Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 10 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

List of archives

Merged Archive WikiProject Preclinical medicine: 1 Merged Archive WikiProject Clinical medicine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 WikiProject Medicine Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171

WikiProject Medicine/Stats/Top medical editors

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Stats/Top medical editors 2016 (all) has statistics for 2016, but there is nothing for 2017. Has this effort been abandoned? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: The user who ran the script to scrape the data is too busy to carry on doing the work. We can't get hold of the script, so I'm in the process of trying to re-write the whole thing from scratch. That will take some considerable time unless somebody comes up with a better idea. --RexxS (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

per[1] sent email to analytics-owner@lists.wikimedia.org(no response yet/not sure it'll work)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@User:Guy Macon I would love this data. I have sent off dozens of emails trying to get this done aswell. Simple very hard to find someone. User:Ladsgroup and User:West.andrew.g ran the numbers in the past but as mentioned are busy with other things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

at least we tried(and RexxS is trying)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Sorry about my late response - I've been super busy lately. It's unfortunate that we don't have the old scripts for this to modify and use for 2017. I would've taken this on if we had those. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we can make a place where old scripts can be archived and maybe even make archiving a requirement for using a script? It seems strange that we keep every old article version yet keep losing important scripts and other tools. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

[2]maybe?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• still ongoing(only en edits were solved, not across all languages)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• phabricator picked-up assignment....[3]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Seems to be finished at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Stats/Top medical editors 2017 (all). Thanks to User:Edgars2007 and User:Yair rand who worked on it! --Treetear (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Frontier journals

https://www.frontiersin.org/

What are peoples thoughts on these? They have been described as predatory here.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

For those interested in some background that led to this question, I recommend seeing my talk page, wherein Doc James and I discussed this matter. It also includes my rationale for at least selectively using Frontiers journals as citations to articles so long as the article or study being cited is otherwise acceptable, as well as my stated concerns about considering Frontiers Media to be a predatory publisher. As I said in the aforementioned talk page discussion, I agree that there appear to be some problems with Frontiers journals, but I would nonetheless consider it a problematic publisher (like with Hindawi Publishing Corporation) rather a predatory one. This conclusion was primarily based on a review of sources mentioning or otherwise discussing the status of Frontiers journals as predatory, which I deemed mixed and overall inconclusive. Links to those sources can be found on my talk page, as well.

I would also like to note Archive 78 § On the use of Frontiers journals as sources, whose consensus seemed likewise inconclusive but which appears to accept selective usage so long as that which is being cited is otherwise acceptable. If necessary, I would also support including a {{better source}} template along with any such citation, though I personally do not think that should be necessary. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 04:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

at the very least questionable[4] and [5]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes it depends on the claim. Any exceptional claim (e.g. of treatment efficacy) which appears only in a Frontiers journal is a huge WP:REDFLAG, and as for the AIDS denialism &c. stuff they've run .... In general anything worth including that appears in a Frontiers journal will almost certainly be source-able to something more conspicuously reputable. Same goes for Hindawi journals, PLOS ONE, etc. Most of the times we see these sources being raised from WP:PROFRINGE editors banging an altmed drum. Alexbrn (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• I definitely don't consider Frontiers journals to be predatory -- I have read dozens if not hundreds of useful articles in them. However, the fact that something is published in a Frontiers journal should not imply that it should be treated as a reliable source. They are better than things like Medical Hypotheses, but reliability is not their primary goal. Looie496 (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

We should lean on the side of caution if as reported we shold error on the right side. They are by far not alone ...as there are thousands of other publishers we can use instead. Editors are expected to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia....thus simply avoid questionable sources if we want to look credible.--Moxy (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

This was just added based on Frontier journal: "In vitro and in vivo studies found that methadone significantly inhibited the growth of human lung cancer cells"[6]

An extraordinary claim IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Yup, and it's wacky articles like this that exemplify why Frontiers journals need to be treated with extreme caution. Alexbrn (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I actually think this Frontiers article is quite good, but the edit to the methadone article does not accurately reflect what it says. The Frontiers article notes that methadone has shown anti-tumor activity in preclinical studies, which is perfectly true; it also notes that these effects have not been tested at the clinical level. Looie496 (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The specific subject of methadone as antineoplastic is reviewed in Int J Cancer at PMID 29516505. No need to use the primary source. More generally though, it's worth restating that no source is reliable (or unreliable) for all statements: one can cite an issue of Mad Magazine for a statement describing the cover of that particular issue. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It appears, at least to me, that the consensus (or lack thereof) on generally citing Frontiers journals has thus far remained the same as I described above. This discussion originated from my citation of two specific review articles, namely the following two: 1 and 2. Does anyone have any opinion on these two particular sources, especially as worthwhile additions to the Asperger syndrome, Autism, Autism spectrum, or other such article? I originally included it as another theory in Asperger syndrome § Mechanism and its reversion is what led to this. If any of you would like more context, I recommend reading the discussion on my talk page. Everything, including relevant diffs, is documented therein. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 08:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, both URLs you give caused my browser to raise a security alert - so I wouldn't include those links! Alexbrn (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

It does for me, too, specifically SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN. This is because the certificate is not valid for the journal.frontiersin.org subdomain, only the www.frontiersin.org subdomain and the subdomain-free frontiersin.org. I have no clue why the website's certificate does not include the journal subdomain, even though it's just used as a hop to the www subdomain anyway (adding a temporary exception demonstrates as much). My guess is that someone misconfigured the certificate and nobody ever bothered to fix it. Regardless, the landing pages for each are as follows: 1 and 2. I was trying to include the original articles, but forgot about the subdomain nonsense. My apologies for not linking them initially, Alexbrn; it has been a long day for me.

