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 Lesion (talk | contribs) at 09:02, 20 April 2014 (→‎I actually hate it here and I'm leaving). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

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

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

List of archives
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine
Recent changes in WP:Medicine
Articles and their talkpages:

Not mainspace:

 Top  High  Mid  Low  NA  ??? Total
 99  1,103  11,521  38,090  18,741 871  70,425 
List overview · Lists updated: 2015-07-15 · This box:


"Nomination" of steroidogenesis article in Wikiversity to be used as reference

A discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard came to the result that it seems appropriate to have a discussion in Wikipedia before any usage of a Wikiversity page as reference in Wikipedia. I have suggested that such a "nomination" can be done at Wikipedia Talk:Wikiversity and leaving a note at the aforementioned noticeboard, as well as at any closely related Wikiproject. Therefore, I'm now leaving a note of the following "nomination":

I hope you can make a visit and leave a comment there. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(I made a strike now, since it seems this is the proper location for this discussion) Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions regarding the reliability of sources, when not conducted on the relevant article talk page, should be conducted on the reliable sources noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not strictly true. WP:Identifying reliable sources #Medical claims shows WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) as the {{main}} page for that specific context. And MEDRS is quite clear:
  • "See the reliable sources noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources or ask at relevant WikiProjects such as WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Pharmacology."
In practice, you're more likely to get an informed opinion on the reliability of a given source to support a medical claim by asking here. --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a separate section for this discussion at: Wikipedia_talk:Wikiversity#Location_for_"nominations". Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hum. Is this not covered in a medical textbook? I have concerns with people frequently adding references to Wikipedia of which they themselves are an author. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is substantially based on what was written in Medical Physiology: A Cellular And Molecular Approach, but it also entails additional details and considerations as described in Wikiversity:Diagram_of_the_pathways_of_human_steroidogenesis#Method and as taken from several other references as listed at its reference list. Thus, using only the Medical Physiology textbook as a reference would not be enough. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, there is obviously a potential conflict of interest in that I am citing myself, but I think the transparency of the peer review process makes it possible in certain cases like this. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Transparency' would start with you making clear your personal involvement when discussing source material written by you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I want to contribute to actually building the world of knowledge in addition to "merely" summarizing existing scientific works made by others. I believe Wikiversity can be the platform for such work, and since there was no established system for it, I created it, as well as authored the articles. I'd say that's my personal involvement in summary. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hove no objection whatsoever to you 'building the world of knowledge'. You appear to be well qualified to do so. That doesn't however alter the fact that Wikipedia has specific policies concerning sourcing, which currently rule out using Wikiversity material as sources for article content. If you wish the policy to be changed, make a proposal in the appropriate place. We can then collectively decide how to proceed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree there is any established policy saying that Wikiversity material can never be used as references in Wikipedia. So far, all discussions I've seen have come to the conclusion that Wikiversity is not a reliable source, and the only Wikipedia namespace mentioning it is the very scarcely edited Wikipedia:Wikiversity, saying that such usage is "generally not advisable", but that still leaves the possibility to such usage on a case-by-case basis. In comparison, having no reference at all does not constitute a reliable source either, yet it frequently occurs in Wikipedia. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I am missing something, this is not peer review. Peer review involves someone else besides the author reviewing the work. Who else reviewed this work? Featured articles undergo a much more rigorous review process and despite this rigorous review, featured articles cannot be cited as a reliable sources. The reference list contains reliable sources. These should be directly cited. The Wikiversity source is an unnecessary intermediary step. Boghog (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should make the link more clear - it's at the upper right corner of the article in Wikiversity. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I already followed this link. "Other participants in diagram creation" are coauthors, not reviewers. Boghog (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the box at upper right, in this case saying "Peer review statement is located at [1]". Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is also not entirely clear that is has several pages, by subsequently clicking "next page" at right. I know it should be made more clear. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also followed those links. The history of the peer review indicates that you uploaded this file. There is no evidence that someone else wrote this review. The provenance of this review is completely missing. Boghog (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're in doubt about the provenance of the peer review statement, you can request Wikiversity:Peer review verification. By doing so, a member of the Volunteer Response Team will contact the peer reviewing entity directly to assert that this was the origin of the statement. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Below you are claiming the system is transparent. In a transparent review system, it should be immediately obvious that someone other than the creator of the document wrote the review without having to request verification. The current Wikiversity review system is fatally flawed. The reviews can be anonymous, but someone other than the creator of the document (e.g., an administrator) must be responsible for uploading the review. Otherwise the review is completely meaningless. Boghog (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this would decrease the need of verification. For future external peer reviews, I'll ask to have them sent directly to an administrator to have them uploaded. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To return to the subject, it seems we have four main choices: 1: Accepting the Wikiversity article as a reference in this case. 2: Continue having the diagrams unreferenced. 3: Using the reference list in the Wikiversity article directly for each entry in Wikipedia. 4: Deleting the diagram altogether from the articles where it is used.
