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 30 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

This page has been mentioned by a media organization:

Sarah Shamim, Dwayne Oxford (June 14, 2024). "Wikipedia war: Fierce row erupts over Israel's deadly Nuseirat assault". Al Jazeera English. Retrieved June 14, 2024. Wikipedia was able to address the issue of misinformation about the virus spreading on its platform, however, with projects like Wiki Project Medicine, a community of doctors and scientists,working to correct wrong information.

Wikicommons picture on cover of CMAJ

As per the heading: the July/August 2024 Print Edition of the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) used a WikiCommons picture of eosinophilic esophagitis.

Does any one happen to know User:CoRus13? (He doesn't seem to be around much. I wonder whether he knows the CMAJ liked his image enough to use it.)

Note: The article was published electronically in February.

Nephron T|C 22:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will check out their website, but my very first guess is that this is a fake journal to churn papers. We see this all the time from companies that invite even the least experienced folks to publish. Hate to speculate, but this is in line with the practices of such pseudo journals. Gobucks821 (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This journal is old enough that it's unlikely to be a fake journal. Regional journals aren't usually prestigious, but most countries have a medical association that publishes papers of interest to the practitioners in that country. The big journals may not want to run a "Prevalence of common cold in Ruritanian Kindergartens" article, but the Ruritanian Medical Association might think it an excellent piece for their little journal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS - CMAJ previously used one of my images of diffuse alveolar damage on the cover (for an article about ARDS in July 2021)... and violated the terms of use. (I saw the image when it was published. They ended-up publishing a correction.) Nephron T|C 22:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special:EmailUser/CoRus13 might work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues with diagnostic criteria

I'm currently trying to improve the page Mixed connective tissue disease and I've ran into a bit of an issue. For context Mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD) has 4 different sets of diagnostic/classification criteria. Usually when I add in classification or diagnostic criteria for a disorder I'll just re word it a bit. The issue is that the diagnostic criteria for MCTD is so specefic that it's hard to reword it without losing meaning. I'm not super familiar with the details of copyright rules but I believe some of this falls under WP:LIMITED. If someone could check out the classification section of my draft for the artcle (User:CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath/sandbox3) and let me know if what I have is appropriate, that would be much appreciated. I also used an open access article for the diagnostic criteria (link) so I think it would also be okay to leave the text the same and put in an attribution template but I'm not fully sure if that's needed or what the logistics of that are. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diagnostic criteria are not copyrightable. Only the expression of a work is protected, not the contents. It would be perfectly acceptable to publish the criteria exactly as worded. In fact, re-wording the criteria could be injurious to the article and its readers.

I haven’t reviewed your article, but in many cases, such criteria are presented in table format—or it’s much more convenient to do so. Thus, if you haven’t already, I suggest word-for-word content in a table. Hope this helps!

Of course, I welcome input from senior/other editors. Gobucks821 (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification! I decided not to go with a table as I couldn't find a way to format it in a way I liked however the information is presented in a way that could be easily put into a table if anyone chooses to do so!CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright question is very much "it depends". Copyright applies to expressions but not to facts. If there's only one way to express a given fact (e.g., "≥40 mcg/dL" or "has low back pain"), then it's not copyrightable.

When the diagnostic criterion is just a number or other simple fact, then copyright is not a significant concern. When the criteria are expressed as complex sentences/paragraphs (e.g., anything in the DSM), then we always need to re-write them in our own words. The complicated moment is when it's somewhere in between the two extremes. The dividing line between "just simple enough to not be copyrightable" and "just complex enough to require re-writing" is not always clear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intersex healthcare draft feedback

EDIT: Nevermind, draft was accepted:D I you still have any feedback though feel free to add it to the article's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urchincrawler (talk • contribs) 04:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I saw that there was a page of intersex-related redlinks including intersex healthcare since the intersex medical intervention page focuses mostly on intersex children. I whipped up a draft but I've never made such a hefty article from scratch (especially not a medical related article) so I'd appreciate some gentle feedback. Here's the draft. Thanks. P.S. feel free to add stuff if you happen to be knowledgeable about this subject.