I might as well note that in my original edit (which Doc James had moved to Talk:Asperger syndrome § Frontier journals), those bad subdomain links are only available (unavoidably) in the DOI parameter of the citations. The URLs I included were PDF copies from ResearchGate, namely 1 and 2. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

So these sources are about the "Intense World Syndrome" which is the idea of a few researchers. The question is has this been picked up and discussed by decent secondary sources? If so, we can cite them; if not we ignore the topic as Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary publication summarizing "accepted knowledge" (which is generally found only at the secondary level or deeper). Alexbrn (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I think that might be a secondary source. It's not labeled as a review article, which is a particular type of secondary source, but it synthesizes previous work into a coherent whole. Putting together puzzle pieces is pretty much the definition of secondary. (Maybe you meant that this idea needed to be picked up by someone independent of the original authors?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what content the OP want to source, but if it's about the novel "hypothesis" of Intense World Syndrome so far as I can see these works are primary for that hypothesis. But yes coverage would need to be independent. Alexbrn (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Alexbrn, I specifically want to include this "intense world" theory because I believe it is a relevant and appropriate addition to Asperger syndrome § Mechanism. I was simply stating the theory in a brief paragraph as a significant hypothesis for the neurological mechanism(s) behind Asperger syndrome and the autism spectrum alongside the others. The theory has been mentioned, discussed, or otherwise cited by hundreds of papers, if Google Scholar is any estimate; and it has received significant media coverage from reliable sources (some of which are listed on my talk page). I therefore think a paragraph on the theory is due.

What specifically would constitute sufficient "independent coverage" of this theory (or these specific papers) in your opinion? For example, do you basically just mean a review article about this theory and whatever research may have occurred since its publication by those "independent of the original authors" (as WhatamIdoing stated)? Or do you mean it in some other way? I apologize if my inexperience is showing; although I have been editing Wikipedia for years, I am still new to adding and editing medical content. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

According to the two articles, WhatamIdoing, they are indeed both labeled as review articles. I am talking about these two links specifically: 1 and 2. Am I misunderstanding something here? Are they not technically review articles? I agree that they are both secondary sources, though I understand Alexbrn's point that the "intense world" theory is primary to these papers and their authors. From what I can tell, if there is any basis for excluding these two particular sources, it appears to be on them not being secondary for the theory itself, despite otherwise satisfying WP:MEDRS. Perhaps that is what you meant? That they are not review articles for the theory itself, since the papers are the primary source for them? ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Usually – but not always, and it's not a requirement – journals submit metadata to PubMed about their articles, to identify things such as whether they're review articles. The PubMed records contain no such data for these papers. That's not proof that it's not a review article, but it does mean that the papers are excluded from search results (at PubMed) that are limited to review articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Intense world syndrome

I'm looking into this idea, and I think it's probably WP:Notable. Here's some sources:

• "A prominent hypothesis about neurodevelopmental disorders in general and autism in particular is the intense world syndrome/theory of autism by Markram and Markram" [7]
• "Two theories for which there is limited support but which have attracted much media attention deserve mention. These are the intense world syndrome theory and the broken mirror theory." [8]
• "Perhaps autistics don't experience a socially numbed world but rather a socially intense world. In fact, Henry Markram, Tania Rinaldi, and Kamila Markram proposed such a theory in a 2007 article aptly titled,“The Intense World Syndrome—An Alternative Hypothesis for Autism."[9]
• Reportedly reviewed in "Sensory Symptoms in Autism: A Blooming, Buzzing Confusion?" (2013).
• and more: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], etc.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

A note

As a note WP:JCW/Target1 will contain usage information about most Frontiers journals. WP:JCW/F17 will have information about the three standalone journals Frontiers in Endocrinology/Frontiers in Plant Science/Frontiers in Psychology. The exact pages may differ over time but you can always find them based on Special:WhatLinksHere/Foobar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

This also works for things like Special:WhatLinksHere/Scientific Research Publishing. This tells you, for instance, that Psychology (journal) is an SCIRP journal, which can be found at WP:JCW/P55, where it is cited 5 times on Wikipedia (with links to those articles). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Bone Score

Hello, the above article has recently come out of the Articles for Creation process; it could use some expert attention as it might be an advert for a particular device. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

editor Special:Contributions/Alexandermproctor edits are of 1. Paul K. Hansma who in turn had a hand in 2. (OsteoProbe)>>Bone Score...COI?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• thanks Jytdog[16]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft: List of journals accused of being a predatory open access publisher

See Category:Potential predatory journals.

