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 HenryScow (talk | contribs) at 14:05, 20 March 2015 (→‎Interesting anecdote: new section). 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  11,553  37,952  18,613 901  70,221 
List overview · Lists updated: 2015-07-15 · This box:

New study about reliability of Wikipedia for medical students

The study is Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? Evaluating respiratory topics. The good news is that it's open access, the bad news is its conclusion: "...most articles had knowledge deficiencies, were not accurate, and were not suitable for medical students as learning resources." Everymorning talk 17:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so while there saying its not suitable, their also saying Two methods were used in calculating readability. Table 2 shows the readability scores (mean ± SD) of each article calculated by Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Readability Coleman-Liau index. For the first method, the readability was in the range of 9.4 ± 1.8–22.6 ± 10.7, whereas the second method recorded a range of 10.0 ± 2.6–19.6 ± 8.3. A strong correlation was found between the scores calculated by the two methods (r2 = 0.744, P < 0.001). The scores obtained from the two methods indicate that Wikipedia articles were geared to a college level rather than to the public,.. so therefore its college level reading, but not suitable for students(that seems to be in conflict as a statement)?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Students are able to read it" is not the same thing as "students should be reading it". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
my response to that, would be consistent with the 5 points Blue Rasberry and Doc James cited--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, and rather better informed as to how WP works than most research. But their 2 mentions of "administrators" (who they think rate articles) are wrong. The belief that WP comes "at the top" of search results, referred to casually & cited to several papers, is surely outdated for google at least - it certainly is for cancer articles. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some thoughts:
  1. The study assumes that Wikipedia should be judged as a whole. They compare the quality of very developed highly trafficked articles with stub articles on minor topics and getting no traffic. The presumption is that readers cannot discriminate between developed and undeveloped Wikipedia articles, and that they read hypertext as they would text on paper. In my opinion, most people could check Alveolar lung disease (archive) and determine that they should click through to other articles for more information.
  2. They made no reasonable attempt to list drawbacks on their research methods.
  3. Part of their criticism of the articles is, just like for 10+ years, "Although the number of editors/authors involved in the 40 articles looks impressive, there was no information available about these authors and their experience. Wikipedia allows anyone to edit and make changes to articles; thus, the authors are not necessarily doctors or respiratory physicians or academics specialized in an area related to the respiratory system", and that statement is part of the research insight from which they drew conclusions
  4. "There were deficiencies in the use of educationally useful images/illustrations and tables to explain information given indepth" Whatever else Wikipedia is doing I expected that there would be broad agreement that the media collection in Commons is impressive. If this is not the case then I think this part of the deficiency is being corrected as time passes more quickly than other problems.
  5. " Details of treatment and evidence-based information available from major clinical trials, guidelines/position statements released from major societies/associations, such as the American Association for Respiratory Care, American Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society, British Thoracic Society, and Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand, were not mentioned." They are seeking data from primary research and looking for brand name endorsement, which does not always happen on Wikipedia.
I appreciate the study and this like all other research contributes to driving improvement of Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is another poor piece of research which unfortunately shows that the researchers do not know how to operate a Wiki and that peer review is no guarantee of high quality:

