Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 15

Merger proposal
See Talk:America’s_Healthy_Future_Act for anyone interested. The Squicks (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Scrupulosity
I'm traveling and can't stay on top of the IP editing occurring at Scrupulosity; would anyone else have time to watch it ? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm watching it but would not mind another pair of eyes as well, as I'm a bit overloaded right now. Eubulides (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears an editor in the same IP range has been going at the equivalent article on pl:, but rather more extensively. User:Filip em seems to be watching there. I've watchlisted here.LeadSongDog come howl  18:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Fighting over Guidelines at Wikiproject Economics
Sorry for crossposting here, but over at the talkpage of Wikiproject Economics we've been trying to hammer out a set of guidelines similar to what exists at WP:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). There's been a lot of drama, with threats to go up to Arbcom (which is silly for a content dispute). Anyway, I wonder if anyone here knows how WP:MEDICINE managed to hammer out your (excellent) set of guidelines, as surely there was no lack of contention here. Can can you detail a little the process you followed? That may suggest a way forward for us. Thanks, LK (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You might look at WP:POLICY, being sure to read the footnotes (where nearly all of the practical information has been hidden). The 'ideal' process outlined there was essentially my effort to write down what happened with WP:MEDMOS (before my time) and WP:MEDRS.  You may find the draft at WP:Policy/Procedure somewhat more readable than the current version.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

An entry for Wikisurgery in Wikipedia
We have just obtained an entry for wikisurgery, the online surgical encyclopedia on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiSurgery).

We already provide some information to Wikipedia eg via external links to the article on the subject of Scalpel. We have a huge resource of unique operative surgical scripts and online surgical skills training programs.

Is there anyone out there who can advise how we can best link this information to Wikipedia?

Michael Harpur Edwards 86.136.33.136 (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting project and I believe similar ideas have been tried before, but often fail due to lack of popularity. I hope that isn't the case for you, but nonetheless it's a valid concern. I'm curious as to why you've felt it necessary to create a new Wiki for surgical matters, when plenty of surgical information already exists in some form or another here on Wikipedia. Could you not combine the information you have with the articles we already have? Wikipedia is vastly more popular and well-known to the public, and so your resources would probably go further here. I'm interested to hear your response. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 16:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * WikiSurgery is too close to a how-to manual for its contents to be present in Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We debated this extensively a little while ago. It's a great use of a wiki, but not the kind of content that we could use on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk  19:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Need someone who is fussy with citations to help on Rumination syndrome
Hello. Looking for some help on getting an article to FA. I need someone who is VERY fussy about citations being used correctly and who can point out what is correct citation and what is WP:SYN and WP:OR. Any help or peer reviewing would be especially helpful. Cheers,  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  15:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * can probably help you. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I already spoke with him. He agreed to do a review but said that he is busy in RL and that it may not be done for a while. Two sets of eyes always trumps one set IMO. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Correct" (according to some outside entity) isn't supposed to matter. "Internally consistent" is supposed to be all that matters.  If every single citation uses the citation template, with the same parameters each time, then you shouldn't have any problems at all.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But Floydian is asking about "correct" as opposed to Synthesis or Original Research... - Hordaland (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Correctomundo. I feel I've correctly and consistently applied citations. I was referring to finding out if my citations verify the information I am claiming on the article. Most of the citations are fully available online, and only two or three are hard copies that I have that only an abstract is available for online. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  12:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Medical Articles on Wikipedia
I was listening to case notes on BBC Radio 4 yesterday (you can listen online via the link), and the presenter (a GP) and Kevin Clauson from Nova Southeastern University were discussing how people get medical information on the internet. He had done some research, and focused specifically on wikipedia, as it is often the first place people go to to get information of this kind. He made the following points: He felt that these two points may lead to either action being taken (such as buying 'drugs' over the internet), which may cause advese effects, or no action being taken when someone may actually have a problem. I of course understand that wikipedia is not a health advice site, but despite this intention, it will inevitably be used as one by many people, and I think this needs to be discussed and possibly adressed more. Jhbuk (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No or very few inaccuracies were noticed on the pages they looked at, but important information was missed out, notably side effects of medication.
 * The way some articles were written was seen as inaccesible to the average reader.


 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My point was that I think we should, for example, make the medical disclaimer much more prominent on medical articles, or put in place other measures to further discourage people from using wikipedia as a health advisory site. I can't see how your message was relevant. Jhbuk (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is pretty obvious that one should not believe everything they read. How this encyclopedia is created is well known.  We all would agree I am sure that it is far from perfect.  By the way most clinicians also do not tell patients the side effects of the drugs they prescribe.  How many people tell patients with depression / suicidal ideations that 50% of them will get sexual dysfunction from SSRIs?  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Jhbuk, even putting a note at the top of every page that says "Only a fool would trust an article that any kid in the world can vandalize" won't solve the problem. If the information sounds plausible, and sometimes even if it doesn't, there will be some fool that will believe it.
 * What you can do to help is to improve as many articles as possible. This increases the facts-to-errors ratio.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am pleased that the accuracy was high, that's great! More accuracy and comprehensive coverage will happen with time...! I once tried to instigate having a disclaimer - but ran into serious opposition. If you take a look at the guideline No disclaimers in articles there are various good reasons to not include them - which would have to be addressed first. A main point oft repeated is that the medical disclaimer is included as part of the 'general disclaimer' at the bottom of each page. I am not sure that everyone that uses wikipedia is aware of the way it is created and even those that do haven't grasped the essential 'anyone can edit' and its implications! So the only solution I can suggest is better highlighting of the way wikipedia is editted and the general disclaimer itself. Dosages are left out and how-to type guides are avoided, what else can be done apart from improve the articles and apply the guidelines ( work in progress )? One possibility would be to include side effects in the Drug box updated by a bot from an official source...but that would be no small task? L&there4;V 23:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It would also be no small infobox. A single drug can produce a dozen or more important side effects.  Some side effects are only relevant in certain circumstances.  It takes paragraphs, not a quick little list, to do that properly.  (I also wonder:  was this person looking in "disease" articles [treatment sections] for the side effects?  Or in articles dedicated to the medications?  Many of our non-stub medication articles do include side effects.)
 * Importantly, the drugs themselves are sold with the side effects attached to them, by law, in at least every developed country except Japan. Even if an editor hasn't gotten around to typing up the side effects, the person buying the medication will be given the list anyway.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that the promotion of a disclaimer is necessarily the only way to solve this problem, but that I think a problem nevertheless exists. Apparently, according to the programme, around 3/4 of google medical searches turn to wikipedia
 * Regarding the points about there being side effect info, you'll hsve to listen yourselves, but Kevin Clauson said that "If it were an exam, wikipedia would have got about 40% [of the important information]."
 * There are various other points you have each brought up which I think would be best explained to you by listening to the programme (on the link, starting at about 13mins) Jhbuk (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If the authors are assuming that every -- or even most -- Google searches are for people looking for self-care information, then they're clearly wrong. I use Google when writing articles, because its search engine is more flexible than Wikipedia's.  A lot of people ask Mr Google about friends' and family members' illnesses, because they don't want to sound ignorant when they're talking to them.  Students read articles related to school work.  An enormous number of people read articles about celebrities' health issues.  When Patrick Swayze died, we had an enormous uptick in readers interested in Pancreatic cancer -- but I sincerely doubt that the number of diagnoses went up at all.  In fact, the history of WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages can tell you what medical conditions were in the news each month.  These people want to know some general information about the condition, which is our purpose; they are not looking for medical advice.
 * Their notion that Wikipedia is the only source of information is also obviously false.
 * And ultimately the solution to the missing information is for you to add it. Wikipedia doesn't claim to be a finished product, but the only way to turn 40% into 41% is for editors like you to add the information that you want to see there.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The authors didn't say that most google searches are for people looking for health advice, just that 3/4 of searches which are about medical problems had wikipedia as the top result. They again didn't say that wikipedia is the only source of information, but that it is regarded as the most convenient and most used, and its problems should therefore be examined more closely.  My point is not specifically about missing information, but about the general problem of people using wikipedia for medical advice, and I believe this needs to be emphasised more, as the programme (as well as other info I have seen) showed me that there is a significant problem. Jhbuk (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I listened to the BBC programme. The relevant section is a three-minute spot in the middle.  Clauson said that Google puts Wikipedia on the first page, not necessarily at the top of the page, three-quarters of the time.  He looked at "drug information on Wikipedia".  His specific assertion is that side effects are not differentiated according to frequency and severity; this would not surprise me.  He guessed that this was due to the personal ignorance of the editor, which suggests that he hasn't grasped the essential difference between Truth™ and verifiability.  (The editor isn't supposed to know; the reliable source is supposed to know.)
 * Clauson makes no claims that people actually use Wikipedia for personal medical advice. In short, I think it's fair to summarize his study as "Wikipedia is not finished" -- and thus we need to get to work, without worrying about hypothetical harms to readers based on foolish and unintended uses of encyclopedic information to the exclusion of all other sources of information.
 * His other claim (prior study) is that medicine-related articles aren't written at his preferred level of simplicity (which he doesn't name, but is probably the reading level you expect from the median 12 year old, since that's the generally recommended level for patient information leaflets). I'm not inclined to apologize for that.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you for claifying - I listened to it 2 days ago but I wasn't making notes.
 * I think the fact that he made this review and warned people not to use wikipedia for health advice (and indeed the general ideas of the whole programme about internet medical advice), shows that many people do get this sort of information from the internet (I recall they estimated that around 80% of internet users have done so) and from wikipedia. The reason I made this new section was because with so many people inevitably using this site for that sort of purpose (most, of course, not taking the information at face value, unverified) then there will be some who get the wrong impression (in fact most likely to be those who can't understand the articles in the first place). Jhbuk (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's the published article on this:
 * And here's a Reuters article:
 * Wikipedia often omits important drug information: study --Dyuku (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia often omits important drug information: study --Dyuku (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In particular, the Reuters article says that "drug company representatives have been caught deleting information from Wikipedia entries that make their drugs look unsafe." Dyuku (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Kevin Clauson published an article comparing Wikipedia's coverage of medications (unfavorably) to output from Medscape's online drug-information database. Read all about it. Presumably, he hit the same notes during the radio interview. Some people (me) objected that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a compilation of package inserts, so the comparison was faulty at baseline. After all, WP:MEDMOS specifically tells us to "avoid cloning drug formularies", which I think is excellent advice. For God's sake; one of the questions on which Wikipedia was graded was: "What is the dose of fosamprenavir in a treatment-naïve patient with severe hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh score between 10 and 12)?" General interest works like Wikipedia tend to withhold those sorts of technical details, while physician-oriented resources might provide them. Surely a more apt comparator for Wikipedia would have been, like, another encyclopedia? Sure, the study was picked up by some major media outlets, with predictable headlines like "Wikipedia sucks at medical stuff" (ok, that's a paraphrase). But the devil is in the details. According to the Reuters article, Wikipedia fails to note that St. John's wort can interact with darunavir. Sounds a bit nitpicky, but then again, our article has noted since at least 2005 that St. John's wort interacts with protease inhibitors, of which darunavir is an example. Conclusions: 1) the media coverage is unfortunate bad publicity, but not particularly diligent, 2) the study results themselves seem a bit questionable to me - they dinged us for omitting information which we didn't actually omit, in one of the few cases I've bothered to double-check. Maybe the best advice was given by two brilliant young researchers in : Wikipedia should be read cautiously and amended enthusiastically. MastCell Talk 22:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