Urchincrawler (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a paywalled source

Does anyone have access to the full text of PMID 27289303 in The Lancet Psychiatry? This is for Wikipedia talk:Perennial proposals#RFC: Should we add a section about proposals for adding prominent links to crisis hotlines at the tops of articles? where the article is claimed to be the only source about suicide-related content warnings on news/media (though this isn't evident from the abstract) and that it either says the evidence is "unclear" or that it's a "fact" that they don't work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mail me. CFCF (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW thar review does not mention content warnings in any way, shape, or form. It refers to media depictions of suicide and to hotlines, but not to content warnings or disclaimers. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fvasconcellos, I did not realize you were active again (just when I'm not)! Hooray and welcome back! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off and on (more off than on lately...) but boy, am I glad to see you :-) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jansen_deVries_syndrome

I'm struggling to get my article approved for publication (this is my first time working on an article for wikipedia). I was hoping you could help me identify (and possibly fix) my mistakes. DEF2051 (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see:

(BTW per the copyvio which indicates https://jansen-devries.org/about-jdvs/ might you have a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest)

...though it is notable per https://www.orpha.net/en/disease/detail/653767 and https://www.omim.org/entry/617450, you may want to start over (slowly) and then submit...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expertise in evaluating systematic review & adding appropriate language to an article

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Tribulus terrestris regarding the evaluation of a small systematic review & how to include its findings in the article. The thread is Male sexual performance. The discussion is about the topic Tribulus terrestris. Thank you.

A IP editor posted a study about the efficacy and safety of Tribulus terrestris. I responded that we avoid primary sources. I also found a systematic review concerning dietary supplements for erectile dysfunction. Since this out of my league, I am requesting help in some WikiProjects where this be more apropos. Peaceray (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CRAM diet

The CRAM diet article describes an (apparently) medical dietary treatment for diarrhea and gastroenteritis. The sources for it are terrible. We've had the article for 14 years, and it's been flagged as poorly sourced the entire time. I can't find any worthwhile references to add (but this is very far from my field of knowledge). Can anyone find anything about it? What should we do with the article? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 21:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if that might be a pediatrics thing. See also BRAT diet (Bananas, Rice, Applesauce, Toast). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article. I cannot find any references. Jaredroach (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CRAM diet -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 06:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grail (company) edit request

I'm reviewing old edit requests and Talk:Grail_(company)#April_2024_COI_edit_requests has been open for a while. The first couple bullets here seem to fall squarely under WP:MEDRS - it seems like the company has some kind of controversial cancer detection test, and the COI editor wants to add a couple studies evaluating the test. Is anyone up for taking a look? Rusalkii (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rewrite of List of foodborne illness outbreaks in the United States

There is a proposed rewrite at Talk:List of foodborne illness outbreaks in the United States#Proposal for a rework of page that may be of interest to this WikiProject. This rewrite is still a work in progress, so please feel free to share any suggestions, critiques, etc. at the aforementioned talk page or User talk:TinglesFrickinMap/sandbox/United States foodborne illness outbreak list rewrite. TinglesFrickinMap (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TinglesFrickinMap, I think that User:TinglesFrickinMap/sandbox/United States foodborne illness outbreak list rewrite looks okay. My main suggestion is that you remove unnecessary details from the descriptions. This would probably include some of the exact dates and ways to identify which products were recalled. Knowing that products with this code or that best by date have been recalled is useful during the outbreak but basically trivia years later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know the fate of Human Anatomy Online?

Apparently there was a resource for anatomy images assembled by SUNY Downstate Medical School called Human Anatomy Online (archive from 2016). Sadly, I was ignorant of its existence until I saw it referred to in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#External_links today. We even have a template {{SUNYAnatomyFigs}} transcluded on a few hundred pages that provides deadlinks to what I'm sure was a lovely resource. Does anyone know if this resource lives on under another name? I tried Googling, but didn't turn up anything. It'd be great if we could update the MEDMOS suggestion and fix the template. Ajpolino (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://web.archive.org/web/20160504211300/http://ect.downstate.edu/courseware/haonline/acknow.htm has a list of names of people who might know. https://www.gold-standard.com/ might be the website for the publisher. One of the linked websites suggests learn