  1. The primary issue with this paper is that there was no blinding and no comparator. What they did was take Wikipedia articles and ask medical students to rate how reliable they thought they were while applying some "statistical veneer" to the efforts in the hopes of getting it published / making it seem more true. eMedicine was deemed to be correct rather than considered as a comparator.
  2. Per "no information available about these authors and their experience" All they had to do was look at the talk page of these articles or the edit history and they would see mine and User:Jfdwolff name a lot which if they clicked on it would give our credentials
  3. Per "deficiencies in the use of educationally useful image" Yup please contribute some images under an open license. We are all volunteers and this is a work in progress.
  4. Per "guidelines/position statements... were not mentioned" Ah completely false. At least 6 of the articles extensively summarize guidelines and positions statements. Makes me doubt if they actually read the articles in question.
  5. The one positive thing about this paper is the academic world is taking us very seriously. They are now asking is Wikipedia as good as Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine. While the answer is "no" this paper does not provide any support for it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • just asking... so nothing for us to learn from this, however flawed is is? Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not appear to mention what "errors" Wikipedia has. If there was a list of the "errors" we could review them and fix them if actually issues. The comment that medical students want more information on pathophysiology is false. Medical students want more clinically relevant info :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can learn a lot from these types of studies. Some of what we learn will help us improve articles, e.g., we learn that many articles have limited images. Well, a whole lot have been uploaded to Commons in the last 6 months or so, so maybe we need to form an expedition and go find them. Some of what we learn will not help us improve articles, e.g., that they think that the clean-up tags on pages are added by administrators. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, who's going to write a response pointing out the inaccuracies and methodological flaws? A solid, collaboratively-written letter might have a decent chance of appearing in a later print issue. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
    credit    › 11:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
very good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the authors of this study expected was a type of encyclopedia similar to Scholarpedia - Free, peer-reviewed, and authored by notable medical experts. If one were to compare Wikipedia's article on Cardiac arrhythmia and Scholarpedia's corresponding article, one would find that:
1. Scholarpedia's (SP) lede section is more concise than that of Wikipedia (WP)
SP: "Cardiac arrhythmia is the condition in which the heart's normal rhythm is disrupted" (short and concise)
WP: "Cardiac arrhythmia (also known as irregular heartbeat) is any of a group of conditions in which the electrical activity of the heart is irregular, faster, or slower than normal" (Too long, didnt read)
2. SP's images are of much higher quality than WP's
SP: Most images are dynamic, containing animation and/or links to external 3D applet. All figures are appropriately linked to the main text
WP: Two still images, not very useful and randomly placed in the article. None of the images are linked to the main text.
3. SP appears more reliable than WP
SP: The page is co-authored by 3 medical experts, with names and affiliations clearly displayed at the beginning. All subsequent edits are made by approved contributors and prominently displayed in the article.
WP: The sections on "Diagnostic approach" and "Management" are supproted by 0 refs. Article history shows a persistent and hidden pattern of edit-warring between established editors and anonymous IP addresses.
We could learn from our mistakes and improve the way we present our articles, or we could simply ignore the criticisms and dismiss them as inaccurate and/or methodologically flawed. Based on what I've experienced working on this project and judging from some of the comments above, I honestly don't think anything will change in the near future. -A1candidate 13:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we publish stuff that is a work in progress. They don't. I did not say that Wikipedia is as good as Harrisons. In fact I said it wasn't. Scholarpedia's license is CC BY SA NC so not compatible with use.
The issue with this paper is it does not mention specific fixable problems of which there are lots. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All of medicine is work in progress. Wikipedia is not just worse than Harrison's, it is (imo) worse than UpToDate, Medscape, WP:DynaMed, and many other competitors. The main issue is the lack of peer review. The specific fixable problems are too many to be considered and out of the article's scope. -A1candidate 19:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you have to back up that opinion, and if that is your view, why are you here? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A1candidate your statements cannot be considered logical because there is nothing to base it on-your opinion- nothing else. having said that, if you feel there are points where we as a project can improve then that would be constructive (not the other way around), the reason why this particular study falls into question have been cited above if you differ from those opinions then lets work with each other--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A1candidate is entitled to his/her opinion, just like you are entitled to yours. Any person who is "here to write medical textbooks" is in the wrong place anyway.
It's possible that my opinion on these "Is an encyclopedia a graduate-level textbook?" articles might involve the need for authors of these articles to spend a couple of minutes looking up the words encyclopedia and textbook in a dictionary. (Next month, we should all expect to learn that a newspaper is not a textbook, either.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Scholarpedia article is a fascinating contrast, and no doubt an excellent effort in terms of what it is trying to do, but it treats the subject as though it was astronomy (another of Scholarpedia's very few subject areas) and hardly has any information as to how the condition might be treated. You can complain about WP's "sections on "Diagnostic approach" and "Management"" but at least we actually try to cover these rather important topics [PS - slightly unfair; there is a little info on treatment in the last few sections]. Scholarpedia seems to be in effect a collection of academic articles on a small range of specialized topic, very well done and with absolutely no concessions to audiences without advanced technical understanding. That's not an encyclopedia. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author of this study, Samy Azer, seems to have published another study about the reliability of Wikipedia last year. That one also concluded that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information for medical students," but was focused on gastroenterology and hepatology articles. [1] Everymorning talk 16:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • While we do have readership. These papers are not going to stop medical students from using Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we can look forward to a series of these separate papers on pulmonary content, GI content, and so on, according to the principle of minimum publishable units. :P MastCell Talk 17:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is anyone interested in writing a rebuttal to this paper for the signpost? They have requested one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As Wikipedia's resident pulmonologist, I have a vested interest in many of those articles. I am in the process of assessing and commenting on the paper. (As an aside, I am amused to see Hasty's paper referenced alongside Heilman's paper.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
im certain you will speak for all of us--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline on image references

Hi all. I have been a Wikipedia editor for a while now. Recently I focus my efforts on adding images to the articles to help readers in understanding the concepts easier. Trust me, images help tremendously for readers to learn new subjects/concepts. Usually the articles I have edited are not related to medicines. Until recently after I visited the National Museum of Health and Medicine, I started touching some medical-related articles. To my surprise, the WP:MEDRS has a pretty high bar which I didn't realize. Thanks to seasoned editors (Doc James and Jytdog) to help me out to understand the guideline. So I consider myself to be a newbie here in the medical content arena.

