Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Medicine / Dermatology  (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Dermatology task force.


I'd like some input on the 3rd sentence of the 1st paragraph, which reads, "The term angioneurotic oedema was used for this condition in the belief that there was nervous system involvement, but this is no longer thought to be the case". The assertion is unsourced and there seems to be some indication to the contrary. Consider this excerpt from Radiologic manifestations of angioedema that reads, "Although it is rare, cases of central nervous system involvement have been reported in patients with HAE and ACE inhibitor-induced angioedema".[1] Any thoughts/suggestions? Dr. James Schultz (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The term "angioneurotic oedema" does not seem to be actively used in recent reviews, though there are some "also known as" mentions. Still, still shows "Angioneurotic Edema" as a synonym of "Angioedema". I'd consider simply stating it as a synonym and skiping the commentary on the belief. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
It makes sense. My main emphasis was on the assertion that "...this is no longer thought to be the case". It seems there is still a consensus that in certain instances there is direct central nervous system involvement, in which case the aforementioned unsourced statement isn't accurate.Dr. James Schultz (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Radiologic manifestations of angioedema". US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health. 

Requesting a Review of the Article Barrier cream[edit]

I'm just going to be honest here. The entire Barrier cream article is one big opinion piece. It is completely lacking in neutrality and espouses negative undertones throughout the entire article. Despite the opinion of a certain editor who has taken expansive liberties with the article, there are legitimate and effective uses for barrier creams in the treatment of various dermatological conditions.

In my opinion, the article is neither encyclopedic nor accurate. As a dermatologist, I find the lack of accuracy in the article bothersome, but my attempts to repair it in the past have been met by reverts and challenges every step of the way by the editor responsible for the problems with the article. The truth is, the article needs a complete rewrite by someone without an agenda, someone with actual experience in the industry. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

And I'm going to be honest. Schultz is a single-purpose account dedicated to promoting "shielding lotion". Not once has Schultz offered any source to back up his opinions. These complaints lack any intellectual rigour, and are solely based on his claim to be a dermatologist. They are a time-sink for editors trying to maintain neutrality and sourcing standards, and should be treated with the contempt they deserve. --RexxS (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
A "single purpose account dedicated to promoting shielding lotion"? I've contributed more to Wikipedia than simply discussing shielding lotions and I'm certainly not promoting the term on the barrier cream article. My problem with Barrier cream is with the misinformation, lack of neutrality and the many statements that fail verification. Anyone who reads the content in the article and actually compares it with the sources being cited can see the problem with the sources. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I read the content. It's obvious you didn't read the sources. Just point out the sources you consider problematical and the statements that fail verification and I'd be more than happy to discuss them. But please, quit the abject whining without adducing a single real example. That's just timewasting. --RexxS (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
As for your claim to having "contributed more to Wikipedia than simply discussing shielding lotions", that's your usual flim-flam. You've made 149 edits so far and less than 20 have been concerned with anything other than "shielding lotion"/barrier cream or whining about DocJames. Those few include such wonderful sources as a Google search and a primary study in animals for Psoriasis. Your sourcing credentials are abundantly clear. --RexxS (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Instead of going on and on about nonsensical stuff, why don't you simply address the points I've made:

Barrier cream is not "also known as a shielding lotion" and the source cited [1] does not say that it is.

The entire premise of the article is that barrier creams are ineffective as treatment options and. This flies in the face of thousands of reviews and studies that state otherwise, such as:

"Correctly matched barrier preparations protect against harmful factors and irritants, facilitating at the same time hand washing at the end of the working day, and together with the use of suitable non-irritating detergents and skin care products are important elements contributing to the prevention of occupational skin diseases." Barrier creams in prevention of hand dermatoses -
"The barrier cream was shown to be more effective in treating and managing patients with IAD than the previous product that patients had been using." Br J Community Nurs. 2014 Dec;Suppl Wound Care:S32-8. doi: 10.12968/bjcn.2014.19.Sup12.S32.
"Some barrier creams and moisturisers are effective for irritant contact dermatitis; steroids are effective for allergic contact dermatitis." Evid Based Nurs. 2006 Jul;9(3):74.

