Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

WikiProject redundancy

(I'm sure this issue has been brought up before, but I can't really find it).

Many articles "belong" to the biology project, the microbiology project and the medicine project at the same time. Are there some guidelines regarding this? Does it make sense that every pathogenic bacterium should be handled by three different projects? As for the classes and importances, they often conflict with each other, of course. I've seen articles that were B in the medicine project and Start in the biology project.

I'm a beginner with the projects and I really want to help, but this mess is a little discouraging. Isn't it? --Pixie (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there has been a formal discussion of this before, but we do have some guidelines on the assessment page. These are just recommendations by a few WPMED contributors and are open for discussion. (I'll probably start a discussion on these criteria on the assessment talk page.) Tagging articles is often subjective. Each project has its own guidelines, which should follow the scope of the project. So if Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology really wanted to tag all articles even remotely biology-related, they could do that. Here, we can only discuss what WPMED wants to tag.
Generally, regarding infectious diseases, the pathogens should not belong to WPMED, but the diseases they cause should. So Tuberculosis and Rocky Mountain spotted fever would be part of the project, but not Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Rickettsia rickettsii would not. The pathogens should most likely be tagged with Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Prokaryotes and protists, Wikipedia:WikiProject Viruses, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi, etc. You have to refer to each of these projects for their specific guidelines. Another important consideration is if the article is related to human disease. If a pathogen only infects animals, it should not be tagged with WPMED (consider Wikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicine instead).
I disagree. Anything taught in medical school is important for wp:med. Pathogens are taught in medical school. If doctors don't edit pathogen articles, they lose their clinical relevance. We write for the people. Doctors need to know about HPV and about pathogens and about vaccines that protect against pathogens. Stop this nonsense talk of removing wp:med from pathogen articles. 75.85.7.156 (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
edit: only on human pathogens, obviously... and with HIV, there are a lot of pathogens that are suddenly medically relevant. 75.85.7.156 (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
scott, it's tk here. I didn't realized you wrote this. I disagree with you. Study some infectious disease medicine or talk with an infectious disease physician - doctors need to know about the pathogen that causes TB. We don't need to edit sections on the genes, but we need to edit sections on virulence factors etc. 75.85.7.156 (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Exceptions to note would be infections that are treated medically to prevent progression to disease (such as HIV). Additionally, pathogens that cause various illnesses that do not have their own names should probably be tagged with WPMED (such as Staphylococcus aureus). The reasoning for this is that these articles include a significant amount of medical information about pathogen detection and treatment in humans.
As for the assessment classes and importances, the conflicts exist because each project has its own assessment criteria. The importance is how important is the topic to the project - so that would be expected to differ across projects. Usually, the class should be the same for all of the projects, according to the standard grading scheme. --Scott Alter 17:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Doubtful

I am doubtful of the "...affecting around 1 in 250 people..." at Ichthyosis_vulgaris#cite_ref-1. Ichthyosis vulgaris is the most common type of ichthyosis, but the above quote seems way off to me. Can someone review this fact for me? kilbad (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, the source, ichthyosis.com, states "more than one million Americans are affected by ichthyosis". The very next paragraph states "This certainly qualifies ichthyosis as a rare disease. A rare ... disease affects fewer than 200,000 people in the United States." This website is not a reliable source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually the Canadian Family Physician does indeed indicate an incidence of 1:250. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The European Journal of Human Genetics indicates an incidence between 1:250 and 1:5300, depending on the series. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
many people go undiagnosed with derm conditions. how many americans can afford to see a dermatologist when 66 million do not have insurance? If the disease is hard for the County ER physician to make, then how can incidences be correct? don't worry about it and put a range. 75.85.7.156 (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What should a basic editor like me be doing?

  • I periodically get messages about concerns over editing and content of various dermatology articles. Most recently, as you are all probably aware, there has been a lot of tension over the Mohs surgery and Basal cell carcinoma articles. My question is, as a basic editor (non-admin), when I am notified about these concerns, aside from stressing the use of secondary sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability, what else, if anything, should I be doing? I am just looking for some feedback so as to neither overstep my boundries, nor do to little. kilbad (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution has some useful information. In general, at each point in the "appeals process", people will want to see that the prior potential remedies have been exhausted (and will want to see diffs to prove it). --Arcadian (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
most importantly, keep writing and participating with feedback. If you get too frustrated, move on to a different topic. Writing spurs revision. As long as you partake actively on talk pages, there rarely are issues. 75.85.7.156 (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Cushing's syndrome

Anyone have an image of Cushing's syndrome?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Commons has a handful; I will make a category and add it to the article. --Una Smith (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for help from WP:MEASURE

I've been doing some article assessment at WikiProject Measurement recently and I came across the article Apothecaries' system (not one of mine) which seems pretty good. For the time being, I've rated it as A-class on our project quality scale, but I would welcome further comments so I have opened a peer review here. If there are editors with any knowledge or interest in the subject, I'd be grateful if they could read through the article and tell us if there is anything important which should be in there but which isn't at the moment. Cheers! Physchim62 (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC) (BTW, isn't it time to take the Christmas decorations down??!!

I have added to the project; and I am going to post it in the notice board so people interested my pop in. --Garrondo (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Medicalization

I notice a pattern of medicalization of wikipedia pages. The pages of any topic relating to medicine quickly is taken over by specialized terminology. Pages become inaccessible, and there is sparse and spotty inclusion of perspectives of anthropology, history, economics, sociology, religion, business, ecology, or other fields.

The pages of many general-interest topics commonly have the following problems:

  • The introductory paragraph is often entirely inaccessible.
  • The first picture will be a molecular diagrams or diagram of a microorganism, both of which communicate little information to a reader who is not well-versed in science.
  • The introductory paragraph focuses exclusively on biological, chemical, and/or medical properties, even when the page itself has discussion of history, economics, ecology, or other material.

Let me give two really simple examples of medicalized topics:

  • Heroin. Heroin is undisputably a topic of general interest. It is one of the most important substances relevant to Drug control law and has widespread economic implications. The current page dives in with ultra-specialized material that only someone well-versed in organic chemistry could understand. The first picture is a molecular diagram in spite of other, more accessible pictures, already being in the article. In addition, the medical sections of that page are well-developed whereas the non-medical ones are in need of editing, more sources and in-line citation, and other work.
  • Aspirin. Again, general interest topic. The page dives right in to highly specialized terminology and the first visual is a molecular diagram. While I think much of the material here and on History of aspirin is excellent, the introductory section barely touches on the history. There's also little discussion on marketing or business aspects, in spite of a wealth of scholarly research on the topic: [1].
  • AIDS. Clearly general interest topic. Furthermore, the majority of people reading the page will probably be better equipped to understand the Epidemiology, History, and Society and Culture sections...and yet these sections occur at the end and are less extensive than the highly technical Pathophysiology section and much of the Symptoms section. The introduction on this page, however, is more accessible.

I'm not sure what the solution is. I just want to start a dialogue. I would love to see some sort of policy page arise on medicalization. Ultimately I would like to see all pages on basic topics of general interest be made much more accessible. Example:

  • The page on Diclofenac, for instance, could be more medical in orientation and less accessible to a general audience than the page on aspirin. But the introduction should also be made accessible to more people than it is because people interested in birds, especially vultures, or birds in India might visit the page on diclofenac for those reasons. In spite of the very well-written ecology section, the ecological problems receive no mention in the introduction of that page.

I'm not going to go through these articles one-by-one because the problem is too widespread for one person to tackle. We need to create policies to refer to. We need to come to a consensus about how this problem is to be handled. Let's start! I propose the following policies:

Proposed policies

  • On medical topics of general interest, use common terminology instead of medical terminology. An example would be to use painkiller instead of analgesic on the page for aspirin. Painkiller redirects to analgesic anyway so nothing is lost.
  • Make the introductory paragraphs (i.e. before any section headings) the most accessible parts of a page.
  • Make the introductory paragraphs reflect a balance of all material on the page, medical and otherwise.
  • When general interest pages become highly inaccessible or imbalanced towards specialized medical coverage, split off the least accessible and most specialized of the material into sub-pages.
  • When a general interest topic contains primarily medical material, and yet sources exist to create a more balanced page, put effort into incorporating different perspectives before expanding the medical material. Recruit editors from other areas of wikipedia if unable to do this oneself.
  • On all pages, if a more "accessible" or "general audience" picture is available and communicates useful information to a general audience, put that picture first on the page. Include molecular diagrams and pictures from microbiology later in the page, in sections where they are more directly relevant and will be more useful to readers of those sections.

(gets off soapbox) Thoughts?

Cazort (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


See Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible for related discussion. Graham87 05:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Cazort, I think you are trying to highlight some completely unrelated issues. Some are relevant to medicine, some are of much broader relevance. I find certain mathematics articles completely inaccessible. Their intro provides no context, pictures have insufficient explanation etc etc. If this is your main concern, you should be going to the MTIA page as Graham indicated.
The best medical articles (see this list) are in fact highly accessible. You are therefore invited to improve the not-so high quality articles to the level that would make them accessible.
The opening image is often only for decorative use, rather than actually illustrating anything. The exception would be if a disease has definite external appearances (e.g. psoriasis). No actual problem there. If you think that puts off the readers, perhaps you are underestimating them.
Finally, you indicate that certain topics are covered almost exclusively from a medical angle. Well, if you pardon me saying, if heroin didn't make people ill it wouldn't have such a medical slant. You don't like the term "analgesic", but the term "painkiller" is incorrect, as pain is not something that is killed. Rather than using incorrect lay terminology, don't you agree we should be using more precise professional terms but clarify their meaning? JFW | T@lk 11:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The killdeer is not a deer, nor does it kill deer, but that's what it's called. The preoccupation with the idea of "correctness" is precisely what is making these articles so inaccessible.
But, yeah, I did check a bunch of articles in the featured article list and they are much more accessible and don't seem to suffer from any of the issues I described. So maybe this discussion isn't going anywhere? Still, I saw enough of a trend.
About the mathematics articles--yes, that's a very serious issue and I've been fussing about that for years now. I know firsthand how pig-headed mathematicians can be about accessibility, being one myself.  :-) The reason I came here was that I see a sweeping trend in articles related to medicine, including many like the ones mentioned above that are linked from many other articles. Cazort (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The majority of the time semi-technical terminology such as analgesic is usually wiki inlinked, clickable, so a user can click on it to find out what it means. Furthermore often such paragraphs using those medical terminology explain themselves. For example an article on morphine might say something like,,,, Morphine is an analgesic medication used in the management/treatment of severe pain. I think the majority of the medical and pharmacology articles are understandable by the public as well as the medical profession. As there are countless thousands of people editing medical or pharmacological articles it would be impossible for a wiki project to have much impact on the wording you suggest even if we agreed with you. Those would be my views.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Cazort, I also think that the right place for this is WP:MTAA, but you might also be interested in knowing that there is a style guideline for medicine articles at WP:MEDMOS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I will check these pages out! Cazort (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Category pages, citations, and reference sections

There is a category page for which I want to provide a brief 2-3 sentence intro. I have sources I can cite, but wanted to know how that works with category pages? Is it appropriate to include inline citations and a reference section on a category page? kilbad (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If references are needed, they belong in an article. The article can then be linked on the category page, perhaps via {{main}}. --Una Smith (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I think, as a technical matter, that you can put anything on a cat page that you can put in an article. But nobody cites sources on these pages, and I probably wouldn't bother. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Usually benign tumor vs cancer

Wikipedia articles about tumors that are "usually benign" or "often benign" are categorized inconsistently. Some are treated as cancers (suspected malignant until proven benign); others are treated as benign (until proven malignant). So, some are in categories such as Category:Gynecology whereas others are in Category:Gynecological cancer, and some are in both categories. My feeling is that all tumor articles should be in oncology categories, not listed directly in parent general categories such as Category:Gynecology, to maximize the chances that the reader will grasp the intrinsic uncertainty. Thoughts? --Una Smith (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree it is a spectrum from benign to malignant. Cut of are arbitrary. Therefore they should all be grouped together. One often hears I have a benign tumor I DO NOT have cancer. There is a great deal of public confusion around this.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
It would probably be best if the "cancer" categories were renamed to "tumor" categories. --Arcadian (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Arcadian, in that case where would you put leukemias and lymphomas? --Una Smith (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I think cancer is best rather than tumor even though they are often used interchangeably. A lot of people who have cancer do not know it as no one comes out and says it. We need to tell it like it is. And than follow this with a none serious / benign or serious / malignant cancer distinction.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
So you think a lay-language approach is the best choice here, even though traditionally cancer meant carcinoma (and thus, for example, excluded all leukemias and lymphomas)? How would you handle "pre-malignant" conditions in this approach (e.g., myelodysplastic syndromes, to stick with the hematological theme)?
I don't want to sound like I dislike the suggestion; I'm still thinking it over. I think the alternative is to use neoplasm instead. Would we really sacrifice significant accuracy by choosing the lay-language option? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Angiostrongyliasis

Hello. By chance, I just discovered that editors have been expanding Angiostrongylus cantonensis with material intended for Angiostrongyliasis. From what I can tell by looking at the page history, they probably didn't know Angiostrongyliasis already existed. So, it looks like most of the medical information should be merged into Angiostrongyliasis. I have added merge tags and performed some minor cleanup, but I would appreciate some eyes on this or some suggestions. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


Applying for grant

There is a grant I am thinking about applying for to get a couple grand for use somehow related to WP:DERM. I wanted to know if people had any ideas how I could use this money to improve dermatology content on wikipedia? I need a good reason for them to give it to me. kilbad (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting more images would be wonderful.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Just some thoughts, but needs to be considered carefully if the "effort" to be acceptable for inclusion:
  • for the time & effort of perhaps taking high quality pictures of conditions in a dermatology clinic (of course usual need for patients to provide consent & release notices to then use the images, and specifically consenting, just in case any doubt by subjects, for open Wikipedia rather than just esoteric medical publication).
  • Perhaps asking some specialists to provide copyright-free material of a secondary source nature (this needs to be undertaken with a lot of care to ensure publication in a suitable WP:RS manner so that we can make use of it per WP:MEDRS - i.e. needs count as Secondary source rather than some consultants blog page which would only be personal original research). Only means that readily comes to mind is perhaps part co-funding a "Current practice" column in a reputable Dermatology journal to cover topics perhaps not now routinely mentioned (for not having exciting new research to publish) and for which standard textbooks out-of-date or just don't cover well. Kick-back for the journal is potential several fold: works as a section of interest to medical students and junior doctors in the field who could do with some straight talking articles about topics they might be otherwise embarrassed to go asking their consultant about (e.g. pityriasis alba, angular stomatitis). If journal section was a regular feature and title suitably chosen, (e.g. "Refresher reviews" or even "Refresher reviews for even Wikipedia"), then use of "work" parameter in {{cite journal}} might get used for this, and with hopefully reasonable online hit-rate, the journal might consider/offer advertisers a suitable exclusive slot to such a popular (i.e. general public) section. Alternatively the "Refresher reviews" section might be freeview access for a journal otherwise normally accessible only by subscription, and so act as a friendly window with which to entice additional subscribers (you get the gist of possible business models to suggest to journals). Likewise any dermatologist hoping to get into media work/journalism and/or raise their public profile might see such regular contributions with some kudos. You don't specify precisely how much money the grant might be for, but for a few hours work per topic, I think you could build up a useful body of "core" dermatology topics (if the journal suitably sets up things, then it would form a serialised work for perhaps publishing for either the public or junior doctors - tag lines might be along lines of "Dermatology Refresher Review -- core of dermatology for the non-specialist, what patients want to know and what Wikipedia cites from", or “Dermatology Refresher Review – what your patients should have learnt from Wikipedia & the internet”, or whatever).
  • With vetted pages perhaps coming in, alternative might be to ask (i.e. pay) specialists to help fill in missing gaps in articles, check sources and overall breadth and balance of articles before this project confirms a vetted version of a page. I think problems of past commercial ventures seeking to write articles for companies (rejected by Jimbo himself) means we probably could not have direct editing of articles by those paid for it, but nevertheless perhaps getting a dermatologist to offer a talk-page critique of articles and help point the way to missing material and sources that the normal editor could then make use of (eg somewhat akin to seeking reviews for FAC, but which don't themselves re-write the article) - but this more than any other suggestion needs input from other Admins here at WP:MED as to what would be permissable/workable.
  • Might be worth approaching the foundation office to see if they can advise or help with such tie-in external work ? David Ruben Talk 22:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you think there is any potential with this grant: [2]? kilbad (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmmm difficult to know, but carpe diem apllies and "nothing ventured, nothing gained" :-) Grants 2 & 3 clearly ones to consider and it would be very innovative of them to so fund. Suggest contact and see if possibly interested (as currently worded seem to be looking to support budding dermatologists rather than promotion of dermatology to the public, so seems be to an individual rather than a group body of work - but would be interesting to see their thoughts about having Wikipedia assistance as part of focus of a IT grant award). If your looking for this yourself, then probably useful to at least try, and if not successful then at least a useful experience in the hard-graft of seeking funding (however I'm a community GP, so must declare I know nothing really about current hospital research or accademic practices)... others need chip in at this point ;-) David Ruben Talk 02:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Given all the recent controversy over article evaluation, it might be interesting to get some data from dermatology residents judging the quality of the derm articles on a Likert scale, and then see if those evaluations correlated more closely with Wiki's page evaluations or with metrics (multiple regression upon number of talk page edits, age of article in days, mean word count between inline citations, etc.). You could also add in eMedicine and Medpedia for comparison. -Arcadian (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a great idea. You could definitely create a Wikipedia-based project which would fit the grantor's goals and specifications. It might be useful background to demonstrate the Google juice possessed by Wikipedia - that is, any patient or health-care professional searching for a term is likely to find Wikipedia among the top few hits, making it a valuable educational resource. If you feel really brave, you could focus on a few "controversial" dermatologic topics, like erythema migrans or sunscreen (see *shudder* sunscreen controversy as well) - to see how well expert medical opinion is actually represented on this site. Good luck, and let me know if I can provide any useful assistance. MastCell Talk 04:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I suggest explicitly reminding people that they do not have any greater ownership of the pages they are working on just because they have a grant or are being paid for their work. This has already been a problem for students editing WP for credit in courses. I am sure the OP understands this, being an active participant in this wikiproject, but I am just suggesting that this is a risk once money is changing hands. This might also be an issue if certain promises are made in the grant proposal - all of the work might get reverted. That being said, if all editors adhere to the WP spirit then this is a great idea. --Scray (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We have several "external partners" (for want of a better term) at WP:CHEMS and, for a couple of them, the commercial value of their services is probably much larger than two grand (nobody's offered us cash yet, but then we haven't asked for it either!). Our experience is that our "partners" already had a pretty accurate idea of Wikipedia before we even got involved with them: if anything, their idea was 'worse' than the reality but it's a topic that will come up very early on in the discussion. On the Wikipedia side, it is important to be open about what you're doing, but there's no need to shout it from the rooftops: there are enough active editors at WP:MED to spot if something's wrong in WP-terms (eg, accusations of favorable coverage in return for help). The Foundation might be able to help as well, it has experience of giving small sums of its own money for Wikimedia-related projects (usually pretty transversal, to avoid the obvious problems of rivalry between different WM projects). Physchim62 (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm more inclined to the suggestions of Arcadian and MastCell. One of David's suggestions relies on a large change to wikipedia which hasn't happened yet. I'd also be vary wary of accepting money that in any way may imply ownership or endorsement of an article (not that I think anyone has suggested that). The old "sponsorship" disclaimer that editorial control still rests with wikipedians wouldn't wash. Already we have people changing their wikipedia names to avoid "outing" and avoid obvious COI. How are we to know who is paying who? I would not be the least surprised to find that corporations are paying anon wikipedians to massage articles to their own advantage. That topic in itself would be worth researching if you got checkuser priveleges. We've seen it already in the case of political parties. Certainly apply for the grants and good luck.Kevin McCready (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you all for your comments. You have given me some great research ideas, and I am thinking about starting a subpage of WP:DERM for research related projects. On that talk page perhaps we could discuss different study ideas and modes for collecting data. I am a php programmer and mysql dba, and have some specific ideas I would like to toss around. Does that sound ok? kilbad (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Nadya Suleman aka "Octo-mom"