As I mentioned, I work with images for articles. My experience outside of the medical content is that, in general, the inclusion of images lacks inline citations. While the text content of an article has great reliable sources as inline citations, but most of the time, no citations for images. I think this is a big verifiability loophole of Wikipedia. With no verifiability, readers/editors cannot be certain that the image in question is an actual depiction of the subject or concept. Similar question for image caption as well. We can see some examples even in the medical articles such as CT scan images of diagnoses without citations, etc. The image use policy is strong on copyright concerns but weak on verifiability.

I would like to also share my experience working with images. I think it is much easier to find reliable sources for concepts or textual descriptions. It is much harder to find references with visual descriptions. Most of the time I have to resort to use primary sources (which are allowed in article content per general RS) because non of secondary sources would include a picture or "visually" describe things in such a way that we can use as an inline citation for an image. My believe is that if there is no secondary source out there, primary sources that can convey visual description is better than not having any citation at all. To me, images without citations can easily become WP:OR.

Now, let get back to the medical content. With such high bar on references (e.g. a review article on a science/medical journal indexed by PubMed), as we know, those articles mostly contain text, some graphs and tabular information. It is harder to find images that can be used as a reference from such articles. Now we are back to a decision on what should be done. Either we stand by the same high-bar for image citations or we just allow images to be included without citation at all. The former is one extreme in which we could deprive readers ability to understand hard concepts (biomedical is hard to most people) because we cannot include images without high-quality references in the same standard as MEDRS. On the other extreme, we let the loophole exists and hope that the editors include images with correct depictions of the subjects/concepts without a way to verify them. If you ask me, I would think somewhere between the two extremes is the best approach.

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this. Z22 (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks. We are aware of this. While one can paraphrase the ideas in a bit of text one cannot paraphrase a picture. Thus we are in the situation that one must often take the uploaders word. Pictures however do get reviewed by the many medical experts at WPMED for accuracy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in what folks have to say about what is an appropriate way to source captions for a picture uploaded to WP. It seems to me that ~most~ any effort to relate something about of source A to some feature B in the image (or the whole image), will be WP:SYN. What is the acceptable way to source captions for self-generated images? Thanks! 19:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
as Doc James indicated Pictures however do get reviewed by the many medical experts at WPMED for accuracy, in regards to WP:SYN - "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article this seems to be the rule to follow--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images should be sourced, particularly graphs and charts, because it's important that they receive the same treatment as the rest of the text. I've seen more than a few examples where the graphs are out of date, incorrect, or from an unreliable source. In terms of other images (eg symptoms, pathophysiological mechanisms etc) I guess attribution is key, done in the actual image data is best.
If you're referring to using images as references, well, that is a great idea and I think it's particularly relevant to anatomical articles, which I edit a fair bit. Often an image shows something obvious like A connecting to B, but it is too obvious for a book to state in the written text. I don't see a problem with using images as references, so long as we treat them the same as other references. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course the data within an image needs a ref. But many images do not have data within them Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in what folks have to say about what is an appropriate way to source captions for a picture uploaded to WP - the information in the caption, which is meant to describe the image. It seems to me that the only way to avoid a mess of SYN is for the source for the caption to be the same source from which the image came. But what do you, do for say, a photograph taken by the editor? Or even, say, a medical image? On what authority is the caption written? Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This recent posting by the OP is interesting and I think OK, since the photo is of a mounted museum piece with the label of what it is, in the image. But this photo, which was the image, sourcing (please do note the sources on that page), and captioning that drew my attention to the OP as a potential paid editor (I've decided he/she is not, after discussions on their Talk page), is - to me - problematic. The OP used the same caption and sourcing in several articles, like this. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes agree the first photo is good the second less so. This gives little information [2] and while it might be suitable on one page about the device is not suitable on other pages IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you (or does anybody) have any insight into PAG or other discussions, about how to appropriately caption and source the second one? That is the question. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important to start by examining the point of a caption. The guidance is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions. First of all, it is not to describe an image - that is the job of alt text. A caption should normally expand on the reason why the image is there in he first place, and that is to provide information visually instead of having to make a description in the text of the article. The best images will make their point self-evidently. Others may need some explanation to the reader: look at what happens when the image Doc James mentions above (File:EYE-SYNC eye-tracking analyzer.JPG) is used in an article: Eye tracking#Optical tracking - the caption needs four lines just to explain what you can't see in it! In medical articles an image might be used so that the lay reader can get some idea of the appearance of signs of a condition, or perhaps to show the position on or in the body where a condition has effect. Surely the caption should be saying something like "A rash caused by meningitis doesn't disappear under pressure." or "A very prominent wedge-shape area of airspace consolidation in the right lung is characteristic of bacterial pneumonia." so that it expands or explains the point that the image has been chosen to illustrate. Once the image and caption are understood to be a substitute for "a thousand words", it should remain only to see what the source would be for those thousand words. If you can't find one, then you might need to ask is the image contributing to the article, or is it just decoration? --RexxS (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
precisely, any image should augment information, not confuse (by being a decoration)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Z22,
For the information you're after, you want to read the other page (guideline) about images. The WP:PERTINENCE section is the most important. In medical terms, the key point is that the image should look like the thing that you're trying to describe. A blob under a microscope need not be proven in an independent reliable publication to really, truly be whatever bacteria (etc.) you're trying to illustrate; it need only look like it. Editors figure out whether it looks like it by taking their common sense and best judgment to their favorite web search engines and seeing what other images are so described.
This cuts in both directions: if it looks like the thing, then you can use it, even if it turns out that it's not actually the thing in question, but if it doesn't look like the thing, then you can't use it, even if you've got a stack of top-quality sources swearing that it really is that thing.
We don't have images for the purpose of proving that bacteria exist. We have them to show readers what the bacteria look like, in ways that can't be done through words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My 2¢: all diagrams need to be referenced on the image page and its caption needs to be referenced if it says anything that isn't stated and cited in the article text. The only non-diagram image in which I've encountered a WP:V issue is File:Amphetamine Freebase.png; I decided to just use that in amphetamine because I doubt anyone can tell a vial of clear water apart from a vial of pure free base amphetamine in a picture, so it probably doesn't matter anyway. If an image is questionable as to whether it depicts its topic and you can't contact the uploader, then just don't use it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Assuming an image is of sufficient quality, one notable benefit to citing your images is that you sometimes receive emails from professors or other authors requesting permission for or providing notice of reuse of your image (e.g., I've learned that File:ΔFosB.svg is being used for a college-level psychology & behavioral neuroscience textbook). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 08:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
good point--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spreading information

