Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 320: Line 320:
: That lead! :O [[User:Natureium|Natureium]] ([[User talk:Natureium|talk]]) 20:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
: That lead! :O [[User:Natureium|Natureium]] ([[User talk:Natureium|talk]]) 20:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calcification&oldid=841186124 Permalink] to that version, for those interested. --[[User:Treetear|Treetear]] ([[User talk:Treetear|talk]]) 22:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calcification&oldid=841186124 Permalink] to that version, for those interested. --[[User:Treetear|Treetear]] ([[User talk:Treetear|talk]]) 22:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
==peer review needed==
[[Wikipedia:Peer review/Monomelic amyotrophy/archive1]] have done a few edits as well, needs someone else to look at it, thanks--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 16:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:20, 26 May 2018

    Shortcut

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

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

    List of archives

    MicroDNA

    MicroDNA{enlarge image as the contrast in color is not easily seen)

    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. GMGtalk 17:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    actually falls underWikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cell_Biology--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to exist, but should probably be merged to Extrachromosomal Circular DNA. Natureium (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    It looks like the creator of the article is also the author of the paper linked in external links. I don't know whether to call this a COI or just personal promotion. Natureium (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Extrachromosomal Circular DNA is certainly sufficiently notable. I've been bold and done the merger, since MicroDNA on its own is too limited I think. I've checked the external link paper (now inline ref) and it is relevant enough to keep. The editor has written sufficiently neutrally that I don't think the COI is an issue in this case. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Health care ratings tagged as medical expert required, but that seems a misuse of the tag

    The tag says " The specific problem is: Neutrality of the article concerning the financial incentives linked to funding qualifications of healthcare institutes based on greater positive ratings."

    I don't think the tag is appropriate, but as I've already been struggling to explain to this editor that adding NPOV tags without specifics is a bad idea (please do see if you can make sense of Talk:Steven Emerson#Consistent total-reversion by a particular ECU . I'm not a medical expert, I'm not going to touch this one! Doug Weller talk 08:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    i worked it over. Yes the tag was bogus. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's my experience that many of these tags have been placed inappropriately, and that almost none of them result in any practical improvements to an article. For example, Criticism of fast food#Food poisoning risk doesn't need an expert, and it's been patiently waiting for someone to fix it for more than five years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and it's been suffering from {{POV}} for six years. But we have it easy: there's an article in Category:Articles needing expert attention from March 2006 for the experts at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing to sort out. --RexxS (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Although, I just spotted Caplan's syndrome ... --RexxS (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I pulled the tag off that one: the article looks reasonable at a first glance, and there's no way to know what the tagger wanted.
    A lot of Category:Medicine articles needing expert attention probably needs the same treatment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikidata now showing more "appropriately" in watchlists

    Change on Wikidata
    Wikidata showing up in the watchlist on EN WP

    The way changes to Wikidata show up in your watchlist on English Wikipedia has recently been improved. Previously if a Wikidata property was used within a Wikipedia page any change to any property in the entire item on Wikidata would create a line in your watchlist.

    Now only if changes occur to that specific property used (or the aliases) will a line appear in your watch list. In my opinion this is a significant step forwards so congrats to the Wikidata team. I have requested the option not to show changes to "aliases". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    very good change!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Still no way to tell, in that image, if the edit is constructive or not. Having to go to a different site with a different UI to figure out whether the infobox has been made inaccurate, or vandalized, is far from ideal. To me, it's against the spirit of this wiki, where changes that are made to the article are recorded here. Outriggr (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you have to change the default of OFF for "Show Wikidata edits in your watchlist" at Preferences, Watchlist. I'd bet very, very few normal editors have that turned on - I certainly didn't. I've now turned it on, but with a watchlist of over 24k articles, I'm rather dreading the result. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There are still improvements needed. It still shows some stuff it shouldn't. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, but it's better than it was. I'm working on our templates and Lua modules to minimise the number of different items that an article reads from Wikidata, which will allow the watchlist to be more specific. We also have very good relations with the folks doing development on this part of the MediaWiki software, and I'm optimistic that further improvements are possible in the near future. --RexxS (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just picked up my first bit of WD vandalism via this new watchlist.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    therefore it is useful--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Weighted vests for children

