Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:MEDICINE)
Jump to: navigation, search


TESPAL - hand-drawn images[edit]

Any views on the hand-drawn images recently added to TESPAL? This article seems to be the subject of an educational assignment (see Wikipedia:Education program/B K Shah Medical Institute), so it might be interesting to check the quality of the other articles involved.

I've raised the general question of hand-drawn unverifiable images at Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#Hand-drawn_images, as this is the second instance I've noticed this week, having never spotted any before. I can't find any policy or guidelines, but it seems inappropriate that an editor can create an image and upload it with no sources etc, let alone the quality issues of drawings on lined notepad pages! PamD 11:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

See also Uncinectomy, from another student on the same course. PamD 11:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Images are fine. Okay to use until we have something better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see how the images are any worse than what we allow when graphics are computer generated. The only downside they have as far as I'm concerned is that they are uglier than computer graphics (especially so for being drawn on lined paper). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
    Some of these could be quite good if re-drawn as SVG. Maybe tag them with {{Should be SVG}} and/or introduce the instructor to Inkscape (or similar)? —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
    credit
    › 14:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
SVG[1] sounds good...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Reliable medical source?[edit]

Is http://www.drtbalu.com/index.html a reliable source? It's cited in a broken way in TESPAL but I've now found it through a link from Frontal Sinus Trephination, another article being worked on by the educational assignment mentioned above. PamD 11:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

no, should follow Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
No not a suitable source. Left a note with the editor in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Class[edit]

Fungal sinusitis

Class page is here [2]. Please clean up as needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

  • more help/edits on Wikipedia:Education_program/B_K_Shah_Medical_Institute ...(did one[3])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • members of that class are continuing to add unsourced content, content that is badly sourced, content that appears to be copied. I asked for intervention at the incidents board of the education program and there is no change in the editors' behavior. I am thinking of moving their articles to DRAFT space - anyone see a problem with that? Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
    Jytdog If Transnasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation is an example article of the sort that you would move to draft space then I would support that. I agree - that newly created article does not meet Wikipedia's quality criteria and it would be appropriate to keep it in draft space pending its improvement. Aside from inadequate sourcing and dubious information it is a good looking article. The layout and look of the illustrations is clever and unlike anything I have seen elsewhere. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks Bluerasberry - I'll wait a bit to see if anybody objects... Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
    IMO pages should only be moved to draftspace if there is a reasonable chance that the article would be deleted if taken to AFD (since "likely to survive an AfD nomination" is the official criterion for moving pages out of draftspace at AFC). Deletion is an unlikely outcome for at least some of these, so I think I would leave those. WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I moved the most of them - not all - to draft space. There are significant COPYVIO concerns in a bunch of these too. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Nicotine dependence[edit]

A new article was created with mass original research and off-topic information not explicitly about nicotine dependence. I think it should be moved to a draft or redirected to Nicotine#Reinforcement disorders. There may not be enough content for a separate page once all the OR and off-topic content is removed. The main section at Nicotine#Reinforcement disorders was not expanded to warrant a new article. The first source I checked to verify the claim failed verification. Please do not move any content to another page unless you are able to verify the claim using a reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the subject justifies its own page, though clearly this needs further work. If it wasn't you, I'd suggest engaging with the newish author about the problems. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

See Nicotine dependence#Assessment and Diagnosis. "These measures provide insight into what might be termed “psychological” dependence..." The quote brackets around psychological appears to be a cut and paste, but there is no source at the end of the sentence. It appears other text was cut and pasted. See WP:COPYVIO. QuackGuru (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Those are scare quotes, which do not imply copyright violations (which can't be done on a single word anyway). The presence of curly quotes could mean that the sentence (or just the word) was copied from another source, but it could also mean that the editor typed the contents in a word processing program first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
"Reinforcement disorder" isn't a thing, so that should be changed. It sounds like it might need some work, but there's definitely enough literature for a separate main article on nicotine dependence. I'm surprised we didn't have one already. —PermStrump(talk) 19:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? The phrase is used at the top of the {{Addiction}} navbox. Perhaps User:Seppi333 would share an opinion about that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
A reinforcement disorder is an addiction, a dependence, or both. A substance use disorder, as defined by the DSM, refers to both disorders simultaneously. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The second source I checked to verify the claim also failed verification. The text "These withdrawal symptoms are so unpleasant that smokers very frequently return to smoking.[3]" is not supported by reference 3. Reference 3 is "Alcohol dependence: provisional description of a clinical syndrome" from 1976.[4] It does not mention nicotine dependence or smokers. It is about alcohol dependence. The reference in the article does not include a link to the source and it does not include the date from 1976. QuackGuru (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The article says "With repeated exposure to nicotine, the number of binding sites on nicotinic receptors in the brain increases." The source says "With repeated exposure to nicotine,..." "...the number of binding sites on the nicotinic cholinergic receptors in the brain increases,.."[5] No ref was given at the end of the sentence in the Wikipedia. This suggests there could be other sentences in the article that do not have a source at the end of the sentence that could also be potential copyright violations. QuackGuru (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Opinions needed about the Coregasm article[edit]

Hi, all. Please have a look at the Coregasm article, and weigh in at Talk:Coregasm#Floated. Is the article fine as it is? Does it need any changes? Should it exist? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Silly fluff dressed up as a serious topic. So, under a heading "The experience" we get:

Unlike an orgasm resulting from vaginal intercourse, a coregasm might feel "more dull, less intense, and more tingly", although it lasts about the same amount of time as a conventional orgasm.

(presumably these experiences are for women only?). I'd nominate it for deletion except it'd be a waste of time because Wikipedia embraces this kind of guff. Alexbrn (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Merge to orgasm. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
More voices would be helpful here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
probably should be merged to orgasm...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Non free images marked as free[edit]

We have the predatory site OMICS International supposedly offering images under a CC BY 4.0 license. But some of them are watermarked.[7] I assume all their stuff is simply plagarized. Unfortunately Google is not smart enough to know the difference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that as a working assumption anything sourced to OMICS should be removed. That company is an ethics-free zone and we should have nothing to do with them on principle. In this specific case, we have credible claims that they have published fraudulent work, and plausible evidence of claiming rights over things that are not their intellectual property. The value of any image from an OMICS journal is, IMO, lower than the potential risks. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I only found one article that might have an inappropriate source to this group (Magnetic refrigeration), and I have tagged that source with {{unreliable source}}. There are multiple pages in the File: namespace that link to it (e.g., as the source of a logo for a school). WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Concur with Guy. However, Google image search was able to find similar images based on the url for the suspect jpg. Choosing "all sizes" came up with several (with various cropping), including the dermnet image they hijacked.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

A review of our work at UCSF[edit]

"Why Medical Schools Should Embrace Wikipedia"