The Wikipedia app (at least Android, maybe iPhone) has a feature that will let readers tweet an image and a chosen sentence out of articles. Here's an example: https://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman/status/567871219044782080

I know that some of you are active on Twitter as a way of sharing medicine-related information, so if this appeals to you, then you might want to get the app and try it out. (Also: high quality, high-resolution lead images!) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is great--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Methadone

just want to note that methadone is a mess and needs a good work over - it is bloated, has some inaccuracies, and sources are old. i've had this on my to-do list for a while and keep not getting to it. Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is an important opioid/analgesic--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar industry and dental caries

The sugar industry has influenced the scientific agenda of the National Caries Program in the United States.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup not really surprising. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
there more interested in "profit", than what the facts are--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That reminds me: In my ongoing delusion that I'm going to keep working on Candy and associated articles, I've looked for a really solid source that says candy causes dental caries... and I've come up empty-handed. We all know it (right?), but it appears that no reviews actually cover this basic point. If someone else has better luck, please fix the article or let me know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the literature usually revolves around sugar-containing foods, rather than using the word "candy", per se. See this AAP guideline, for example, though this webpage from the AAP mentions "candy" in particular. This review also seems to mention "candy" by name. Yobol (talk) 04:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dental caries in preschool children (as per above review) shows sugar industry starts early--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS: Splashy press around splashy PRIMARY sources on costs of endocrine disruptors.

This content was introduced today to the Endocrine disruptor article:

A study published in 2015 estimates the health costs of EDC in the European Union to be approximately €157 billion per year.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ http://www.eu-koordination.de/umweltnews/news/chemie/3071-edc-eu-kommissar-verteidigt-folgenabschaetzung
  2. ^ Estimating Burden and Disease Costs of Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union, doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-4324

I removed this with edit note: "this is essentially a press release on publication of a WP:PRIMARY source. fails MEDRS", and Gandydancer restored it with edit note, "This source seems OK to me". I have not re-reverted.

Issues:

  • First the source is in German.
  • second, it is an announcement in the EU parliament by a member of the Green party there. This is just political posturing, noting that a scientific paper has been published that is good for that politician's POV. With the German and the political nature of this, it is a bad source.
  • third there has been a shitload of popular media reports on these studies in English. like this, so if we were going to generate content from this, there are far better sources.
  • if you do some work, you will see that there are 4 WP:PRIMARY sources that were published at the same time by the same group, with one summarizing the other three:
    • (summary) Trasande L et al. Estimating Burden and Disease Costs of Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Mar 5:jc20144324. [Epub ahead of print] PMID 25742516
    • Legler J et al. Obesity, Diabetes, and Associated Costs of Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Mar 5:jc20144326. [Epub ahead of print] PMID 25742518
    • Hauser R, et al. Male Reproductive Disorders, Diseases, and Costs of Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Mar 5:jc20144324. [Epub ahead of print] PMID 25742517
    • Bellanger M et al. Neurobehavioral Deficits, Diseases and Associated Costs of Exposure to Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Mar 5:jc20144323. [Epub ahead of print] PMID 25742515
  • These 4 papers are WP:PRIMARY sources, and per other science-based content in WP, we wait to see how these papers are treated by WP:SECONDARY sources. We don't do science by press release in WP. We don't do it when Big Pharma hypes clinical trial results published in a primary source, and we don't it here either.