    Words can't describe how fringe this article is; it's just ineffable. I removed Category:Treatment and management of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder‎ and Category:Autism, but this needs a lot more work. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Found a couple of reviews. They said no evidence of benefit. So updated to match. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think that those cats should be restored. Someone who is interested in those subjects would probably be interested in reading about this subject.
    User:Sandstein, I wonder what you think about merging this to Weighted clothing#Therapeutic_use (which already mentions weighted blankets). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's sufficient evidence of efficacy to merit inclusion of a statement about weighted vests as a treatment in the ADHD and ADHD management articles, then I'd completely agree that the weighted vests for children article should be included in Category:Treatment and management of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (and, if that were a drug, in {{ADHD pharmacotherapies}} as well). Similar reasoning applies with Category:Autism.
    Due to the fact that there is so much published research on therapies with limited evidence of efficacy for some clinical endpoint w.r.t. brain disorders, including every possible treatment in the corresponding category for each disorder would excessively clutter the categories. For example, there's at least a hundred drugs/substances that would merit inclusion in Category:Addiction under that decision rule; currently, there are no drugs with proven clinical efficacy for addiction in general and only a few drugs with some clinical efficacy for treating an addiction exactly one class of addictive drugs, namely ethanol, opioids, or nicotine. Hence, that category doesn't include any drugs for treating addiction, as none of the currently approved drugs for opioids, nicotine, or ethanol are used to treat drug addiction in general. However, a few behavioral therapies are included in that category because a meta analysis which is cited in the addiction article concluded that several types of behavioral therapies have statistically and clinically significant treatment efficacy for addiction in general (i.e., these have efficacy for treating any drug addiction). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended content – collapsed by Seppi

    In any event, the way I normally decide on what to put in a topic category for a medical article is: topic mentioned in medical article article for topic included in the medical article's WP:Topic category and/or WP:Navigation template (NB: the corresponding topic category and navigation template should more or less mirror one another E.g., compare the articles that are included in Category:Amphetamine and Template:Amphetamine with the coverage of the corresponding article topics in amphetamine.

    Doing topic categorization the other way around (i.e., medical article topic mentioned in article for other topic other topic included in medical article's topic category) essentially just creates the potential for category NPOV issues when the relationship between that "other topic" and the medical topic is not notable (e.g., WP:Trivia), scientific consensus (i.e., WP:FRINGE), or otherwise relevant. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    When there is a consensus that a category has become "excessively cluttered", then we create subcats. We don't "hide" the content from interested readers by removing it from all related cats.
    Also, what determines whether something gets mentioned is not "sufficient evidence of efficacy". It's sufficient evidence that reliable sources talk about it, per WP:NPOV. Stuff whose efficacy is unknown or disproven doesn't get omitted from articles. The lack of evidence should get properly explained in articles, but "dunno, so we're going to stick our heads in the sand and pretend that the article's complete without mentioning it" isn't how this works.
    Using a weighted vest or blanket is a common recommendation. See "There is limited research validating the use of weighted vests for problem behaviours/social attention in toddlers with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) although vests are commonly used in early intervention to improve attention." All common treatments, regardless of efficacy, should be mentioned (along with, ideally, an explanation of whether they work). If evidence was what mattered, then we'd never mention arthroscopic knee surgery. But we do, in multiple articles, because it's still altogether too common a treatment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Notable topic because these things are used. We can play an important roll by providing the high quality evidence around their use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Student editing

    Coming in this week, like this at Mindless eating from a course with about 50 students. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for sharing this. I will try to watch some of these pages and help when I can.JenOttawa (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Sandy. It's a bit odd because that course should have been finished by 18 April 2018. Like Jenny, I'll try to keep an eye on it. --RexxS (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, RexxS it is odd that edits are coming in today. Maybe it's a first-ever good news thing with student editing, where some of them are actually going to stick around and edit real articles! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be most welcome news, Sandy. I won't be holding my breath in anticipation, though. --RexxS (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Electrotherapy - Medical device problem - electricity or EMR in medicine

    This will not interest folks mostly interested in drugs, but we have a bit of a problem with our article structures about use of electrical or electromagnetic radiation (EMR) used therapeutically (this is not getting into the whole imaging thing)

    There are multiple branchings. Electricity or EMR can be used to stimulate or ablate, for therapeutic purposes.

