Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 151

Maternal mortality


I don't know if anyone would like to beat me to it, but I believe articles such as Death of Shalon Irving and Death of Lauren Bloomstein are deserving of coverage. As I mentioned here previously, I recently started a similar article, Death of Chaniece Wallace. If anyone knows of other high-profile maternal mortality cases feel free to chime in. I just know that US media has focused on this issue because of poor US outcomes. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure those should be individual articles. I'm not downplaying the tragedy of the deaths, but we're not a news site or a memorial site, and it doesn't appear to me that those women were notable outside of the news generated as a result of their deaths. It seems to me that an article about maternal mortality in African-American women might be a better way to cover this topic in a more comprehensive fashion. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Created Shalon Irving with a redirect to Black maternal mortality in the United States and Lauren Bloomstein as a redirect to HELLP syndrome as an interim or more permanent measure depending on consensus. Given WP:1E that seems a reasonable way of ensure that content related to those women can be found by readers. Klbrain (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm reasonably confident, from a not-in-depth search, that Death of Lauren Bloomstein is a viable article, and have put it on my mental list. I can find several years of sustained coverage, and the NPR/ProPublica article, to quote another source, "contained an unusual amount of detail". Vaticidalprophet 16:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Afraid I don't really agree with attempts to create articles about individual patients whose condition has been emphasised only to illustrate broader points about variation in care. This does a disservice to those whose care was suboptimal but did not come to the attention of journalists. We will achieve much more by including information about variations in care in the broader sense.
 * I have said something similar on the RFD for the Lauren Bloomstein article. JFW &#124;  T@lk  15:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Other stuff doesn't exist" is a poor argument how you're using it. We have tons of 'Death of' articles who happen to be the person whose death for a certain reason caught media attention, and if anything those are far more comparable than "lots of women who've died in childbirth didn't get media coverage". Vaticidalprophet 15:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems a rather American phenomenon and I can't think of many examples in the UK (where there has also been a concern about maternal mortality, as per MMBRACE). Are we ironically looking at introducing systemic bias? JFW &#124; T@lk  15:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, and that's a frankly absurd argument. If it's systemic bias to write one (1) article about an American subject, we may as well shut down the project, because people aren't going to stop doing that. There are many, many articles for "people who died of a not-rare-but-not-common cause and who, unlike most people who died of such a cause, received media attention for it"; Murder of Bella Bond (GA), Leelah Alcorn (FA), Death of Ms Dhu (FA), Murder of Irene Garza (GA), to name a few. Do you plan to take those all to AfD, because they do a disservice to murder/suicide/etc victims who don't have articles? Vaticidalprophet 16:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * In my opinion each article created as part of this effort will need to establish notability. I will stop now, because I think others should weigh in rather than us getting into entrenched discussions. JFW &#124; T@lk  21:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've read about several of these deaths, and I appreciate the editors who are working on Black maternal mortality in the United States.
 * I have wondered how many of these individual deaths will still be reported on in five or ten years. The overall subject, I hope, will continue to get attention for as long as the disparity exists, but I wonder whether the individual examples of the problem will be the same, or if the media will move on to other examples.
 * I therefore wonder whether this information might be more durably placed in a well-sourced list, with substantial descriptions and redirects, rather than individual, and therefore individually disputable, articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Repeating links
I was thinking about one of the problems of reading Wikipedia articles on mobile devices. The mobile web site (not the app) looks like this. If it thinks you're on a desktop device, all the sections are auto-expanded, just like they are on the desktop site. But if it thinks you're on a mobile device, then all the sections are auto-collapsed, and they function sort of like the table of contents. You look down the list and pick the section you're interested in – maybe it's ==Signs and symptoms==, maybe it's ==Cause==, hopefully it's ==Society and culture== (as that's the section I had the most fun researching ten years ago) – but you pick your section, tap on it, and it expands so you can read it. You don't see any of the content that you haven't expanded.

Naturally, since you're skipping to the section you want to read, you're not reading the article straight through, from top to bottom (and almost nobody actually does that, even on the desktop site), this means that you have missed a whole lot of background information, and you've missed a lot of opportunities to hover over links and figure out what the various words mean. I've been wondering whether we should be adding links more generously, maybe even once per section for key words.

I finally looked up WP:REPEATLINK, which says surprised me by encouraging that some links be included more than once, specifically "in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead ." So if you are inclined to be more generous in adding links, then please consider these options. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been talking a ton about this lately, including at a medical GAN and medical pre-FAC PR. I always link at least once per section, and have occasionally done so more if it's a weird word in a long section, or if non-editor readers have re/inserted the link (i.e. there's clear reader demand for it). If I'm writing with jargon, and in this area I always am, then the majority of readers need repeated links to even understand an article at all. (And that's pretending all desktop readers are reading through, which they aren't either.) It's not what the current MOS says; it is, I am sure, what the MOS will say in two years. Vaticidalprophet 02:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the MoS is a bit contradictory here. It begins "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article" but the "first occurrence after the lead" exception would, in any substantial sized article following guidelines, likely repeat nearly all the links of the lead. Something that is therefore routine should not be written as though it is the exception to the rule. Of course we know of many articles where the lead bears no resemblance to a "summary of the body", but that's the goal. The text "if helpful for readers" seems redundant, since that should always be our goal, including ignoring MoS if necessary. I suppose if we want this relaxed or reworded to consider how readers generally use our articles, rather than assuming they are robots or FAC reviewers reading from top to bottom, then we'd need to discuss this at the MoS page. I also think the "once" restriction is too much, especially for very unusual terms. Even if the reader has read sequentially, they may not have felt the need to know (more) when reading the earlier usage. -- Colin°Talk 07:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be good to reconsider these rules at some point. Readers don't benefit from too many links (although reasonable people might disagree on exactly how many constitutes "too many"), and it's also bad to have too few.  But for right now, the word-of-mouth approach differs so significantly from the written rules that I think that merely following the written rules would be a significant improvement in longer articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Opinion sold as fact in Circumcision
Decisive statement in referenced source:
 * "Claims that MC causes psychological harm were contradicted by studies finding no such harm."

Current article text reporting this statement:
 * "Overall, as of 2019 it is unclear what the psychological outcomes of circumcision are, with some studies showing negative effects, and others showing that the effects are negligible.[83]"

Proposed altered version, in order to be in line with WP:YESPOV:
 * "In a review from 2019 it was stated that claims MC caused psychological harm were contradicted by studies finding no such harm.[83]"

Obviously a version of this classical conflict: Do we write "it is" or do we write "XY stated that is was"?

The conclusions after the discussion of the matter on the talk page of the article are here. It appears that further opinions on the controversy are needed. Please have a look at it. --Saidmann (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Annoying opinion, but I don't consider the statement in the source necessarily decisive (although it may be depending on the rest of the paragraph it is in). There's often a little spin in papers and I think it's our job to remove the spin (without being too liberal in our interpretations) Talpedia (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll comment there, as I don't think we should restart the debate here. -- Colin°Talk 15:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Vietnamese tuberculosis
how best to deal with this stub, any opinions would be very welcomed, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1: I could not find the term "Vietnamese tuberculosis" readily elsewhere. So, I propose we rename the stub as "vietnamese timebomb" disease and explain how melioidosis could present with symptoms of tuberculosis and be misdiagnosed as tuberculosis. There are a few reviews like this and this on the topic. We will need to dig further to see if the topic deserves its own page.
 * Option 2: Make this a part of the melioidosis page with any more recent references like the 2020 paper above.Iciplascarfern (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * option 2 is far better--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * cool, I will take care of that Iciplascarfern (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Covid-19 Variant article naming
Please note there is a discussion at Lineage_B.1.617 which sets a precedent as to naming .... Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Plain and simple guide for medical editors
Happened upon this information page. It looks to have potential for editor recruitment in this area, but some thoughts: Is there any enthusiasm for a page like this? If not, what to do with it? If so, how should it be improved? <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 03:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) It's over seven thousand words long. Is this, by any definition, a plain and simple guide?
 * 2) It's clearly outdated -- the opening refers to Wikipedia being around for "ten short years". It needs updating, but I'm not sure what numbers are old and what aren't.


 * It was mostly written by Ocaasi, who is still around and who might have some suggestions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit war at amitriptyline
The Sceptical Chymist and Medhekp, I notice that you're having a bit of an edit war at Amitriptyline this week. Chymist, since you've been around a bit longer, maybe you could help us resolve this by telling me everything that you believe the two of you agree on. That's often a good starting point for figuring out what's important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Heartbeat Bill chart needs update
Could someone who knows how to work with charts, etc., add Texas to the map of states that have passed Heartbeat bills. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @Gandydancer, do you mean the map at the top of the article? Numberguy6 and Nice4What have edited that in the past, and are probably the right people to ask. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the one at the top. If nobody here fixes it I will ask the ones that you have mentioned.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Editathon about vaccines on Sat June 12
There's a series of vaccine-focused editathons by a team of people from WikiDC, WM Mexico, WikiCred, and WHO. We have one tomorrow (Saturday) in Spanish and English together starting at 10am in Mexico City (11am New York), and would love for more Wikipedians to participate. Please join us! Here's the event page with items to address. To register see http://wikidc.org. There will be more of these. -- econterms (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * This is great news, @Econterms. Thanks for making this happen.  Do you have any Wikidata folks involved?  I did a bit of work on Wikidata items for individual vaccines a few years ago (example), and I think it's also an important area.  Google Knowledge Graph and other systems draw information directly from Wikidata. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * We'd love to work on Wikidata! That would fit the occasion nicely.  But no I haven't specifically invited anyone.  Please feel free to spread the invitation.  Thanks for your kind words.  -- econterms (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Econterms, once tomorrow's over, you might ask Asaf (WMF) for advice on finding someone to help you get started with Wikidata. He's done some great workshops (several were recorded). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to restore the Trans Fat article that no longer exists because of a merger with Fat
Hello, I believe the longstanding article on Trans Fat should be restored. I won't repeat the explanation here, if you are interested, you can find the proposal here:

Talk:Fat

Declanscottp (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for greater use of links in articles
We had a discussion recently about including more links within articles, which is now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 151. I have just noticed that a similar discussion is underway at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking If you have an interest in this subject, then please comment over there (to avoid WP:TALKFORK problems). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant
The SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant appears to be a significant variant of concern with a lot of focus, certainly from the UK and I suspect elsewhere, and I would appreciate eyes on this article to ensure WP:MEDRS and best practices are being followed. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * will keep eye on--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Help with medical-related claims in bio.


