagnosis is 70 years. A suitable screening test has long been sought to accurately detect lung cancer at earlier stages, when treatments are more effective and survival is more likely. Currently, more than half of cases are diagnosed after the cancer has metastasized..i deem this a good read.[7]. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really news. Our article's screening section already describes this. Although coverage in NEJM will help to inform more people (healthcare professionals) about it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Industry funding and ghostwriting of sources

In case anyone here would like to comment, I've opened a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Industry funding and ghostwriting of sources, with a view to adding something to the guideline. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

give opinion,( gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some positive press about our work

"Do you know why you can trust Wikipedia better than news sites? Because Wikipedia doesn’t obsess over the single most recent study. Are you starting to notice a theme?" [8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a potential perspective I think that topics such as biology may be areas of particular excellence in Wikipedia in comparison to other areas of, for instance plumbing (also as per the Christopher Morley quote). However this is certainly good to see. GregKaye 06:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Efforts to address this are taking place at WP:Sanitation led by an engineer but yes agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
great article --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TL,DR. Anyway, I am off to the confectioner. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To pick up some of that weight loss chocolate I image :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simplification of the lead

Further comments appreicated here Talk:Lassa_fever#Lead_should_be_simpler Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

opinions needed (gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference table

I just came across this page, which doesn't seem to be linked or transcluded anywhere. I didn't think we gave this kind of information, and I'm not sure if there are more of these pages. Can anyone shine some light on this? Sam Walton (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

according to the history page... (cur | prev) 17:58, 8 March 2008‎ UsaSatsui (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,390 bytes) (-778)‎ . . (Prod is contested, it shouldn't be re-added. I also don't think this should be deleted without discussion, this is an interesting page and should at least get an AFD.) (undo) [9]...it therefore could be considered for AfD...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Never seen this type of page before. Our articles frequently contain all this data anyway. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Immune Cycle

The article Immune Cycle was recently created. I'm not sure if all the sources in the article are reliable per MEDRS. Some eyes would be appreciated. Everymorning talk 13:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One ref suitable. Rest need work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tuberculous meningitis

have added a few edits any help would be appreciated--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Epidemiol/Etiol categories

Hum... I'm largely ignorant about WP categorization, but I rather suspect (broadly per WP:OVERCAT?) that "Category:Etiology" could usefully be a subcategory of "Category:Epidemiology". Given that medical etiology is a key aspect of epidemiological research, I find it hard to imagine a page that could reasonably be categorized under "Category:Etiology" but not under "Category:Epidemiology". Best, 109.146.70.40 (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We typically use "cause" rather than etiology
And we use epidemiology to mean prevalence more so
So adjusting is likely needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um, those are WP style considerations you are referring to I think. The categories refer to established disciplines / fields of study (I wasn't suggesting they should be retitled - just that one could be a subcategory of the other). Cheers, 109.146.70.40 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and therefore those are the "considerations" used for WP...however I see your point (though the result is the same)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking at cross purposes... A hypothetical "Category:Prevalence" would obviously not be the equivalent of Category:Epidemiology (though it could conceivably be a subcategor, I suppose). 109.146.70.40 (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes it could--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meningeal lymphatic vessels

A fascinating paper at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nature14432_F3.html (Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1038/nature14432, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1038/nature14432 instead.) seems to be getting a lot of press attention. As this is primary research, I presume WP:MEDRS precludes the creation of an article on this at the moment, but how might it be possible to report interesting research which meets WP:RS but not WP:MEDRS? -- Impsswoon (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a) one species (mice) b) one single paper. this is not encyclopedia worthy. (but wow!) Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
agree with Jtydog--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If confirmed, a Nobel Prize worthy discovery. Wow indeed! Boghog (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
in regards to the original question by the poster... The unique location of these vessels may have impeded their discovery to date, thereby contributing to the long-held concept of the absence of lymphatic vasculature... the discovery of the central nervous system lymphatic system may call for a reassessment of basic assumptions in neuroimmunology and sheds new light on the aetiology of neuroinflammatory and neurodegenerative diseases associated with immune system dysfunction. [10] again impressive, but still primary , however due to... Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process[11] you "could" mention it in Lymphatic_vessel having said that get concensus first...IMO --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I third the "neat finding" sentiment. :P Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In silico clinical trials

Please see In silico clinical trials, also a DYK nomination.

Dame Etna (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes it apparently has multiple issues --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was interested in this topic. I responded there and developed the article a bit. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A proposal has been made to merge its contents with in silico medicine. Dame Etna (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
that would be a good merge..IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Proposal to revert article Psychiatry to version of 28 June 2012

Scottperry has suggested reverting the article Psychiatry to a revision of 28 June 2012. The editor argues that this is necessary to address issues of WP:UNDUE in the controversy section of the current version of the article. They also argue that the article has experienced a general degradation of wording and phrasing compared to the 28 June 2012 revision. Regardless of whether the proposed reversion is justified, in the interests of article stability, it might be worthwhile to solicit a wider spectrum of opinion before applying such wide-ranging changes. Hence, I've begun a RFC on this issue. A more detailed presentation of the arguments for this change can be found at the article talk page or in the following diffs [12] [13] [14]. Thank you. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

give opinion (gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks. Rather than revert why not just move the content to a subapge? I have done this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Doc James although some of the moved 'controversy' section might require re-integration at some point. I just thought that, in that specific context and given my perception of the determination of that editor to implement the article reversion regardless, it was important to establish consensus for or against the proposal and that doing so might actually save some time in the long-run. Thanks for taking the time to move the section and contribute to the RFC. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes agree it could be expanded some but should not be as big as it was before.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best if there wasn't a 'controversy' section at all. But there probably should be a concise section on 'anti-psychiatry', etc. Criticism of ECT, where relevant, or acknowledgement that its use has been controversial in certain contexts, that it has in part shaped popular conceptions of psychiatry, could be included in the treatment section (subject to analysis of the relevant literature), etc. If the items are relevant and not undue they could be integrated into the article. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes a section on anti-psychiatry would serve the article well...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Pride

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

  • What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
  • When? June 2015
  • How can you help?
    1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
    2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
    3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page. Thanks, and happy editing! User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

thank you very much, great information--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles in need of work

Management of androgenic alopecia and Management of hair loss need massive trimming of primary sources and merging. Anyone interested in helping... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Management of androgenic alopecia was basically created from Management of hair loss in Jan 2013. I have re merged. And am trying to clean up some of the primary research. We also have Experimental treatment of androgenic alopecia Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is amazing. There are hundreds of references and NONE of them evention meantion hair growth. My mind boggles. I have not seen anything this bad in a while. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
it does seem the article had quite a few,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturing of drugs