After a number of years of effort our article is finally published.[8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Doc James dead link. i want to see !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) 00:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Same problem for me as well, the link does not work. James, when you say our work do you mean the whole medicine project or a specific article? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jytdog and TylerDurden8823:
Could either of you along with anyone else please comment on or change this summary which I am sending to The Signpost? Thanks.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Your summary looks accurate to me. Briefly mentioning the coordinators and their affiliations is a nice touch. (Disclaimer, I work at UCSF). --Mark viking (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Specifically, getting "403 Forbidden" for that URL. Maybe file on Google Drive is not shared? —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit
› 19:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
@ShelleyAdams:
Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Blue Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Great work--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Very interesting reading, and more than a bit encouraging on the quality front. One wonders, though, what the level of ongoing engagement is: how many of the students kept editing after their course? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Just out -
LeadSongDog In ~1000 classes reviewed by the WMF and Wiki Education Foundation, retention rate in the short term was negligible and too small to measure. If there is a retention rate to be studied, then possibly people could return many years after their first edits, but Wikipedia has not been around long enough to test that.
Currently, all education programs focus on soliciting good editing contributions in a short time from editors who will not be on Wikipedia for more than a few weeks. I do not know they numbers, but something like 40 edits over 6 weeks on 1-3 articles per person is common, with an average of 2 comments in on-wiki discussions. If you want to see class outcomes in this model case then visit Wikipedia:UCSF School of Medicine or ask me and I could tell you anything. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
That was my impression too, but it seems like a terrible waste. Even a tiny amount of continued engagement could help. How about something like a once-per-year email? Something like: "Hi there, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia Project Medicine. We've missed you, please drop by from time to time to see what's new." If even a few re-engaged later in their careers, it would be a big win for the project.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
We're already doing better than average: Most people who create accounts don't make even one edit; most people who make their first edit don't ever edit again – with that account, which is another problem for these stats. Someone might want to create an account that isn't associated with student editing, especially when that class account can be traced back to the owners' real-world names. And many people just edit while logged out, even when they have accounts and remember the passwords. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
LeadSongDog Your idea is completely reasonable. I know that if asked, you could probably list other reasonable interventions to test. It is difficult for me or anyone else to say what should be done, but I can talk about some of what is being done. The matter is currently being decided by finance. While the Wikipedia community could be organizing experiments like the one you described, in practice, it does not happen. The common term for what you describe is "necromancy", or summoning dead users. See meta:Research:Necromancy for a WMF 2012 study on this, but the issue is raised often. Right now, data suggests that the cost of recruiting new users is lower than the cost of funding necromancy programs, and that new user programs give better results. Problems with this approach include poor data, rapidly and continually changing software and policy circumstances, and social pressures like irrationality due to risk of community backlash. A lot of Wikipedia editors want the education program to include retention programs but the situation has become complicated and without significant input of resources - either money, community support, software changes, or some other form of stability - I do not see a near future in which anyone in Wikipedia education addresses retention in any way. A massive amount of data is being produced and it is challenging to make sense of what is happening. If you find someone with time and interest then I could give them a tour of some contemporary challenges by Skype or Hangouts.
I agree with what WIAD - education programs already are producing some good outcomes, and they are introducing some unusual challenges which do not appear elsewhere. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something, but it appears that meta:Research:Necromancy is so caught up in the minutia (of how often, with what wording, by what tool, etc.) that it loses out on the basic goal: just contact the absent users, at least once, to engage an ongoing interest after the course. This needn't be a costly thing, a database dump can feed an email list for next to no effort. It should be a matter of just a few minutes work for someone with the correct tools and access rights. Let us not allow the quest for perfection to delay real progress. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
LeadSongDog Yes, there is missing information, but instead of saying that you are missing something it might be more accurate to say that the information necessary to understand the situation is absent. I am not aware of any Wikimedia community group which has become organized enough to try the intervention you propose, so that raises the question of why that is. I confirm that the idea is good, and it seems like it would be easy to do this, but in practice - it is not being managed.
At meta:2015 Community Wishlist Survey there is a collection of wishes from last year, and surprisingly to me, the WMF has fulfilled almost all of them. In November there will be a call for more wishes with 10 being selected. Perhaps you would be interested in supporting or proposing some wishes.
One wish might be better management of mailing lists. Right now, there is no way to easily manage group mailing lists associated with Wikipedia user accounts. There is meta:MassMessage for sending notices on wiki, but no wiki-system for sending out emails, and no integration to choose to get either on-wiki or email notices except if someone receives an on-wiki notice and has opted into to email notices for every on-wiki notice. Overall, the communication process could be reformed. One reform could be a way for someone to do mass-message by email.
If there were reason to believe that a group of individuals were interested in medicine (or any topic), and they had shared their email address and agreed to get notices by email if messaged, and there was an easy way to send emails to a group, then someone could do experiments like "just contact the absent users, at least once, to engage an ongoing interest after the course". Right now, there is a cultural barrier against this and the technical barrier of requiring this to happen one user at a time is a reflection of the cultural barrier.
I am not sure if the problem is mostly technical, mostly cultural, or because of lack of organizational management, but I can confirm that when people seem very interested but then drop off I am not aware of any attempt by any group to invite people back in a systematic way. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
It's technically possible to send e-mail messages, because the m:Research:Increasing article coverage project sent e-mail messages to a bunch of editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Serious problems with Tenoten article[edit]

This is a homeopathic preparation of dubious notability, and the article relies on primary sources (very small-scale human studies, or animal studies). "Tenoten is described as acting as an antibody of the brain-specific protein S-100B. Other antibodies of S-100 that are approved for clinical use in Russia include Proproten (or Proproten-100) (Russian: Пропротен-100), Brizantin (Russian: Бризантин) and Divaza (Russian: Диваза). They all similarly have been reported to possess anxiolytic and antidepressant properties." - This is nonsense. What do you think - prune heavily to remove poorly-sourced and scientifically implausible claims, or delete due to general lack of notability? WildCation (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