I think a List of journals accused of being a predatory open access publisher will be a good article. Before it goes live we can create a draft. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Bad idea. 1/ Will be an enormous list. Beall had over 1000 entries on his list. 2/ Near impossible to maintain. 3/ Magnet for edit warring between supporters and opponents of these journals. Note: Most of the entries in the above list (which is copied from Category:Potential predatory journals were placed in that cat by me, before giving up). --Randykitty (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I like a challenge. QuackGuru (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• This would be a huge undertaking. I have no strong feeling for or against, but if you need help I'm in. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to start a draft. I don't know all the sources to cite. If someone else creates it then I will pitch in. Someone who is familiar with the topic can provide sources here. QuackGuru (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral. I think we need very clear inclusion criteria, one of which should ideally be a secondary source that claims a publication is predatory. I think there is a lot to be said for maintaining such a list, if Quackguru is game. (Conflict of interest: I get spammed on an almost daily basis by predatory publishers wanting me to "submit my research" to them. All because my email address is on Pubmed.) JFW | T@lk 18:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I know very little about this topic. I will wait for sources and wait for others to start the draft. We don't need a source that claims a publication *is* predatory. There could be a source that claims a publication maybe a predatory or potentially or other similar words. In other words, we can follow each source accurately and include supported weasel words such as *possible* predatory. QuackGuru (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• Starting with Beall's list as a reference seems reasonable. Just make sure every item is referenced. One could group them alphabetically. We have larger lists than this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• This is a bad idea. It refers to Beall's list which has been challenged and withdrawn. This list will be out-dated, inaccurate and hedged with weaselly words like "accused", "potential". Yes, those of us who are in academia get invitations all the time to publish in "new" journals and would not aim for this or usually dream of citing them in WP reviews. But occasionally a relevant source may end up in one of them. For instance, World Journal of Gastroenterology has had mistakes along the way but now has an adequate review process and a reasonable impact factor in the top half of Gastro journals. Maybe we should just list journals with citation indices < 1 (or 2 or 20) as Potential low impact journals.Jrfw51 (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Including supported weasel words will make it accurate. We can also include a list of journals with a zero impact factor in a separate section. The impact factor for World Journal of Gastroenterology has increased. I'm not sure if this should be included in the list for a new article. QuackGuru (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• For transparency, Jytdog has removed a comment that strongly opposes this idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I removed a comment that is or is very close to a BLP violation. That they oppose or support is not the issue. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• fwiw i oppose this approach to the issue. i think list articles are generally a waste of time. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Please provide sources below. Thank you. QuackGuru (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral - It could be a helpful list. My worry is that over time, if an editor or group of editors does not diligently keep it up-to-date, we might end up denigrating a "reformed" journal, as in the example Jrfw51 provided. On a related topic, if we decide to include impact factor, we should include a variety of journal citation metrics, not just the Impact Factor marketed by Clarivate Analytics.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• In general, this is a bad idea. The list would feature thousands of entries, if not more. The best way to do this is to add links to those lists in predatory journal/predatory publishing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Per Headbomb, Randykitty, and others—we shouldn't be trying to place ourselves in the position of creating and curating a list of predatory publishers and journals. While such lists are useful and valuable resources, they're out of scope for Wikipedia's mission. Keeping such a list complete and up to date in perpetuity isn't something we can reliably and robustly do with Wikipedia's general volunteer labor pool, and presenting such a list that is incomplete and out of date does a disservice to our readers. Wikipedia can and should link appropriately to respected outside resources (through external links sections and inline references) on this topic, but we shouldn't try to become the last word ourselves. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with TenOfAllTrades and others. Bondegezou (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• That being said, a Wikipedia-space worklist to make sure those aren't used in our articles for referencing things beyond WP:SELFSOURCE would be entirely fine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree. An 'internal' list of useful resources for identifying predatory publishers would be quite handy to have. Lists of publishers and individual journals would be, again, subject to concerns regarding completeness and curation, but editors – as opposed to readers – are much better positioned to understand the limitations of a work-in-progress crib sheet. Such a page might also be used retain and consolidate links to historical discussions on Wikipedia (on article talk pages and on noticeboards like WT:MED, WP:FTN, WP:RSN, etc.) about particular publishers/journals to help reduce the need to 'reinvent the wheel' when questions about a particular source arise.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I like this idea. On a couple of occasions I've had some citation edits reverted because the next editor knew the journal/book I was citing was unreliable for one reason or another - something I wouldn't have known without previous knowledge or a hard lit search. It would be a nice resource to check before including a journal/publisher/etc. It would also be a daunting task though...there's been hundreds of citations I've come across (usually through Google Books) that are just horrible and I couldn't imagine the process it would require to round those all up in a Wiki page. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Well... It's great when folks can collaborate together like that, but I also hope that you'd think about whether the other person is correct. Over the years, I've had editors tell me that journals are bad because you have to buy the article, because it's not written in English, because it's not in a particular database, because it's WP:Impact factor is only the median for its field (most editors don't understand how low typical impact factors are, especially for specialized journals) – even because the editor-in-chief wasn't a successful businessman. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

See this request at TWL. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Zone diet

Needs eyes. Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

[17]another predatory journal ..per [18]/publishers--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Sociological and cultural aspects

Per WP:MEDMOS, we have Sociological and cultural aspects ...

Sociological and cultural aspects of autism contains info about every condition on the autism spectrum, and is linked from FAs autism, Asperger syndrome and others. Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome covers the media fascination and sensationalism that goes along with (FA) TS. We have others. They work well to explore the non-medical aspects of the conditions, summarized back to the main article with summary style.

Like the autism spectrum, with Lewy bodies and synucleinopathies, we have overlapping conditions in the Lewy body dementias (LBD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), and Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD), along with Parkinson's disease (PD). The terminology is so dreadful, that when I started working up dementia with Lewy bodies, I was amazed to find that we did not even have articles on LBD or PDD, our PD article (another FA) doesn't even mention PDD, and that the DLB article was quite confused, mixing text about LBD into DLB. So ...

Now that I have worked up dementia with Lewy bodies, I created a Sociological and cultural aspects of Lewy body dementia sub-article, because the DLB article is already 7,000 words.