Hi everyone, Jytdog and I have been discussing the utility of having manufacturing/administration safety data in various drug articles, and decided to ask for some wider input here. OSHA has set permissible exposure limits for workers who are involved in manufacturing certain drugs, and there are other health concerns for workers who may be exposed to drugs like chemotherapy drugs. Aspirin currently has an example of what I'd like to insert in several of these articles. I think this is relevant to include because it concerns the manufacture of the drug and it also concerns the health of the workers manufacturing it. But before including it in any more drug articles, it'd be nice to have some input. If its place isn't in the drug articles, is there another place where this important information could go? Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This? In general, I think that kind of information is great. Including "non-medical" information about drugs is necessary to make an article comprehensive. I might include it under a ==Manufacturing== (or similar) section, when the focus is mostly on exposure during manufacturing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a big fan of the Template:PGCH. "Cite web" is more consistent with what the rest of the article is using. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the Aspirin article is better off with cite web...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In general, it's encyclopedic information, even if somewhat US-centric, so I'd agree it's worth inclusion. There are some issues, though. In the aspirin article, it is stated that "OSHA has not set a legal permissible exposure limit", but OSHA did set a PEL for aspirin in 1989, which was overturned by a court decision in 1993. It's probably beyond the scope of the article to discuss this, but I don't think we do a service to our readers by stating untruths. A different form of words may avoid this problem, or perhaps a link to an article discussing the 1993 AFL-CIO v. OSHA decision? The other point is that we shouldn't leave our readers wondering what TWA means and ought to simply write 'time-weighted average' if that's the only occurrence. In passing, I'm left wondering why a limit which is an average over a 10-hour period is used for an explosive risk? --RexxS (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James and Ozzie10aaaa: I've switched the citation in aspirin over to {{cite web}}. @RexxS: That's a good point - I've reworded that bit to say "In 1989, OSHA set a legal permissible exposure limit for aspirin of 5 mg/m3, but this was vacated by the AFL-CIO v. OSHA decision in 1993." I've also replaced TWA with time-weighted average. And, to answer your question, the TWA is for the inhalation risk to workers, the explosive risk is different and difficult to quantify. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
to be clear the original dif on the aspirin article was this, about the danger of aspirin powder exploding without any context. i reverted that - holy exploding aspirin batman! Not relevant to 99.9% of our readers, who do not work in places where they are exposed to aspirin powder. the current dif above is good and put it in context. I am glad to have all GLAM editors around, but adding occupational hazards related to manufacturing seems weird to me in health-related articles, as we rarely say anything about manufacturing drugs/devices/diagnostics (we do sometimes have content on benchtop lab synthesis of chemicals but that is not content about manufacturing). Likewise, our articles about drugs/devices/diagnostics and about disease management rarely discuss what doctors and nurses and technicians actually do, so again content about the occupational hazards faced by them seems strange. A point without a locus. Do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do see what you mean, but it pre-supposes that an article about aspirin must focus on health-related content. Much of the information in any encyclopedia is not relevant to 99.9% of its readers, but that does not make it unencyclopedic. One could argue that an all-encompassing article about Manufacture of drugs or List of recommended exposure levels of substances might be a better place for them, but in the absence of such articles, I can't see any good reason why the REL for workers manufacturing aspirin shouldn't belong in the aspirin article. --RexxS (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with WAID that the manufacturing information could use its own section - 'chemical properties' seems like a slightly odd place to find information about a specific form of the bulk substance. I like the idea of including it in general, though - with a clear distinction of the difference between manufacturing safety and drug safety. I doubt anyone who lives on this planet and isn't currently wearing a tinfoil hat would suspect he was in danger from an exploding medicine cabinet, but other cases could have more plausibly generalizable occupational hazards.
I don't like the idea of defining articles about chemicals that happen to be used as drugs as "health-related articles" and excluding information not relevant to that specific use case. And to use Jytdog's example, if a device/diagnostic/etc. does produce a significant and interesting occupational hazard for the medical staff, surely that should be in the article too. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I take Jytdog's accurate statement that "we rarely say anything about manufacturing drugs/devices/diagnostics" to be a clear statement of a significant policy violation: We are not giving DUE weight to these things as being commercial products. Perhaps we should address this common omission in MEDMOS? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i don't know if i would go so far as to say policy violation, WAID. From what i have seen, WP:MED is primarily concerned with health and biology and that is what folks here seem to write about. I am interested in the science/medicine/business aspects of bringing new medical products to market, so i often include that stuff in articles i work on, but i feel i am a bit of a freak in that in regard. i don't think anybody here cares much about how how things are actually manufactured (although i have written a bit about industrial fermentation and Pharming (genetics)) but that is about as far as that goes, that i have seen anyway. the kinds of sourcing for drug/device/diagnostic manufacturing are not pub-med things.. not generally in the wheelhouse of really any editors i have ever come across in WP... interested to hear what others have to say! Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stick with policy violation. Most of our articles do not comply. This isn't the fault of any WP:VOLUNTEER, but our articles are not giving due weight to these aspects. Proposed solution: Let's find more "freaks" like you.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation uses and research

Wondering if others can weight in here Talk:Amphetamine#Issues Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said that I agree with you on putting that content in a research section. >.> Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Seppi333 had not seen that. Will look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

brave genome/nejm

[15] I deem this a good read, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ayurveda RFC

A Request for Comments is now in progress at Talk:Ayurveda concerning whether [[Category:Pseudoscience]] should be added to the article on Ayurveda. Participation in the RFC is encouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

give opinion (I gave mine)/this article has editing restrictions--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IEG: Medical Translation Project

Hi everyone!

I've applied for a renewal of the IEG- (Individual Engagement Grant) I received last year as part of the Medical Translation Project. We had great success during those months, but I would like to keep working within the project, to make sure we can reach some of our long-term goals as well. I plan to dedicate my summer, and a large portion of my time this fall towards the project, and hope you think it's worthwhile. I'd be very happy if you took some of your time to take a look and to add your comments on the project – perhaps what could be improved and if you see anything you like.

Renewal request:

Some of the articles we translated last year:

My previous IEG final-report:

Best,

-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. There was recently a blog-post in the Wikimedia blog about our articles in Chinese and our collaboration with Wikimedia Taiwan: Medical articles in Chinese -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CFCF ..I think you do a great job, with these articles...These efforts exemplify how chapters and thematic projects such as Wiki Project Med can effectively work together, each bringing their specific expertise to a joint initiative. We would love to see other groups emulate this promising model.[16]...during the coming summer weeks we should all feel inspired to help --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Know The Glow (eye diseases)

Know The Glow (http://knowtheglow.org) is a program to identify signs of eye diseases.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

very interesting information...“The Glow,” an abnormal red eye reflex, appears as a white or gold pupil in photographs. Its reflective shine is an indicator of several potentially devastating and preventable childhood eye diseases --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Leukocoria. Something physicians should always look for when screening kids. Any specific proposal? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At 20:03, 4 June 2015, I added to "Leukocoria" a link to http://knowtheglow.org. I had no specific proposal in mind when I started this discussion.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a big fan of linking to charities as their websites contain nothing more than our articles would when they reach high quality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At 03:59, 5 June 2015, I removed that link from the article "Leukocoria".
—Wavelength (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. IMO we just need to make sure that article is good here :-) I will take a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The campaign is getting some attention in the press. Its existence could be mentioned as ==Society and culture== information. (The actual sign belongs in ==Signs and symptoms==, of course.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Urethraplasty

This is a long standing and poor redirect to Sex reassignment surgery. I have left a comment on the redirect target's talk page to that effect. I do not, however, have the required knowledge to create a useful article, even as a stub. Please will a member of this project take up the challenge? Fiddle Faddle 20:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google suggests it might be a misspelling of Urethroplasty, but there is no mention of sex reassignment surgery at that article. Have now commented on sex reassignment surgery talk page. Little pob (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
what I did notice is PubMed has several reviews...however Google books, are limited [17] [18] (specifically looking under "sex reassignment surgery") --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Thank you. I had, weirdly, never spelled it Urethroplasty, and have now made the correction to the redirect. It redirects to the 'o' article now. Fiddle Faddle 08:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on language

Another discussion on simplified language in the leads. Wondering if others have opinions.Talk:Cysticercosis#Simple_wording_in_the_lead Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

give opinion(I gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if we should have a wider discussion on this issue. For example WAID suggested we have:

People usually get cysticercosis after they eat food or drink water that has tapeworm eggs in it.

rather than

Cysticercosis is usually acquired by eating foods or water contaminated by tapeworm's eggs.

Do people feel this sort of general simplifying of our leads is positive?

I have run into resistance from a number of editors regarding this. Some have stated that this is "dumbing down" our content,[19], that if people do not understand our content they should simple use a dictionary,[20], and that people who want simpler content should just go to simple Wikipedia.[21] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a useful change - there's little directly relevant at contamination in fact. Johnbod (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WAID's idea is well thought,(in the prior discussion I went with DocJames version)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I favor simplicity, but I also favor correctness. The first version is actually wrong -- or at least, doesn't have the intended meaning. The first version is equivalent to, "After people eat or drink water that has tapeworm eggs in it, they usually get cysticercosis". Possibly that's true, but it isn't what the second version says. Complexity is bad, but ambiguity is worse. Looie496 (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes so this maybe better than?

Cysticercosis is usually acquired by eating food or drinking water that has tapeworm eggs in it.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've gone back to passive voice and harder words.
I'm not sure how to put that simply. "There's a high likelihood of getting this, if you ever do X" and "If you got this, then there's a high likelihood that you got it by doing X" are importantly different, and I'm not sure how to make that distinction without using a complex sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we are sort of left with a half way which is likely the best we can do. We want to use as simple of language as possible without it being wrong or having more than one meaning. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People most often get cysticercosis because they have eaten food or drunk water that has tapeworm eggs in it.

Might be the meaning you're looking for? --RexxS (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The most common cause of cysticercosis is tapeworm eggs in food or water.