gold-standard.com as a possible way to reach them, though if you can find them on a social media platform, that might be more effective. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you WAID, I haven't reached out to those people yet. But I have checked about 5 dead links, and for each there's a version of the page archived in Internet Archive (example), and it's the type of static page that an archive can fully recapitulate. Unfortunately, the archives aren't all on the same date, so I can't rescue the template by just building an internet archive URL. My un-clever idea is that I could manually replace each templated instance with a link to an appropriate archived version, but that would take some time. Any chance you can think of a clever-er way to replace the links with the archived versions? You seem tech savvy. Ajpolino (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT all clever ways of linking to the Internet Archive begin with talking to GreenC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did this Special:Diff/827027496/1242311373 as a generic solution, imperfect but should mostly work. If you want to replace each template with an archive URL I can do that via bot, which is better since it will verify each archive is working and leave a {{dead link}} if not. But takes a little more work to setup and run. Post a request to WP:URLREQ. -- GreenC 04:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! Per usual, you've saved the day. I'll check a couple dozen instances this evening, and if it seems necessary I'll post at URLREQ. Ajpolino (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern equine encephalitis outbreak in Massachusetts

Please see Talk:Eastern equine encephalitis#2024 Massachusetts outbreak. Any additional MEDRS-related tips appreciated there, for a new user who asked about this a the Teahouse. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Imane Khelif

There are currently two RFCs at Talk:Imane Khelif. Interested editors are invited to participate at Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC lead and Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC on weight of "misinformation" in lead. TarnishedPath^talk 09:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This BLP is one of the Olympic athletes in Boxing at the 2024 Summer Olympics who has been the subject of speculation about whether she is intersex. As her private medical information appears to still be private, there is no medical content here, except perhaps to educate people on the difference between being trans and being intersex. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Input for List of chronic pain syndromes

I recently created List of chronic pain syndromes. This is my first time creating a list class article and I would really appreciate some feedback. Additionally I was wondering if since not every entry has a wikilink (nor do I think it would be reasonable to make each entry one) should I have descriptions for each disorder? CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That looks pretty good. It's a good idea to have links to "vocabulary words" (e.g., for anyone doing a 'Dr Google' search on a diagnosis) or an explanation, but when I look at the list of "Chronic visceral cancer pain, Chronic bone cancer pain, Chronic neuropathic cancer pain", I think people just need to know what viscera and neuropathy are. I don't think they need an explanation that says "Chronic bone cancer pain is when you have pain in your bones all the time because of cancer". They'll be able to guess that much. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thank you for taking a look! I'll include the definitions for some of the medical terminology! (PS. I changed my username so thats why the signatures don't match) IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with Lists of diseases

I feel that our various lists of medical conditions have gotten out of date. Both List of genetic disorders and List of syndromes are inapropriately short considering their topics (many syndromes are missing). Our alphabetically sorted Lists of diseases is also in bad shape. Half the entries are syndromes (which I have also accidentally added syndromes to this list). Just looking at List of diseases (0–9), I don't think a single article on that list is a disease; all of them seem to be syndromes. There are also many duplications, redirects, and red links. I'm not sure how to fix the issue, but I do have a couple of ideas. I could go through all the pages and sort them into their respective lists (either List of diseases, List of disorders, or List of syndromes. This would obviously be time-consuming but would hopefully help with organization and also help de-orphan some pages. I was wondering if anyone knows what was originally used as a source for these lists. Also, should ref links and redirects be removed? (Pinging page owners @Alex.tan, Snakeyes (usurped), Brainist, PierreAbbat, Altenmann, and Lee Daniel Crocker: CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This diff from 2004 has a list of sources. As a general rule, if a list or glossary is that old, there's a decent chance that it came from a public domain source. The only exception I'm aware of is the List of skin conditions, which largely came out of a medical school textbook. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I assumed they used either rarediseases or orphanet. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help the Wikimedia Foundation better understand how on-wiki collaborations work

The Campaigns team at the Wikimedia Foundation is exploring how to expand it's work on campaigns, to support other kinds of collaboration. We are interested in learning from diverse editors that have experience joining and working on WikiProjects, Campaigns, and other kinds of on-wiki collaboration. We need your help:

Take a survey about your experience with collaborations: with this Google Form
Share examples of Collaborations or WikiProjects that have worked for you: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Campaigns/WikiProjects

Whatever input you bring to the two spaces will help us make better decisions about next steps beyond the current tools we support. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Symptoms of methanol poisoning

Hello MED folks. For 2016 Irkutsk mass methanol poisoning, is it fair to say the following:

"symptoms of methanol toxicity include central nervous system depression"
"The human body breaks down methanol into formaldehyde and formic acid, both of which act as nerve toxins and damage the optic nerve."