In my view this content is health related, since the authors had to make judgements about what diseases/conditions ED chemicals cause, and then just did the math from there.

  • The questions
    • does MEDRS apply here?
    • What if anything should we say now, before secondary sources come out?

Thanks Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the article , of course, indicates it is within the scope of this wikiproject, therefore subject to all you have enumerated above (you have acted with logic and objectivity), having said that one should always try to find a "common ground" as I am certain can be done here, while satisfying all guidelines--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oz, while all content should be sourced to 2ndary sources per WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, and RS, only some content in health-related articles is specfically subject to MEDRS's call for secondary sources. Content about the cost of a drug, for example, doesn't need reviews or statements by major bodies under MEDRS (it should anyway per OR/VERIFY/RS, but not per MEDRS per se). The reason I think this content is subject to MEDRS's secondary sources guidance, is that the authors had to make judgements about what diseases/conditions are caused by EDs in order to calculate costs - to me that is very much about health and is highly controversial. Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your judgement--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree MEDRS applies, and even if there wasn't a biomedical aspect here, I'd want to see better sourcing ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source is ok. €157 billion is an economic cost. I don't think you can invoke MEDRS for removing a monetary figure in dollars (or euros). -A1candidate 15:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you ignored what i wrote above. the estimate is based on making a determine of what conditions/decisions are allegedly caused by alleged ED compounds (2 health claims about health). Once a decisions are made about those, it is just math. The papers discuss both alleging steps and make decisions about them. This is completely unlike doing something like reporting sales of an actual drug, or determining the cost to treat someone who has, say, Alzheimers. There are two controversial and very biomedical steps before that, which are the heart of these papers. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The monetary figure doesn't exist in isolation, though. It represents the authors' projections of the increased incidence of certain medical conditions as the result of exposure to EDCs, multiplied by the economic cost associated with those conditions. I agree that the average or expected economic cost associated with a particular medical condition is plausibly not a medical claim and not subject to the strict requirements of MEDRS (though it's a slippery-enough quantity to define and estimate and interpret that very robust sourcing standards should still apply).
But—forecasting a specific change in incidence of a range of medical conditions as a consequence of environmental exposures to certain chemical compounds? That's getting into medical-claim territory and within the scope of MEDRS. And since the dollar- (or euro-)cost estimate is clearly derived from and dependent on that medical assertion, we can't pretend that it's purely an economic statement not subject to MEDRS. I am strongly inclined to agree with Jytdog's interpretation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per PMID 21054169, the danger posed by EDCs is a scientific fact. EDC advocates will no doubt disagree, but Wikipedia is not the place for this. -A1candidate 16:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

over stating what the source says and how it applies to this situation, per usual. Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While PubMed has not as yet classified PMID 25742516 as a review, it would effectively appear to be a review:

For each exposure-outcome association, the process in each group began with the presentation of epidemiological and toxicological reviews of the literature ... Expert panelists were then asked to provide their opinions about the strength of the epidemiological and toxicological evidence for the exposure-outcome relationship and the nature of that relationship.

— Trasande et al., The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism doi:10.1210/jc.2014-4324

In other words, an expert panel reviewed the available reviews and used a weight-of-evidence approach to assign a probability of causation. So why isn't this considered a secondary source? Boghog (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, it would appear that the underlying medical claims (EDCs cause illnesses) in this source are tertiary (review of reviews, MEDRS compliant) while the economic claims (these illnesses cost ... ) are primary (outside the scope of MEDRS). Boghog (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1. That's not just some study by some random people (“the Steering Committee convened expert panels for each of the domains composed of four to eight scientific expert”). MEDRS does not apply here. However, I would not oppose removing the first reference and to rephrase the text. For instance, the whole range of the Monte Carlo analysis (€3.3–244 billion annually) may be given. --Leyo 20:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Economics is not a medical claim and therefore does not need a medical source. Cost effectiveness is a different matter as it is a medical claim. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, and Alzheimer's disease