I think the 3rd alternative causes a terrible loss of information regarding what part of the diagram is referred to by each individual reference. For anyone who doubts the validity of the diagram, it would require a lot of hard work to trace each diagram component back to each reference. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting rather late in my timezone, so I'll be back tomorrow to answer any further questions. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(1) is contrary to existing Wikipedia policy. (2) Would be open to challenge and removal as lacking a reference. (3) Would amount to declaring that the diagram was original research - a synthesis of material from different sources. That leaves us with option (4). Unless of course you wish to propose that Wikipedia changes its policy. Which rather begs the question. Why exactly aren't you proposing that Wikipedia changes its policy regarding the use of Wikiversity as a source? You are clearly in favour of it, but seem reluctant to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this controversy would be over if/when the journal is MEDLINE indexed. Should be treated like any other source form a journal then. Lesion 19:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, just about every image on Commons released as CC-BY-SA or PD-Self is original research as they completely lack any reliable source to verify what they portray. It is quite normal for editors to create images to illustrate specific points in articles - for example, every {{chembox}} contains user-generated images - you'll find that WP:OI exempts many images from the OR restriction. --RexxS (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of this has been discussed elsewhere, but as a "reviewer" for a professional journal I see a lot of roadblocks for effective peer review based on Wikipedia's culture. 1) We are all equal here but professional peer review defines "peers" (as least from a scientific point-of-view). Who/what process arbitrates the definition of "peer" for effective reviews? Do we really want to create classes of editors who can/cannot participate in reviews? On the flip side, do we want peer review that is little more than a discussion of copyedit points? 2) There is no clear cut policy on the declaration of conflict of interests (something that is crystal clear in most journals) 3) many journals use a double-blind process so that a disproportionate amount of respect or disrespect doesn't cloud the review (see here for a counter arguement for open-peer review) 4) Reviewers generally don't need/want to build consensus so that the most effective (?comprehensive) review is completed. Many of the tenants of peer review seem to fly in direct contradiction to Wikipedia's most sacred values. While I applaud the idea of putting something foward, I worry that giving a "peer review" stamp of approval without an agreed procedure for review could be misleading to the legitimacy of the work. [unsigned comment by Ian Furst, 20:22, 6 April 2014‎]
I've made a separate entry about the policy itself about entries like this at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Policy_on_using_a_Wikiversity_article_as_a_reference. Regarding definitions of peer, there are specific criteria at the Wikiversity:Peer review, including conflicts of interest. Even with a policy that can allow articles in Wikiversity Journal of Medicine to be used as references in Wikipedia in certain cases, each article will practically have to go to two reviews; one in Wikiversity:Peer review and another one at this talk page. In contrast, the anonymity and lack of transparency of many "peer reviewed" journals out there makes me more worried about references to articles that are not created on a wiki. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We paraphrase text. We can paraphrase images. Thus you simply provide the sources that support the diagram you have created. Yes all pictures are OR. This is allowed on Wikipedia. We must be careful not to confuse the rules around text with the rules around images. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not really accurate to say that "all pictures are OR". It doesn't take any "original research" to take a picture of an apple and say that it looks like an apple. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At least I'm glad we can keep the image itself. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, Mikael, but if you want to publish an article on any scientific subject please feel free to do so with any peer-review journal that would accept it. Wikiversity has been set up as wiki webspace for conducting research and other educational projects. It is, however, not a publishing platform. Everyone there is just as anonymous as on Wikipedia, so there cannot be a review process as you do not know who's reviewing whom and on what basis. There is no editorial board that would ensure editorial standards. It will not do to produce your own sources for quoting on Wikipedia. We've just had a "test" of German Wikipedia on such matters when a journalist made a local newspaper publish a report that was then used as a "reliable source" in an article. This is no good. I think we can cut it short here.--Aschmidt (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many differences between Wikiversity Journal of Medicine and a local newspaper, and the peer reviewing entity is not anonymous. The purpose in this case was to create additional quality assurance of content already existing in Wikipedia, since conventional journals do not accept submission of content that has already been published in Wikipedia. If I had known that the sum of my edits would eventually lead up to something that can potentially constitute a scientific article, and the inability of Wikiversity to being compared to a conventional journal, I would definitely have turned to such a journal directly. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support what is happening here Mikael is framing this as a "cite Wikiversity" issue, but I think no general case can be made for that and have no comment about citing Wikiversity. What is happening in this specific case is that someone made a technical diagram, just as has been done in hundreds of other articles, and for the first time there is extensive documentation of the derivation of the diagram. If that diagram had just been posted it would have been accepted without process and appreciated. In 2009 Mikael did the same thing with File:Blood_values_sorted_by_mass_and_molar_concentration.png, which is sort of referenced and sort of a novel presentation of something extremely complicated. That image has been accepted for 5 years with no great review even when it was granted featured image status on :en, and such things should have linked review if a review is available. It seems like dozens of sources were synthesized to make that diagram.
I am not suggesting that diagrams without review ought to be removed but an illustration is not harmed when its review is documented. Despite the claim that the image has passed a "Wikiversity peer review" I think the Wikipedia community should scrutinize the image just as it would any other information submitted to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons.
I myself have no comment on this particular image other than it seems to pass "AGF" and if it is making original claims or includes original research or synthesis, I do not immediately see it.
Wikiversity is not a reliable source at all, but I am not seeing original publication here. For this diagram I am seeing transparency in how information from reliable sources is being presented on Wikipedia, and I do not feel harmed by that. The review on Wikiversity in this case seems to me to be the equivalent of having a discussion on a talk page. I see this diagram as being analogous to the many maps on Wikipedia which have no citations, such as File:Non-Native-American-Nations-Territorial-Claims-over-NAFTA-countries-1750-2008.gif. That map's quality seems good enough but without documented review I simply can say nothing about its accuracy. All images are better if there are creation notes with them. If someone wishes to make the argument that during the creation of this image OR or SYNTH has been violated then that would be a different argument, but on its face I think this image is within the community's historical tolerance range for remixing of data. I really cannot say; I feel like I would need to study this for two hours at least to check it, and I am not going to commit that amount of time to this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of the things I've noticed with this particular image is it's evolution since 2007. It's had slow steady improvment, much of it from Mikael. If it was stamped as Wikiversity peer-reviewed, I wonder if it would have the perverse effect of discouraging future editors from evolving it for fear of taking something that is "peer-reviewed" back to a non-peer reviewed state. I agree with adding references to the actual image (in Wikicommons). Mikael, I mean no disrespect to the immense amount of work that must have gone into this images' creation, I don't think image creation, by itself, constitutes a scholarly review of the subject or an experimental design. Ian Furst (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of a "Wikipedia Journal" that publishes both reviews and primary sources. Before we should consider using it as a source however I think it should be pubmed indexed at least. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a PubMed-adoption of the journal have anything to say about the appropriateness for WJoM articles as references? What matters is that an author and one or more peer-reviewer(s) vouch for the content. To me the peer-review process on WJoM is not transparent. Or maybe I have not understood it. The teaspoon study is better. I can see names signing a PDF files. Why not do the signing on the wiki instead: The peer-reviewer logs in on the wiki and ok's a specific oldid once s/he is satisfied? — fnielsen (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review is rarely transparent. Pubmed indexing is a weak sign of quality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shivanath and Shivram Sahu