A major problem with this approach is that there are many reliable sources that contradict the premise of this article. According to Wikipedia, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side" Wikipedia:Verifiability. This article makes no attempt to do that and in fact takes great lengths to present one viewpoint, which also violates WP:POV

It's true my initial edits were regarding an article I created about shielding lotions. (Are you saying you wouldn't defend an article you wrote that was being criticized and attacked?). I have also added content and citations to other articles including Antiparasitic, Psoriasis, Paraldehyde, Anticonvulsant.

Here's a quick question for you. Why do you feel the need to attack me personally and question my motives here? Why can't you simply stay on topic and discuss the merit of what I've stated? I have not once gone into your contributions to try and uncover some hidden agenda and make accusations I really have no way of knowing are accurate. Not appropriate at all.

Dr. James Schultz (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Try to understand that some sources are discussing treatment and others are discussing prevention. Getting a handle on that will help you in juxtaposing the sources that seem to you to contradict what's in our article. As for your question, I understand your chagrin about the ill-fated Shielding lotion, and I even empathise with your reaction. But you must know by now that we won't be accepting an article that discusses a little-know marketing campaign that has zero currency in good-quality medical sources. It's just not encyclopedic. Now, if you want to propose some sources to expand this article and some text that summarises them, I'm more than happy to work with you - and I believe everyone else here will join in. Please feel free, by the way, to examine my contributions. Good luck with finding any CoI or hidden agendas in there. --RexxS (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Look, I know the difference between prevention and treatment. And I know the article discusses both prevention and treatment. I also know that barrier creams have been shown to be effective at both treating and preventing certain conditions, just like they have been shown ineffective at preventing and treating certain conditions. For instance, an appropriate barrier cream can treat certain types of psoriasis with limited success, but barrier creams are completely ineffective at preventing any type of psoriasis. Some barrier creams are efficient at preventing outbreaks of contact dermatitis in some individuals, by blocking out the irritants and allergens that cause the outbreaks, but may not be that effective at treating contact dermatitis.
Instead of simply making a blanket assertion that the efficacy of barrier creams is disputable, why not discuss all of the conclusions? I really don't have a vested interest in this article, but it irritates the hell out of me that it doesn't have all the information and misrepresents other information. And I honestly couldn't care less about shielding lotions. I created an article I thought was informative and when it got pounced on I got defensive. Doesn't mean I'm some kind of spokesmen for the shielding lotion marketing team; I'm just a man who doesn't really like criticism. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Could you two help me out with a better understanding of the content behind this dispute? For example: is petroleum jelly a barrier cream? Is it a shielding lotion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, WAID. Petroleum jelly is now recognised as having no curative properties, so is not effective in treatment of pre-existing conditions. Whereas it is hydrophobic and rather inert biologically, so it makes a good barrier to both inhibit water loss from the skin and prevent ingress of many chemicals, so performing the prophylactic function of a barrier cream. There's no such thing as a "shielding lotion", other than as a marketing scheme - no hits on PubMed, no hits on Trip database. So a particular barrier cream may have efficacy in prevention or treatment of various conditions, but it's a broad subject and takes effort to generalise. I'd support expanding the article to discuss those differing aspects in more detail, but not a re-write designed to resurrect a failed article on "shielding lotion". Does that help? --RexxS (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@RexxS: You keep insisting there's an attempt to "resurrect a failed article on 'shielding lotion'" Where in this discussion has resurrecting a shielding lotion article been even remotely touched upon? Just because I wrote an article on shielding lotions that was later merged with Barrier cream does not mean I'm trying to resurrect anything and you haven't seen a single indication anywhere in this discussion that would have given anyone that idea. So please, for the sake of civility, just let that drop and stop assuming you know my motivations here Dr. James Schultz (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: technically pertoleum jelly is not a barrier cream, though some barrier creams do have a petroleum base. As for the basis for this discussion, I believe the article as it stands has major problems, which I have gone into detail about here and on the article talk page. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@Dr. James Schultz: So, please elucidate, in what way is petroleum jelly "technically ... not a barrier cream"? I've given my reasons in terms of its biological inertness and hydrophobia. You've just plucked your opinion out of thin air. What's it based on? I should also point out that you have gone into no detail whatsoever on the article talk page about all of these problems you keep claiming exist. I'll pick up the discussion there if there's any chance we can arrive at something that actually improves the article. --RexxS (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@RexxS: Don't misunderstand me, I agree with your reasons and know that Petroleum Jelly does have barrier properties. The reason I said "technically" is because the intended purpose of Petroleum Jelly (the reason it was formulated) was not to provide a protective barrier but to moisturize. You can actually read about the history, purpose and formulation of Petroleum Jelly on the Vaseline website ( Dr. James Schultz (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I've given up on reading the long lists of complaints elsewhere, and am now just trying to learn something.
So RexxS, it sounds like you believe that petroleum jelly is a barrier, and therefore that it is a barrier cream. Is it possible that these two categories might not completely overlap, e.g., a barrier that is not a cream? (I recall that lotions and creams aren't identical, for example.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, if it looks like a barrier cream and works like a barrier cream, then it's probably a barrier cream, but I think "barrier cream" gets used as a general term to encompass different chemicals that may have completely different properties. For example, petroleum jelly repels water, so prevents moisture from leaving skin, and acts as a moisturiser (as Dr Schultz says, that was its original purpose) - or rather it prevents loss of moisture. Of course, it also prevents water-based chemical contaminants from entering the skin, and will repel any water-borne bacteria from infecting a wound, so it has multiple uses - both for preventing damage and promoting healing, although I'm unaware of any sustainable claim that it actually treats any skin condition. On the other hand, one of our references (Pace 1965: "A Benzoyl Peroxide-Sulfur Cream for Acne Vulgaris") discusses the use of "benzoyl peroxide, a powerful, non-toxic, oxidizing agent, combined with sulfur in an oil-in-water emulsion base" for treatment of acne. That's a water-based preparation that is actively antibacterial, so has measurable effectiveness in treating, as well as preventing acne. It wouldn't do the same job of moisturising as petroleum jelly, just as vaseline doesn't treat acne, but in their own way, each of them performs some of the functions that I think we would recognise as a barrier cream. I never quite got to grips with the difference between a 'lotion' and a 'cream', other than creams are more viscous than lotions, but I'm not sure there's a rigorous defining line between a thin cream and a thick lotion. Anyway, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, so I don't lose any sleep over it. --RexxS (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Does treats mean "thing used with curative intent" or "thing that there are reams of scientific evidence demonstrating efficacy"? If the former, then petroleum jelly is used to treat diaper rash and head lice. It probably works (better than a regular hand lotion) for ichthyosis, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Use of "shielding lotion" in 1965[edit]