Looie496 (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or

  • The most common cause of cysticercosis is eating food or drinking water with tapeworm eggs in it.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

nih/fungus

The National Institutes of Health has suspended all manufacturing of medical products after finding some were contaminated with fungus. [22]...Inspectors from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigated the NIH facility between 19 and 29 May in response to an anonymous complaint. In reports dated 29 May and 2 June, the FDA outlines numerous problems with quality control and staff training....dated June 5th [23] --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least it was not live anthrax Peter.C • talk • contribs 22:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
or Ebola [24]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ethically disputed practices

Concerned about this category. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps Sexual orientation change efforts should be removed from the "pages in category" [25]...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the ethics of more or less any practice is liable to have been disputed by someone or other [26], I'd have to suggest that it is either useless (because everything belongs in it), or arbitrary (because everything isn't included in it). Delete because its use in an encyclopaedia is unethical... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just in general I don't find categories very useful and think they're almost always used by editors with opinions about a topic to "tag" the topic. I saw the back-and-forth at Birth control over this, if I could turn AGF off I'd say add the cat was more intended to be point-y than an article improvement, but the content in the article does support the category as there's a bit of content related to ethics. Does anybody even see or use the cats? Can't say I'd burn a lot of energy over that one. Zad68 21:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually now I am reading WP:CATDEF and a category should be a defining characteristic of an article. I wouldn't say that birth control has ethical disputes as a "defining characteristic" so I'd argue against that cat. There's actually only a brief mention of ethics in the article, so probably not enough to meet WP:CATDEF. Zad68 22:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that whether an ethical dispute is a "defining characteristic" depends upon your point in history. For example, when fire insurance was a new idea, there were many debates about whether subscribing was ethical (or even moral). The same for anesthesia, especially during childbirth. We have ethical disputes over gene therapy now, but a millenium from now, they may look back at us and condemn us for not properly treating people. I'm therefore inclined to agree with Andy: this is either useless or arbitrary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In general categories are extremely useful, but less so in this subjective kind of area. No doubt the contents will look rather different in 2115, but there we go. There's a case for just renaming it Category:American ethically disputed practices - just as the US has more weather than most places, it has more ethical disputes & maybe more "practices". Johnbod (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
as per WP:CATDEF...A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc...therefore to sexual orientation change efforts, I would also remove "birth control" as per Zad68 comments.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

impalement to be split into impalement injuries

The article impalement talks about impalement as a torture "method". Should a another article impalement injuries be made?96.52.0.249 (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there are a number of review articles on this topic: Impalement injuries.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you go ahead and start it. I can help you with some of the wording and organization of the article. I've found a nice medical definition of "impalement" in a google search in a "powerpoint" file, but I've-lost-it/can't-find-it.96.52.0.249 (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
impalement injuries ..would be a good article,..due to the fact that some cases might be accidental while others intentional ("methods" section) from Impalement might be useful...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So material from Impalement#Methods might go in impalement injuries. Just brainstorming here.96.52.0.249 (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a good definition of "impalement"? We could start the article from there.96.52.0.249 (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[27] perhaps? --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What separates an impalement from a penetrating trauma? Peter.C • talk • contribs 21:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would venture that an impalement is a kind of penetrating trauma, but one that specifically involves an object penetrating the body that is solid for the length of the penetration. A bullet that goes in and out would be a penetrating trauma, but not an impalement. bd2412 T 22:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Referencing Rosen's (8th edition, online), in medical literature an impalement is simply a form of penetrating trauma, however the difference is when using the word impalement, it means the object is still present. For that reason, I propose a redirect from impalement injury to penetrating trauma. Peter.C • talk • contribs 22:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't an impalement injury be a trauma where the object is still in the body?96.52.0.249 (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In established medical practice, whether or not an object remains in the body between time of injury and point of removal is irrelevant to the best practices employed to treat either type of injury. I'll leave it up to others to decide whether splitting impalement into impalement injuries would be a WP:CONTENTFORK.96.52.0.249 (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

be it impalement injury or penetrating trauma , either could benefit with information from Impalement. it could be useful,due to the fact that some cases might be accidental while others intentional ("methods" section from Impalement might be useful...Impalement typically involves the body of a person being pierced through by a long stake, but sharp hooks, either fully penetrating the body, or becoming embedded in it, have also been used) [28]..in regards to this being a CONTENTFORK,Content forking can be unintentional or intentional. Although Wikipedia contributors are reminded to check to make sure there is not an existing article on the subject before they start a new article, there is always the chance they will forget, or that they will search in good faith but fail to find an existing article, or simply flesh out a derivative article rather than the main article on a topic. Wikipedia's principle of assume good faith should be kept in mind here. If you suspect a content fork, give the creator of a duplicate article the benefit of the doubt. Check with people who watch the respective articles and participate in talk page discussions to see if the fork was deliberate[29] I do not believe it meets this definition .IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the article is made first, before something is decided. For example, if a tranche of prose on an article seems to be duplicative (WP:COATRACK), it may be removed due to the protocol.96.52.0.249 (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of an RFC regarding the E-Meter article

I have recently performed a major overhaul of the E-meter article in an effort to bring the article into what I see as "compliance with WP:Due and WP:Undue policies". While none of the other editors there have denied my concern about the article's aparent non-ccompliance with WP policy, no other editor there has yet endorsed my wholesale overhaul of the article. I have essentially restored the article to a "properly contemporized" 2007 edition of the article, in order to achieve this. The question there is whether or not to keep the major overhaul edition of the article, which I am calling the "restored" article, or to merely try to make gradual edits to the "pre-restored" version to bring about WP Policy compliance. Which path is best? The major overhaul path, or the incrimental path? Any input at the E-meter article's RFC from editors here would be most appreciated.

Thanks,

Scott P. (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

gave opinion(give yours/ please read ArbCOM information on talk page--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments about organization of some medical categories

This discussion has been going on too long. More opinions please. Many thanks. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Pls more opinions so this can be closed. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to those who commented, the discussion is now closed with, imo, a logical and favorable result. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested at Kombucha

Hi there, we're having some difficulty seeing eye to eye on a claim about deaths-by-Kombucha.

The source being used for the claim is from an American Cancer Society piece, where they reference this 20 year old case.

"No studies have been done on humans to support any of the claims made for Kombucha tea. There have, however, been reports of some serious complications associated with the tea. In April 1995, two women who had been consuming the tea daily for two months were hospitalized with severe acidosis--an abnormal increase of the acid levels in body fluids. Both had high levels of lactic acid upon hospitalization. One woman died of cardiac arrest two days after admission. The second woman’s heart also stopped, but she was stabilized and recovered. The mushrooms used by both women came from the same "parent" mushroom. While no direct link to Kombucha tea was proven in this case, the FDA has warned consumers to use caution when making and drinking the tea."

Alexbrn has summarized it thusly:

"Drinking kombucha has been linked, in rare cases, to serious side effects and deaths".