Are any of these FAs being maintained by a medical editor? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 15:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Nevermind, that was a stupid question.
@Garrondo: I'm going to be rewriting the subsections in Neurobiological effects of physical exercise#Implications in neurodegenerative disorders within the next few days - the section topics are your three FA's. It would be best to keep the text in the exercise article subsections and the disease articles harmonized, so I figured I should probably notify you about this in the event you'd like to update the articles once I'm done. I'm going to use at least 2 medical reviews from 2013-2015 to write each subsection (e.g., PMID 23962667 PMID 24367955 PMID 24473219 PMID 23492553 PMID 24132847). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 15:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good news (AZ at least is long overdue). Please take care to preserve the Diberri/Boghog format for citation consistency (required for FAs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Garrondo has not edited since Sept 2013. I've been keeping a loose watch on the Parkinson's and Huntington's pages -- since I've signed on for the GA review of your article, in the process I'll give some thought to whether your material should be propagated. Looie496 (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ill look thru all 3 articles this weekend--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A few of use keep an eye on them. Updating and simplification is needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images from the UK Department for International Development

Hi All

I've just uploaded three hundred or so images from the UK Department for International Development to Commons here, many are related to medicine and there are a large amount of images specific to Ebola treatment. It would be really helpful if you could help categorise and use them in articles. I'm hoping wide usage on Wikipedia articles can encourage them to make more images available. Here are a few examples:

Thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the Ebola virus epidemic in west Africa article, might very well benefit from your images, thank you very much--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ozzie10aaaa
Really happy to hear they will be useful, I've now added around 700 more to the same category that were previously uploaded by another user. If anyone could help with categorisation that would be super.
Thanks again
Mrjohncummings (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thank you I can help with some categorization and may use more images now that more are available.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Penis transplantation

There have been a lot of headlines recently about what is supposed to be the world's first successful penis transplant, which was performed last December in South Africa. For whatever reason, it is only just being reported on now. [3] [4] The weird thing is that there were media reports about "the world's first penis transplant" back in 2006 as well, in China. [5] The difference was that that penis was later rejected. [6] So should we describe the new South African transplant as the first successful one, or not? Everymorning talk 19:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see why not, if it was successful--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've added the section "History" to the Phalloplasty#History article, can someone take a look at that, and consider expanding the section, and including it in the penis transplantation article as a pre-cursor technology? Thanks. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious sleeping illness

I think it would be very good if someone from this project could have a look at this quite recently created article on a mysterious Sleeping illness in northern Kazakhstan. Right now it looks more like a news report then a encyclopaedic article. Thanks. P. S. Burton (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the article in question cites 4 references of which none are review articles within 5 years (let alone journals to begin with), --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to use primary sources

To support medical claims here [7]. Further opinions requested. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An interested paper on Wikipedia

[8]

Am trying to clarify the definitions of low, moderate, and high Wikipedia use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they gave their conclusion early on Wikipedia is an open web-based encyclopaedia and is therefore more responsive to changes in knowledge than conventional encyclopaedias. Without a doubt, Wikipedia is one of the most dominant online reference sources, gaining in presence, quality, and content [3] - also for retrieving health information [10,12,13]. Not only the lay public but health professionals, researchers, and medical students depend on it as a resource for medical information if im not mistaken they did seem to indicate a much higher percentage of male use (except in "low" use)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The options for use in their survey were "1-5x/week", "Daily", and "1-5x/month", and "Never" - I'd guess the first three are high, moderate, and low use respectively. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 18:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That no one picked "never" I find hard to believe. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad the paper doesn't mention specific articles with the errors or false information they discuss... TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes it would have been better if they were more specific--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially false. Any given student merely thought it was false, no other details or evidence that there were indeed errors, and in which articles, as you already point out. They provide the questionnaire which were used, and these data were not collected. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I haven't overlooked it, the authors failed to indicate or to ask whether a specific language version of Wikipedia was considered. Since the students were asked at universities in Germany, Austria and Norway, they might (primarily) use the German, Norwegian or English Wikipedia. --Leyo 17:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that is yet another good point--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin cleansing myth article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Virgin cleansing myth#Quality Of Sources. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Backstory is at Talk:Virgin cleansing myth#Blood Libel And Racism. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meth mouth

This article was not previously listed under WP:MED, which I feel is inappropriate. Appears to have been promoted to GA status without reference to MEDRS and MEDMOS, but most of refs seem ok. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Ping Seppi333 if interested. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the #20 reference is not a review article within 5 years, otherwise looks good--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go through and copyedit it sometimes soon; I agree it needs some work. Based upon what I remember from the sources I've used, it's associated far more with oral intake of impure illicit methamphetamine (e.g., caustic impurities include lye and lithium battery acid, depending upon how it's synthesized) than the meth's adverse effects. Dextromethamphetamine (recreational isomer) actually has weaker peripheral effects than both amphetamine isomers (although levomethamphetamine has stronger peripheral effects than both), though moderately stronger CNS effects. I gather that would make bruxism (CNS-mediated effect) worse but involve less xerostomia (I'm assuming this is related to the peripherally-mediated drying effect of substituted amphetamines mucous membranes).
It needs copyediting to reflect this, though I need to go back through the sources I used to write methamphetamine first. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes agree a medical topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better image of Turner syndrome