[9]Pubmed doesn't seem to offer reviews(I'm inclined to your latter suggestion)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Half the article was talking about reality-based products, so I removed that. All the supportive sources are in the same journal, Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine. This is a Springer journal, why are they publishing this crap? Or did the authors fail to disclose that the product had no active ingredient? Guy (Help!) 16:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
    • The journal is a translation of two Russian journals, neither of which is run by Springer, so they aren't at all involved in the peer review. Thank you for removing the bits about actual reality-based products - antibodies for this target might plausibly have some biological effect, but comparing them to a homeopathic preparation that supposedly acts as an antibody despite being a sugar pill... WildCation (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Ref: Delger AB, Avakyan GN, Oleinikova OM, Bogomazova MA, Chromych EA, Lagutin IuV (2012). "Effects of tenoten on anxiety and depression disorders in patients with epilepsy". Bull. Exp. Biol. Med. 153 (5): 704–6. doi:10.1007/s10517-012-1804-7. PMID 23113263. </ref><ref name="pmid20027370">Duma SA, Shishkin SV (2009). "Tenoten in the therapy of patients with moderate cognitive impairment". Bull. Exp. Biol. Med. 148 (2): 353–6. doi:10.1007/s10517-009-0679-8. PMID 20027370.  - n=56, unblinded.
Yeah, I did some cleanup on that article a while back, but was never really satisfied with it. If there's ever anything substantive published about the product, it would likely be in Russian or Ukrainian. This is a specific case of a general question: How much discussion of an individual homeopathic remedy should be accorded, given that they are all clinically indistinguishable from placebo? Perhaps a standard template should be used for all homeopathic remedies, with a soft redirect to Homeopathy or to Homeopathic Materia Medica. Views?LeadSongDog come howl! 16:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I think we need to stop thinking in terms of physical efficacy, and start thinking of them like cosmetics.[10] Do you feel better if you use them? Do the more expensive ones make you feel better about yourself than the cheap ones? Then they "worked" (no better than placebo).
That means, in other words, that they're notable if sources write about them (i.e., what the WP:GNG says), regardless of whether they are scientifically proven to make people feel better through the particular method that proponents claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Not a single review / secondary source. Reverted to the generic homeopathic as we should with such stuff. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
My inclination is that something like Bach flower remedies should have a separate article, but we do not need an article for every single homeopathic remedy from every single manufacturer. WildCation (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

meta-analyses as "secondary sources"[edit]

People who create these:

a) set up a method, and describe that method (set up search criteria, set up exclusion/inclusion criteria, data extraction and analysis methods)
b) gather data to create something that never existed before: the set of data extracted from all included trials (parentheses removed)
c) perform their own analysis on that set of data and get results that never existed before
d) generate their own conclusions based on those results which appear for the first time under their names as authors.
e) the only thing standing between readers and that paper is peer-review - we have no idea if the field will find their work ridiculous, interesting... or great.

This is exactly what happens in research papers; primary sources. This is bothering me. I will grant that papers that include meta-analyses often include literature review material as well, but they key aspect of them is the meta-analysis.

What I think would be reasonable, would be if we called a spade a spade, and identified this as primary, but said that we give them special WEIGHT or something, as we prize evidence is so highly. Hm.

How do folks here think about this? thanks and sorry, i realize this may be perennial Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC) (redacted Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC))