An editor suggested a reviewer(s) from this project should take a look at Requests #5 and # 7 at Talk:David Edwards (engineer) for the biochemist David Edwards (engineer), the former Gordon McKay Professor of the Practice of Biomedical Engineering at Harvard University, since it involves medical information. The requests that need review are at the very bottom of this section - there has already been discussion about these requests. I am hoping someone might take a look. Many thanks. PC7956 (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * some of the 'rationale' given do not seem objective...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Cladribine COI edit request
A COI user requests changes to the Cladribine article. Details at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cladribine#2021_Page_factual_update and on my talk page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Whywhenwhohow#Factual_changes_on_a_page_%E2%80%93_Request_for_feedback_from_community_before_edits Whywhenwhohow (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * quite a few requests--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Lack of medically reliable sources at Peter Pan syndrome
I've just removed a few very concerning sentences about "transageism", which were cited to sources of dubious reliability that didn't actually support them, from Peter Pan syndrome. The article as a whole appears to use a lot of sources that decidedly don't meet WP:MEDRS. I'm not at all familiar with the topic area, so I'm here in hopes that someone will take a swing at improving this highly-viewed article. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this note, @Ezlev. I am intrigued by how much this article has changed over time.  In 2007, the lead said (in its entirety):
 * "Peter Pan Syndrome is a pop-psychology term used to describe an adult male or female who is socially immature. The term has been used informally by both laypeople and some psychology professionals in popular psychology since the 1983 publication of The Peter Pan Syndrome: Men Who Have Never Grown Up, by Dr. Dan Kiley.  Kiley also wrote a companion book, The Wendy Dilemma, published in 1984. "Peter Pan syndrome" is not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders."


 * It was merged and redirected to Puer aeternus for several years, and then re-split. Now it begins:
 * "Peter Pan syndrome describes one's inability to believe that they are of an older age or to engage in behaviour usually associated with adulthood. This syndrome affects people who do not want or feel unable to grow up, people with the body of an adult but the mind of a child. They do not know how to or do not want to stop being children."


 * I wonder whether the literature actually changed that much during those years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Mamma mia! 86.186.168.215 (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is a bit of an annoyance I've had a few times before, both on wikipedia and in real life. People create "new" psychological diagnoses and phemonema often without much regard for how this fits into existing literature and then popularize them in self-help books or blogs to the point that they start seeping into "folk" understandings of psychology, mental health and psychology and need to be addressed because they are having an impact. These novel psychological constructs can be politically motivated, and can scratch and itch of a particular world view. The liberal will view someone as trapped by a toxic culture, and gaslit by those around them, the conservative will diagnose them with a "victim mentality" and say they are "projecting their personal failures onto others" and must learn to take more responsibility to escape their victim mentality. And so the game is played.
 * Worse these novel diagnoses start leaking into therapeutic psychology, and perhaps psychiatry, particularly when you have a nursing population who aren't necessarily well versed in the more scientific concepts - where they can be used in service of a care-providers personal and politically biases and legitimize these concepts, rather than provide an understanding in terms of more studiend psychological constructs. This is all helped by the fact that psychology terribly complex.
 * Psychiatrists and psychologists don't seem to address these novel diagnoses, probably because they aren't part of the literature and maybe because they have better things to do.
 * I don't really know what to do about it. Wikipedia's job isn't to fix wrongs, but to reflect verifiable literature. The problem is that there doesn't seem to be a literature on these topics other than proponents of the novel diagnoses that has it's own "pseudoscientific" literature body - pseudoscientific in the sense that it is unconnected to the main body of science.
 * What really needs to happen is somone with a PsyD or MD after their name to write an article entitlted "Theoretical understandings of novel psychological constructs" and get it published and peer reviewed (though we should note WP:Parity) Talpedia (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We need several of those articles, and then to have someone summarize them in a review article. (Of couuse, I think this about every subject.)  Does any of this come up in recent textbooks?  Even a sidebar that says "Here's a pop psych concept" could be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was hoping one person could do all the new diagnoses in one go :D. Maybe a bit optimistic. Peter pan syndrome seems better than other pages on novel or historic niche psychology constructs Talpedia (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Advice on new article name (Littmann)
Hi all, I'm thinking of starting a new article on the Littmann brand of stethoscopes produced by 3M. I'm surprised that there isn't such an article already given the near-total worldwide domination of the stethoscope market by the brand, and the fact that other 3M brands like Post-it Note, Scotch Tape and Nexcare have articles. However, I'm conflicted as to what to name the article.

Clearly Littmann on its own is not suitable as it is already a disambiguation page for the surname. The official website and logo use 3M™ Littmann® Stethoscopes whilst other 3M sources also describe it as 3M™ Littmann® Brand, 3M Littmann or just Littmann. I don't think it's necessary to include the "3M" part as that seems to be a corporate branding exercise, so I'm currently stuck between Littmann (brand) and Littmann Stethoscopes for the article name. The advantage of the latter is that it provides natural disambiguation, but "Littmann Stethoscopes" is not the terminology preferred by the manufacturer, which uses either the full corporate name or just Littmann.

What do other editors think?

P.S. if you don’t feel this merits an article at all please say so as well! Elshad (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @Elshad, brand-specific articles are often targeted for deletion, especially if it's a brand that average, non-healthcare editors have never heard of (because most people haven't ever heard of any brand of any stethoscope). Since it is about a product that is currently for sale, some editors may take a very strict view – to the point, in some cases, that they will say that even though there were hundreds of words about the product in a newspaper, they believe that some of the information in the company (e.g., sales figures) came from the company and therefore the whole thing is tainted and non-independent and no better than a press release.
 * I recommend starting with a ==section== in Stethoscope about brands (in general), and maybe turning 3M into a ==section== about their healthcare products in general, rather than just the one product line in a single year. Having established that it's appropriate content for the English Wikipedia, and try to split it if appropriate later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Since "Littmann Stethoscopes" isn't the name of the company, I think the naming convention would be Littmann stethoscope, rather than a capital S or plural, and would be more natural if that was not just a brand but a kind of stethoscope that had become identified by its brand name. That doesn't seem to be the case as they make many kinds. WAID is right about the approach. The section in Stethoscope would (as it does already) concentrate on the technical innovation by Littmann/3M and on the brand dominance (if you can find sources commenting on it) within stethoscopes. But you will need to watch you cover other innovations/brands if possible per WP:WEIGHT, otherwise editors might think you were promotionally editing. The section on 3M would be more on how successful or otherwise the brand has been for them, and less on the details about technology. A problem with filling up either would be that it may produce an unbalanced article, that someone objects to and trims. Another approach would be to prepare an article in a sandbox to get a feel for how much material there is. I think, if you have the material, Littmann (brand) is the most appropriate. -- Colin°Talk 09:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Elshad, you qualify for a free Wikipedia library card. Go to https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ and login.   One of the automatic options, ProQuest, gave me a lot of hits on  .  I imagine that most of it is press releases or otherwise useless, but you might find something useful.  I also found these:
 * most trusted brand
 * list of brand names, plus comment that providers stick with the brand they're used to
 * history of Dr Littmann (pg 15)
 * 3M's branding
 * That last is the least likely to be useful for an article about Littmann stethoscopes specifically, but it is very strong evidence that 3M's branding is (literally) a "textbook case" for branding. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Pierre Kory biography.


The biography of Pierre Kory could do with input from contributors familiar with WP:MEDRS etc, as the subject's controversial views on the treatment of COVID-19 are currently the subject of a rather fractious editing dispute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * curious 'editors' (edit war)...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the emphasis seems to be less about him as a person, and more about pushing the idea that ivermectin is wonder drug for COVID-19 patients, or at least that it's not definitively disproven according to some people's standards.
 * I'm really proud of the way several experienced editors are showing patience with the newcomers. It gets tedious to explain the same basic things to multiple people in a row, but it's wonderful to see it happening. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Relatedly, there is a bio for the "other" prominent ivermectin-for-COVID doctor, Paul E. Marik. At first I wondered if he was even notable, but it turns out to be quite an interesting little bio. I also experienced a rare sense of frustration about the WP:NOR policy, because there's quite a bit that could be said about how this ivermectin push is another iteration of an already-tested science by press conference type of template. The deployment of "fake" meta-analyses is an innovation. Anyway, Marik's Wikipedia article hasn't yet got the attention Kory's has, but it's surely only a matter of time before it does. Alexbrn (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia research proposal
m:Grants:Project/Rapid/Mcbrarian/Wikipedia and Consumer Health might interest some folks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

WHO Fact Sheets
I've been looking at Epidemiology sources for Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. There aren't many recent reviews ( is one). There is the GOLD Report 2021, which has excellent credentials wrt explanation of how it reviews the literature, expert consensus, and transparency of where the figures are coming from. It doesn't say much wrt epidemiology, though is likely useful for many other aspects of that article. Currently the Wikipedia article makes strong use of a WHO Fact Sheet: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It is very attractive to use, being regularly updated and coming from a respected organisation. This draws on their The top 10 causes of death statistics. And that draws on Global Health Estimates: Life expectancy and leading causes of death and disability which offers summary and raw data. Very quickly on that webpage, you are looking at low-level figures for Afghanistan or Albania or ... There are details on the methods and data sources: WHO methods and data sources for country-level causes of death 2000-2019. All of this data is created and published by WHO. And summarised and presented in pretty graphs by WHO.

If you look at The top 10 causes of death it reads like a commentary on whatever the authors thought was interesting about the current figures and trends. The charts have no precise numbers on them, so you only get numbers if the authors thought it worth mentioning in prose. And when their news room revamp the figures next year, they may not care to mention your disease. Ok, so I can look at the raw data? Global health estimates: Leading causes of death has a downloads link and one is to Global Summary Estimates which is a spreadsheet with figures for lots of diseases in 2019, 2015, 2010 and 2000. Could I take those figures and comment on trends? The notes say "Depending on the available data sources, the cause-specific estimates will have quite substantial uncertainty ranges. Explicit uncertainty ranges are not included in this spreadsheet, but will be available from the above-mentioned website, as part of the comprehensive GHE 2019 estimates dataset that includes cause-of-death estimates by age, sex, and year. Due to changes in data and some methods, these estimates are not comparable to previously-released WHO estimates. The "above-mentioned website" is this. Where I can't find any figures on uncertainty ranges.

The WHO Fact Sheet says with confidence "Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of death worldwide, causing 3.23 million deaths in 2019." The spreadsheet above has 3,227,873. A 2013 estimate in The Lancet had an estimate 2931·2 thousands but with a confidence range of (2626·3 to 3215·8), which is large, or as WHO puts it "quite substantial". Can anyone find the figures for the confidence range on WHO data? I don't think "causing 3.23 million deaths" is an honest way of presenting a vague estimate.