Anyone now if a better image exists? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for an image of Cushing syndrome. Unable to find one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of death (CoD) categories

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the deletion of CoD categories. Please share your opinions, either here or at the discussion page. Personally, I find these categories being of major importance from a medical perspective, as well as being defining to the individual. Any thoughts? — Gaute chat - email - sign 23:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe CoD categories are very important, as the posting editor has indicated not just from a medical perspective but for various other reasons--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toxins from e-cigarettes

Researchers have found that e-cigarettes produce negligible levels of toxins.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

not completely,Small but measurable quantities of 5 of the 55 HPHCs tested were found in three of the e-cigarette aerosol samples at 50–900 times lower levels than measurable in the cigarette smoke samples,(2nd ref) were found, the first reference dictates similar result--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
that source (PMID 23467656) is a WP:PRIMARY source and the 2nd source is just popular media, hyping it. Per WP:MEDREV we don't react til that is discussed in secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(I guess you haven't seen the one below?), I will have to second that,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a new publication. We have lots of secondary sources on this topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • These studies are bound to be cited by secondary sources later anyway, especially with one of them appearing in the BMJ. Thanks for bringing them to our attention. -A1candidate 00:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contagion from vaccination

Physicians know that recently vaccinated individuals can infect other individuals (both vaccinated and unvaccinated).

—Wavelength (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the media often will say one thing and then another, that is why any discussion is best based on something more substantial than the news--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are all the 23 references (below the article) not substantial?
—Wavelength (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
first of all, that is a press release from a fairly crackpot foundation Weston A. Price Foundation - not a news report from CNBC. so, misrepresented. It is not reliable for much of anything except what that foundation thinks. secondly, the headline and section header is hilariously alarmist and gives succor to anti-vaccine nutjobs (nice job, spokeslady, saying the measles outbreak could have been started by a vaccinated kid. sure ~maybe~ but if parents got their kids vaccinated, we wouldn't have outbreaks like we have had. see herd effect.) yes, per the many refs, the medical community already knows that people who have been vaccinated with live vaccines can spread virus (that is why they are warned to be careful) and secondly, that vaccinized people can harbor virus. the key thing is that the vaccinated people (mostly, as nothing is perfect) don't get sick, and neither do other people who are vaccinated. oh, and their point that healthy people fight off disease better - also not a big revelation. blech. Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is sort of true but need a proper ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have very strong opinions about vaccinations, except they're only useful if you're under the age of 10, a pandemic is approaching, or if you're travelling to some exotic places. -A1candidate 00:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or maybe after a bat bite as it keeps you from dying a horrible death from rabies (I have had bats that have bitten people test positive). Or maybe during a hepatitis A outbreak. Or maybe if you work with people who have hepatitis B. Or to keep you from dying of tetanus.
    • Agree they are slightly less needed now in the developed world because they have worked so incredibly well (smallpox was once the leading cause of death in the United States and a few shots often work for the rest of peoples lives like with polio).
    • Now that we so rarely see people dying from vaccine preventable diseases in the developed world much of the population takes them and herd immunity for granted. Hopefully humanity is not so stupid that the developed world needs to become like the developing world again before we re realize the benefits of vaccines. Hopefully intelligence will allow us to learn from other peoples misfortune and the past. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
well said--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This ref sums it up 99% or greater decline in deaths due to diseases prevented by vaccines recommended before 1980 were shown for diphtheria, mumps, pertussis, and tetanus. Nothing in medicine even comes close. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ensuring routine access to pertussis, influenza, pneumococcal, and zoster vaccines can reduce vaccine-preventable disease morbidity and mortality among adults, and may decrease disease transmission to other vulnerable populations... very informative article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard that chlorinated water has saved more lives, but it's been around longer and is more widespread, so it might depend upon how you count. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you include smallpox. But likely splitting hairs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it comes down to prevention, irrespective of source (vaccine , (Cl
2), etc)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

having/fighting ebola dr. spencer -nejm

[9] this came out not too long ago, I deem it a good read, this individual was both a fighter and a victim (BTW it was also placed at Ebola virus epidemic in west africa talk)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft at AFC needs help

