Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.241.110.18 (talk) at 10:56, 12 October 2009 (→‎Medical Hypotheses). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

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

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

List of archives

Template:WPMED Navigation

Immunizations and Juvenile dermatomyositis: The JDM article says immunizations are a common trigger of JDM.D

The "Juvenile dermatomyositis" article says immunizations are a common trigger of JDM.

Is that currently regarded as likely true? Or does the article require correction or qualification?

Cause

The underlying cause of JDM is unknown. It most likely has a genetic component, as other auto-immune disease tend to run in the families of patients. The disease is usually triggered by a condition that causes immune system activity that does not stop as it should, but the trigger is almost certainly not the cause in most cases. Common triggers include immunizations, infections, injuries, and sunburn.

(I'm an adult DM patient who has done some reading on PM, DM and JDM, and this was the first time I noticed immunizations being mentioned as a possible trigger.

Since lot of the bad press immunizations have gotten has recently been discredited, I want to verify whether immunizations are still regarded as generally accepted triggers of JDM, or if the theory regarding them triggering JDM is obsolete and alarmist.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.74.94 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment of Malaria

Malaria has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Medical Articles on Wikipedia

I was listening to case notes on BBC Radio 4 yesterday (you can listen online via the link), and the presenter (a GP) and Kevin Clauson from Nova Southeastern University were discussing how people get medical information on the internet. He had done some research, and focused specifically on wikipedia, as it is often the first place people go to to get information of this kind. He made the following points:

  • No or very few inaccuracies were noticed on the pages they looked at, but important information was missed out, notably side effects of medication.
  • The way some articles were written was seen as inaccesible to the average reader.

He felt that these two points may lead to either action being taken (such as buying 'drugs' over the internet), which may cause advese effects, or no action being taken when someone may actually have a problem. I of course understand that wikipedia is not a health advice site, but despite this intention, it will inevitably be used as one by many people, and I think this needs to be discussed and possibly adressed more. Jhbuk (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that I think we should, for example, make the medical disclaimer much more prominent on medical articles, or put in place other measures to further discourage people from using wikipedia as a health advisory site. I can't see how your message was relevant. Jhbuk (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is pretty obvious that one should not believe everything they read. How this encyclopedia is created is well known. We all would agree I am sure that it is far from perfect. By the way most clinicians also do not tell patients the side effects of the drugs they prescribe. How many people tell patients with depression / suicidal ideations that 50% of them will get sexual dysfunction from SSRIs? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jhbuk, even putting a note at the top of every page that says "Only a fool would trust an article that any kid in the world can vandalize" won't solve the problem. If the information sounds plausible, and sometimes even if it doesn't, there will be some fool that will believe it.
What you can do to help is to improve as many articles as possible. This increases the facts-to-errors ratio. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am pleased that the accuracy was high, that's great! More accuracy and comprehensive coverage will happen with time...! I once tried to instigate having a disclaimer - but ran into serious opposition. If you take a look at the guideline Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles there are various good reasons to not include them - which would have to be addressed first. A main point oft repeated is that the medical disclaimer is included as part of the 'general disclaimer' at the bottom of each page. I am not sure that everyone that uses wikipedia is aware of the way it is created and even those that do haven't grasped the essential 'anyone can edit' and its implications! So the only solution I can suggest is better highlighting of the way wikipedia is editted and the general disclaimer itself. Dosages are left out and how-to type guides are avoided, what else can be done apart from improve the articles and apply the guidelines ( work in progress )? One possibility would be to include side effects in the Drug box updated by a bot from an official source...but that would be no small task? L∴V 23:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be no small infobox. A single drug can produce a dozen or more important side effects. Some side effects are only relevant in certain circumstances. It takes paragraphs, not a quick little list, to do that properly. (I also wonder: was this person looking in "disease" articles [treatment sections] for the side effects? Or in articles dedicated to the medications? Many of our non-stub medication articles do include side effects.)
Importantly, the drugs themselves are sold with the side effects attached to them, by law, in at least every developed country except Japan. Even if an editor hasn't gotten around to typing up the side effects, the person buying the medication will be given the list anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that the promotion of a disclaimer is necessarily the only way to solve this problem, but that I think a problem nevertheless exists. Apparently, according to the programme, around 3/4 of google medical searches turn to wikipedia
Regarding the points about there being side effect info, you'll hsve to listen yourselves, but Kevin Clauson said that "If it were an exam, wikipedia would have got about 40% [of the important information]."
There are various other points you have each brought up which I think would be best explained to you by listening to the programme (on the link, starting at about 13mins) Jhbuk (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the authors are assuming that every -- or even most -- Google searches are for people looking for self-care information, then they're clearly wrong. I use Google when writing articles, because its search engine is more flexible than Wikipedia's. A lot of people ask Mr Google about friends' and family members' illnesses, because they don't want to sound ignorant when they're talking to them. Students read articles related to school work. An enormous number of people read articles about celebrities' health issues. When Patrick Swayze died, we had an enormous uptick in readers interested in Pancreatic cancer -- but I sincerely doubt that the number of diagnoses went up at all. In fact, the history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages can tell you what medical conditions were in the news each month. These people want to know some general information about the condition, which is our purpose; they are not looking for medical advice.
Their notion that Wikipedia is the only source of information is also obviously false.
And ultimately the solution to the missing information is for you to add it. Wikipedia doesn't claim to be a finished product, but the only way to turn 40% into 41% is for editors like you to add the information that you want to see there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The authors didn't say that most google searches are for people looking for health advice, just that 3/4 of searches which are about medical problems had wikipedia as the top result. They again didn't say that wikipedia is the only source of information, but that it is regarded as the most convenient and most used, and its problems should therefore be examined more closely. My point is not specifically about missing information, but about the general problem of people using wikipedia for medical advice, and I believe this needs to be emphasised more, as the programme (as well as other info I have seen) showed me that there is a significant problem. Jhbuk (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I listened to the BBC programme. The relevant section is a three-minute spot in the middle. Clauson said that Google puts Wikipedia on the first page, not necessarily at the top of the page, three-quarters of the time. He looked at "drug information on Wikipedia". His specific assertion is that side effects are not differentiated according to frequency and severity; this would not surprise me. He guessed that this was due to the personal ignorance of the editor, which suggests that he hasn't grasped the essential difference between Truth™ and verifiability. (The editor isn't supposed to know; the reliable source is supposed to know.)
Clauson makes no claims that people actually use Wikipedia for personal medical advice. In short, I think it's fair to summarize his study as "Wikipedia is not finished" -- and thus we need to get to work, without worrying about hypothetical harms to readers based on foolish and unintended uses of encyclopedic information to the exclusion of all other sources of information.
His other claim (prior study) is that medicine-related articles aren't written at his preferred level of simplicity (which he doesn't name, but is probably the reading level you expect from the median 12 year old, since that's the generally recommended level for patient information leaflets). I'm not inclined to apologize for that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you for claifying - I listened to it 2 days ago but I wasn't making notes.
I think the fact that he made this review and warned people not to use wikipedia for health advice (and indeed the general ideas of the whole programme about internet medical advice), shows that many people do get this sort of information from the internet (I recall they estimated that around 80% of internet users have done so) and from wikipedia. The reason I made this new section was because with so many people inevitably using this site for that sort of purpose (most, of course, not taking the information at face value, unverified) then there will be some who get the wrong impression (in fact most likely to be those who can't understand the articles in the first place). Jhbuk (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the published article on this:
Clauson KA, Polen HH, Kamel Boulos MN, Dzenowagis JH (2008). "Scope, completeness, and accuracy of drug Iinformation in Wikipedia" (PDF). Ann Pharmacother. 42: 1814. doi:10.1345/aph.1L474. PMID 19017825. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
And here's a Reuters article:
Wikipedia often omits important drug information: study --Dyuku (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, the Reuters article says that "drug company representatives have been caught deleting information from Wikipedia entries that make their drugs look unsafe." Dyuku (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Kevin Clauson published an article comparing Wikipedia's coverage of medications (unfavorably) to output from Medscape's online drug-information database. Read all about it. Presumably, he hit the same notes during the radio interview. Some people (me) objected that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a compilation of package inserts, so the comparison was faulty at baseline. After all, WP:MEDMOS specifically tells us to "avoid cloning drug formularies", which I think is excellent advice. For God's sake; one of the questions on which Wikipedia was graded was: "What is the dose of fosamprenavir in a treatment-naïve patient with severe hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh score between 10 and 12)?" General interest works like Wikipedia tend to withhold those sorts of technical details, while physician-oriented resources might provide them. Surely a more apt comparator for Wikipedia would have been, like, another encyclopedia?