And it promptly was tagged with a merge proposal, to take it back to one of the main articles (when it applies to four articles, spectrum style). Could people please have a look at Talk:Lewy body dementia for discussion of the merge proposal? I laid out the reason for the sub-article there, but the editor who suggested the merge isn't convinced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Merged it-- don't have years to settle this. Followed MEDMOS suggestion, fell into a time sink. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

11k open access articles to be linked

After new data harvests from various sources, about 11,500 PubMedCentral identifiers have been found which need to be added to existing citations in English Wikipedia articles. Each PMC identifier helps verifiability and the consultation of reliable sources: the open access version of an article, registered in PubMed, gets linked from the title of the citation and from the ID link next to a green open access open lock ().

Example edit: [19] (Vunjak-Novakovic, G.; Tandon, N.; Godier, A.; Maidhof, R.; Marsano, A.; Martens, T. P.; Radisic, M. (2010). "Challenges in Cardiac Tissue Engineering". Tissue Engineering Part B: Reviews. 16 (2): 169–187. doi:10.1089/ten.teb.2009.0352. PMC 2946883.).

Please comment in Wikipedia talk:OABOT#Automate PubMedCentral on whether it would be a good idea to have an automatic bot run to add such PMC identifiers. --Nemo 07:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

commented[20]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've commented too, with a potential concern - hope folks will set me straight if I'm wrong. — soupvector (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

MicroDNA

One of your knowledgely folks may want to have a look at this new article. For my own part, at a certain level or ignorance, a notable topic is indistinguishable from a hoax. GMG^talk 17:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

actually falls underWikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cell_Biology--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems to exist, but should probably be merged to Extrachromosomal Circular DNA. Natureium (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

And here I thought it was a misspelling of microRNA, like FOXO is sometimes misinterpreted as "Forkhead homeobox" (FOXO transcription factors are a different protein family from Homeodomain transcription factors). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

student editing issue

there is a class editing from[21] one in particular is reverting at Liver transplant[22](as well as issues at liver disease[23] and Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease[24], all articles could use some watching), thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that time of year again (where I remember why I keep giving up on Wikipedia). From that list, I'll take parkinsonism. Also, ADHD was hit this week. I attempted (in vain) to have a discussion with the editor about appropriate sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Surprise surprise, another instance of WikiEdu churning out good faith vandalism. Thanks for the heads up. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Parkinsonism was an improvement over what is typically seen with classroom editing projects; I was able to save four sentences. And, honestly, the article was a wreck before the student edited, so they at least chose a good target (which is rare), and did have some grasp of MEDRS sourcing (used mostly secondary reviews). But I did have to delete a lot of what they added because it was either poorly sourced, written in unencyclopedic tone, or didn't belong in that article, rather was already covered at Parkinson's disease, where it did belong. Still, much better than what we usually find from student editing, so I commend Se Lawson (talk · contribs) and hope they will pass that on the prof. The situation at ADHD was more frustrating. I tried to engage the student to explain sourcing, but they were having none of it, and none of their content was salvageable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, my comment was directed at the mess I saw at ADHD and another where Jytdog was involved haha. The few I looked at weren't overly bad, just poor grammar and punctuation (which is a problem site-wide, not just with classes). SEMMENDINGER (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_Of_Cincinnati/Environmental_Public_Health_(Spring_Term) has the full list of targets - actually rather short. Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

now an edit war[25]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping us up to date with this. I tackled Rhinitis. JenOttawa (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Wording

Thiamin

Wondering peoples thoughts on the wording discussion here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Translatathon April 2018 in NYC

File:LAGCC.png

LaGuardia Community College

I know this is late notice of the event, but I am sharing information rather than seeking any particular response or engagement.

LaGuardia Community College is hosting an April 2018 Wikipedia Translatathon tomorrow and Friday, 26-27 April 2018. The context is that LaGuardia is the most linguistically diverse school in NYC and the world because it actively seeks to enroll students of diverse backgrounds from NYC's already diverse population. This school and its various faculty and staff have engaged in Wikipedia programs since perhaps 2010. Wikipedia:LaGuardia Community College has some information about their projects, which include participation in the WP:Wikipedia Education Program and student and faculty engagement in various public events which Wiki NYC has presented.

@Doc James, CFCF, and Lucas559: I would like for you to be aware of this event because you name yourselves as coordinators for the Translation Task Force. The LaGuardia nursing program, which with the rest of the school is part of the City University of New York system, is one of this event's presenters. I am recommending the translation of the leads of medical articles as one of the program activities. There have been other casual translation events in NYC in the past. This is the first event in NYC which we have actually called a "translatathon" and where we have featured the leads of these medical articles as ideal to translate.

For the rest of WikiProject Medicine, I would like to share the story of this event as an example of innovative outreach which would not be possible without a community base of editors who develop medical content. For other languages Wikipedia is often the only available source of health information, as equivalents of the NHS, CDC, and NIH do not exist for other languages, and the United Nations and World Health Organization only operate in a few languages. The idea of bringing health information into other languages has been an inspiring goal.

For this particular event we are assembling undergraduate students, including many 18-19 year olds for whom English is not their native language, and we have some faculty from the nursing program present to coach them on editing. This is a modest event, and includes anyone who wants to translate anything and not just medical content. For the medical content though, the basis is what is in English Wikipedia, which is the best free information which anyone in the world has to offer. Thanks to everyone here who develops the quality of this content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Lane. Sounds like an excellent initiative. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Lane; that's an excellent initiative. I can be online and available as an extra pair of hands remotely up to around 14:45 EST if needed. Just drop a line on my talk page to attract my attention. --RexxS (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing this Lane. I am happy to help as well. JenOttawa (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Silent treatment

what should we do with this. it was a cesspool of bad content sourced to pop-psychology crap citations. Jytdog (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Not by way of an answer - just to note that i've made some changes to the page.--Iztwoz (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Refusing to speak to someone is not a medical subject. The origin of the name (but not the behavior) is in the way that some (Western, mostly English-speaking) prisons treated their inmates. None of that sounds like this group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The version before i edited it down was all full of pop-psych crap, see here.