The article is currently going through a FAC, and I am not a medical expert, so I'd appreciate any input from project members. Thank you! Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The ed17 I'm not a medical expert either, but I have edited a lot of medical articles so hopefully I can help a bit. Both of these setences are medical claims which means ideally they should have WP:MEDRS sources to back them up which it doesn't look like they do. As for the accuracy of the two statements, I'm not sure but I would feel more confident if they referanced a medical article. To sum up WP:MEDRS biomedical information, such as symptoms, have a higher standard for sources. This means that ideally the source should be secondary (liturature reviews, systematic reviews etc.), published in reputable journal, and if possible published in the last 10 years. The source used doesn't fit the standard of WP:MEDRS so do with that what you will. As for the wording "central nervous system depression" is a bit vaugue and overly technical. It might be more helpful to list symptoms. To save you the hassle of searching for MEDRS sources I found this article which might be helpful:

Nekoukar, Zahra; Zakariaei, Zakaria; Taghizadeh, Fatemeh; Musavi, Fatemeh; Banimostafavi, Elham Sadat; Sharifpour, Ali; Ghuchi, Nasrin Ebrahim; Fakhar, Mahdi; Tabaripour, Rabeeh; Safanavaei, Sepideh (2021). "Methanol poisoning as a new world challenge: A review". Annals of Medicine & Surgery. 66. Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). doi:10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102445. ISSN 2049-0801.

This article is recent, from a repurable publisher and is a review. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, IntentionallyDense! I rewrote that part of the article with that source you gave. I appreciate you not making me find a source myself. :-))) I was aware of MEDRS, but haven't had to interact with it before. I didn't realize it applied to what I thought of as basic things, like these symptoms. The wording of "central nervous system depression" was taken straight from the Wikipedia article title, and I've simplified it. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I'm glad I could help! IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contaminated blood scandal in the United Kingdom

I've created a move request to Infected blood scandal in the United Kingdom; would appreciate any input from this WikiProject.

If anyone could also go through the article and check that the prose is appropriate for a medicine-related article and that the sources are MEDRS-compliant, I would be very grateful too. Thank you! GnocchiFan (talk) 07:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This closed, with the page being moved to the proposed title. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can You Trust Dr. Wikipedia?

For the interested. Nothing groundbreaking, but a good read. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really interesting read. I’ll have to give it another read through before forming any opinions but thanks for sharing this! IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page views

I've been playing with some page views numbers. One thing I've learned is that, based on a sample of 10K random articles, most articles on Wikipedia get read once a week or less.

I think that WPMED's core articles (e.g., about diseases and drugs) traffic tends to be higher than average. If you're interested in checking out a favorite article, you can get the total annual page views at https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/ (default is the last 20 days, so switch it to a full year), and here's a quick cheatsheet to compare the result against (these are all from the 2023 calendar year):

100K page views per year: top 1%
10K page views per year: top 5%
1K page views per year: top 20%
100 page views per year: top 40%

If you are interested in working on our most popular articles, then you can find an updated list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages. For example, Polio vaccine was the 994th most popular WPMED-tagged page last month, and its page views during 2023 (283K) put it around the top third of a percent of all Wikipedia articles, but it's barely in the top 2% of WPMED articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual intercourse I get. But Fibular hemimelia? Scratches head. Bon courage (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one of the Paralympians had it, or a celebrity's baby was just born with it. It wasn't in previous months, so it's probably just a temporary blip. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many Paralympians, see Fibular_hemimelia#Notable_people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod at ILAE (talk • contribs) 02:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help with writting about pseudoscientific topics

I'm not sure where this question belongs but I thought I pose it here. I would like to improve the page Adrenal fatigue however I'm running into a bit of an issue. Normally with an article about a disease people write about symptoms, causes, diagnosis, treatment etc. but when said disease doesn't exist should we be deviating from that format? I've found a number of reputable sources debunking adrenal fatigue however they don't always go into detail about symptoms, causes, diagnosis, and treatment. I've also found two somewhat reliable sources that go into detail about the theories behind adrenal fatigue. However my other question is, does the fact that these articles support the existance of adrenal fatigue make them inherantly unreliable? Could these sources be used to say "the symptoms associated with adrenal fatigue are xyz" or "proposed treatment for adrenal fatigue includes xyz" (note I would also follow this up by talking about why those treatments don't work etc). The two sources that I'm not sure about are:

Wilson, James L. (2014). "Clinical perspective on stress, cortisol and adrenal fatigue". Advances in Integrative Medicine. 1 (2): 93–96. doi:10.1016/j.aimed.2014.05.002.
Redmer, Jacqueline (2018). "Adrenal Fatigue". Integrative Medicine. Elsevier. doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-35868-2.00039-6. ISBN 978-0-323-35868-2.