Sure, the study was picked up by some major media outlets, with predictable headlines like "Wikipedia sucks at medical stuff" (ok, that's a paraphrase). But the devil is in the details. According to the Reuters article, Wikipedia fails to note that St. John's wort can interact with darunavir. Sounds a bit nitpicky, but then again, our article has noted since at least 2005 that St. John's wort interacts with protease inhibitors, of which darunavir is an example. Conclusions: 1) the media coverage is unfortunate bad publicity, but not particularly diligent, 2) the study results themselves seem a bit questionable to me - they dinged us for omitting information which we didn't actually omit, in one of the few cases I've bothered to double-check.

Maybe the best advice was given by two brilliant young researchers in PMID 19390105: Wikipedia should be read cautiously and amended enthusiastically. MastCell Talk 22:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General Question - is there a guide on how to deal with adverse events for a drug

It looks like one of the major complaints of the study is that in general the wikipedia drug articles don't include enough information on the side effects of drugs. Does this WikiProject (or any other related Wikiproject) have any sort of guide for how to the side effects of a drug should generally be stated in a drug article? Should we? Remember (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's general guidance in WP:MEDMOS:

A long list of side effects is largely useless without some idea of which are common or serious. It can be illuminating to compare the drug with others in its class, or with older and newer drugs. Do not include dose and titration information except when they are notable or necessary for the discussion in the article. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual or textbook.

