Portal talk:Medicine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured portalThe Medicine Portal is a featured portal, which means it has been identified as one of the best portals on Wikipedia. If you see a way this portal can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, please feel free to contribute.
Portal milestones
June 20, 2006Featured portal candidatePromoted
WikiProject iconMedicine Portal‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
PortalThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconPortals (Rated FPo-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis page is a portal. Portals are within the scope of WikiProject Portals, a collaborative effort to improve portals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 FPo This portal has been rated as FPo-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This portal has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
See also: List of Portals
Note icon

  • This portal's subpages have been checked by an editor, and are needed.
Please take care when editing, especially if using automated editing software. Learn how to update the maintenance information here. (July 2018)

Improvement drive[edit]

A related article, Obesity, is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Please vote for this article there.--Fenice 08:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Main page redesign[edit]

There is discussion going on now regarding the Main page redesign and linking portals (more prominently) from the main page to allow users to more easily browse Wikipedia. The discussion specifically concerns Portal:Health and Portal:Medicine. I want to bring these concerns to your attention, as editors interested/experts in Medicine (and probably health too). -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please comment at either Wikipedia talk:Portal and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft.


I think the portal:Health could use some major work. See my comments on the discussion page there, and if you would like to help out please do.--Chinawhitecotton 08:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A scientific peer review has been started and we're looking for Wikipedians who are members of the scientific academic community to run for the board. If you want to give it a shot come over and post a little about yourself. New nominations are being accepted until the 00:00 on the 17th March.

The project aims to combine existing peer review mechanisms (Wikipedia peer review, featured article candidate discussion, article assessment, &c.) which focus on compliance to manual of style and referencing policy with a more conventional peer review by members of the scientific academic community. It is hoped that this will raise science-based articles to their highest possible standards. Article quality and factual validity is now Wikipedia's most important goal. Having as many errors as Britannica is not good–we must raise our standards above this. --Oldak Quill 18:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section headings[edit]

With the Misc:Auto-number headings preference checked, the section headings are displaying a number before the heading. This is different than the other portals which are not using auto-generated heading— it would be better if the numbers weren't displayed. (I don't have time to look at this right now...) —Doug Bell talkcontrib 12:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Latin terminology[edit]

Latin terminology in Anatomy, Histology, Physiology would be a great addition

Somebody should add the first successful gene therapy [1] (pdf) --De.Gerbil 10:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Thanks for the link. NCurse 06:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


As far as I can see, not too many editor work on this portal. If you don't mind, I've made some changes, and I plan to continue this work. If somebody doesn't agree with that, just write to me. Thanks. NCurse 05:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are doing a great job! --WS 23:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it's looking fantastic! InvictaHOG 00:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. In some days I'll be totally ready. :) NCurse work 05:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Liposculpture is a refinement of Liposuction and implies a more artistic approach to sculpturing, typically involving the removal of more fat, more agressively, more superficially and yet with a smoother result having fewer dents and dimples and less asymmetry.

Selected article nominations procedure[edit]

I've created:

NCurse work 17:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations on featured portal![edit]

Great work! InvictaHOG 10:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

congrats! nice job! :) – Alensha  17:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! :) Also in the name of Stevenfruitsmaak. :) We worked together on that. NCurse work 17:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ophthalmology missing from the portal[edit]

The Medicine portal does not include eyes or feature Ophthalmology as a speciality! That is indeed strange considering that Ophthalmology encompasses a tremendous amount of medicine, besides surgical procedures. Eye complaints and their management is a very common medically managed issue. Being an eye specialist, I feel that it deserves inclusion in the portal and envisage a much wider role for portal as a whole for physicians and surgeons. Excluding other surgical specialities also is, IMO, not desirable. Could someone kindly take steps to ensure such an inclusion. EyeMD 14:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, answered on talk page... NCurse work 16:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Medical specialties already appears on the portal. Category:Ophthalmology is already listed as a subcategory of Category:Medical specialties. AED 17:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So then? Decide and I take the step needed. I think AED is right. NCurse work 12:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought so too, so I removed it again. We hold no grudge against ophtalmo, but mentioning all specialities would make the categories box pretty useless.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 13:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence basis of medicines and procedures[edit]

Hi all,

I'm a fairly new user with a big plan. As a practicing Pharmacist and trained research biochemist I'm aiming to add references to the evidence base of pharmaceutical products and medical procedures to each relevant article. I find it quite difficult to find a comprehensive library of articles relevant to the topic for which I am searching and feel that this is the best way to achieve that end. Further to this it would create an excellent research tool for students; each article essentially being a self-contained portal. So, what's everyone's opinion on this?  — [Unsigned comment added by Drues (talkcontribs).]