Since the ACS specifically says "no direct link", it seems "has been linked" is misleading. Any clarity on the application of MEDRS and how this is best summarized would be appreciated. Here is the related talk page section. petrarchan47คุก 07:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misrepresentation. I am not summarizing the quoted text but instead following the "Overview" of the ACS piece which states: "Available scientific evidence does not support claims that Kombucha tea promotes good health, prevents any ailments, or works to treat cancer or any other disease. Serious side effects and occasional deaths have been linked with drinking Kombucha tea." The "no direct link" wording used by the ACS is in respect of one case and is not an overall summary of the state of knowledge on this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is the evidence? There is no scientific evidence to support any of the claims made for Kombucha tea. There have been reports of some serious complications associated with the tea.3 In April 1995, two women who had been consuming the tea daily for two months, were hospitalized with severe acidosis--an abnormal increase in the acidity in the body fluids. Both had high levels of lactic acid upon hospitalization. One woman died of cardiac arrest two days after admission. The second woman also suffered a heart attack but was stabilized and eventually released. The mushrooms used by both women came from the same "parent" mushroom. While no direct link to Kombucha tea was proven in this case, the FDA has warned consumers to use caution when making and drinking the tea 4.[31]...i (have answered both here and at the link, since there is discussion at both places), this seems to indicated what your referring to petrarchan47 I happen to agree with you (BTW this source is non-MEDRS compliant, not too different from a 20 year old statement... for a compliant MEDRS source see below) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(add) on the ability of KT to protect against a vast number of metabolic and infectious diseases, but very little scientific evidence is available that validates the beneficial effects of KT. The aim of this review is to give an overview of the recent studies in search of experimental confirmation of the numerous KT health-promoting aspects cited previously. Analysis of the literature data is carried out in correspondence to the recent concepts of health protection's requirements. Attention is given to the active compounds in KT, responsible for the particular effect, and to the mechanisms of their actions. It is shown that KT can efficiently act in health prophylaxis and recovery due to four main properties: detoxification, antioxidation, energizing potencies, and promotion of depressed immunity. The recent experimental studies on the consumption of KT suggest that it is suitable for prevention against broad-spectrum metabolic and infective disorders. This makes KT attractive as a fermented functional beverage for health prophylaxis.[32] review 2014--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously proposing we use happyherbalist.com to sink the view of the American Cancer Society!? Alexbrn (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no...im looking for further information of this and have posted a review 2014 PubMed index as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Our article already cites that, alongside another 2014 review. Alexbrn (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since the ACS piece seems no longer to appear, and the site now apparently doesn't mention KT at all, I think we should drop that source. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was there yesterday. An amazing coincidence that the very time the site changes the source gets challenged! I wonder whether the ACS are doing a site reorg or if they've decided to drop this topic for good. Alexbrn (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weird conspiratorial meandering aside, the source was dead when I came across it on the 6th. petrarchan47คุก 18:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses! I've added sources that do not seem to support the death-by-Kombucha claim here, whilst overnight the claim in the article has lept from "linked" to "causes". petrarchan47คุก 19:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After researching sources to confirm Wikipedia:Verifiable but not false, and in following MEDRS guidelines which tell us case reports regardless of whether they are in a scientific journal or popular media are below miniumum requirements as RS, there is no doubt the material should be removed. Core policy WP:V tells us extraordinary claims require extraordinary (multiple) sources, so inclusion of death and toxicity claims as causality fail on multiple counts. Put simply, the anecdotal material is noncompliant with PAGs. Considering the article is also subject to DS I don't think it is advisable to insist on keeping poorly sourced extraordinary claims in the article that are fundamentally noncompliant with core policy, WP:V. Also, the journal review indicates that the case reports involved a small number of individuals, there was no scientific evidence to confirm causality. It is believed the problems arose not from the inherent factors of kombucha but primarily through contamination or lead seepage from the ceramic containers during fermentation. If the journal review and common sense isn't convincing enough to justify removal of the anecdotal passages (extraordinary claims), then the dates should be considering the majority of the case reports date back to the 90s with only a few (rare cases) reported 6 or so years ago. Moreover, some of the books that were written citing those same case reports are not RS, two of which were cited for the death claims in the article and are factually inaccurate. At best, we could include highlights with intext attribution citing the conclusion of the 2014 review. --Atsme📞📧 17:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That comment makes little sense. We should simply summarize good secondary sources, rather than misreading and inventing policy to try and swerve around them. Alexbrn (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"After researching sources..."? Looks like WP:OR to me. And what's with the 'extraordinary claims'? There is nothing extraordinary in a claim that fermentation under uncontrolled conditions can produce toxic substances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James I know WP doesn't give medical advice but I find the condescension ad nauseum. Would you be so kind as to read my post regarding "verifiable but false" information as it relates to RS that do not pass MEDRS guidelines and explain how it applies to case reports? It will be very helpful particularly with regards to editing other articles, like atrazine, and the like. Thank you in advance. Atsme📞📧 19:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through a couple of comments:
  • I would disagree that 5 major newspapers are reliable sources when it comes to medical content. Sources / evidence are like school children. 5 first graders do not equal one 5 grade in ability.
  • I like the "true to presentation" bit.
  • I also like that extreme ideas require extreme sources. One would need amazing sources to support the idea that TMers can actually fly
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When we are dealing with major topics like diabetes, we never have to use less than idea sources and there are lots of ideal sources out there. When it comes to obscure topics like Kombucha there are few great sources and we must thus be careful and try to use the best available sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My response below isn't a response to you, Doc, just wanted to make that clear. petrarchan47คุก 03:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When the American Cancer Society hosted a webpage citing a link to deaths in 1997, that source was considered the top quality source, and its contents copied to the Lede almost verbatim. However, when that source disappeared, similar sources were suddenly considered not ideal, and 2 obscure sources were used instead, one of them 10 years old.

The Mayo Clinic and the Swedish Medical Center, both on par with the ACS source, cover the adverse effects of Kombucha - neither mention death. They go into (rather encyclopedic) detail about the ways in which people have become sickened by drinking Kombucha, as well as contributing factors that may have played a role.

The Lede now says: "...and the drinking of kombucha has been linked to illness, and the death of at least one person."

The 2 blurbs that were found and used for the above say:

"Kombucha tea; a general cure-all; can cause acidosis and death" -- 2005
"Kombucha has been associated with illnesses and death. A tea made from Kombucha is said to be a tonic, but several people have been hospitalised and at least one woman died after taking this product"

Because of MEDRS, the first source is unusable. The second source is not a strong enough claim to add it, without more details, to the Lede in this fashion. IMO, the readers should know how very loose the "link" really is -- not because I am part of a Kombucha Cabal, but simply because the truth is what we're here for. Other sources that have covered this topic go into a bit of detail behind that various serious side effects that have been reported. When the entire story is told, the picture that emerges is very different from Wikipedia's entry.

Those supporting this single source and claims of deadly Kombucha need to reconcile why the Mayo Clinic and Swedish source don't mention death in their list of negative effects.

It is obvious that POV is playing a role in the sudden flip flop on what is considered the best source. If we can quote the ACS verbatim, we should be able to quote the Mayo clinic in exactly the same way. Suggesting a 10 year old source to counter this is not good form, not after all the haughty lectures I've received on MEDRS. The single book that cites a death is a fringe claim, and we can't give a platform to fringe claims without really going into what the majority of high quality sources say. But you all know this already. petrarchan47คุก 01:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Petrarchan47 Are you aware that what you are calling "Mayo clinic" is in fact something in their "expert answers" series and is written by one individual doctor (Brent A. Bauer, M.D.)? Even then Dr Bauer writes that "several cases of harm have been reported" which in no way undercuts the stronger sources' listing of adverse effects associated with consuming this stuff. What you are calling "Swedish medical center" is 2013 syndicated content from the EBSCO CAM Review Board which appears on multiple web sites. It also does not contradict the strong sources we use. Perhaps you might like to consider the relative strength and relevance of the sources you're championing. Alexbrn (talk) 08:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James agreed that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources (mulitple) per WP:V. I'd hate to think people are going into Walmart to buy kombucha tea or derivative health drinks if there's a risk it could have toxic effects or cause death. We have the 2014 Journal review which is extraordinarily reliable because it not only meets MEDRS requirements, it also passes the acid test for WP:V. I don't see why Mayo and a NYTimes article couldn't be used to cite kombucha products, either. I think we're good to go in that regard. --Atsme📞📧 04:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Either you have not read WP:V or you have not understood it. The principle of verifiability means that text on Wikipedia must be verifiable. To quote: "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". It does not mean that you have the job of personally "verifying" for yourself the work in secondary sources. For the avoidance of doubt, WP:MEDRS makes this explicit: "Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions." Talking of a source itself as "passing the acid test for WP:V" makes no sense. Alexbrn (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Making broad "death" claims inst in the source either. It mentions "of at least one woman". Using just plain death can lead people to believe it is widespread. But you have decided to eliminate the quantitative facts in the source from the article in some strange sync claim. First you add your prefered claim to the body [33] then you change the lede [34] when it should just have been copied from the lede. AlbinoFerret 13:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
im going to have to concur with AlbunoFerret, (further logic dictates this line of "reasoning" has no objective bases , as indicated very early on the ref originally in question was quite dated, even further it does not come up on Google anymore??) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ozzie10aaaa: per comments here, that ACS source has been removed and newer ones used. AlbinoFerret's edit that gives us "linked to ... the death of at least one person" is fine and supported by the sources currently used. Alexbrn (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Alex, it is not fine for the reasons mentioned above which were further validated by Doc James in response to my questions. The claims you want included are unacceptable for the following the reasons:

  1. outdated or involve such a small group of people (1 rare case) that inclusion of such information is not only UNDUE, it is FRINGE. MEDRS works both ways.
  2. not one of the case reports is supported by scientific evidence that confirm causality,
  3. the claims involve anecdotal case studies which is a flat no-no per MEDRS, and
  4. the sources you cited contradict a more recent 2014 journal review wherein the conclusion statement is based in part on the same case reports cited in all other RS. There are no other reported cases of toxicity or death except for that same handful that is mirrored in all the sources.