Twice now a tag which would add this article to this WikiProject has been removed. I am just here to verify that you guys don't want it in the project. My reasoning in adding the tag is that there are important issues of medical ethics involved in this story, and it has been reported that the doctor who helped this woman have a total of 14 children with fertility treatments is under investigation. I'm not really familiar with your projects scope, so maybe medical ethics is not a subject you really cover, but it seemed from the attitude of those removing the tag that they just don't like the subject very much (who does?) regardless of the obvious medical aspects of her story. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not have any problems with this being part of the WP:MED project.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It seems the editor who removed it the second time is saying that it is not within the projects scope, because, per your assessment guidelines, articles about "a person who happens to have a medical condition" should not be included. That seems reasonable enough to me, but this has more to do with the ethics of certain methods in reproductive medicine than the fact that she was pregnant. The Medical Board of California is investigating this matter, and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine is apparently assisting them in the investigation. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Her physician(s) and any resulting legal cases would probably be within our scope. However, the biography of an individual patient -- especially one that may be deleted as a violation of WP:ONEEVENT -- is not something that WPMED members are going to write about.
Keep in mind that project banners mean "Individual members of this project are willing to improve this article"; WP:Categories are what you use to say "This article is about subject X." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
There is probably going to be something appearing in the medical literature about the delivery and neonatal care for the children. That said, at the moment I don't think there's an awful lot this WikiProject could do in terms of sourcing. JFW | T@lk 19:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have some problems with those articles as they stand from a WP:BLP standpoint, so I'm not going to take a stance on whether to rule this in or out since I'm trying to keep some distance. There's a task force that might be a good place to get information on this. We don't have a medical ethics task force, and I'd certainly be interested in starting one, though I'm part of the pointy end of the spear on that and not a real expert. SDY (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that this bio actually talks about medical ethics: It contains exactly one (short) paragraph that might be construed as relating to medical ethics, but which is more specifically about the possibility of two professional investigations involving the patient's IVF doc. The word "ethics" does not appear once on the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Granted. I suspect this is because medical journals move a lot slower than newspaper and TV reporters, and the investigation into the doctor has just started, but it seems inevitable that there will be significant talk in the medical press about this given that there are even suggestions now that legislation be passed to limit this sort of thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
We'll get involved when it happens, I guess. Anything we say now would likely be WP:OR. SDY (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
When/if such things happen, presumably they will be covered at In vitro fertilization#Ethics, which people here do support. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I left a note at the reproductive task force page just in case they have some interest. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup on aisle aldosterone

There seems to be considerable overlap of content and some confusion among the following articles:

Some of these conditions are genetic, some are medical conditions, some are dietary. The confusion lies primarily in the cross references. Would anyone here like to have a go at these? --Una Smith (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Continuity of category names

"Condition" vs "disease" revisited
  • I have been working to categorize dermatology related articles based on the scheme at WP:DERM:CAT. As the categorization has progressed from the initial discussion here, and through subsequent CfD's, the scheme has developed such that the term "condition" has been used over "disease" (for reasons previously discussed at length; see here for example).
  • My question today is whether there is anything to be said for continuity of category names? What I mean by that is this... I have been considering posting CfD's for the only remaining derm categories using the term "disease" (which are Category:Chronic blistering skin diseases, Category:Infectious skin diseases, and Category:Papulosquamous hyperkeratotic skin diseases) proposing renaming to the term "conditions". Of course, in the case of these particular categories, the term "disease" is not inappropritate, and the proposed CfD renaming would be strictly to give some more continuity to the derm categories.
  • Would this be ok to do? What are your thoughts? kilbad (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
This may not be a helpful response, but: I don't think that consistency in this case is very important, but I have no objections to using the slightly less-specific names. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Who "owns" the copyright on a CT/MRI image? The technician? doctor? patient? kilbad (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Depends on country, and been discussed at length previously as to who owns the image vs copyright vs consent for publication issues etc - see:
In essence consent re confidentiality issue always easiest by patient themselves uploading image, as for copyright tricky...
Happy back reading :-) David Ruben Talk 23:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a word

I looking for the right word (or short phrase). Consider Hep B or HIV or something like that. Individual people -- some of whom have a given virus and some of whom don't -- have different serostatus.

What's the equivalent term for individual cells? If you're looking at some hepatocytes, and some are infected by HBV and others are not, then the cells have a different what? Infection status? Something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't recall a better term than "infection status", unless reference is made to the specific test being used. Perhaps your talking about things in the abstract; in reality, one cannot really be certain whether a cell is infected or not - only whether or not one or more tests for infection is positive (above some threshold for positivity). Thus, one could say that a cell does or does not stain positively for HBsAg, or (using in situ PCR) is (or is not) PCR-positive for HBV (using primers X and Y), does (or does not) hybridize with probe Z for HBV DNA, etc. The term "serostatus" reflects this - someone who is "seronegative" for HBV might actually be infected, but their serology is negative. --Scray (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, we do know the status of the cells, because we're talking about two unrelated cell lines, and the specific virus can't even invade one of the cell lines -- a fact that is perfectly, even tediously, obvious to anyone that knows anything at all about the hosts that the virus can infect, but I need a way to say it for people that aren't experts, and I wanted to make it grammatically parallel with the rest of the sentence. I may take a different approach though, based on your comments. Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought Scray answered precisely the question WhatamIdoing was asking, but from WhatamIdoing's reply it appears the question is something different. WhatamIdoing, what article does this concern? --Una Smith (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking for perspective

Periodically I see italicized footnotes like the following taken from Lipodermatosclerosis:

Note: This article contains material adapted from the public domain source "Lipodermatosclerosis: Questions and Answers", by the U.S federal government's Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center

What is the deal with these footnotes. Are they required? May they be removed? If so, when? etc... kilbad (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you have to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, and they should be incorporated into the regular reference list (until the article has been sufficiently developed/sourced that the original contribution is no longer apparent). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Medical cannabis

This article is in sad shape and needs some guidance for improvement. Because of the problems, I don't think an official peer review will help all that much, but if anyone can drop by, read the article, and use the talk page to offer up a roadmap with a few milestones other editors can shoot for that would be tremendously helpful. Unfortunately, the article has become a POV magnet for advocates and detractors, and what we really need are referees pointing towards the middle way. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

In other words, just another typical article in Wikipedia on a controversial topic. </sarcasm> Xasodfuih (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, is there truly any more appropriate response? Good point. One thing, though: I spent about 30 minutes briefly reviewing the medical literature today, and there does appear to be a lot of good sources on the topic, so it's not like we don't have access to timely information. I'm going to make an effort to start moving more of these references into the article. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge/move proposal for Causes of schizophrenia#Development of specific delusions

I think that section is not specific to schizophrenia. Please comment at Talk:Delusion#Merge proposal. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles recently added to Category:Energy therapies

Based on its description, that cat is supposed to be reserved only for alternative medicine articles. Recently however, Special:Contributions/יוסי_ישראלי added a number of article to it. I've removed some articles that were clearly accepted therapies in conventional medicine, but some of the articles have hard-to-judge references (mostly because of poor formatting). Could someone else have a look at that cat? Xasodfuih (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Stuff I'm unsure about include: Laser interstitial thermal therapy and Transurethral microwave thermotherapy (I've removed these two since it seems unlikely they are CAM topics, but I could be wrong), and Low level laser therapy (left it in for now). Xasodfuih (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Consolidate?

Should herpetic whitlow and whitlow be merged? kilbad (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would think so yes, but I've been wrong here many times before... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I would support a merge and redirect, but will defer that change to someone else. kilbad (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

April Fool

Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know is gathering candidates for DYK on April 1. Anyone interested? Browsing the first page of Category:Disease stubs, below are a few that caught my eye. --Una Smith (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Osteochondritis dissecans' FAC could use your reviews!

Due to the article's position as a fringe medical topic, few editors have actually done a thorough review of the article. SandyGeorgia suggested a MoS review, and I didn't know of a better place to ask! So, if you have some time to spare and wouldn't mind helping me, then please head on over to the article and give it a read! :-) FoodPuma 14:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Huzzah! 'Tis now a featured article. :) FoodPuma 19:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Will others please watchlist this article and try to comb through it and bring it over the hump? I do not feel it received thorough review at FAC, and each time I visit, I find issues. The prose needs work, there are linking and overlinking issues, undefined terms, redundancy, and I continue to find MoS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Mind map at "Lung cancer"

A mind map has arrived at "Lung cancer". I would appreciate comments here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

From my point of view mind maps are great for textbooks, and fit perfectly in wikibooks; but they do not in wikipedia; and can be considered most times OR unless they have been published as such... and anyway they are not very encyclopedic. (Mind maps were first proposed as a learning tool). I know nothing about cancer, but I think that it applies also here. --Garrondo (talk) 08:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Garrondo. I am copying you comment across to "Talk:Lung_cancer#Mind_map". Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The same editor has added mindmaps to a number of articles. Ultimately they constitute original research and are not very helpful for the general reader. JFW | T@lk 21:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This editor has asked if they should be used a few months back. And at that time the general consensus was no. It looks like he went ahead anyway.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

request. Cardio. Coronary artery template

want template for coronary a. Like ramus, obtuse, etc should be included. More detail than current template needed. -iphone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.247.1.2 (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

conus artery
marginal artery
ramus artery
septal artery
diagonal artery
RPDA
128.125.28.196 (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

MCOTW

 Thank you for your support of the Medicine Collaboration of the Week.
This week Huntington's disease was selected.
Hope you can help…

This article is about five inches removed from WP:GA. It has numerous important and interesting angles, from clinical diagnosis to the psychosocial impact of screening. JFW | T@lk 16:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think instead of putting all of these signs only in aortic regurg article, we should also have each sign as an independent article with a nice little intra-wiki template linking them all together at the bottom. TY! 128.125.28.196 (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

template already exists - just need some work on individual artiles and pictures. 128.125.28.196 (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nasal irrigation

It would be great if one or two knowledgeable people (preferably from the US) could put this article on their watchlist. There is some insanity going on at Talk:Nasal irrigation#Pulsatile irrigation. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion sorting

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine seems to be empty most days, and I suspect that there are articles of interest to our members that are involved in the deletion process. Is there a WP:WikiElf out there that would like to trawl through WP:AFD#Current_discussions every day or two to locate medicine-related articles (very broadly defined) for us?

I'll run through a few days' worth to find anything (except bios) that might be appropriate, but I don't realisitically think that I'll keep up with it in the longer term. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Delano Meriwether

I've recently created an article on Delano Meriwether an MD who was involved in the 1976 US swine flu immunization program. I have very little background in medical issues so I was wondering if someone from this project might be able to run their eyes over the medical section of the article...The Hack 04:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Had a general go at copyediting the stilted language (every sentance its own paragraph). David Ruben Talk 23:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Multiple personality controversy to Dissociative identity disorder

Join in the fun at Talk:Dissociative_identity_disorder#Merger_proposal Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Break out the party decorations!

Two Featured article promotions in one day, ( Meningitis and Osteochondritis dissecans ) - well done guys 'n gals ! LeeVJ (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not thrilled with the state of Osteochondritis dissecans or the reviews it got at FAC. It has redundant prose, and each time I visit I'm finding more and more issues. I do wish others would comb through this article and try to bring it over the hump. Here is the cleanup that was needed after it gained Support at FAC, representative of the types of issues still present, and there are still some inline queries to be resolved. I also suggest keeping this one watchlisted, as an uncited statement with incorrect wikilinks was added a few days ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Sandy, I'm sorry for the below par review but it's not in my area of expertise. In my defence, I did spend two hours fixing the references which were a mess as you quickly spotted. I still think it will make a worthy FA but it was promoted a few days too soon in my very humble opinion. Graham Colm Talk 22:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
There is no need to apologize, Graham :) Even Tony1 approved the prose, and the article is broadly within standard. I just expect better from Medicine articles, and I know we can still improve the clarity and prose. (Thanks for the ref cleanup; little by little, it's getting there.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The article has come a long way from where it began, and reviewing it was made difficult by the circumstances (purported class project of a high school student sensitive to criticism). I was feeling good about my part in it, until now. I am sorry I did not perform up to your expectations, SandyGeorgia. What exactly were your expectations? --Una Smith (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec x X) You can add "supported by editors (admins?) of a similar age with a 'team spirit' of badgering critics of their wiki friends". I think the article got as good as it was going to get under the circumstances. Don't forget that this a rare disease that most editors don't feel worth investing their time to critically review just to be badgered by a band of teenagers; see User_talk:Una_Smith#I_am_sorry., User_talk:FoodPuma#FAC, User_talk:Jakob.scholbach#An_Apology, User_talk:JimmyButler#Edit_wars_for_the_lose and comments at the actual FAC. We should really thank User:Jakob.scholbach (a mathematician) for most of the improvements during FAC. I for one am happy this ended on a positive note. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Sandy's got a bloody gall, coming on here and saying "well, I promoted it but it's not what I'd have liked". There are no obvious errors in spelling or grammar and the article is probably factually correct: that's a damn sight more than can be said for some recent featured articles. Physchim62 (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Which is why Sandy promoted the article; it met all criteria and there was consensus to promote. No one ever said that the article was perfect. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, it's a damn sight better that some recent FAs, and shouldn't be moaned about. Bravo everyone who worked on it. And on Meningitis for that matter! Physchim62 (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec) FYI: Raul promoted this one, not Sandy. Xasodfuih (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected, apologies to all concerned, but Sandy still shouldn't be moaning about FA quality or she'll do me out of a WikiJob :P Physchim62 (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I think one of the reasons that Sandy is harping on it so much is the possibility of this. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Physchim62, thank you for dropping by the Doctors' lounge with your optimism and sunny disposition. Who promoted the article is of no consequence; I, too, would have promoted it because it is within standards and there was consensus to promote, and my concerns that WikiProjects don't adequately vet articles at FAC extend beyond the Medicine Project to all WikiProjects. Nonetheless, the article can and should be improved. The following work would be helpful before it is requested to appear on the main page:
  • Maralia and I have done most of the basic MoS cleanup, but there are five unresolved inline queries (needing the attention of editors knowledgeable about the condition). These have not been addressed over several days; it doesn't appear that this article is well watched by the original editors or nominators.
  • There are two long posts of issues on the talk page that address problems with the lead (there are unclear definitions and linking problems): Talk:Osteochondritis dissecans#Definition and Talk:Osteochondritis dissecans#Lead.
  • The article was part of a school project and there are already indications it is not well watched and may deteriorate; I hope other editors will watchlist it. For example, an uncited, incorrectly linked sentence was added to the wrong section shortly after it passed FAC, [3] [4] and a merge tag has been unresolved for several days at Talk:Osteochondritis dissecans#Merge proposal: Crescent sign.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