Great! It would be an important job, because references are the keypoints nowadays. Look, I think you could work nearly all kind of diseases related articles. If I can give you an advice, please work first on Most important genetic disorders. I help wherever you need. Good work! :) NCurse work 08:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great idea! Hmm Ncurse trying to win a soul for your WikiProject :-D ? Anyway, look at the Portal page and you'll find many places to begin your project; maybe you'd like to join WikiProject Clinical medicine, sounds like something for you no?--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 12:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Boxes moved[edit]

I moved some of the boxes to avoid white space between them, although the order seems maybe less logical now. Ideas are welcome.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 12:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My problem is to show regularly changing boxes above the topics box. What if we move quotes (which I update regularly) below the DYK box and make images in selected images larger because now they're so small, it is even hard to read them. Then these boxes would be in the same level. Below topics box, categoris should be on the right side. I think it'd be the best solution. What do you think? NCurse work 16:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that would indeed be a better solution! I'll have a go at it, unless you want to spend your wikibreak on it :-) --Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 10:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. :)) NCurse work 10:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As another BOLD move, I've expanded the categories box, because there was only white space next to it that can be avoided this way. Comments are welcome.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 19:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good move. :) NCurse work 19:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear colleges!

Would please have an eye on this article. Compare the diskussion in the german version de:Kieferothopädie. The user de:Benutzer:Dr. Georg Risse is owner of a company wich is propagating non standard therapeutic procedures. His contributions in the german wikipedia are biased and it was necessary to revert the article de:Kieferothopädie several times.

Greetings -- Andreas Werle 15:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dichloroacetate is a breaking news story, which could be an effective treatment for cancer. It has been removed as speculative... and while human trials have not commenced; it has already been used for years to treat other disorders. I am re-adding it to cancer, and would request guidance/help in writing a NPOV section. Thank you. - RoyBoy 800 01:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually I shortened the section considerably has the pertinent details are already in dichloroacetate. - RoyBoy 800 02:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Things you can do[edit]

When and how is this updated? Antibiotic is thoroughly wikified, and abdominal examination is not a stub! --- DrGaellon 18:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can find an edit link on the rigth-upper side of the box. I refreshed it now, thanks for the suggestions. NCurse work 18:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disagree with FASD as selected article[edit]

For the reasons laid out on the talk page at Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, I disagree with featuring as a selected article on the portal an article that is not even named correctly, and still has WP:MEDMOS and WP:MOS issues to be worked out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made a change to International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. I'm the only maintainer of the portal and it was a mistake. I'm sorry. NCurse work 18:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I would quite like to add Noncompaction Cardiomyopathy to the template Circulatory system pathology in the Myocardium section and in the Health Science – Medicine - Surgery - Cardiac surgery in the Heart Transplant section.

Other types of specific cardiomyopathies are listed in these sections as well. Is there a partiuclar area where i can check with people if they are happy with this addition.

Thanks Philbentley 08:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Noncompaction Cardiomyopathy" is not a term recognized by ICD-9, ICD-10, MeSH, Diseases Database, or eMedicine, so I don't think it is a standard enough term to be on the template. --Arcadian 10:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough, you can though find a fair number of articles on it at:

I think the reason why it doesn't pop up on those lists that you mentioned is they are somewhat out of date and this was still a new form when they were beign formulated, I see the WHO list came out in 1995 and NCC was only discovered as such in 1990.

The American Heart Association (AHA) article presents the problem quite nicely:

The last formal effort at developing a consensus for a classification of cardiomyopathies was 11 years ago (1995) in the form of a very brief document under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO).1 However, with the identification of several new disease entities over the past decade, dramatic advances in diagnosis, and precise knowledge of causation, some disease definitions have become outdated and render the WHO classification obsolete in many respects.

The WHO list only had 3 (later 4) cardiomyopathies while the AHA have 10 cardiomyopathies plus various sub types and secondary causes for cardiomyopathies.

I jsut feel the lsit isn't beign as inclusive as it should be.