General Question - is there a guide on how to deal with adverse events for a drug
It looks like one of the major complaints of the study is that in general the wikipedia drug articles don't include enough information on the side effects of drugs. Does this WikiProject (or any other related Wikiproject) have any sort of guide for how to the side effects of a drug should generally be stated in a drug article? Should we? Remember (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's general guidance in WP:MEDMOS: "A long list of side effects is largely useless without some idea of which are common or serious. It can be illuminating to compare the drug with others in its class, or with older and newer drugs. Do not include dose and titration information except when they are notable or necessary for the discussion in the article. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual or textbook." Granted, that's a bit vague, so maybe it's worth trying to flesh out some more specific guidelines. MastCell Talk 18:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Wikipedia should make an effort to follow the fine example of Medscape and WebMD, and include at least as much information on the negative drugs side effects as they do. After all, whether we like it or not, lots of people will consult Wikipedia about the drugs they were prescribed, and errors of omission in this area can certainly be dangerous. --Dyuku (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We want to do better than those options: we want to provide informative context instead of a cut-and-paste copy of every suspected adverse effect ever reported.  Most articles about medications link to a monograph and/or an official website in at least one place, so people can get a decontextualized and legally approved (for whichever country the editor was in:  there are occasionally significant differences) list of adverse effects without much trouble.
 * Consequently, providing a laundry list of side effects isn't really all that helpful for the even slightly diligent "patient", but it can actually be harmful and misleading to both patients and the general reader by making all named side effects appear equally likely and equally important. Additionally, lists tend to grow inappropriately, typically through the addition of unverifiable personal experiences and through duplicating items (itching = pruritis; feeling tired = fatigue; upset stomach = nausea...), which has the effect of inappropriately overemphasizing an effect that might actually be quite rare.  We don't always watch these articles well enough to catch these things.
 * It's much more useful to be able to describe an adverse effect: Is it temporary or permanent?  Is it common or rare?  Is it serious or mild?  Are there other risk factors, such as kidney function or liver function?  What's the most common issue?  What's the most serious?  What's the median patient's experience?  Unfortunately, our sources don't always provide that information, especially for newer medications.  Your physician isn't required to comply with WP:V and WP:OR, so s/he can say "Most of my patients have no trouble with this" or "it's not unusual for kids to vomit on this antibiotic" -- but we don't have that freedom, so we occasionally have to provide no information instead of potentially wrong information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think adding a link to the drug monograph to the wiki drug info box would be a good idea. All the side effect are on the monograph. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That is getting nearer the mark - how about a side effect/adverse effects section with a link to the adverse effects in the external article, and include the link it in any existing 'side effects' sections of articles we have it covered. We could also link the title to a page with specifically states our coverage of side effects, i.e. may include notable or common effects - but not all ? L&there4;V 10:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd support that. That would get the information easily available to the reader, providing it is in the infobox and from a very good source (webMd etc), without turning wikipedia itself into a health website or cluttering up the page.  The title link in the infobox may also further discourage people from using wikipedia as a health website (although I don't think it would not do a huge amount, as people probably wouldn't click it very often, but it would make the info mor available).  I would personally be in favour of adding a prominent link in a seperate title at the bottom of each infobox to the general medical disclaimer, which I think would work better than this, as it would be more noticeable and more general. Jhbuk (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Which country's monograph are you planning to link? They're different, you know -- and not just in trivial ways.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We already have something very similar for Daily Med -- see Template_talk:Drugbox/Archive_4. --Arcadian (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Arcadian - I suspected the issue had been looked at before, whatamidoing - would linking to both EU and US drug labelling be enough? I see that the labelling info can be tricky to navigate on following these links - would we actually be able to have a section that could link specifically to adverse effects ? L&there4;V 19:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Every medication should have a section on adverse effects and possibily on toxicity in overdose IMO aswell as a link to the monograph ( I think two should be enough ). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * LV, It's not clear to me whether there's really a single pan-European label: EMEA doesn't exactly replace the national regulatory bodies.  Certainly a couple of English-language labels would be reasonable choices.  We might on occasion choose them for their diversity (e.g., if the US and EU agree, but Australia or Canada does something different, then we should maximize the spread.)  The links can't go in the text/actual adverse events section:  there aren't supposed to be any external links in the text of an article.  Your choices are either the infobox or the external links section.  (And the references section!)
 * Most of these are available as pdfs, which don't lend themselves to links that point the reader directly at a specific subsection. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In general listing side effects, in terms of being comprehensive, is not what we should be about (we go out of our way not to offer medical advice and the closer that we do, the greater the risk someone decides to treat it as such and file a law suit against someone - it wont get very far, but will ruin the relevant editors' month worrying over this and getting the mess sorted). Drugs are supposed to be prescribed having been discussed by the prescribing doctor, administration advice given by the dispensing pharmacist and supplied with patient information leaflet which give all the side effects any patient could ever want. Also if for no better reason that most side effects apply across a group and I do not wish to see lengthy discussion of say penicillin allergy listed at Phenoxymethylpenicillin, amoxicillin, ampicillin, flucloxacillin etc. I think whilst a link to the main group section on side effects (penicillin in this case) is fine, then individual drug articles should list just specific or interesting details only relevant to that one drug (eg if all but doxycycline tetracyclines bind to milk and thus are ineffective if taken with dairy products, or flucloxacillin rarely causing cholestatic jaundice unlike other commonly used penicillins). The Drugbox already provides links to EU's EMEA (pitty no open links to British National Formulary) and US's FDS or DailyMed sources (see Template:Drugbox/doc), and for consistency these should be defined if easily located. If there are equivalent national databases of licensing details (Australian, NZ etc) then let me know and we can set up licence_AU & licence_NZ parameters to allow unobstrusive external links, but such indepth detail, IMHO, should not be duplicated here per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. David Ruben Talk 01:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean something like this (Canada)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So the problem is we want to write articles which can't be used for self medication, to do this we leave out such information - but a common complaint is that they aren't fully comprehensive! As Mastcell pointed out, maybe we need to make the guideline a bit more robust. I have another option to consider - it seems any linking to side effects for a particular drug goes against keeping such info out of articles, so how about not having links for each drugs effects. Instead have a 'adverse/side effects' section at end of drug box which is purely a link to a new article. This article could discuss side effects in general, the different labelling information across the world ( maybe external links toofficial bodies), why wikipedia doesn't include side effects in general ( interactions / patient history / ... ), a carefullly worded part of when we do mention side effects in articles and a link to medical disclaimer maybe. I think that should cover us - 'yes side effects aren't covered - but this is why...' hopefully researchers shouldn't be able to miss it and we can help point out the limitations of articles to readers with the intention of using them for self-medication. L&there4;V 14:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Other side effects include: Body as a Whole: Infrequent: Allergic reaction, chills, face edema, malaise, neck pain; rare: Adrenergic syndrome, cellulitis, moniliasis, neck rigidity, pelvic pain, peritonitis, sepsis, ulcer. Cardiovascular System: Frequent: Hypertension, tachycardia; infrequent: Bradycardia, hematoma, hypotension, migraine, postural hypotension, syncope; rare: Angina pectoris, arrhythmia nodal, atrial fibrillation, bundle branch block, cerebral ischemia, cerebrovascular accident, congestive heart failure, heart block, low cardiac output, myocardial infarct, myocardial ischemia, pallor, phlebitis, pulmonary embolus, supraventricular extrasystoles, thrombophlebitis, thrombosis, varicose vein, vascular headache, ventricular extrasystoles. Digestive System: Infrequent: Bruxism, colitis, dysphagia, eructation, gastritis, gastroenteritis, gingivitis, glossitis, increased salivation, liver function tests abnormal, rectal hemorrhage, ulcerative stomatitis; rare: Aphthous stomatitis, bloody diarrhea, bulimia, cardiospasm, cholelithiasis, duodenitis, enteritis, esophagitis, fecal impactions, fecal incontinence, gum hemorrhage, hematemesis, hepatitis, ileitis, ileus, intestinal obstruction, jaundice, melena, mouth ulceration, peptic ulcer, salivary gland enlargement, sialadenitis, stomach ulcer, stomatitis, tongue discoloration, tongue edema, tooth caries. Endocrine System: Rare: Diabetes mellitus, goiter, hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism, thyroiditis. Hemic and Lymphatic Systems: Infrequent: Anemia, leukopenia, lymphadenopathy, purpura; rare: Abnormal erythrocytes, basophilia, bleeding time increased, eosinophilia, hypochromic anemia, iron deficiency anemia, leukocytosis, lymphedema, abnormal lymphocytes, lymphocytosis, microcytic anemia, monocytosis, normocytic anemia, thrombocythemia, thrombocytopenia. Metabolic and Nutritional: Frequent: Weight gain; infrequent: Edema, peripheral edema, SGOT increased, SGPT increased, thirst, weight loss; rare: Alkaline phosphatase increased, bilirubinemia, BUN increased, creatinine phosphokinase increased, dehydration, gamma globulins increased, gout, hypercalcemia, hypercholesteremia, hyperglycemia, hyperkalemia, hyperphosphatemia, hypocalcemia, hypoglycemia, hypokalemia, hyponatremia, ketosis, lactic dehydrogenase increased, non-protein nitrogen (NPN) increased. Musculoskeletal System: Frequent: Arthralgia; infrequent: Arthritis, arthrosis; rare: Bursitis, myositis, osteoporosis, generalized spasm, tenosynovitis, tetany. Nervous System: Frequent: Emotional lability, vertigo; infrequent: Abnormal thinking, alcohol abuse, ataxia, dystonia, dyskinesia, euphoria, hallucinations, hostility, hypertonia, hypesthesia, hypokinesia, incoordination, lack of emotion, libido increased, manic reaction, neurosis, paralysis, paranoid reaction; rare: Abnormal gait, akinesia, antisocial reaction, aphasia, choreoathetosis, circumoral paresthesias, convulsion, delirium, delusions, diplopia, drug dependence, dysarthria, extrapyramidal syndrome, fasciculations, grand mal convulsion, hyperalgesia, hysteria, manic-depressive reaction, meningitis, myelitis, neuralgia, neuropathy, nystagmus, peripheral neuritis, psychotic depression, psychosis, reflexes decreased, reflexes increased, stupor, torticollis, trismus, withdrawal syndrome. Respiratory System: Infrequent: Asthma, bronchitis, dyspnea, epistaxis, hyperventilation, pneumonia, respiratory flu; rare: Emphysema, hemoptysis, hiccups, lung fibrosis, pulmonary edema, sputum increased, stridor, voice alteration. Skin and Appendages: Frequent: Pruritus; infrequent: Acne, alopecia, contact dermatitis, dry skin, ecchymosis, eczema, herpes simplex, photosensitivity, urticaria; rare: Angioedema, erythema nodosum, erythema multiforme, exfoliative dermatitis, fungal dermatitis, furunculosis; herpes zoster, hirsutism, maculopapular rash, seborrhea, skin discoloration, skin hypertrophy, skin ulcer, sweating decreased, vesiculobullous rash. Special Senses: Frequent: Tinnitus; infrequent: Abnormality of accommodation, conjunctivitis, ear pain, eye pain, keratoconjunctivitis, mydriasis, otitis media; rare: Amblyopia, anisocoria, blepharitis, cataract, conjunctival edema, corneal ulcer, deafness, exophthalmos, eye hemorrhage, glaucoma, hyperacusis, night blindness, otitis externa, parosmia, photophobia, ptosis, retinal hemorrhage, taste loss, visual field defect. Urogenital System: Infrequent: Amenorrhea, breast pain, cystitis, dysuria, hematuria, menorrhagia, nocturia, polyuria, pyuria, urinary incontinence, urinary retention, urinary urgency, vaginitis; rare: Abortion, breast atrophy, breast enlargement, endometrial disorder, epididymitis, female lactation, fibrocystic breast, kidney calculus, kidney pain, leukorrhea, mastitis, metrorrhagia, nephritis, oliguria, salpingitis, urethritis, urinary casts, uterine spasm, urolith, vaginal hemorrhage, vaginal moniliasis
 * No, we want to include adverse effects information. In prose.  In the middle of the regular article.  Under the section title ==Adverse effects==.  With proper context, giving WP:DUE weight to adverse effects, both in terms of the overall article content and also in relationship to each other.  Without any disclaimers.  What we don't want is this: Headache Asthenia Cardiovascular Palpitation   Vasodilation   Dermatologic Sweating   Rash   Gastrointestinal Nausea   Dry Mouth  Constipation   Diarrhea   Decreased Appetite   Flatulence   Oropharynx Disorder   Dyspepsia   Musculoskeletal Myopathy   Myalgia   Myasthenia   Nervous System Somnolence   Dizziness   Insomnia   Tremor  Nervousness   Anxiety   Paresthesia   Libido Decreased   Drugged Feeling   Confusion   Respiration Yawn   Special Senses Blurred Vision   Taste Perversion   Urogenital System Ejaculatory Disturbance,   Other Male Genital Disorders,   Urinary Frequency   Urination Disorder   Female Genital Disorders.