I struggle with the perspective that psychology content is completely outside of what we do in WP:MED but please hear me when i say that i have not thought carefully about where the the not-MED line is. Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

If you're not sure where MEDRS stops and psychology begins maybe don't edit articles where the line isn't clear to you. I don't agree with some of your edits on Silent Treatment and am wondering whether to make changes or not. Everything human beings do impacts their physiologies so its understandable that the line separating behaviour and health related articles is blurred. However, this is primarily an article about behavior not physical health so I don't think MEDRS applies. I also wonder if Silent Treatment is a clinical term; if not we don't necessarily need research papers to describe it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC))

I like it when people say that they don't know everything.

That seemed like an aggressive purge (e.g., blanking the paragraph that says it's a common tactic by bullies in the workplace), but looking at a few sources, I'm thinking that this might be a good candidate for a merge/redirect (as might several others). There are so many different terms for the same basic behavior. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I had the same thought, that there is a bunch of merging that could be done. maybe we would end up with enough sources by the end of that. Jytdog (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Alfie Evans case

Inevitably, Wikipedia is maintaining a running commentary on this. Could probably be usefully added to a few medical editors' watchlists. Alexbrn (talk) 10:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

yes, its been all over the news[26]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I am sure that tweets by THE POPE are accounted for there. Just checked. yep. Jytdog (talk) 05:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Is the Pope catholic? Alexbrn (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

It's about to get even more attantion – he's just died ([27]). Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Public service announcement about medical advice in Wikipedia articles

It has come to my attention that a number of medical editors are not aware that statements containing opinions – including medical advice – must be attributed to a source per the content policy on WP:NPOV (specifically: WP:WikiVoice and the explanatory supplement WP:ASSERT). Some of our featured articles currently contain statements that do not comply with this content policy.

I don't intend to check every medical FA for the use of unattributed medical advice, but it would be ideal if every medical editor becomes/remains cognizant of the fact that virtually all medical claims which use the verbs must or should to convey obligation must include in-text attribution to a source in order to comply with this content policy; i.e., the same form of attribution that is required for direct quotations from a source must be used for these assertions because they are not factual statements; they are expressing a medical opinion about how things that ought to be done.

It is extremely important to keep this in mind when using a clinical practice guideline to write new content given that this type of publication contains a comparatively vast amount of medical advice relative to reviews and meta analyses. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Seppi333, medical articles often contain unattributed advice. For example:

• Disease X may present as disease Y and should be considered in countries where it is common.
• A diagnosis of X should be considered in anyone with symptoms A and B who is over the age of 40.
• Symptom A is not specific to disease X and should instead prompt investigations for diseases Y and Z.

Are you arguing that they must all be attributed? If so, that might lead to the problem of attributing to one source practices that are common and that any RS would support. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I wasn't arguing that we should be doing this though; the requirement for in-text attribution is already in place. I simply made an announcement to raise awareness of a section of a content policy which states that they must be attributed (given that they're all expressing a medical opinion). I'm aware that unattributed medical advice is present in virtually all medical articles on Wikipedia. My intention isn't to try to get people to fix that problem; rather, it's to reduce the rate at which the problem is growing.

Should it eventually be fixed in all medical articles? Yes, assuming that's even possible.

Should we focus on fixing it in every article right now? No, it's not that big of an issue.

Does it need to be addressed in medical FAs? Yes, ideally sometime soon.

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Seppi333, I can't see where policy insists that uncontested positions be attributed. As I said, this leads to the problem of attributing to one source something that any RS would support. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How is "[Drug name] should not be used if/for [other text goes here]." an opinion? E.g. Aspirin should not be used in children with viral infections because of the risk of Reye's syndrome.[x][y] This is well established. Why isn't sourcing it to pretend sources x and y acceptable? Natureium (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Natureium: For context, first see Opinion#Epistemology, then read the single paragraph in normative statement. Observe how these are all normative (i.e., opinion) statements. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Literally repeating myself from earlier: WP:WikiVoice bullet 1, WP:ASSERT. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Those aren't helpful because of the way they're written, e.g. opinion should be attributed or "described as widespread views, etc." I'm asking here about advice that has widespread acceptance, such as drug A should not be used with drug B. We don't always have to say "according to regulatory body 1 in the United States and regulatory body 2 in the European Union, etc". SarahSV ^(talk) 02:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, assuming the advice can be attributed to multiple entities, you could attribute it as you've described, or say something like "according to several agencies/reviews" or "according to X and others", etc. As for saying that a drug is contraindicated for something, yes it still needs to be attributed. Wikipedia itself should not be making value judgments about things and asserting how things ought to be because those are points of view. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Seppi333, I assume your posts are connected to Wikipedia:Request for comment on tone in medical writing. It's a good idea to hold an RfC about it. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this RFC is a good idea, but keep in mind that a consensus from that RFC that differs from what I've stated here would necessitate making changes to WP:NPOV. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Seppi333: Unfortunately, I think you've misunderstood our WP:NPOV policy. The relevant guidance is to be found at WP:WikiVoice:

Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.

but you seem to be mistaking it for that at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view #Handling neutrality disputes. Where statements that are made by good quality sources are not contested by equally valid sources, we are instructed not to attribute because that can create the false impression of contention. We assert simple facts – and those are defined in Wikipedia as well supported, uncontested statements, which includes most position statements that seem to be troubling you. --RexxS (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: A normative statement is, by definition, not a fact. It is a form of opinion. So why are you quoting this to me? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Seppi333: On Wikipedia, a fact is a statement that is asserted by good sources and not contended by equally good sources. That's what you need to understand. Once you have grasped that, you'll stop feeling the need to impose your own views on the sources. --RexxS (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: O RLY?