request: bar chart for gm + - coverage of Cephalosporin

there is verbal listing of gm + and - coverage of each generation, but remember that bar graph you learned in medical school showing how much gm + and - coverage there is for each generation? That would be great for the article. You can find it in most pharm textbooks. 163.40.12.37 (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(setting myself up to be ridiculed) But is it notable - i.e. does it matter ? Other than being a means of distinguishing some bacteria from others on a microscope slide, does the fact that both gram negative and positive bacteria have pathogenic members (e.g. cocci -ve Neisseria meningitidis and +ve Staphylococcus, and bacilli -ve Hemophilus influenzae and +ve Corynebacterium diphtheriae) actually make any difference in clinical practice? One starts antibiotics empirically, and when a microbiology report comes through it will have the organism and a list of sensitivities which are then used if the initial antibiotic did not clear things (e.g. even staph aureus on some occasions still proves sensitive to amoxicillin, notwithstanding that one usually assumes it will be resistant and need flucloxacillin). Indeed I am left underwhelmed when, on phoning up for a missing lab report after several days wait, I get a long account of how exciting that positive/negative bacterium was because they could not identify the species (which is really of limited interest to a patient) and when I then prompt about antibiotic sensitivities get informed that detail was quickly established as list xyz at the very outset (something which would have been very much of interest to the patient a few days prior). Maybe my microbiology lecturer was as boring as I thought, or did I really miss something useful ? General UK oral cephalosporin usage seems, IMHO, limited to cefalexin, cefaclor and perhaps cefuroxime as just personal preference/habit of the individual doctor (and sensitivities generally reported to just penicillin, ampicillin, flucloxacillin, cefalexin, metronidazole, tetracycline & ciprofloxcin as specific items - i.e. wider cephalosporin sensitivities are not tested for unless lab finds real difficulties in identifying a commonly used antibiotic that will work). David Ruben Talk 20:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
with resistances becoming a major world-wide issue, any figures that will assist doctors in training understand the limitations and pharmacology of Abx, then... yes, I would argue it matters. 75.85.7.156 (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you aware that Wikipedia is not written for doctors in training? Articles are supposed to focus on information that is interesting to the general reader, who is neither a healthcare professional nor a patient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Almost anyone who was interested in knowing why cephalosporins work would be interested in knowing when they don't. --Arcadian (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
But is the gram status itself that important in knowing when they don't work? BNF starts section on them with "The cephalosporins are broad-spectrum antibiotics which are used for the treatment of septicaemia, pneumonia, meningitis, biliary-tract infections, peritonitis, and urinary-tract infections", and most important point it decides to cover first is that pharmacology similar to penicillins and they penetrate the cerebrospinal fluid poorly unless the meninges are inflamed. Notes cefuroxime greater beta-lactamase coverage (ie Haemophilus influenzae and Neisseria gonorrhoeae). Whilst for Cefotaxime, ceftazidime and ceftriaxone mention made of gram status only to extent less active against Staph aureus, and the discussion of the oral agents focus is on H. influenzae activity.
On treating a likely Staph infection, I'm not sure I would ever select a cephalosporin without microbiological sensitivity: my pick list flucloxacillin, to in case of allergy erthyromycin and if allergy/intollerance to that then use of fusidic acid. So whilst I would entirely expect mention of which bacteria the group well/poorly covers, that should be by bacterial name; but I'm not sure discussion in terms of gram stain status is that useful given that (IMHO) practising doctors don't think in such terms ? If a patient has diarrhoea and proves to have salmonella, I don't think 'gram negative' and which cephalosporin to use, for none are and instead ciprofloxacin is drug of choice if patient not improving on watchful waiting. By contrast urine infection with Ecoli (yes I have had to just look it up to check if also gram negative) are well treated with cephalosporins and greatest coverage probably with cefalexin in my area (vs trimethoprim or amoxicillin perhaps more traditionally used) - so gram status not part of my thinking as to whether cephalosporins used or not. Yes maybe I'm just being naive and "merely a GP", but I worry more about when with a urine infection to give 3 vs 7 day course of antibiotics or when not to empirically re-treat for symptoms and instead carryout a gynae examination or suggest GUM referral, and for persistant coughs sputum sample more used to see if bacterial at all & rule out TB allowing management of viral URTI or persisting bronchial hypersensitivity than whether my senquence of amoxicillin and 2nd line clarithromycin needs an alternative agent (and I don't recall last few H.Inf having consistant alternative antibiotic sensitivities). Time for me to shut up, and leave matter for others to decide :-) David Ruben Talk 12:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The Gram stain is fascinating, because it's a historic test based on staining properties, but it has real clinical implications. Gram-negative bacteremias tend to be more immediately dangerous than Gram-positive bacteremias, because of endotoxin and LPS. The Gram stain is often among the first microbiologic results to become available, long before speciation and sensitivities, so antibiotic choices are often based upon Gram-stain results out of necessity. Antibiotics are commonly conceptualized according to their coverage of Gram-positives vs. Gram-negatives, probably for this reason (at least in my training). I think it's reasonable to discuss the spectrum of various generations of cephalosporins in this context - whether in a sentence or two, or in a large chart, is an editorial decision. Regarding staph, I dunno what the situation is like in the UK, but here MRSA is everywhere. I can't remember the last staph isolate I saw that was methicillin-susceptible, but then I tend to see people who've had extensive interactions with the health-care system. MastCell Talk 06:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
It looks like a good deal of the information is already present at Cephalosporin#Classification. The request appears to be that it be presented in a graphical form instead of text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure - sorry for the tangent. I guess the bottom line from my perspective is that if someone wants to create a chart, more power to them. Having the information in text form is an acceptable alternative to me. MastCell Talk 06:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks MastCell for enlightening me on this not being just a historical curiosity (never had high billing in my training or at least failed make impression above overload of facts in rest of pharmacology, and microbiology were more interested in ensuring we knew the gram stain process than any actual usefulness). With results generally taking 7 days in UK community setting (2 if urgent), the idea of getting such preliminary findings seems a utopia to me :-) David Ruben Talk 23:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think upskilling the public on broad activities of antibiotics is an absolutely fantastic idea. Stop everyone splashing around augmentin forte like lollies. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

...not that I use antibiotics much in psychiatry XD Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe people get upset when someone proposes a graphical representation expanding on prose. It doesn't matter if the prose is already there (though incomplete). It matters that graphical representations of activity of cephalosporins are extremely important in training physicians and then training patients who are taking the drug. Pts often ask, why this drug vs this drug, doc? People should be PRO adding information, not CON. -same poster as initial. 128.125.77.26 (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Again: we do not care whether "graphical representations of activity of cephalosporins are extremely important in training physicians" or patients. It's irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a textbook for med students. It is not a source of advice for patients.
We care whether the article presents useful information that will interest the general reader, who is defined (in part) as being a person that is neither a healthcare professional nor a patient. Now: if you want to make a case that this image would clarify information for the general reader, would interest the general reader, or would organize information for the general reader, then I'm all ears (although I won't be creating the image myself anyway). But if your only arguments are that it will help med students save money on textbooks, or that it will help patients make the Right™ decision in the real world, then we're not really interested. Wikipedia cannot be all things to all people, and it is NOT most of what you've been advocating for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
anyone who can read english or any language is a patient of medicine. anyone who can read wikipedia is a patient. yes, the general reader likes pictures, charts, and graphs - especially ones that are not complicated. I think medicine should be written so the general public can understand it - aka the "general reader." It's a specific little dance you play when really in the end, it doesn't make a difference! 128.125.77.26 (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
even if you were born in the jungle and away from all health care as we know it in the modern world, that person technically is a patient of the person who birthed him (even if that person was the person in labor). Therefore, all humans are patients. 128.125.77.26 (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
C'mon, let's not get carried away. "Patient" is a situation, not absolute condition. One refers to a person as "patient" only if their treatment is a/the subject of the writing. Back to the topic, I'm confident that visuals provide a framework for organizing concepts. --Scray (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Metformin

There's some brisk discussion on Talk:Metformin whether we need to discuss recent in vitro studies. Please comment. JFW | T@lk 21:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I will promote this announcement on my Twitter community (>1300 doctors and medical students). I hope it helps. NCurse work 08:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Efficacy of dietary oils in depression

See Talk:Major_depressive_disorder#Regarding_the_efficacy_of_dietary_oils_in_depression. Xasodfuih (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

request color change on template

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Lumbosacral_plexus

I can't see the white lines between the yellow blocks - the white lines are important to tell what nerve is a branch of what. this is important for msk, ortho, neuro and many other branches of medicine if you are going to give me the run around. I would change the color myself but I fail miserably every time I try to modify a template. If you are able to edit templates successfuly, please consider changing the color of the yellow or adding black divider lines to the template for me so I can differentiate nerve branches. TY 128.125.77.26 (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, the only yellow block that I see is the banner title. I don't see any white lines at all, but I have a white background. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the lightYellow background of the groupings does not have enough contrast against the typical white background, making this less accessible. (And that is without checking how it appears in monochrome or for color blind users.) Zodon (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Any color change should also be done to the other nerve templates, e.g. {{Autonomic}}, {{Nervous system}}, {{Brachial plexus}}, {{Cervical plexus}}, {{Cranial nerves}}, {{Limbic system}}, {{Medulla and pons of rhombencephalon}}, {{Trigeminal nerve}}, {{Spinal nerves}}, {{Meninges}}, {{Spinal cord}}, {{Nervous tissue}}, etc. Zodon (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
(I've copied my response from Template talk:Lumbosacral plexus) ::I don't object to changing the shading, but I think the gold used in that link looks more orange than yellow, and thus doesn't evoke the standard association (yellow = nervous system) that has existed for a century. Perhaps something halfway between? There's a good list of named colors at Web_colors#X11_color_names. There are a lot of tradeoffs to consider. I've seen people complain about shades of yellow that were too bright. I'd also like to preserve the traditional association between tan/brown and muscles, so I wouldn't want to nudge the yellow too far in that direction. Perhaps we could create a series of color templates (like "{{ColorNervousSystem1}}", "{{ColorCardiovascularSystem1}}", etc.), so we could embed those colors into the navboxes and infoboxes, and then continue to make subtle adjustments without having to update all the templates? --Arcadian (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Another template that needs to be changed is {{Infobox Nerve}}. The yellow in this should be the same as the nerve navboxes, but it is currently different (#FFEE77 vs. yellow). Per convention, the nerve templates should remain some shade of yellow - with the subgroups a different (preferably lighter) shade. --Scott Alter 00:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd support standardizing upon #FFEE77. (It was updated in this edit.) --Arcadian (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
That's fine for the title, but the problem is with the subgroup color. #FFEEBB looks slightly better than lightyellow (which is in use now), but it is on the orange side. Also, I just created a table of anatomy templates at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy#Templates. The table contains the colors used in the navboxes, and I formatted the table's borders like the navboxes - so you can see how the colors contrast in the templates. --Scott Alter 01:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
You're clearly on top on the integration issues involved. If you make a specific proposal on the change you would recommend, there's a good chance that we can push this forward. --Arcadian (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
While conceptually I agree with the neatness of defining the colors for a set of templates in one place, I am not sure about the performance hit involved. (There would be a large number of color template invocations per template, templates used on lots of articles, ...) While it would make making adjustments easier, the templates are still used a lot more than they are adjusted.
Nice to have the color schemes laid out as Scottalter did. Would be nice to add a brief explanation/key to traditional color associations for particular systems (where association comes from, etc.). The template documentation should also link back to the table.
If main nerve color remains yellow, then something like FFFFBB seems to strike a reasonable balance between trying to differentiate from Yellow and from white. But moving to off-yellow fine too. Zodon (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
It sounds like we're all pretty much on the same page, but at risk into drifting into inertia. Does anybody object if I add Scottalter's color table (minus the template labels) to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)? (Sort of like this.) Of course, these colors may change in the future, and those changes would be subject to consensus, but having them in one location would make future discussions about color more productive. --Arcadian (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Outdent

I thought changing the Manual of Style required a more formal process(??)

Agree that having a listing of the template colors, rationale, etc. in one place would be helpful. Might be well to hold off on copying the colors to the MOS for a little bit while we expand the table and work out what colors to use. (Copying it would make more places that have to be updated/etc.) But a link from the Manual of Style, or indication on the talk page that effort being made to document the colors might help.

Right at the moment I am going through the anatomy templates and converting the documentation (most of which are boilerplate copies of the same text) to use a template {{Anatomy navbox doc}}, so that we can include a link to the color reference, wherever it winds up. I am also in the middle of expanding the list of the other anatomy templates (and the colors they use). Zodon (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

While this is probably more of a project for an anatomy wp, a passionate surgeon may want to take this up ... Many of the anatomy infoboxes could be improved. Most have blood flow that supplies the organ and innervation, but I requested previously (and Scott added to the template) that Spinal Cord lvl be added to the template. This is important clinically and "the general reader" who wants to learn about that nerve would arguably be interested in the spinal nerve that it arises from. So, in addition to the nerve that supplies "x" anatomy structure, the spinal nerve could also be added. -same as original poster. 24.43.8.159 (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Alcohol articles

Can I raise some very serious concerns with the various alcohol articles. It appears that an editor David J. Hanson who is a professor of sociology and a major promotor of the health benefits of alcohol and incidently is funded by Distilled Spirits Council of the United States and who has a habit of using sockpuppets has had some fun editing the various articles on alcohol and health. I thought that I was reading an article on Kava Kava or valerian. I was left with the impression that if I didn't become an alcoholic I would be at high risk of kidney stones or if I didn't drink alcohol with every meal I would be at risk of picking up a life threatening bacterial plague and a range of other terrible diseases and alcohol consumption was not only an essential wonder cure all but a medical wonderdrug recommended by doctors for chronic daily consumption. There was a severe lack of information on the harm. The article long-term effects of alcohol was the worst offender. I have deleted out a lot of bias, research that has been debunked recently and other stuff and I have added a good section on the neuropsychiatric/psychological effects of long term alcohol abuse but so much more relevant info that is lacking and it still is quite NPOV violating. The remaining data on the page seems accurate at least according to current research but it is just biased and severely lacking. I scanned the alcohol cancer page and noticed a few glaring inaccuracies but haven't read it all and dread doing so. All of the alcohol and health articles need an urgent review by doctors who are familar with the toxicities of alcohol on health. As far as medicine goes alcohol is the cause of so many medical, psychiatric and social problems and is such a drain on society, the individual and health services, it really should be of top priority I feel for this project. NOTE the article isn't as bad as it was after I deleted a lot of stuff. My main complaint is what it is lacking at the moment and I am burnt out from wiki editing, I can't do it on my own. Just reading the newspaper every month there is a study coming out it seems linking even moderate alcohol consumption with an increased risk of certain disease like cancer or whatever. Just yesterday one came out on prostrate cancer. This is why we need doctors familar with the topic to get involved. I am pretty knowledgable about the dependence and long term effects on mental health of alcohol but only have a moderate knowledge on the wide range of health consequences.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way the articles survived by the looks of things for 2 years without any major challenge except people complaining on the talk page. This is quite serious that such important articles sat on wiki for 2 years promoting alcohol for its health benefits, without putting it into context or neutrality.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, but this is hardly surprising to me. The article on anabolic steroids even got promoted to FA with a load of misrepresented and cherry-picked sources. Xasodfuih (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Alcohol consumption is the ninth leading cause of death world wide and the third in the USA. see List of preventable causes of death. Like many article it sounds like it will be a battle to bring it to NPOV. May take a look at some point. The lead of long-term effects is appropriately negative about the health effects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The serious NPOV issues in the long term effects article have been dealt with for the most part. The main problem is what is lacking. Effects on liver is not even mentioned nor pancreas and probably a lot of other medical consequences which is why I think it needs reviewed. I don't think that there will be any problems as far as battling over adding content to the article as the consensus seems to be that what needed to be done was a rewrite which I did and fill in what is still missing which is not yet done. It was only a one man editing job by a professor employed by an alcohol lobby board, who can easily be reverted if he returns with biased edits until he gives up. Nobody agreed with his edits by the looks of the archived talk page.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

problematic edits

Hi -- it's come to my attention that a new editor, Telepatty900 (talk · contribs), has been making edits to the articles about a number of fields of medicine, adding and removing information in ways that seem dubious to me. Being a neuroscience Ph.D. rather than an M.D., I'm reluctant to take any sort of decisive action except at Neurology, but I thought perhaps the project should be aware of this. Look at the contribs to see what is going on. Looie496 (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've placed a level one warning for content removal on their talk page. These edits are massively disruptive, even if in good faith. Let's see where he/she goes from here. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Update -- editor has been blocked for 72 hr, and most if not all edits reverted. Looie496 (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Emedicine dictionary template isn't working

{{EMedicineDictionary}} just returns dead links. Is this a temporary situation, or is there a way of fixing the links? Graham87 03:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Their dictionary has been down for at least a few months. I've been deleting the individual links when I run across them, but the template probably ought to be deleted. --Arcadian (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't delete individual links - just fix the template !
eMedicine site generally seems to have been rearranged (I've previously addressed {{eMedicine}} changes). Still has a dictionary (although not having previously used the previous version I can't say if produces same results), so for asthma use http://www.emedicinehealth.com/script/main/srchcont_dict.asp?src=asthma
Main overall eMedicineHealth search help is set up as http://www.emedicinehealth.com/script/main/srchcont_em.asp?src=Asthma but to directly hit a fixed page use http://www.emedicinehealth.com/asthma/article_em.htm
 Done I've changed the template to the first option, given still specifies for dictionary. It uses same convention as previous of using "+" to link keywords: eg see usage in Fallopian tube#External links which gives a useful hit list :-) David Ruben Talk 12:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
But doesn't that violate Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, #9? --Arcadian (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Of minor initial point - the template is not doing anything that it previously did/did-not do - I've only adjusted for the new eMedicine site layout changes, you created that template in 2006 :-) More importantly re that #9 point, it is not a general search engine request linking to various finds on the internet, but rather a list of definitions within the one resource (MedicineNet Dictionary, which is incorporated into eMedicineHealth now) (somewhat like PubChem links on {{Drugbox}} giving pages with multiple further links but all from same website). I'm guessing most of the time only 1 or 2 terms are returned. In Fallopian tube example, I see a couple different "hits" are for same text, another (still in same resource) adds a picture and interestingly "extrauterine" definition comes up as a distinction bewteen normal intrauterine pregnancies and ectopics that may occur in the tubes - I think that's a nice alternative (lateral thinking) system of considering the fallopian tubes by pregnancy location. David Ruben Talk 22:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
It is doing something it previously did not do: the eMedicine dictionary link used to go directly to a specific page with the definition of the term in question. --Arcadian (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, then yes one step removed from that now, is that critical ? (never previously personally used that link myself before). David Ruben Talk 08:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There also was a {{EMedicineConsumer}} (created by Arcadian) with link similarly broken that tried to access eMedicineHealth's own articles. I've fixed that link call. However as no "Consumer" term used by the website itself (as far as I can see) and only currently used by the one article of Dementia, I've been bold and moved it to {{EMedicineHealth}}. David Ruben Talk 13:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:PHARM:CAT: Editors are moving forward...