 * That's "the side effects" for a single, widely prescribed medication. This is not a good example of encyclopedic writing.  This will not fit in an infobox.  This should not be anywhere in the mainspace, not even in a subarticle, because we do not want to replicate the drug formulary lists, either in the article or in a subarticle.  What we want is much closer to what our article currently says.
 * The researchers in question don't seem to believe that replicating this information is part of Wikipedia's mission. They merely believe that average (and below-average) readers might click on a Wikipedia link in search of this information, and then be so stupid that they would interpret the absence of information about adverse effects as a definitive statement that no adverse effects have ever been reported.
 * Perhaps they're right, but I have a higher opinion of our readers' intelligence than that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Tis a good example whatamidoing, and I am with you on all counts - just throwing in ideas. Maybe the problem lies in the disclaimer being a general coveral and researchers not reading MEDMOS wherein lies the guidelines for what we do cover. I've reformed my suggestion then: have adverse effects (and dosage?) sections in the drugbox which just link to a page as suggested before ( drop the disclaimer bit), AND the sections in the article ( I didn't really mean to drop them previous idea anyway). That would then explain the effects listed in articles and also cover articles where we have found no real need to list them, whilst hopefully giving a hint that there are medmos guidelines. ? L&there4;V 16:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Putting the above laundry list of side effects anywhere in the mainspace is WP:NOT okay. Wikipedia is not complete exposition of all possible details, not even in subarticles.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah - wrong end of the stick.. what I meant was a single, generic page, that ALL drug boxes point to. I was picturing something like this, but obviously better than that ! L&there4;V 19:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think that a link to another disclaimer would be helpful, and I (separately) don't think you could get consensus for it because of WP:NDA's popularity.
 * It might be possible to add something similar to MEDMOS, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with WhatamIdoing. Each article should have a section on adverse effects. These effects should have reliable sources, similar in format to the article "linezolid". "Laundry lists" such as those in the British National Formulary, exemplified by WhatamIdoing above, are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Our existing guidelines (WP:MOSMED) are fine. I'm not unduly concerned by Clauson's comments. His article has flaws, as demonstrated by David Ruben. I regard the Wikipedia community of editors (and WikiProject Medicine editors in particular) as more authoritative than Clauson and Reuters. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  07:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am content that the issue has been explored. Just the matter of the wording in MEDMOS may be left hanging. Whatamidoing, by 'adding something similar' I am assuming you mean adding more info to MEDMOS and not adding a link to it from drugbox? ( Although maybe we could add a link into the project banner ?) L&there4;V 09:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think that editors (not readers) would benefit from a more complete explanation of our standards, then you might want to propose an expansion of WP:MEDMOS, which is where MEDMOS addresses this issue. I am certain that a proposal that looks like a disclaimer won't be accepted, but advice to editors on how to write a better article has a reasonable chance.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe we should see if we can clarify it a little - will take to the MEDMOS talk now. L&there4;V 12:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Link to Medmos in project banner
I am concluding that we do have a sufficient method of dealing with adverse effects, highlighting them or describing the fully is wrong, adding disclaimers is wrong, just the message is not getting through to researchers / readers completely. Maybe some clarification of the section in Medmos may be possible - but it essentially works... The only idea I have left unaddressed is including a link to medmos in the project banner placed on talk pages - it should increase the chances of it being read - and may as a side effect help new editors to medical articles.