They are both published by Elsevier and seem okay at first glance but I'm not sure if it's appropriate to use them. Any guidance on the topic is appreciated. IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely editors who would prefer to use a non-standard article format, because they want to signal in every way that it's Not Real™. There are also editors who prefer to use the standard format because it's generally a good way to organize the material, and prefer to use the words inside the section to communicate the complexities.

I think the best answer depends on exactly how non-real it is. I'd avoid the standard format for fictional (e.g., Dragon pox), invented (e.g., Marthambles), or purely historical diagnoses (e.g., Female hysteria). I'd use something similar to the standard format for diseases that are contested but tacitly accepted (think Gulf War syndrome, which may not be a single disease in nosological terms, but it's definitely not imaginary). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to stick to the typical format but just make it clear that it's not a real pathology as the concept behind adrenal fatigue isn't too out there. Do you have thoughts on the sources? IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the 'standard' (/not standard) MOSMED headings are useful, but sometimes the FRINGE stuff is so whack they don't apply. A frequently useful heading for altmed topic is, for example, "Conceptual basis" which is not a 'standard' MOSMED one. Bon courage (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was also thinking of modifying the headings a bit. Like instead of signs and symptoms putting "Associated symptoms" to show that they are associated with the disease but not actual symptoms persay. For causes I was thinking of putting "Proposed causes" to show that they haven't been proven (or in some cases even disproven). IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belladelli et al. (2023)

Way6t has claimed Belladelli et al. (2023) is not a reliable source. I have claimed that Belladelli et al. (2023) apparently is a reliable source. WP:RS and WP:MEDRS have both been brought up in the discussion. Relevant discussion may be found at: Talk:Human penis size#Discussion on the inclusion of Belladelli 2023. I have shared some relevant, summarized details below. Please, feel free to take a closer look at the source and share your thoughts.

"Worldwide Temporal Trends in Penile Length: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis":

"Worldwide Temporal Trends in Penile Length: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, authored by Federico Belladelli et al., and published in World Journal of Men's Health (from website: "Open Access, Peer-Reviewed", "Indexed in SCIE, SCOPUS, DOAJ, and More", "pISSN 2287-4208 eISSN 2287-4690") on Feb 15, 2023. Also, included in the National Institutes of Health/National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central and PubMed.

Per Human penis size's "A note regarding sources" (editnotice), which links to WP:MEDRS:

"This is ultimately a medical/scientific article, and we should use medical/scientific sources that meet the de-facto standards here for sources in articles on medical topics. Given that we now have high-quality evidence in the form of several peer-reviewed studies on this topic published in reputable journals, including a systematic review of other studies, as sources for this article, we should not now be citing either crowdsourced user-generated data, or non-peer-reviewed analysis thereof, even if they been reported on in reliable sources such as the popular press."

Daniel Power of God (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be:

Belladelli F, Del Giudice F, Glover F, Mulloy E, Muncey W, Basran S, Fallara G, Pozzi E, Montorsi F, Salonia A, Eisenberg ML (October 2023). "Worldwide Temporal Trends in Penile Length: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis". World J Mens Health. 41 (4): 848–860. doi:10.5534/wjmh.220203. PMC 10523114. PMID 36792094.

which is a review in a weak (non-MEDLINE) journal, and which has gained some notoriety as a poster child for problematic peer-review and correction.[1]. I would avoid using it. Bon courage (talk) 06:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean theres a lot of different things to look at here. It does pass some checks (it's recent, peer reviwed, not a case study etc.) but theres also some red flags such as the journal it's in, and controvery surrounding it. Ultimately it comes down to "is this the best possible source we could be using here". If there are better sources out there then I wouldn't personally include it but I could maybe make an arguement for it if it truly was the best resource we have on the topic. IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a crazy idea but if there aren't great sources, maybe Wikipedia isn't absolutely obliged to say something about trends in penis length? Bon courage (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I do agree with this, the point I was trying to get across was "is there better sources?" as I'm a bit confused why this source specefically needs to be used. However I may not have gotten my point accross effectively. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/21100943924 gives that journal a good rating.