Cheers Philbentley 12:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding portals to bio's[edit]

I was interested in adding two noted Doctors (Michael E. DeBakey and James "Red" Duke to the portal, which I would hope would help their articles, but I can't find out which portals to put them in. can someone enlighten me?--Hourick 00:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I included DeBakey, but did not the other article as it seems to be too short. Thank you for the note! NCurse work 09:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


under this category there are.

  • Anatomists
  • Immunologists
  • Medical education
  • Neuroscientists
  • Pathologists
  • Physiologists
  • Radiobiologists
  • Vesalius
  • Michael E. DeBakey

There are an individual doctors (Dr. Debakey), there is a speciality (pathologist), there are people who are not necessarily physicians (anatomists, nuroscientists)

It is confusingExpo512 (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right. I made some changes. NCurse work 13:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could someone add Prehistoric Medicine Article to this portal please?[edit]

As said in the title really; can some please add the article Prehistoric Medicine to the portal please as I believe that it deserves entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talkcontribs) 18:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. NCurse work 18:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did it break???[edit]

The Selected article and Selected picture seem to broken? If they're like this tomorrow I'll try to fix it... Stepshep (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems like a bad redirect to nowhere?? Stepshep (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the problem is it's very hard to maintain them and to create new selected article/picture templates. I'm struggling, but sometimes I can't do it in time. Now I revert your edit and update both templates. Thank you! NCurse work 17:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Portal participation[edit]

Is there a section to join a group of maintainers?? I'd be glad to help out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepshep (talkcontribs) 22:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Participants list help fulfill that role ? David Ruben Talk 11:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been the maintainer of this portal for almost 2 years. Please contact me if you would like to help me out. It would be great! NCurse work 12:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

S3 and S4 split/merge[edit]

I have proposed a split (or perhaps a merge) of the information for heart sounds S3 and S4. Discussion is at Talk:Heart sounds; please opine there. - Draeco (talk) 05:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Draeco! I believe you should announce it on the talk page of WikiProject Medicine as well. NCurse work 06:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women's Health Concerns[edit]

I am a relatively new and humble contributor to Wikipedia. My mjor field of interest is Women's Health, whereby I would like to concentrate on educaing the worldwide wikipedia users about the medical outcome of the results of the two wide scale studies published during 2002 and 2003 by the Women's Health Initiative and The Million Women Study respectfully. These studies showed clearly that the medication used to treat menopause symptoms and osteoporosis (hormone replacement therapy) doubles the chances of breast cancer and increases the chances for trombosis by nearly 40%!!

I am interested in spreading this information and warning Women users worldwide by translation of the Wiki-entries that are related to this subject, and by adding new entries related to the subject, all as a part of the the Wikipharma project. I believe that it is crucial for women world-wide to have a clear presentation of this information, understand the risks of HRT, and be aware of alternative treatments - IN ORDER TO PROTECT THEMSELVES from cancer, strokes and other diseases.

As a strating point, I would like to offer for following articles for translation: 1. The Million Women Study 2. Women's Health Initiative 3. Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERMs) 4. Femarelle (DT56a) 5. Hot Flashes

Can anyone refer me to a proper way to post multilanguage translation? Is there anyone who would like to post a related topic? Sincerely,

O.K. --Korazim (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


with one the size of 3.5cm cna this be fixed noninvasive .marilyn lpn —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12 simple english interwiki links?[edit]

In the box with other language interwiki links, I get 12 links to the simple english wiki first before all other languages. Can't find it back in the wiki source though. Does anybody else have the same? --WS (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Digging through the page history they first appear in this revision of the article. --WS (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed it, removed the simple english link from the box-header subpage. --WS (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

selected article history[edit]

Just bumbling around, found Portal:Medicine/Selected article candidates past nominations points to Portal:Medicine/Selected article candidates archive, thought it might be easier to point it to Portal:Medicine/Selected Article and do away with candidates archive ? LeeVJ (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good idea, go ahead. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have changed link and wording only Myocardial infarction isn't listed in selected articles, not sure if this was selected, although it probably should be, and I can't delete said archive if we no longer need it... LeeVJ (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The caduceus is an improper symbol to represent the Medicine portal. The use of the Caduceus to represent medicine is a common mistake. It actually represents theft, deception, alchemy, and death. The Rod of Asclepius is the correct symbol to be used.

