Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 10 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

List of archives

Merged Archive WikiProject Preclinical medicine: 1 Merged Archive WikiProject Clinical medicine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 WikiProject Medicine Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171

Image

We are having an issue with a user removing the lead image at cystic fibrosis. Comments? Talk:Cystic fibrosis Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

GA reviewer sought

The article on Management of traumatic memories was improved by an educational project earlier this year. The project has run its course and the original authors no longer seem to be active, so I have submitted it to Good Article review myself. To review, follow the instructions at WP:GAC. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

How is this different than PTSD? We do not even have a page on Traumatic memories. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

More opinions requested at Talk:Cystic_fibrosis

We're discussing suitable and unsuitable images for the lead infobox of Cystic fibrosis, and more opinions and ideas would be very welcome. The conversation is ongoing at Talk:Cystic_fibrosis#Image_in_lead. Badger Drink (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

We need to Wikilink and improve articles related to current fatal epidemic of Shiga toxin-producing E coli (STEC)

"World's largest E coli outbreak kills 14 in Germany" - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/30/ecoli-outbreak-death-toll

Journalists and the general public will be coming to Wikipedia to get information about this.

Our articles on the relevant subjects are poorly cross-linked.

We primarily just need some light editing to add relevant Wikilinks. (Also of course add any additional relevant content.) (If you can edit in another language, please check other-language Wikipedias as well.)

I'll be AFK for a while and can't do this myself.

A few relevant articles - Escherichia coli - Hemolytic-uremic syndrome - Shiga toxin

Thanks. -- 186.221.141.36 (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Will take a look at HUS. We definitely will definitely keep it more encyclopedic in nature than the Guardian "World's Largest". With a grand total of 14 dead. There are a few tropical disease more in need of work.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW hopefully someone can find an image for the page such as the ones seen here [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Found a peripheral blood smear on commons. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't spare much time for content editing (as usual), but I've whipped up some images for the Shiga toxin and HUS articles. Perhaps they can be of use in other Wikis as well. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have made an article on Shiga-like toxin-producing Escherichia coli. Speciate (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

COI

FYI, there's a complaint about Functional medicine at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. If anyone knows anything about this and wants to clean up the article, I'm sure it would count as your Good deed for the day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a disguised advertisement and should be deleted. Looie496 (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Or at least presented as "alt med" which is what it appears to be. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Need contributors !

Hello everyone,

I have just taken part in the conversation on the introduction of circumcision (WHO and CDC statements). I have made suggestions. But the problem is that WP:NOTYOURS is not respected. It must come from other contributors on the discussion page to give their opinion (even briefly). Thank you!--Galateo46 (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Usage by physicians in Europe

They are saying 60%[2] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Negative pressure wound therapy

Hello there, I was pointed to this page as a possible source of help with a draft I've written for the Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) article. As explained at greater length in messages on my talk page and on the NPWT talk page, I've written a fairly long draft that adds a lot of information and reliable citations to the current article, and I am looking for help reviewing the draft and making edits to the article. You can read my draft here:

• Draft Negative pressure wound therapy article

I'd just like to mention that I do have a working relationship with KCI, a firm that develops NPWT technology, and I know that this means there's a potential COI for any changes I make myself. That's why (although I've been careful to follow Wikipedia's guidelines) I'd like to ask that other editors to review my draft and give me constructive comments. Please take a look at my draft and let me know if there's anything that I need to work on, or if you think it might be ready to replace the current article. And if you've got any questions about the material or KCI, I'd be only too happy to answer them. Cheers, BexarTech (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Following the advice of another editor (responding to a help request on my user talk page), I've moved my draft over to the Negative pressure wound therapy article. If you've got any questions or suggestions about the article, I'll be happy to respond on the talk page there or on my user talk. Cheers, BexarTech (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

New / expanded template for procedures and interventions

With the help of a couple of other Wikipedians have improved the Template:Interventions infobox. An example can be seen here on the page Circumcision Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Also have created an info box for diagnostics (labs, imaging, etc.) Template:Diagnostic infobox Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Eyes needed

Jacob Kevorkian has died. Extra eyes on the article will be needed for a while.LeadSongDog come howl! 13:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Project Scope Issues