In response to several comments, the re/categorization of pharmacology articles is going to begin. Ongoing refinement of the proposed categorization scheme will continue at WT:PHARM:CAT and via CfD's; however, I wanted to let you know about this categorization effort so that you (1) are aware and (2) might consider participating. kilbad (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

my cursory search showed these ideas have been floating around for a while among many. It's awesome that Scott is taking the initiative. He truly should be awarded for his hard work on numerous wikiprojects. -tk 24.43.8.159 (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks tk. I'll probably start with the recategorization today, but I'm pretty busy in real life. Any help is welcomed. --Scott Alter 12:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

FENa

the fractional excretion of sodium article could use a picture.

I just can't look at xxxxx (divided by sign) xxxx (divided by sign) xxxx (divided by sign) divided by sign

I would like to see a graphic showing:

  • Na u / Cr u
  • ------------
  • Na p / Cr p

but... I don't know how to upload an image... Can anyone else do this? 24.43.8.159 (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to upload an image, you can type commands into the edit window for this sort of thing and the WP "magic" will do the rest:
Take a look at how I encoded this - it's pretty simple. There's help for doing math. I did not abbreviate as much as you suggested - keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia for the public, and not a medical reference or how-to. Hope this helps. --Scray (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
No worries about abbreviation. I write for wikipedia like I would write a consent document or like how I do patient education. -same as original poster75.85.7.156 (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking for help creating stubs

There are several types of epidermal nevi, neoplasms, and cysts which still have no stubs in wikipedia. I have a list of them and wanted to know if someone would help me create them? kilbad (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll give you a hand if you can find a good source. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I can't send you my books. Can you just use pubmed? kilbad (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Haha, I wouldn't expect you to do that. Yeah I guess I can, just leave a list of pages you'd like creating and I'll search through PubMed and try and create some this week. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 07:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I can help. List redlinks here? Some may only need to be made redirects. --Una Smith (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The redlinks I am looking for help with are located under the Epidermal nevi, neoplasms, cysts section in the list of skin-related conditions. All those diseases have been included from a reliable secondary text Andrews' Diseases of the Skin: Clinical Dermatology, and I think most probably deserve their own article (as each will have its own characteristics, incidence, prevalence, treatment, etc.). If you have any problems finding a particular disease, just pass over it and I can do it later. Also, if possible, I ask that you discuss any changes you plan on making to the actual list before doing so as I am currently in the process of actively editing it. Thanks again for your willingness to help! kilbad (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I'll start in a few hours. Just a comment, could things like cystic basal cell carcinoma be covered in the main basal cell carcinoma article itself? This would seem more appropriate. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
At this time, perhaps we can just leave those links red and then address them at the end? kilbad (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Kk, no worries. I've started with eruptive vellus hair cyst. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Orignal research galore and edit war at hard and soft drugs

This articles has multiple severe problems despite the consensus to keep it as it is at the last AfD. I had removed:

Only alcohol and nicotine were attributed to (non-peer-reviewed) expert opinion as "hard drugs", but even then it's not clear what definitions the sources use (if any). With little useful content left I redirected the article to Drug policy of the Netherlands, which purportedly (because this claim is unsourced too) is the only country to use this classification, and this was the only argument used as "keep" in the AfD. Needless to say, all my changes have been reverted by POV pushers who claim I've gutted the article. Xasodfuih (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the main promoter of WP:OR/WP:SYNT in this article is User:Ajax151 who has been POV pushing at Passive smoking to dilute the mainstream consensus with WP:FRINGE papers disputing the harm of passive smoking. He's the one using Erowid as source of medical info like toxicity and addictiveness of drugs in this article. Xasodfuih (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Erowid as source of medical info

I take it it's not kosher per WP:MEDRS, but then Jimbo is the ultimate content decider here (according to higher-ups than me), so who knows, maybe we should ask him... Xasodfuih (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

LA Weekly says: "It is an independent Web site run by a couple of neo-hippie data geeks without Ph.D.s, institutional backup or government funding. Two longtime partners who go by the names Earth and Fire (she’s the Fire), they’ve built the most comprehensive encyclopedia of psychoactive substances online." Not that different from getting medical advice from the playboy bunny if you ask me. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Whether a source is reliable depends a lot on how you use it, but I admit that it wouldn't be very high on my list for most purposes that editors might suggest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo has little to do with this. It is the consensus of regular contributors that Erowid is a hopeless source. Experimenting with psychoactive substances sounds like a highly individual experience, and unless you study the reactions in a scientific, reproducible way it is not likely to lead to reliable information. JFW | T@lk 00:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: Merge into Drug policy

Join in the fun at Talk:Drug_policy#Merger_proposal - 'hard' and 'soft' are merely two adjectives whose whole being lies within the concept of drug policy, and it should all be on the one page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Rubeosis iridis

I came across this article, and it needs some work. so i have added a tag for wikiproject medicine. Najafhaider (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Cross-posted from WT:CHEMS. Physchim62 (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the current names of the articles and categories

are misleading, since all agents (materials, compounds, environments) could and should be classified by IARC. The classification does not make them "carcinogens".

Please comment at Talk:International Agency for Research on Cancer#Proposal to move several articles/categories to alternative names.--FocalPoint (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Help improving PatientsLikeMe please!

Dear all, I work for PatientsLikeMe and so want to avoid any conflict of interest by doing substantial edits to the article. However since it first went up we have published several research studies and been mentioned in a variety of journals including Lancet Neurology, Nature Medicine, AMIA, etc (see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=patientslikeme). I would be most grateful to have some additional input to the article from objective 3rd parties. Happy to answer any questions at pwicks@patientslikeme.com, I'm also easily Googlable! Thanks,--PaulWicks (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Grammer

Should categories like "Dermatologic signs," "Dermatologic terminology," and "Dermatologic procedures and surgery," be dermatologIC or dermatologiCAL? kilbad (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

How about 'skin' or 'skinNY' (sorry couldn't help myself....like the joke, "What's brown and sticky......a stick!" Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
But seriously, methinks thou needest the -al Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Anyone else have any additional thoughts? kilbad (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
UK usage would be for the -al (I've seen similar ugly gynecologic, which I thought was a portmanteau of 'gynecology' and 'logic' and thus encapsulate the logical processes used by gynecologists - now behave everyone and don't show your personal prejudices on that !). Having said that, 'dermatology' is used, probably wrongly, on its own as in 'a dermatology proceedure' and so somewhat similar to say 'orthopaedic proceedure' (I've never encountered an 'orthopaedical difficult problem' ) David Ruben Talk 22:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
My old (very old) Webster's lists gynecologic / gynaecologic as adjective. Ditto: orthopedic / orthopaedic = adjective.
However, the same dictionary says that dermatological is the adjective. Whether that's logical or not.
(But, really, DR, in "orthopaedical[ly] difficult problem" we're talking adverb, no? The problem isn't primarily orthopedic, it's primarily difficult. As opposed to a "difficult orthopedic problem".) - Hordaland (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
If you look at Merriam-Webster Online at [5], it seems that either form can function as an adjective. Therefore, if I proposed a CfD to make all dermatologIC and dermatologiCAL cats the same for consistency sake (probably favoring dermatologiCAL), would you all have any objections? Would that be ok to do? kilbad (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

DSM IV TR redux

Just a note for anyone who doubted this, does anyone else find this interesting that NICE are using DSM terminology now? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol, no, the DSM in general has gained much popularity lately, i remember when it was just for psychologists and psychiatrists, now its availability is beyond wide spread. This is not a bad thing. People just need to give it the respect it deserves and start siting it! :@ Boygenius 13 (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:WPMED Navigation

I re designed the template, please inform me if you have any suggestions or comments regarding that Maen. K. A. (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no current thoughts on the graphic design aspects, but here are my thoughts on the organization:
  • Why is stub sorting not handled like the other "Open tasks"? Should "Open tasks" be renamed something like "How to help"?
  • Why is our single contest hidden behind a [Show] box? (It seems like a waste of space.)
  • Should "Task forces" be renamed "Specialties"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Too many different colors (alternating bars, horizontal lines, etc - too busy), contrast too low. Should use sidebar meta-template rather than hand coding. The older color scheme worked better with the talk page banner color (in general this is dark and foreboding, the other color scheme was more pleasant). Think the colors should be changed back.
Most of the collapsible sections probably aren't worth the extra complexity for the user. It means more clicks, for what is supposed to be a shortcut. Since this template is only used on project pages (as compared to articles) it isn't clear that it is getting so bit that it needs to use hidden sections yet. (If so, only hide the largest sections, e.g. taskforces and/or tasks.)
In short - previous version was better. Zodon (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
After trying this out for a few days... I think I'm happier with the old version. Pretty much the only think I use the template for is to find task forces pages.
I wonder whether it would be possible to revert to the old one but to also implement a parameter that could optionally close sections on certain pages. For example, WP:CARDIO probably doesn't need to advertise all the other task forces, and that could significantly reduce the size of the template. (Or perhaps the old one just needs less white space around the cells.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the color changes, and moved stub sorting into the open tasks group, and removed the heading for the one contest. (As suggested above).
What is the distinction between "open tasks" and "departments"? Should collaboration of the week be moved to Departments?
Should the missing article trophy be moved into the how to help group? (Seems most closely related to the requested articles item).
What do people use frequently? If going to leave some sections hidden, might make sense to have most of such sections at the end. Zodon (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
In theory, "open tasks" is a semi-random list of pages that need improvement, stubs that need sorted, or that sort of thing. "Departments" I think is (supposed to be?) more procedural stuff, like FA reviews. These sections could probably be merged. Except for WP:MEDA, I don't visit those pages very often (and when I do, I don't use the navbox to reach them), so perhaps they're candidates for collapsing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, it seems that some potentially useful links got lost. Article alerts is no longer listed, nor several other things that were under 'open tasks' a few weeks ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Several boxes are expandable, and the things you list exist under those boxes. Took me a while to find them, too, so I'm not sure this is the best way of presenting the navbox. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 07:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

MedInvitation

Two points:

When you see an editor doing good work on medicine-related articles, and you haven't seen them here or at the participants list, please remember to invite them. You can do this quickly by pasting {{subst:MedInvitation}} onto their user talk page.

Also, since some people will have a stronger interest in a specialty instead of in the whole project, I wonder whether MedInvitation should be expanded to include a small link to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Task_forces? I haven't been able to strike on a happy way to say it, so if someone else likes the idea and has a suggestion, I'd be happy to hear it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, links to speciality task forces would come in handy... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Clean up listing

Somehow I missed the good news of a new Wikipedia database dump earlier this month. Wolterbot has sent us a new cleanup listing, including (74 of our top-importance articles). If you've got a few minutes, please feel free to pick something from the list and fix it.

Many of these are easy fixes, and there's something for everyone, from general copyediting to requests for expert attention. I think (unless someone squawks) that it might be more efficient for us to edit the lists to remove pages that are fixed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm confuzzled slightly by the list. Blood transfusion is listed as having external link cleanup problems, but there is no external link section, just a lot of online references. "Academic resources" is sort of an EL, but it has one entry that is the leading journal on the subject and appears to be appropriate. SDY (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The data dump used for the listing was dated 6 March, so some articles have changed in the meantime. At that particular one, someone else removed the linkfarm already. Maralia (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
And incidentally, it's perfectly fine to delete resolved items; I've been doing it for months on Wolterbot cleanup lists for other projects. The existing list will simply be overwritten the next time the bot does its thing, which is likely to be months down the road anyway. Maralia (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Maralia. One of the challenges will be finding all the instances. Pages are listed twice (number of items on the page, and again under each type of tag), and of course there are multiple lists. So discovering an "already fixed" item is probably going to be pretty common if we're really making progress. (On the other hand, getting to remove an article from the list without having to do any real work is somehow just as satisfying.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Childhood versus Juvenile

Are Childhood dermatomyositis and Juvenile dermatomyositis the same thing? If so, I will defer a merge to someone else. kilbad (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Automated tissue image systems help please

This artiscle is at AfD here and we need some more authoritative opinions on the salvagibility of the article. Any help appreciated. -- Banjeboi 02:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:24, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

We were indeed already subscribed to the alerts. I've added a link to the {{WPMED Navigation}} template so it can be accessed more easily. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
A reminder that you should give a link to the alert page when you are using the display=none setting.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Immunoglobulin naming conventions

Are there any guidelines for naming articles related to immunoglobulins? While creating some stubs I noticed that trying to find Ig-related diseases is somewhat challenging as there are no standard naming conventions and inconsistent redirects. I have tried to create a little more organization, but there are still some inconsistencies. Compare Selective immunoglobulin A deficiency and Hyper-IgE syndrome for example. kilbad (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with sticking to the generally-accepted name of the condition? Perhaps I misunderstand, but I don't imagine having WP rename terms in common usage (such as the two you mention). --Scray (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
At this time I am not proposing how these articles should be named, but simply bringing it up for discussion, particularly the issue of whether an article title should use "Ig" versus "immunoglobulin". kilbad (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
MEDMOS dictates that we use ICD-10 unless we have a really good reason not to (as with Tourette syndrome). So we should probably keep "Selective immunoglobulin A deficiency" and rename "Hyper-IgE syndrome". --Arcadian (talk) 06:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I am fine with whatever the community wants to do, and will defer renaming to someone else. kilbad (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Cancer survivors categories

Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Category Cancer survivors not found

I am not a fan of overly-specific categorization, but this category scheme strikes me as eminently valuable to the general public, and I'd like to expand it. Any objection to the idea? Off the top of my head, I'd like to add subcats for survivors of Hodgkins & non-Hodgkins, cervical, lung, testicular, and prostate cancers. Thoughts? Maralia (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In general, any category that will move more than a small number of bios out of the unsorted list seems reasonable to me.
However, given that the split between HL and NHL is being dumped in the real world (as it's beyond silly to talk about NHL as if it were a single entity), I oppose that particular set of subcats. On the other hand, if you wanted to create a category for all hematological malignancies together (perhaps with the reader-friendly name of "Leukemias and lymphomas"), then I wouldn't object to that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
All the existing categories are by location of the cancer; what about histology? Is that known often enough that categorizing notable survivors by it would be useful? Histology is very important for the surveillance and treatment issues, and for the duration of survivorship. --Una Smith (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer review - Oxygen toxicity

I'm hoping to improve Oxygen toxicity to become a FAC but I'm not sure of the best way to get a peer review or some constructive criticism as this will be my first experience of the process. Casliber kindly suggested I should mention it here, and I'd be grateful for any advice on the process or the article that I can get. I should add I'm a diver, not a medic, but I've tried my best to adhere to MOSMED. Thanks in advance for any help or advice. --RexxS (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

blood glucose merge with BG monitoring

There's a pointer in a notice at BG monitoring suggesting this proposed merger be discussed here. ? However that may be, here's an opinion.

These are different topics, though with a shared common term. One is a discussion of the homeostatic and physiological function of a food chemical and variants thereof. The other is a clinical topic having ot do with treatment of derangements in the management of that chemical. Too wide a difference to be encompassed in a single WP article. Visions of bloat and poor writing haunt my mind at the prospect.

Oppose merger. ww (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Apparently, the tag is (very) stale. I've removed it, and I think everyone will agree that "no merge" is the right choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Easy work, anyone?