PMID 38792302 (in an MDPI journal) is the only paper that appears to have cited it.

Since WP:RSCONTEXT matters, I think it's worth taking a look at the proposed text, which is this (three paragraphs, three different parts of the article):

----

More recently, the meta-analysis and systematic review by Belladelli et al. (2023) of 55,761 men from 75 studies, done between 1942 and 2021, and based on estimations of pooled mean length, indicated that the average erect penis length was 13.93 cm (5.48 in), average stretched penis length was 12.93 cm (5.09 in), and average flaccid penis length was 8.70 cm (3.43 in).^[1] Belladelli (2023) indicated that "all measurements showed variation by geographic region. Erect length increased significantly over time in several regions of the world and across all age groups, while no trends were identified in other penile size measurements. After adjusting for geographic region, subject age, and subject population; erect penile length increased 24% over the past 29 years."^[1] Belladelli (2023) also indicated that "importantly, when the current analyses were adjusted for the technique to achieve erection, the point estimates remained similar."^[1]

The meta-analysis and systematic review by Belladelli et al. (2023) of 55,761 men from 75 studies, done between 1942 and 2021, and based on estimations of pooled mean length, indicated that the average erect penis length was 13.93 cm (5.48 in), average stretched penis length was 12.93 cm (5.09 in), and average flaccid penis length was 8.70 cm (3.43 in).^[2] Belladelli (2023) indicated that "all measurements showed variation by geographic region. Erect length increased significantly over time in several regions of the world and across all age groups, while no trends were identified in other penile size measurements. After adjusting for geographic region, subject age, and subject population; erect penile length increased 24% over the past 29 years."^[2] Belladelli (2023) also indicated that "importantly, when the current analyses were adjusted for the technique to achieve erection, the point estimates remained similar."^[2]

The meta-analysis and systematic review by Belladelli et al. (2023) of 55,761 men from 75 studies, done between 1942 and 2021, and based on estimations of pooled mean length, indicated that the "current report identified a significant difference in penile measurements across different geographical regions."^[3] The average flaccid penile length was 8.09 cm (3.19 in) in Africa, 7.23 cm (2.85 in) in Asia, 9.44 cm (3.72 in) in Europe, 9.82 cm (3.87 in) in North America, and 11.00 cm (4.33 in) in South America.^[4] The average stretched penile length was 12.53 cm (4.93 in) in Africa, 11.60 cm (4.57 in) in Asia, 13.40 cm (5.28 in) in Europe, 13.75 cm (5.41 in) in North America, 15.60 cm (6.14 in) in South America, and 12.13 cm (4.78 in) in multiple regions.^[4] The average erect penile length was 14.88 cm (5.86 in) in Africa, 11.74 cm (4.62 in) in Asia, 14.12 cm (5.56 in) in Europe, 14.58 cm (5.74 in) in North America, 15.71 cm (6.19 in) in Oceania, 14.50 cm (5.71 in) in South America, and 15.33 cm (6.04 in) in multiple regions.^[4] Belladelli (2023) indicated that "importantly, when the current analyses were adjusted for the technique to achieve erection, the point estimates remained similar."^[3] Belladelli (2023) also found that "after adjusting for geographic region, subject age, and subject population; erect penile length increased 24% over the past 29 years."^[3]

----

This does not comply with the rule to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Cite sources, don't describe them. Compliant text for the first paragraph would sound approximately like this:

"The average erect penis length was 13.93 cm (5.48 in), average stretched penis length was 12.93 cm (5.09 in), and average flaccid penis length was 8.70 cm (3.43 in), with more recent studies showing longer erect penis length."

That's it.

Also, we probably shouldn't be reporting "the average" (Median? Geometric mean? Arithmetic mean? Weighted arithmetic mean?) down to a tenth of a millimeter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add: Given how bad the rest of the article is, it would not be surprising if someone thought that the verbose version above was actually preferred. I've just cut bunch of text out from one section, and far more of that work needs to be done.