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
— WP:WikiVoice

Apparently, you're wrong. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This has been going on for quite a while over at dementia with Lewy bodies (not helped by my poor prose, as I struggle to rephrase things descriptively), so I drafted the RFC to resolved the impasse. (Seppi is determined to oppose the article at FAC if what he calls opinion is not attributed.) It seems counterproductive to hold an RFC when I don't see anyone here agreeing with this peculiar view of fact/opinion/need for attribution. An optimal outcome would be to NOT have to hold an RFC. If we DO have to hold an RFC, the draft I started is not currently in shape to go forward, so please, don't anyone do something silly and put it out there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Seppi333: Yes, really. You're confusing "significant opinions" with "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions". You don't get to decide what is opinion and what is fact. The facts are the ones that are not contested by significant sources and are not attributed. The opinions are the ones that represent at least two differing views and require attribution to the source of each view. That's basic NPOV. It's a fact that the driving ability of anyone diagnosed with DLB should be assessed at an early stage, not an opinion. I can tell that because there are no significant contrary sources. If you just apply that simple test, you'll find all these imagined problems simply disappear.--RexxS (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• I think this proposal is precisely counter to the WP:PAGs. First, Wikipedia does not give "medical advice"; second, that which is not seriosuly disputed is simply WP:ASSERTed (to take an altmed example: squirting coffee up the bum ain't going to cure cancer, and this isn't just according to Quackwatch or whatever). Alexbrn (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• I have commented at the draft RFC talk page. This is a bit overboard. Jytdog (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Attributing everything within the text would make Wikipedia less readable especially for a general audience. The attribution is WITHIN the reference at the end of the sentence. If everyone reliable agrees one something we do not need to say "X, Y, Z recommend A". We ONLY need attribution when high quality sources disagree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The number of statements in an article that this applies to is basically the number of times you find "should" and "must" in a ctrl-f search. Let's not overstate things. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there an example of a problem? Is there a proposed solution? How would you apply that solution, say, at Field (mathematics) which states a bunch of well-known facts easily found in many undergraduate texts? Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The issue isn't with facts; it pertains to medical advice being treated as if it were fact with respect to the specified treatment of facts vs opinions in WP:WikiVoice. Mathematical proofs obviously don't contain any statements of opinion; mathematical statements are necessarily falsifiable, hence the articles on algrebras, rings, groups, sigma algebras (just remembered that this concept is unique to measure theory), and other articles on abstract algebraic concepts very likely contain no statements that are relevant to this discussion. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Seppi333 said: "The number of statements in an article that this applies to is basically the number of times you find "should" and "must" in a ctrl-f search." This is simplistic, black-and-white thinking. There is no difference between "People with X should not take Y drug" and "Y drug is contraindicated for people with X". They are both medical advice. If the statement is uncontroversial and sourced to high quality sources, and no one disagrees, either statement is fine and doesn't need attribution. "Should" policing won't work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I really don't care anymore Sandy. We stopped having a civil discussion the moment you posted this: [28][29][30]. The whole point of this RFC was to clarify what the community thought about this issue in order to determine how we should treat these statements in medical articles in general and specifically in the DLB article; yet, instead of approaching this constructively, you act like we already have the answer and that I'm simply being a dick and trying to create obstacles for you because pointless attribution is my "preference" and I want to foist it on you now. Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, I know what I'm talking about w.r.t. positive/normative analysis and that I simply wanted ensure that promoted featured articles candidates were compliant with a major content policy? In actuality, I wouldn't give the slightest iota of a fuck about this if the differing treatment of fact/opinion is explicitly excepted for medical advice in the policies and guidelines at WP:WikiVoice/WP:ASSERT and WP:MOS subpages that include assertions about treating facts vs opinions.

In any event, I don't think this dispute is reconcilable given how this discussion turned out. We're probably just going to end up at WP:NPOV/Noticeboard if the article goes to FAC because I really don't want to discuss this with you any further; and, I say "if it goes to FAC", because RE:... that I simply wanted ensure that promoted featured articles candidates were compliant with a major content policy?. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Seppi, might you read over the discussion and see if you can find anyone who holds the same view as you do? It seems rather unproductive to hold an RFC if there is already consensus. I appreciate this discussion as it shows how I might clean up and shorten the RFC Draft if needed, but I can't see that there is enough disagreement to warrant an RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Should it be necessary to hold the RFC, I have shortened it to reflect the underlying tension revealed in this discussion (where one sees opinion, another sees uncontested fact per WP:WIKIVOICE). See Wikipedia:Request for comment on tone in medical writing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I feel like we're missing some opportunities. Seppi, regardless of the actual logical merits, I'm convinced that you've got a hold of a losing argument. Wikipedia editors just aren't going to accept your claim that "People who are allergic to Drug X should not take it" is an "opinion" in any meaningful sense, and especially in the Point of view (philosophy) sense that the NPOV policy cares about.

But I agree with you that "You shouldn't do <dangerous thing>" isn't the best we can do. IMO it would be more appropriate and educational to say things like "People who are allergic could have an allergic reaction", or "Among older people with ulcers, taking ibuprofen triples the annual risk of significant GI bleeding or other complications", or whatever the individual facts are. "Old people with ulcers shouldn't take ibuprofen" is much less educational than "ibuprofen triples the risk of GI bleeding".