I propose we add a link to it something like: Fin. L&there4;V 12:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm. How about something modeled after Blp?
 * {| class="wikitable" border="1"


 * This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Within common sense, it should follow the Project's Manual of Style and adhere to specific guidelines on referencing. Please visit the project page for details, or ask questions at the doctors' mess.
 * }
 * —Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Filling template for references
I found another filling template. I remember reading a discussion about how the one from Diberri is non-functional-- though, I dunno if any replacement was been mentioned. Any how, the one I found is here: http://toolserver.org/~holek/cite-gen/index.php. To get the pubmed reference - you need to select (1) "Library of Congress" (2) paste in the PMID, and (3) click "Send". Cheers! Nephron T|C 03:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent tool, just what I was looking for! Thanks. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  15:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Are Epidemiology terms in our scope?
I just tagged Vector (epidemiology) as a med-stub and with the project tag, which was reverted. In general should epidemiology terms be within this project's scope. I was also looking at Fomite (term) as well. I'm not planning on a tagging spree, just wanted to get some feedback on this. -Optigan13 (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've asked the editor why s/he removed the tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems was objecting not to the medical scope, but to the classification as a stub. I've left a note on their talk page about removing other projects' templates. P.S. the article needs verification of its only source, and also needs more sources, can anyone here help? --RexxS (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "verification of the source" means in this context. It's a standard textbook supporting a standard definition.  The likelihood of it being wrong is very slim.  Perhaps the editor who added that tag meant to say "It'd be nice if we had a page number"?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're right, although the editor who added the verify source tag was Optigan13, who started this thread. Are you able to check that textbook and find a page number? Then we could improve the reference, remove the tag and reclassify as start-class. --RexxS (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed the intro line using my epi dictionary, and asked for just the page number on the second book and to back up a similar description. I was looking for clarification on the whether the description was accurate based on that text, since wind and water as examples of vectors is incorrect. It's good to see this is an issue of assessment and not scope. In hindsight it was a start class article, but I have a tendency to assess quickly, and err on the low side. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wickey-nl's first edit (on the English Wikipedia, at least) was just ten days ago. Presumably s/he didn't know what else to do.
 * Optigan, I think that wind and water are fairly often considered vectors by some people, although it's kind of sloppy. It would be interesting to see what the published definitions say.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Virus on MainPage
The virus article will appear on the main page tomorrow (5th). Pop it in your watchlist and help defend against vandalism and/or answer queries on the talk page. Colin°Talk 21:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Portacaval anastomosis
Please check two issues at Portacaval anastomosis: this edit introduced random words and should presumably be reverted; this edit claims the title is incorrectly spelled. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reverted both. Neither spelling is actually wrong, but the prior spelling is (by far) more common.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Expanding AMWA stub, creating article for AMWA Journal
Hello all, I'm a new user and I'm interested in expanding the stub for the American Medical Writers Association article and also creating a new article for the AMWA Journal, the Association's official publication. I'm thinking this will take a couple of weeks to accomplish. I wanted to follow protocols here and put this idea out to the group before I make my changes. Feedback and advice are appreciated!

Cirrus Editor (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like adding content is the best way to start. I have added the AMWA article to the list of those I watch, as I will with the Journal article. I would not worry too much about style guidelines at this early stage—they are not that complicated and can easily be implemented later. You can contact me here any time. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 16:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've suggested on your talk page that you can make a sub-page in your user space to work on the article and experiment without worrying about making mistakes. Either way, don't forget to cite your sources - there are plenty of editors here who are willing to help out if asked! --RexxS (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello all, I've created a new page for AMWA on my own user space at User:Cirrus_Editor/American_Medical_Writers_Association. Please review and provide feedback if you'd like before I post it live. —Preceding undated comment added 21:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC).  Cirrus Editor (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

NavBox is needed
A virtual greeting to anyone who will read the classification and create a good navbox with all the 20+ subtypes of human corneal dystrophies! -- C opper K ettle  07:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll have a go, brb  Captain n00dle  T/C 21:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this anywhere near? User:Captain-n00dle/Sandbox4. If you would like subtypes, could yiy find a list for me, I'm only an ickle medical student so don't know them ^_^  Captain n00dle  T/C 21:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Big thanks, Cap! The classification is in the "external links" at the bottom of the article. Best regards, -- C opper K ettle  05:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The navbox in the sandbox looks cool to me. (0: -- C opper K ettle  05:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A little question on vocabulary: what is "ickle"? A typo? Haven't found a definition in my En-Ru dictionary right away, web search brings up "icicle".. o_O -- C opper K ettle  05:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Found this one.. means small, as I'd guessed. ^_^ -- C opper K ettle  05:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I do apologise for the slow reply copper, it is a very colloquial term meaning little (ickle phonetically sounds like little) hope that that made sense! and I have moved the template here: Human corneal dystrophy, I shall add it to all the articles soon and add categories, documentation and things. Regards,  Captain n00dle  T/C 22:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, I put the categories into the navbox. I think that it is right according to but can I ask, are these three terms interchangeable:


 * Reis-Bucklers corneal dystrophy
 * Corneal dystrophy of Bowman layer, type I
 * Granular corneal dystrophy type III (I made this redirect page)

Cheers!  Captain n00dle  T/C 00:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh also, Epithelial recurrent erosion dystrophy, Grayson-Wilbrandt corneal dystrophy, Central cloudy dystrophy of Francxois and Pre-Descemet corneal dystrophy are all red links, and I don't know if they should be blue but they were on the list :-)  Captain n00dle  T/C 00:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Redlinks are generally excluded from both navboxes and See also, so I would not add these. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I hid them in the template using Regards,  Captain n00dle  T/C 19:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability for chemicals?
Icodextrin is a stub for a peritoneal dialysis solution, or it's the molecule dissolved in the solution. I'm not sure what the notability factor is for pharmaceuticals. Any suggestions or comments? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No idea, try asking at WP:PHARM? You may well have already done so, I just can't be bothered to check ;) Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 15:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do. I keep forgetting about those guys... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Or just forget notability and improve the article ad lib. That's how Wikipedia became great. - Draeco (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a much better idea. I wish I had thought of that.  Could I then beg a favour - anyone willing to forward me some articles.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * that may help, its where I turn to first for drug info, regards,  Captain n00dle  T/C 20:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Help Translating
Hello! Doesn anyone know enough about complement to translate the lables of this image on this page. Then I can get them sorted. Thanks!  Captain n00dle  T/C 11:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Kompleks konwertazy C5" is "C5 convertase".


 * "Woda lizozym antybiotyki" is (I suppose) "water lysozyme antibiotics", although this doesn't make sense. The label "ATP" is unhelpful, as is "aminokwasy" - "aminoacids".


 * "Lizowana blona" is the "cell membrane".


 * In my opinion, the picture would be better without the misleading labels on the pore created by the MAC. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  13:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The figure shows what goes through a particular cell membrane channel. Those mysterious word triplets are 2 lists of 3 items, not 2 phrases: water / lysozyme / antibiotics go one way, and potassium / ATP / amino acids go the other.  ATP in this context is adenosine triphosphate. --Una Smith (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The lists indicate diffusion through the membrane attack complex. Those lists are (in my opinion) not helpful to the reader. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  17:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys that's brilliant =D  Captain n00dle  T/C 18:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Addition
Could I add Limb salvage surgery to this? - BennyK95 - Talk  22:59, 7 October 2009  (UTC)

That is weird! It wont display it here. The thing at the bottom of the Hip replacement article is what I meant. - BennyK95 - Talk  23:03, 7 October 2009  (UTC)


 * Do you mean Template:Operations and other procedures on the musculoskeletal system? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that Limb salvage surgery falls under that catergory. Don't you? - BennyK95 - Talk  00:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps it fits better under Template:Muscle/soft tissue procedures. What do you (and anyone else) think?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as to why amputation is listed as a soft tissue surgery. Surely since you're literally cutting back a whole structure (including the muscle and bone), it's a musculoskeletal surgery? Limb salvage surgery on the other hand could probably fit in either. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 07:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it fits best in both. Can we have a vote? - <font color="2f4f4f" size="2pt" face="French Script MT">BennyK95 - <font color="1f5f1f"size="1pt" face="Times new roman">Talk  23:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Regards, --— Cyclonenim |<font style="color:#5a3596"> Chat 19:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh..Okay I will add it to the infoboxes. If anyone objects please notify me on my Usertalk:BennyK95.- <font color="2f4f4f" size="2pt" face="French Script MT">BennyK95 - <font color="1f5f1f"size="1pt" face="Times new roman">Talk  23:05, October 9 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh..Okay I will add it to the infoboxes. If anyone objects please notify me on my Usertalk:BennyK95.- <font color="2f4f4f" size="2pt" face="French Script MT">BennyK95 - <font color="1f5f1f"size="1pt" face="Times new roman">Talk  23:05, October 9 2009 (UTC)

Citation bot altering citation style on medical articles
An issue which should have been easily resolved persists; for the history read from here down. Although three editors have now addressed this (Eubulides, ImperfectlyInformed, and me), the situation continues. Citation guidelines say not to alter citation style without consensus (WP:CITE), medical articles use the Diberri template filler style on authors, but one editor persists in running the bot on medical articles and filling in up to nine authors, which clutters the text, in spite of being asked to stop and in one case, reinstating the edits even after reverted once and without discussing the reinstatement on talk. This is surprising in light of the date delinking ArbCom. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wholeheartedly agree, I've posted a comment on the second thread on the issue. Regards, --— Cyclonenim |<font style="color:#5a3596"> Chat 15:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's got to be a bug. WP:MEDMOS clearly calls out the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals form of six authors plus et al. when there are more than six. Nothing wrong with adding them to the wikitext so the COiNS metadata is inclusive, but the template should only render it per MEDMOS. The template documentation says up to nine authors, but I seem to recall that there was a way to tell it to use fewer. Am I imagining things?LeadSongDog <font color="red" face="Papyrus">come howl 17:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is slightly off-topic, but I have a somewhat hazy impression that the latest update to the WP:FOOTNOTES software would allow us to easily move all of the full citations to the end, so that you could have just in the text, and dump the long version with the template in the
 * Find and add the magic parameter:
 * Make a single, complete list of all of the refs and paste it between the  and the   in your Reflist template.
 * In the text of the article, use only  (just like every ref was the second time you were using it).