Any other experience or opinions on the WHO Fact Sheets? How does that fit in with MEDRS? The studies aren't published in a medical journal. They aren't then reviewed in another article that we cite. There's just a database on a WHO web server, with a fancy front-end, and they have an in-house "news room" of writers who create lay-friendly fact sheets. Looking at journal articles that cite WHO, such as with this link, it seems WHO decided to reorganise their web site in 2020, and broke many links. We become reliant on archive.org. Do we give WHO a special pass wrt the usual publication routes for sources? -- Colin°Talk 11:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * From a browse they seem like very useful, good quality sources to me (the index is here). The website revamp is disappointing, it's not as if an International Organization doesn't have an International Standard available that could have been used stop this kind of link breakage. Alexbrn (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The 10 most-viewed, worst-quality articles according to this Wikiproject

 * 817 (rank)	Inactivated vaccine	38,937 (total views)	1,256 (daily views)	Stub	Mid
 * 979	Loren D. Walensky	34,292	1,106	Stub	Low
 * 48	K. K. Aggarwal (cardiologist)	180,360	5,818	Start	Low
 * 54	Lineage B.1.617	172,026	5,549	Start	Mid
 * 116	Gain of function research	117,258	3,782	Start	Mid
 * 149	Indian Medical Association	105,558	3,405	Start	Low
 * 210	Vaccine shedding	89,078	2,873	Start	Mid
 * 231	Misophonia	84,934	2,739	Start	Low
 * 267	Bristol stool scale	79,729	2,571	Start	Low
 * 282	COVAX	77,059	2,485	Start	Low

WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages--Coin945 (talk) 05:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.617 (Lineage B.1.617)was created a few days ago(took a look and reviewed)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Unneeded translation categories?
"Category:Wikipedia medicine articles ready to translate" and its subcategories seem to be unneeded since the Translation Task Force is inactive on Wikipedia, having moved elsewhere. Should these categories be emptied and deleted? Velayinosu (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that there's a use to their existence; I've recently done major expansions of several articles with pre-existing translations of the lower-quality versions on other projects, and any way I can alert those projects that there are high-quality versions of the article to base new versions off is good. Although there isn't a formalized task force anymore, I see articles routinely being translated to a variety of languages. It's very possible that this isn't the best way to present the information, though; the issues with cross-project communication make it hard to figure out how and where to centralize things like this. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment Robert Lanza
There is a Request for Comment about Robert Lanza that may be of interest to members of the WikiProject: Bibliographies/Science task force. Talk:Robert Lanza. I would encourage members of this project to consider participating to add diversity to the discussion. Sapphire41359 (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSN discussions of interest
The following discussions may be of interest to participants of this project: Best, MarioGom (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding a manual citation for a consensus document
Sent here from the Teahouse.

I was interested to enhance the sourcing in a couple of the ECG articles by adding references to consensus guideline documents, which Wikipedia recommends as a high quality source (as do cardiologists :) ).

The citation tool seems to struggle with these URLs perhaps because they have a lot of authors.

So I manually wrote up one citation, stashed it in my sandbox and added it to this article.

I'd be grateful if anyone could look this edit over, and offer any pointers. My questions are:
 * is there any reason this is not a good choice of citation?
 * have I made the raw edit text too hard to read with this big citation?
 * have I chosen the authors to include appropriately?

If it looks good then in future I think it would be nice to fill out some of the ECG articles with references to the consensus guideline documents where appropriate. Thanks, Edinburghpotsdam (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've given a spitshine to that particular reference's formatting, but in general there was nothing really problematic about it. I trimmed the subtitle from the report and did some minor things to it which you can see here. The only thing of note that will make your life easier is to put the pipes (the various | vertical bars) on the left of parameters names for ease of reading. See also Wikipedia Signpost/2022-08-01/Tips and tricks for how to make your life easier with citation tools. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I definitely think the use of consensus documents in the absence of RCTs quoted in systematic reviews is a good thing. I might be a little cautious about using them for statements of fact quoted with Wikipedia's voice. E.g. "Surgeons recommand applying negative pressure" versus "Negative pressure decreases the chance of amputation". Consensus documents have this nasty habit of turning opinion into fact over time and mixing up the reasons for particular interventions, healthcare workers are no doubt aware of this - hence the existence of evidence driven medicine. We should make sure we are aware of this as wikipedians. Talpedia (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Kratom


A new medical editor is keen to update this article, but has read WP:MEDRS to mean that primary sources are fine for that purpose. Could use additional input at Talk:Mitragyna speciosa‎. Alexbrn (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Cross-cultural synthesis at Indian childhood cirrhosis
drew my attention on Discord to the article Indian childhood cirrhosis, which has an odd synthesis of two apparently unrelated conditions going on. The bulk of the article is about a condition affecting children in India; a small proportion and some of the references are about a condition affecting Native American children. The article is a stub that doesn't justify a true content split, but there's certainly a strange lumping going on, and it would be good if anyone can take a look at the article and expand/split/etc the subjects. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 05:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the 2008 editorial (one of the references) and Indian childhood cirrhosis does seem to be a distinct condition. The Native American content was listed as a variant which I think is misleading, so I've changed that subheading to see also given that there is already an article on North American Indian childhood cirrhosis. Klbrain (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added another article or two, and the pathophysiology of the Indian condition does seem to be distinct, and has a history going back to the 19th century in India. So, there's plenty of 20th century literature to explore if someone was in the mood to expand it. It seems to have been very important in the 20th century (and beforehand), but fortunately is less common now. Klbrain (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

GA Target
As we have now exceeded our target of 300 Good Articles, would a new target of 400 be appropriate? Bibeyjj (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * We've exceeded it? Fantastic! Happy to have contributed. I think 500 might be a nicer number -- half a thousand and all -- even if it's a bit further out. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 11:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Congratulations.
 * Can we figure out how long it took to get the last 50 GAs? That might help us decide what increments are reasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I have checked the statistics tabulated at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Medicine, which are collated and analysed below. The mean number of new good articles per year is 20.1, with a standard deviation of 7.46, and a 95% confidence interval of 5.48 to 34.72. This would indicate that a target of 400 would be expected to be achieved within 4 years, and a target of 500 within 10 years. However, the recent uptick in the rate of good article promotion would indicate a shorter time to achieve these goals. Bibeyjj (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable sortable"

! Year !! # !! ^ !! 3y ^
 * + GA on 1st January or soon after
 * 2011 || 95 || - || -
 * 2012 || 117 || 22 || -
 * 2013 || 132 || 15 || -
 * 2014 || 154 || 22 || 20
 * 2015 || 179 || 25 || 21
 * 2016 || 191 || 12 || 20
 * 2017 || 203 || 12 || 16
 * 2018 || 223 || 20 || 15
 * 2019 || 238 || 15 || 16
 * 2020 || 259 || 21 || 19
 * 2021 || 296 || 37 || 24
 * }
 * One consideration here is that GAs as a whole are much more common than they used to be (contra FAs, which have been a stable proportion of articles for more or less the project's entire history). On 1 January 2011, 1 in 330 articles were GA, while on 1 January 2021 1 in 189 were (per WP:GASTATS). There are both pros and cons about this -- it can, as well as "we're improving more articles to GA status", be read as "people aren't taking enough articles to FA" or "people are waving through GANs" or "we haven't done a GA sweep in over a decade and there are substandard articles clogging the long tail" -- but it's there regardless, and it does change the projections. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 23:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , : I've been thinking about this one over the past couple days, and I think the ideal solution might be to have FA and GA+FA targets, rather than FA and GA targets -- that is, we move this second goalpost to "500 combined GA and FA articles" (while keeping the separate "80 FAs" target). This would incentivize the production of high-quality content in all venues, rather than having a specific GA target, which comes with the unintended consequence of incentivizing stopping at GA to chase a target. It's the best way I can think of to handle the issues I brought up in my last comment re. GA standards and what it means to have a certain number of them. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 04:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's an achievable goal, but why not just pick 400 GAs as the next milestone? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2018 || 223 || 20 || 15
 * 2019 || 238 || 15 || 16
 * 2020 || 259 || 21 || 19
 * 2021 || 296 || 37 || 24
 * }
 * One consideration here is that GAs as a whole are much more common than they used to be (contra FAs, which have been a stable proportion of articles for more or less the project's entire history). On 1 January 2011, 1 in 330 articles were GA, while on 1 January 2021 1 in 189 were (per WP:GASTATS). There are both pros and cons about this -- it can, as well as "we're improving more articles to GA status", be read as "people aren't taking enough articles to FA" or "people are waving through GANs" or "we haven't done a GA sweep in over a decade and there are substandard articles clogging the long tail" -- but it's there regardless, and it does change the projections. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 23:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , : I've been thinking about this one over the past couple days, and I think the ideal solution might be to have FA and GA+FA targets, rather than FA and GA targets -- that is, we move this second goalpost to "500 combined GA and FA articles" (while keeping the separate "80 FAs" target). This would incentivize the production of high-quality content in all venues, rather than having a specific GA target, which comes with the unintended consequence of incentivizing stopping at GA to chase a target. It's the best way I can think of to handle the issues I brought up in my last comment re. GA standards and what it means to have a certain number of them. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 04:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's an achievable goal, but why not just pick 400 GAs as the next milestone? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * One consideration here is that GAs as a whole are much more common than they used to be (contra FAs, which have been a stable proportion of articles for more or less the project's entire history). On 1 January 2011, 1 in 330 articles were GA, while on 1 January 2021 1 in 189 were (per WP:GASTATS). There are both pros and cons about this -- it can, as well as "we're improving more articles to GA status", be read as "people aren't taking enough articles to FA" or "people are waving through GANs" or "we haven't done a GA sweep in over a decade and there are substandard articles clogging the long tail" -- but it's there regardless, and it does change the projections. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 23:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , : I've been thinking about this one over the past couple days, and I think the ideal solution might be to have FA and GA+FA targets, rather than FA and GA targets -- that is, we move this second goalpost to "500 combined GA and FA articles" (while keeping the separate "80 FAs" target). This would incentivize the production of high-quality content in all venues, rather than having a specific GA target, which comes with the unintended consequence of incentivizing stopping at GA to chase a target. It's the best way I can think of to handle the issues I brought up in my last comment re. GA standards and what it means to have a certain number of them. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 04:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's an achievable goal, but why not just pick 400 GAs as the next milestone? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Citation hunt
I made this link for a newer editor, but some of you might be interested: https://citationhunt.toolforge.org/en?id=67dce5aa&custom=23366627

Click the link, and it'll show you a paragraph from a medical article that is tagged with Template:Citation needed. If you want to provide a citation for that, then click the green "I got this!" button, and it'll take you to the correct section in the article, which you can edit normally. Otherwise, click the blue button to see the next in the list.

This link will work for the next 30 days. If anyone likes it, it'll be easy to regenerate it, so just ask. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of interest edit request on primary hyperoxaluria
I have revamped my COI edit request on the primary hyperoxaluria page by pruning the number of suggestions. This is a rare disease and is currently inadequately sourced and outdated (multiple citation needed flags). I have added relevant citations, including recent evidence published in this area. Could someone please take a look at these suggestions and provide feedback? Thank you! Iciplascarfern (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * COI request has multiple problems as ... fails MEDRS(treatment) for example...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * BTW I had taken a look at this article more than a month ago not a great deal has changed in terms of the request..IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @Ozzie10aaaa Thank you for being specific in your feedback. I appreciate it.