I propose an article about Shivanath and Shivram Sahu, similar to the one about Abigail and Brittany Hensel.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelength I see a flurry of recent news, perhaps all derived from a single source, and nothing else. I am not sure these two meet notability criteria. If you see multiple sources then ping me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Rasberry, thank you for your reply. I have searched on the WWW, and I have found that most reports about the twins are disappointingly similar in wording. This one is very similar to the one that I first mentioned.
This one has an embedded YouTube video (3:00) that I was able to play.
This one has an embedded You Tube video (measured as having a duration of 3:01), which appears to be at least partly the same video as the one in the previous linked page.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That video was in the first link provided also. I think all of these are just derivatives of a single report with no additional journalism. These all seem like one source to me. I read Indian news - if I ever see them again I will let you know. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Heartbleed a medical condition?

I'm being told it is, but I'm unconvinced - Talk:Heartbleed#Proposed_move_to_.22Heartbleed_bug.22 - hahnchen 18:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the conventional sense. Left ventricular rupture would cause a heart bleed. It is universally fatal. JFW | T@lk 22:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What JFW said. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would left ventricular rupture or any rupture of one of the chambers warrant a subtopic of myocardial ruptures? I think we should, at the very least, compile some reliable documentation of such incidences in our articles so interested readers would know what we are talking about; they might just copy and paste that into the search bar. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 06:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd been wondering if perhaps "heartbleed" was a literal translation of a medical (or popular medicine) term from some other language. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does everyone agree with adding these terms to the Heartbleed (disambiguation) page? And subsequently, my removal of MI from that list? I just don't see a doctor ever describing any of these issues as a "heart bleed", and google searches for each of these terms in conjunction with "heartbleed" seem to reflect that. Cannolis (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree they should not be on that DAB. Heartbleed is not a synonym for such conditions as far as I am aware. Those adding them should have to provide a source as evidence imo. Lesion 16:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of the medical terms should be included at Heartbleed (disambiguation). I noted at the move request, where it is described as a "common term", that nothing came up on Google Books or Google Scholar. It looks like the nominator decided to double down on being wrong instead of just being wrong. While a term such as brain bleed is used to refer to a cerebral hemorrhage, and there are plenty of sources to back it up, I'm seeing nothing for Heartbleed. - hahnchen 17:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hahnchen: A combative approach is not really helpful here, and I honestly think you should have consulted the community first before moving the page. --TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 18:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lesion: I did that on the advice of Xeno and I don't think, based on Wikipedia:Citing sources#When and why to cite sources, that such a page needs a ==References== section. --TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 18:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not necessarily citing it, but providing a reason on the disamb talk page or here would be a good idea. I understand somewhat similar terms such as "brain bleed" and "GI bleed" are frequently used for other medical conditions, but their use for such is easily verifiable, whereas the use for "heartbleed" is not. Cannolis (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Random MM backpage

I was kind of dumbfounded when I ran into this until I checked the edit history - Wikipedia:MED/med250 - what kind(s) of messages is this system intended to relay? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 05:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list for a one-time message to people who have edited a lot of medicine-related articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These are all the editors who have made more than 250 edits to medical articles in 2013. Better formatting can be seen here [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Enhanced Primary Care Case Management Program (EPCCM)

Dear medical experts: Is this a notable topic, and should the Afc submission be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Delong Thanks for bringing this here. I cleaned it up and and moved it to mainspace. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, great! One more off my list. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback requested for students

Hello, I presented in person to the class described at Education Program:Harvard University/Obgyn bootcamp (April 2014). The students participated experimentally while I was in the class with them. As with all classes, students appreciate feedback. Could I ask please that anyone review the work of these guys? As you can see with the education program interface, students are in a list at the bottom along with the articles they edited. Comments on their talk pages are especially helpful, even if only for acknowledgement of them as new users.

There is another class with more active editors at Education Program:University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)/Expanding WikiProject Medicine (April 2014). These guys also would appreciate review! Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, in a nutshell, do something like this? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seppi333 Yes, exactly that. Posting notices on their talk page is extremely encouraging. I am also seeing that one student from a previous UCSF class is still around a year later supporting new students coming into the class. I would like more people participating here in this WikiProject and med school outreach seems hopeful if the students have a positive experience. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford UP - free access for a week in North America

to celebrate National Libraries Week - see here - Medical stuff near the bottom of the page. 13-19 April. -Johnbod (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though the site says the offer is only available to USA and Canada, I've logged in from Australia using that password. Maybe it's accessible from Europe/UK too? (Thanks for the tip off, John). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hurrah for Australia! I'm in Norway and I can't get in. :( (Still, maybe EU countries can?) --Hordaland (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Geolocation systems are not entirely reliable. People who work for multinational companies, for example, may be considered in the corporate headquarters' country because that's where the corporate network ends up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just tried it out from Germany, and I've been asked for a login with an e-mail address, not for the libraryweek login. So it does not seem to work for me. :(--Aschmidt (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't seem to work from the UK just now. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. :) We are, to all intents, the 51st state so that's fair, I guess. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Humph. They just bumped me off. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TurnItIn