The major advantage is the simplicity for everyday editing: Within the text of the article, a typical ref like   is reduced to just , which is more legible and more editor friendly. The full ref/citation template is moved to the ref section itself.

It is possible to use this system in combination with the usual long-string-of-cryptic-junk in the middle of the text; it is not an either/or proposition. Also, if a ref in the Reflist doesn't get cited in the text, then it will produce an error message. (I don't know if anyone has seen such an error yet; I haven't.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I was initially opposed to this (attached to the "usual way", I guess) but I actually think it's quite useful now. Ketogenic diet uses this system, and I liked working with it; as you mention, it (1) makes it much easier to edit references and (2) makes the text less cluttered. I'm considering implementing it in a few of my "pet" articles (no WP:OWN here, folks :) but am unsure as to others' views on it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, you should ask to have a look at Injury epidemiology. She's our resident trauma buff, should be right up her alley ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've been pestering developers for a way of getting refs out of the main text for ages now. UC_Bill proposed a good system that even allowed you to choose the order of the references, but this one is almost as nice and cleaner to implement, so I was pleased when it was introduced. I converted Bühlmann decompression algorithm to the new system if anyone wants to see an example of how it looks. A couple of hints may be useful:
 * It doesn't matter what order the cites are within the reflist, the page displayed is the same, so you can collect refs by author or date if you want, for the convenience of later editors.
 * I found a nice feature when converting an existing article. Enable the refTools gadget in preferences (if you haven't already). When editing, position your cursor in front of the first full reference in the text, and tell it to insert a named reference. It will pick that named ref to add . Then you only have to copy and paste that full ref out of the text into the reflist. Rinse and repeat.
 * Hey Presto! No typing required to move all of the refs out of main text! --RexxS (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for your review of the article, Medicinal mushrooms
The Medicine group reviewed the page of a medicinal mushroom, (Agaricus blazei). However, you guys have still not reviewed the medicinal mushroom page. It would be great if that could be done! Thanks for the consideration. Jatlas (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't given it a proper review but I read over it and added citation needed tags. It was an enjoyable read and learnt some things that I did not previously know. I vaguely recall someone posting here about this article 6 months or so ago. My only "problem" then was NPOV, I think that it has improved much since then but my impressions are there are some areas where more work could be done. It reads a bit too much like to say if one takes these mushrooms they will experience these health benefits. Is it possible to find more refs outside of laboratory studies and more in real time to put things in context? For example garlic has antibacterial effects but because of its low potency one wouldn't depend on it to save their life from septicemia, an extreme example but trying to make a point. Overall I think that it is a well structured article, with nice illustrations and comprehensive, so congratulations on your work to the article. With a little bit of work it could reach good article status. I don't understand enough about the subject matter to do an indepth review and make indepth suggestions.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  23:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Organization of articles pertaining to both a virus and a disease
Have started a discussion pertaining to the organization of articles to address a conflict between WP:VIRUS and WP:MED. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Chronic fatigue syndrome
I suspect this article is somewhat of a battleground because of the subject matter, but getting the article correctly sourced might address some of the problems. Because of a post to Talk:Autism, I peeked in there and found an overreliance on primary sources, WP:RECENTISM and wide use of weasel words. See Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome: my first opportunity to use our new template after I was reverted. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And now, IPs are removing my tags. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Primary sources tag reinstated by the IP. On a related matter, Category:GA-Class medicine articles has grown considerably since I've been busy at FAC.  I used to check them all.  I suggest we need to review all of them for overreliance on primary sources.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment at Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes in PubMed interface
Please see Tim Vickers updates to Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches. Thanks, Tim, Colin and Eubulides !! PS: are any changes needed at WP:MEDRS? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Von Hippel – Lindau disease or Von Hippel–Lindau disease
Should there be spaces between the dash? ---kilbad (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There does not seem to be in other places of the web. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, according to MOS:ENDASH: "Spacing: All disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either one or both of the items (the New York – Sydney flight; the New Zealand – South Africa grand final; June 3, 1888 – August 18, 1940, but June–August 1940)". Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about such a fine grammatical point, especially if it is commonly unspaced in sources. --RexxS (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I moved this, clearly not thinking it would be controversial. Feel free to have an admin remove it, I wasn't aware of the line RexxS has pointed out. Regards, --— Cyclonenim |<font style="color:#5a3596"> Chat 20:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

pandemics and seasonal flu
There's been a concern raised on 2009 flu pandemic as to whether seasonal flu outbreaks are pandemics or not. If someone knowledgeable in the subject could lend some input, it would be much appreciated. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Formal "epidemic" and "pandemic" definitions are thresholds. Some years, seasonal flu does exceed these thresholds;  when that happens it is formally designated an epidemic or pandemic.  See for example this CDC graphic showing that in the US the 2007-08 seasonal flu was an epidemic.  --Una Smith (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Is LLLT the same as Light therapy?
Low level laser therapy has a prominent banner at the top saying that it is "Not to be confused with Light therapy". But when we go to the Light therapy article, it does precisely that, i.e. include lasers as part of Light therapy. So which view is correct then? It's a bit embarrassing when two related Wikipedia articles say the opposite things. --Dyuku (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Light therapy is a very large area, and includes light from any type of source (e.g., sunlight or lasers). LLLT is a small subtype of light therapy.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Then I suppose LLLT page should be modified. --Dyuku (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this any better? --RexxS (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, RexxS, this will work fine. --Dyuku (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of Combat Medics
I am working on a research piece for college of our choice and had an idea for former combat medics. With all of their training, especially in the tactical enviroment, isn't there a process to inteegrate them better into the EMS services? Personally I was recruited by a S.W.A.T. team and realized that this would be a good avenue for a civilian career. The downside is that we are only given a certificate of an EMT-B which excludes them from such work until they go to college. I do have an argument piece advocating the advanced training of medics and would like to present this.Texdoc41 (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, so your "argument piece" is not useful here.
 * I see that you've found the WT:EMS task force; perhaps someone there will be interested in your research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Discovery and development of HIV pharmaceuticals
Now, these articles do look very good, but
 * Special:Contributions/Hopur32009
 * Special:Contributions/Aslimarati
 * Special:Contributions/Hop12009

....have each individually created...


 * Discovery and Development of HIV Protease Inhibitors
 * Discovery and Development of Non-Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors
 * Discovery and development of CCR5 receptor antagonists

...anyone else a little creeped out by that? No talk page development, no edit summaries, no varied article editing - just their article and to wikilink it to other secondary articles. I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth, cause this is generally good stuff, but it is most likely one person. JoeSmack Talk 16:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a group of students from the University of Iceland, nothing sinister :) They've done this before last year (my guess is it's part of the curriculum), and produced some very good articles. See their recent request for assessment at WP:PHARM. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Goodie! Sounds like a cool professor to me. Here's the archive link for anyone interested: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Archive_2. Thanks for letting me know Fvas. JoeSmack Talk 17:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