 * Considering that primary hyperoxaluria (PH) is a rare disorder with only 1 FDA approved therapy (approved in Nov 2020), a vast majority of the literature, especially clinical results, are primary in nature. The reason I cited the ClinicalTrials.gov reference for the clinical trials on recently approved/investigational therapies in PH is that it is a fairly reliable source (hosted by NLM) for information on ongoing clinical research and is not behind a paywall.
 * That being said, I did find some recent review articles on investigational therapies for PH. They are behind a paywall, but I have added them as references instead of ClinicalTrials.gov to be in line with MEDRS. I have also qualified the statements coming from primary sources as such (e.g based on two studies) and will make every effort to update with secondary sources as and when they are published.


 * Your feedback from more than a month ago was mainly that the 1) list was extensive and that 2) you did not see my logic. I have considerably decreased (by about 50%) the scope of the list since then, which addresses your first point. Regarding your second point, I respectfully disagree with your assessment. The page on PH is fairly outdated and lacks citations for many of the statements made. I am therefore requesting other interested editors to take a look at the request I have proposed. Any specific feedback is always welcome! Iciplascarfern (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The Game Changers


Article about a film that advocates strictly plant-based nutrition. The film's premise is that eating any animal products — including meat, fish, eggs, and dairy — can hinder athletic performance, wreak havoc on your heart, impair sexual function, and lead to an early death. The film has been criticized for using flawed or misrepresented data and promoting misinformation and pseudoscience. Some sourcing issues, although WP:PARITY may apply. Recently the object of talk page disruption by an WP:SPA intent on rebutting criticism and adding positive spin. Could benefit from review by those experienced with WP:MEDRS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

"Excited delirium" / "Acute behavioural disturbance"
These two problematic (medical/psychiatric/forensic[?]) descriptors are highly controversial. Just a heads up (cf a 2020 WT:MED thread here), 86.134.212.13 (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That they are. I think Excited delirium does a reasonable job of addressing the controversy. It's kind of irritating how excited delirium is used both as a forensic term for the cause of death, and has also been adopted as a more general "in an agitated state requring sedation". I created the ABD article to deal with the second less forensic use - partly because editors seemed very keen to make the other article about the controversial forensic diagnosis of "excited delirium".
 * Regarding ABD, I think it's important to remember that medical professionals re regularly chemically and physically restraining patients on the basis of this descriptor. Talpedia (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS lead
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) about the lead sentences at MEDRS. It could really do with input from editors who write medical articles (vs agenda promotion at covid articles). -- Colin°Talk 08:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Because editors involved in anything concerning Covid are unable to simply have a discussion, it has been turned into an RFC with a poll: Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). -- Colin°Talk 17:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That isn't why I made the RfC; I've left my rationale on the WP:MEDRS page and I'd kindly ask that you strike the [b]ecause editors involved in anything concerning Covid are unable to simply have a discussion portion of your comment linking the RfC. Especially since this is a notification to a noticeboard that an RfC is ongoing, it should try its best to be as neutral and factual as possible. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Editors involved in COVID-related articles have an unusually high rate of RFCs, and they are surprisingly quick to start RFCs. For example, it is extremely unusual for someone's first-ever edit to a guideline's talk page to be starting an RFC there, but that's what you did.  I recommend reading the first paragraph of WP:RFCBEFORE, and maybe slowing down in general. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The lack of WP:RFCBEFORE here was deplorable, and has merely resulted in another epic waste of editors' time. Alexbrn (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It was unwise and ill informed. I don't think Colin needs to retract anything. Graham Beards (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's hard even to fathom where or how to join in on the thread/s... Not good. Fwiw, as a medical writer here (and also a long-term contributor to the detailed wording of WP:MEDRS), my (non-)!vote would be undoubtedly for the genuinely encyclopedic 'option 2' (in keeping with the declared intentions of the MEDRS creator Colin, along with other experienced medical editors here). More pertinently perhaps, I feel a pressing need to ask: How to achieve closure? 86.172.7.148 (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Myofeedback
I'm not a medical professional. I've seen a link to myofeedback in Repetitive strain injury. Apparently, it's an actual thing. It seems to not be complete quackery. Again, I'm a layman. Is myofeedback notable enough to be an article? Would it belong in an existing article? BernardoSulzbach (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * it would seem an important topic(but youll need other editor opinions..)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is enough literature on the topic to support an article on myofeedback. Klbrain (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. There's quite a bit of literature to give a rounded view on this topic. @BernardoSulzbach: Do you plan to write this? I'd be happy to contribute. Iciplascarfern (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I won't start it any time soon, if ever. If anyone else does, feel free to notify me. I'd probably contribute a bit, but medicine is not really something I'm normally invested in. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:Medrxiv
Dear members, please find medRxiv template similar to bioRxiv for usage/citing medRxiv preprints. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * very useful template--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Kinds of Sinopharm vaccines


Suriname (northeastern South American country) received 100.000 Sinopharm vaccines on Monday. Does someone know what the name of those vaccines is? Because when I read the article of BBIBP-CorV, it says: "CorV, also known as the Sinopharm COVID-19 vaccine, is one of two inactivated virus COVID-19 vaccines developed by Sinopharm's Beijing Institute of Biological Products". Can I be sure that it must be BBIBP-CorV, or is it the other vaccine? Thank you in advance. Ymnes (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * as you have written on this subject, may I invite you to join this talk section? Ymnes (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This video mentions the Sinopharm vaccine which was approved by the WHO, which would make it BBIBP-CorV. ATV-Networks Suriname Albertaont (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer! I wanted to be sure and didn't want to link incorrectly. Ymnes (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have any better sources. The government website only says that it was donated by Sinopharm. I've only seen BBIBP donations so far. For verifiability, I suggest adding a footnote referencing the video with the justification provided by Albertaont. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ftrebien. Ymnes (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Differentiating Reliable Sources
Hi everyone, I am most pleased to be here. It is my first interaction here and I hope this proves to be the most beneficial forum to me. I will love to know this: In a situation where you have to choose between a reliable health website like webmd and a University website like Johns Hopkins as a source for inline citation, which should come first? GalactosemiaAtaxia (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Welcome to WikiProject Medicine, @GalactosemiaAtaxia. I really appreciate your work to add sources to articles.
 * Have you tried PubMed at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ ? If you filter for "reviews" (plus meta-analyses and systematic reviews, if you want), and look at sources in the last five years or so, then you'd probably find something better than any website.  (Of course, if you're trying to source general/background information, then research papers won't necessarily be as helpful.  But it's where I start, so of course I think it's a good option.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @WhatamIdoing thank you so much for your continued guidance here. I will try the filtering henceforth. However, there is certain general information that journals won't cover.

Possible reference in article, Medical torture that may not meet MEDRS
I was running citation bot and as I was checking a few of the changes it made on my behalf, i noticed on this diff, reference #12 doesn't appear to link to an actual article, but some sort of Category page on the New Yorker's website. Rather, then just remove it, thus leaving absolutely no reference in its place, I would say something here, to see what steps should (if any) happen next. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 00:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Zppix, the actual source appears to be:
 * WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks, I will fix it! Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 18:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Retracted covid-19 vaccine paper
Journal Retracts Terrible Study That Claimed Widespread Covid-19 Vaccine Deaths https://gizmodo.com/journal-retracts-terrible-study-that-claimed-widespread-1847219596

"Even with this decision, some scientists have questioned how the paper got through the peer-review process in the first place. Two of the three reviewers were anonymous, and none brought up any of the issues that resulted in the retraction. The current fiasco isn’t the only one to have involved MDPI, the publisher of Vaccines and many other open-access journals. In its past, some scientists have accused MDPI of being a predatory publisher, more eager about the quantity than the quality of the research it publishes—criticisms that were still being made this year before the latest retracted paper."

2600:1000:B018:7C7F:D82F:9E22:1AFF:3418 (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If I remember right, all MDPI journals are considered unreliable sources on Wikipedia. I guess this just shows that we are right to do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * MDPI journals are in the 50–50 range. There are editors who would rather remove them than go to the trouble of figuring out whether the specific journal is okay.  Looking at https://www.scopus.com/sources is one (NB:  not "the only" or "the best", just "one") way to evaluate a source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:RSP gives MDPI a yellow flag and calls them "questionable"; the general tone of discussions I've observed is to consider MDPI journals on a case-by-case basis. Even in areas with lower stakes than medicine, though, I wouldn't trust them too far; it's not clear that being published in an MDPI journal is generally better than putting out a preprint on the arXiv, bioRxiv, etc. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * An article in an MDPI journal making surprising vaccine claims, with the lead author Harald Walach!? It's hard to think of anything dodgier. Alexbrn (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

LGBT reproduction quality scale
I recently created the article LGBT reproduction and it has not yet been assessed on the quality scale. I did this simply by adding the template to the talk page, so I'm unsure if I didn't follow proper protocol and didn't have it reviewed properly SiliconProphet (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You did well, @SiliconProphet. Anyone can rate any article except for Good articles and Featured articles.  If you like doing this, see WikiProject Medicine/Assessment for the FAQ. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Population based study vs randomised controlled trials?
Which to follow when they disagree? Can anyone answer my question at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ginkgo_biloba about whether aspirin should be removed from the article? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * @Chidgk1, we generally want to find a review article that decides which studies are better, instead of having editors analyze the sources themselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Chidgk1, for more information on the reasoning for this, see also WP:MEDASSESS (as well as WP:MEDRS more generally). 86.186.155.155 (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah thanks - so is this a review article? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5966631/ ? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Chidgk1, yes, that's a review article. It's also in a 60-year-old, MEDLINE-indexed journal, on the Index Medicus, with above-average metrics, which suggests that it should be a good source.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * (And from searching PubMed, it also appears to be the only MEDRS-compatible review article available on the topic.) 86.186.120.193 (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

request for suggestions for article names - I wish to split Human–animal breastfeeding
I have written a brief note at Talk:Human-animal breastfeeding. I note that the article is included under your project umbrella. Would anyone care to offer ideas there? Many thanks.--Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The page is doubtless included under the MED project because of its pertinence to human health (for example, as a means of suckling human babies). And I believe that only content related to human health would fall under MED-project guidelines such as WP:MED and WP:MEDMOS. So I suspect the page-scope / naming issues that interest you *might* not be primarily governed by specific MED-project considerations. Though of course editors here could be grateful to you for alerting them to the question/s, and might want to join the conversation. 86.186.120.193 (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Naming COVID-19 vaccine articles
Frustrated with the current lay titles of COVID-19 vaccine articles that go against WP:MEDTITLE right from its very first sentence, yesterday I posted two RfCs to move two vaccine articles to the INN names:


 * Talk:Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine
 * Talk:Moderna COVID-19 vaccine

Yet, it seems that a large portion of commenters prefer the easy, familiar names used by the popular press, and they frequently quote WP:COMMONNAME.