Do any users have access to Turnitin, and would they be able to use it to check this article: HIV/AIDS in Malawi? I am doing a GA and I have found some instances of paraphrasing that is quite close to the original text, and would like to do a full check before I continue the review. --LT910001 (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried running it through as a .doc or a .txt, but in both cases I got "OriginalityCheck isn't available for this submission because Turnitin could not extract enough text to generate an Originality Report." If anyone knows what that means or how to overcome it, perhaps I can be more help. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How did you make the .doc or .txt files? Did you try copying and pasting, and then manually removing any stray wikitext remnants (like "[1]")? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Originally I just copied and pasted straight from the article (not the edit window), but after your suggestion I tried stripping all the [#]s from the .txt and resubmitting. Same error . Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 06:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for trying. I still haven't been able to get access myself. I'll have a think about what to do over this week and then update the review accordingly. --LT910001 (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About biomedcentral..com

Is BioMed Central an acceptable MEDRS? Is their "Open Access Charter" compatible with our CC BY-SA 3.0 Licence? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dodger67 Their content is not compatible with either of Wikipedia's licensing schemes, so it cannot be hosted in Wikimedia projects.
BioMed Central is a respectable publisher. There is not a way to give a blanket evaluation of BioMed Central as a reliable source as they have a huge range of publications of varying quality. With regard to medicine, it is most important to find secondary sources which are typically mixed the rest of the articles of any publication. If you have questions about a particular source then bring it here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ICD-11 copied from Wikipedia in some places?

  • ICD-11 draft does in this instance appear directly copypasted from the Leukoplakia wikipedia article, minus our inline citations. They also copypaste from the lead for their main entry on Leukoplakia. Lesion 08:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is interesting. If they are using Wikipedia text then they ought to give attribution. Some WikiProject Medicine members asked for input into ICD-11 and they actually sent representatives to Wikimania in 2012 to discuss this. Perhaps we should send them an email and ask them if they use Wikipedia, and if they do, then perhaps we should re-engage them. I wish for collaboration with the WHO. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another possibility that we shouldn't immediately discount is that the same person authored both bits of text. In that case, there's no copyright or plagiarism issue in play—certainly none that we should have a problem with. Contributors to Wikipedia retain copyright in their own edits, and are free to relicense and reuse their own work however they see fit.
Yet another possibility is that both our article and the ICD-11 draft have both copied (or plagiarised) some earlier, uncited third source—that, of course, would be problematic both for us and for ICD-11. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TenOfAllTrades I checked WP:WikiBlame to see that Lesion is most responsible for this. Lesion edited existing text - it seems not possible that this particular version could have come from anywhere other than Wikipedia, right? Could others comment on the likelihood of the above text having been created anywhere other than here in the Leukoplakia article? Lesion, do you knowingly write WHO health specifications, or do you do this only unknowingly? I notice that you did not cite copying this from another source in your edit summary. Did you copy this from somewhere? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that User:Biosthmors knows the most about ICD-11 stuff. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I can confirm this paragraph in Wikipedia came from several sources, and did not plagiarize any of them. This particular block of text and wording is (was) original on Wikipedia ... since maybe last Summer. It was not me who added the text to the ICD-11 draft, and whoever did has simply highlighted the text and deleted the inline citations.
I don't have a huge problem with this for this particular article because I am confident it is well sourced and mainstream (because I worked on it a lot). I worry that the ICD-11 might be copypasting from WP articles which are not well sourced though ... because it is the ICD. If they copy some error from us the whole world would have to follow it . Lesion 16:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) No need for the snark, Blueraspberry. There was nothing in the post above to identify who the contributor to the Wikipedia article was. And I've seen a number of instances of both types of duplication – a single author posting their own writing both on Wikipedia and elsewhere; and independent plagiarism of third sources by Wikipedia and non-Wikipedia writers – in the past, where Wikipedia editors have been too quick to jump to the someone's-copying-Wikipedia! conclusion.
My comments apply to the general case, rather than being aimed solely at this specific situation. Our default response in these situations should be to say "We need to figure out what's going on here" and not "Someone copied Wikipedia". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - it was a bad joke. Sorry Lesion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the history a couple of hours ago (sorry, I didn't save diffs - 30 April 2013 rings a bell) and it's very clearly Lesion's formulation - you can watch the evolution of the expression from the pre-existing text through various versions to the current article's language. I share your concerns about the ICD using Wikipedia as a source, Lesion. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anyone here who thinks that the content in the ICD-11 draft could possibly have come from anywhere other than a copypaste from Wikipedia? There is no reasonable explanation for this except that the content originated here and is replicated in the ICD-11, right? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm very confident our text is Lesion's original. (It's very late here so I'll do it tomorrow but) I'll take another look. Scroll through Lesion's edits to that article on, I think, 30 April, and see what you think. We definitely do need more eyes on this and opinions because if it is what it seems, it's important. Very, IMO. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the additional issue that whoever contributed this to the relevant ICD working group/committee may have contributed summaries from other non-Wikipedia sources. If there is some confidence on our part, the ICD or relevant organisation ought to be notified so that they can review the work of that committee, if necessary. --LT910001 (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've got at least 3 major Oral Path textbooks at the office (Neville several editions, Marx and some atlases) - I'll pull the relavent text for comparison tomorrow. Lesion, LT910001, is it just the non-homogenous oral leukoplakia text? Ian Furst (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just happened upon the leukoplakia, so not too sure. Doing some google searches of the ICD definitions below this one shows the definition for Lichen planus: [3] is also contained in this research paper "Lichen planus and lichenoid reactions of the oral mucosa", although I don't have access to full text. --LT910001 (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can get at it tomorrow. I couldn't find my current edition of Neville, should have a ?2nd edition though - not sure if one of the other docs has it. I've found Marx and regezi, someone should check Carlson. More tomorrow. Ian Furst (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the bigger picture, I'm not worried about the ICD copying "some error" from us. Those items are reviewed by teams of experts, and (I believe) with extensive comment opportunities. If they sign off on it, then there probably aren't any actual errors in it. They might miss an issue of balance (over- or under-emphasizing something), but factual errors are really unlikely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Neville & Damm (1st addition, I can't find my 2nd). They don't use the term non-homogenous (they consider thick leukoplakia homogenous). They call it granular or nodular, "The latter develop surface irregularities and are then called granular or nodular leukoplakia." will add 2 other textbook quotes for comparison. Ian Furst (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Both Marx&Stern and Regezi & Sciubba make have no description of non-homogenous leukoplakia. Ian Furst (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, sorry it took a while to get back to you. Speckled leukoplakia (erytholeukoplakia) is also non-homogenous, although agree Neville appears to only use homogenous, and gives no justification for not using the term non-homogenous, which is atypical for the normally meticulous attention to detail in that textbook. Usually, they are very careful to list all synonyms of conditions, and if they don't like a synonym for a condition, they say so and give clear rationale. I don't have access to the other 2 textbooks, but wouldn't mind borrowing them if you have them as pdf. Happy to share Neville 2nd edition (note there is a 3rd edition now I think). I can assure you that other major textbooks (e.g. Burket's oral medicine, a reputable and trustworthy source) and Cochrane do use the term "non-homogenous". Lesion 17:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes we are sort of working with WHO. I gave a talk there 2 years ago. Bio was a WiR there for 6 months. The ICD is expanding their scope for the 11th edition. And yes they were planning on using some material from Wikipedia as a starting point. They do need to attribute us though and release the content under our license. I am hoping that this will happen. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's wonderful. I guess this would be documented somewhere on metawiki? --LT910001 (talk) 10:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the lack of attribution is one thing. The lack of transparency about how these were derived at is probably contributing. If content is direct lifted, who knows if other material is also lifted from other sources? Additionally I would be a little concerned if definitions were word for word what was present on sources, without any alteration. --LT910001 (talk) 10:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will email them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lesion, I'll scan Marx and Stern's page on it. The use leukoplakia, stippled and erythro-leukoplakia. I've got a buddy that's full time oral path at a University, I could get him involved too if this is going to morph into a discussion on the classification of leukoplakia (we can move it to the talk page). Anyway, will scan and send. Ian Furst (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful of you. We don't currently mention the term "stippled" in the wiki article so it would be good to read that source. Thanks, Lesion 21:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duct tape for warts?