Category:Unknown-importance medicine articles could use a little attention. I've managed to whittle it down from 145 to 94 articles, but I need a break :) Maralia (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, if Tetanized state only occurs in Tetanus...should they be merged? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Although this particular task seems neither important nor urgent, since Maralia asked I did a few. --Una Smith (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! As far as importance and urgence, breast cancer could use some work... :) Maralia (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Welcome. Most of the cancer articles are important and at least somewhat urgent. I find them heartbreaking to work on, but I do as much there as I can. --Una Smith (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been working on that category here and there for months. (It used to number in the thousands.) A couple of new articles get added to it every week. Thanks for your help! WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The cat is down to 36 at the moment. A few points to those new to this game:
  • The details are at WP:MEDA.
  • WPMED does not tag the talk pages of redirects.
  • WikiProject Anatomy is the right project to support all human anatomy pages: Please remove WPMED unless there's some significant disease/treatment information in the article.
  • All articles about medications should be tagged for WikiProject Pharmacology (could be both projects if there's non-trivial disease information in the article).
Questions can be left here or at WP:MEDA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Neuro(no)pathy

Are Neuropathy and Neuronopathy the same thing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

They should both probably be merged into Peripheral neuropathy. --Arcadian (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
never heard the latter term at all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
According to Dorland's IIlustrated Medical Dictionary, "neuronopathy" is "polyneuropathy involving the destruction of cell bodies of neurons". "Neuropathy" is "a functional disturbance of pathological change in the peripheral nervous system, sometimes limited to noninflammatory lesions as opposed to those of neuritis". Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Narcissism (psychology) into Narcissism

Proposed merger of Narcissism (psychology) into Narcissism, join the fun at Talk:Narcissism#Merger_proposal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Doptone

Ok folks, what should we do with Doptone - merge it to...what Medical ultrasonography? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There is already an article for it at Doppler fetal monitor, which already contains all of the information in Doptone. I'd just put File:Doptone.jpg in Doppler fetal monitor and then redirect Doptone. Doppler fetal monitor has very few links to it, and sections (or list items) about Doppler fetal monitors should be added to Medical ultrasonography, Obstetric ultrasonography, Prenatal care, and Obstetrics. --Scott Alter 13:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Aha, a fine choice my good sir. Go for thy life for I must to sleep..... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Doptone seems to originate as a trade name for a doppler fetal monitor, made by Smith-Kline in 1965. It should be mentioned in Doppler fetal monitor for sure. However, as both Medical ultrasonography and Obstetric ultrasonography are defined in their lead as "imaging techniques" or "visualisation", perhaps their "See also" sections would be most accurate place to link to Doppler fetal monitor. --RexxS (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I merged the articles, but did not add any information on the history. I'd like to see a more complete account for the device's history from an authoritative source. I also put links to this article from prenatal care, medical ultrasonography, and obstetric ultrasonography. --Scott Alter 14:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

New Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine Design

Please check out my proposed design, and please add your comments whether you support applying it or not here or on my talk page Maen. K. A. (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose It is too wide (have to scroll back and forth to see it). Won't work as well on narrow screens (small laptops, large fonts for accessability). How does it rate on accessability tests - suspect won't work well with screen readers. Reduces contrast (less accessible).
Familiar navigation tools (table of contents, ability to jump to section you want) missing. Doesn't follow usual look/layout of other wikiprojects (makes it harder to use). Zodon (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Too wide. Requires left-right scrolling and awkward to read. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Support but only because my screen is big enough so I don't have to scroll, and it looks nice. If I had to scroll, I'd hate it too. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, sorry. The style is pseudo two column, and unbalanced, which means it has a lot of blank space. Also, I work with a lot of projects and I find project pages much easier to navigate if their style (and skin?) is the Wikipedia standard, not custom. Imagine if every Wikipedia article could have its own style. Gaak. Let's leave style development for user pages. --Una Smith (talk) 06:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I like the format in many ways but if it is not easy to use for everyone than we should stike we what we have.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment Thank you all for your comments concerning the design, it might gave me some clues about how Wikiproject Medicine should look like, but i have one more question, Do you support redesigning the project page?? or should i stop thinking about that??. Thank you all for your time Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I would support a redesign, if your redesign didn't have the problems on narrow screens it would have probably been supported in my opinion.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

New design has problems. The new design has presentational problems on my screen using Firefox on Ubuntu. Of course, the new page should be tested on different screens, with different browsers, and on different operating systems before it can be rolled out. Clearly, the new design is not ready yet. I think it is better to stay with the current well tested design at the moment. Snowman (talk) 10:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

an interesting conundrum - fetus vs unborn baby

OK folks, an IP with this edit, has given an explanation on my talk page.

My take in reverting was to use plainer english wherever possible for technical terms as long as no meaning is lost. However the IP has noted an emotive implication which I hadn't thought of. So which term do we prefer here? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the more precise term, which in most cases would be fetus. "Unborn baby" can also refer to an embryo. Especially in the case of in vitro fertilization, when the embryos are frozen. Also, some people who want to be parents may include in the concept "unborn baby" all the babies they have not yet conceived. --Una Smith (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
This issue arose in the page on Lorazepam and was with reference to a foetus in the first trimester of pregnancy. I think that most people would recognise the word foetus as being appropriate in lay or other usage to refer to a foetus during this stage of development. My explanation in favour of using the word "foetus" is based on my understanding of the usage of the term foetus in the UK and is different to the IPs expressed explanation. However, with regard to the IP's explanation of an unintended implication of the phrase "unborn baby" added in a good faith edit; perhaps, using the term "unborn baby" for a foetus in the first trimester of pregnancy could be something some people are understandably sensitive to for a variety of reasons including the point of view expressed by the IP. I think "unborn baby" has a slightly less precise meaning than "foetus". It is a wiki policy to use neutral language, and I think using precise neutral language here would avoid any unintended interpretations. Snowman (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
In this case, I'm going to pull a line from WP:ENGVAR which also deals with viciously controversial multiple acceptable ways to say the same thing: unless a compelling reason can be found to change it, keep it the way it was. Whether the volume of controversy over the word choice question that's being introduced into the article can be silenced with precedent over pedantic spelling differences is beyond me, but there is a precedent. SDY (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
During most of the 1st trimester it is an embryo, not a fetus, and "unborn baby" is very loaded. --Una Smith (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, for part of the time it is an embryo and part of the time it is an foetus. Incidentally, I do not know what SDY is saying. Snowman (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
More or less, if we have a question about potentially controversial choice when both choices are equally (un)acceptable, there is a precedent for how we deal with them (albeit one that has nothing to do with medicine). SDY (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
But, that is not the situation here, as we clearly have options that are much better than others. What is the precedent anyway? Snowman (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I misunderstood the original statement then. The WP:ENGVAR policy deals with national varieties of English (i.e. fetus and foetus) where some editors have passionate beliefs about "spelling it right" (i.e. no difference in meaning, just presentation). It has some specific recommendations about how to deal with the issue. SDY (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
As far as I am aware no one here is concerned about using the UK or USA spellings, foetus or fetus, which are being used interchangeably is this discussion and in the USA version in the article without controversy. Snowman (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The spelling is obviously irrelevant. That there's already a policy that deals with bikeshedesque changes in article wording was why I brought it up. My interpretation of the OP's comments was that someone was changing wording without changing the meaning, analogous to a spelling change. SDY (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for refering to wording that started this discussion. I note that the introductory explanation may have been misleading and sent you thinking along the wrong way. I do not know why the introduction was phrased the was it was, because arguably the meaning had changed. Generally speaking, and not refering to this discussion, may I say, that it is always better to study the discussion and read the linked quotes, just in case someone is applying spin or made a mistake. Snowman (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) When you're specifically talking about the first trimester, then fetus/foetus is inaccurate and should not be used. Humans are embryos for the first eight weeks after conception: the fetal stage does not appear until the last couple of weeks of the first trimester. Consequently, "unborn baby" is actually more accurate (as it has a much more flexible definition). If it needs to sound science-y, the alternative is to talk about the "embryo/fetus", which is dreadful writing style.
For most articles (i.e., specifically excluding articles about elective abortions, where "baby" somehow implies a morally significant being deserving of human rights, instead of an early stage in the growth of the sort of mammal that has 46 chromosomes), I might switch back and forth between "fetus" or "embryo" (whichever was technically correct) and "unborn baby". The technical terms can link to the appropriate page on human development, and the non-technical term can help less-educated readers figure out what we're talking about.
As an aside, fetus is becoming an emotive term: I've seen parents showing off ultrasound photos and gushing about how cute "the fetus" is in exactly the same tone that happy grandmothers have gushed about babies for generations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes. 1st trimester refers to the pregnancy, which by convention begins on LMP, the first day of the last menstrual period. In the absence of other evidence, conception is assumed to occur 3 weeks after LMP, so the embryo is 8 weeks old in week 11 of the pregnancy. No one much cares unless it is a difficult pregnancy, when this can be a matter of life or death. --Una Smith (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Without commenting on previous discussions, "baby in the womb" or "during the first trimester of the babies development", or "during the first trimester of foetal development" would probably be better than "unborn baby". Snowman (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
It was changed back to "unborn baby", and I have changed it to "developing baby" which I hope will be ok for everyone. It seems to me to be quite readable with "developing baby" and is a appropriate as the drug could affect development. Snowman (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Works for me. In fact, I think it an improvement over the other suggestions (including mine). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm...yeah, I am happy with 'developing baby'...anyone wanna guess how many articles one could slot in 'developing baby' for 'fetus/foetus' ? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The phrase may be best left for those points where development is the specific issue, or where fetus is inaccurate. I think fetus is acceptable when it actually describes a fetus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
"Developing baby" generally works for me too. --Una Smith (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing - yeah I had meant to clarify that and your interpretation is what I meant. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
It might be more interesting and more relevant to think about how many times "developing baby" might be used as a more appropriate phrase in the place of "unborn baby" on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) interesting...hmm..a doptone? Never heard of that name for it (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

A doptone is usually called a Sonicaid or something like "hand held ultrasound" in the UK. Anyway, not to get sidetracked, it seems that "Unborn baby" redirects to "Fetus". Is there there a better target for the wiki page "Unborn baby" to be redirect to? or should the page "Unborn baby" be a dab, or article. Snowman (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The key question then is whether the lay term "unborn baby" is equal to the more technical "fetus". If so then a redirect is most prudent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think "Unborn baby" and "Foetus" are not equivalent; see discussion in the section "Redirect" below. Snowman (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Unborn baby" currently redirects to "Fetus". The key question is what to do with the page at "Unborn baby". It could be a redirect to somewhere, or it could be a dab page, or an article. Snowman (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There is currently dabs at The Unborn and Unborn child and there are probably other pages I have not noticed yet. The wiktionary has an entry for "unborn" but not "unborn baby". I think that the wiki page "unborn baby" could redirect to the dab "Unborn child", however, I am sure there are other options, Which is the best option? Snowman (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The dab at Unborn child does the job of differentiating between embryo and fetus quite concisely, so I would go for a redirect of unborn baby there. Wikitionary is unlikely to accept "unborn baby" (since it is the sum of the parts wikt:unborn + wikt:baby) unless someone can make a really good case there that it carries extra meaning as a combination. I'd suggest Unborn infant probably ought to redirect to the dab at Unborn child as well. --RexxS (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Redirect "Unborn baby" to Prenatal development is another option, which is has become my first choice. I have nominated this as a change of redirect for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 29. Snowman (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I like that choice better than Fetus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Redirect's new target is Prenatal development. Snowman (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, works for me :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Great. Based on this consensus and an apparent consensus at RfD, I have just made about 12 edits to tidy up a few redirects and dab pages. Anyone is welcome to scrutinize these changes, make improvements, or to report any controversies. Snowman (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I created Developing baby as a redirect to Prenatal development. At present, there are no links to Developing baby. --Una Smith (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The image in question

. At Featured picture candidates, a diagram of a hand and wrist is being reviewed. It's high quality and appears accurate, but feedback would be appreciated on accuracy (for us of non-medical backgrounds). Cheers. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sex and illness

Sex and illness probably needs a new name. I think that it's supposed to be about whether being male or female makes you more or less likely to get this or that disease, but it's also partly a disambiguation page (to explain that "sex" doesn't mean "sexual activity" in this case, and that the page on STIs is elsewhere). Gender has been relegated to psychological status, so Influence of sex on health, maybe? Any other ideas? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

How about: Gender bias in disease? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
That seems clear to me. Snowman (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
"Influence of sex on health" seems ambiguous to me, because it could imply sex as a behaviour or sex as a physical gender. Snowman (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sex-specific illness might be an idea to. It is also mentioned in the lead sentence. I see that it is already a redirect to that page.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the page is quite a general page. It includes all sorts of influences of physical gender or chromosomes on illness. Currently it might need a long title like "Factors influencing differences in disease rates between males and females". Snowman (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Gender and illness? Gender-based risk of illness Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

As WhatamIdoing said above, "gender" is becoming a psychological construct, whereas "sex" is biologically determined (there are, of course, differences of opinion on this). It's important to note that pharmacology and surgery can blur these distinctions, so "illness and sex" might deal with more biological mechanisms, whereas "illness and gender" might address more behavioral/psychological/epidemiological issues. --Scray (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The difficulty with Sex-specific illness is that the article is mostly about "Sex-semi-specific illnesses", if you will -- not "Prostate cancer only occurs in men", but "Lupus is more common in women".

The term "sex-based" (stealing Casliber's notion) might be useful, as it's unlikely to be confused with sexual activities. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

How about Sex differences in health, Sex differences in disease or Sex differences in illness? (e.g. Center for the Study of Sex Differences in Health, Aging and Disease) Admittedly this would exclude covering similarities in health or illness between the sexes (which would fit under the current title), but the content so far seems to be focusing on the differences. Zodon (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Sex and gender-based disparities in health? Or individual Sex-based disparites in health and Gender-based disparities in health. Sex-based would cover biological differences and gender would cover social aspects. Although we do already have a Health disparities article which only goes into race, class, and socioeconomic status it largely ignores sex and gender. But health disparities could be the main article with this one the sub-article.-Optigan13 (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sex bias in disease? --Una Smith (talk) 05:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

While disparity is listed as a synonym for difference, disparities might tend to connote differences from equality (dis-parity). Which may be apropos for Healthcare inequality, but it is not clear that apropos for this article. (e.g., No reason that one would expect men to have as much ovarian cancer as women.)
As far as relation between this article and health disparities - if anything sex/gender based health disparities would seem to be a subtopic under sex differences in health.
So far the health disparities article deals primarily with differences resulting from socioeconomic factors, rather than genetics and physiology.
Not sure about bias - seems rather anthropomorphising, or again as if there was reason to expect equality (e.g. statistical bias).
By the way, Google search for "Sex differences in health" 41,700 hits Zodon (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
That's "bias" in the technical sense, here a result of sex linkage, which suggests Sex-linked disease. --Una Smith (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I like that title. Any objections to Sex-linked disease?
Interestingly, we also have an article, Alcohol and sex, that uses the other meaning of sex. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems like sex-linked disease would preclude talking about issues of healthcare inequality. (At least if taken in a strict interpretation, as sex linkage.) Also sex-linked disease gets even fewer Google hits (11,000) than Sex differences in health.
So it partly depends on what the article is to be about - just those differences that have been shown to result from genetic difference between males and females (sex-specific illness). Just those differences that result from cultural and environmental factors. A mix of the two.
Currently the article appears to be about differences that may arise from genetics, from culture/environment, or mix of the two. If that is to remain the topic, then not clear that sex-linked is good title for it. Zodon (talk) 06:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. I guess I think that health is different from healthcare: You can be perfectly healthy with zero healthcare, and entirely unhealthy with ideal healthcare. I'd put those subjects in different articles, but other editors might make different choices.
BTW, we appear to need a merge (or a rational split) between Health disparities and Healthcare inequality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Consciousness article

Dear all,

I have proposed new text for intro on consciousness article on the related discussion pages. I think that I managed to articulate it in line with the latest findings in psychology and neurology, but would like others to review it and comment.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

do surgeons edit wikipedia? surgery task force?

just wondering if any surgerons are out there. Maybe they are all too busy. Must be some retired ones though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.61 (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any surgeons around for some time. For some reason, there are more internists than surgeons around on Wikipedia (and internists are just as busy!) I totally agree that a surgery taskforce would be appropriate, but only if there's enough people around to deal with the article maintenance! JFW | T@lk 22:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Carotenoderma and Carotenosis

Should these articles be merged? If so, I will defer the move to someone else. kilbad (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone want to play with me?

I've stared work on expanding Hyperthermia therapy, which I've focused on the cancer treatment. (Heat therapy is now the place for all other uses of heat as a medical treatment.)

What I've done so far is to move a bunch of information about "hot cancer treatments" from other articles into this one (plus adding some basic summaries based on the NCI FAQ). I've merged most of what I could, but there are probably still more out there. Most of them are practicallly unsourced, and a few, like Oncothermia, have been very company-specific and promotional in nature.

Two hours ago, Hyperthermia therapy was a one-sentence stub. With some attention to proper references, I think it's going to be a good candidate for WP:DYK — assuming, of course, that we'd like to be on the front page enough to get a bit more work done before the five-day timer passes. I think this topic has something for everyone, because it includes everything from cutting-edge research to complete quackery, so I'm hoping to find a partner or two.

I'm going to be offwiki for a few hours, but if you're interested, please drop by and do what you can. If you don't want to help write, but you've got a list of favorite sources, or know of yet another article that needs to be merged and redirected into this one, please feel free to share your thoughts on the article's talk page. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Swedish Rare Disease Database

I have noticed an anon placing a link to this database in a large number of articles. See for example Severe combined immunodeficiency, or any of the list of contributions. While the links are relevant to the pages concerned, they would appear to fail WP:ELNO, particularly the clause which reads:

Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

Shall I warn the user and roll back the links as spam?-gadfium 20:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't warn them as if it appears to be in good-faith. Can't go wrong with informing them of their mistake, though. Cyclonenim :  Chat  00:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I've left them a note explaining that the link doesn't meet the guideline, and rolled back the edits.-gadfium 01:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Acrocyanosis

Are all the Acrocyanosis worth a merger? kilbad (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Asperger in article on Asperger syndrome?

There is a discussion at Talk:Asperger syndrome #Asperger photo about the suitability of a non-free image of Asperger with one of his subjects. Any input would be appreciated. Eubulides (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

National Board of Medical Examiners

Can people with some knowledge of the subject take a pass at National Board of Medical Examiners, and possibly also Federation of State Medical Boards. The first one was proposed for deletion. I deprodded it and dropped some references in, it looks like a notable organisation, but I'm out of depth and it could use subject specific experts. As could the latter, which looks to be in a bit of a mess. Cheers, Hiding T 15:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Repetitive strain injury

As has been pointed out at WP:FTN#Repetitive strain injury, this article has been hijacked by some folks with an agenda, and will probably need cooperative efforts to fix. Expert eyes would be useful. Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I deleted a section of uncited text. His theory is very dubious and he takes the mind body, psychosomatic theory of physical symptoms to the extreme and think it is reaching WP:FRINGE standards or lack of. I think someone is promoting a book, perhaps it is Dr Sarno himself doing the editing to try and sell his book? I commented on the talk page.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I read part of this book. It is popular right now. He basically says that all disease is psychosomatic. It is complete garbage.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What doctors are considered notable?

I ran across an article about a doctoe, Rashid M. Rashid, and it looks like a résumé/CV to me. Therefore, I wanted to know what doctors are considered notable? Is this article appropriate for wikipedia? kilbad (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

We usually use WP:PROF as a guideline. It won't fit perfectly for non-academic physicians, but the principles are generally adaptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Does Chrysalis count for national award? Does not look like a CV as a check on pubmed revealed a high volume of work. Only some of the more unique appear listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrysalisowner (talk • contribs) 02:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a great debate. I guess you have to question a few things:

a) what is a primary source. In this case, I do not think a peer-reviewed manuscript is primary as it has to go through a review process both legal and scientific. At least in some of the medical articles (other then letters to the editor that are commentary), these are all that is available on certain rare diseases. Furthermore, it is not like you can pay a journal to publish your work if it does not meet the criteria of significance for the fields journal. It is not pay-to-publish.

b) impact. when dealing with a small field (dermatology) with many rare diseases and even more rare treatment options, it may be more appropriate to determine impact via how recognized publications are in the literature. This is a specialty notorious for rarity, and so many reports are only on case or case-series basis. When managing such patients, it really is about whos articles are most often read/cited. Especially in reviews. So if an article on a rare disease is cited in numerous other articles, no matter how "small" the original article was it obviously was of significance to the other authors in the field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primarypp (talk • contribs) 04:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you've asked (a), but the Wikipedia article is at primary source, and the concept's relationship to the verifiability policy is at WP:PRIMARY. WP:PROF doesn't care whether a person has written solely primary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it seems like medical journals qualify for (a). As stated "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is."