How would you see the relation between MEDTITLE and COMMONNAME? Which one takes precedence in case of conflict?

Cheers, — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  21:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * @Kashmiri, I haven't looked at the discussions. Are you familiar with the background on vaccine naming in general?  Vaccines usually aren't generic drugs (each manufacturer's version is unique and non-interchangeable, although that should be less true for the RNA vaccines than for conventional types), so they should usually be named the same way you would handle another name-brand product.
 * (Also, you meant to set those up as Requested moves, not RFCs, right?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Yes, but the manufacturing method or number of manufacturers (one vs many) is irrelevant. Of course, there is a difference between proprietary and generic drugs, we all here know it very well I hope. Yet, our naming convention applies to all drugs, not to generic drugs only. These two vaccines have WHO-assigned INNs, and so our naming rule should equally apply in my view. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  08:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The manufacturing method makes a huge difference. These are biologics, not small molecule drugs.  The one that I make with my cell line is not actually identical to the one you make with your cell line. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Surprise surprise, gene therapy drugs have all been assigned INN names by the WHO and are all listed on Wikipedia under these names. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  17:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The general rule is that predictable molecules get an INN but biologics are named by another group: "Within the INN Programme, names have not been assigned to natural human blood products or vaccines. For those groups of biological products, the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization (ECBS) has been adopting the scientific names of the biological products within the definitions of respective requirements."
 * Since these mRNA vaccines seem to have been given INNs, the question on wiki is whether to follow our convention for naming vaccines, or our convention for following therapies that have INNs. Both approaches are nominally "correct" according to our guidelines and long-standing practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

, you wrote "We NEVER use brand names if INN names exist (there is only one exception to-date that I'm aware of, for a very strong reason)."


 * What is the brand-name exception and the reason for the exception? --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * @Whywhenwhohow, I suspect that you are looking for the article about "Dextroamphetamine saccharate and amphetamine aspartate monohydrate and dextroamphetamine sulfate and amphetamine sulfate". The archives are full of discussions about the correct name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I had in mind Autologous CD34+ enriched cell fraction that contains CD34+ cells transduced with retroviral vector that encodes for the human ADA cDNA sequence; the reason appears similar. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  23:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

New creator creating a medical article, please help
Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and everything and wanted to create an article that really should exist. I need some guidance on the sources I've put in and the article's structure. Some other editors recommended I remove the sources, specifically youtube videos of the doctor explaining as they are primary sources that would not be up to par for medical article standards. You can find the draft at Draft:Slipping rib syndrome. --Eswong3 (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I was the editor who asked that Eswong be careful with the YouTube videos. As I understand it, Hansen is a doctor and is established in his field, but I think they constitute preliminary findings and I didn't think them appropriate. Regardless, the condition appears to be notable and should have an article. Eswong3 is brand new to editing, and is doing so in a difficult subject area, so anyone with familiarity who can provide them with better guidance than me—a non-medical editor—will have my gratitude! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 00:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For medical articles, wikipedia prefers systematic reviews because they place research in context (primary sources can rather disagree, and at times a single source may be misleading, we can outsource the contextualization to the review system). You might try using google scholar to find a research paper that discusses the wrok of this doctor instead. WP:MEDRS discusses what the community consensus has found to be a "good" source in terms of what tends to make better wikipedia articles. Talpedia (talk) 08:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * While systematic reviews (and/or meta-analysis) of randomized-controlled/comparative trials are preferred for any specific claims of clinical efficacy, recent review articles from scientifically respected journals are good for descriptive content (e.g. Symptoms, Characteristics, etc, etc) as are textbooks and practice guidelines, etc (for further info, see WP:MEDDEF, WP:MEDSCI, and WP:MEDRS in general).  In particular, PubMed retrieves  several recent review articles  from a variety of journals, some of which could potentially be MEDRS compliant (for example,  in Am J Med Sci). Scattered among the numerous results returned by GoogleBooks for the phrase "slipping rib syndrome", there are some potential textbook-type recent MEDRS (e.g.  ...). At first glance, there wouldn't appear to be many mentions of the condition in practice guidelines.  Hope this helps a little, 86.169.96.61 (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello and thank you for responding, I'm the person that's been working collaboratively with Eswong3 on Draft:Slipping rib syndrome page. Unfortunately, besides the research article of Dr. Hansen's technique by Hansen et al., there isn't much else on the subject that mentions his method of repair besides Rudolph and Nam, who did a case report using resection versus rib plating (Dr. Hansen's method). That is the only article that I can find that cites Dr. Hansen's research, so I do not believe there are other articles currently that mention it. There is no meta-analysis on the subject that mentions his technique that I can find. Would an acceptance path of action be to utilize the study and the case report temporarily until meta-analysis of the topic can be completed? Would we be able to insert a disclaimer of some sort to state it should be improved upon as more research and review is conducted? Or, would it be best to not include the Hansen technique at all? Thank you! Jebbles (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I can reply to that. The short answer is: Any sort of biomedical claim regarding the technique studied in would require appropriate reliable medical sourcing, per the WP:MEDRS guidelines. Period. Given the focus on Dr. Hansen and his work it also appears that both you and Eswong3 may conceivably have relevant conflicts of interest here, per WP:MEDCOI. If so, these would need to be declared. At the same time, new contributors who genuinely wish to help improve Wikipedia's health-related content in an unbiased way are always very welcome here and highly valued (hence the work I put today into my response above, which it seems may have escaped your attention). 86.169.96.61 (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To respond as a watcher of the page to the ABF here, I've been giving Jebbles editing advice on Discord and have absolutely no cause to believe either that they have a COI or that they're ignoring advice on how to discern MEDRS sources. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 13:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In the present case, expert contributions could be extremely welcome here as long as there is no promotional angle (such as this). 86.169.96.61 (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello! I believe I can not ping you so I hope you see this, also pardon I didn't sign before (added it in just now if that is alright), I'm new to this, lots to learn! I hadn't seen your revision of your comment before, my apologies, I believe we may have posted at similar times so it completely escaped me. I just reviewed what you had posted and it definitely helps a lot. I reviewed the links and I believe two in particular may be appropriate, however I will purchase the articles to confirm. If there is no review/meta-analysis deemed appropriate by MEDRS for biomedical claims like you have mentioned, it will be void from the article. Jebbles (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Jebbles (no problem - a forum-typical misunderstanding :) . Really happy to hear you're both independently motivated. Contributing good medical content to Wikipedia is definitely good! 86.169.96.61 (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you! You provided some excellent resources that I had overlooked. The section has since been removed until me, eswong3, or another helpful contributer can find reliable and appropriate resource on it! Thank you again!! Jebbles (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jebbles! 86.169.96.61 (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a heads-up: Before "purchasing" any potential-MEDRS articles, it's probably worth your while to let us know here which ones you have in mind, so that other MEDRS regulars can provide an opinion too to reach a consensus. Decisions regarding the appropriateness of any given potential MEDRS may depend on the sort of claim you need to source (for instance, the stronger the claim, the stronger the sourcing that is required). 86.169.96.61 (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding (and rememering to re-ping ): Also, other editors may be able to help provide you with the pdf without the need for purchase. 86.169.96.61 (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Eswong3 and @Jebbles, welcome to the English Wikipedia. This book is a bit on the old side (8 years old), but it might be useful for supporting background information and history.  Also, if you haven't tried it before, searching under other names (especially the 1919 eponym) might find you more sources.
 * If you add a copy of Template:Medical resources at the end of the page, then I believe that the ICD code is M89.8X8. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * fyi/fwiw, I actually tried playing around with some alternative search terms (e.g. "hooking maneuver"), but *felt* they didn't have the potential to add much.... Errhum... In reality, the associated MeSH term, "Tietze's syndrome" (D013991 in Template:Medical resources), actually adds two or three  (I've been filtering from "since 2016", in somewhat strict adherence to WP:MEDDATE) .  86.169.96.61 (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @WhatamIdoing In terms of the Tietze syndrome, it is separate from what SRS is. We'll try to play around with the wording of the searches and see if anything new pops up. I think the most difficult is the newer method of rib stabilization since there is less literature on it so we may leave it out for now. --Eswong3 (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes (jumping in here :), I was about to add that the 2 additional reviews retrieved using the associated MeSH term "Tietze syndrome" may or may not be pertinent. Of note, MeSH is a controlled vocabulary that is designed for indexing/search purposes (and not for disease classification), which sort of explains the apparent discrepancy. 86.169.96.61 (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding a novel technique, in general it may be necessary to wait until there's some MEDRS-compatible coverage (sufficient to allow some mention at least under ==Research directions==[?]). 86.169.96.61 (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that "Cyriax" might be the more relevant search term. Tietze seems to involve a different set of ribs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @WhatamIdoing Yes, Cyriax is the person who first described the condition. We'll look into some research under that term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eswong3 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @WAID and : Yes, though "slipping rib syndrome" actually maps to D013991 ("Tietze's syndrome") in MeSH. Fwiw, entering search terms in PubMed such as "cyriax syndrome" or "cyriax" doesn't seem to retrieve any additional pertinent medrs within the last 5 years. 86.169.96.61 (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much to you lot for helping! In re: purchasing articles, I had this one in mind as it may have some information that would be essential for the treatment section, as I see from the abstract it differentiates between management of symptoms and definitive treatment for SRS. I am unable to access it in any other way. In addition, I also wanted to confirm wording/appropriateness of how I had written the causes section. I used the reviews available, including two articles that one of you had recommended! I found the book particularly helpful with a really good foundation of information. I understand the reviews conducted on the subject state the etiology isn't certain, but several assumptions/theories are proposed. I did not want to state anything for a fact, but looking at WP:MED and their guidelines I wonder if it can be frowned upon in a way. I'm a bit confused and probably overthinking it, but I just wanted to make sure before I cause havoc! I can provide examples of what is said in the sources if needed for clarification! :) Jebbles (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:Featured article review - Alzheimer's disease
I've nominated Alzheimer's disease, a 2008 promotion, for featured article review. Those with sharp memories may remember SandyGeorgia's post here from Dec. 2020. Subsequently, a subject matter expert took a look at the article, shared her suggestions for an update, then got too busy at work and decided she doesn't have time to contribute here directly. Folks are welcome to share their thoughts at the FAR page on whether the article currently meets the featured article criteria, and if not, what updates might be needed. FARs typically remain open for a few weeks. If we aren't able to bring the article back up-to-code, then the next step is FARC, where folks discuss whether to pull the article from the FA list. Thanks all! Ajpolino (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