WPMED template
I don't know how WikiProject templates work. Would it make sense to work a link to WP:MEDRS into ? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I think it's a shame there isn't a way (with my knowledge) to show WP:MEDRS in all edit headers pertaining to medical articles, but I don't think it's feasible. I'd support it being included on a talk page banner, but I don't know where it'd best fit. Regards, --— Cyclonenim |<font style="color:#5a3596"> Chat 20:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert on the intricacies of templates, but depends on WPBannerMeta so it could use NOTE_7 to make extra optional information available. On the other hand, the MAIN_TEXT could be simply altered to include a sentence linking to WP:MEDRS. I've made a demo at Template:WPMED/sandbox, feel free to amend it.
 * I think I should caution that other WikiProjects, which have articles shared with us, may not necessarily agree to us unilaterally placing a restriction on how sources may be used (however desirable that may be). You may wish to reflect on that before implementing changes to the WPMED banner. --RexxS (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a few words to hopefully overcome that issue you just raised. Perhaps not, though. Regards, --— Cyclonenim |<font style="color:#5a3596"> Chat 00:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're adding WP:MEDRS, why not WP:MEDMOS although that is generally less useful for comflicts over topics. David Ruben Talk 01:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've changed the sandbox to: Guidance on the style of the article is at Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) and on sources at Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) - as one way of not seeming to insist on our standards if other wikiprojects are involved.
 * If that's not strong enough, how about expanding Cyclonenim's text to read: This article should conform to the requirements of Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) and Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) unless the primary topic is that covered by another WikiProject.? --RexxS (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * RexxS's current version should be sufficient. Any article that this project covers, no matter what importance, should be written such that it can progress to FA status.  For any article to reach FA, it must follow the manual of style and have reliable sources - these are the basis on which WPMED assesses its articles.  If the MOS and RS for medicine-related articles is more strict than other guidelines, then our assessment of the article might be different than a project without its own (or with lesser) guidelines.  If anything, I would like to see the verbiage decreased.  Maybe something like: This is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. It should conform to the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and contain Reliable sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctors' mess.  --Scott Alter 05:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Another possibility is to conditionally show these links if the page is an article. I don't think it is appropriate to have this extra sentence on non-articles (templates, categories, files, etc).  --Scott Alter 05:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the 'conditional display' idea.
 * A less "prescriptive" sentence might be preferable. Perhaps something like This is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that it follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a very very good idea; I remember when I was a newcomer, years ago getting in unnecessary debates with regular editors over refs as I did not know about MEDRS. It should cut down on a lot of unnecessary talk page drama with newcomers as well as help improve editing standards on wikipedia. My only concern is that a large amount of articles are stub articles or start class, which have few secondary sources available and/or limited editorial enthusiasm. But then again I think the wording of MEDRS is flexible enough for such scenarios/articles, eg if a secondary source is unavailable then a primary source trumps no source/original research?-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  17:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not in favor of prescriptive "guidelines". --Una Smith (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite right too! All of our guidelines (and policies - except WP:5P) are descriptive, not prescriptive, in that they document practices on wikipedia and the consensus that exists for them. Their real use (as Literaturegeek points out) is to inform editors that other editors have reached a consensus about a particular way of doing things. I think it would be valuable to have a reminder about what is documented at WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS on the talk page of every article where they are relevant. --RexxS (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While I agree with your statement to a first approximation, there are a few bits of policy that are prescriptive, such as WP:COPYVIO and WP:Libel (which ultimately must conform with the Wikimedia Foundation's policy, irrespective of the community's opinion). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why they're called "policies", not "guidelines". Axl  ¤  [Talk]  18:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hehe, I seem to have stirred up something here.
 * @WhatamIdoing: "Respect copyright" is part of the third pillar, so it is prescriptive as I already mentioned. WP:Libel is an interesting policy, but is clearly descriptive, not prescriptive. "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory" - if this were prescriptive, I'd be obliged to removed any defamatory statement I saw, which is obviously an unenforceable prescription. What it actually does is document the fact that any editor may remove libellous material, not place an obligation on them to do so.
 * @Axl: Actually, the only difference between Wikipedia polices and guidelines is the degree to which we may expect exceptions. WP:PG contrasts them in this way: "Guidelines are considered more advisory than policies" and "Where a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, the policy normally takes precedence". Otherwise they are treated the same, and since both represent consensus, neither is optional unless WP:IAR applies. --RexxS (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * RexxS, I respectfully disagree. We seem to have different opinions regarding the meaning of the word "advisory". Axl  ¤  [Talk]  08:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't read too much into the phrasing of WP:POLICY at the moment. There's been a major dispute there (of the kind in which someone says "There's too much about sanctions here" and then proceeds to increase the number of sentences about sanctions) for the last few weeks, and much of the wording is approximate at best.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly won't fall out with you over a difference of opinion :). As a veteran of countless arguments at the Date-linking Arbitration over whether editors should be free to ignore guidelines as they choose, I just prefer to emphasise that the consensus behind the policies and guidelines is what counts. Although those documents are indeed giving us advice, ignoring that is very likely to be detrimental to the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Best wishes. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  07:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Expert needed at Medical uses of silver
When the article Medical uses of silver (formerly "Colloidal silver") was discussed at the ANI and the fringe theories noticeboard recently, I decided that I might take a closer look at it to see whether it would be possible to identify the core of the controversy and to fix it. Despite some difficulties (I had to file my first request for checkuser), I think I was largely successful. In any case, I don't think that there is much more I could contribute to the article. The most reputable sources are all articles in medical journals to which I don't have access. To improve the article further, we would need someone who does have access to them. So, if anyone is interested: --> Medical uses of silver<--. Zara1709 (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I left the article after it became the site of seriously abusive agenda-driven editing. Since then it appears to have been protected several times due to edit-warring. I had contributed many of the reliable sources to the article when it was titled colloidal silver, and I have pretty complete access to medical journals. I will go back and look again, but I need a break from the madness. Anyone else? MastCell Talk 01:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I am currently busy doing something else, but I think I can do a few more edits tomorrow. I think we've got the "agenda-driven" editors under control, so far. The worst of them is banned now, anyway. Zara1709 (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Lynch/HNPCC
There is interest in restructuring the Lynch Syndrome and HNPCC pages, but contributors are a bit muddled about how it might be restructured in a way that was scientifically accurate and helpful to patients. I would encourage participation in the move request talk page []. After a bit more input we'll restructure the pages, and rewrite the content to be of higher quality. Contributions welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.41.133 (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for peer review of SENSOR-Pesticides article
I've listed the SENSOR-Pesticides article for peer review under the "natural sciences." I welcome the comments and suggestions of all most Wikipedians, but I'd really like a few comments from people that have a better understanding of medical surveillance (or just medicine in general). If you have a minute, please look over the article and offer your comments/suggestions/edits. It's not a long article, so it shouldn't take long! Thanks. Mmagdalene722 (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears is willing to have a look at this? Maybe some other folks could help out as well. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Got some great comments from several reviewers, so I closed the PR. Thanks to all who helped!   MMagdalene722  talk to me  13:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Incidence (epidemiology) needs cites, rewrite
Incidence (epidemiology) has (almost) no cites and is written in a colloquial style which could use some polishing. I'm unqualified to do anything with this myself. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Use google books. Find a text book.  Use deberri and the ISBN to generate the ref.  Add the page number you find the info on to the ref.  This text may work   Hope this helps and let me know if you have any problems.  This should make you qualified :-)  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Rules of surgery
Rules of surgery appears to be an unsourced oral tradition. Does anyone think that there something more to be done with this, or is it a {{subst:prod}} candidate? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me that it would be better added onto some other piece about medical / surgical training than as a standalone article. Perhaps the 'popular culture' section of Internship (medicine)? Egmason (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Please help improve the Psychopathy article
I recently engaged in a major overhaul of Psychopathy: see before, after. (The reason the "before" goes so far back is that I introduced my initial edits after another editor [Editor 2] introduced a lot of material in a different section, with which others disagreed. Editor 3 reverted all of Editor 2's edits, and reinstated mainly what I had done; Editor 2 seems to have disappeared since then.  The result of Editor 3's revert-and-reinstatement was that the article was as it was before Editor 2's undesired additions, plus my additions.  Therefore, "before" is best represented as the version just before Editor 2 arrived.)

The majority of the overhaul consisted of reorganizing existing material according to the layout guidelines in WP:MEDMOS. I then worked on improving the references and discarding duplicates and poor sources. I also rewrote the lede. At this point, I am seeking input at Psychopathy; the article is at least well-organized and can now be improved. There is some additional material at Talk:Psychopathy, under "Unused material" available to be added if it is appropriate and can be sourced (I didn't include it either because it was poorly sourced, seemed inaccurate/POV, or went on too long on one topic (the PCL-R, for example).

Three areas for improvement include:


 * Information about the neurobiological roots of psychopathy
 * Statistics on behavior of psychopaths, criminal population and otherwise
 * Current research and discoveries

Thank you for your input. Alamanth (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good luck there. A review of the article stats for Psychopathy may be instructive.  I won't be able to engage there, due to previous conflicts, but encourage others to help out.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks; I didn't know that resource existed. I pinged the editors who have commented at Talk recently.  Alamanth (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think SandyGeorgia will be shocked to discover that User:Alamanth is none other than our old friend User:Zeraeph - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zeraeph --Penbat (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you think it would shock me, but thanks for the info. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Prevalence of disease in specific ethnic groups
Please see Articles for deletion/Illness among Jews. Newman Luke (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with that article is the use of an unreliable source as a starting point. Comments are indeed invited. JFW | T@lk  21:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Case (medicine): Do we want?
Incidence (epidemiology) says: "Incidence is ... sometimes loosely expressed simply as the number of new cases during some time period, it is better expressed as a proportion or a rate with a denominator. Incidence proportion (also known as cumulative incidence) is the number of new cases within a specified time period divided by the size of the population initially at risk." The disamb page Case doesn't seem to show any articles on "case" in the medical sense (other than Case study, which is about general research methodologies). Do we want an article on "case" in the medical sense (Case (medicine)) ? Do we want to link to something in some existing article? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/case has a law case and a medical case so why not IMHO. Its a commonly used term (& different to a case study) so could probably use an article. Perhaps you could use that definition as a base  Captain n00dle  T/C 17:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Or, link the word "case" to wiktionary. --Una Smith (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that there's really that much to be said about "cases". It probably wouldn't differ too much from the contents of Patient.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Icd9 v codes detail
Aren't these codes found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, rather than in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems? Why should there be a note that the codes are in the public domain? The introduction to this list leaves a lot to be desired. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note is due to copyright. The ICD 10 was created to deal with some of the draw back of the ICD 9 codes.  The ICD codes cover all of health care well the DSM is just psychiatry. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Combining neuropathy articles
I've suggested a major rearrangement of the neuropathy articles at Talk:Peripheral_neuropathy. Please let me know your views. Neurotip (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would encourage members of this project and appreciate it if wiki med members read the shortish talk page discussion regarding merging half a dozen or more articles into the peripheral neuropathy article. Need some medical people to form a consensus either for or against.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  02:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with the direction this is taking, but I'm a bit of a merge-ist by nature, so this note is "fair warning" to splitters: if you think that we need a dozen disconnected stubs instead of two or three good articles, now's your chance to object.  ;-)   WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In partial pre-emption of splitter objections, I should mention that I'd be very happy for Peripheral neuropathy to have plenty of 'See main article' links (as already planned for 'Polyneuropathy'), even if the articles in question are currently small. Neurotip (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hypertrichosis
I am part of a project working on the Hypertrichosis. We have submitted for peer review and already have a few sections and general improvements that we need to make. I was wondering if anyone from this task force would look over our article and see if there are any improvements we need to make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimHAllstr (talk • contribs) 15:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Nerve path template?
Hey all, I have just created this template for nerves: and would like to know if you think it would be at all useful. I shall provide some examples: (I removed these previous examples because I changed the template)