Duct tape occlusion therapy discusses a "home remedy" for warts. It is an ambiguous discussion about duct tapes, which come in hundreds of varieties. There has been some material in medical publications but it seems to me to be to be very incomplete. Problems abound:

  • The article talks about "regular" duct tape: there is no such thing. There are "standard" duct tapes that conform with technical specifications such as ASTM D5486/D5486M-06(2012) Standard Specification for Pressure-Sensitive Tape for Packaging, Box Closure, and Sealing, Type IV; these are usually for government use. Reasonable medical research would also go far beyond this and ask about the specific type of rubber in the adhesive: butadiene-styrene, butyl, polyisobutylene, nitrile compounds, isoprene, etc. What was the chemical composition of the tackifier? Does residual organic solvent play a part in the possible medical effects?
  • What is the mechanism of the observed effects? Is it chemical or just the covering of an Occlusive dressing?
  • Many of the listed sources seem questionable in light of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Solid secondary sources (reviews) are required. Please check these.
  • Typical hardware-store duct tapes are not hypoallergenic nor latex-free. These tapes are not manufactured under the Good Manufacturing Practices required for all other medical products. The formulation and processing of these tapes are not controlled to have any uniform medical properties. It is not kept sanitary. It is not a medical product. By contrast, surgical tapes have closely controlled manufacturing as required by regulations.

Assistance would be appreciated here. Grantmidnight (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reading that article, strongly suspect there has been a lot of OR and POV editing going on. The story basically reads like this: "The first study said it worked better than cryotherapy, but then all the later studies failed to replicate these results, but the later studies are all lies". Lesion 07:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworked the article a bit, basing the lead on the highest quality source (latest cochrane review). There may be a case for merging into the main article wart now, which would prevent the article going wandering into POV/OR land as more editors would be able to easily keep an eye on it there. I am always in favor of discussing one possible treatment in the context of all the other options anyway.
I note the category "alternative medical treatments" is placed on this article, while at no point in the article does the suggestion that it is alt med occur. If it is Alt med we should mention this prominently in the lead. If there are no sources which state it is alt med, then that category should be removed. One source does call it alt med. Lesion 08:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Rakeshyashroy

This user may need some guidance as they are using a lot of primary sources they are an author on themselves. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
I and another user are talking to this person as I noted on the userpage. That is probably enough of an initial response but others may join if they like. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste issue

User:Truebreath has copied and pasted some content. Have not had time to review more of the edits. If anyone else could would appreciate it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmatutor

User:Pharmaraj is adding refs to this journal [4]. Not sure if it is reliable but does not appear to be pubmed indexed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks less like a journal than a blog. Oh yeah, and the ISSN given on the website doesn't exist. Not a good sign. Jinkinson talk to me 14:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISSN 2347 - 7881 is exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharmaraj (talk • contribs) 19:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pharmaraj: If so, then I must have formatted the URL wrong. Do you know how I would access the WorldCat listing? Jinkinson talk to me 19:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jinkinson: that i dont know but you may check issn listing on Indian Issn website on: http://nsl.niscair.res.in/issn.jsp

There one link is available, where you may see ISSN listing: http://nsl.niscair.res.in/RecentlyAssignedISSN.xls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharmaraj (talk • contribs) 19:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It however is not pubmed indexed which raises concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmh649:Dear Doc James, you are right that it is not indexed in pubmed. But Pubmed indexing is possible only after 12 months of accessibility (minimum after total 12 issues release). And PharmaTutor has completed total 6 issues at this stage. But PharmaTutor is indexed in Google Scholar & CAS.
It's a content managed site using Drupal, a bit messy with its metatags, which is often a sign of an amateur publication. I'm not encouraged by the popup adverts that it tries to serve either. The February 2014 issue claims to be "Volume 2, Issue 2", which begs the question of why there are only 6 issues completed - I assume then that there just 4 issues to a volume? In that case, it will be another 18 months before 12 issues are complete. Perhaps by that time, it will have earned "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that we require from our reliable sources - and we can revisit the question of whether it's usable as a source then. In the meantime, I wouldn't be happy seeing it used a source for medical articles. --RexxS (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear RexxS - Meta-tags are served as per google scholar need. And 1st issue was published in Nov 13 which was (Vol1, Issue1)..likewise 2nd in Dec 13 which was (Vol1, Issue 2).. And afterwards for 2014.. Jan 14 (Vol.2 Issue.1), for feb 14 (Vol.2 Issue.2), for Mar 14 (Vol.2 Issue.3), for Apr 14 (Vol.2 Issue.4), and very soon on 1st may it will release (Vol.2 Issue.5).. So each Volume will have 12 issues. Reputed & Higher level professionals from India are in PharmaTutor's advisory panel. You may check it on: http://magazine.pharmatutor.org (talk)
No. Google scholar doesn't need you to duplicate the Content-Type metatag. It's only a small point, but indicative of a lack of attention to detail that warns us about the quality control on the site. We're not looking for an advisory board, but a policy of editorial oversight and peer-review. We need confidence in the quality of the articles published, not the quality of the advice that you're getting. --RexxS (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced eyes needed

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Thecharisp. The website promoting the device is hosting some studies (including one from Springer) which seem to use the device in question. --NeilN talk to me 15:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia: what it is and why it matters for healthcare" in BMJ

Hello. BMJ published an article which I wrote.

  • Rasberry, L. (8 April 2014). "Wikipedia: what it is and why it matters for healthcare". BMJ. 348 (apr08 3): g2478–g2478. doi:10.1136/bmj.g2478.

BMJ has excellent reach to persons interested in health who would not otherwise read about Wikipedia, and I hope that what I said is useful to them and people here. The article is behind a paywall. I can give a copy to any colleagues who email me requesting a copy. Thanks Johnbod for informing me on this board that this was published.

Here is a summary of the article:

  • The Choosing Wisely health campaign supports Wikipedia. This is my project at Consumer Reports.
  • The Cochrane Collaboration supports Wikipedia
  • Wikipedia has a system of quality control, including WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS
  • WikiProject Medicine is the place to go for an introduction to contributing

I continue to state that both Wikipedia's quality and popularity should be considered by anyone who cares about public access to health information. I wish that it would be possible for people with good health information to share it through Wikipedia according to community guidelines. Thanks for your attention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great job =) Lesion 09:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BMJ is an awesome publication and people should support journalism. I have a pre-preprint version of my paper which is not as good as the final BMJ version but could be borrowed by my colleagues. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just read the draft paper. It is a nice paper. Thank you, Lane. (My only minor concern is that verifiability is a policy, not a guideline.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing health media

an English language poster for patients about antibiotics
the same poster translated to Spanish

Many health organizations which do educational outreach produce various types of media to reach different audiences. I feel that one thing health organizations should do to reach their audience is to appoint staff to manage health outreach through Wikipedia in accord with Wikipedia community policy and as peers to any other Wikipedia contributors.

Beyond Wikipedia, the Internet gives potential for distributing all kinds of health educational materials through many channels. A perennially popular channel is in paper printings of information through posters, brochures, or one-page summaries. One might expect that if some health organization or group wished to do health educational outreach then it would be easy for them to borrow a health publication from another group and then develop it for their local audience and redistribute it. However, you may also know that health organizations are very hesitant about allowing the media they produce and distribute to be shared in channels like Wikipedia where it could be adapted, remixed, and redistributed outside of their oversight. There is also perpetual concern about the possibility of commercial exploitation of any organization's messages which would be allowed with something like a Creative Commons license that does not forbid noncommercial use. For this reason, it is actually difficult to find health media online which has free licenses of the sort used in Wikimedia projects.

To see Wikimedia's existing collection of health posters see Commons:Category:Educational and health posters. There are currently 80 files here and low participation by any contemporary health organization. In the sexually transmitted subsection even there the messages are outdated. Outside of Wikimedia Commons the available resources are again restricted in that it is never easy to get them for remixing and redistribution purposes. I think this collection is meager and would like to see it grow on Wikimedia projects, beyond on the Internet, and to everywhere off the Internet where they are desired.

As a test to see what happens when an organization's health messages get free licenses, my employer Consumer Reports permitted me to upload one of their health posters in English and Spanish. I inserted this poster in these articles

I feel that these articles are improved by including relevant contemporary health media from Wikimedia Commons in them. So far as I know, no organization has done this before.