"Old" featured articles - Acute myeloid leukemia
Hi all, WP:URFA is working on assessing and updating featured articles that haven't been updated in a long time. The oldest unreviewed medicine FA is now Acute myeloid leukemia, a September 2006 promotion. A group of us are gathering at Talk:Acute myeloid leukemia to plan an update to the article. If you're willing to help, please chime in there. If you're time-limited, even just chiming in with your assessment of the article's outstanding issues would be a big help. Thanks all! Ajpolino (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * @Ajpolino, I wonder if Lung cancer might be more urgent, given that it's scheduled to appear on the Main Page in a month. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Misogyny
Vaginal disease contains puerile and misogynistic vandalism and has done so for the past 10 months and before (see IP edits in article history). --81u (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting in touch, @81u. I've started the Requests for page protection process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Such a useful contribution this from a new editor. Really appreciated here. Thank you. 86.174.206.11 (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I later read in WP:VANDAL that I most likely should have done some things differently, but seeing the history of how statements/information that is void of any medical citations in the section since at least May 2020, I thought I'd get the ball rolling. There's no place for blatant misogyny like that. I've also added it to my permanent watchlist! :) Sorry if my actions were a little bit rash and newbie! Jebbles (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You did fine. If you like checking for that kind of problem, then you might be interested in this link to recent changes for medicine-related articles.  If you see unsalvageable vandalism, then 'undo' it.  If it's just not-so-great editing, then it's helpful if you can fix problems.  If you're really not sure (or just not interested), then it's 100% okay to leave it and go on to your next contribution.
 * As a note of caution: If you undo an edit, and someone else puts it back, your next step should be to get help.  Don't just keep removing it over and over again by yourself.  Sometimes solving a problem takes a team. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

July 21, Today’s featured article, dementia with Lewy bodies
Please watchlist dementia with Lewy bodies for Today's featured article/July 21, 2021. Thanks! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Watched, and thanks to you for the reminder. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 04:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

, it would also help if those of you with a mop would also watch WP:ERRORS on mainpage day, as we get all kinds of stuff from non-medical editors. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMain_Page%2FErrors&type=revision&diff=1034724181&oldid=1034714820 Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC) We're badgered about common English at FAC, and then common English is undone in the blurb because of an ERRORS report.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Biosimilars in Infobox drug
It is proposed to add data point/parameter Biosimilars to Infobox drug. Please take a look at. -DePiep (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Request of participation in a discussion at Talk:ZyCoV-D
Dear members, there is a dispute regarding addition of this information in ZyCoV-D COVID-19 vaccine page. I would like to request members to participate if anyone is willing to help or resolve. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Medical articles written by a prolific hoaxer
I have recently been trying to clean up a web of hoaxes by User:Klaus Bells and their sockpuppets; the context is described at User:Vahurzpu/July 2021 hoaxes. They wrote two medical articles, Hypotransferrinemia and HFE H63D gene mutation; can someone with appropriate medical knowledge look over those and verify their correctness? The article subjects are real, unlike the other articles that were entirely fake, and a spot check didn't turn up any blatant falsehoods. However, this since-deleted section gives me pause, and looking up that section's topic on Google Scholar gives preprints that I suspect are tied to the hoaxer.

Thanks, Vahurzpu (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hypotransferrinemia should probably redirect to atransferrinemia. The sources don't support the idea that it is a distinct condition from congenital atransferrinemia - OMIM and Orphanet list it as a synonym; Pathobiology of Human Disease states "hypotransferrinemia is a very uncommon autosomal recessive disorder where transferrin is very low or absent (atransferrinemia)"; Hemochromatosis: Genetics, pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment has a section titled "Hereditary atransferrinemia (hypotransferrinemia)", etc... several of the other sources are not directly related to the topic. The redirect is a little ambiguous since the term 'hypotransferrinemia' can technically refer to low transferrin from any cause rather than strictly congenital hypotransferrinemia, but it seems to be more commonly used in the latter sense. Spicy (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Delta variant
those interested may find this informative CDC in terms of new variant, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , CDC is a Reliable sources/Perennial sources per and  Run n Fly (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ozzie would never suggest that anyone cite any news article for that kind of information. It was just a convenient summary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Are medical sources appropriate for every article?
This is just a random question but are medical sources appropriate for every article on a topic? I’m just asking?CycoMa (talk) 06:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Is there a point to this particular question, or are you fishing for an answer you can use elsewhere? --Calton &#124; Talk 06:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I had this one discussion with another user. And I told them that medical sources aren’t appropriate for biology related articles.CycoMa (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, that was vague and unhelpful, but it shows that, yeah, you were fishing for a specific answer. If you want an actual answer, try being more specific about content and why you don't think medical sources are appropriate wherever that content is. --Calton &#124; Talk 06:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Fine it was the article sex. Which is mainly a biology article, one user thought it would be a good idea to include medical sources. I told them that it’s probably not ideal to include medical sources on an article like that.CycoMa (talk) 06:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What am I getting a strong sense of déjà vu? The scope of WP:MEDRS is WP:Biomedical information. Alexbrn (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * sorry did I ever have a run in with you before?CycoMa (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am aware of a lot of noticeboard time being burned on what seem like POV pushing expeditions wrt sex and gender, and wikilawyering the scope of MEDRS has been an unfortunate recent craze. Alexbrn (talk) 07:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I have been accused of POV pushing a lot but in reality all I’m doing is trying represent mainstream biology on this topic. It’s honestly very tiring that reliable sources have their own agendas. Making my job alot harder.CycoMa (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m doing is trying represent mainstream biology on this topic.
 * No, you're pushing a point of view that you think represents mainstream biology, and rules-lawyering -- including forum-shopping -- to exclude things which contradict it. --Calton &#124; Talk 15:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The original question seems oddly phrased, but yes, it is entirely possible that material in a biology article like sex could fall within the remit of Biomedical information. That goes for any material in any article that can reasonably be thought to pertain to human health. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay thank you for that. That’s all I need to know.CycoMa (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Question on updating and/or adding Cochrane references
Hello - I've been editing for about a year working to add and/or update references for Cochrane systematic reviews in related medical articles. I am not a medical professional. I am retired and enjoy spending a bit if time with Wikipedia in this manner, my professional background was in behavioral health and addiction services. Recently an editor pointed out to me that I had updated a reference that was "embargoed" until sometime next year. I will admit that I had never noticed this before but upon further research found this to be true in a number of cases. The result was an updated reference where the full text of a review was not available, only the summary. I had thought that the PubMed summary was sufficient in the past and that many, if not most general Wikipedia users would not have full access to articles anyway unless they were associated with a university or medical system. Can someone clarify this for me? I don't want to do this incorrectly but had never come across this feedback before.

Thank you BDD user (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * @BDD user, I haven't looked into this. Are these embargoed by the journal's publisher?  In that case, it might be treated like a preprint that has already been accepted for publication (i.e., basically okay). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they are embargoed by the journal's publisher, here's an example where the full article is not available until 4/21/2022.

BDD user (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't worry about using it for an "obvious" statement based on the abstract. It's not at all likely that the abstract will say "There are no good randomized controlled trials" and the body of the paper will say "Fooled you!  There were multiple trials!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

BDD user, I think the problem is you live in the wrong country! See List of countries eligible for free one-click access to the Cochrane Library in 2017 and Regions with funded provision. I can read the whole paper and also the PDF. Contact me if you want to read it. Btw, when Googling, I found Outside the Box: Why are Cochrane reviews so boring?. Greenhalgh is the author of many great and very accessible articles about medical papers, some of which are cited by or giving as further reading in MEDRS. I thought the comment "the troubling aspect of this enterprise [Cochrane's systematic reviews] is not the few narrow questions that the reviews answer but the many broad ones they leave unanswered.". -- Colin°Talk 09:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Fringe rumors in Dissociative identity disorder
Please have a look at this (produced by a notorious activist). --Saidmann (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Cannabis and sports