It's tough because in the real-world, I consider meta-analyses to be more reliable than literature reviews, but that's only when I can vet the study collection criteria. We can't do that here as editors though. Literature reviews are instead focusing on summarizing the field without novel conclusions (usually), so that's why I have a slight preference for them on Wikipedia. At the end of the day, it's good for editors to be cautious that both meta-analyses and literature reviews may not adequately include certain parts of the the relevant literature, and try to focus more in previous studies that are discussed by the secondary source. I think it's fine to say a statement like "Most studies reviewed show X." is indeed secondary, but editors should still be aware of the points you brought up. I don't think we can create any hard rule to guide editors through what to do with all that in mind though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Whether a lit review or a meta-analysis is better depends upon what you're writing. A good meta-anaylsis is better than a good lit review for statements about treatment efficacy. A good lit review is better than a meta-analysis for statements about what's done in the real world. And a good textbook trumps them both if the statement is about the names of things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Meta-analyses based on a solid statistical foundation can be more reliable than subjective, statistically uncontrolled, literature reviews like one finds in Cochrane and other sources. I say "can be" because it is of course possible to compromise meta-analyses through bad stats or conflict of interest. Best judged on a case by case basis. For me a good meta-analysis has the edge because it is statistically testing reproducibility of the results rather than just looking for qualitative agreement of conclusions. --Mark viking (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I can see where this is heading, but I think editorial judgement is going to have to be key. I agree with Kingofaces43 that it's the non-systematic reviews that carry the risk of anecdotal evidence, bias, and opinion. A systematic review is a review from the outset, looking at stuff that has already been published and deciding whether the methodology and the results fit into a larger framework of knowledge. The fact that they use (a) is laudable rather than original research as it enhances the quality of the review.
I disagree about (b) - the data was there but it needed to be placed in context, again using systematic review.
I partially agree with (c). Meta-analyses using different methodology will sometimes (but not invariably) get different results. I don't think that invalidates meta-analyses as secondary sources.
Most of the time (d) does not apply because all the authors do is summarise a dichotomy already outlined in the sources reviewed (treatment works/doesn't work).
As for (e), peer review depends largely on the nature of the peer. Good journals employ statistical editors who will actually review the methodology and analyses and will recommend rejection if the quality of the statistics leaves something to be desired. This is actually a reason why we should be ensuring that all secondary sources we use are from journals that explicitly use statistical editors in addition to "peer" reviewers. JFW | T@lk 21:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
There is no one perfect source. Meta analysis can be excellent sources. As can literature reviews, textbooks, and policy statements. Each however can also be not great.
With a meta analysis one comes up with a specific question, than finds all the studies that address that question and synthesize them. They are not doing the data collection themselves but basing the analysis off others research. So a secondary source.
(b) "gather data that never existed before" is not correct. One is collecting data that already exists. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
It's secondary because it's transforming prior work. So Alice and Bob and Chris publish papers on X, and David analyzes those studies, combines their data, and transforms it into something new. Combining, transforming, and analyzing other work are the hallmarks of a secondary source (which can be a WP:NOTGOODSOURCE: bad meta-analyses do happen). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing's logic is sound here, in that meta analyses are "transforming prior work" and therefore obviously classified as secondary sources. As far as WP goes and our articles, another important factor is whether studies have been confined to national data or international data. This is relevant to the generalization of findings. Jfdwolff also makes a good point suggesting we use sources from "journals that explicitly use statistical editors in addition to "peer" reviewers." I'm not sure what others think of this idea but it seems sensible for medical articles.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I find WAID's logic terrible.WAID I hear you on that - a historian reads a bunch of primary sources and comes up with the bigger story that no one ever had before. This is ~kind~ of like that but is really different. The set of gathered data never existed before the authors did their work - that is exactly analogous to doing experiments to generate a dataset that never existed before. the gathered dataset now becomes the object of fresh data analysis, and conclusion drawing. There is a resetting and starting over that a historian doesn't do. This is the magic of data.That dataset is not some pre-existing platonic Thing - the data in it (and left out) is entirely dependent on decisions made by the authors (like experimental decisions made by experimentors). Just the other day I came across two meta-analyses on the same topic that made radically different choices about what studies to include and exclude and of course had different results and came to different conclusions. something about paracetamol i think.. Anyway, that is the point of b) which I have clarified above Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC) (redact, re-aim Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC))
I'm hearing you Jytdog, but I think this ties into Jfdwolff's point. We also need to be mindful of the difference between a Systematic review and meta analyses. Out of the two, a peer reviewed journal published meta analysis, is superior for med articles in IMO, and for a number of reasons.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm puzzled - Jytdog are you saying that historians (and authors of biomedical textbook chapters) aren't selective in what they include in their summaries of the topic they are summarizing/analyzing? That they don't draw conclusions? A well-done meta-analysis is quite explicit and transparent about the criteria for inclusion of studies and datasets, which is a step up from the methods used by most historians and chapter authors. As has been said, there are no ideal sources, and I worry about amplification of publication bias by meta-analyses, but I think your criticism of the latter is specious. — soupvector (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
soupvector I think I remember you saying somewhere that writing review articles gives less prestige for the authors than doing original research, and that you felt that extraordinary primary research with compelling findings would be better to cite in some cases than review articles. I like the rubrics for judging quality here but I still wonder how to judge the sources more deeply. Sometimes I doubt the quality of review articles also but do not know how to articulate the difference from one to another. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
It's true that I have said that from the view of a biomedical researcher, strong primary pubs tend to be a greater asset than a review article or a chapter, in terms of academic promotion at many universities (just look at the structure of the CV format used for promotion - reviews and chapters are not listed up there with primary research). Chapters and reviews that don't follow PRISMA guidance (which is most of them) often display author bias, since they are basically a summary of expert opinion with selected references, and peer review only partially balances those biases (IMHO). I did not intend for those comments on academic currency to be conflated with the sourcing considerations on WP. I have great respect for MEDRS as a tool for WP editors, and the importance of excluding argument from authority by WP editors - I think MEDRS is a very useful guide that avoids problematic value judgments for WP editors (as well as problems of reproducibility to which primary publications are particularly prone). — soupvector (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Meta-analyses are considered the absolute best source for most statements within medicine — but they are nonetheless not perfect. Different protocols may be used when selecting sources, and the authors may be more or less explicit about which their inclusion/exclusion criteria were. At times these are things we need to take into account, and I've seen papers claiming to be meta-analyses or systematic reviews that didn't adhere to any protocol, simply calling themselves something they're not.
However, to the point of the discussion — it really doesn't matter if they are secondary or primary sources — if performed correctly they are the best possible source, which means we should use them as much as possible. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
That is a very big if and is a large part of the point. By calling them "secondary" we pretty much elevate them as a kind of study into the top drawer. I think we need to treat them like the primary sources they are and use them carefully. Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
[11]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
They are in the "top drawer" along with position statements, literature reviews, and major textbooks. They are not primary sources. The same care should be applied as with other "top drawer" sources. E.g. even the Oxford University Press sometimes copies and pastes from Wikipedia while changing the references supporting the content so that their medical textbook is less good than us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The data set the authors create never existed before, they treat that dataset like any researcher does, and the results and conclusions they draw are very much the author's own. In response to me saying this obvious set of facts, The Church of EBM is clamping their hands over their ears and loudly singing the "the meta-analyses are golden" chant. Which is boring, and I am done here. Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Meta analysis when properly done help deal with the issue of publication bias and small N sizes. No one is saying they are perfect / golden or solve all issues in EBM. Science is much messier than that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
of course science is messy. on that you are singing to the choir. what upsets me is the results-driven conclusions written by authors of meta-analyses being given status like a review when in fact they are equivalent to the statements made by authors of a paper describing a clinical trial. We have no idea how the field is going to receive them until we read about them in an actual review. Jytdog (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
But we do – just as much of an idea as we have about how the field is going to receive any individual review, at least. The field has said that these are (generally) wonderful sources of information, and that they're (always) secondary sources.
Perhaps, though, you'd be happier thinking about this instead: User:MastCell is largely responsible for MEDRS' focus on secondary sources, and even he is unhappy with the way it's been turned into "primary always bad, secondary always good" by some editors. A secondary source can be a WP:NOTGOODSOURCE, just like a self-published primary source can be the best possible source (depending, of course, upon what you're trying to write about). The main point to evaluate for a source is whether that source is reliable for that statement. The main point should never be whether that source is "secondary". WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
The dividing line between meta analysis and systematic review is often fuzzy. Meta analyses ideally should be based on systematic reviews (to decide which primary studies to include and how to interpret them) and systematic reviews often contain new meta analyses (as an integral part of the review). Also many of the potential shortcomings of meta analyses could equally apply to systematic reviews. They both draw conclusions from multiple studies and despite best practices it is difficult to completely eliminate subjectivity from those conclusions. Boghog (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
what bugs me is that the authority we give them is because they are epitome of evidence-driven conclusions, supposedly. but (sorry to beat this to death) those very conclusions are exactly what are brand new, and primary. if I were GodKing of WP we would treat meta-analyses like primary sources and wait for reviews that discuss them and contextualize them, just like we wait to see how the field treats any new finding that emerges. it is really obvious that is not going to happen. Jytdog (talk) 10:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Whether the meta analysis pulls in unpublished sources often affects the quality as one of the big issues is publication bias. Some meta analysis address this well others do not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@Jytdog: Technically, if all the data used in the meta-analysis is readily available (which normally should be the case), it wouldn't be hard to verify the validity of the statistical model (assuming a meta-regression is used, I imagine that this could be done by most college graduates who have studied statistics or econometrics; I learned the fixed/mixed/random effects models in a 2nd semester econometrics course during my junior year), check/reproduce the data analysis (this is simple, provided that one has access to a statistical data analysis program that has these linear regression models hard-coded in the software, like Stata), and confirm that the statistical inference is accurate (anyone who can determine whether the use of a particular regression model for a given data set is valid can probably do this very easily). That's basically all the "new stuff" in a meta-analysis, and so long as the data is available, checking that this is correct isn't really any different than checking to see whether a claim cited by a given source is supported by that source. Unlike primary sources, meta-analyses don't generate new data sets; they use a collection of old output data to generate new/stronger statistical inference, similar to how reviews use a collection of old inference from that output data to draw a new/stronger conclusion (i.e., new inference). The methodology used in a meta-analysis and a review may be different (i.e., a quantitative vs qualitative approach), but the end result is basically the same: they both synthesize old/existing research to draw a new conclusion.