I am attempting to locate an image of the Rod of Asclepius that is suitable for use for this portal. Once I find it, I will replace the header image. (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both images are used to represent medicine worldwide. But thank you for the correction! NCurse work 08:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saline solution to clean a wound[edit]

Instead of buying a saline solution at the pharmacy I would like to make my own. How do I proceed. It would be for human skin flushing to clean, and for dogs with light abrasions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


hi, I dont know if this is the right PLACE to ask this question. Can you tell me if there are any vitemins that reacte, if taken to gether, like vitemin A and vitemin D THANK YOU CLAUDE McCURDY —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using Template:WPMED for selected article tagging[edit]

I've recently brought up the idea of using the main project banner template for selected article tagging. Any opinions, thoughts, etc. would be appreciated at Template talk:WPMED#COTW and Portal links from this template. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Calorie Restriction Mimetics[edit]

Could someone who understands the purpose of this portal please upgrade the importance of the article calorie restriction mimetics. GlaxoSmithKline didn't pay $720 million for Sirtris Pharmaceutical for nothing! Seriously, the subject is of far more importance than its given credit for currently. In addition, I've started an informal Request for Hypotheses section on the Discussion page, and I think if an editor or administrator for this discussion group would upgrade the subject matter's importance, it would go a long way to improving the chances of attracting both supporting hypothesis and as well as the researchers to document and support the good ones from the multitude of peer reviewed journal articles published everyday on this rapidly advancing subject. So, whose with me? (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYKs using dates incorrectly?[edit]

I just noticed that several of the pages using {{MedportalDYK}} have dates, while Portal:Medicine/Did you know is only using a random selection of articles at this point. The material listed in Portal:Medicine/Did you know archive has dates but the two different styles (random vs dated) are somewhat confusing, and I was thinking it might be better if we remove the archives and the related templates from the dated entries. We could add of the better dyk entries to the current rotation, while removing the rest. Any thoughts, objections? -Optigan13 (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've redirected the previous dated entry page, and update all pages to use the dyk=yes option of {{WPMED}}. I noticed a few issues during the update.

I'll try to come back and get some of these, but any help is appreciated, just strike through what ever you take care of. -Optigan13 (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this a sentence?[edit]

Medicine comprises used amongst medical professionals as shorthand for internal medicine. It's on the portal page, and I don't understand it. Fix? Thanks, Hordaland (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

this template does not take into consideration in which year the article was selected. thus, the one on talk:yellow fever links to the archive of 2008 and not to the one of 2006 which it should. I propose to add a parameter to the template so that it will again point to the right page according to the year the article was selected. What do you think? Greetings --hroest 12:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MRI report of my son is given below. 1. features suggestive of Bilateral Avascular necrosis. the changes seen more on the right than on left. 2.Abnormal changes seen in the Superior weight bearing portion of the right formal head causing mild architectural distortion with marrow edema extending to right formal neck with minimal right hip effusion. 3) Similar changes to lesser extent seen in the weight bearing portion of left femoral head without significant deformity. 4) Acetabular margins are normal. Both S.I. joints are normal. name Prashant Shinde Age 23 Years

Please suggest non surgical treatment or result oriented treatment E- mail ravindra6259@rediffmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CT Report[edit]

I have some things on my report that I would like to know if i should follow up on when I got the report I had no insurance so I did nothing. I have insurance now and would like to know is I should do something. Impressions stated bilateral basilar pulmonary nodules meeasuring approximately 2mm and 4mm in size thises certainly mey be related to granulomatous disease but primary or metastatic neoplasm would also be in the differential diagnosis. should i be concerned. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am not sure if last request went through so I am doing this again i have this on my impressions for the dr who read my report and would like to know is i should follow up I did not in 2008 due to no insurance which I have now.

bilateral basilar pulmonary nodules measuring approxinately 2mm and 4mm in size. Thise certainly may be related to granulomatous disease but primary or metastatic meoplasm would also be in the differential diagnosis. I have nodules in my left breast, lungs, thyroid lobes both and middle. liver, neck, bronchus, esophagus 3 x 1.6 x 2.4 cm posterior to the distal trachea Please help me know if I should do anything and what they might do“” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kandy46011 (talkcontribs) 18:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kandy: I think from what you have said you are looking for medical advice following a CT, (together with part of the radiologists report)? If this is the case, while I fully understand your anxiety the internet is not the best place to seek advice. You really need to speak to the team treating you and conducting the investigating. These are the best people to advise you and formulate with you any treatment plans (if needed). CT reports are only part of the diagnostic process and cannot be taken separately from any other investigations (including simply talking to you). If you feel that the medical team are not giving you clear information you really need to sit down and talk to them about this. This should be your first port of call Tucker talk 20:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article could use some help. From the talk page:

This article was originally excessively argumentative and expressed a minority viewpoint as the consensus of the profession. It urgently needed complete revision by a competent neurologist, with the minority viewpoint given space proportional to the rather limited support it enjoys amongst those who understand these matters. (Comment by User:Tharyps the Molossian)

Thanks in anticipation Cje (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ALT (SGPT)[edit]

I have an 83 on my ALT (SGPT) blood test. I know that is a little high from the normal range scale. But is this something to be concerned about at this point. My Doctor said it was not to bad and we will just keep an eye on it. If it was bad it would be 4 times the normal range.

Just getting a second opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use of templates ("footer" navboxes) within sections[edit]

Whilst trying to make a couple of articles clearer, and more useful as entry portals into their subject matter, I copied some of the collapsible templates into the relevant sections as a navigation aid. As a narrow strip they are fairly unobtrusive to someone just reading through the article and when opened put the whole topic in context. I personally feel that at the bottom of the page, especially whilst collapsed they are largly ignored/ignorable. In an article such as nervous system there are now so many of these that they they just put you off exploring them and the way some of the nested ones expand it just begins to look messy. If a template such as this is put in the relevant section (see visual system which for the moment has been allowed to stand) then they actually give a really great overview of the material that is available in wikipedia about that subject and put it all in context. I think it would also help editors as you get a clear idea of which pages are covering which parts of the material and so avoid duplication and unnecessary sidetracks. At the moment 2 out of three articles have just had my changes reverted quoting the WP:MOS (which doesn't actually mention them) and I think the bit on WP:LAYOUT about the order of bits at the bottom of the page is what the editors meant. I don't think it excludes using these templates in the body of the article as well. Even if it did then perhaps it needs review but obviously a much bigger body of opinion. Consistency is good but not at the loss of useful functionality. I obviously can't make a change like this on my own and I don't want to start an edit war over a few pages. Does anybody else think this is a useful way to go?

BTW I chose to re-use the footer navboxes because they already exist in large numbers thanks to a lot of peoples hard work. Does anybody think we need this sort of topic navigation but in a different format? Arfgab (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, I had to remove a "Did you know" from this portal as it linked a deleted article. (See my edit here.)

Feel free to reply if you object, I plan to be bold and replace it with the "did you know" from A.C.E. mixture in a couple of days if no one replies.

Best regards, Captain n00dle\Talk 18:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

typo(?) in "The Medicine Portal"[edit]

3rd paragraph starts with the sentence:
"Medicine comprises used amongst medical professionals as shorthand for internal medicine".
It's unclear what this is supposed to mean and I'm not sure how to fix it. Thanks. -- TyrS  chatties  04:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just noticed that this was raised previously on October 2009 (see above, Portal_talk:Medicine#Is_this_a_sentence.3F) and hasn't been fixed since, so I'm hazarding a guess that what was meant is something like this (and editing accordingly):
The term "medicine" is sometimes used amongst medical professionals as shorthand for internal medicine.
-- TyrS  chatties  04:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

linked to[edit]

Dr. John Gorham in Jacob Bigelow is not that John Gorham. --Askedonty (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the tip, please feel free to make that change. NCurse work 10:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jeffrey Braithwaite[edit]

Jeffrey Braithwaite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Newly created biography. As users he may be more clued about such a person - where is his basic wiki notability - WP:Author WP:Academic , is he wiki notable? Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is there any medicine for removing the black colour on the under arm?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General questions should be asked at the Reference desks, but note that no-one here can give you medical advice. See the Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follistatin-344 blocks Myostatin?[edit]

Hi medicine geeks, I'm not an expert but there are a lot of people using Follistatin-344 and they say it really blocks Myostatin... Can please somebody verify? and update the Myostatin article here? If it's not working, we need that information in the article. Because people are using Follistatin now and must be warned (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We are all volunteers here, and if you are really interested in the issue, lots of people are happy to teach you how to develop the articles. I am not sure what you mean, because the follistatin and myostatin articles already reference each other. Wikipedia is a collection of material which cites other sources - from what source are you getting this information? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need review and comment on Cannabis (drug)[edit]