    We have (listed roughly from most general to most specific)

    Going down the stimulation with electricity pathway
    going down the stimulation or other "therapy" with EMR pathway.
    ablation with electricity
    ablation with EMR
    mess around Hyperthermia aka Heat therapy (two articles on the same thing?)

    I am hanging my head over this thicket. This is not even all of it.

    But to focus, what should we do with Electrotherapy? Jytdog (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC) (fixed "EMF" thing without redacting Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

    Could I ask, please, for you to check what abbreviations you're using above, because I'm finding it confusing. EMF is 'electromotive force', i.e. voltage, which implies moving electrons through the body. EMR is 'electomagnetic radiation', which implies bombarding the body with photons of some wavelength. Magnetism is a different phenomenon again. Lasers won't be based on EMF, for example, nor is magnetic stimulation EMR. If the articles are that confused, they need taking to AfD. --RexxS (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure EMF is being used to mean "electromagnetic fields". Looie496 (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Which would add to the confusion as EMF would then be synonymous with EMR, and if so, then Electrosurgery, for example, wouldn't fit as it relies on an electric current, not an electromagnetic field. There is a huge difference in the mechanisms. But I don't suppose that worries the quacks who are looking for a novelty cure for everything. How long before mesmerism makes a comeback? --RexxS (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    i made it consistent, without redaction to avoid clutter.Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    I think I can resolve one of the smaller questions: Heat stroke is a type of Hyperthermia. The proper subject of the Hyperthermia article is a potentially fatal medical condition, not the treatment category that sometimes uses the same name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Was the article just moved or has it always been titled that way? It seems fine how it is now. Hyperthermia is a condition and heat therapy is a treatment. Natureium (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I think Jytdog may have meant to link to Hyperthermia therapy instead of Hyperthermia. As written, Hyperthermia therapy and Heat therapy are 2 different things. Hyperthermia therapy uses excessive heat to induce cell death, whereas heat therapy is using warmth to sooth sore muscles... or something like that. Natureium (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I merged magnetic hyperthermia into Hyperthermia therapy since it's been over a year since it was proposed and no one has given a good argument not to. Natureium (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the thoughts and work everybody! Quite a tangle, right? What should we do with Electrotherapy? Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How about a broad-concept article? We could keep the history section by moving it to History of electrotherapy. Little pob (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would first suggest removing the Muscle stimulation and Cancer treatment sections, as well everything from the Modern use up to, but not including, the Effectiveness for particular indications section. Those are stuffed full of biomedical claims without a MEDRS source, and in many cases without any source at all. Next rewrite the lead to accurately summarise the lack of evidence for any significant effects at all.
    Then have a competition to find the worst bit of woo in the present version of the article and preserve it in formaldehyde somewhere on the talk page as a grisly reminder of the amount of complete bollocks there was in the article. My current favourite is "The free-radical (unpaired electron) containing active-site of enzyme Ribonucleotide Reductase, RnR—which controls the rate-limiting step in the synthesis of DNA—can be disabled by a stream of passing electrons." --RexxS (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a meta-editing, structural element to my question about Electrotherapy... i put that at the top because as near as I can tell, it is the closest thing we have to a "head" article in Wikipedia about "therapeutic use of electricity and EMR". (not even saying "medical use of electricity and EMR" because then we would have to pull in all the imaging). Should it just be a sort of disambig page and outline for the rest of our content about these things? Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    btw I went and looked at MESH headers on this stuff hoping I would use them as a guide... but they are woefully messy. I was going to present all that mess but it would have been just another bewildering pile for people to sort thru. Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Some sort of "Ways people use (and have used) electricity to treat diseases" articles could be encyclopedic. I'm not sure that would be called "electrotherapy", since presumably that article would include pacemakers and deep brain stimulation and defibrillators. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Another bolus of student editing