As for the challenges that arise with determining the right study selection criteria in a meta-analysis, systematic reviews face exactly the same issue. So, in a nutshell, I don't think there's really any difference between a meta-analysis and a systematic review besides the methodology that each uses for drawing a new, "stronger" conclusion using older studies. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

BodyPump[edit]

BodyPump: seems rather promotional in tone; makes medical claims, most of which appear reasonably well sourced to primary studies in the literature, but not to any secondary sources. Would appreciate input from others. Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

thanks, nominated for speedy deletion Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks all for input. Bondegezou (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Outline of diabetes[edit]

Is this really something we do? Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Just one of many pointless outline articles, I recently did some work getting rid of links to Outline of anatomy. They're generally very difficult to get deleted (on account a lobby of users created hundreds of them a few years back) — so the solution is to make sure they have no incoming links and keep them a walled garden. Same as how to solve the issue with portals. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh my there is even a WP:WikiProject Outlines. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
WP has had outlines for years. Like list-based articles, navboxes, and portals, , some editors like them and some hate them. Their quality spans the range from excellent presentations of the the basic topics in a field to unreferenced first draft attempts. I have a personal fondness for well-done outlines, but understand other's criticisms, too. This particular outline could use better referencing to justify the hierarchy and inclusion criteria. --Mark viking (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Maybe they can be linked from the navboxes? Not a big fan of see also sections being created to put them in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
It is hard enough to keep regular articles up to date and free of garbage. The idea of maintaining a whole parallel set of "outlines" is horrifying, and the idea that WP should provide "cliff notes" is way, way off mission. Outlines =/= accepted knowledge, but some kind of learning tool. Move them to Wikiversity, nuke them, or wall them off. What a misguided mess. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes the idea of moving them to Wikiversity is a good one. These are sort of massive "see also" lists / navboxes that work on mobile which navboxes do not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I think moving them to Wikiversity may be a good idea as well. Would Wikiversity accept them? I assume they have different policies and content standards. Sizeofint (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I doubt it. Wikiversity mostly seems to do teaching aids (e.g., worksheets for students) these days.
Jytdog's criticism ("not accepted knowledge") applies equally to navboxes. Essentially, they're one big navbox (only visible on mobile, and not colored blue). WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, I see. Probably not viable then. Sizeofint (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Mark viking — I won't dispute that they are potentially useful, but they are unmanageable. In certain fields they have been worked out to cover enough of the topic to be actually useful, but in medicine or anatomy (which each encompass 20.000+ articles) they just end up being an added layer of things that need to be kept up to date. To respond to the other idea voiced here — I don't think they serve any true purpose on Wikiversity. Their main use is for editors, and if I were to suggest anything it would be to move them to project-space, where fewer readers will mistakenly come across them. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I can see your point of view, especially in the context of WP:MED. In this case, the parent article diabetes is already a solid, fairly comprehensive article on the topic, so it is not clear that the outline adds much value for the reader. Also WP:MED folk, more so than other projects, feel a responsibility to keep medical articles sufficiently accurate and up to date. Which is laudable, indeed. But it follows that articles like this are seen by some as an added maintenance burden, rather than as an alternative for which they are happy to let other editors slowly improve over time. --Mark viking (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I remain supportive of combining them into navboxes. May be we could make a portion of the navboxes visible on mobile and when clicked would bring people to these type of pages? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Articles of the Timeline of cholera are more history of X articles. Which I have no issue with. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

could be placed w/ navboxes--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Weather pains[edit]

Should this article have an infobox? More particularly, should it have an ICD-9-CM code? There's related discussion at an RFD that might benefit from someone medical looking in on it, though I'm more concerned about weather pains. Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

That ICD-9 code should not be in that infobox - it's a completely nonspecific code. My sense, absent such a code, is that there's no need for the infobox. — soupvector (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


give opinion(gave mine[12])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Fluoride "neurotoxicity" report[edit]

See discussion here: Talk:Philip_J._Landrigan#2014_Report and many old discussions at Fluoride like this - there are several others. Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


  • more opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Copying Wikipedia[edit]

A new 2016 review states, "ECs have been listed as drug delivery devices in several countries because they contain nicotine; their advertising has thus been monetarily restricted until safety and efficacy clinical trials are conclusive [62, 63]."[13] The same 2016 review also states, "Their role in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear."[14]

Wikipedia's electronic cigarette page states, "E-cigarettes have been listed as drug delivery devices in several countries because they contain nicotine, and their advertising has been restricted until safety and efficacy clinical trials are conclusive.[218]" A previous version of the electronic cigarette page stated, "their role in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear."[15] What can be done to prevent this from happening again? QuackGuru (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, assuming that sentence in the diff was your original work, and assuming that they did not properly comply with the license, you can register the copyright (US $35) and file a DMCA takedown notice with any site that has copies of the article. Whether three clauses in an entire paper is enough to justify it is a different story.
Alternatively, you (or anyone else) could wikt:name and shame the authors and editors, e.g., on social media.
On the larger question of how to stop things, it'd be nice if academic journals used Turnitin or similar software. They might find it embarrassing to advertise that they use it, but actually ("secretly", if you will) using it should save them from a more public sort of embarrassment. Or, for that matter, a lot of people writing these articles have access to such software via teaching duties, and they might want to start using it themselves, pre-submission. It's easy enough to get mixed up about what's your own notes and what's a sentence you copied from somewhere, or (especially for people with a good memory for words) to just remember something that you read, and sincerely believe that it's your own sentence later. Double-checking your own submission could save you some embarrassment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
The WMF should have steps in place to deal with these type of situations. QuackGuru (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Why? You own the copyright to your work, not them. You are licensing it to the entire world, forever, not (just) to them. WP:DMCA (second paragraph) for a link to a form letter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
This is the WMF's website of their content. They are licensing it worldwide. They should take a little responsible to ensure work is not copied without the proper attribution. QuackGuru (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
No, it's the WMF's website of our (the editors and other contributors) content, and we are licensing it worldwide. The WMF owns the domain name and the trademarks. The WMF does not own or control the content. The creators of that content own it and control it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Technically it is the contributors that are licensing the content, not the WMF. The WMF just runs the platform. You're hitting against the greatest weakness of libre licenses: enforceability. Content owners can send take-down notices to license violators but content owners don't usually have the monetary resources to pursue them if they refuse. It also isn't clear what the monetary damages are since the content is generally free. Since the review is an academic work, name and shame is probably a better strategy since reputations are very important in academia. Sizeofint (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
It would be nice if the WMF developed a formal policy for these issues. Nothing I can do at this point. QuackGuru (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
The final version apparently has not been published yet. You could email the main author (his e-mail address is on the page) [16] and alert them. Sizeofint (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I have come cross 1000s of cases of copyright infringement. I typically only do something about it if 1) the sources is supposed to be of high quality 2) the amount of text copied is significant
The first thing I do is try to get them to attribute us. Many organizations do. Is it just those two sentences? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
There are a few other sentences that are similar. See "Although reliable data are limited, it is clear that e-cigarette emissions are not merely harmless water vapor as is clamed by manufacturers, and they can be a source of indoor air pollution."[17] Our Wikipedia article states "A 2014 review of limited data concluded this vapor can cause indoor air pollution and is not just water vapor as is frequently stated in the advertising of e-cigarettes." The original source states, "Although data are limited, it is clear that e-cigarette emissions are not merely “harmless water vapor,” as is frequently claimed, and can be a source of indoor air pollution."[18] They are not only copying Wikipedia. They are also copying a 2014 review.
The review might have false information See "Likewise, it was also found to release tetramethylpyrazine of which prolonged exposure is suspected to result in brain damage in human beings [23]."[19] Reference 23 is Caponnetto P, Campagna D, Cibella F, Morjaria JB, Caruso M, Russo C, Polosa R. Efficiency and safety of an electronic cigarette (eclat) as tobacco cigarettes substitute: A prospective 12-month randomized control design study. PLOS ONE. 2013;8:e66317.[20] The source they cited does not verify the claim or mention tetramethylpyrazine. I am unable to find a single study on tetramethylpyrazine related to e-cigarettes. QuackGuru (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Public comment is a great way (arguably the "right" way) to deal with this. My preferred tool is Pubmed Commons because it's so visible and durable. One can also write to the journal, though the impact of that will vary with the quality of the journal. I do think it's important to call out problems in the literature, but it must be a dialog - the authors must be able to respond, and we can't expect them to come - so this discussion here and meta-discussions on other sites are limited by the authors' absence. For these reasons, I prefer Pubmed Commons. — soupvector (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I prefer the authors be notified of this discussion rather than publicly discussing them on other websites. The journal can also be informed of this discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • so much drama. i sent an email to the author and the journal's executive editor pointing them to this section and asking them to look at copying from WP and possible issues with regard to tetramethylpyrazine. Jytdog (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
They wrote back and are looking at the issues. I just said thanks and will let it stand there. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I think QuackGuru's idea that authors/journal be notified of this discussion is good. However, this approach should be applied consistently in all other similar situations too. Maybe even as part of our policy.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't that action more or less reflect wp:Mirrors and forks and wp:REUSE, which are pursuant to the wikimedia:Terms of Use? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
WP content is free to use but the license requires attribution - see 7.1. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
This is not just about Wikipedia content. They also copied a 2014 review. The content "Although reliable data are limited, it is clear that e-cigarette emissions are not merely harmless water vapor as is clamed by manufacturers, and they can be a source of indoor air pollution."[21]" is almost identical to content from this review. QuackGuru (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Another good reason not to use secondary sources from low impact journals. Before you know it, we have completed citogenesis. JFW | T@lk 14:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thread carpal tunnel release[edit]