New stub: Cannabis and sports. Project members are invited to improve further, thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It's well beyond the stub stage. Congratulations, @Another Believer.  This is a timely article, and I'm surprised that it wasn't created years ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, have you considered Did you know? I think you still have one day to get it submitted, if you want to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't bother with DYK but would welcome someone else to nominate if interested! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Fraudulent Trials in Systematic Reviews – A Major Public Health Problem
"Now I'm seriously skeptical about all the systematic reviews I've ever done". This is horrifying, but also speaks directly to our mission to reflect "accepted knowledge". If systematic reviewers are skeptical of their reviews, where does that leave us, who regularly look to such reviews as the gold standard? Alexbrn (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Shocking! - Thanks for posting, I hope everyone takes/makes the time to watch this. CV9933 (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's more than an hour long. Maybe someone could post an outline of the key points? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Background listening. Some points:
 * Systematic review editors trust papers are not fraudulent, outsourcing verification to journal editors who do not do due diligence.
 * Fraudulent research exists and has got into systematic reviews and influenced medical policy. The example of a revoked NHS guideline is given, and one of the speakers who wrote systematic reviews, gives examples of having discovered fraud in a paper he wrote.
 * Editors are non-responsive at times and not doing due diligent to prevent this. Speakers give example of nonresponse and "losing" data when requests are written
 * Some suggestions are made. Anonymized data should be recorded and available, a reputation economy where journals and individuals are ignored if fraudulant papers are written.
 * Examples are given where there are "open secrets" that work is fraudulent, but this does not show up in literature or retractions.
 * Some speakers cite fear of litigation as a reason that fraudulent work is not challenged. Talpedia (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting stuff. They are kind of asserting that more than 1% of papers results are fraudulent... I'm not sure I believe this. I think there's a bit of conflation of "bad methodolgy" with "fraud" going on at times. This issues affects *all* academic publication - it's just these people are helpful trying to solve it for systematic reviews, to avoid propagating the errors in reviews.
 * I think there's a bit of "don't go in the sausage factory" going on here - insofar as the results presented by systematic reviews may still be "mostly alright".
 * This reminds me of the "Bad Science" stuff that Ben Goldacre has been going on about forever.
 * A few thoughts come to mind here: the idea that there might be knowledge of "good paper/ bad paper" the floats around the scientific community, but is hidden from other people. I wonder how wikipedia could get access to this, and note that it is a recipe for bias. I note that the "completeness" of systematic reviews ties editors hands here - historically they might just "magically" decide to omit bad papers for unknown reasons. I guess they might still be able to magically say "bad methodology". Books and more theoretical works might avoid some of the problems of systematic review, since they represent the views of authors more than reviews.
 * I find the fear of litigation particularly interesting... Talpedia (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I watched the first 50 minutes at 1.5x speed. I agree it is shocking. It sounds like there is a real problem with fraudulent research and most journals making no effort whatsoever to detect it or to investigate for themselves, and not responding professionally to anyone questioning things. Even basics of phoning up the lead author's institution and asking whether or not they actually work there and whether they did such-and-such a trial. Data can be relatively easily statistically analysed for fabrication -- surely that could be outsourced to some team at low cost. One presenter suggested a checklist of things to look out for. I read "The Checklist Manifesto" recently and would agree that is a good idea. -- Colin°Talk 17:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone posted this paper a while ago:
 * and I suppose this is the obvious consequence: if fraudulent papers get published, then the fraudulent results will make their way into systematic reviews.  The systems might be resilient enough to cope with a small amount of fraud, but eventually, it could take over the system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the speakers on the video said clinical guidelines had been updated to give advice that actually harmed patients. There doesn't appear to be any "resilience" at all. Rather than being able to "trust" the results of a systematic review, the whole system is actually built on assumed trust in the good indentions and competence of those conducting the trials. The process for systematic review totally assumes the data is right but merely insufficient on its own. That amassing enough of the right kind of data can be analysed to generate a statistical confidence in the result. But if the data is wrong (fictitious or manipulated) then it completely breaks down. The whole idea of a systematic review is that one has to collect all the data that matches the defined algorithm, to avoid bias. That idea is broken, though I don't know to what degree. We might actually be at a stage in some fields where a review that cherry picks studies from institutions and researchers one personally trusts and knows, is a safer approach.
 * On the other hand, one speaker cautioned that companies that wish to destroy research that goes against their commercial interests (nutrition, tobacco, global warming, etc) already put considerable effort in questioning the papers they don't like. So efforts to improve the checks and requirements needed to publish will get exploited.
 * That people will try to publish invented or fraudulent papers is not surprising: scientists are as human as anyone else. The number of fraudulent texts and phone calls I get, and the rise of ransomware attacks, are testament that there is no shortage of people who lack a moral compass. What is surprising is that journal editors and peer reviewers appear to lack the inclination or ability to perform basic checks. -- Colin°Talk 11:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Doing effective in-depth anti-fraud reviews for a couple dozen papers every month would probably be expensive. Some would be easy to catch, but you'd have to do the full investigation on all of the good papers (and hope that a genuine, natural "data anomaly" isn't mistaken for fraud).
 * (Was the harmful clinical guideline example about the PACE trial by any chance? My impression of that was that there was no fraud involved, just poor methodology and disputed definitions of what's "actually" ME/CFS.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, nothing like PACE - this is in a different ballpark, starting with Mannitol for head injuries. If you're just going to watch a few minutes (and it's worth it), start at 4 minutes in. Alexbrn (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, nothing like PACE - this is in a different ballpark, starting with Mannitol for head injuries. If you're just going to watch a few minutes (and it's worth it), start at 4 minutes in. Alexbrn (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Blind faith in reviews has never been a good thing. However it is cultivated even in some areas here. If you ever scrutinized the flood of reviews by Brian Morris fanatically advocating circumcision you would throw out most of them. What we need is a critical attitude towards all reviews. --Saidmann (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, this is the flip side as covered in the presentation: advocates with an agenda (like this editor) invoking research fraud to challenge research that doesn't serve their purposes. Fortunately the circumcision topic, as well as being comparatively trivial, has a very wide and mixed research base and a plethora of reviews. Alexbrn (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing, it doesn't appear that an "in-depth anti-fraud review" is even approaching the level of sophistication needed to catch the cheats. A straightforward ID check on the lead author would be a start. There are organisations that do that sort of thing all the time as part of employee recruitment processing, so I'm sure that could be built into the process. They had an author of many papers who claimed to work at an institution that was just some PO box and not somewhere patients were treated, and the hospital that supposedly ran the trial had never heard of him nor the trial. And then there were the additional authors on the paper who didn't actually know they were authors on the paper till it got published. So those are some very cheap and quick checks.
 * Secondly, the data itself was obviously corrupt. I'm no statistics expert but the same rules that the tax authorities use to spot people fiddling the books can be used to spot invented data. I think this is elementary stuff that could be outsourced, as everything is these days, to somewhere that labour is cheap.
 * Then with the trials themselves, they got cases where the numbers recruited and the numbers appearing in various tables didn't add up. And that surely is part of any peer review. And trials where you'd expect a certain degree of mortality or drop outs but where the numbers were suspiciously abnormal. A checklist would ask reviewers to confirm those things. It really does actually make one wonder what the peer review process is checking at all.
 * I agree with Alex - skip the into speaker and watch it at 1.5x.-- Colin°Talk 09:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Getting some eyes on Sensory integration therapy
I came across our article on Sensory integration therapy and noticed it needs a lot of work. It appears overly promotional of the therapy and doesn't provide appropriate context, such as the lack of evidence that supports the therapy. Brief searches online have uncovered this highly cited systematic review from 2012 which says that SIT is not evidence-based. I'm hoping someone with better expertise at writing articles and who is more knowledgeable about this kind of topic would be able to adjust this article to better reflect SIT's status. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 06:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It looks like this might benefit from a little more focus on what it is. There's almost nothing in the article that gives you a sense of what this therapy looks like:  whole-body movement (swings, rocking chairs, spinning), scented objects, textured toys, etc.
 * If someone's interested in the subject, it might be faster to ignore what's there and re-write from scratch. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Research fraud - addendum on ivermectin
On the various ivermectin pages a number of med editors have (with some difficulty) been holding the line to exclude numerous recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses showing ivermectin's benefit for COVID. This could be done, apparently flying in the face of MEDRS, because there were documented published concerns about the underlying data and because all the major health organizations were saying, effectively, "not enough evidence". Now this ("the most consequential medical fraud ever committed"?) whereby it seems that one piece of obviously suspect research has been in large part responsible for a hefty portion of the world's population being treated for with an apparently ineffective drug, sometimes in lieu of vaccination. I'm not sure where this all leaves us/MEDRS, or if anything has changed. I am increasingly wondering whether any bold claims of medical benefit (or harm) should always be treated as WP:EXCEPTIONAL when it comes to sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I am holding the line in de-Wiki and used that information there.
 * This is similar to Vitamin D, we should only rely on high-quality sources (Cochrane, NIH, NICE,...). --Julius Senegal (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a good article in today's Guardian about this, which links to this article by the medical student they spoke to. As we discussed above wrt meta analysis, it demonstrates a broken system unable to detect and reject fraud. The student says "Thousands of highly educated scientists, doctors, pharmacists, and at least four major medicines regulators missed a fraud so apparent that it might as well have come with a flashing neon sign". The fraud outlined doesn't require fancy maths and algorithms to detect. A basic checklist would spot many of these. -- Colin°Talk 11:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fwiw (very much just just a imho impression :), actually I suspect overreliance on checklists could sometimes actually be part of the problem; if individuals are being required exclusively to apply standardized checklists to screen studies and extract data (in a quasi-algorithmic manner), it's not hard to envisage how even quite striking tell-tale detail may be slipping through the net. 86.186.168.143 (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect we are both speculating, but you may be right that they could give a false sense of security. I wonder though, that if there are checklists, then the are built with the assumption that the scientists submitting papers are decent chaps and not Bernie Madoff wannabes. I haven't seen any comment that the fraud was hard to detect. -- Colin°Talk 20:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Multiple sclerosis
... is getting hit by edits that don't reflect knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; more eyes would be useful. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Transgenerational trauma
Also called "inherited trauma". This article needs to be cleared of a lot of non-MEDRS sources, and then rewritten using MEDRS if they exist. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 21:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Since this isn't necessarily a biological process, I wouldn't expect too many classic MEDRS-style sources to exist. This is more like "if the previous generation of your community survived the Holocaust/forced assimilation of indigenous people/chattel slavery/etc., things aren't going to be normal for you, either".  Compare the current contents against what the article said five years ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Most of the article is still making direct statements about medical conditions, and if we don't have the necessary sources then the associated content needs to be removed. There are even sections with the specific titles "Symptoms", "Affected groups", "Transmission", and "Treatment". I think you may be interpreting the term "trauma" metaphorically? But even if the "transmission" is not biological, the effects being discussed definitely are, and besides the way that people get specific conditions requires MEDRS sourcing regardless. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 15:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It may not be quite metaphorical, since Complex post-traumatic stress disorder is a possibility for individuals in any of the generations. But it's a sort of group diagnosis, which isn't the DSM's view of the world.
 * I think the people who added all this stuff about epigenetics were actually looking for Epigenetics of anxiety and stress–related disorders. For this subject, it's enough that you grew up in a community deeply traumatized by a past event, to the point that it affected their everyday behaviors.  Think "it's hard to have a normal relationship to food, or broader society, if your parents and grandparents were nearly starved to death by that same broader society", rather than "if a pregnant woman experiences severe stress, that might affect the baby's DNA". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Years in science
Just came across this, the latest in a series of "year in science" articles, which list "significant scientific events". The thing is, looking at the medical listings there is a lot of terrible sourcing for biomedical assertions: lay press, primary sources and even preprints. So Wikipedia says for example

Sourced to the RCT (which reports an "association") and Live Science. Is this a concern? Alexbrn (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a concern. that particular assertion since it's not exactly news (I can personally recall a specific instance of weight loss being used as a selling point for semaglutide back in 2018) and the sourcing is poor. TompaDompa (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback needed on Costochondritis
Hello Wikipedians, I'm a new editor trying to improve an article that need TLC and a bold human. I've been working on costochondritis.


 * I am nervous about the lead section, I tried to update it to reflect everything else based on what's under the <--> things but it feels empty and naked now.
 * The last two paragraphs in the causes section I did not edit. They're primary sources, and I can't really find this information in the recent resources I have.
 * Tried my best to wrap my brain around pathogenesis, as many articles are saying this and that regarding the etiology, causes, pathogenesis, and pathophysiology of costochondritis. It was all mixed up/jumbled and it made me more confused.
 * The diagnoses was basically a list before, I expanded on it A LOT. The image in the section doesn't quite make sense to me because it's mostly muscle related. Does anyone know of any better images that could be used?
 * The treatment section had a lot of the Mayo Clinic cited. I put all these things that I couldn't find elsewhere in recent reviews at the end with the original citation. I was unsure if it should stay or be removed.
 * There are 3 links at the end in external links to Mayo Clinic, MedicineNet, and Patient.Info. I don't know if these are appropriate to keep in the article?
 * The article definitely needs some people to review it, making sure everything is grammatically correct and all.
 * Additionally, the article is rated as Start-class. Can it be re-rated after the improvements I made, and how do I go about getting it done?