    May 2018 (UTC)

    Worked on the SID article a bit more. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    -- Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    yes, thank you Jyt--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge proposal over at Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth

    It has been proposed that blind loop syndrome be merged into small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. The discussion can be found here: Talk:Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth#Merge from Blind loop syndrome proposal. Little pob (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Cranial nerve examination

    WP:NOTMANUAL? Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    might be best to dispense with wikitable just leave the text, as it would give a less WP:NOTMANUAL impression(and tweak the wording a bit)..IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing the middle section may make it less manual-like, just leaving the associated conditions, which could be expanded with the purpose of cranial nerve examination. Natureium (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Help needed with "expanded access", "managed access", "early access", "compassionate use", etc.

    Hi all, I've been trying to add a helpful link for "early access" in the context of drug trials, disambiguating it to expanded access. I find, though, that the multiple terms are quite difficult to sort out, particularly from a world-wide perspective. Another page, managed access program clearly overlaps in content, but I suspect that there are multiple meanings for that term: (1) free access to drugs that normally cost a lot and (2) access to drugs that are not yet approved for the particular use. Can anyone help to polish this material to a point where patients can understand it more readily? (For example, I was asked by a very ill person whether "early access" would involve the possibility of being given a placebo only.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    According to these two papers, these programs are all the same thing, just with different names, and they all involve getting the "real" drug (with all of its very real and possibly still unknown side effects and limitations) before the drug regulatory agency has approved it for sale. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, and to others who stepped in to improve the material. It is a huge help to seeing a way through the morass. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I did some stuff there. Jytdog (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Be careful in this field. The lobbyist groups frame this as compassion for sick people. At the same time, they make $$$$$ ridiculous money by doing experimentation on people outside the bounds of what would normally be safe in medical research. I am not saying that this is good or bad, but only that the pharma companies have extreme incentive to get the data from people who take the non-approved drugs.
    In a clinical trial there is never a promise that the drug will treat a condition. A lot of the literature talks about the efficacy of early access drugs in a way that breaks from the norm of how anyone discusses typical clinical trials. The money invested in community outreach to get people to talk about this in a positive way is huge. There is no such thing as early access to drugs without the patient / research subject agreeing to give the pharma company data. The terminology here is confusing because the entire discussion conflates treatment and research and downplays norms of patient safety. I have looked into this articles on wiki and it gets confusing quickly. The voices advocating for the patient, like accepting a condition and not spending one's last days in research, are a lot quieter than the pharma-sponsored papers and books.
    In answer to your question - early access almost never includes placebo controlled trials. The metabolites are money.
    Research is good but this body of literature and the outreach and publishing campaign creeps me out a bit. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that. There is lots of noise, from many sides.Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMhle1409465 says that most American manufacturers charge nothing for expanded access programs, because they'd have to disclose their direct manufacturing costs (resulting in "it only cost you $1.50 to make this, and you're charging how much now??!!!").
    OTOH, it seems to me that I had heard that a few disreputable places were using expanded access as a way of selling unapproved (and probably unapprovable) drugs, probably in the general vein of alternative cancer treatments. (Maybe in that long news story on the German clinics?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    PMID 26955570 is a review by a consultant person (Tata, the Indian equivalent of McKinsey) and he is quite frank about the benefits of selling through EA programs before approval. No, they do not have to price at cost. They don't have to make it available at all. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The NEJM paper says that within the US, the choices are not offering it at all, offering it at a price that is no higher than direct costs, or offering it for free. The consultant's paper indicates that some countries allow higher prices (I wish the paper named a few examples). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    yes it does! added to the article. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking for community feedback: WP:MEDRS talk page comment

    Hello, I posted a question on the talk page of WP:MEDRS to get community feedback on a clinician/patient guideline publication shared on PCORI's website. If you have any feedback or suggestions, please comment.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#PCORI_(Patient_Centered_Outcomes_Research_Institute):_Evidence_update_for_clinicians_and_patients

    Thank you,

    JenOttawa (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Young blood transfusion

    This article is going to be on the main page as a DYK and the author twice removed a tag asking for medical references, saying that "I don't believe that it does need such references". The article is on supposed life extension through blood transfusion, which is surely a medical concept.