Granted, that's a bit vague, so maybe it's worth trying to flesh out some more specific guidelines. MastCell Talk 18:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wikipedia should make an effort to follow the fine example of Medscape and WebMD, and include at least as much information on the negative drugs side effects as they do. After all, whether we like it or not, lots of people will consult Wikipedia about the drugs they were prescribed, and errors of omission in this area can certainly be dangerous. --Dyuku (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We want to do better than those options: we want to provide informative context instead of a cut-and-paste copy of every suspected adverse effect ever reported. Most articles about medications link to a monograph and/or an official website in at least one place, so people can get a decontextualized and legally approved (for whichever country the editor was in: there are occasionally significant differences) list of adverse effects without much trouble.
Consequently, providing a laundry list of side effects isn't really all that helpful for the even slightly diligent "patient", but it can actually be harmful and misleading to both patients and the general reader by making all named side effects appear equally likely and equally important. Additionally, lists tend to grow inappropriately, typically through the addition of unverifiable personal experiences and through duplicating items (itching = pruritis; feeling tired = fatigue; upset stomach = nausea...), which has the effect of inappropriately overemphasizing an effect that might actually be quite rare. We don't always watch these articles well enough to catch these things.
It's much more useful to be able to describe an adverse effect: Is it temporary or permanent? Is it common or rare? Is it serious or mild? Are there other risk factors, such as kidney function or liver function? What's the most common issue? What's the most serious? What's the median patient's experience? Unfortunately, our sources don't always provide that information, especially for newer medications. Your physician isn't required to comply with WP:V and WP:OR, so s/he can say "Most of my patients have no trouble with this" or "it's not unusual for kids to vomit on this antibiotic" -- but we don't have that freedom, so we occasionally have to provide no information instead of potentially wrong information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think adding a link to the drug monograph to the wiki drug info box would be a good idea. All the side effect are on the monograph.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is getting nearer the mark - how about a side effect/adverse effects section with a link to the adverse effects in the external article, and include the link it in any existing 'side effects' sections of articles we have it covered. We could also link the title to a page with specifically states our coverage of side effects, i.e. may include notable or common effects - but not all ? L∴V 10:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that. That would get the information easily available to the reader, providing it is in the infobox and from a very good source (webMd etc), without turning wikipedia itself into a health website or cluttering up the page. The title link in the infobox may also further discourage people from using wikipedia as a health website (although I don't think it would not do a huge amount, as people probably wouldn't click it very often, but it would make the info mor available). I would personally be in favour of adding a prominent link in a seperate title at the bottom of each infobox to the general medical disclaimer, which I think would work better than this, as it would be more noticeable and more general. Jhbuk (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which country's monograph are you planning to link? They're different, you know -- and not just in trivial ways. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We already have something very similar for Daily Med -- see Template_talk:Drugbox/Archive_4#Revisit_of_this_issue. --Arcadian (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Arcadian - I suspected the issue had been looked at before, whatamidoing - would linking to both EU and US drug labelling be enough? I see that the labelling info can be tricky to navigate on following these links - would we actually be able to have a section that could link specifically to adverse effects ? L∴V 19:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Every medication should have a section on adverse effects and possibily on toxicity in overdose IMO aswell as a link to the monograph ( I think two should be enough ).Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LV, It's not clear to me whether there's really a single pan-European label: EMEA doesn't exactly replace the national regulatory bodies. Certainly a couple of English-language labels would be reasonable choices. We might on occasion choose them for their diversity (e.g., if the US and EU agree, but Australia or Canada does something different, then we should maximize the spread.) The links can't go in the text/actual adverse events section: there aren't supposed to be any external links in the text of an article. Your choices are either the infobox or the external links section. (And the references section!)
Most of these are available as pdfs, which don't lend themselves to links that point the reader directly at a specific subsection. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general listing side effects, in terms of being comprehensive, is not what we should be about (we go out of our way not to offer medical advice and the closer that we do, the greater the risk someone decides to treat it as such and file a law suit against someone - it wont get very far, but will ruin the relevant editors' month worrying over this and getting the mess sorted). Drugs are supposed to be prescribed having been discussed by the prescribing doctor, administration advice given by the dispensing pharmacist and supplied with patient information leaflet which give all the side effects any patient could ever want. Also if for no better reason that most side effects apply across a group and I do not wish to see lengthy discussion of say penicillin allergy listed at Phenoxymethylpenicillin, amoxicillin, ampicillin, flucloxacillin etc. I think whilst a link to the main group section on side effects (penicillin#side effects in this case) is fine, then individual drug articles should list just specific or interesting details only relevant to that one drug (eg if all but doxycycline tetracyclines bind to milk and thus are ineffective if taken with dairy products, or flucloxacillin rarely causing cholestatic jaundice unlike other commonly used penicillins). The {{Drugbox}} already provides links to EU's EMEA (pitty no open links to British National Formulary) and US's FDS or DailyMed sources (see Template:Drugbox/doc#Licensing_information), and for consistency these should be defined if easily located. If there are equivalent national databases of licensing details (Australian, NZ etc) then let me know and we can set up licence_AU & licence_NZ parameters to allow unobstrusive external links, but such indepth detail, IMHO, should not be duplicated here per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. David Ruben Talk 01:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean something like this (Canada)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the problem is we want to write articles which can't be used for self medication, to do this we leave out such information - but a common complaint is that they aren't fully comprehensive! As Mastcell pointed out, maybe we need to make the guideline a bit more robust. I have another option to consider - it seems any linking to side effects for a particular drug goes against keeping such info out of articles, so how about not having links for each drugs effects. Instead have a 'adverse/side effects' section at end of drug box which is purely a link to a new article. This article could discuss side effects in general, the different labelling information across the world ( maybe external links toofficial bodies), why wikipedia doesn't include side effects in general ( interactions / patient history / ... ) , a carefullly worded part of when we do mention side effects in articles and a link to medical disclaimer maybe. I think that should cover us - 'yes side effects aren't covered - but this is why...' hopefully researchers shouldn't be able to miss it and we can help point out the limitations of articles to readers with the intention of using them for self-medication. L∴V 14:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, we want to include adverse effects information. In prose. In the middle of the regular article. Under the section title ==Adverse effects==. With proper context, giving WP:DUE weight to adverse effects, both in terms of the overall article content and also in relationship to each other. Without any disclaimers. What we don't want is this:

Headache Asthenia Cardiovascular Palpitation Vasodilation Dermatologic Sweating Rash Gastrointestinal Nausea Dry Mouth Constipation Diarrhea Decreased Appetite Flatulence Oropharynx Disorder Dyspepsia Musculoskeletal Myopathy Myalgia Myasthenia Nervous System Somnolence Dizziness Insomnia Tremor Nervousness Anxiety Paresthesia Libido Decreased Drugged Feeling Confusion Respiration Yawn Special Senses Blurred Vision Taste Perversion Urogenital System Ejaculatory Disturbance, Other Male Genital Disorders, Urinary Frequency Urination Disorder Female Genital Disorders.
Other side effects include: Body as a Whole: Infrequent: Allergic reaction, chills, face edema, malaise, neck pain; rare: Adrenergic syndrome, cellulitis, moniliasis, neck rigidity, pelvic pain, peritonitis, sepsis, ulcer. Cardiovascular System: Frequent: Hypertension, tachycardia; infrequent: Bradycardia, hematoma, hypotension, migraine, postural hypotension, syncope; rare: Angina pectoris, arrhythmia nodal, atrial fibrillation, bundle branch block, cerebral ischemia, cerebrovascular accident, congestive heart failure, heart block, low cardiac output, myocardial infarct, myocardial ischemia, pallor, phlebitis, pulmonary embolus, supraventricular extrasystoles, thrombophlebitis, thrombosis, varicose vein, vascular headache, ventricular extrasystoles. Digestive System: Infrequent: Bruxism, colitis, dysphagia, eructation, gastritis, gastroenteritis, gingivitis, glossitis, increased salivation, liver function tests abnormal, rectal hemorrhage, ulcerative stomatitis; rare: Aphthous stomatitis, bloody diarrhea, bulimia, cardiospasm, cholelithiasis, duodenitis, enteritis, esophagitis, fecal impactions, fecal incontinence, gum hemorrhage, hematemesis, hepatitis, ileitis, ileus, intestinal obstruction, jaundice, melena, mouth ulceration, peptic ulcer, salivary gland enlargement, sialadenitis, stomach ulcer, stomatitis, tongue discoloration, tongue edema, tooth caries. Endocrine System: Rare: Diabetes mellitus, goiter, hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism, thyroiditis. Hemic and Lymphatic Systems: Infrequent: Anemia, leukopenia, lymphadenopathy, purpura; rare: Abnormal erythrocytes, basophilia, bleeding time increased, eosinophilia, hypochromic anemia, iron deficiency anemia, leukocytosis, lymphedema, abnormal lymphocytes, lymphocytosis, microcytic anemia, monocytosis, normocytic anemia, thrombocythemia, thrombocytopenia. Metabolic and Nutritional: Frequent: Weight gain; infrequent: Edema, peripheral edema, SGOT increased, SGPT increased, thirst, weight loss; rare: Alkaline phosphatase increased, bilirubinemia, BUN increased, creatinine phosphokinase increased, dehydration, gamma globulins increased, gout, hypercalcemia, hypercholesteremia, hyperglycemia, hyperkalemia, hyperphosphatemia, hypocalcemia, hypoglycemia, hypokalemia, hyponatremia, ketosis, lactic dehydrogenase increased, non-protein nitrogen (NPN) increased. Musculoskeletal System: Frequent: Arthralgia; infrequent: Arthritis, arthrosis; rare: Bursitis, myositis, osteoporosis, generalized spasm, tenosynovitis, tetany. Nervous System: Frequent: Emotional lability, vertigo; infrequent: Abnormal thinking, alcohol abuse, ataxia, dystonia, dyskinesia, euphoria, hallucinations, hostility, hypertonia, hypesthesia, hypokinesia, incoordination, lack of emotion, libido increased, manic reaction, neurosis, paralysis, paranoid reaction; rare: Abnormal gait, akinesia, antisocial reaction, aphasia, choreoathetosis, circumoral paresthesias, convulsion, delirium, delusions, diplopia, drug dependence, dysarthria, extrapyramidal syndrome, fasciculations, grand mal convulsion, hyperalgesia, hysteria, manic-depressive reaction, meningitis, myelitis, neuralgia, neuropathy, nystagmus, peripheral neuritis, psychotic depression, psychosis, reflexes decreased, reflexes increased, stupor, torticollis, trismus, withdrawal syndrome. Respiratory System: Infrequent: Asthma, bronchitis, dyspnea, epistaxis, hyperventilation, pneumonia, respiratory flu; rare: Emphysema, hemoptysis, hiccups, lung fibrosis, pulmonary edema, sputum increased, stridor, voice alteration. Skin and Appendages: Frequent: Pruritus; infrequent: Acne, alopecia, contact dermatitis, dry skin, ecchymosis, eczema, herpes simplex, photosensitivity, urticaria; rare: Angioedema, erythema nodosum, erythema multiforme, exfoliative dermatitis, fungal dermatitis, furunculosis; herpes zoster, hirsutism, maculopapular rash, seborrhea, skin discoloration, skin hypertrophy, skin ulcer, sweating decreased, vesiculobullous rash. Special Senses: Frequent: Tinnitus; infrequent: Abnormality of accommodation, conjunctivitis, ear pain, eye pain, keratoconjunctivitis, mydriasis, otitis media; rare: Amblyopia, anisocoria, blepharitis, cataract, conjunctival edema, corneal ulcer, deafness, exophthalmos, eye hemorrhage, glaucoma, hyperacusis, night blindness, otitis externa, parosmia, photophobia, ptosis, retinal hemorrhage, taste loss, visual field defect. Urogenital System: Infrequent: Amenorrhea, breast pain, cystitis, dysuria, hematuria, menorrhagia, nocturia, polyuria, pyuria, urinary incontinence, urinary retention, urinary urgency, vaginitis; rare: Abortion, breast atrophy, breast enlargement, endometrial disorder, epididymitis, female lactation, fibrocystic breast, kidney calculus, kidney pain, leukorrhea, mastitis, metrorrhagia, nephritis, oliguria, salpingitis, urethritis, urinary casts, uterine spasm, urolith, vaginal hemorrhage, vaginal moniliasis