Thread Carpal Tunnel Release

Thread carpal tunnel release (TCTR; Guo technique) could use some outside sourcing. The author only edits carpal tunnel articles an uses a user name of Joseph9400 (talk Â· contribs); all the sources for this article includes an author named Joseph Guo, so there may be some personal sourcing? -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 07:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

did a few edits needs a lot more though(Guo [22])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Topic of sperm in pre-ejaculate[edit]

At Talk:Pre-ejaculate#Risks: Sperm in pre-ejaculate, sourcing issues are addressed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


  • more opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Some recent health content at the Sexual abuse article[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following Talk:Sexual abuse#Latest additions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Total readership of WPMED[edit]

We have updated monthly pageviews that includes mobile for Aug 2016. It is 190,445,556.[23] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

very informative--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for letting us know about the update. Seems very thorough.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Why is the number of pages going down? Is there an effort to pare down the number of pages marked in the scope of WP:MED? Sizeofint (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Last number we have on pages was over 30K which is the highest number ever. A number of us removed anatomy and many sex related topics from WPMED a number of years back which may account for the prior drop. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Nm, I was reading the table backwards. Thanks. Sizeofint (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
What's our desktop:mobile ratio? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Data is at the bottom of this.[24] It is over half mobile and has been for some time. (55/45) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
One thing that I can share is this Massviews Analysis tool. The tool does several things, but for example, if anyone gives it a single Wikipedia page with a list of Wikipedia article links in it, then it will report the total pageviews of all articles in the list for any range of dates. So for example, a person can make a list of articles on their userpage, then get a report of how many times those articles have been viewed. James is counting ~20,000 articles, but also, we could be setting up specialized lists that could motivate particular health sectors to develop articles. This tool just became available in its current form the past 1-2 weeks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
That tool only works for up to 500 pages I think. They are working on a better tool. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Childhood cataract[edit]

Added a citation to the first sentence Pchow29 (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Pchow29! That's hugely helpful, and I just love that you're using recent review articles for sources.
I expanded the citation to include a few details. The citoid service (the "automatic" citation mode) does magic if you feed it the PubMed URL (like http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25609909 ) but it has more trouble decoding PDFs.  ;-) And whenever you add a good ref like that (even just one) to something that says there are no refs at all, then you should feel free to delete that tag yourself.
What kind of articles or editing work interests you? I might be able to give you a list of things to look over, if you're interested.... WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Draft at AFC contains medical claims[edit]

Please apply your snake-oil detector to Draft:Laser vacuum therapy, thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Was it the sentence that says "Outside Russia, the technique is used only for cosmetic purposes" that made you skeptical of the claims?  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
That statement does rather stick out like a carbuncle - one that needs lancing! I don't have access to any of the cited sources so cannot evaluate them at all. Can I safely decline it for failing MEDRS or would you mind doing the honours. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
AFC isn't a MEDRS enforcement mechanism. Do you think that the procedure is WP:Notable, (even as cosmetic procedure)? If so, then it should be moved to the mainspace (and perhaps tagged for inappropriately sourced medical claims). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Hard to say if it's notable or not. A lot of those references are to publications by the same author (S.V. Moskvin), plus three thesis abstracts...hmm. Not a lot of independent work in the last five years, either. While we don't necessarily demand that drafts be fully MEDRS-compliant before they move to mainspace, it's not unreasonable to ask if any such sources even exist. If this thing is just going to sit in mainspace decorated with a bunch of {refimprove} and {npov} tags for several years before someone gets around to deleting it, we're not doing AFC right.
On a more meta level, if Wikipedia should cover this topic at all, does it actually belong as a short section within a parent article on the bogus Low level laser therapy or the bogus Intermittent vacuum therapy? (The latter article, in particular, needs attention wrt MEDRS and sourcing, by the way.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
At the immediate AFC Review level - what do we do with the draft as it stands? If it is accepted AFC gets beaten up for accepting rubbish, if it's declined we get bashed for being too strict and obstructive. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Of course, because everybody's a critic, and if "I" think you did it wrong, then I won't stop to wonder whether a reasonable person (e.g., you) would have made a different choice. And "I" will spend an hour complaining at you and about you, but I'm certainly too busy to spend ten minutes helping you. We have a stupid and destructive dynamic going on around NPP and AFC.
So, what do you think about TenOfAllTrades's idea of merging it to one of the existing, broader articles? We could move the draft to the mainspace and immediately do a quick-and-dirty merge to make a new section in one of those articles (with the redirect going straight to the relevant section). Someone will eventually (perhaps years from now, but eventually) clean up those articles, and it would get cleaned up in the process, without the editor needing to deal with multiple separate articles. Does that sound like a reasonable plan to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Telegony revived[edit]