Recent edits to Cannabis (drug) have added a section on Safety which is strongly biased toward cannabis being a risk-free drug. Emphasis is on a claim that no marijuana related deaths have ever occurred. Yes, there are some sources where the author states no cannabis deaths to report, but using these claims selectively is misleading. Several reliable sources have reported infrequent deaths and also list cannabis smoke as a carcinogen (links to these articles or to abstracts are provided in the deleted history or on the Talk page). Summary:

  • Forensic Science International

“Acute Cardiovascular Fatalities Following Cannabis Use”

  • Journal of Pediatrics

“Cerebellar Infarction in Adolescent Males Associated with Acute Marijuana Use”

  • Cancer Research, UK

“Does smoking cannabis cause cancer?”

  • Revue Neurologique (French)

“Cannabis-induced cerebral and myocardial infarction in a young woman”

  • Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases

“Cannabis-Related Myocardial Infarction and Cardioembolic Stroke”

  • UCLA School of Medicine

“Effects of marijuana on the lung and its immune defenses”

  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA, DAWN

“Area Profiles of Drug-Related Mortality” (this is a government tertiary source)

  • State of California

“Chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity” (This is a government tertiary source)

  • Center for Effective Drug Abuse Research & Statistics, Drugwatch

“Marijuana-only drug abuse deaths” (This is a tertiary source)

A marijuana supporter will not accept published medical journals and government reports that raise any safety concerns about cannabis usage. Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view and an unbiased handling of divergent sources. Certainly, cannabis is not as dangerous as several other hard drugs, but that does not result in absolute safety. Wikipedia should include both sources that discuss safety and sources that indicate problems. A balanced and neutral view is required.

Additional input and comments are welcome on the Talk page. Rlsheehan (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mandibular fracture[edit]

I was going to revise this article - is there a template to follow for injuries? Ian Furst (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Khan Kinetic Treatment[edit]

This article desperately needs monitoring.

This is a company that is trying to sell its product by fooling people using false scientific claims. In it official website it claims to have been proven to heal the spine, but there is actually no scientific evidence to back those claims. It even uses the phrase "quantum wave"! This word is obviously very appealing to the layperson, yet has actually nothing to do with the machine. I have edited the "Clinical research" subtitle of the article, as it was using statements like "has been extensively reviewed in medical publications" when all there is is few studies funded by the company itself using only self-answered questionnaires showing subjective pain relief, while the studies are not blinded, randomized, or even placebo controlled! This is an outrageous abuse of medicine and science by a greedy businessman, absolutely no credibility.

Emahms (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)EmahmsReply[reply]

I'd like someone to review this[edit]

Hello, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ShebaPrasad28/sandbox (once completed) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcholecystectomy_syndrome should be merged. It does have some legit info. - Danger^Mouse (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fundic and fundic gland[edit]

Are both fundic and fundic gland same? I am not sure but they are not the same. Fundic is a part of stomach (also called fundus). So why fundic redirects to fundic gland?
Notify me for response.
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 16:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Folliculogenesis and all ovary or oocyte related pages[edit]

i have been trying to refute the reference information. The data is potentially centuries old, I have no clue where it disseminates from, just that all the books say it. I dot. Know why oocyte-genesis would be so different than spermarazoangenesils. This is what I posted to the folliculogenesis talk page. The more that pay attention the more likely the information is able to e refuted and changed.

  Here is another way to assess the problem I encounter with the claims that a person is born with 1,000,000 primordial follicles in the ovaries. folliculogenesis Look at image 3, this is declared a secondary follicle with an approximate diameter of 0.2mm. That is 1/100 of the 2cm length in 4cm x 3cm x 2cm given as ovary size here on the page on ovary. This is less than ten times larger than size of a primordial follicle at 0.03mm. For the simplification of math lets say that the primordial follicle was even smaller being .02mm. That would make it 1/1,000 of the lesser length in the size of an adult ovary. That gives you the dimensions of 2/1,000 x 1.5/1,000 x 1/1,000 of an ovary being the size of a primordial follicle. This yields the possibility of less than 3,000 total primordial follicles(being that they are actually .03 - .05mm in diameter) in an adult ovary if it contained solely primordial follicles. It does not however. Therefor, I conclude it to be mathematically impossible for an ovary to contain this primordial follicle cell count, and I postulate that they are actually formed inside the ovary just as with spermatozogenesis. 