It's also in need of a lot of WP:MEDDATE. One of the sources cited was from 1988 – 36 years old, and 31 years older than what WP:MEDDATE recommends. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c Cite error: The named reference Belladelli was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b ^c Belladelli, Federico; et al. (Feb 15, 2023). "Worldwide Temporal Trends in Penile Length: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis". World Journal of Men's Health. 41 (4): 848–860. doi:10.5534/wjmh.220203. ISSN 2287-4208. OCLC 10168435334. PMC 10523114. PMID 36792094. S2CID 263309386.
^ ^a ^b ^c Cite error: The named reference Belladelli3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b ^c Belladelli, Federico; et al. (Feb 15, 2023). "Table 2: Worldwide Temporal Trends in Penile Length: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis". World Journal of Men's Health. 41 (4): 848–860. doi:10.5534/wjmh.220203. ISSN 2287-4208. OCLC 10168435334. PMC 10523114. PMID 36792094. S2CID 263309386.

Requested move at Talk:Analgesic#Requested move 11 September 2024

The request has been withdrawn. Please ignore this. --Un assiolo (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Analgesic#Requested move 11 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Un assiolo (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion.

There is a couple medical pages up for deletion that I would appreciate some opinions on.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is also some PROD pages if anyone wants to take a look at those:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Any input or opinions are welcomed and appreciated! IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I pulled the page views numbers above, I checked these for fun. They're approximately in the top third of all Wikipedia articles for popularity.

These all look like the kinds of things that someone might see in a lab report or a doctor's note and ask Dr. Google to explain what the terms mean. I'm not sure that we need a separate article for any of them, but I believe that we need to have the information somewhere. Consequently, I think I would make a very general recommendation that you spend more time in Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers than in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, especially for diseases and variations on diseases (e.g., Hypertrichosis simplex of the scalp, which is a specific monogeneic type of Hypertrichosis – a viable merge target – and also about which you might be interested in the table of genetic mutations here, and its place in a broader classification scheme here [in German]). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these I was on the fence about and some (such as the tumor alopecia page) I wouldn't choose to put up for deletion now (I would have instead redirected to alopecia). However I have redirected a lot of these smaller pages and the ones I chose to put up for deletion are pages that I didn't see a clear page to redirect to (although I do miss things). I do prefer to redirect when possible but some of these pages don't really have a page where I feel like they could be merged/redirected to. For example the page Acral arteriolar ectasia doesn't seem to have a page that it could be redirected to. As for Hypertrichosis simplex of the scalp there is no evidence that said disease exists. I could not find it in the source given and the only other mention of it described it as a type of alopecia and cites an article about HYPOtrichosis simplex of the scalp which leads me to believe it may have been a typo hence why I opted for deletion over a redirect. As always I really appreciate your feedback and knowledge. (I also for some reason could not access the two links you provided). IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's fascinating. The table says that hyPERtrichosis simplex is autosomal dominant, MIM 146520 in gene CDSN at locus 6p21. But https://omim.org/entry/146520 names the same gene and the same locus and says it's about hyPOtrichosis. Perhaps different mutations in the same gene have opposite effects?

The book says:

Michelson unterschied bei der Hypertrichosis folgende Formen:
Hypertrichosis indoles hereditaria
A. Hypertrichosis universalis
a) die exzessive Behaarung der Haarmenschen,

b) die allgemeine starke Behaarung des männlichen Körpers,

B. Hypertrichosis localis:
a) Hypertrichosis simplex, die zu starke Behaarung einer Stelle bei unveränderter Haut

b) Hypertrichosis hypertrophica, die exzessive Behaarung der sog. Naevi auf überpigmentierter und pathologisch veränderter Haut.

Hypertrichosis acquisata transitoria (Klebs) als im extrauterinen Leben erworben:
a) Hypertrichosis neurotica, infolge neurotischer Ursachen,

b) Hypertrichosis irritativa, als Folge von Hautreizungen

with the relevant bit being 1.B.a): 1. says that it's hereditary, B. says that it's localized, and a) says that it's too much hair in one place on otherwise normal skin.

BTW, Google Books gave the publication date as 2013, but it's a reprint of a 1932 book. Perhaps this is an older name and rarely used now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I’m at a loss with this one. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to cite Dorland's medical dictionary?

Hello, can someone please explain how to cite Dorland's medical dictionary like this format.^[1] I found this format in this article, yet I am unable to access other definitions. I'm looking for the definition of pericapillary end foot on Dorland's, but every time I try accessing it, I get directed to this page instead. Can someone help me find it? PecMo (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]