Please comment at Talk:Telegony (pregnancy)#You guys should check this source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

International Journal of Audiology[edit]

Meet the editor of this journal last week. They are interested in the idea of publishing Wikipedia articles following formal peer review in the area of audiology. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

great opportunity--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Osteopathic medicine "task force"[edit]

Hi all,

How many in here would favor the creation of an osteopathic medicine task force? I noticed that topics regarding osteopathy are not thoroughly covered on Wikipedia and rather than creating another WikiProject, starting a task force under our existing WikiProject would make more sense. I would appreciate any comments and suggestions. NJ (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments may be left here or on my talk page. Please indicate whether you are in support or against the proposal, as well as your reasoning. NJ (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Probably already covered by the folk at WP:FT/N. No point in creating projects without a good collection of people. Alexbrn (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
There are geographical differences in perception of osteopathic medicine as legit versus WP:FRINGE. Note how the articles osteopathic medicine and osteopathy address quite different training and practice. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit
› 21:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but the American meaning (where it effectively means "MD-like doctor, just with a bit of embarrassing woo in their training") is well covered in our Osteopathic medicine in the United States and Osteopathic medicine in Canada articles. So I assume the OP is talking about the fringe stuff? Perhaps they could clarify. Alexbrn (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Much of what most practice is medicine and thus they are more than welcome to join us here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
NJ, I think that Alex is right when he says there's no point in creating a separate page for this unless there's a group of people who want to work together. Step one is forming the group, not making the pages.
That said, if you've found a group, then Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces has some advice on creating the relevant pages. (So far, we've found a lot of enthusiasm for making pages, but only a couple had much conversation (ever) and none remained active for more than a year or two.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Noticeboard#Arbitration request: Deletion of sourced content motivated by personality disagreements[edit]

Please see the above linked discussion and consider weighing in. It is about disputes regarding biomedical information at two different articles, and other issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This is the main edit in question at the moment. Arguments are made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Noticeboard#Arbitration request: Deletion of sourced content motivated by personality disagreements regarding the deletion of the content. Opinions from WP:Med editors are especially needed for the sexual problems and health risks content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Article needing review: Surfer's myelopathy[edit]

The Surfer's myelopathy seems to me to be in need of review; while it quotes a couple of papers, from a quick check of the open access papers, and a read of the abstract of the closed access one, I'm not sure they actually support much of its content. Which is a bit of a pity, for such a short article. Could someone knowledgeable please review this article? -- The Anome (talk)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Morgellons[edit]

I just carefully read our Morgellons article for the first time, and it is (in my view) embarrassingly badly sourced. I started to work on fixing it but as i worked i realized that I was turning the article into a duplicate of Delusional parasitosis and the reason for that is obvious - MEDRS sources treat it that way. So I stopped.

I think we should merge it into Delusional parasitosis and i wonder why that was not done already. Most of the "Morgellons" stuff would end up in the Society and Culture section of Delusional parasitosis, which is currently terrible (a list of TV mentions of Delusional parasitosis). I didn't find any discussion of that in the Morgellons' extensive Talk archive. Am considering starting a merge discussion at its Talk page but before I did, just wanted to get folks' thoughts on whether that is a stupid idea. Jytdog (talk) 06:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

A very interesting topic, I wonder if people have seen these photo galleries of what people believe is Morgellons? "Delusional parasitosis" seems maybe what most people think it is now, but should wikipedia reflect only public mainstream opinion? Even if it may be proven wrong in the future? Or at least lend some credibility to what many people are reporting? Which may actually really be something significant and worth investigating?
http://morgellonsdiseaseawareness.com/physicians_reference_guide
http://morgellonsdiseaseawareness.com/morgellons_photo_galleries/misc_plus_morg_artifacts
Probrooks (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Q: "should wikipedia reflect only public mainstream opinion? Even if it may be proven wrong in the future?"
A: Yes. See WP:NPOV, especially the parts about "tiny minority" viewpoints. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Its a conflict between MEDRS and general coverage of Morgellons. Numerous reliable sources cover 'Morgellons' however almost all the MEDRS coverage of it diagnose it as delusional parasitosis. Morgellons should not be merged, but any medical claims should be clearly pointed at DP. There is a whole article on the psychology of Morgellon's 'sufferers' out there waiting to be written. It might be worth just altering the scope of the article. Concentrate on its status as a notable non-existant condition, rather than treating it as an actual one. Its badly sourced from a medical diagnosis standpoint, if you want an article on how multiple people can suffer the same delusion, there are plenty. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Morgellons is a phenomenon and a story in itself, while also being a forum of delusional parasitosis. Two Wikipedia articles linking to each other seems appropriate to me. Some of the Morgellons article is going to be about the history of Morgellons, where standard RS criteria may fit better than MEDRS criteria. Some of the Morgellons article is going to be about the psychology of Morgellons, where MEDRS applies, but we're going to have to rely more on primary sources probably. Bondegezou (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Bondegezou no. Opening biomedical information in that article to be sourced from whatever primary sources are around is a recipe for disaster on that article. No and hell no. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Am I correct that this is the largest study on Morgellons that was carried out by the CDC?
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029908
It is worth reading for sure, and I was surprised this study only used the term "delusional parasitosis" once, and indeed the title "Clinical, Epidemiologic, Histopathologic and Molecular Features of an Unexplained Dermopathy" should tell you that the purely scientific view is more open ended, and less prone to conclusion than the present wikipedia article may suggest.
I was also surprised by what they found in people in the study. The conclusion appears to be that this disease is more unexplained and more a mystery than the present wikipedia suggests, therefore shouldn't its wording reflect that as well?
Probrooks (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I believe that "poorly characterized constellation of symptoms" (in the opening line) translates into plain English as "Morgellons isn't a recognized disease, with proper diagnostic criteria; it's just whatever any person claims it is".
Also, the study's report is a bit of an exercise in explaining that these people have something else (i.e., not some mysterious skin condition that can be diagnosed via a text description in an internet forum by anyone who has read a few advocacy websites, but not by trained dermatologists with access to laboratory equipment and the ability to look at the skin in person). It reports that more than half have dementia or related conditions, half are drug users (according to hair analysis), half have photoaging damage to their skin (according to skin biopsy), and most of them have signs of flea/mosquito/lice bites or chronic scratching. Something like dementia plus scratching could pretty easily explain why someone might go to the doctor to ask why this bit of lint is growing out of a scratch, instead of picking the lint off and deciding whether I ought to put a bandage on it.
I believe that the last sentence, "No common underlying medical condition or infectious source was identified, similar to more commonly recognized conditions such as delusional infestation", means "Yup, it's probably delusional infestation for most of these people" (and maybe worried well[27] for some).