That's "the side effects" for a single, widely prescribed medication. This is not a good example of encyclopedic writing. This will not fit in an infobox. This should not be anywhere in the mainspace, not even in a subarticle, because we do not want to replicate the drug formulary lists, either in the article or in a subarticle. What we want is much closer to what our article currently says.
The researchers in question don't seem to believe that replicating this information is part of Wikipedia's mission. They merely believe that average (and below-average) readers might click on a Wikipedia link in search of this information, and then be so stupid that they would interpret the absence of information about adverse effects as a definitive statement that no adverse effects have ever been reported.
Perhaps they're right, but I have a higher opinion of our readers' intelligence than that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Tis a good example whatamidoing, and I am with you on all counts - just throwing in ideas. Maybe the problem lies in the disclaimer being a general coveral and researchers not reading MEDMOS wherein lies the guidelines for what we do cover. I've reformed my suggestion then: have adverse effects (and dosage?) sections in the drugbox which just link to a page as suggested before ( drop the disclaimer bit), AND the sections in the article ( I didn't really mean to drop them previous idea anyway). That would then explain the effects listed in articles and also cover articles where we have found no real need to list them, whilst hopefully giving a hint that there are medmos guidelines. ? L∴V 16:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Putting the above laundry list of side effects anywhere in the mainspace is WP:NOT okay. Wikipedia is not complete exposition of all possible details, not even in subarticles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - wrong end of the stick.. what I meant was a single, generic page, that ALL drug boxes point to. I was picturing something like this, but obviously better than that ! L∴V 19:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't think that a link to another disclaimer would be helpful, and I (separately) don't think you could get consensus for it because of WP:NDA's popularity.
It might be possible to add something similar to MEDMOS, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with WhatamIdoing. Each article should have a section on adverse effects. These effects should have reliable sources, similar in format to the article "linezolid". "Laundry lists" such as those in the British National Formulary, exemplified by WhatamIdoing above, are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Our existing guidelines (WP:MOSMED) are fine. I'm not unduly concerned by Clauson's comments. His article has flaws, as demonstrated by David Ruben. I regard the Wikipedia community of editors (and WikiProject Medicine editors in particular) as more authoritative than Clauson and Reuters. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am content that the issue has been explored. Just the matter of the wording in MEDMOS may be left hanging. Whatamidoing, by 'adding something similar' I am assuming you mean adding more info to MEDMOS and not adding a link to it from drugbox? ( Although maybe we could add a link into the project banner ?) L∴V 09:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that editors (not readers) would benefit from a more complete explanation of our standards, then you might want to propose an expansion of WP:MEDMOS#Drugs, which is where MEDMOS addresses this issue. I am certain that a proposal that looks like a disclaimer won't be accepted, but advice to editors on how to write a better article has a reasonable chance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we should see if we can clarify it a little - will take to the MEDMOS talk now. L∴V 12:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Medmos in project banner

I am concluding that we do have a sufficient method of dealing with adverse effects, highlighting them or describing the fully is wrong, adding disclaimers is wrong, just the message is not getting through to researchers / readers completely. Maybe some clarification of the section in Medmos may be possible - but it essentially works... The only idea I have left unaddressed is including a link to medmos in the project banner placed on talk pages - it should increase the chances of it being read - and may as a side effect help new editors to medical articles.

I propose we add a link to it something like:

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine which has some guidelines for editing medicine related articles. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctors'

Fin. L∴V 12:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. How about something modeled after {{Blp}}?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Within common sense, it should follow the Project's Manual of Style and adhere to specific guidelines on referencing. Please visit the project page for details, or ask questions at the doctors' mess.
—Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parietoöccipital fissure?

Quick question, is the Parietoöccipital fissure correct or should it be the Parietooccipital (or Parieto-occipital) fissure, as it is the fissure between the Occipital lobe and the Parietal lobe. Regards, Captain n00dle T/C 22:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are valid from the 'grammatical' perspective, but we usually follow the choice of Terminologia Anatomica, which appears to be "Parieto-occipital sulcus". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply, I have never seen the ö used before in any english text book. Should I move the page and create a redirect? Regards, Captain n00dle T/C 23:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, moving it would be appropriate. (The original page was created from the spelling in Gray's. The "ö" was common in English back then, but now only The New Yorker still uses a diaeresis for consecutive vowels pronounced separately.) --Arcadian (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

See Talk:America’s_Healthy_Future_Act#Merger_proposal for anyone interested. The Squicks (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scrupulosity

I'm traveling and can't stay on top of the IP editing occurring at Scrupulosity; would anyone else have time to watch it ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching it but would not mind another pair of eyes as well, as I'm a bit overloaded right now. Eubulides (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears an editor in the same IP range has been going at the equivalent article on pl:, but rather more extensively. User:Filip em seems to be watching there. I've watchlisted here.LeadSongDog come howl 18:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting over Guidelines at Wikiproject Economics

Sorry for crossposting here, but over at the talkpage of Wikiproject Economics we've been trying to hammer out a set of guidelines similar to what exists at WP:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). There's been a lot of drama, with threats to go up to Arbcom (which is silly for a content dispute). Anyway, I wonder if anyone here knows how WP:MEDICINE managed to hammer out your (excellent) set of guidelines, as surely there was no lack of contention here. Can can you detail a little the process you followed? That may suggest a way forward for us. Thanks, LK (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might look at WP:POLICY, being sure to read the footnotes (where nearly all of the practical information has been hidden). The 'ideal' process outlined there was essentially my effort to write down what happened with WP:MEDMOS (before my time) and WP:MEDRS. You may find the draft at WP:Policy/Procedure somewhat more readable than the current version. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An entry for Wikisurgery in Wikipedia

We have just obtained an entry for wikisurgery, the online surgical encyclopedia on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiSurgery).

We already provide some information to Wikipedia eg via external links to the article on the subject of Scalpel. We have a huge resource of unique operative surgical scripts and online surgical skills training programs.

Is there anyone out there who can advise how we can best link this information to Wikipedia?