It is more an issue of recognition and relevance to the field as stated in (b). One of the few ways to recognize this fact may be citation by others. Of course this will be field dependent. I am board certified in internal medicine AND dermatology. In internal medicine we have larger reviews/studies due to larger disease base in the population and so it is harder to achieve relevance without major changes in observation/managmet. In dermatology, it is very different. In fact, sometimes one or 2 reports, no matter the size, lead to complete alteration of management strategies. The main reason seems to be due to small disease base in the population and the resultant rarity in geographic locals, preventing the standard larger studies seen in other fields. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinobs (talk • contribs) 10:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Since we have three brand-new accounts here (Welcome to Wikipedia!), let me explain something about the two policies that seems to be confusing:
  • WP:N, or notability (of which WP:BIO and WP:PROF are variants that apply the principles to specific sub-types of articles), answers this question: "Should Wikipedia have an article at all about this person?"
  • WP:NOR, or no original research (of which WP:PRIMARY is one section), answers this question: "Since we've already decided to have an article about this person, what can we say in it without making stuff up ourselves?"
WP:N is trying to keep the encyclopedia from, say, getting filled up with vanity pages about middle-school students.
WP:NOR is trying to keep the encyclopedia from being filled up with made-up nonsense. In particular, here at the doctors' mess, we want people to avoid putting together two unrelated case studies on different subjects and then concluding that ____ is obviously the One True™ Treatment for a medical condition.
Once you've decided to have an article on a subject, you're completely finished with considerations of notability. Individual sources do not have to be notable; individual facts do not have to be notable.
The facts (but not sources) shouldn't be trivia, however, because an article full of random-but-true facts would be low quality. So instead of notability, you move on to a third policy, WP:NPOV, or neutrality, and specifically the section WP:DUE, or due weight. The point of this policy is to have articles be about what's important. For example, if someone is important because of their medical work, then the article should be primarily about medical work, not about his grandkids or his garden. There is no similar policy for sources: we like high-quality reliable sources, but an otherwise "unimportant" source could be a perfectly good source for a given fact. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
A bit of advice for new editors:
  • When you leave a message on a talk page like this, type ~~~~ after it. That will insert your name at the end of the message. (If you don't, the bot will eventually do it for you, but it makes you look like you know what you're doing.)
  • If the three accounts listed on this page don't quite represent three individual people, then please pick your favorite account and stick with it. Using multiple accounts to make your opinion look like it's supported by several editors (1) doesn't fool anyone [all experienced editors defaultly assume that all new accounts in the same discussion are the same person, even when it's not true, because it's so often true], (2) doesn't matter, because we care about best complying with policies instead of counting up votes, and (3) can get all the accounts blocked under WP:SOCK. There are sometimes good reasons to change accounts (forgot the password, decided you didn't like the old name, etc.), and that's fine: nobody's mad, and we want you to keep editing.
  • If any of you happen to be the person whose bio is under consideration, or connected to him, that's okay, too. We have rules about not abusing a conflict of interest, but we're not going to kick you off of Wikipedia if you play straight with us. Someone connected to a subject is often very helpful, as s/he often knows about published sources that no one else can find. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


Great, it sounds like the notability issue is resolved as it seems the articles are notable, are in good sources. In this case, it seems like wording and format are an issue now. I will try and work on this. If it helps to declare conflicts of interest or familiarity, I am in Dermatology so in the case of this article I did some editing to make sure only the more recognized citations are listed i.e those cited by others. Thanks Skinobs (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have apparently been unclear. The fact that Dr Rashid's own publications would typically be considered reliable sources does not mean that either he or his individual publications should have an article on Wikipedia ("notable").
"We should have an article about Dr Rashid" is a completely separate consideration from "This source should be in the footnotes." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rashid M. Rashid and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew C. Miller. Seems all Texan dermatologists are famous now. JFW | T@lk 20:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A rather odd comment, wolf. I will say if notable=famous then this article does NOT count. It seems like the only objective and well explained person here is WhatamIdoing and it is much appreciated. The publications are notable, not so sure the doctor is, so WhatamIdoing makes a good point and appears to be one of the few that read the whole article and the comments about it. I think someone more like WhatamIdoing or another Dermatologist should chime in for discussion. It would help. I can find nothing else on this person and will no longer add anything else, if it is to be deleted, so be it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinobs (talk • contribs) 22:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I am prone to odd comments. Bear with me. The same user created a raft of articles about Texan dermatologists, some of whom simply not notable by encyclopedic criteria. It is not up to dermatologists to decide whether these people are notable. This is about notability, as WhatamIdoing has explained so succinctly. Indeed, the more reliable sources one has published the higher the chance that someone is notable, but this is not automatic. JFW | T@lk 22:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and this is the challenge. I was able to verify the publication of the manuscripts, all 30 something are in peer reviewed journals that are notable and verifiable. I deleted ALL but the ones cited by others, and seem to play a larger central role in orphan disease understanding, characterization, and management as emphasized by unrelated authors from other countries and institutions. So it seems that the material IS notable, BUT like you said, it is not clear the author is notable. I have given up searching further, but am following the debate for curiosity. It does make me wonder about silly thins like movie stars. They are notable because of the movie, without the move, their is no star. So is it really the fact that people "talk" about the movie that really matters. This is odd because in such a case it sounds more like a popularity contest then one of contribution to society, literature and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinobs (talk • contribs) 01:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It is pointless to have an article on every doctor who has published 30 or more medical papers if not very many people know them because no one is really going to look them up. Also there are policies regarding living person's. Articles on living person's need to be monitor to avoid slander or defamation occuring. Articles on people who aren't widely known are unlikely to be monitored for vandalism or defamation etc. There are lots of reasons why it is a bad idea to have an article on someone who is not widely known outside of his research papers and place of work, too many reasons to list. Anyway this policy has been shaped over years of debate on wikipedia and is not likely to change much in the near future regarding what constitutes notability. Please remember to click on the in the editor panel before saving the page on talk pages like this so we know who is leaving messages.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


This is a good point and I agree. I leave it to the wiki process to determine what happens. I havent given too much time to this so it isnt too bad either way. I guess I was just trying to emphasize articles that lead to insight and other novel concepts. But again, this is a good democratic process and I defer to the system. --Skinobs (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Just as a point of fact: I'm not a dermatologist (or any sort of physician), and I technically haven't even read more than two sentences in the article about Dr Rashid. But I'm glad that my explanations made some sense to you.
Wikipedia's policies and processes are complex, and can seem maddeningly arbitrary until you've had enough experience to grasp the overarching goals. We really need more dermatologists, so I hope that you'll stick around despite the frustrations. WP:DERM would love to have another knowledgeable person on board. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:DERM would LOVE another knowledgeable person on board ;) kilbad (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

While I have everyones' attention about this issue, (1) there are multiple dermatologist articles that I think lack notability, and so I wanted to know if perhaps someone would review Category:Dermatologists and weed through which are notable and which are not, and (2) I think a general category "dermatologists" is needed, but not necessarily subcats based on nationality... what do you think? Any thoughts? kilbad (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Central obesity

Goesgolf20 has moved Central obesity to Abdominal Fat. Yes with a capital F. Changed things back and he reverted it again. Think we will need some discussion on this.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is taking place at Talk:Abdominal_Fat#Issue --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
We have agreed to move it to Abdominal obesity. If an admin could do this it would be much appreciated.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Move has happened. Zodon (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

A user is still intent on keeping Abdominal fat.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on Medical analysis of circumcision page

I am looking at Medical analysis of circumcision and I have some concerns. Maybe it is just me but it seems kind of confusing for the general reader. Most topics read like a medical journal article - citing primary sources and whatnot. I am not sure what Wikipedia's policy is on this, in regards style and eligibility for the general reader though , so could someone with more experience comment on the article?

The guideline (not policy) that you are looking for is WP:MEDRS. LeadSongDog come howl 13:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking for opinions about category names

With regard to infectious, dermatology-related categories, there is the following:

  • Bacterial skin diseases
  • Mycobacterial skin diseases
  • Mycotic skin diseases
  • Parasitic infestations, stings, and bites of the skin
  • Viral skin diseases

However, while I like the general structure of this categorization, there is some lack of precision in the names. First, "Mycotic skin diseases" contains articles about fungi and yeast. Second, all of these categories may contain conditions not only of the skin, but also the mucous membranes. Finally, there are times when certainly bacteria colonize the skin without causing disease, so I think "condition" should be used over "disease." With all that being said, how would you name all these categories? kilbad (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with "mycotic", but I'd recommending pushing "mycobacterial" under "bacterial". --Arcadian (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I edited the structure above. kilbad (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what the question is about "Mycotic skin diseases" - would assume should be relating to all fungi, so makes sense that yeast would be there. (Or is it that want to subdivide mycotic skin diseases into separate subsecategories for yeast vs. other fungi?) Zodon (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Does the term "Mycotic" encompass yeast? kilbad (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes. --Arcadian (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
How should these category names be worded such that the inclusion of conditions affecting the skin and mucous membranes is appropriate? Any thoughts? kilbad (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments welcome at Talk:Zidovudine

Hello all. I've allowed myself to be sucked into a rather lengthy exchange with an AIDS denialist at Talk:Zidovudine. Leaving aside the sound and fury, the issue is whether AZT's affinities for various enzymes should be described using the words in vitro. My feeling is that all affinity measurements are performed in vitro, so adding the phrase is redundant and perhaps misleading (in that it implies the affinities do not hold in vivo). Things have sort of degenerated, so I'd welcome any comment, even if it's just to say that I'm making a mountain out of a harmless molehill. MastCell Talk 21:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this stuff and therefore am an eminently qualified "casual" reader. Could a compromise be to include in vitro followed by "as are all (enzyme) affinity measurements" -- or something like that? Some resolution seems required, as there are already many pages of repetitive argument and though personal attacks so far are minimal, they may escalate. - Hordaland (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
This discussion belongs at Talk:Zidovudine. The pages of discussion have involved just a couple of editors, and a discussion involving more editors may actually help bring about resolution if consensus can be established. --Scray (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Obesity

Wondering if I can entice anyone to join me at the obesity page to do some editing. Currently it is a FAC however still needs some work on prose which is not my strong point. Obesity was the 837th most viewed page on Wikipedia this last month. http://wikistics.falsikon.de/latest/wikipedia/en/ --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thrush

Is the term "thrush" a term used strictly for oral candidiasis, or is it a more general term for candidiasis of any mucous membrane (vaginal, etc)? I have a secondary source, Andrew's (see WP:DERM:REF for full ref) that seems to indicate that "thrush" is a term used strictly for oral candidiasis. I ask because I want to know where Thrush (medicine) should redirect? kilbad (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a vaginal yeast infection, or balantis in male. Thrush is only for the mouth in my opinion.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Other types of thrush: yeast infection of the breast (common in nursing mothers); (yeast?) infection of the sole of the hoof in horses. I think Thrush (medicine) should be a disambiguation page. --Una Smith (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Aside from my source, do we have any other reliable secondary sources stating thrush is something other than oral candidiasis? kilbad (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
In UK (at least) Thrush when talking to an adult woman would always imply vaginal candidiasis, and when referring to a baby either oral infection or nappy rash. For a selection of sources re candidial vulvovaginitis see Patient.co.uk article which is cited by National Library for Health, BBC information page on thrush STI, a women's support group leaflet[6], branded clotrimazole manufacturer's UK webpage [7]. Synonymous terms confirmed per Cochrane review Oral versus intra-vaginal imidazole and triazole anti-fungal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush). For "nappy thrush" again from a Patient.co.uk article [8], Trip Database (data-mining site used by NHS) provided link on "nappy thrush" to Australian State of Victoria infosheet which lists one factor as "Thrush (candida)"[9]. David Ruben Talk 00:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Well then I agree with Una Smith that Thrush (medicine) should be a disambiguation page. Does someone want to tackle this? kilbad (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Causes for conditions

I have noticed that in almost every page, causes for medical conditions are listed without any concern for statistical likelyhood.

Example: "heart failure" and "Nasopharyngeal carcinoma" are listed as causes for epistaxis(nose bleed) on the same level as "foreign bodies" (e.g. nose-picking). I do not agree with this policy. The first two above-mentioned conditions are extremely rare and ARE highly unlikely causes for epistaxis (which is a very common occurrence), when compared to nose-picking or even inflammatory reactions. All this will achieve is to concern people with a nose bleed that they may have cancer or heart failure, which is ridiculous.

Other example: "Vertigo" can be caused (on the same basis, according to wikipedia) by "boat travels", "consumption of alchool", "inflammation of the inner-ear" (a rather common cause) or "opsoclonus myoclonus syndrome"(extremely rare!)

The list goes on and on.


This is very poor, and may bring great damage and anxiety to many people who see Wikipedia as a reliable and accurate source for information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umgambit (talk • contribs) 01:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It is true that most medical articles lack this very important information, but the cause is not lack of concern but rather lack of reliable sources for this information. You can help by doing literature searches, so that what information does exist gets into the articles. --Una Smith (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer Una Smith. But most of the information you mention already exists within Wikipedia. For instance, if you check opsoclonus myoclonus syndrome, you will learn that it affect 1 in every 10.000.000 individuals each year. To put this side-by-side with "inflammation of the inner-ear" as possible cause for vertigo is just plain silly by any standard (even if you don't have the exact reliable numbers). This kind of practices should be banned from wikipedia pages: as I mentionned before, this is not an isolated case, a great number of wiki medical related articles suffer from the same kind of incongruence.

My main concern are the persons without medical training that read this kind of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umgambit (talk • contribs) 03:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That approaches the necessary information, except that not all people with opsoclonus myoclonus syndrome will have vertigo as a result. If you like, you can try sorting lists of causes into common and rare. As a rule, such lists are in alphabetic order; in some cases it may help to note that the order is alphabetic. --Una Smith (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
An approach that I've taken in a few articles is to have a paragraph about the most common causes, and then a bulleted list of less-common causes (labeled as such). Of course, you then get the occasional problem with poor readers that start inserting the "most common" causes into the "less-common" list (apparently some people can't read anything that isn't in PowerPoint format) -- and duplicates, because surely "fatigue", "lack of energy", "lethargy", and "tiredness" are all different things! WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I often try to list the causes in order of frequency. Stating the frequency would be a good idea as well.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion of Dale Dubin

Greetings, project participants. I created this stub on Dale Dubin, MD which I believe was wrongly deleted. As medicine enthusiasts, I believe you are best suited to judge its merits. Please take a moment to review it and comment here. Thanks - Draeco (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Abdominal fat

Abdominal fat has been proposed for deletion however an editor keeps repeatedly removing the deletion tag. Might need the eye of an admin. Thanks--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hyposensitization

Should the hyposensitization be moved/renamed to allergy immunotherapy or allergen specific immunotherapy? The term hyposensitisation is not a common terminology used hence why I think that it should be renamed. I am posting here because there don't seem to be many active editors on that article.