It's time to drop the stick, Alex, and stop being condescending. Spend some time reviewing MEDRS which clearly states and accurately reflect current medical knowledge.  and WP:MEDASSESS:  Knowing the quality of the evidence helps editors distinguish between minority and majority viewpoints, determine due weight, and identify information that will be accepted as evidence-based medicine.' Not all papers in even reputable medical journals can be treated as equivalent. Studies can be categorized into a number of levels, and in general, editors should rely upon high-quality evidence, such as systematic reviews, rather than lower-quality evidence, such as case reports, or non-evidence, such as anecdotes or conventional wisdom. The medical guidelines or position statements produced by nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies often contain an assessment of the evidence as part of the report. Contradictory to the allegations made against me, we actually are obliged to verify the sources and make sure they are verifiable but not false as further defined in far more detail by guideline essays and MEDRS. If your intent is to get the article right then by all means join as a GF collaborator, but if your only purpose is to assault kombucha products with scientifically unsupported death claims based on inaccuracies in RS that fail MEDRS and V, then you are not being helpful. Oh, and I highly recommend a trip over to Red Bull where your collaboration may prove beneficial. There are plenty of sources you can cite linking Red Bull to deaths including the death of a prime athlete who according to RS dropped dead shortly after drinking 4 cans of the stuff. There is no mention of death whatsoever in the lead despite the case studies and academic papers. In fact the lead gives the drink a clean bill of health. The circumstances surrounding that "energy" drink are far more profound than the antecdotal case reports linking kombucha tea. You might also take a look at Gatorade. It may turn out to be a great way to help Doc James sniff out COIs. Happy editing! Atsme📞📧 15:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of confusion and original research there. Best if we WP:STICKTOSOURCE for the pharmacology textbook[35] we cite (to quote it: "Kombucha has been associated with illnesses and death"), rather than adopt editors' personal views. Alexbrn (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your position is neither supported by PAGs nor consensus. Also, please be mindful of the DS notice attached to the article. Have you received a DS CAM/PS notice this year? I believe you brought the DS to our attention on the article TP so you are aware it exists. Thank you and happy editing, Alex!!! Atsme📞📧 15:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protein Sparing Modified Fast

Protein Sparing Modified Fast has recently been expanded with new content. It could probably benefit from input or review by knowledgeable editors from this project. Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 12:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

have tagged inline for references 3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,and 12 which are non-MEDRS compliant...there are books [36] or this [37]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ira Lewy

I am wondering if Robert Ira Lewy would fall within the scope of this Wikiproject. The subject of the article, Lewy himself, created the article back in 2007 and has been editing off and on since then. However, he is now aware of WP:COI so he has stopped editing and moved to discussing things on Talk:Robert Ira Lewy instead. I and some others have been trying to help him out, but I do not have much experience with BLP's about medical doctors/researchers so I'm not sure how to best proceed. Any feedback or suggestions from the editors of this Wikiproject would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

he does have 17 PubMed indexed articles [38]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ozzie10aaaa for that link. To be totally honest, however, I am not sure exactly what that means. Does that mean they are all worthy of being mentioned in Wikipedia or only some? Any suggestions you may have on how to determine which articles should be mentioned in the article would be most appreciated. Could you please post then at Talk:Robert Ira Lewy if you do have any? The more experienced editors looking at this article, the better. Thanks again. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the article in question lede indicates 1. heart/aspirin interaction research and 2. breast implant research... therefore you should choose (those PubMed articles) that deal with these two main points...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Cochrane evidence

Hi this is my first post on a talk page (hopefully there aren't to many errors), I have been updating the Wikipedia:Cochrane Collaboration/Cochrane UK/Cochrane Reviews page with the latest Cochrane evidence that might be of interest to the Wiki community. I have also added suggestions for pages that could be updated. Also any feedback on how to improve our project pages would be much appreciated. Thanks HMill88 (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

great work (I did notice some of the "suggested articles" column was left blank, particularly 40-75)[39]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James is on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation

Doc James, a contributor here at WikiProject Medicine, has been elected to the board of the Wikimedia Foundation. More information can be found in these places.

James announced his candidacy on this board.

James would comment about this whenever he wished to do so, but leaving aside anything that James has done, here are some possible implications of his being elected:

  • Health-related content on Wikimedia projects may get more attention and be taken more seriously in the greater health community
  • The Wikimedia Foundation, which has in the past been hesitant at times to acknowledge its contributors to health content, may begin a cultural change to consider itself a health organization along with everything else that it is.
  • WikiProjects related to health may get more contributors from this point.
  • More organizations external to Wikimedia communities may begin to consider investing in the development of the health content of Wikimedia projects.
  • More social movements external to Wikimedia communities but in the open knowledge / free culture space may begin to be more comfortable in making their content free and open to share and remix.

I list these things just as being possible outcomes of being able to say "the Wikimedia Foundation has a medical doctor on its board and this person endorses Wikipedia as a channel for distributing health information". I say this because in the past, certain demographics on Wikipedia have benefited from having board representation, even without actually interacting with the relevant board member.

If anyone has thought of proposing any kind of project on-wiki related to health, or of encouraging any group or organization to develop Wikipedia's health content, now might be a good time to think more of doing that. The Wikipedia brand is a powerful thing that opens a lot of doors off-wiki. Speaking of the WMF board's connection to health could be useful also. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is great news, DocJames can only take us and wikiproject medicine to higher levels,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
in regards to an organization what about ...The Stowers Institute for Medical Research make a significant contribution to humanity through medical research by expanding our understanding of the secrets of life and by improving life’s quality through innovative approaches to the causes, treatment and prevention of diseases.
Our Founders The Stowers Institute for Medical Research was established through the extraordinary generosity of Kansas Citians Jim and Virginia Stowers, who dedicated their personal fortune to improving human health through basic research. The first laboratories opened in November of 2000.[40]....perhaps? --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tremendous congrats to James. While health is obviously his main focus, I hope and expect he will not just concern himself with health-related angles to issues. The first thing that needs to happen, before the things Leigh lists can, is for the WMF to stop seeing itself as a software business, which it now does, and instead see itself as an online publishing business (as well). The WMF needs to start taking some responsibility for the content and its quality. That in itself will be a huge change for them, and not easily accomplished. I hope James can help this much needed change along. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My primary efforts at least initially are going to be to try to improve WMF / communities relations. I see part of the issue being that the WMF sort of dose its own thing without getting input from those who are going to be using the software. This needs to change. For one the community needs access to tech resources to build tools that will help them build Wikipedia and two the communities needs a greater say and greater involvement during the entire development process. I see this change as benefiting not only those here but all editors.
Additionally while a lot of the work I do pertains to medicine I also do a fair bit with respect to copyright and issues surrounding undisclosed paid editing. We now have a bot that checks all edits over a certain size globally for copyright issues here. It is in serious need of people to follow up on the issues it has found. Plus it still needs further development. I would love to see it formated like Special:NewPagesFeed Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

cerebral palsy/university of Adelaide

University of Adelaide researchers have discovered cerebral palsy has an even stronger genetic cause than previously thought, leading them to call for an end to unnecessary caesareans and arbitrary litigation against obstetric staff. In an authoritative review published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, members of the Australian Cerebral Palsy Research Group, based at the University of Adelaide’s Robinson Research Institute, argue that up to 45% of cerebral palsy cases can have genetic causes. This builds on research published in February this year by the group which found at least 14% of cerebral palsy cases are likely to be caused by a genetic mutation. And the group expects the percentage of genetically caused cerebral palsy cases will continue to increase as genetic sequencing techniques evolve. The University of Adelaide’s Emeritus Professor Alastair MacLennan, leader of the research group, says the realisation by courts that many cases of cerebral palsy cannot be prevented by differences in labour management should reduce the adverse influence of obstetric litigation. “For many years it was assumed, without good evidence, cerebral palsy was caused by brain damage at birth through lack of oxygen.,” [41]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how to categorize historic diagnoses?

This article made me want to categorize it in "category:outdated medical terms", or similar. Does such a category exist, and if no then should it be started? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We appear to have both Category:Obsolete medical terms and Category:Obsolete medical theories. But perhaps it should be merged to the history section of Periodontitis instead? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know, thanks. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Lancet Burden of Disease

Just published today [42] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a secondary source? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's basically a meta-analysis, so I would say we should treat it as a secondary source. Looie496 (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus

did a few edits, any help would be appreciated .thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differential DVH

Members of this project are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Kudpung. Commented Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And what about Cumulative DVH? Either article should be renamed if they are not merged.96.52.0.249 (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

heterogenous vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus (hVISA) looking for a good ref (definition) for this, opinions? (here or at article/talk page[43]) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try http://cmr.asm.org/content/23/1/99.full, in the Definitions section. The first sentence of the definition says, "The definition and optimal laboratory detection of hVISA remain uncertain," but it may be the best you can do, and it's a MEDRS-compatible source. Looie496 (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replied at article talk. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lower LDL cholesterol is better - nejm

[44] I deem this a good read, enjoy--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editorial. But interesting yes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are Calluses really a type of Calcification?