Also there is a problem within the references used for such a cell count as the value it is referenced for is considered the "dogma" of the field and the actual values given in the article state an average 300,000 NGF at the peak of the count not 4-7 million. So I don't understand why this count is given and referenced exactly.

(Crlinformative (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Wrong Caduceus for pharmacology on the portal[edit]

For pharmacy and the likes, it is not the Rod of Asclepius but the Bowl of Hygieia. There are more than 2-3 caducei, but the Bowl of Hygieia is one of the most famous and basic ones :-)

Project: Diagram[edit]

Utilizing Template:Annotated image 4, allows the insertion of links to Wikipedia articles in places where "words" appear. I am interested in suggesting this type of usage for various medical/medicine related articles.

The image above contains clickable links
Image of brain with Brodmann areas numbered

Twillisjr (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notice from the Portals WikiProject[edit]

WikiProject Portals is back!

The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018. Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, support the ongoing improvement of portals and the editors dedicated to this, and design the portals of the future.

As of May 2nd, 2018, membership is at 60 editors, and growing. You are welcome to join us.

There are design initiatives for revitalizing the portals system as a whole, and for improving each component of portals. So far, 2 new dynamic components have been developed: Template:Transclude lead excerpt and Template:Transclude random excerpt.

Tools are provided for building and maintaining portals, including automated portals that update themselves in various ways.

And, if you are bored and would like something to occupy your mind, we have a wonderful task list.

From your friendly neighborhood Portals WikiProject. Hope to see you there. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   07:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nasal septum deviation[edit]

information Note: Nasal_septum_deviation#Diagnosis.--Hildeoc (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Systemic vs Invasive infection[edit]

I need some help with medical terms.

I'm trying to create a section in the article Saccharomyces cerevisiae about pathogenicity of the species. In this review, for example, systemic infections caused by S. cerevisiae are described. Meanwile this one treats invasive infections. I have no medical training, but it appears to me that both articles speak of the same thing: the fungus infests blood. To what extent terms "systemic infection" and "invasive infection" are interchangeable (if they are)? And in the case of a fungus pathogen aren't they both synonymous to "fungemia"? Эйхер (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P:medicine listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect P:medicine. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –MJLTalk 17:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Parkinson's disease[edit]

Why do so many Parkinson's sufferers enjoy flagellation? Lord Sake (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basic principle of Adenovirus vector : vectoring a DNA strand encoding the spike to the cell nucleus[edit]

Hi, this user Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs) assisted by a second one doesn't want to let me explain the basic principle of Adenovirus vector vaccines in the Oxford–AstraZeneca_COVID-19_vaccine article, I have no clue why, and his replies are bot-like, you can see our "discussion" there, and my edit is there and is summarized in the title. A great explanation of Ad-vectored vaccines is in the NYtimes. I'd like some help, I just want to make it clear in the article that Ad vector = vectoring a DNA stand encoding the antigenic protein (here the spike), and give the few relevant keywords for those wanting to understand the next steps. 2A01:E0A:852:9590:1010:5716:8D8A:456 (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This subsection contains information that my influence readers to combine a Pfizer-Biontech and a Moderna vaccine dose. The only article cited is published in a medical journal but only dubbed as "news", so it's not a journal publication in the narrow sense. And the mix-and-match of its primary sources only apply to the combination of a AstraZenca and a mRNA dose. So this cannot even formally transferred to the combination of two different mRNA vaccine. (And the early studies only investigate the "reactogenity", the more rare side effect of myocarditis wasn't on the radar back then.) But there is a study that reports about that, the Nordic cohort study (Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden): doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2022.0583 And Table 2 states that the combination BNT/MOD has the highest IRR for myocarditis. My edits are reverted in short succession (2 minutes and less reflection time). This is untenable! I may ask for admins with knowledge in medicine to take more care and caution for this article with health claims. --Myosci (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Simone Formulation[edit]

This is a true gem. The "De Simone Formulation", aka VSL#3, manufactured by Professor (!) De Simone. There is a vast of health claims.

After reading "The probiotic formulation is classed as a high potency probiotic medical food in the United States." I need to buy it. Problem is that the provided FDA source does not mention it.

Maybe someone can look for this (except the SPA promoting it). Cheers, --Julius Senegal (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]