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm more than a little concerned about your simplification of this scientific study, which is actually completely inaccurate. You say "It reports that more than half have dementia or related conditions"
When the study DOES NOT use the word "dementia"!!!
"On cognitive testing, 59% (23/39) case-patients demonstrated impairment in at least one domain; attention (18%) and memory (16%) were the most common areas of impairment."
You say "half are drug users (according to hair analysis)", yes and that includes all drugs, not recreational drugs, but pharmaceutical difference. BIG DIFFERENCE!
It is not wikipedias job to interpret primary sources in a subjective way, which is what you are doing here.
Probrooks (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Probooks yes that is the CDC study; while it is primary but would be OK to use since it comes from CDC ... even though it is primary and so must be used carefully. I would for example quote this from it: "The fibers and materials collected from case-patients' skin were largely consistent with skin fragments or materials such as cotton and were either entrapped in purulent crust or scabs, suggesting the materials were from environmental sources (e.g., clothing) or possibly artifacts introduced at the time of specimen collection and processing....We also did not find a pattern of clinical or epidemiologic abnormality that suggested any specific infectious etiology and, where data were available, the prevalence of specific parasitic infections in our population was no higher than that found in larger population-based studies." The study found no basis whatsoever for the claim that there is actually some kind of infestation. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely, and that is not a surprise, given that it exists solely because one woman refused to accept the medical diagnosis for her child's symptoms and set out instead to come up with something that was less hurtful to her feels. As with "chronic Lyme", it's a fake diagnosis that allows quacks to prey on the vulnerable, and also allows people to feel they control and ownership when medicine really has nothing for them (or at least nothing they will accept). I don't think we can say that it's always DP though. The evidence doesn't say that, it says that Morgellons is not a distinct condition, and it definitely says that some of the self-diagnosed Morgellons patients have DP, but it's entirely possible, given the grab bag of symptoms, that almost anybody could decide tyhey have Morgellons, especially if they don't like the idea of what they actually do have. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I am looking forward to hearing from experienced WP:MED editors who have actually looked at what we present as biomedical information in the Morgellons article and how it is sourced. WAID as you well know "Mainstream public opinion" is not biomedical information and my comments here are focused on biomedical information about Morgellons found in MEDRS sources. Again, if we are to have the typical MEDMOS sections, they 'will exactly replicate the Delusional parasitosis article and that makes no sense. It's just a WP:DUPLICATE; i do not think we can have the Morgellons article without discussing biomedical information, so.... the article should not exist separately. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The problem with this article is that the CDC took a very long time to conduct its investigation, during which time we were obliged by tireless advocacy to at least be open to the possibility that Morgellons is a real condition. We now know that it is not: everybody who has "Morgellons" actually has either a delusional disorder or some other condition. The symptoms are hopelessly vague and nonspecific, there are no diagnostic criteria, and the scientific consensus is that Morgellons does not represent an actual distinct condition. At this point it is quite reasonable to severely prune the article. I don't think we could delete it: yes it's bollocks, but it's notable bollocks as evidenced by the amount of independent coverage and the years-long CDC investigation. What we will not do is give in to the ever-morphing world of woo, with its incessant bait and switch. Morgellons refuted? Here, have a diagnosis of "chronic Lyme" instead! Never mind that there's no evidence it's anything to do with borrelia, we can give you long term antibiotics and get the law changed to stop this quackery being controlled by the medical boards, because legislators are experts in a way that medical boards are not. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
The CDC article uses very careful and open ended wording it seems to me. It is far from conclusively concluding Morgellons is a "delusional disorder", but it is worded in such a way that you could think it was such if that is your desire. OR if you were to read it without necessarily believing it was a delusional disorder, you could be open to seeing it was a mystery.
Also, the CDC is not one person, this article was written by many people, "The Unexplained Dermatology Team" is what they call themselves. 13 people to be precise. We cannot be sure they all had the same views on this matter.
"The x-files people" may say something like, "oh, they were forced to say what they said, because the plastic fibres comes from the nanobots in the chemtrails" etc. Needless to say, it would be interesting to talk to people in that team and ask them why it took them 3 years to study only 100 people and come up with an inconclusive conclusion? One inconclusive scientific study of a small sample size does not truth set in stone make. That is where we get into "appeal to authority" territory.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
Probrooks (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
You do not appear to understand the nature of the fallacious argument from authority. If I were to say "Morgellons is real because Dr. Oz says so" then that would be a fallacious appeal to authority. Here, we have a years-long investigation which finds no evidence that Morgellons is a condition distinct from already known conditions, specifically including delusional parasitosis, conducted by a body charged with exactly this kind of work and published by them as an official document. That's not an appeal to authority, that is an entirely appropriate reference to the body of scientific knowledge. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Jytdog, I explained myself poorly. I am not suggesting biomedical information in the Morgellons article should be "sourced from whatever primary sources are around". My point is that Morgellons is a social phenomenon: the Morgellons article should talk about the social history of the condition, how it was "discovered" and how it was popularised. How did one case of delusional parasitosis become the focus of so much media and patient attention and a years-long CDC investigation? The citations for that aren't going to be systematic reviews. As User:JzG says, "yes it's bollocks, but it's notable bollocks". To cover how it's "notable bollocks" requires looking to a broader literature with different epistemological perspectives. Bondegezou (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Featured article nomination for beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid [edit]

beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid

Would anyone be willing to take on this review?

I'm planning on immediately nominating it for featured article status after it passes GA since I've spent dozens of hours searching for medical reviews and monographs on this compound. I'm fairly certain that every known aspect of its clinical effects and pharmacological properties has been covered in the article, so it should pass the comprehensiveness criterion. Hopefully it won't take a full year of FA nominations like amphetamine did. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

  • need reviewers for this article,thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I've decided to skip the GA process altogether since it's taking too long. I'd really appreciate it if others from this project would review this article at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/archive1. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Still need 1–2 more reviewers to take on a review of the medical/pharmacological aspects of this compound; doing an image review won't take much time either if anyone here cares to take on a review of that aspect of the WP:FA criteria (there are no fair use images; all the images are either chemical structure drawings in the public domain or CC-BY-# graphs/diagrams from open access pubmed-indexed journal articles with both captions and WP:ALT text – this is easily verifiable). I expect that a few non-medical editors who regularly review FACs will take on a review of the prose and do WP:V checks, so it's not really necessary for anyone here to do a review of that.
If you're interested in doing a review of this article at FAC and are new to FAC reviews, you should read the instructions on the WP:FAC page under listed under the heading "Supporting and opposing" and read User:Nikkimaria/Reviewing featured article candidates for a primer on how to review an article at FAC. It might help to look at how reviews in other FA nominations are structured as well, but that isn't really necessary. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC); timestamp updated 17:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

There are about 2 weeks left before this nominee is either promoted or archived. If you're interested in commenting on or reviewing this nominee at FAC, you should probably do it soon. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The size of the quotes you use cause me concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)