Please message back with any suggestions, and discuss whether this template could be useful. Thanks, best regards,  Captain n00dle  T/C 02:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I also just added another condition: small=yes now makes the text 80% and gives a grey background  Captain n00dle  T/C 02:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You could also add if it contain motor sensory or both. Might be better if the template was long and narrow rather than short and wide.  And thus could go on the left side. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is somewhat redundant to the existing nerve templates, but if it is created, it should probably be in the long and narrow format, so that it's stackable, and is compatible with a greater variety of displays. --Arcadian (talk) 06:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. Jmh649, with motor sensory or both, would that be each nerve or just the terminal branch? Arcadian, there appears to be only one nerve template (Infobox_nerve) which doesn't have an option for root values and only has options for branch to and branch from. Perhaps my template would be useful for nerves who's path may be slightly complicated, for example:

Thanks, best regards,  Captain n00dle  T/C 11:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * p.s. I just updated User:Captain-n00dle/Sandbox4 with documentation so that you can see what the variables are. Regards,  Captain n00dle  T/C 13:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking even more narrow. Were the arrows pointing down rather than to the right and each line hold one nerve / branch / root description. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean were they pointing down? Or were you suggesting to put arrows pointing down? I didn't quite follow you :-s I can make it thinner it is easy, but I used this standard width template: Side box Regards,  Captain n00dle  T/C 20:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How about this:


 * is that what you meant?  Captain n00dle  T/C 20:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Can we use this arrow ↓ Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Like that? and yes as long as all browsers can see it  Captain n00dle  T/C 21:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) better yet. How does it look it the arrow is centered and on a line of its own? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here it is. I can't decide which is better  Captain n00dle  T/C 22:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And center the down arrow and maybe the text too? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I will do that tomorrow, my anatomy homework needs completing by tomorrow ^_-  Captain n00dle  T/C 23:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Could this be added as a field into Template:Infobox nerve? When we have multiple navigation tools in the upper right hand corner, it can lead to navigation issues. --Arcadian (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can try :-) give me a bit of time with that one  Captain n00dle  T/C 22:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Help needed on Megalomaniac paranoia
I have a deletion request Articles for deletion/Megalomaniac paranoia which needs more opinions. As i understand it, megalomania is still a commonly used word by the general public as a synonym for grandiosity but ceased to be recognised as a medical condition a long time ago if it ever was (nothing in DSM or ICD). There are plenty of problems with both megalomania and Megalomaniac paranoia articles--Penbat (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This needs more attention from wiki med project, an editor there is getting rather defensive over this article making erroneous accusations against myself and Penbat.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  17:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL, the responses are making me laugh now. :) You guys are funny.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  00:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In the future, please (also) list (transclude) such discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine. The deletion sorting page is followed by some people here, plus people at related subjects.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Might be worth having a fixed notice about WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine somewhere here? Apologies if there is one and I missed it, but I didn't even know that project existed. --RexxS (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's in the (vertical) navbox at the top of most WPMED pages. Look for "How to help", then "Nominations for deletion".
 * Personally, I don't like keeping it in my watchlist. Instead, I've bookmarked it in a folder with other pages that I like to keep track of (or, in the case of User:MastCell/FDA links, which is also in that list, "pages that I apparently like to ignore").  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Thiomersal controversy
An IP editor (131.215.40.141 and 131.215.6.110) seems to need advice regarding the importance of not depending on primary sources, on the difference between in vitro and in vivo, and on how the dose makes the poison. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Eubulides for showing up to help out (and to Yobol, who was already there). If you need more help, please ping us... but for myself, I'm going to assume that you don't need another cook to help spoil the broth.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Benzodiazepine -- an Austrian invention
Would editors here please have a look into the slow edit war with an IP/newbie on whether the Benzodiazepines count as an "Austrian invention". Colin°Talk 22:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I had already blocked . It's not clear to me whether this is an impostor or a sockpuppet of - my question in that regard went unanswered. It would still be worth having uninvolved editors weigh in on the content question, I suppose. MastCell Talk 22:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a sockpuppet of indefinitely banned Mwalla. He follows me about trying to cause fights after I reverted his vandalism to talk page comments. This has been going on for a year now. I recently got two of his puppets banned. It is not a content dispute, just a hounding thing which has been going on. Do NOT feed the troll, be aware that he is trying to cause drama and disputes, just revert him and I will report him to WP:SPI . See, Sockpuppet_investigations/Mwalla and Sockpuppet_investigations/Mwalla/Archive for background information.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  03:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Struck comment because the sock is blocked indefinitely.-- Literature geek  |  T@1k?  03:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * He followed my contribs over to antibiotic resistance as well..-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  03:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Sceptical Chymist reverted some of Mwalla's sockpuppets and has previously had other sockpuppets of Mwalla banned so that is why the sock master Mwalla is impersonating The Sceptical Chymist.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  04:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If anybody is interested in knowing the motivations behind this, it is sustained disruptive editing on paroxetine article, which has calmed down a bit with the sock blocks. The article has an FDA citation which states that paroxetine (seroxat, paxil) is unsafe in pregnancy and recommends switching to or using different SSRIs during pregnancy and also about suicidal information and edit warring over it, faking refs, using irrelevant refs or primary sources to delete or debunk it. Mwalla's actions, assuming bad faith per WP:COMMONSENSE is likely connected to ongoing multi-million dollar lawsuits against GSK about these issues.,. This drama spilt out onto this wiki med project talk page a year or so ago and I went over to the article and contributed to some of the talk page over there (not realising how political an article it was). I reverted talk page vandalism to user comments and faked refs of Mwalla and I must have had views another editor didn't like, I think I agreed with another editor about it being misleading to general public/lay person to say antidepressants were non-habit forming. The result is that I have Mwalla and his army of sockpuppets and another editor who have started a campaign of hounding me popping up on admin noticeboards, wiki projects and even arbcom (as an "independent" "concerned" wikipedian) alledging all sorts of distortions like ownership (which is ironic because it was I, not them who was forced off of the article), hounding, POV, civilty issues (which I have been during a couple of heated disputes). This then leads admins to accuse me of being the harasser and me the problem editor. The drama with Mwalla and myself might end or at least reduce when the class action lawsuits are finished or else if I give up reporting his sockpuppeteering to WP:SPI. I was content to allow myself to be hounded off of the article because I don't have any big interest in antidepressants but sadly a battleground against me still persists.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  07:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I will never be hounded off of wikipedia though! I am here to stay. :) I have learnt from my mistakes during past disputes and learnt how wiki processes work so I am stronger now against such editors. -- Literature geek |  T@1k?  07:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Colostrum article may be POV/promotional
The article Colostrum has a distinct promotional tone to it, but it appears to be well-cited and I don't know near enough to determine if the citations are representative of mainstream opinion on the topic. Can someone more knowledgeable take a look at it? YeOldeSacke (talk) 07:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no specific knowledge of the effects of colostrum, but I share YeOldeSacke's concern, and indeed fear that some of this may be pseudoscience. My interest is in dementia, so I've looked up the two relevant references:
 * "As our bodies age, they produce less IGF-1, which makes it more difficult to lose weight and can often lead to the development of type 2 diabetes and even dementia.[36]" (Arai et al.) This study found p=0.049 for a higher prevalence of dementia in people of around 100 years of age with lower-than-median blood IGF-1 levels than those with higher-than-median levels. As no attempt is made to correct for the many multiple comparisons in the paper, this is not a statistically significant finding. Even if true, it would be an observational finding and would not establish causality. The reference therefore does not support the statement.
 * "PRP has also proven to be effective in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease[62]" (Bilikiewicz and Gaus). I have only been able to look at the abstract of this paper. The key claim in the abstract is that ""The [overall] analysis at week 15 [the end of the double-blind period] showed a stabilizing effect of Colostrinin on cognitive function in ADAS-cog (p = 0.02)". 15 weeks is not enough to show a stabilizing effect, since no significant deterioration would be expected over this period in the untreated patients. The authors do not claim to have shown any improvement in the treated group. There was also a second primary outcome, CGIC, in relation to which no effect is reported, so again the p-value for the ADAS-cog outcome should be corrected for at least two comparisons. Again, the reference does not support the article's claim.
 * Parts of the article are worded like an advertisement, e.g. "Literally hundreds of scientific, peer-reviewed research studies...", and use potentially misleading wording such as "Colostrum has been used by athletes to improve their performance" which appears to claim that colostrum improves athletes' performance while not actually claiming this.
 * I would also point out that the parts of the article which give cause for concern (diff) are the work of User:Lamasboy. This is a redlinked username, and no contributions have been made to any other articles under this name.
 * The same user inserted an external link to www.icnr.org. On this website, it is claimed that "Medical Research shows that Colostrum is possibly the one supplement that can help everyone that’s ill.", and colostrum is claimed to be "anti-aging" as well as effective against AIDS.
 * I leave other editors to draw their own conclusions, but would support a revert to undo Lamasboy's contributions.
 * Neurotip (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that the website is for the purpose to deceive the vulnerable and gullible into buying their product via deceitful claims. Wikipedia should not be used to promote this charlatan stuff so have removed the external link.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  17:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * One might make similar comments about one of the other external links, which makes similar claims alongside nonsense such as "Antibiotics kill all bacteria in our bodies" and "With the use of colostrums helps support your immune system naturally is your best defense against illnesses [sic]." Neurotip (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I deleted that one shortly before you sent this message. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  18:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] My initial instincts were to try and get this article deleted but on looking at article history it seems to have been edited by many editors since 2004. Perhaps one or two editors have inserted so much distortion that it will need a full rewrite to fix ref misrepresentations. Does anyone think that it should be completely deleted? -- Literature geek |  T@1k?  18:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Struck out comment per search on pubmed and comments by Mastcell, subject is notable.-- Literature geek  |  T@1k?  19:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This article illustrates a difficult area and a significant challenge that Wikipedia faces. There are actually a number of primary studies (mostly in vitro and animal models) suggesting health benefits from bovine colostrum, published by reputable journals. There are also a few review articles (e.g. ) on the topic. Here is the problem: colostrum has advocates in the scientific community, and a research base supporting its use. However, it has not caught on the to the extent that this research has been subjected to extensive critical review. When ideas are limited to relatively small groups, then the result is a volume of largely positive results without much in the way of critical evaluation or context. This makes it hard to present the topic rationally on Wikipedia - any summary of the published literature will be overwhelmingly positive, but yet the application of bovine colostrum remains largely non-mainstream. Reflecting that distinction without veering into excessively positive and caveat-free coverage (as the colostrum article currently contains) is difficult or impossible under current policy. My 2 cents, anyway. MastCell Talk 19:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Another controversial (or difficult) article on wikipedia! I thought when I read the web site and comments here that this was just some weird remedy being touted for sale. I had no idea it had been subjected to quite a lot of research with positive results albeit mostly primary sources. I guess it is a matter of keeping out dubious statements and weak refs etc.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  19:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting situation. Still, the Human consumption section of the article is more than just biased: it's written like an advertisement, the wording is misleading, at least some of the references don't support the relevant statements, and there are statements which are simply false ("there are no side effects from its use"). Nonetheless, the references are not irrelevant and the section could potentially be rewritten. Is there a way of removing the section but keeping it in a safe place until someone wants to rewrite it? Neurotip (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just tag it npov or whatever you think fits and leave it there. Explain your concerns about the section on the article's talk page.  --Una Smith (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have just removed most of the worst offending text and did a brief rewrite.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  09:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