Also the benzodiazepine article is up for review for good article status if anyone has the time to review it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll move to allergen immunotherapy; Immunologic Desensitization and Hyposensitization therapy are both MeSH terms, but rarely used in core clinical journals during the last five years. I favor allergen-specific immunotherapy but this term appears to be used less frequently based on a PubMed test. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the move Steve. I prefer allergen specific to but I agree that allergen immunotherapy is better due to its more common use.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ornithosis agent

I'm not an MD or vet, but the text in ornithosis agent is confusing. It probably could be speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A1, but Wikipedia should probably have an article about the topic eventually. This site says Psittacosis is "A rickettsial agent active against humans and livestock (poultry)." That's somewhat similar to the text in ornithosis agent. If a human got pneumonia from an infected bird, I guess you could point to an ornithosis agent as the culprit, but I'm certain that an ornithosis agent is not pneumonia; an ornithosis agent would be the biological agent/pathogen/pathogenic bacteria from the bird that could cause pneumonia. Perhaps Rickettsia is a type of ornithosis agent. The Rickettsia article does say that the bacteria is often grown in chicken embryo cultures. It's possible that an Ornithosis article should be built (I think Psittacosis is a type of ornithosis?), and ornithosis agent redirected there. --Pixelface (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks as though this has been resolved in a rational way: ornithosis agent now redirects to Chlamydophila psittaci, and ornithosis redirects to Psittacosis, because psittacosis is the classical ornithosis. --Scray (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Poll: autoformatting and date linking

This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Abby

Is it really necessary to have four articles for the four quadrants of abdominal. Template:Quadrants It just seems unnecessary, but i dont think they should be in the main ab article. What you guys think about merging the four into one? Trying to keep most the stuff... the four articles are stubs anyway... so not much anyways....IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a single article would make more sense than the four - they share many features, and the contrasts are also informative. People interested in one are likely to be involved in the others. They are unlikely to grow individually to a Good Article. --Scray (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll cheerfully defer to whatever WP:ANATOMY says about such articles, but IMO there are a lot of anatomy stubs that would benefit from merging. This is a good example: the information contained in these articles lends itself well to comparisons between the various quadrants. Merging (with suitable redirects) is a good choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Quadrants
Coinman, what seems "unnecessary" to you is of great interest to other readers. Please click here, and at least read through a few of the excerpts before continuing. Across a population, the quadrant orientation to abdominal anatomy is of even greater clinical significance than the internal organization. Each one of these quadrant articles could be expanded not just to feature article length, but to book length. Within a few years, they'll each have a few thousand words in them, at least. Merging them now just means they'll have to be split out later, and that's not a good use of anyone's time. If you want these articles deleted or merged away, you need to take it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --Arcadian (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Two points that I think are worth considering: (i) when talking about "other readers", my impression is that we are supposed to focus on the general readership of Wikipedia rather than the medical/nursing specialists who are the target audience of the linked books, and (ii) it is not at all clear that these quadrant articles will eventually grow to FA status, so that should not drive current decisions. --Scray (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Please take a closer look at the entries at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Health and medicine. --Arcadian (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a great list - I just looked at it, again and nose almost touched the screen. ;-) I feel just the same way - I don't anticipate any of four separate abdominal quadrant articles being listed there, and I still feel that they're best dealt with as a mutual comparison. --Scray (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Dermatologist list

I want to make a list of dermatologists who have made significant contributions to the field. What should the list be called, and what should the inclusion criteria be? kilbad (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

A good starting point may be to create a history of dermatology article. In the process of developing that article, it would become clear which dermatologists affect the narrative flow. For contemporary practitioners, Wikipedia:Notability (academics) is probably the closest existing applicable guideline. (Personally, I think the bar should be set fairly low, especially for the deceased.) --Arcadian (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Adamkiewicz artery

Hi all,

an anon noted on my talk page that the image of what I thought was Adamkiewicz's artery, is actually something completely different... upon review I think that might be true, unless anyone else here feels that it is right after all?

cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the artery in the image is too large. See http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://ejcts.ctsnetjournals.org/content/vol26/issue2/images/small/4003537.440.gr1.gif&imgrefurl=http://ejcts.ctsnetjournals.org/cgi/figsearch%3Ffulltext%3Dadamkiewicz%26resourcetype%3D3&usg=__J5Su872klLddHEcpahK03zAq3B0=&h=195&w=200&sz=39&hl=en&start=18&sig2=BqfCQt1NYxM48dAhHFO7NQ&um=1&tbnid=3oyysLWjVwGPnM:&tbnh=101&tbnw=104&prev=/images%3Fq%3DArtery%2Bof%2BAdamkiewicz%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1&ei=h6zjSbz_IpOotAOZkuCFDg for an image. Artery of Adamkiewicz;largest of the segmental arteries w/ a characteristic hairpin bend is referred to as the arteria radicularis magna (ARM) and is also known as artery of Adamkiewicz;although in early embryonic development every segment of spinal cord receives paired radicular arteries, these disappear, leaving one or two cervical, two or three throacic, and one or two lumbar arteries; most commonly arises at T10 on left side, however, position may vary T7 to L4, with it being on right side in 17% of pts; usually the artery enters a single intervetebral foramen between the levels of T9-T11 --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Maduromycosis and Mycetoma

Should these articles be merged? I have a secondary source stating that they are the same thing. If so, I will defer the move to someone else. kilbad (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Dubious section on green tea and HIV

Resolved

Please take a look here. This is potentially deadly advice. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I see it's been fixed by User:TimVickers. Well done. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Images

This site has a lot of radiological images under a creative commons license. http://radiopaedia.org/ --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

But sadly, the non-commercial restriction prevents us using them. Now, if the uploaders can be persuaded to re-upload to WP commons... Colin°Talk 21:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Have emailed the radiopaedia. Frank Gaillard the physician who runs it has already uploaded some images to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Frank_Gaillard He has offered to upload other on a case by case basis if there are images we wish to use. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Which should be the article, and which the redirect?

Should Tinea pedis be the article, or Athlete's foot? The ICD codes bold Tinea pedis. kilbad (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS would suggest the correct technical term - hence Tinea pedis (likewise we have Myocardial infarction not 'heart attack') - proposal to rename at talk:Athlete's foot#Rename to Tinea Pedis. David Ruben Talk 00:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
MEDMOS does not overrule the WP:COMMONNAME policy; if Tinea pedis is exactly the same thing as 'Athlete's foot', then editors may choose the common name.
MI is a good example of the issue that MEDMOS is attempting to address: "heart attack" is imprecise and much broader than myocardial infarction. It is therefore preferable on rational grounds (i.e., precision). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree with WhatamIdoing here (as usual). Commonname trumps MEDMOS unless commonname imprecise. JFW | T@lk 00:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
A counter-argument: "Athlete's foot" may be specific, at least in some cultures, but it's inherently a confusing term. Wouldn't athletes be likely to suffer both acute and chronic injury to their feet? Might "athlete's foot" be a good thing if it reflected a level of conditioning? Tinea pedis is very clear - fungus of the foot - whereas "athlete's foot" probably happens most often in non-athletes, and the name provides no hint of the process or manifestations. Just want to be sure we consider all aspects... --Scray (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Unless you did Latin a school, tinea pedis is not "very clear"; it is quite opaque. I think most lay folk know what athlete's foot is, and know it isn't an injury. Other reasons to avoid a lay term is if it is country-specific or childish. Colin°Talk 08:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree with WhatamIdoing and JFW. Commonname trumps MEDMOS unless common name imprecise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree with most comments here. AFAIK, "athlete's foot" is just as precise a term (in practice) as tinea pedis, and FAR more common. On the other hand, I'd have no objection to the infobox being labelled "tinea pedis" and the medical term being mentioned early in the lead (which it wasn't when I looked). Physchim62 (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's take these comments to the talk page discussion please, that's where it really should be taking place :) —Cyclonenim | Chat  11:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't have any strong feelings on this issue; so, whatever the community ultimately decides is fine with me. However, even if people have not heard of "Tinea pedis", a simple redirect from "Athlete's foot" will direct them to it the correct article. Due to redirects, accessibility to this information will not be reduced if the article is titled "Tinea pedis." Additionally, the term "Athlete's foot" does not always mean "Tinea pedis," but "Tinea pedis" may always be referred to as "Athlete's foot;" therefore, it seems the title that appropriately encompasses the scope and contents of the article is "Tinea pedis." kilbad (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually care which title it ends up under (for exactly the reasons that Kilbad explains immediately above): I just object to the idea that we are required to use "medicalese" when a perfectly good common name exists. If "athlete's foot" could plausibly be the title of several separate dermatologic conditions (just like "heart attack" could be any one of several cardiac conditions), then it may not be the best choice for this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Unless there is also to be an article "Jock itch", it might be more direct to consider "Athlete's foot fungus". More of the article should pertain to the organism than the infected location. LeadSongDog come howl 19:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Prostate Cancer

Have brought prostate cancer to FAR as it needs some improvements.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Direct link: clicky. --—Cyclonenim | Chat  22:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikidoc.org

The gentleman Michael Gibson who operates wikidocs[10] is interested in combining wikidoc with wikipedia or at least working more closely with wikipedia. I think that this would be a wonderful idea. They are under the same license as wikipedia but have tighter security with respect to vandalism. They are also written more for a medical audience. Not sure if it would be best to attach it as a sister project or combine much of the information into wikipedia ( as that is were much of the information comes from in the first place ). I have brought the disucssion to the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Anyone have any thoughts?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have taken a look at some articles and 99% of info was from previous versions of wikipedia; and in the mean time such articles here have greatly improved while they have not in wikidocs... The only possible collaboration would be if they pointed out any content they had that here we did not and we could add it; since the other way is almost everything. Our quality is much above that of wikidocs. --Garrondo (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikidoc was introduced with much fanfare and without any consultation with this WikiProject. The vast majority of its editorial board are cardiologists, leading to a likely imbalance in the quality and quantity of the content. It still strikes me as odd that none of these eminent people seem to have made an attempt to participate here, which would have been so very beneficial. JFW | T@lk 09:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why people start other wiki projects. I mean, if you don't like wikipedia, go to citizendium. The co-founder of wikipedia started it. Or better yet, participate on both! Tkjazzer (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Some do so because the scope and sometimes the reputation of wikipedia ("flame wars galore, anyone can contribute anything, vandalism is rampant") is not what one looks for in order to create a serious medical reference. For example, we have a radiation oncology textbook on the wikibooks.org site, but I can see a compelling argument if one wanted to have tighter control over content to host it independently as a wiki. While I have an account here to keep track of things, I just prefer to channel my contributions there, given that I have limited time free, and that location is actually used by radiation oncologists (our target audience). I think Wikipedi is great for what it is, but is clearly not appropriate for all things Tdvorak (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

comparison chart for cardiovascular drugs

I just saw some great slides in lecture today showing comparisons of different types of beta blockers and ACE Is. It was interesting to see which are proven to help in Heart Failure and which are not... which are proven to help in diabetic nephropathy and which are not... can we use the guidelines and make a chart like this? I think it would be EXTREMELY useful for the community. Does anyone else know what I'm talking about? 99.22.220.61 (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

We'd need solid, published reliable sources (lecture slides don't count). Additionally, if by "the community", you mean either "patients that are taking these drugs" or "physicians that are prescribing these drugs", you may want to read WP:MEDMOS#Audience. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
There are far too many cardiovascular drugs for any single chart. (If you browse through ATC code B and ATC code C, you can get a sense of the scope). However, you can see here a list of the drugs deemed essential by the World Health Organization. It excludes some newer, more expensive drugs, but is a useful first order approximation of your goal. If you're proposing a specific expansion of the diabetic nephropathy article, the best place to propose that would be at Talk:diabetic nephropathy. (Of course, that article is in pretty rough shape, so if you have decent sources, you might just want to be bold.) --Arcadian (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Those links show that there aren't that many drugs. Seems feasible to put up a chart/table sort of thing, but it would be a bit tricky and take some work. II | (t - c) 03:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This stuff deserves it's own page: http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/full/53/15/e1/TBL3

taken from http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/full/j.jacc.2008.11.013#SEC8 do not doubt so much 99.22.220.61 (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

please remember the new classification system for HF - stage A is anyone at risk, which includes diabetes and family history... so that puts a lot of people in to stage A of HF now... http://content.onlinejacc.org/content/vol53/issue15/images/large/08038023.gr1.jpeg 99.22.220.61 (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
From a healthcare provider's standpoint, that's a nice chart, but Wikipedia should not read like a journal article. For the primary Wikipedia audience, the major concepts would be much more readable and accessible if summarized in a few sentences, with citation of this and similar reliable sources. --Scray (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been thinking about developing (through consensus) a small dermatology-related manual of style to address a few issues pertaining to dermatology articles. If available, perhaps you could review my thread at MOS and comment there? ---kilbad (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just start a short "advice" section on the task force's page? There's nothing to stop you from doing so, and you wouldn't have to jump through any approval hoops. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
...but going through those hoops will help create better guidelines as more people will be involved in their creation and review? ---kilbad (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
In this instance, I sincerely doubt that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Got to agree with WhatamIdoing here, I don't think this will help much more than just placing a guideline on the task force page. MOS is just a guideline, it's not a policy. Also, I don't think you'll get many more people involved at MOS than you do here. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  00:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I could put something together and then see what you all think? ---kilbad (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
If you want, but the chances are it won't be put into MEDMOS because then we're going to have to think about separating out into all branches of medicine (start an individualised MEDMOS for different specialties like neurology, paediatrics etc) when really there's just not much need. Writing something and putting on the derm task force page sounds like a better idea. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  23:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added a MOS:DERM page, and and will continue to develop it over the next few months. However, I wanted to post it here now so others might follow along and add to the project as desired. Any feedback is greatly appreciated. ---kilbad (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Fibromyalgia

The Fibro page seems out of date and substandard: there are now two FDA approved drugs to treat Fibromyalgia, yet the article highlights controversy. Even web MD had more information on the condition. I was recently diagnosed and looking for information so naturally I think it's a "real disease." maryann (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The article appears balanced to me, although I don't watch it as close as I used to. The FDA approved drugs you speak of are mentioned. I spent a lot of time in Fibromyalgia support groups and I can tell you, everyone is aware of the controversy. I, like you, suffer from an illness with symptoms like Fibromyalgia (adhesions) and also has a lot of uncertainty associated with it even though it is a "real" disease suffered by presidents (Bill Clinton) and celebrities (Tammy Wynette). Another example would be postcholecystectomy syndrome, also a "real" disease that is difficult to diagnose. So I speak from experience when I say that not every illness has a definitive test available. We all wish it weren't so, but even "real" diseases require a certain amount of clinical judgment. This results in tension. The mark of a good doctor, (and an informed layman) is a person who is comfortable wading through the controversy and accepting it for what it is: real people doing their best with little information to go on. However, you, like me, have probably met a lot of bad doctors who have given you the cold shoulder because of the unavailability of a simple and reliable test; something that they can easily put in a file to cover their liability exposure. That's a shame, but it's not a good reason to manufacture certainty where little exists. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Heck, even major depression is sometimes written off as "not a real disease" even though complications of it are potentially fatal and it almost defines poor quality of life. Calling it psychological is a way for physicians to dodge responsibility for treating a problem, though you can't really blame them when they have so few tools to work with. The article should accurately portray the question of "psychosomatic or not" but it should be very clear that even if it is psychosomatic it is still a disease and a problem. SDY (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Even once one accepts these as real conditions with negative outcomes it does not necessarily mean that there are good treatments: SSRI's have not been shown to decrease suicide, stimulant have not been shown to improve school outcomes, no treatment has been shown to improve the common cold, etc. There is not a pill for every ill even though some try to make the general public believe that there is. And unfortunately many things that might work such as exercise have not been adequately studied as there is not much money in them and they are difficult to carry out.
And than of course you have people who emulate the symptoms of fibromyagia, ADHD, chronic pain, and depression for secondary gain which gives everyone a bad name.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the point that could be made, here, is that if the FDA has approved a medication for use, that lends credibility to the illness, itself. Another point is that the same inertia that prevents many people from seeking necessary psychiatric help also prevents many, especially those in the medical profession, from considering a physiological cause where elusive. The sword cuts both ways. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Regardless, the article should be clear that while the nature of the disorder is unclear, it is obvious that it does exist. The FDA approving medications doesn't necessarily take a side in the disorder being psychological or physiological, the same way MCS sufferers being classified as disabled doesn't necessarily mean that MCS is an organic disease: in both cases it is recognized as a problem, and no conclusion is necessarily drawn about cause. SDY (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the article claims that FM isn't a real disease. The article correctly acknowledges that there are concerns about accurate diagnosis (in that regard, it's like many other diagnoses of exclusion), that the mechanisms/causes are basically unknown, and that it may not be a unitary condition (that is, there may be several separate diseases with very similar symptoms that are all being lumped together at this time). These statements are accurate, appropriate, and not unlike many other "real" diseases.
If you want to see, for comparison, some "fake" diseases, you might read Electromagnetic hypersensitivity or Multiple chemical sensitivity -- people with real symptoms, but not due to the cause they assert. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that fibromyalgia in most cases is caused by a functional disturbance in the peripheral nerves which generates pain or else a functional disturbance in the pain centers in the brain. As you can't take a blood test or a byopsy to prove or even just to diagnose fibromyalgia it will always be controversial as to the cause. I also am of the opinion that there are likely multiple causes of fibromyalgia, be it genetic/biological (happening naturally without a trigger), exposure to industrial chemicals/toxins or certain prescription drugs or alcohol misuse which triggers some sort of a desruption of function or sensitivity of the nerves. I imagine that there are also people who have undiagnosed peripheral neuropathy who get misdiagnosed with fibromyalgia due to lack of investigation of the cause of the pain. However, this is just a personal opinion and it could be completely wrong. The main thing is, an encylopedia such as wikipedia works on reliable sources so the best way to resolve a dispute is via citing reliable sources rather than debating personal viewpoints.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Old merge discussion what shall we do with Acne scar treatment, Acne scarring and Acne vulgaris?

Join in the fun at Talk:Acne_scarring#Proposed_merger Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok I merged identically worded Acne scar treatment into Acne scarring, but yes I think trimmed (aka hacked to meet WP:V) paragraphs need then merging into Acne#Treatment. New proposal set up at Talk:Acne vulgaris#Proposal merge Acne scarring. David Ruben Talk 01:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles about medical terms and signs

First, when it comes to articles pertaining to medical terminology or signs, like those found in Category:Dermatologic terminology or Category:Dermatologic signs, which should be included in Wikipedia, and which in Wiktionary? Second, of the articles regarding medical terminology or signs that should be in Wikipedia, what should the article consist of? What should the sections be? --kilbad (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Acupuncture and Interstitial Cystitis/Painful Bladder Syndrome

Please help. We need comments on a RfC at the IC/PBS talk page regarding the use of acupuncture and interstitial cystitis. Debate is acrimonious. ► RATEL ◄ 23:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Silent heart attack

Silent heart attack, which phrase has been in the media a lot recently, is a redlink; should it be a redirect or should there by a specific article on asymptomatic MIs? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

link it to heart attack in diabetics if the article exists - that is the main group that could is thought to suffer from silent MI. I think the media sometimes confuses silent MI with sudden death (ventric arryth) anyway, night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.61 (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I think this could be split out of the general MI-article, which already mentions it. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

BIODYL

There is a breaking story in the international media re the suspicious deaths of 24 world-class sport horses: 21 polo ponies in Florida and 3 endurance race horses in Uruguay. Contamination of a French-made injectable vitamin, BIODYL, is suspected. I created BIODYL as a stub, but as much of the relevant information about this is not in English, I would appreciate some help expanding it. --Una Smith (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps better at WP:PHARM? JFW | T@lk 18:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Osteitis fibrosa cystica

While I'm waiting on the conclusion of a GA review, I was wondering if anyone could drop by and scan the article for any major flaws or gaps in information. I'm looking to eventually take it FA, and an informal review would be immensely appreciated. Strombollii (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Doege-Potter syndrome

Much as it pains me to admit it, and much as the words must be associated with chagrin from WP:MED, inspired by a House episode (pause for cringing), I've created the page for Doege-Potter syndrome. I tracked down 6 useful abstracts from pubmed but they are mostly case studies and I'm culling from just the abstracts. It needs better categories, some sort of navbox at the bottom, probably a better picture in the infobox, considerably more information, and almost certainly the infobox could use some filling out. I couldn't find anything on ICD, eMedicine or the other standard info sources (very possible I'm looking in the wrong spot or with the wrong words). As ever, the wit, wisdom and work of WP:MED woudl be most appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Google books appears to have some good sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
So used to pubmed I didn't think of gbooks. Lovely, I'll start integrating. Thanks WAID! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad that it's useful to you. Google books seems to be a great source for what medical textbooks say about rare diseases. I think what happens is that the copyright holder blanks the "important" general information pages, but leaves the "unimportant" rare-disease info visible as a sample. Or perhaps it's just that we really only need a couple of sources, and there's so little to say about very rare diseases that random blanking of 50% of pages still gives us a 50% chance that all the information will be visible in any given book. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I've integrated what I found, turns out there wasn't much. Unfortunately there seems to be some disagreements over what it actually is - the DPS is so rare that I don't think they've figured out if it's lung/pleural only, if it's a syndrome or a tumour, etc. Still, what's there is worth keeping. One thing gbooks didn't let me find is the original article by Potter (1930). Every single references section I looked for was not available. Cunning... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Vastus medialis

This article seems to be very POV/biased against the idea that VMO muscle is involved for correct patella tracking and extension of the leg. There are no citations given for this claim, which seems to be against common orthopaedic knowledge. The citations given are valid but do not prove the editor's point.