Michael Harpur Edwards 86.136.33.136 (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting project and I believe similar ideas have been tried before, but often fail due to lack of popularity. I hope that isn't the case for you, but nonetheless it's a valid concern. I'm curious as to why you've felt it necessary to create a new Wiki for surgical matters, when plenty of surgical information already exists in some form or another here on Wikipedia. Could you not combine the information you have with the articles we already have? Wikipedia is vastly more popular and well-known to the public, and so your resources would probably go further here. I'm interested to hear your response. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  16:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WikiSurgery is too close to a how-to manual for its contents to be present in Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We debated this extensively a little while ago. It's a great use of a wiki, but not the kind of content that we could use on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 19:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need someone who is fussy with citations to help on Rumination syndrome

Hello. Looking for some help on getting an article to FA. I need someone who is VERY fussy about citations being used correctly and who can point out what is correct citation and what is WP:SYN and WP:OR. Any help or peer reviewing would be especially helpful. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eubulides (talk · contribs) can probably help you. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already spoke with him. He agreed to do a review but said that he is busy in RL and that it may not be done for a while. Two sets of eyes always trumps one set IMO. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Correct" (according to some outside entity) isn't supposed to matter. "Internally consistent" is supposed to be all that matters. If every single citation uses the {{citation}} template, with the same parameters each time, then you shouldn't have any problems at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But Floydian is asking about "correct" as opposed to Synthesis or Original Research... - Hordaland (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correctomundo. I feel I've correctly and consistently applied citations. I was referring to finding out if my citations verify the information I am claiming on the article. Most of the citations are fully available online, and only two or three are hard copies that I have that only an abstract is available for online. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 12:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filling template for references

I found another filling template. I remember reading a discussion about how the one from Diberri is non-functional-- though, I dunno if any replacement was been mentioned.
Any how, the one I found is here: http://toolserver.org/~holek/cite-gen/index.php.
To get the pubmed reference - you need to select (1) "Library of Congress" (2) paste in the PMID, and (3) click "Send".
Cheers! Nephron  T|C 03:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent tool, just what I was looking for! Thanks. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are Epidemiology terms in our scope?

I just tagged Vector (epidemiology) as a med-stub and with the project tag, which was reverted. In general should epidemiology terms be within this project's scope. I was also looking at Fomite (term) as well. I'm not planning on a tagging spree, just wanted to get some feedback on this. -Optigan13 (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the editor why s/he removed the tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems Wickey-nl (talk · contribs) was objecting not to the medical scope, but to the classification as a stub. I've left a note on their talk page about removing other projects' templates. P.S. the article needs verification of its only source, and also needs more sources, can anyone here help? --RexxS (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what "verification of the source" means in this context. It's a standard textbook supporting a standard definition. The likelihood of it being wrong is very slim. Perhaps the editor who added that tag meant to say "It'd be nice if we had a page number"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're right, although the editor who added the {{verify source}} tag was Optigan13, who started this thread. Are you able to check that textbook and find a page number? Then we could improve the reference, remove the tag and reclassify as start-class. --RexxS (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the intro line using my epi dictionary, and asked for just the page number on the second book and to back up a similar description. I was looking for clarification on the whether the description was accurate based on that text, since wind and water as examples of vectors is incorrect. It's good to see this is an issue of assessment and not scope. In hindsight it was a start class article, but I have a tendency to assess quickly, and err on the low side. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wickey-nl's first edit (on the English Wikipedia, at least) was just ten days ago. Presumably s/he didn't know what else to do.
Optigan, I think that wind and water are fairly often considered vectors by some people, although it's kind of sloppy. It would be interesting to see what the published definitions say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding AMWA stub, creating article for AMWA Journal

Hello all, I'm a new user and I'm interested in expanding the stub for the American Medical Writers Association article and also creating a new article for the AMWA Journal, the Association's official publication. I'm thinking this will take a couple of weeks to accomplish. I wanted to follow protocols here and put this idea out to the group before I make my changes. Feedback and advice are appreciated!

Cirrus Editor (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like adding content is the best way to start. I have added the AMWA article to the list of those I watch, as I will with the Journal article. I would not worry too much about style guidelines at this early stage—they are not that complicated and can easily be implemented later. You can contact me here any time. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 16:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've suggested on your talk page that you can make a sub-page in your user space to work on the article and experiment without worrying about making mistakes. Either way, don't forget to cite your sources - there are plenty of editors here who are willing to help out if asked! --RexxS (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all, I've created a new page for AMWA on my own user space at User:Cirrus_Editor/American_Medical_Writers_Association. Please review and provide feedback if you'd like before I post it live. —Preceding undated comment added 21:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC). Cirrus Editor (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virus on MainPage

The virus article will appear on the main page tomorrow (5th). Pop it in your watchlist and help defend against vandalism and/or answer queries on the talk page. Colin°Talk 21:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NavBox is needed

A virtual greeting to anyone who will read the classification and create a good navbox with all the 20+ subtypes of human corneal dystrophies! --CopperKettle 07:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go, brb Captain n00dle T/C 21:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this anywhere near? User:Captain-n00dle/Sandbox4. If you would like subtypes, could yiy find a list for me, I'm only an ickle medical student so don't know them ^_^ Captain n00dle T/C 21:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Big thanks, Cap! The classification is in the "external links" at the bottom of the article. Best regards, --CopperKettle 05:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The navbox in the sandbox looks cool to me. (0: --CopperKettle 05:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little question on vocabulary: what is "ickle"? A typo? Haven't found a definition in my En-Ru dictionary right away, web search brings up "icicle".. o_O --CopperKettle 05:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found this one.. means small, as I'd guessed. ^_^ --CopperKettle 05:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologise for the slow reply copper, it is a very colloquial term meaning little (ickle phonetically sounds like little) hope that that made sense! and I have moved the template here: {{Human corneal dystrophy}}, I shall add it to all the articles soon and add categories, documentation and things. Regards, Captain n00dle T/C 22:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Right, I put the categories into the navbox. I think that it is right according to [1] but can I ask, are these three terms interchangeable:

Cheers! Captain n00dle T/C 00:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh also, Epithelial recurrent erosion dystrophy, Grayson-Wilbrandt corneal dystrophy, Central cloudy dystrophy of Francxois and Pre-Descemet corneal dystrophy are all red links, and I don't know if they should be blue but they were on the list :-) Captain n00dle T/C 00:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks are generally excluded from both navboxes and See also, so I would not add these. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I hid them in the template using <!-- and --> Regards, Captain n00dle T/C 19:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New article

I am making a new article regarding Limb salvage surgery. If someone could proof read for me that would be very helpful. Since I had this type of operation performed on me I know a lot about it. - BennyK95 - Talk 19:14 ,October 5 2009 (UTC)

Is this navbox needed

I thought that it would be a good idea to have a navbox for the shoulder joint, as, at the moment, there is a separate one for the bones, ligaments and muscles.

I think I have made a good attempt here: User:Captain-n00dle/Sandbox3 please feel free to comment with suggestions.

I don't know if it is even needed so if you feel it is/isn't then please do :-)

Captain n00dle T/C 21:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for chemicals?

Icodextrin is a stub for a peritoneal dialysis solution, or it's the molecule dissolved in the solution. I'm not sure what the notability factor is for pharmaceuticals. Any suggestions or comments? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, try asking at WP:PHARM? You may well have already done so, I just can't be bothered to check ;) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  15:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will do. I keep forgetting about those guys... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or just forget notability and improve the article ad lib. That's how Wikipedia became great. - Draeco (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a much better idea. I wish I had thought of that. Could I then beg a favour - anyone willing to forward me some articles. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[2] that may help, its where I turn to first for drug info, regards, Captain n00dle T/C 20:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portacaval anastomosis

Please check two issues at Portacaval anastomosis: this edit introduced random words and should presumably be reverted; this edit claims the title is incorrectly spelled. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted both. Neither spelling is actually wrong, but the prior spelling is (by far) more common. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help Translating

Hello! Doesn anyone know enough about complement to translate the lables of this image on this page. Then I can get them sorted. Thanks! Captain n00dle T/C 11:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Kompleks konwertazy C5" is "C5 convertase".
"Woda lizozym antybiotyki" is (I suppose) "water lysozyme antibiotics", although this doesn't make sense. The label "ATP" is unhelpful, as is "aminokwasy" - "aminoacids".
"Lizowana blona" is the "cell membrane".
In my opinion, the picture would be better without the misleading labels on the pore created by the MAC. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The figure shows what goes through a particular cell membrane channel. Those mysterious word triplets are 2 lists of 3 items, not 2 phrases: water / lysozyme / antibiotics go one way, and potassium / ATP / amino acids go the other. ATP in this context is adenosine triphosphate. --Una Smith (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lists indicate diffusion through the membrane attack complex. Those lists are (in my opinion) not helpful to the reader. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys that's brilliant =D Captain n00dle T/C 18:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool cap

Good morning. This morning I read an article in the news about Cool cap saving the life of a baby whose mother died during delivery. I googled it and found quite a few sources so I created an article. I'd like to include the Cool cap in the article about Cerebral_palsy under a section about prevention during delivery of infants, but I am not an expert by any means and do not feel I am capable of writing such a section in a medical article or know if it even belongs there. It could also possibly belong in Cerebral_hypoxia. I have no affiliation or WP:COI, just creating an article I felt had notability. Can I get an expert opinion and/or help? If you can, please also provide support on expanding the Cool cap article that I've marked as a stub.--TParis00ap (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Cool caps" were/are used by patients undergoing chemotherapy to prevent loss of hair. Basically, the vasoconstriction means that the drug only reaches the hair in minute quantities, preventing loss. This should be in the article, I will perhaps do some research, regards, Captain n00dle T/C 20:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a quick google search and I found this [3]. I'll start there about the chemotherapy and prevention of hair loss.--TParis00ap (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added the bit about chemotherapy, although I am sure it can be expanded. I also added a bit about side effects. I would really appreciate if an expert could quality check. I have no medical background, expertise, or interest. I can't understand half the stuff I wrote in the article. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The short chemotherapy section looks fine to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it looks good, I will see if I can add anything as well :-) Captain n00dle T/C 10:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition

Could I add Limb salvage surgery to this? - BennyK95 - Talk 22:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That is weird! It wont display it here. The thing at the bottom of the Hip replacement article is what I meant. - BennyK95 - Talk 23:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean Template:Operations and other procedures on the musculoskeletal system? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe that Limb salvage surgery falls under that catergory. Don't you? - BennyK95 - Talk 00:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps it fits better under Template:Muscle/soft tissue procedures. What do you (and anyone else) think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused as to why amputation is listed as a soft tissue surgery. Surely since you're literally cutting back a whole structure (including the muscle and bone), it's a musculoskeletal surgery? Limb salvage surgery on the other hand could probably fit in either. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  07:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it fits best in both. Can we have a vote? - BennyK95 - Talk 23:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to:meta:Polls are evil
This page is a soft redirect.
Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh..Okay I will add it to the infoboxes. If anyone objects please notify me on my Usertalk:BennyK95.- BennyK95 - Talk 23:05, October 9 2009 (UTC)