I've examined the claim that "As early as 1965 the term shielding lotion was used." This is sourced to PMC 1928665 and looking at that source, I believe this is a misrepresentation of the source. The phrase is used once in that study about acne in the sentence, "Many patients used a simple alcohol astringent and a cosmetic shielding lotion." The phrase, "a cosmetic shielding lotion", is not an example of the "shielding lotion" that Expansion Plus was promoting. It seems that a chance combination of words in an article, which discusses the use of a lotion (along with an alcohol-based astringent) to prevent cosmetics contributing to acne, has been hijacked in an attempt to create a much longer "history" for the phrase than actually exists. I propose that the text suggesting that the phrase had currency as far back as 1965 be removed from the article as undue and misleading. --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion. (I will not make any changes to this article because most of my edits here have been challenged and reverted by the same individual)
It seems to me the term shielding lotion has no place in this article. No reliable sources indicate that it is the same thing as a barrier cream and I think it should be removed from the article.
There are many reliable sources that indicate that barrier creams are effective at treating certain skin conditions. According to Wikipedia's policy about opposing viewpoints in reliable sources, both positions should be discussed. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
It might be UNDUE, but I don't think that's a chance combination of words. "After placing the lead shielding, lotion is applied to the target area" would be a chance combination of words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Acne vulgaris FAC Request[edit]

Hello, everyone, this important page would benefit from experienced dermatology FAC reviewers to help give the article its final push to FA. For convenience, here is the link to the review page [2]. Thank you! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Wechsler[edit]

Project participants may be interested in this AfD nom: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Wechsler

Popular pages report[edit]

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Medicine.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Medicine, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)