Please help review Draft:Self-adaptive wound dressing (2) - is it a notable topic yet? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the text seems fine, (Overview, Technology, Effectiveness)...the references might depend too heavily on "Lipincott"...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? I don't see any "Lipincott" references at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
right..if you notice references 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 say Lipincott e-Conference center.com (on the upper left hand-side[10] as the source...I think its notable as an article (text)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes the publisher! I was looking at authors. Those sources are conference papers from an annual conference "series", is that a problem for acceptability of the article? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
good question...I think you may want to get a second opinion--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need secondary sources that are at least pubmed indexed. Are any of the refs of that article? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus opinion about this draft would be appreciated, thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need proper sources. None were provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Burzynski Clinic

Can some MEDRS regulars comment at Talk:Burzynski_Clinic#A_few_words_of_clarification. There's some edits to hide or downplay information about studies where all of the patients died. Second Quantization (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any medical claims based on primary sources? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
am watching the article and have made some revisions; more to come. Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TfD of potential interest

Template:Maintained has been nominated for deletion here. In checking to see where it was used, I noticed a lot of biomedical articles on the list, so I'm posting this link here for broader input. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Involuntary celibacy

Valoem (talk · contribs) is requesting to move this back to mainspace, so opinions are sought over at User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy. I'd argue that this has medical/psychological implications, though others' views may vary.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I voted, and it seems an important topic--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multisystemic therapy

Concerning edits occurring. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heading of marketing of MST Services is paying someone to write that article. I trimmed issues priously but more likely needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources

This user is continueing to add primary sources from the 1980s [11] Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps a warning for improper referencing, should he/she continue without regard for rules after warning, a temporary block--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still continueing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reiterated MEDRS on his/her (talk), with a link--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

alsuntangled.com

I thought we might want to make friends with these people http://alsuntangled.com/

they are volunteer doctors who take on common questions about ALS (people tweet questions or post on their website) and they write review articles answering them, and then publish them. See: http://alsuntangled.com/completed.html Nice right? like us some. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like there evidence based reviews. They could likely use summarizes on Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
looks good,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Cause of death: Cardiac Arrest"

I have noticed the cause of death in many articles about people is stated to be cardiac arrest; often featured prominently in the article's infobox. However, cardiac arrest is the mechanism of death and not its cause. Should this technical point be corrected, or should we just let sleeping dogs lie and leave the colloquialisms in place? And if we wish to correct this, then how? Some problems I see are 1) discrepancies between what coroners from different nations are allowed to use to describe "cause of death", for instance some countries allow "old age" whereas others do not, 2) the unreliability of news sources to correctly use terms like "mechanism" vs. "manner" vs. "cause" of death, and 3) the lack of access to official coroner reports to find the actual cause of death to replace the current info in articles. Thoughts? TypingAway (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the #1 and #3 points you raise are difficult to get around due to, as you say "nation" in question (which also involves the corresponding coroners office).In regards to the media, this wikiproject uses review article, so I would think they are a non-factor--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We typically do rely on the media for the cause of somebody's death -- medical review articles are rarely available. Anyway, I don't think we have any realistic choice here, in cases where no autopsy was performed. I would definitely be opposed to changing "cause of death" to "mechanism of death" in those infoboxes, if anybody has any such idea. Looie496 (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
question #2 (from the poster) reads mechanism vs manner vs cause correct usage, when a primary or secondary source is made available we in fact do use journals (or WHO, CDC) as has been the case with the ebola outbreak in west Africa and evacuated cases[12]. Now then, that in fact "cardiac arrest" as a cause of death may take longer (or in some cases maybe never) as opposed to a virus, bacteria, head injury, is a different story, we are suppose to follow Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bifid penis and diphallia

While creating a disambig page for double penis, I found that we currently have articles on both bifid penis and diphallia. Are these two names for the same condition, or two distinct conditions? If the former, they should be merged: if the latter, can someone please clarify the exact difference between the two conditions in both articles? Also, should the normal condition of bifid penis in some other species be split out from the article about the abnormal condition in humans, into its own article? -- The Anome (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

apparently diphallia is a much more complicated congenital disorder, which springs a number of co-existing problems in the individual in question ( renal, vertebral, hindgut, anorectal). While bifid is relegated to the area in question, and no further than that (congenitically speaking).... in regards to the last question its not clear, what the exact question is--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question about primary versus secondary sources

For medical content here. Wondering if others have opinions [13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

commented there. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
seems important--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting anecdote

Hi all. Just passing on a thing. We just had our very first request through the CRUK information nurse helpline to edit a Wikipedia page. It was from a survivor of a very rare leukaemia, who felt that the current page on the topic was unnecessarily negative and 'filled him with doom and gloom' (he's survived for 14 years - somewhat of an outlier given the overall statistics for the disease in general!). He didn't feel he was qualified to edit the page himself, hence the request to us. If anyone felt like having a look at the page with this in mind, that would be great - I'm not aware of any current refs that would substantially change its content but perhaps the tone could be a little less brutal in places to bear the newly-diagnosed in mind. Cheers, HenryScow (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=652734773"