Citation bot altering citation style on medical articles

An issue which should have been easily resolved persists; for the history read from here down. Although three editors have now addressed this (Eubulides, ImperfectlyInformed, and me), the situation continues. Citation guidelines say not to alter citation style without consensus (WP:CITE#HOW), medical articles use the Diberri template filler style on authors, but one editor persists in running the bot on medical articles and filling in up to nine authors, which clutters the text, in spite of being asked to stop and in one case, reinstating the edits even after reverted once and without discussing the reinstatement on talk. This is surprising in light of the date delinking ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wholeheartedly agree, I've posted a comment on the second thread on the issue. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  15:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's got to be a bug. WP:MEDMOS#Citing medical sources clearly calls out the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals form of six authors plus et al. when there are more than six. Nothing wrong with adding them to the wikitext so the COiNS metadata is inclusive, but the template should only render it per MEDMOS. The template documentation says up to nine authors, but I seem to recall that there was a way to tell it to use fewer. Am I imagining things?LeadSongDog come howl 17:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is slightly off-topic, but I have a somewhat hazy impression that the latest update to the WP:FOOTNOTES software would allow us to easily move all of the full citations to the end, so that you could have just <ref name=Whatever /> in the text, and dump the long version with the template in the <references />. This might make everyday editing simpler (no lines of citation templates in your way). I believe that it also signals 'orphan' refs, which would help with maintenance.

Would this problem (the increased length of the scary template) be mitigated by re-formatting the articles to take advantage of this new system? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but that citation style also has problems, because it requires two edits to add citations, and not all editors will understand or do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that most editors will be able to sort it out -- we do a lot of "match whatever's already there" as it is, and this is just a new pattern -- but do you know whether it's possible to use both systems in the same article (without screwing things up for the reader)? If so, then standard article maintenance (e.g., moving the cite template for the person adding a source) should be sufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know; I've not yet seen the new system in action. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple requests seem not to have been heeded (and bot paused to address issues) - (whilst this at Aspenia triggered myself to see what is occurring), the fact that the bot automatically works its way through articles means it will eventually hit all medical articles, means IMHO that pausing required - I've blocked bot for now. David Ruben Talk 00:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, the bot misbehaved by finding errors in the input metadata and fixing them, yet they got reverted for wikitext format reasons? This doesn't sound very sensible. manually corrected. What am I missing? LeadSongDog come howl 05:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Petechia, Purpura, and Ecchymosis w/ Bruise (contusion)

Would it be appropriate for me to merge petechia, purpura, and ecchymosis as subcategories of contusions? [The National Library of Medicine - Medical Subject Headings] indicates that ecchymosis should be differentiated from contusion, as does some of the literature, but nowhere is the rationale behind this explained, and a large portion of the literature makes no differentiation. Based on the mechanisms, I don't see any difference personally. Any opinions? --Timemutt (talk) 05:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contusions [C21.866.248] is listed in MESH as being under "Wounds and Injuries [C21.866]" and is from "Disorders of Environmental Origin" [C21]- i.e. it is always has a traumatic component (obvious can be worse if on warfarin or clotting disorder, but the individual bruise will have some form of physical minor/major event). Ecchymosis [C23.550.414.625] is only due to Hemorrhage [C23.550.414] which is a Pathologic Processes [C23.550], and so an internal body problem (small normal breaks in capillary walls not getting plugged by platelets if these are low, or disruption to blood vessel walls which presumeably is how non-blanching purpura appears in say menigococcal septicaemia. Whilst both are blood where it should not be, I think oversimplistic to merge as subcatagories of each over, although clearly large overlaps (perhaps both members of Extravasation - but note that term also applies to non-blood other liquids too). Similarly one might wonder about putting skin "cuts" under "trauma", but splits in the skin might occur in eczema without really outside physical injury of blunt or sharp (sticks, glass, knife or scalpel blade in surgery) trauma would cause.David Ruben Talk 07:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A paragraph or two that explains the differences between these terms should probably be placed in every one of those articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Ganfyd" AfD

I have submitted "Ganfyd" to AfD. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image quality (?)

I've been uploading images to the Wikicommons. When adding 'em to Wikipedia, I've noticed that the image quality seems to be severely degraded -- something that has happened in the last week or two. Does anyone know whether this is temporary? Nephron  T|C 02:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, it seems to be just on the English language version of WP; I concluded this after comparing images of a Mallory body and cirrhosis in the German and English version of WP. Nephron  T|C 03:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

etiology

I've encountered this word in a few articles and replaced it with "cause" or words to that effect in the hopes of de-jargonizing the article, on the principle that I'm a well-read and well-educated fellow and if I'd needed to look up the word, there must be many others who didn't understand it either. When I look around, though, I see the word "etiology" is used a lot in Wikipedia. Is there any reason I shouldn't be doing these replacements? Examples [4], [5] Gruntler (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Its widespread use probably reflects the fact that those articles were edited by editors comfortable with that jargon, unaware that the word is not common. See also WP:MEDMOS. Colin°Talk 19:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look out for "aetiology" too. Strictly speaking etiology is the study of causes, but it is most often used simply to mean "cause" or "causes". See, "particularly when MRSA is documented as the etiology" (PMID: 19766886) for example; it just means "caused" as in "especially when caused by MRSA" (my translation). Graham Colm Talk 20:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Five-year survival rate

Five-year survival rate is so far short of adequate, I hesitate to link to it from other articles. Does anyone here feel inspired to improve it? --Una Smith (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be merged with survival rate. There's not really anything magic about the 'five year' part. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main page might need watching

Water fluoridation is currently on the Main Page. It's a controversial topic and if you could watch it for the usual sort of vandalism in the next 24 hours, it'd be appreciated. Eubulides (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Hypotheses

Any input on the reliability of this journal would be welcomed on the reliable sources noticeboard, here [6]--Slp1 (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

can

be used as the main image for this article and for the entire health and medicine categories and related articles ? (a template needs to be made for the latter) At present {{WPMED|class=C|importance=Top}} gives a template with File:Rod of Asclepius2.svg, but this latter image is more suitable for the antidote page)

81.241.110.18 (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=319401370"