    Additionally, the DYK hook is "... that the blood of young people may extend your life?" Is this really a claim wikipedia wants to be making?

    I've been looking on pubmed for actual sources of information on this in humans, and the first paper I found was [2], and the most most recent article from this journal indexed on pubmed is advocating the use of curcumin as a treatment of Alzheimers, so I'm not sure if the research published here should be taken with more than a single grain of salt. Natureium (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is certainly within the scope of MEDRS. The question is whether using "may" and the fact that the claim isn't describing an actual medical-biological process (is it a transfusion? Touching the blood? Inhaling it?) lowers the bar of evidence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Betteridge's law of headlines. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see MEDRS compliance. The article is about human health and is on the fringe of research. Any support for the procedure should be MEDRS compliant. And definitely not ready for Main Page.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    I agree with Olive about it not being ready for Main Page. Using "may" and "So-and-so claimed that ..." are not get-out-of-jail-free cards to circumvent MEDRS. I've just given several examples of unsupported biomedical statements on the talk page of the article. I expect them to be contested and would naturally appreciate more eyes on the issue. --RexxS (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should this be sent to AFD? With the puffery and related sources gone, the coverage left in the article isn't spectacular. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm mightily impressed that this was taken care of before I could even get back from work. Cheers to everyone who contributed. Natureium (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The article has compliant RS for the content so no reason to delete. We do include stubs and shorter articles on Wikipedia.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    Article now accurately says this is little more than a fad. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing list of medical conditions section from Placebo article

    Placebo effect can be produced by inert tablet(sugar pills)

    I believe the section Placebo#List of medical conditions should be removed. Since placebo effects are noted in basically all clinical trials (as mentioned with citations elsewhere in the article), the section effectively amounts to a list of medical conditions that have been studied in a clinical setting, which does not belong on an article specifically on placebos.

    I haven't been able to get any engagement on Talk:Placebo#Removal of section List of medical conditions, apart from a suggestion that I post here, so here I am! Any thoughts (and especially reasons to keep the section?)

    Kavigupta 04:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavigupta (talk • contribs)


    give opinion(gave mine[3])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Another textbook copy and pasting from Wikipedia

    Per Talk:Akathisia#Copyright_issues

    This case is interesting as the book is published by Academic Press / Elsevier in 2010. There was an effort to use the book as a reference to support the text. But we had the text first and it had changed over time on Wikipedia.

    Found a few spots of copy and pasting. Have not looked at further articles this section may have lifted from. Book in question:

    Encyclopedia of movement disorders (1st ed. ed.). Oxford, UK: Academic Press. 2010. ISBN 9780123741059. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    And here it appears Cambridge University Press is copy and pasting from Wikipedia.
    Talk:Alcohol_intoxication#Copy_and_paste
    Zeller, Scott L.; Nordstrom, Kimberly D.; Wilson, Michael P. (2017). The Diagnosis and Management of Agitation. Cambridge University Press. p. 35. ISBN 9781107148123.
    This one is notable as they are the oldest publisher in the world. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Carolina Reaper