The latter article does not seem to mention calcification is possible. 92.22.167.143 (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the "symptom" section of the latter article has been marked with an inline citation needed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The term might apply better to "fracture callus" (partly discussed in Bone healing) rather than a callosity or tyloma, which has different etiology. If calluses are a type of calcification then so are keratoses and any number of skin growths. I suggest removing the item to avoid such confusion. Ian (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither keratosis or hyperkeratosis mention calcification (and presumably these processes define calluses). Matthew Ferguson (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Although calcium levels might have an effect on keratosis, I don't see any references linking calluses to calcification/malabsorption. Friction/pressure is really the only established etiology. Removed the item from Calcification#Symptoms. I think Callus#Other_meanings could be expanded, though, to mention the orthopedic use of the word. Ian (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstinence-only sex education

I am concerned about the use of this study in this article. It is cited several times, but it doesn't seem to meet MEDRS, so I think it should be removed. What do others think? Everymorning talk 00:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to fall flat in terms of MEDRS in terms of being a primary source, so I'd remove it. That being said, I did find 3 reviews citing it on Web of Science:
  1. The effectiveness of group-based comprehensive risk-reduction and abstinence education interventions to prevent or reduce the risk of adolescent pregnancy, human immunodeficiency virus, and sexually transmitted infections: two systematic reviews for the Guide to Community Preventive Services. [45]
  2. A Sex-Positive Framework for Research on Adolescent Sexuality [46]
  3. Reproductive Rights and Informed Consent: Toward a More Inclusive Discourse [47]
I did not go through the reviews to see what they said, but WoS gave the first source 40 citations, while the second and third had one and none citations, respectively. If there is anything worth citing, it might be in the first source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Everymorning, there are WP:Med editors watching that article, including Doc James. If you address concerns on that talk page, you will get replies instead of dead silence. Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I see that reference is only cited two times. Flyer22 (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removed and updated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 bee venom therapy systematic review

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25996493 This source might be useful. QuackGuru (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok, are you referring to Acupuncture you didn't indicate the article (I surmised from your editing history)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If anywhere, this probably belongs at apitherapy, which needs some attention from this WikiProject. Everymorning talk 22:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
concur...but poster never indicated originally intended article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Everymorning. User:Ozzie10aaaa. Apitherapy for this ref[48] and Acupuncture#Related practices (and possibly apitherapy) for these two refs.[49][50] QuackGuru (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coulrophobia

I've fixed, I think, an implied medical claim in the lead [51], but I have ongoing concerns about the appropriateness of Coulrophobia#Research. Thoughts? 109.146.70.40 (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS states five years or so for references Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) (although this has elements of wikiproject psychology) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a ==Research== section (of a *claimed* condition). WP:MEDMOS#Diseases or disorders or syndromes says "Include only if addressed by significant sources." PubMed currently does not seem to return any hit for the term "coulrophobia" [52]. Related studies mainly seem to regard hospital clowning (see [53] [54]). My query is basically: what to do with this "Research" section? 109.146.70.40 (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is claiming to be a medical condition? Can a child "abnormally scared of clowns" be really said to be an issue for medicine? It seems to me that this depends on the extent or notion of "abnormally", but I'm not convinced the papers in that page are suggesting that it is a medical condition, just that there is evidence that children in hospitals sometimes get scared of clowns - and so on. That seems to me to be more psychology than medicine, and a descriptive idea at that. I can't see that it is suggesting treatment nor really medically framed diagnosis. The references are rubbish and formatted badly, but I don't think WP:MEDRS can be used for subjects which are tangentially related to medicine, otherwise it would apply to almost all of wikipedia. But I am not a medic, so I might be a minority voice here. JMWt (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting JMWt, thank you. The claim that it's "a type of specific phobia" has been removed by me. I agree the broader issues are nuanced (and also of some more general relevance, imo [55]). I'll try posting at WT:PSYCH to see if anyone there is interested in improving the content/framing. 109.146.70.40 (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Translation task force gets attention at Metrics and Activities meeting

CFCF's work on the WP:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force was mentioned early in the m:WMF Metrics and activities meetings (underway now; it's right after the brief report on the Lyon Hackathon). The link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skCBCYArUaA if you want to see it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thank you WAID,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Some of the credit should have gone to User:Enrique Cavalitto who played an incredible role getting us to where we are. But great to get press for our work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking comment on a new kind of drug infoboxes

Lorcaserin
Clinical data
Trade namesBelviq
Other namesAPD-356
AHFS/Drugs.comMonograph
MedlinePlusa613014
License data
Routes of
administration		Oral
ATC code
Legal status
Legal status
Pharmacokinetic data
Protein binding70%[1]
MetabolismHepatic (extensive)[1]
Elimination half-life11 hours[1]
ExcretionRenal (92.3%), Faecal (2.2%)[1]
Identifiers
  • (1R)-8-chloro-1-methyl-2,3,4,5-tetrahydro-1H-3-benzazepine
CAS Number
PubChem CID
IUPHAR/BPS
ChemSpider
UNII
ChEMBL
Chemical and physical data
FormulaC11H14ClN
Molar mass195.688 g/mol g·mol−1
3D model (JSmol)
  • Clc1cc2c(cc1)CCNC[C@@H]2C
  • InChI=1S/C11H14ClN/c1-8-7-13-5-4-9-2-3-10(12)6-11(8)9/h2-3,6,8,13H,4-5,7H2,1H3/t8-/m0/s1 checkY
  • Key:XTTZERNUQAFMOF-QMMMGPOBSA-N checkY
 ☒NcheckY (what is this?)  (verify)

Please see the example drug infobox to the right. This is in the lead of Lorcaserin, and similar boxes are in most drug articles.

In my opinion drug infoboxes currently are not human readable. They present information which is useful to librarians and chemists and not for general readers. I like the information they present, but I think it should not be put at the top of the article because the top of the article is reserved for priority content. A few months ago I made the same comments at Infobox medical condition, where I said I would like those boxes to similarly become human readable.

The resolution to that discussion was that I proposed to make about 10 new infoboxes as a demo and trial them. I also said that I would look into keeping the data in Wikidata, so that short text descriptions could be developed and translated into more languages. I have been unable to find good sources for making infoboxes for diseases, but I recently found out that I have content for drug infoboxes. See the top of this PDF.

I have some mockups here -

I was thinking of putting any one of these in the Lorcaserin article, and moving the current drug infobox from the lead to somewhere lower in the page. Does anyone have any comment on this information or this plan? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you make a very valid point, in terms of the drug infoboxes and the "general reader"...which is useful to librarians and chemists and not for general readers...my comment would be- I support such a move in regard to the Lorcaserin article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a fan. These are blocks of text that do not work well in infoboxes. This is content that belongs in the article proper
Other issues 1) you are using brand names rather than generic names 2) you refer to US data like it is global "When was the drug approved? June 2012" 3) it is writing in a how to format "If you don't lose at least 5% of your body weight after 3 months, stop taking the drug, because it is unlikely to work" 4) You have even written the brand name in all caps BELVIQ
Stuff like route of administration, key trade names, and pregnancy category work in infoboxes. I agree that the identifiers are chemist centric.
Putting massive lists of uses or side effects in infoboxes is not a good idea IMO. We could make it more general public centric by adding stuff like a) onset of action b) duration of action c) some measure of price Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would support splitting the box into two and moving identifiers and chemical / physical data to a box lower in the article. The drug infoboxes in the lead would do well with shortening. So I support User:Bluerasberry ideals behind his suggestions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
James' point 2 is not really exclusively related to these mock ups, the current infobox is also like this.
My concern about this is that it looks too much like a patient information leaflet. I feel the current one looks more professional and encyclopedic. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We state US for some data that is US specific. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is not the proper forum to be having this discussion. This discussion should be happening at WP:PHARMA, not here. I also agree with Matthew that the current format looks much more professional and encyclopedic. Wikidata, especially in its current form, is not a substitute for displaying the data. This data needs to be displayed in an organized format in an infobox. I would also strongly oppose removing the chemical structure. Drugs are chemicals and our audience includes chemists, pharmacologists, and students who are interested in chemistry. Boghog (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC) The chemical structure and IUPAC name is priority content and it is essential that this is displayed at the top of the article. The "Clinical data" section also contains essential information. The other information is less critical and appropriately it is displayed later in the infobox and therefore by definition is no longer at the top of the article. Boghog (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think pharmacists are the correct people to decide how to display information about medication. I think the information is informative and is important for the primary users of the information - who are likely to be chemists and pharmacists - and the medical and/or human readable version is likely best left in the text. Clearly not all information is applicable to a general reader, but I don't think we can assume that medics are the primary users of such information. Not that anyone should care what I think as a non-medic, non-pharmacist, of course. JMWt (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions

Lorcaserin
Systematic (IUPAC) name
(1R)-8-chloro-1-methyl-2,3,4,5-tetrahydro-1H-3-benzazepine
Clinical data
Trade namesBelviq
License dataUS FDA
Pregnancy categorycontraindicated (US)
Legal statusSchedule IV (US)
Route of administrationOral
Onset of action30-60 minutes (guess!!!!)
Duration of action48-72 hours (guess!!!!)
List price for month supplyUS$300 (US)
Medical uses
Weight loss along with diet and exercise.[2]
Who is it for
Overweight adults (body mass index of 27-29.9) who have a weight-related health problem; obese adults (BMI of 30 or higher)[2]
Interactions
Drugs which affect serotonin levels. This includes antidepressants, anti-anxiety drugs, triptans for headache, and dextromethorphan[2]
Other options
Diet and exercise programs, other medications approved for weight loss, and weight loss surgery for people with severe obesity (BMI greater than 40)[2]

Please see THIS REVISION in context with a second chemical infobox. Visit on a mobile device for maximum effect. I would appreciate more comments about splitting the current infobox into two, one for consumers and in the lead and one for chemists and further down the page. The consumer box is here, and see it in context in THIS REVISION.

In response to the comments above -

  • @Doc James: - You said you were not a fan, then you gave a lot of constructive criticism. I retained what you said should be kept and mock-added some more. Referencing needs to be sorted for some of this. The US-centricity is not just in my proposal, but deeply built into the current system. I removed what US-centric content I had added and retained what was already there. I greatly shortened the text descriptions. I might like to shorten them more so that whenever possible they can eventually be reduced to terms which can be translated in Wikidata, but this is what I have now. I would like more feedback on the extent to which you think this could be developed further.
  • @Matthew Ferguson: What is the problem with Wikipedia articles looking like a patient information leaflet? Patients use them for information, right? I am trying to emulate Google's Knowledge Graph. They have these well developed for medical conditions (Google search hepatitis, for example) and will start doing drugs soon enough. I copied a patient information leaflet to make this.
    Patients are not the (only) audience. It is not the encyclopedia's role to provide patient advice. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Although the more recent offer above does look better. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    None of that is patient "advice", and it actually is an encyclopedia's role to provide patient "information". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We should provide encyclopedic coverage for general readers. It is outside of this remit to pander to a particular kind of reader such as someone wanting to make health decision or who wants to compare prices of various meds. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that we necessarily should exclude "non-general" readers. To the extent that it's feasible, we should provide encyclopedic coverage for all the readers, including not only people who are reading for entertainment and unfocused knowledge acquisition ("the general reader"), but also readers who are affected by a health condition, readers that know someone affected by health conditions, students writing papers for school about the cost of drugs, and more – even for professionals, to the extent that professionals want encyclopedic information rather than review articles. We should always write encyclopedia articles, and we should never write for one group to the exclusion of the others (especially not to the exclusion of general readers), but I don't believe that I can agree that the general reader is, or should be, the sole audience.
    Also, what you deride as "pandering to someone wanting to make a health decision" sounds an awful lot like what general readers keep asking for. Infobox and bullet-point summaries are handy for people who don't have college-level educations. And the general reader might, of course, be interested in things like how much of his tax dollars are being used to buy which drugs, why some drug was in the news recently with complaints about overuse, or which drug's revenue or patent expiration dates suggest that it would be a better investment target. I don't see anything in this list that wouldn't interest some general readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Boghog: If this proposal progresses then it will travel to other forums, with WP:PHARM being the next stop. Wikidata is not a substitute for displaying data but when single words and items need to be repeatedly translated into 100+ languages, like "contraindication - pregnancy", I think it is nice to start looking at how Wikidata might someday get safety alerts to a lot of languages which are not presenting them. I want to serve chemists, and I want this information in an "infobox", but right now "infobox" usually means "box in the lead". Go to Lorcaserin on your phone and you will see that this chemistry information comes up first. I do not want this information there - I want consumer and patient information first. Please see this revision I just presented. I preserved all the information you wanted kept, but I put it further down the page. I opted to put the chemical structure in the lower box even though you said it was priority content, and I repeated the IUPAC name. Things can be moved, but please comment for now if you think this is a disruption to chemists to have this content moved into a different box further down the page.
OK, I do see your point concerning the mobile version. But I think the problem is not specific to the drugbox but equally applies to all articles. What really is needed is the WP:ALT equivalent of a lead tailored for mobile devices (e.g., the display should start with lead sentence accompanied by a condensed graphic). The graphic for drug articles should be the chemical structure rather than the IUPAC chemical name. Boghog (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Boghog, when you say that the chemical structure should be prioritized, you're assuming small molecules, right? And why should the chemical structure be prioritized over what the drug looks like to the average person (e.g., everyone from pharmacy techs to patients to caregivers to hospital cleaning staff)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WAID, yes, I was meant small molecules and not biopharmaceuticals. Concerning your second question, we previously had an extensive discussion and the consensus at that time was to generally keep using chemical structures in the drug box rather than pill images. I really think the problem is not with the infobox per se but how it is displayed on the desktop vs. mobile view. IMHO, the current version of {{infobox drug}} is appropriate for the desktop. One solution is to make all the sections except for the chemical structure collapsable and set the initial state to "uncollapsed" in the desktop view and "collapsed" in the mobile view. However there does not currently appear to be a way to do this. Boghog (talk) 08:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised that a discussion involving mostly people with advanced degrees in health and chemistry concluded that chemical structures were appropriate. Are you?
I don't think that our actual "general readers" (invoked to justify several answers) would agree with them, though. The typical general reader can't make heads or tails of a chemical structure.
I agree about the mobile vs desktop problem. Infoboxes (and much of our article layout) was designed on the assumption that everyone would have a desktop computer with a fairly large screen. (Collapsing causes WP:ACCESS problems.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • JMWt You said, "Not that anyone should care what I think as a non-medic, non-pharmacist, of course." Yes, everyone here should care. Almost every health decision is made by non-medic, non-pharmacists. Even people under intense medical guidance make many medical decisions with their friends and family, and non-medic opinions are very important here. There are other ways to cut this, like for example, everything under "what is this drug for" could be cut. However, the facts under that are all in different places in the article, and I would like for those questions to be answered immediately first thing in the article. Further comments are welcome, even if it is to confirm what you said before.
Well, I prefer this version than the others, but I still think the proper place to discuss this is with the pharmacists. For me, the danger with elevating even general medical advice to the top of the page is that potential patients take this to be prescriptive advice for their own condition - having a box which is focussed on the pharma is much less likely to do that, and I believe will barely be noticed by non-pharma visitors to the page. For me, the issue here comes down to who it is that will a) use the page and b) which wikiproject will manage the template. Most of the time, I'd suggest that accuracy and precision on the chemical basis of the medication is a top priority and should be at the top of the page - in an emergency, pharmacists may turn to wikipedia for information about a medication and that, for me, trumps information supplied to potential patients. They need to know what it is, what the chemical structure is, what the brand names are and so on. In the general way, I'd say medics are the proper people to edit pages on conditions and diagnosis, I believe pharmacists are the proper people to make major decisions about the layout of pages on medication. I therefore do not support the layout suggested in the templates offered above, although I do like the way they display on mobiles. JMWt (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)or[reply]

I like the addition of onset of action, duration of action, and price. Hope to be adding price info to Wikidata and than we could have a drop down menu for different countries. I am not sure if we are allowed to us IP addresses to geo locate people.
Medical uses for this new medication with a single use is easy as is the patient population. Try this for cephalexin or metoprolol and things will get way more complicated. Other options is basically asking to but the treatment of all diseases in which the medication is used in an infobox.
I like the "interactions" bit and would be supportive of adding it. A few others are working on this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should still have a picture. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's some geolocation ability in banners, but I understand that it's a bit 'expensive', so it probably isn't going to be something that can run on every page view (especially for logged-out readers, because they all see cached versions). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

：Great, thanks for putting this together BlueRaspberry, here are some thoughts:

  1. I like the general direction you're going, especially with a preference towards patient information
  2. Could 'identifiers' be moved ultimately to a form of Authority Control template, like we do for biographies?
  3. It's a pity to see some of the pharmacokinetic data go, that's very useful from my point of view and something that is eminently 'Infobox-able'
  4. Am a general fan of your template except for these two fields: alternatives and price.
  5. Alternatives -- I think these are better covered in the parent articles for the topics. I shudder to think about the large amount of editing (and potential edit wars) for any drug related to an even moderately controversial topic -- I'm thinking weight loss, depression, pain control drugs here, in which there are simply too many and too nuanced treatments to summarize accurately on an 'alternatives' field in the infobox in every single drug article
  6. Price -- pregnancy data and contraindications are fairly similar everywhere, but not price. As a non-US editor and reader I'm not a big fan of things where are explictly US and not very translatable to my own country (keep in mind that this is not just an issue of exchange rates, but how health systems are structured). Also surely the price a person is charged varies greatly between venue and circumstance?
Overall I think you're doing something very useful! --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With drug prices my hope would be to have them added to Wikidata and than allow people to set what country they are in to view their specific countries data. The initial displace will show the range from Wikidata of the lowest and highest prices. Still a lot of work before that is ready to role out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I struggle with "price" too, not just for the differences between jurisdictions but the differences even within the US. Different insurance companies get different actual prices after discounts based on their negotiating power, and different consumers pay very differently based on their specific insurance plan. (our article on Prescription drug prices in the United States is woeful btw and something i have had on my to-do list forever) What price would be put there? Jytdog (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This contains a bunch of pricing info [56] plus I have all the pricing info from Doctors Without Borders that they update yearly. But as I said this is a long way from being ready to be rolled out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd assumed that "price" would either be an average actual cost (not the out of pocket expense for an individual consumer) or a general category (think "$$$$" on a restaurant review). For the average actual cost, there are several data sources available per country. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
{{u|Doc James]] that drugs.com page says: "This pricing information is subject to change at the sole discretion of DS Pharmacy. This pricing information was updated 02/2014. Actual costs to patients will vary depending on the use of specific retail or mail-order locations and health insurance copays." Seems random to me. I don't understand what a single number in that field would mean. Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
an approximation as to cost (would be its meaning)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm not part of this project but it's on my watchlist. I strongly disagree that a price for drugs should be included in an infobox for several reasons. First, drug prices are not static and they aren't the same around the world, let alone in the US. This means that any value will be inaccurate for some - perhaps many - readers and therefore meaningless to them. An approximation that isn't accurate is not useful. Second, an infobox is supposed to summarise the article information and the cost of drug production along with how the price is determined isn't a part of these articles. Finally, broad categories (like restaurant costs) aren't much better than a specific value. Since the approximations are not accurate, comparing them isn't meaningful. Even if they could be compared, the range of drug costs is so great that there is no good, easily understandable value scale. For example, aspirin costs pennies per dose while chemotherapy drugs can cost thousands of dollars. I guess you could use a logarithmic scale but that's not easy for most people to understand. Ca2james (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree pricing info is completely unsuitable for an infox. I'm dubious about the general approach adopted in this draft, as infoboxes are only suitable for clear, uncomplicated information without caveats or conditions. Johnbod (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference DM was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c d Informulary (2013). "Drug Facts: BELVIQ (lorcaserin) for weight loss in adults who are overweight" (PDF). Consumer Reports. Consumer Reports. Retrieved 8 June 2015.

Further input

Requested here Talk:Vitamin_D#Vitamin_D_and_Cancer Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User also added this spammy link [57] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


please give opinion (gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App

Hey All

We have just had a WikiMed App launch for android here [58]. It is basically all our medical articles in a Kiwix automatically downloading format.

I have just updated the intro page which will soon be this Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Open_Textbook_of_Medicine and appreciate feedback.

Hope to have it translated into Chinese, Persian, and Oriya soon for launches into those languages.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

very well written and informative(looks good)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is 466mb. My guess is that the average app size is less than 10mb, and a big app would be 50mb. This is a big application. That matters a bit now, but will matter less in the future.
This is an extremely cool idea.
Is there any project page for this on English Wikipedia? Should I start one? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is sort of the project page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Open_Textbook_of_Medicine
We are looking at creating a version without pictures. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just for a reference (no pun intended) I use an app called "WikiEM" which serves as a basic reference of notes and lab values - and this takes up about 200MB I believe on my phone. It might be a bit large, but as I do not have any way to guarantee that I will always have internet access I find it acceptable. I imagine this also would be perfect for residents and other hospital staff who often use Wikipedia at their workplace. I have two questions about it. i) is there an iOS app planned, and ii) do we have the approval we need to make the statement "Welcome to the Offline Medical Encyclopedia by Wikipedia" in the app description? Peter.C • talk • contribs 15:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to all of those. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have created a page to coordinate the building of the app here Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global burden of disease report

The Lancet has just published the new Global burden of disease report but looking at the Results section of the wiki page, I think the existing information is wrong. It is talking about the 2013 report, which as far as I can tell does not give the results to 2013 but 2010 (the one just published in 2015 is to 2013, they take some time to collate the information). The last edit was before the Lancet published this report (and the 2013 report just published in 2015 is not cited on the wiki page). I therefore think this section needs checking and rewriting - just a warning in case anyone is watching and wonders what I'm doing. JMWt (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there is already a discussion on it (DocJames posted it 9 June 2015...its a few posts up, though the WP article was not discussed)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, sorry. In fairness, I'm talking here about the accuracy of the existing wiki page. JMWt (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are some legitimate concerns with regard to the WP article (I believe your correct)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, it looks like the Results section is talking about some of the preliminary results released last year. The problem is a lack of cited reference. I will add the correct ref to what is there, but the substantial results also need to be included. JMWt (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request page move

Ruyan changed its company name to Dragonite International Limited. QuackGuru (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if you have consensus then Help:How_to_move_a_page--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Route of administration articles + template

Route of administration and {{Routes of administration}} aren't harmonized; I figured I should mention it here in the event anyone wants to take a stab at making the template and article consistent/complete. Some of the links in {{Routes of administration}} are directed to an article on an anatomical region instead of an article on the route of administration associated with that region. Some routes of administration also lack an associated article on the topic or an article exists but ambiguously refers to the route of administration (e.g., title+lead vs scope mismatch, as in the epidural example below).

As an example, for the articles involving drug administration into the spine, there's spinal anaesthesia which covers spinal administration of anesthetics (into subarachnoid spaces), "intrathecal (administration)" (into subarachnoid spaces; the scope of intrathecal appears to be redundant with spinal anaesthesia), and epidural administration (into epidural spaces). I already moved the epidural article to epidural administration and copyedited it and the epidural (disambiguation) page accordingly to address this particular case. I wouldn't mind creating, moving, or redirecting the remaining articles myself; however, I'd need a comprehensive reference on medical/recreational routes of administration to do so since I've never formally studied topic.

So... anyone interested in tackling this issue or linking/emailing me such a reference? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Well, I found a comprehensive list at the FDA's website. It doesn't have a lot of information about each one, but my quick count indicates 111 different routes (who knew that there were so many?), not including "unknown" and "unassigned" (which are relevant for their paperwork, but not actual routes). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, if dosage form and route of administration are actually the same, as the links say, then merge them or otherwise make their diff clear. For example to me as a Reader.-DePiep (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm interested from another angle. I edit the {{Drugbox}} infobox, which of course has parameter |routes_of_administration= (RoA). I'd like to introduce a code-list for this RoA, so that easy input produces a correct and well-linked infobox test. (for example: |routes_of_administration=iv does show: Intravenous injection). So I'd like to know if there is a set of top options, we can abbreviate into code. WhatamIdoing counted 111 options, that's too much. But we can make a shortlist of ~20 obvious/common options, that would be nice. An example set is the pregnancy category options. -DePiep (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of review

There is discussion of how we should summarize a cannabis review here [59] and [60]. Further input requested. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

give opinion (I gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion notification: Gender identity disorder article

Notification to LGBT and Medicine wikiprojects of discussion at Talk:Gender identity disorder#Gender dysphoria as commonly recognisable and less judgemental name.

GregKaye 22:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I altered the heading of this section by adding ": Gender identity disorder article" to it so that it is specific as to what the section is about and will be easier to locate once archived. Flyer22 (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


please give opinion, (I did)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of a Gene

As the Gene article is about to be GA reviewed, it might be useful to check that there is consensus on the definitions (Talk:Gene#Definitions). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=666857639"