drugs in phase II and III trials
an interesting question about when they are notable has come up on Articles for deletion/ALD518.  DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've listed it at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

pubmed cits to wiki conversion tool, temporary test
I have temporarily set up a web test for my tool to convert the pubmed search results into a list of wiki citations. If you change the "url=" value to your desired search,

http://www.spottext.com/wikimed.cfm?url=integrin+signalling you should get back up to 50 citations in wiki format. While this isn't designed for spamming, it is easier to delete a reference that try to type if by hand.Note you should be able to enter a pmid, http://www.spottext.com/wikimed.cfm?url=19915538 or otherwise return a single entry if that is what you want- your request is forwarded to an eutils search script and should support all features except that I wasn't real careful setting up the web interface so spaces and other things may get mangled. This uses a cygwin bash script to invoke java code and some other pubmed eutils scripts so it is very slow- give it a minute or two to return results. Note this is only temporary for feedback and comments. You should be able to integrate this into your own scripts if desired for testing. Thanks. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good job, beta tested and working fine here. :) I look forward to seeing the final product. Are you planning to give it a web based GUI?-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  12:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No plans, just getting feedback. I'd have to find a more permanent host etc. I'll see if we could put it up as ad supported if there is enough demand. But, I'd also have to fix the implementation ( I'm not even sure if two simultaneous users would get results comingled LOL)

as it is quite slow. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah ok. :) Keep us all updated or me at least. Those tools come in handy.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Any idea where else to post this for more users to try? Thanks. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Great idea and seems to work fine on a very quick test. I hope you find a permanent home for it; it'd certainly make me more likely to reference my contributions properly. Thanks. Neurotip (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, if we can get a little more feedback maybe I can clean it up and put it somewhere. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Cystic fibrosis FAR
nominated Cystic fibrosis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Immunizations and Juvenile dermatomyositis: The JDM article says immunizations are a common trigger of JDM.D
The "Juvenile dermatomyositis" article says immunizations are a common trigger of JDM.

Is that currently regarded as likely true? Or does the article require correction or qualification?

Cause

The underlying cause of JDM is unknown. It most likely has a genetic component, as other auto-immune disease tend to run in the families of patients. The disease is usually triggered by a condition that causes immune system activity that does not stop as it should, but the trigger is almost certainly not the cause in most cases. Common triggers include immunizations, infections, injuries, and sunburn.

(I'm an adult DM patient who has done some reading on PM, DM and JDM, and this was the first time I noticed immunizations being mentioned as a possible trigger.

Since lot of the bad press immunizations have gotten has recently been discredited, I want to verify whether immunizations are still regarded as generally accepted triggers of JDM, or if the theory regarding them triggering JDM is obsolete and alarmist.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.74.94 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 10 August 2009

GA Reassessment of Malaria
Malaria has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.

New article
I am making a new article regarding Limb salvage surgery. If someone could proof read for me that would be very helpful. Since I had this type of operation performed on me I know a lot about it. - <font color="2f4f4f" size="2pt" face="French Script MT">BennyK95 - <font color="1f5f1f"size="1pt" face="Times new roman">Talk  19:14 ,October 5 2009 (UTC)

Limits for advocacy
This edit added a link which that editor has added many times, including before he started editing as a regitered user. In an article of this type (where it's not a biography where links to the subject's website are allowed, even if they're not RS), can we allow such a commercial website with obviously misleading information as an EL? How does MEDRS relate to this situation? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Is not in the area of WP:MED. Try skepticism WP. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:MEDRS does not apply, because it's not being used as a reliable source. WP:MEDMOS does apply, but probably won't be much help, as its primary focus is eliminating charity- and fundraising-related spam.
 * Non-RS websites are permitted in external links: see WP:ELMAYBE #4.  (If they weren't, then the Quackwatch links would have to be removed as well.)
 * Depending on the details, you might consider the applicability of WP:ELNO. You can post such questions to the external links noticeboard.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Craniosacral therapy is covered by MEDRS, which is why I'm here. I also came here because the last time this situation came up, I approached MEDRS and was told to come here because more medically savvy editors are here. You're probably right that WP:ELNO also applies. (We should have a MEDEL guideline ;-) The link does seem to violate "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints which such sites are presenting." (WP:EL) What are your thoughts on this aspect?


 * WhatamIdoing, "what are you doing" by mentioning Quackwatch? Is that a slur? At Wikipedia it's been found to be reliable for its purpose, and its information doesn't "... misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research,..." All mainstream RS consider it reliable and trustworthy. Only fringe and scam sources attack it when it exposes them and defends mainstream science and medicine. You can read more about the lengthy discussions of its reliability here:


 * An Amendment to a previous ArbCom finding has been made. In the process, important observations were made about the use of Quackwatch as a source.


 * Another significant discussion can be found at RS/N: Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery


 * It should be used wisely and on a case-by-case basis, just like all other RS we use here. None of them are RS in ALL situations. Brangifer (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ummm.... unless I'm sorely mistaken, WhatamIdoing was lifting up Quackwatch as a source of useful links that we would not want to lose by placing overly-narrow limits on external links. You might want to re-read his post and begin with the assumption that you agree.  -- Scray (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be her post, actually... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I've misread her comment. It appears to me that she's equating QW with "Non-RS websites". Am I really parsing that sentence incorrectly? BTW, I do agree with all but that one detail. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that the confusion is to do with medical articles and non-medical articles. To make a scientific statement peer reviewed sources, preferably secondary sources (eg review articles, meta-analysis, national or international scientific panels etc) or high quality medical book published are what this project would consider reliable for medical articles. Most contributers here edit articles such as on cancer, diabetes, heart disease and a wide range of other medical topics etc and would not consider using websites such as quackwatch to make medical statements, instead preferring peer reviewed sources in high quality medical journals etc. The article that you are discussing is alternative medicine, not mainstream medicine; I think alternative medicine articles fall under WP:RS rather than WP:MEDRS, except for when discussing scientific evidence, then MEDRS would apply. I think that it also depends on what you are using the source for, a controversy section in an article quackwatch it might be reliable but to make a scientific statement of fact then peer reviewed sources would need to be consulted. For example, one wouldn't use a website such as quackwatch to say the most widely used and effective drug to treat X medical condition is,,,, and then cite quackwatch or a similar website but using it in non-medical articles, eg alternative health articles to make non medical statements then yes it is likely a reliable source; either way it is acceptable external link for articles on quackery. The project which would better be able to address your concerns is this one, WikiProject_Rational_Skepticism as it is more focused on fringe and non-evidence based articles or else WP:AN/I if you are having problems with disruptive editors.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  00:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to make it clear, this thread isn't about QW, and of course it wouldn't be used for the nitty gritty scientific details, but for other aspects of the subject. Any part of an article at Wikipedia that contains statements regarding the nitty gritty details of medical science is covered by MEDRS. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) It's possible some of the confusion is arising from the different requirements for sources which support the text and sources which could be linked to as additional material. On a case-by-case basis, QW may be a reliable source to support text. Nevertheless, unless it is "material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article", it is unlikely to be appropriate as an external link. The simple answer to the original question is that neither WP:RS nor WP:MEDRS are intended to apply to external links. One of the problems with allowing too many external links is that POV-pushers will add them because they avoid the scrutiny of WP:RS by not having to support the main text. Therefore it is important to make use of WP:ELNO to show that a site containing misleading information should not be an external link either. --RexxS (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)