    There is a disagreement regarding this set of edits [4] to article as per the discussion: [5] as to whether or not MEDRS applies to the case/claims. Falconjh (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    PubMed reviews are always a good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an interesting dispute for medical editors and WP content because the topic concerns ingestion of a particularly hot (high capsaicin content) chili pepper that resulted in hospitalization of the consumer experiencing "thunderclap" headaches, concurrent with vasospasm of major intracerebral arteries, shown in CT images here as a single BMJ case report. Dispute issues: 1) the pepper is among the hottest known chilis, raising its profile about what might happen in chili-eating contests, but the actual mechanism of arterial spasm is unknown and contrary to what one might expect of capsaicin as a vasodilator, 2) one person eating it experienced a severe medical emergency, 3) which generated news hype and an entry in the Carolina Reaper article of a section entitled, "Health effects" here, 4) Talk page consensus among non-medical editors is that this one case, sensationalized news story is article-worthy, ignoring OR (inferred by the defending editors insisting this one event is encyclopedic), NOTNEWS, RECENTISM, notability and weight, WP:V, MEDRS confirmation, etc. --Zefr (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The key point of the issue is the inference that eating a chilli pepper caused reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome. The plural of anecdote is not data, and a single incident is certainly far too little for it to imply a medical fact. If the article can dispassionately summarise the actual facts (a man ate a very hot chilli pepper in a contest; a few days later he was hospitalised with thunderclap headaches; the neurologists eventually diagnosed RCVS, "probably as a result of eating the chilli"; this was sensationally reported in the popular press), then an argument can be made that it's sufficiently of interest to merit mention in the article. But I find it very difficult to find a form of words that doesn't leave the reader with the impression that eating a chilli caused RCVS, for which there is no significant medical evidence as far as I can see. In fact, the active chemicals are normally considered vasodilators, so any suggestion of causality must be very questionable. --RexxS (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that despite its name (reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome), our article states that the condition can be caused by vasodilation as well as vasoconstriction. Looie496 (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it does, although it never mentions the word 'vasodilation'. But the actual sources it cites are not so certain. The first source,pmid:25138149, is clear that the symptoms are of vasoconstriction, and that "Many conditions and exposures have been linked to RCVS, including vasoactive drugs ...". The other source is equally clear that "The pathophysiology of reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome is unknown." I still think we're better off not giving the impression that there's any respectable evidence that eating a chilli can cause RCVS. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Young blood transfusion 2

    This page could use the attention of experienced medical editors. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sigh. Not only is the article debate a mess, but the topic of young blood transfusion itself is. Natureium (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Nice writeup on editing to Circadian rhythm and Circadian clock in journal

    Was cited in the signpost at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2018-05-24/Recent_research. Mentions @Looie496:.

    • Benjakob, O; Aviram, R (June 2018). "A Clockwork Wikipedia: From a Broad Perspective to a Case Study". Journal of biological rhythms. 33 (3): 233–244. doi:10.1177/0748730418768120. PMID 29665713. Open access icon Published April 17, 2018.

    -- Jytdog (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The authors of the paper were interested in feedback here. Boghog (talk) 07:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They really only mentioned me because my identity is public knowledge. My activities in this article have pretty much been confined to maintaining it. Looie496 (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view maintaining pages is vital work. And one of the things that the paper focused on, was what a good job you all have done over time, updating the article as our knowledge of these systems has grown. It is so great that you all have done that, and also great that it was recognized by the authors of the paper. So thanks for that work! Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And I will add, that this is a particular ax of mine. In my view WMF marketing people generally, especially with regard to outreach, puts way too much emphasis on new page creation and not enough on maintenance, which is SO IMPORTANT but gets none of glamour that people put on new pages. It is one reason I am delighted that this paper a) focused on maintenance and b) found us not wanting. (We got lucky on the latter, as there are topics where we would be found very wanting, if anybody analyzed them this way.) Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, you don't see these articles pop up on google news... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This paper unfortunately contains very sad news about a key editor in that area. I'm updating the relevant pages now.[6] WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I actually contacted arbcom about that before i posted anything as it is an OUTING thing but they said it is fine. I still wasn't going to mention it. But i am glad you did. Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Monomelic amyotrophy

    I have completely revised Monomelic amyotrophy in my sandbox:

    revised Monomelic amyotrophy.

    In about 36 hours I'll replace the old page with my revision, as the new page -- and duck. In the meantime, I appreciate your feedback either on the talk page Talk:MMA Revised or alternately MY talk page User_talk:GeeBee60.

    Thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    commented at user/talk--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Calcification

    Just came across the article calcification and was shocked at what a giant mess it is...definitely needs a lot of improvement. Every morning (there's a halo...) 13:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like it used to be alright, albeit short. Oldid here. Maybe restore to this version and work from here? BazinD (talk · contribs) seems to have done some copyvio and then added the current content after being reverted. --Treetear (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That lead! :O Natureium (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Permalink to that version, for those interested. --Treetear (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    peer review needed

    Wikipedia:Peer review/Monomelic amyotrophy/archive1 have done a few edits as well, needs someone else to look at it, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=843063998"