I am not a doctor, but I am a scientist, and looking in the literature I can find nothing about the "VMO myth" that the main author of this page assumes is false. My knee pain was just diagnosed as caused by a weak VMO, so imagine my surprise when I come to wikipedia to see it contradict my doctor (and most other literature I can find). The only other similar claim I can find is a website which may or may not be written by the editor-in-question. It also has no citations. I hope someone more knowledgeable than I about the VM/VMO can look at this article. I mentioned it on the talk page but it doesn't seem to see much attention so I thought I'd mention it here. Thanks. Hwinnian (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of WP:PROVEIT for resolving stuff like this. I very much agree, it looks like it is a soapbox for a rather suspect idea and I would be comfortable with culling out everything that looks suspect, expanding on the basis of what the sources acutally say (it's particularly egregious and offensive to me if they are misrepresenting a source - no greater crime on wikipedia in my mind) and reverting without mercy if the info is included without peer-reviewed sources. The "some guy's webpage" option does not mesh with WP:MEDRS, they've got to be pubmed indexed as a minimum and ideally respected. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Pro-ana

Pro-ana is being peer reviewed. Interesting article to establish NPOV on. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Move of the Food and Drug Administration article

Hola all, I've another question (posted here for the combination of relevant expertise and more likely to get a review than WT:MEDMOS). I moved U.S. Food and Drug Administration to Food and Drug Administration (United States) today, but as I'm sorting out the redirects I'm having some buyer's remorse over the title and before I correct another 50 redirects I'd like some outside input. Obviously the "U.S." part struck me as inappropriate, but there do not appear to be competing agencies that warrant the "(United States)" disambiguation phrase. I'm from Canada, we get too much US influence to really be unbiased about whether the simple use of "Food and Drug Administration" would be adequate, or if "United States Food and Drug Administration" is the best choice. The actual website has "U.S. Food and Drug Administration" at the top, the Health and Human Services website that is the oversight body to the agency uses just Food and Drug Administration [11], and there do not seem to be a DAB page for agencies called "Food and Drug Administration" (closest is FDA (disambiguation)). I may be requesting an undo of my previous move, but irrespective I stand by my decision to change it to something other than this morning's "U.S. Food and Drug Administration." Thoughts please? This needs not just medical knowledge, but also some interpretation of WP:NAME and how the FDA is perceived and known outside of North America. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

While the agency's name changed several times during its early years, I believe that it is formally known as the plain "Food and Drug Administration". (That's certainly how it's referred to in current legislation.) On Wikipedia, we tend to reflexively add country designations (for good reason), but if there are no other food and drug administrations, then the article could be reasonably located at its correct name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Have no remorse. Thailand's equivalent agency also is (in English) named Food and Drug Administration.[12] --Una Smith (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
To feed the fire, one change I'm having to make on my redirect corrects is applying "In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration..." as a worldwide issue. Though Canada, the US and Britain might be well aware of the FDA, I'm guessing it's less well known as a US agency in, say, Lesotho or Micronesia because of linguistic, cultural and geographic distance. Could be an argument for United States Food and Drug Administration, could be not. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Such localism is a common problem in articles about subjects that are global in scope. It sounds like your disambiguating links has considerable added value. How many links in all? If there are very many, that would be an argument in favor of making Food and Drug Administration a dab page, just so future disambiguators won't have to check the links you already checked. --Una Smith (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I prefer to avoid parentheses in titles when possible, and would prefer United States Food and Drug Administration. II | (t - c) 20:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Una, my apologies I'm not sure what you're asking about with your 20:03 comment. On en.wiki I've found no other pages called "Food and Drug Administration" and therefore none that require any disambiguation. The only downside to United States Food and Drug Administration is the length (not that the current version is saving me any typing) but Food and Drug Administration could become a DAB page in the future (if the Thai version is created for instance). In this case I'm leaning towards Imperfectly Informed's preference of United States Food and Drug Administration (look here, it does say "U.S. Food and Drug Administration, so arguably it is the name and we're just spelling it out). Whatever the solution, in a couple days I plan on revisiting the page for a consensus version, then asking an admin to fix the page move history and start correcting the hundreds of redirects. Yes, hundreds :( Thanks for the discussion, hopefully by selecting a defensibly correct version now this will be the last time the redirects need correcting. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
They undoubtedly have an official name. What is it? What references do you have that the official name of the organization is just the "Food and Drug Administration." Although it is commonly referred to as such, that may just be a shorthand. For instance, their home page and their address lists the name as "U.S. Food and Drug Administration."[13] On their website they frequently use the shorter form as well, but that doesn't make it clear what the full official name is. (It could be "United States Food and Drug Administration" it could be "U. S. Food and Drug Administration", it could be "Food and Drug Administration" - so which is it?)
As far as Thailand's Food and drug admin - if there is one usage that is far more common than others for the term, then that is the one that should go at the base name, with a name (disambiguation) page, if needed for multiple other uses. (US. FDA probably much more widely used than Thailand's FDA). So if the organization in the United States is just named the "Food and Drug Administration," the (United States) should be dropped (unless there is evidence that significant numbers of English language references use that name to refer to other such administrations). Zodon (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
In reply to WLU: My comment about disambiguating links has two sources: (1) I have fixed links after a page move, in several cases thousands of links, and in my experience it is rare that all links in article space should be changed, so simply changing all links without inspection may not be appropriate. (2) Category:Food and Drug Administration has over 50 items, including a bunch of centers within the agency; it is likely that a fair percent of the redirected links should go to one of those articles rather than to the main article about the agency. In effect, this is an opportunity to disambiguate incoming links (even though the links are not to a disambiguation page), and disambiguating will help you decide if a disambiguation page is needed.
In reply to Zodon: There may be other agencies named Food and Drug Administration; I stopped looking after I found the very first one. --Una Smith (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I prefer simply Food and Drug Administration, since we both have Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health. In Belgium it's very commonplace to say "The FDA approved ..." . --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, Congress, the FD&C Act, the regulations, the 2009 federal budget, and all of the FDA forms omit the "U.S." so I think it's pretty clear that the official name doesn't include the leading letters. SDY (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the target is, I recommend move be done via a request on WP:RM rather than a favor from an individual admin. --Una Smith (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The current name was set when Congress yanked pesticides out of the FDA's mandate around 1970 or so, so the authoritative reference is the agriculture bill that limited its scope and revised its name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

A agree with Steven Fruitsmaak about the shorter name. It is what editors will naturally link to and what readers of all countries will naturally search for. The Thailand issue is a complete red herring and should someone ever create such a page, it can be handled per minority naming rules without a clumsy DAB page getting in the way. Colin°Talk 09:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sticky platelet Syndrome

PMID 10548069 We do not seem to have a page. If that is indeed the case and there isn't one under some obscure name, I'd like to start one; but need help with the template boxes and medical reference material. Is this the place to ask if anyone would be interested? 76.97.245.5 (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently it is generally believed that no such condition actually exists. Interestingly, the German Wikipedia has an article on it, though. Looie496 (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
"Generally believed" and insufficiently studied are not quite the same in my book. So there's one guy on the web who refuses to do stickiness assays on patients with clots because there's no double blind studies? Wouldn't it be a tad irresponsible to expose patients whose platelets are known to have "hyperaggregability" to getting clots just to show they can. (Volunteering anyone?) BTW.: The fact that "hyperaggregability" exists and has a certain genetic inheritance doesn't seem to be disputed. What is criticized AFAIK is evidence as to what degree that contributes to the development of arterial blood clots. So do we do a page or do we wait till enough people have developed well documented clots to satisfy "ask Dr. Moll"? We could phrase the page carefully to indicated that this is something that still requires study. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
We have no problem with articles on conditions that don't exist, as long as they are scrupulously referenced with reliable sources. To get the ball rolling, I've created a stub at sticky platelet syndrome. --Arcadian (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Thnaks. We'll see if it goes anywhere. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for third opinion - Decompression sickness

I'd be grateful if anybody would be willing to give a third opinon to help resolve a difference we're having at Decompression sickness, please? The difference is whether several sections should be in the "Causes" section or not, i.e. between this diff and this diff. There's a discussion at Talk:Decompression sickness#MOSMED and request for collaboration that would give the background. Thanks in advance for any contributions. --RexxS (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your help! Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Google juice

Dear everyone,

with the help of User:TimVickers, User:Jfdwolff and User:Samir, we have just published (online release) an article about Wikipedia in the leading journal in medical informatics (impact factor roughly 3):

Many of you have probably wondered exactly how often you get a result from Wikipedia when you look for medical info on Google. The answer is: 71-85%, depending on the keywords and search engines used.

We outranked MedlinePlus and NHS Direct Online, except for the latter on Google UK. Wikipedia also ranked higher than commercial sources like Mayo Clinic, About.com and Medscape.

I'd be happy to hear some of your comments. E-mail me through the wiki for requests for reprints.

-- Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Aarg!, did someone up the stakes - better get editing! Luckily I think the quality of our articles has also been increasing thanks to everyone's efforts. I look forward to this paper being cited in the popular press, then in wikipedia and the recursive effects of this :) Keep up the good great work! L∴V 13:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations to the authors ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Check this out as well - Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research ("Nearly 50% of US physicians going online for professional purposes are visiting Wikipedia for health and medical information, especially condition information, according to a Manhattan Research study."). Remember (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, Steven. However I'm not particularly surprised. The Featured Articles are the best quality accessible sources of information available. No other resource has the sheer number of enthusiastic participants. By the way, does "MR Laurent" have a presence on Wikipedia? Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The only thing that worries me is that as Wikipedia gets more well known, well funded special interests might start trying to change the pages / information to benefit there own financial interest. We are all volunteers here and I am unsure how well we could do against a concerted effort by someone on a salary. Just a though. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you still doing this for free? Colin°Talk 21:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
MR Laurent = Steven Fruitsmaak. The latter is a pseudonym; Fruitsmaak in Dutch/Flemish = "fruity flavour". JFW | T@lk 22:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Its a pity I do not have access to the article from my university. Could anybody send it to me by email?--Garrondo (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirm low urine Na+ in prerenal azotemia

Could someone confirm:

"2.low urine sodium < 10 ( because kidney saves sodium and water,hence low urine sodium and increase urine osmolarity)" azotemia

I thought that in a case like CAH due to 21 alphaOHase deficiency there was a salt wasting dehydration that led to prerenal azotemia. Would this result not result in excess natriuresis? Ibrmrn (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please take factual questions to the reference desk. This page is mainly for discussing medical articles on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 20:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Panayiotis Zavos needs work

Article on Panayiotis Zavos (recently in press in relation to claims of human cloning) is in pretty bad shape. Very light on cites, and references various medical and scientific organizations which are currently redlinks (i.e., either they are named wrongly in the article, or we need to create articles on them, or we need to redirect these links to our existing articles on them.) -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

More: article mentions: "other forms of ART (Assisted reproductive technology) procedures including the development of in-vitro round spermatid manipulations (ROSI procedures)."
- ROSI currently redirects to University of Toronto. I don't know what ROSI stands for in reproductive medicine.
We need to make ROSI a disamb page as appropriate. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Broda Otto Barnes

This doesn't look real... especially the "Doctors who think this dude is awesome" section. Are there really no detractors on the other side?

I don't know this guy from Adam, but could somebody with insight take a look? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Taron (talk • contribs) 23:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was vandalism that has been fixed. But in fact Broda Otto Barnes has a lot of problems -- he was a proponent of fringe views about hypothyroidism, and the article is written in a somewhat overly supportive style. Looie496 (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh God... Royal Rife, take two. The lead still contains quite a bit of untrue nonsense about the prevalence of hypothyroidism and the evils of "synthetic" thyroid hormone. Probably brought to you by the same folks who patrol and promote Wilson's syndrome. I'm considering stubbing the article and building it as reliable sources are produced. MastCell Talk 04:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Update: submitted to WP:AfD. MastCell Talk 17:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Staphylococcus_capitis

whoa, my patient is growing this in the blood. Lets make an article on it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.40.12.37 (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Article title

Should the actual article be called Cat scratch fever, Cat-scratch disease, or Cat scratch disease? The ICD code has Cat scratch disease. ---kilbad (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it to "Cat scratch disease". --Arcadian (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. ---kilbad (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Which units to use?

Hi

I just posted this point on the discussion page of the ARDS article but as it's a bit broader than that I've popped it in here too.

For those of us not in the US it'd be really useful if things like PaO2 and PaCO2 were expressed in kPa as well as mmHg. Would it be reasonable for those of us who think in kPa go around adding them on relevant medical pages?

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brothersoulshine (talk • contribs) 14:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes both sets of units should be used. It should list the international units followed by the imperial system in brackets.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
It's probably not relevant in the specific case, but {{convert}} can be helpful in such situations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Influenza

Hi there, things are getting a bit busy at influenza, swine flu, influenza pandemic‎ and 2009 swine flu outbreak. Could some of you watchlist these? Thanks Tim Vickers (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Also Human influenza and Influenza A virus subtype H1N1? --Una Smith (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Some expert input to influenza vaccine and influenza treatment would be great as well. The article page views are going through the roof. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Swine flu (2)

Neither swine influenza nor 2009 swine flu outbreak mentions antigenic shift... I've only found this source, can we get this into the articles? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Antigenic shift has a lot of overlap with reassortment (which is mentioned in both articles) and viral shift. I have not added a discussion of antigenic shift to the outbreak articles because so far I have seen no compelling argument that an antigenic shift has occurred. On the contrary, the low virulence of the outbreak strain suggests antigenic shift has not occurred. I am undecided whether the infectiousness of the strain qualifies as an antigenic shift; I have seen no usable evidence about how infectious it is, compared to other strains circulating in humans. --Una Smith (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Now there are sequences available on GenBank, and PMID 19386124 discusses sequence markers for host specificity and enhanced virulence. Would someone here like to work up a phylogenetic tree? Or at least examine the sequence alignments for how well this new strain matches the profile of an influenza genome with high pandemic potential? --Una Smith (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I could do that, but it would be OR I'm afraid. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS. No doubt someone who (unlike me) isn't spending too much time on Wikipedia is already working on it. The source Stevenfruitsmaak gives is a media report of experts speculating re the possibility of antigenic shift and this virus getting "under the radar" of the immune system. From what data we have, however, the virus does not do that; in fact, the human immune system ordinarily handles this virus very effectively. Most infected persons identified to date raised a rapid, mild, and effective immune response, which suggests the absence of antigenic shift in virulence. Re antigenic shift in host specificity, that is a wide open question. What parts of the genome confer host specificity? Perhaps the avian- and swine- derived parts of this strain are just "along for the ride" with the human-derived part of the strain. A CDC webpage about antigenicity describes an elaborate laboratory cell culturing test for antigenic shift; this information is something we cannot simply infer from media reports available so far. --Una Smith (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Fantastic comments - there are too many scientific and political opportunists using hyperbole in the press when what's needed is rational thought. --Scray (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Influenza treatment

I have added a number of free, full text review articles to the "Further reading" section of the Influenza treatment article, from which people can add additional information to Wikipedia. Perhaps someone else could apply MoS guidelines to the article to improve its overall structure? What exactly should the article structure/sections look like? ---kilbad (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Swine Flu map NZ.PNG

File:Swine Flu map NZ.PNG has been nominated for speedy deletion. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ear anatomy; errors

Resolved
 – New image uploaded on Commons. Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The image that has been incorporated in ear and eardrum is, according to a letter sent to OTRS (Ticket:2009042710075597), wrong. It presents the bones as incus, malleus & stapes rather than malleus, incus & stapes. (See File:Anatomy_of_the_Human_Ear.svg) I'm by no means a doctor, but the National Library of Medicine seems to agree as does the Department for Work and Pensions, here. I am removing the image from both articles. If our letter writer, and these governmental sources, should prove to be wrong and this cc-by source from which the image is taken right, please feel free to restore. I haven't found a single source that would suggest our letter writer to be wrong. But if he is, Ossicles needs to be corrected as well and that image, which lists them in the other order, removed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to add that I'm addressing the matter at Commons to see if the image can be relabeled. Hence, if the governmental sources and our letter writer are wrong, please let me know. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Ouch! Someone should write to the authors of that paper—methinks an erratum is in order... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

MCOTW

JFW | T@lk 16:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Changed to swine flu on request. JFW | T@lk 19:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_12&oldid=1140132688"