Also, I think that this group may not have a shared understanding of what constitutes medical advice. For example, AIUI, no statement that begins with (or could begin with) "Healthcare providers [or any other person who is not the patient/acting on behalf of the patient] should..." is medical advice. I am also under the impression that statements similar to "People who are allergic to Drug X should not take it" is medical information rather than medical advice, and that it would transform into medical advice only if I were to say that you personally are allergic to Drug X and therefore you personally should not take it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

So, on the NPOV issue, it seems that most opining here are agreed on how we distinguish fact v. opinion on Wikipedia, and maybe the center of the disagreement is really at WP:MEDMOS, where we say, "Ensure that your writing does not appear to offer medical advice", and "statements using the word should frequently provide inappropriate advice". Maybe we need to address concern about the word should at MEDMOS. Because "contraindicated in" is just another way of saying "should not be used for" in simpler language. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

break

I've been writing some stuff over on the RfC talk page, that i'll try to summarize here with some further thinking. Seppi your approach is bumming me out some but I am glad you are bringing this up.

First, this is really about the main medical activities - namely diagnosis and management, right?

Medical people have to do stuff. That is medicine.

There are layers of things here.

1) What do we know about disease X - about its symptoms, pathophysiology, epidemiology etc?

2) What diagnostic tests and treatments exist?

3) How well do things work and in what contexts? (screening test? confirmatory test? first line treatment? Second line treatment? combinations? Surgery vs drugs vs watching, in what order? for which people?) What are their harms? How much do they cost?

4) How good is each bit of evidence above? What do we know, and what do we not know or just kinda know?

5) Given all the evidence and lack of evidence, what should medical people do? How are these recommendations different where money/resources are factored in based on saving money in developed countries or where there is less money/resources?

6) what do medical people actually do - how do they actually diagnose disease X? how do they actually treat it? (are they following guidelines? We know for antibiotics in cold/flu they are often not, and we know they are often not for the knee surgeries that WAID likes to bring up) How does this vary from place to place (cities vs rural; regional differences, money/resource driven within a country or from country to country)?

The heart of this whole kerfluffle is #5, right? Medicine is still as much art as it is science; guidelines matter and are "accepted knowledge" in their fields. That is why they are written. Doctors and nurses have to do stuff

Again

"Accepted knowledge" in medicine is often a bunch of "should" / "should not" statements in a clinical guideline or textbook

This is why Seppi's campaign is being met with such rejection. I think I understand where Seppi is coming from. In my experience Seppi is very very evidence driven. I don't get the sense that Seppi thinks that much about the practice of medicine per se.

But it is a good question. Have a look at Inflammatory_bowel_disease#Medical_therapies - at the kinds of sources there, and how they are handled. I go hm. A textbook, and two guidelines (sources from bucket #5 and somewhat in #6 -- textbooks describe what doctors actually do and what they should do), and the content is all descriptive (as though the sources were all from bucket #6). Is that even ... real? Are those guidelines actually followed? What are we doing there? This is interesting and important.

Have a look at Oseltamivir#Medical_use for how that reads. What happened there was a straight-up contradiction between clinical guidelines and recommendations from Cochrane-reviews. (we solved it by attributing)

But that kind of conflict between evidence and guidelines is actually rare. Most times they end up aligning, and we can find "accepted knowledge" about what medical people should do (!) in either.

About #6 stuff, briefly... For us, this is often hard to get at. How are people actually diagnosed? How are they actually treated? The clinical review papers like the Lancet often puts out, are just awesome for this kind of stuff, where medical practice is described and we can summarize it. (it bugs me that these descriptions are often ... impressionistic-seeming and not evidence based, using actual billings for procedures done and the like, but they are the best we have. I always wonder how the authors know...)

As for bucket #5 in the specific case of contraindications, I think it is just kooky to not write about contraindications in terms of "should not". That is what contradindicated means. That is science in medicine - we know that if you give person drug X, you will likely harm them (or their fetus). (i'll note the content about pregnancy at the FA Beta-Hydroxy_beta-methylbutyric_acid#Side_effects is fully attributed. But really. This is because nobody knows. The company doesn't know, because it didn't pay for the studies, because it didn't have to, because shitty law and companies doing what companies do (not spend money on expensive stuff if they don't have to). And there is no label reviewed by the FDA because.. oh shitty law again) The company wisely covers its ass by advising pregnant women not to take it. So we attribute that. This is an extremely marginal case and not relevant to most editing about medicine. It is accepted knowledge that women who are pregnant or might get pregnant should not take thalidomidee. Ditto isotretinoin. Anybody saying that this is not accepted knowledge in medicine, is off their rocker or is actually talking about something else.

So - how should we summarize "accepted knowledge" in medicine, where for a significant part of it, "accepted knowledge" is a bunch of "should" / "should-not" statements? It is a good question.

I don't think "never say 'should'" is a helpful approach, nor is "always attribute 'should'". "Use 'should' whenever you like" is also not good. But what? This needs thoughtful working out. Not passionate battering on any side of it. Jytdog (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC) (tweaked the questions a bit without redaction to factor in money/resources Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC))

I agree with you overall.

I think that one solution is to provide more information: If taken during pregnancy, thalidomide can cause severe, including fatal, birth defects. CA125 has poor specificity and worse sensitivity for ovarian cancer in asymptomatic women. Antibiotics are prescribed for half of people seeking medical assistance for an upper respiratory infection, but most people don't seek medical assistance, and many of those who get antibiotics don't benefit from them.