This is the first article I have decided to be bold on. I made a talk section on the page to discuss things if anyone has/had any concerns. Thank you. :) Jebbles (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * very well done (as to your last point...Content assessment and as to the 'cause' section this review... ...though a little old may help)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply! I believe that one is cited already, but I worry about it because the way they talk about costochondritis, to me it seems like they might have got Tietze and costochondritis confused? Which is pretty common in research, especially older ones. So I'm very iffy on it. I made some other improvements to the article for the time being, hopefully maybe someone with more experience would want to contribute and improve the gaps in the areas I wasn't able to improve on. Jebbles (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Lung cancer on the Main Page
@Gog the Mild says that Lung cancer will appear on the Main Page on 4 August 2021: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Lung cancer

If you'll be around then, please put the article on your watchlist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Have watched. I note that this is a 2007 promotion not reviewed since that isn't marked satisfactory at WP:URFA/2020 and which Sandy's sand[y]box thinks needs further review. Can someone more adept with cancer than me take a look through? (Been some recent discussion on my talk about out-of-shape cancer FAs.) <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 07:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, none of the main editors, especially User:Axl, have edited the article very recently. It doesn't seem in tooo bad shape though. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like there are about five sources from the 1990s, one that claims to be from 1980 but isn't (because it's a webpage, and the World Wide Web didn't exist in 1980), and a lot from 2006 and 2007. Some updating would help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The Doll British Doctors' Survey ref should remain. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been rather busy so I haven't made time to edit/review "Lung cancer" recently. Some historical context: I undertook a major revision to the article in 2010. This was after a change in Wikipedia's referencing guidance, specifically with respect to use of secondary sources rather than primary. In 2018, I updated the staging section, in line with the new guidance from the major medical organizations.
 * I shall try to make some time over the next few days to review and update the article. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 13:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , @Axl.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Images dated and poor layout
Lung cancer is not in mainpage condition. This article is scheduled to run at WP:TFA in only a few weeks, yet it still needs attention. Having noticed the image issues initially, but seeing there is much more, I am concerned that the article needs a thorough going over and actually should be submitted to WP:FAR if issues can’t be addressed quickly. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  11:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There are onsiderable issues with MOS:SANDWICHing of images in the Diagnosis section that need attention.
 * There are multiple instances of medical advice (WP:NOT- search for the word ‘’should’’). I haven’t looked deeper.
 * Besides the considerable issues with poor image layout, many of the images are extremely dated (eg 1997, and 2011 !!!). Unless someone more knowledgeable is able to update all of the images, several should be deleted.
 * The research section is outdated.
 * There is CONSIDERABLE dated information throughout the article.

premature archival
Why is the archive time here set at only 10 days? This section should not have archived so soon. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  10:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Last year, someone gave this explanation for the 10-day archiving speed: "Even with aggressive archiving, this talk page consistently approaches 200 MB."  (Remember, it's 10 straight days of inactivity, not 10 days from the start of the conversation.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You got me there :) Well, since the page is shorter now, can the days increase to 15, and go to sporadic manual archiving of truly done topics (which has always been my preference, although some folks grumbled when I did manual archiving of clearly done topics). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not? It's often slower this time of year anyway.  I've set it to 15 days.  If it gets too big, maybe we can try 12.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Like ... and then just manually archive anything that is clearly and undeniably ... DONE :0 Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

When is something a review or lit survey, hence secondary?
I was just wondering if the terms literature review or survey which are characteristic of certain types of published papers which can then be used as WP:SECONDARY sources in Wikipedia articles, are well-defined terms or not?

Consider the article Cultural Components of Sex Differences in Color Preference in Child Development by J. Davis, et al. (This question arises in the context of my searching for more secondary sources for the WP article Gendered associations of pink and blue, which has a lot of primary sources in the #Academic research section.) The journal article starts out with a long intro, summarizing and linking dozens of other studies, and anecdotally commenting on their conclusions, and drawing some groups of opinion out of the collection. But about 1/3 of the way down, the article switches gears to describing the study which was carried out by the authors, involving disparate populations in Peru, Congo, Vanuatu, and Australia; the rest of the article is similar to any published study, and clearly WP:PRIMARY in the Wikipedia sense.

But what about that long intro, listing and evaluating all those other studies? Does that make it a "survey" thus WP:SECONDARY as well, and thereofre a better choice for inclusion in Gendered associations of pink and blue than some of the PRIMARY studies already cited there? What qualifies an article as a "survey" or a "literature review"? Is it the absence of any primary study results by the author(s) being reported, and sole attention on other studies, accompanied by an attempt to standardize the disparate data so they can be reanalyzed collectively as a whole? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * @Mathglot, you won't be surprised to hear that this has come up before. The general conclusion is that this is, indeed, technically secondary content.  However, it's usually secondary content that's being selected to prove a particular point.  That point, and the selected content, might be perfectly fair (many times it really is), but there is a risk that it's not.  Consequently, while that section is technically SECONDARY, if you rely on it, the end result might not be DUE.
 * Having said that, if that's one of the best sources you can find, then "better" is better than "worse", and we do not want to make perfect be the enemy of the good. If you're using the best sources you can find (more recent, more scholarly, more secondary, more independent, etc.), and you're being careful about how you use them, then that might be the best approach to that rather narrow and culture-dependent subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , thanks for the nuanced response. I couldn't help thinking, while reading Davis et al., what went into their choice of narrative, and how they were evaluating results of other researchers' studies, and whether there was cherrypicking going on (or cherry-evaluating?). In the Gendered associations of pink and blue article, I think we're exactly in the situation you describe: we have very little in the way of recent secondary reviews, so we may have to gingerly use some of this one qua secondary, and hope for the best, till something more solid comes along. For this article, the Jo Paoletti book is widely respected, afaict, but it dates to 2012 and a lot has happened since then; but I am also interested in the generalized question, which I think you've addressed as well, so thank you for that. If others want to chime in with their ideas or experiences, I'm all ears. Mathglot (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't taken a look at the article at all. With that caveat, I expect that (if you haven't already) it would be useful to look for sources about non-Anglophone/non-Western/non-Christian countries (non-Christian because Marian blue had gendered connotations in Europe).  If you grew up with "pink is for girls", then it might be surprising to discover that most of the world didn't follow that model. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not surprised. Also, it already has some (non-western Christian), and should have some more, but has to follow the studies that are out there. Mathglot (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Mathglot, do you remember the "research" back in 2007 that claimed women evolved to identify and love pink cause they were out looking for berries or needed to best determine skin flushing as a social signal. Covered by The Guardian, New Scientist, BBC News and Scientific American among many others. The original paper is here. Those were the days when The Guardian's own science journalists lived in fear of being thoroughly mocked by Ben Goldacre, and sure enough he lets rip. -- Colin°Talk 08:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about precisely this question for a while, thanks for asking it. In some fields, it seems to the the case that you don't have reviews and paper introductions are picking up the slack (I'm thinking about the machine learning field here).
 * The other thing I was thinking about at the same time as thinking about this was large epidemiological studies and whether these actually show up in reviews and whether they constitute a different kind of paper Talpedia (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

10 most-viewed stubby articles in this Wikiproject
WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages, FYI--Coin945 (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Rapid antigen test
 * Microdeletion syndrome
 * Degloving
 * Inactivated vaccine
 * Christine Grady
 * SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.617
 * Hematoma
 * Folliculitis
 * Tizanidine
 * National Doctors' Day
 * I wish all stubs on Wikipedia were as good as those articles! Dr. Vogel (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Degloving doesn't have the image I expected it to have...not sure if that's for the better or the worse... <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 23:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Microdeletion syndrome has more sources than sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not unusual for a list article. -- Colin°Talk 17:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It almost certainly shouldn't be a list article -- there's at least more that you can say about it than is said here. It's pretty much in my area, so I'll consider trying to expand it. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 20:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Ivermectin and COVID-19
A request was inserted on my talk page to add a review paper about the use of ivermectin for COVID-19. The journal is American Journal of Therapeutics and appears to be a valid medical reliable secondary source. Thoughts?

Cc'ing some folks who have edited relevant pages:, ,

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It's been discussed at length, multiple times, on the article Talk page, and above here too. Bottom line, it's a suspicious paper with undisclosed COIs, based in part apparently on fraudulent research and which makes WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims that would undercut what all the major medical bodies (EMA, WHO, FDA etc) are saying. So it's not being used. Higher-quality research is underway so decent sources should be available before long. Alexbrn (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Calculus (medicine)
I'm tempted to delete the text in the infobox of Calculus (medicine) (recently added by an IP), keeping only the photo and legend, as misleading; but not being a medic would welcome an (ahem) second opinion. 07:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've shortened it.  The article in general needs some work (especially the ==Treatment== section).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks in return. So far as treatment goes, I can report that in the early 1980s, treatment for bladder stone might involve the surgical equivalent of a straightened-out paperclip. Narky Blert (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hopefully it also involved a good deal of anesthesia. *wince* WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Autism
Autism is one of WP:MED’s highest viewed articles, and is a Featured article. This will require considerable collaboration; please watchlist. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * PS, while I am glad to see the long-needed rewrite underway, I am quite concerned that User:Kilopylae might not be familiar with FA standards, and is adding uncited text, and very old sources, so some guidance will be helpful. I am traveling all week, and unlikely to have time to pitch in here.  The article is LONG overdue for a trip to WP:FAR, which I have held off on because WP:MED has so many other articles in need of FAR. Perhaps someone else has time to guide Kilopylae in FA standards and high quality sourcing.  Tackling a medical article of this scope, and one which is so outdated, requires considerable experience, and unfortunately the main author, User:Eubulides has been long gone for many years now. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

this kind of bold move, with respect to a Featured article, might be better reviewed with WP:MED regulars. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Manipulative surgery and faradism
Hi, I have just created a biography of Morton Smart (died 1956), a Scottish physician who is generally described as a "manipulative surgeon" and practised "manipulative surgery" (according to all of his obituaries). He was also an expert in faradism, which was the "use of induced rapidly alternating electric currents to stimulate nerve and muscle activity". None of these terms have Wikipedia articles. I have literally no medical or scientific training, but from what I can gather they are no longer used in the medical profession; manipulative surgery seems to have been a specific form of orthopedic medicine which entailed fixing injuries by using the hands, and faradism was apparently used to treat muscle conditions. Morton himself did not like to be called an orthopedic surgeon. Should we have articles on these topics? —Noswall59 (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC).


 * @Noswall59, this old source says that "manipulative surgeon" is the same thing as a bonesetter. This 1932 book says "Manipulative surgery may be defined simply as the art and practice of moving joints for therapeutic purposes".
 * You might also double-check that he was a physician and not a surgeon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Search for "Smart-Bristow coil" CV9933 (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I am unsure if it is technically considered the same thing or not, but there is electrotherapy. Jebbles (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks all for these responses. His entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography calls him a "manipulative surgeon" and that was his title in the Royal Household, but then the ODNB also mentions that he "did not regard himself as an orthopaedic surgeon ... [and] practised essentially as an orthopaedic physician", so I'll add that to the article. I imagine, based on this book review in Nature (which says "the practice of manipulative surgery is almost a monopoly of the bone-setter"), that this was a sub-practice of bone-setting, in which case it might be worth a brief mention there? As for faradism, yes, he did invent the Smart-Bristow coil – I'll mention that too. —Noswall59 (talk) 07:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC).
 * I have added a short section at Bonesetter if anyone wishes to review it. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 08:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC).

Medical genetics of Jews
Since it also concerns medicine input at is welcome, — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)