I would appreciate any thoughts from anyone else about the extent to which it is useful to put health media on Wikimedia Commons and use it to illustrate Wikipedia articles. If this seems useful then I would like to encourage all organizations to consider doing this while also having their staff continually ask the Wikipedia community what is useful for developing Wikipedia. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that all my patients don't start asking me those questions. Clinics and ward rounds would become interminably long. Perhaps I should design a poster with generic replies to go alongside? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it take longer? Is your Spanish not very good? Yes design as you like. I and I think every organization is curious if anyone would actually remix posters if they are shared. Practically every organization with which I have talked does not want this and cites it as a reason for not sharing on Wikipedia, but I doubt that it will happen. Wikipedia hardly has regular contributors much less media remixers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, an obtuse and sarcastic response to my cynical one. Very good. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit skeptical of adding these and was going to suggest adding a link under ==External links==, but the ones I looked at actually improved the article as illustrations of relevant concepts, rather than merely providing the documents.
(Axl, I don't know how many patients you see in a day, or whether they have special needs, but for a basically normal middle-aged adult, I'm guessing that this list of questions would add two minutes to each antibiotic prescription: "Do I really need antibiotics?" "Yes." If you're dealing with, say, someone who has early dementia and hearing loss, any question could be difficult. But in that case, it might be even more important.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing There are hardly any guidelines about integrating non-plaintext text, like this PDF, into Wikipedia. The general rule is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Avoid_entering_textual_information_as_images, and the most standard practice is to just put a link to a Commons category in the external links. In the past I have argued that primary documents giving results of court cases could be displayed in this way in Wikipedia articles about the case, and the feedback I go was that those should be in the external links. Thanks for the feedback in this case. I rarely see supplemental documents used as illustration anywhere else on Wikipedia, and I wonder if that is because this kind of media is not desired in the article space or only if it is because these are rarely available. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth looking at the reasons why we recommend certain practices. We don't use an image to display text because it's not searchable, is invisible to screen readers without alt text and takes far more bandwidth to download. Some PDFs are simply an image of a page of text, wrapped inside a pdf - which suffers from the same problems as a bare image. The PDF you uploaded is mainly text and is readable by a screen reader, but isn't searchable by the native browser methods when part of a page. It is also 375 KB in size - about ten times the size of the text in a large article, so we would have to be sure that the value it brings to a page outweighs the burden of downloading for folks who have low bandwidth. Obviously if its content is all we are referring to, then it simply needs to be a url in a citation. If we are making a point about the presentation of the poster, then being able to see it is important, and there's a case for embedding it in the page with the File: method. A compromise would be to include a link either to the original as an external link (saving hassle over licensing) or to Commons if we have it uploaded. This allows anyone interested to see the poster without forcing a big download on those that have problems with bandwidth. It's always going to be a judgement call on a case-by-case basis. --RexxS (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Male rape article

The Male rape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article was recently created by Okkisafire; it was previously a redirect to the Rape by gender article, and is in need of attention from WP:MED editors because, like I noted here at the Rape by gender talk page, I'm certain that some of the medical sources (including the mental health sources) used for it are not WP:MEDRS-compliant or what WP:MEDRS considers satisfactory. Flyer22 (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ow, sorry for that. I think i must pending this article after we get the resolution. Okkisafire (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, sorry, english is not my mother language. i think i just lost the neutrality of the article. I though i would fix it today, but it seem that i have to pending it, at least after the next issue. Okkisafire (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Platelet ...

...more watchers needed please. A well intentioned new editor is working on the article. No citations are being added at the moment. Graham Colm (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting "facts"

I've been in some edit skirmishes recently and just want to double check what the consensus is on how WP:ASF applies to biomedical claims. Put simply should we, in general, write:

  1. A systematic review of 2009 found no evidence that eating strawberries prevented the onset of ingrown toenail[ref] or
  2. As of 2009 no good evidence had been found that eating strawberries prevented the onset of ingrown toenail[ref] or
  3. There is no good evidence that eating strawberries prevents the onset of ingrown toenail[ref] ?

And would the wording be affecting by the knowledge that there was ongoing research into the topic? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. The examples at Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Citing_medical_sources and WP:MEDPRI suggest #3, in the context more of what sources to use, than how to describe them or their conclusions. A longer list of worked examples of recommended style would be very useful, but I'm not aware of one. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, given a good-quality, up-to-date, strong WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary source, just state the result. Where strong sources are available, don't clutter up the article with distracting references to the kinds of sources, our readers generally don't care/can't tell the difference between a systematic review or a meta-analysis, etc., and shouldn't have to. The interested reader can click through to the sources themselves to find out more about them. Zad68 14:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Zad68, at least most of the time. For instance, our article on autism doesn't say that a literature review found that there is no evidence to support a link between it and vaccines. Instead, it says, "these theories lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible." (sourced to [5]). However if you want to "soften it up" with regard to the way you convey the conclusions of a MEDRS compliant source you could just say "A systematic review found/concluded/whatever..." Jinkinson talk to me 14:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jinkinson Indeed, in the WP:FRINGE space I can remember on past occasions editors pressing for "softened" formulations such as:
  • A study of 2009 found that because of the heterogeneous nature of the underlying research, there was not yet enough evidence to recommend for or against the use of strawberry eating as a ingrown toenail prevention modality, and that "more research is needed".[ref]
This is one that comes down to editorial judgement, and depends heavily on context. (No matter how convenient it would be, there is not – and will never be – a magical mechanical algorithm for deciding 'reliability' and the appropriate 'strength' with which we represent results.) Speaking generally, we should avoid watering down or equivocating on the conclusions of high-quality sources. Format #3 is likely to be the best option when dealing with high-quality secondary sources, where no commparably reliable, robust, or recent countervailing sources exist. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is an equally reliable source that supports the notion that eating strawberries prevents ingrown toenails, there is only one formulation that meets our guidelines:

  • Eating strawberries does not prevent the onset of ingrown toenail.[ref]

The relevant guidelines/policies are at Wikipedia:Citing sources #In-text attribution, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view #Attributing and specifying biased statements and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ #Assert facts, not opinions. All POV-pushers love to dilute unequivocal findings that they dislike by attributing them as if they were mere opinions: "A 2013 Cochrane review found no evidence that X does Y" should be recast as "X does not do Y". It's easy enough to qualify or attribute later if equally good contradictory evidence ever turns up. In the meantime, let's not give the wrong impression to our readers. --RexxS (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The opposite is true to, we had a discussion (finally settled by Hidabast from NIH) where a Cochrane study found "insufficient evidence to support or refute.." something. When you read the study, the inclusion criteria excluded all but one small study. In this case, the Cochrane review could make no analysis but it was often misquoted as being evidence that there is no evidence of benefit to the therapy. I agree the summary should be based on the study. If you have a Cochrane or meta-analysis with adequate data and conclusions, I believe #3 would apply, otherwise #1. Ian Furst (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time we should just state the facts. Only if there is significant disagreement or the text does not support stating it as fact should we not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everybody for your responses, which have been very helpful. Some material here for that MEDRS FAQ, maybe ... ? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ETS

If someone has a while today, would you please look over Endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy? You'll need to start with the May 2013 edit, which introduces a small grammar error. This article isn't very high volume, but it has a history of extreme POV pushing, and I've unfortunately not noticed any of the changes since last summer. (I've got to do something about my watchlist...) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are surgical procedure articles usually a POV mess... Either surgeons promoting something, like we had with that Otto Placik, or advocates against the procedure try to take it over for their own purposes, like we had on LASIK. Lesion 18:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar

  • I have noticed this in the Sugar article (permanent link); "In 2013, Murandu et al. found clinically that sugar is an antibiotic, and pouring granulated sugar on necrotic wounds can help ulcers heal faster.[95]". The in-line source is the MailOnline. Any Comments? Snowman (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course delete it. Health claims should not be supported by the popular press. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to make sure, partly because it is a GA and also because I am thinking about starting a GAR. Snowman (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is this pilot study, and apparently an bigger trial under way, but it's too early to include anything. Johnbod (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be "too early" to find secondary sources on it, since that treatment has been used for centuries. PMID 21479349 is a free 2011 review that discusses the use of sugar as an antibiotic (mostly to compare it to honey). The short version, for those that don't want to download the pdf, is that bacteria generally don't thrive in massively hyperosmolar environments, which is why marmalade and raisins don't rot. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Western diet and Alzheimer's disease (I have only seen the abstract), a paper from 2002, sounds rather speculative about the role of a western diet in AD to me, but the Wiki "sugar" article uses it as in inline reference to support text outlining a suggested role for a western diet in the aetiology of AD. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there is a bunch of primary sources and a GAR is reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to rush now, but I plan to look at it again and I would probably start a Community GAR sometime in the next week. If anyone is minded to start a GAR themselves, then I would welcome that. Snowman (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the "Sugar" article within the scope of WP Medicine? The talk page does not have a WP banner. This may influence a possible GAR. Snowman (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Impact factor for textbooks?

Some are held in much higher regard than others. Is there a shortcut for readers outside the specialty to tell which are the most widely used and relied upon textbooks? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One can go to there local medical school bookstore. Each specialty usually has one or two standard textbooks that nearly all students use. My field has Tintinalli and Rosen. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some other clues, perhaps. Has it seen multiple editions? Is it widely held in the libraries of medical schools? Is it held in the NLM? Checking worldcat can usually help with answering these. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult to tell. Number of editions is a possible indicator, agree. Textbooks which are essentially compilations of chapters each written by a small group of different authors always feel more reliable than textbooks written by one or two authors. Dare I suggest that the nature of the advertising on the cover and the qualifications of the authors are useful indicators too? How many pages does it have? =) Lesion 17:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source published as a ppt in the e-cigs article

Discussion is here [6]. Wondering what others opinions are. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those 2 just don't give up. Why no topic ban? Lesion 17:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly because we're not the ones pushing a POV. There is not ONE study that even suggests e-cigs can lead to nicotine addiction or smoking, or may be harmful, but the article is still riddled with these "concerns" on the basis of a handful of press releases and one "secondary source" that turns out to he a blatantly slanted WHO FAQ with no primary sources behind it.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 18:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WHO is wrong, you are correct. This is why you need topic ban. Lesion 19:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of topic ban discussion on AN/I

Please see User:Luckysunshinegurl505/sandbox

It's a draft about "effects of substance abuse" that clearly needs a lot more help than the generalist regular reviewers at AFC can give it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually hate it here and I'm leaving

After this incident I have truly had enough of this place: [7]

My current GAs olfactory reference syndrome and leukoplakia need closure, unless another editor can be found to complete them. Apologies to LT and Ian Furst who have put effort into the review on Leukoplakia.

For your info, DangerousPanda, I was an experienced editor with over 12,000 edits, mainly to topics around oral medicine and oral pathology, and I was apparently one of the top 10 most active editors on medical pages in '13 ... but hey none of that matters. All that is important is that people like you their daily fix of belittling and bullying people who are trying to do the right thing. And, ofc you get to keep the obnoxious POV-pushing editors so good luck with that. Lesion 09:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=604993095"