Sometimes we probably need to use the word "should": Psychiatrists should not validate delusional beliefs. Healthcare providers should be truthful and polite.

In general, I think that increasing the diversity of our information about actual practice and experiences from the POV of the patient will help with some of this. I think it's easier to describe facts about what happens in the US and the UK when you are also describing facts about what happens in places that are less familiar. This will mean sometimes accepting less-than-top-tier journals, because we aren't likely to find articles in the NEJM that describes, say, what people do when they have a common cold in a country where they can buy antimalarials over the counter.

What other ideas could we try? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Antipsychotic switching

Risperdal Consta injection(for antipsychotic switching)

I just reviewed the new article Antipsychotic switching. I'm wondering what others think of the appropriateness of the article topic. It seems instructive in nature and may be best suited as a section in an article on antipsychotics. Natureium (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the central concept, of "switching" is not sufficiently widely sourced so the article shouldn't exist. Some material may be salvageable to be merged elsewhere. Alexbrn (talk) 05:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

should be merged to Antipsychotics...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Shingles vaccine

One in six get sick enough to affect normal daily activity? For two to three days. They coulda told me, no? This thing is nasty ... anyone want to write article? https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/shingles/public/shingrix/index.html SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Found the place, got it done![31] (now that i feel better). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

That seems over the top compared to say, NHS advice, and could be better integrated into the article. Most people have minor side effects, but that just means a sore arm. Bondegezou (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's what the CDC says, and I had it all, so not sure why you say it's over the top. And I added it to the Side effects section-- how else would I better integrate it? Also, 1 out of 6 is a real number. And this sore arm was not like a typical vaccine sore arm, so it seems to me that the CDC has it right.

As a result, you are likely to have temporary side effects from getting the shots. The side effects may affect your ability to do normal daily activities for 2 to 3 days. Most people got a sore arm with mild or moderate pain after getting Shingrix, and some also had redness and swelling where they got the shot. Some people felt tired, had muscle pain, a headache, shivering, fever, stomach pain, or nausea. About 1 out of 6 people who got Shingrix experienced side effects that prevented them from doing regular activities. Symptoms went away on their own in about 2 to 3 days. Side effects were more common in younger people.

Feel free to also add the NHS, though. I also reported my reaction to https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The package insert also indicates high likelihood of more than a sore arm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: I was intending to add the NHS content to the article, when I realized it was not about Shingrix, but about Zostavax (scroll to the bottom of the page), which explains the difference. Best I am able to tell, Shingrix is not mentioned on the NHS website. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

It would be nice if they used years, but it appears from this, that it was just approved in the UK in March? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed by this press release. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I had Zostavax in the UK three days ago when I would have preferred Shingrix, which I was told has not (yet) been approved by NICE. It does not appear to be available in the UK privately either. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

When I was searching, I came across some place in the UK that was offering it, but I can't re-produce that. Just be sure to have it on a Friday, in case you end up like me! I think it's worth it, but I would have appreciated better disclosure from my doctor, as this was not a good time for me to be sick. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

DLB

Dementia with Lewy bodies is "done" to the best of my ability. Once the fact/opinion issue is resolved, I would like to ask a Wikifriend for a thorough copyedit, so we (all who contributed) can take it to FAC, as a collaboration. So, for anyone who may be interested, now is a good time to comb through the content. Thanks in advance, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all that work. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Vitamin B3

An article that you have been involved in editing—Vitamin B3—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. SusanLesch (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine[32])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Criticisms of mainstream medicine

This article/essay came up in the new pages queue. Thoughts? Natureium (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I smell a sock. Hm. This will take some looking into. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah and it's not a real topic (too vague/general for RS) - the article is full of WP:OR/WP:SYN; needs deleting. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree it's quite vague.. it seems like all the subheadings would really be better as their own pages (with better wording of course). For instance, he included a "Scandals" heading and included a handful of scandals, but if we had a "Scandals in medicine" article we could populate it with millions of bytes of information. How did they choose those specific examples? It reads more like an essay because the examples are seemingly arbitrary. The sources are pretty good, it looks like he's interfaced about this article with many members of this WP, as evident through his talk page. I don't think deletion is in order until we figure out which direction to take the article in. I also think each section needs to have a "main article" to direct to if they are going to remain brief. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

There's some good material here. I'm not certain it all fits together under that WP:FORKy title. Better to integrate this content into other articles, I'd've thought. Bondegezou (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The article is unfortunately all over the place. It also fails to recognize that there is no such thing as "mainstream medicine", but only "medicine". Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

That's one POV, and it is not universally shared. And you know, there is actually value in being able to differentiate between different types of legally regulated behavior, e.g., the kind that involves setting broken bones vs. the kind that involves physicians prescribing cough syrup for a cold. I'm not sure what that POV calls prescribing useless stuff, but the law calls it "practicing medicine". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• I nominated it for deletion: WP:Articles for deletion/Criticisms of medicine. Alexbrn (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hans Asperger and the Nazis

A paper recently published in Molecular Autism (full text here) has claimed that, in Nazi Germany, Hans Asperger "joined several organizations affiliated with the NSDAP (although not the Nazi party itself), publicly legitimized race hygiene policies including forced sterilizations and, on several occasions, actively cooperated with the child ‘euthanasia’ program." It has gotten a lot of media attention and I wanted to see if other editors think it is fairly incorporated into the current article on Asperger himself. Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Psychiatry and neurophysiology

Input would be welcome at Talk:Neurophysiology#Neurophysiology relationship to psychiatry. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-59519-6_9