I see some hightly technical articles with words like pathophysiology of...I propose a policy that all gateway medical articles be accessible to the general public and incorporate highly technical material by reference to a medical wiki. See Online_medical_wiki_encyclopedia Find a cooperative site or propose one to wikimedia. Hierarchy is needed in the infospace, not anarchy. I'm sure those medical wikis need help. Don't reinvent the wheel - connect us to the wheel. Codwiki (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have been in discussion with all the wikis mentioned in the article you link. Most are just mirrors of Wikipedia content ( some without proper attributions ). I have invited them to come work with us and not "reinvent the wheel" as you mentioned. They however where not willing. Thus we are where we are. These other wikis do not have the some templating abilities and image managing abilities as here. If you can get them to join us that would be great. We would appreciated the help. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not just use Wiktionary? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 00:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO we can do all of the above here, but I think that some of us get sloppy (we write for ourselves, rather than for our readers) and some of us may think that since our highly technical sources use a given writing style, then that's the "right" way to do it (or perhaps we're trying to show off how smart we are, or perhaps we're following the source's style because we really don't understand the information and thus can't explain it in plain English). We give some advice about not screwing up this way at WP:MEDMOS#Writing_for_the_wrong_audience, but there will always be a need for people to click that edit button and make the page accessible to our readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes a work in progress definitely and more help is needed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Redlink

In other news, lifetime risk is a redlink, which it oughtn't be. Some five dozen medicine-related articles ought to link to it. I'm inclined to redirect it to a broader article that could be slightly expanded to include a short description of this concept. Anybody have a favorite target in mind? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are several important medical articles that mention "lifetime risk", notably "Ovarian cancer" and "Breast cancer". Perhaps I should just create a stub article? Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather see an article that's halfway between Risk and Lifetime risk. I don't think there's really all that much to say about lifetime risk (maybe a screenful?), but if we added in things {{Main}} summaries of pages like Relative risk and Risk of mortality, we might get a decent-sized article. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the name that is given to the "new" article. It would need to be notable in its own right, and not just a mish-mash of different concepts. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Risk is about every form of quantifiable negative events, and the psychological aspects. It sounds like the medical side of risk is actually not very well covered at all (e.g. weighing the benefits of an interventional procedure against the risks of complications). Lifetime risk is an epidemiological concept that could either be discussed in context in the risk article or possibly as a subarticle.

Do we have a Wiki-epidemiologist kicking around somewhere? JFW | T@lk 10:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Eyes Needed

There are significant changes being made to circumcision that dilute the neutral stance by removing a general global medical association statement on the medical merits of neonatal circumcision in the West.Earthsales5 (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

These statements are in the body of the text. The issue it appears is that some wish statements by regional bodies to appear in the lead. But will let others comment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is what Doc James removed from the lead:

There is controversy regarding circumcision. Schoen states that circumcision provides important health advantages which outweigh the risks, has no substantial effects on sexual function, has a low complication rate when carried out by an experienced physician, and is best performed during the neonatal period.[11] Milos and Fayre state that circumcision adversely affects penile function and sexual pleasure, is justified by medical myths, is extremely painful, and is a violation of human rights.[12]

"The American Medical Association report of 1999, which was "…confined to circumcisions that are not performed for ritualistic or religious purposes," states that "Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice."[13]"

And he instead installs:

"Circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in populations that are at high risk.[11] Evidence among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa shows a decrease risk of between 38 and 66% over 2 years[12] and in this population it appears cost effective.[13] Evidence of benefit in developed countries and among men who have sex with men is yet to be determined.[14][15]"

Doc James last sentence is not supported by the references and is presumptive.Earthsales5 (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd have strongly considered removing the 1999 source, since it's rather out of date. Up-to-date medical sources is usually defined as sources no more than five or ten years old. I believe that the updated information (demonstrated to reduce risk in sub-Saharan Africa, no decent studies published elsewhere) is a reasonably accurate description of the current state of things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The AMA statement refers to global medical association positions, which have not changed. 1999 is only 12 years ago. The basic AMA statement has been affirmed recently by three national assosciations, two in 2010. HIV doesn't belong in the lede of Circumcision.Earthsales5 (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be in the lead? Most of the recent sources about circumcision, especially in the general press, are about the relationship between HIV prevention and circumcision. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Wiki isn't a blog of recent news. Yes, studies show public benefit might be seen where incidence exdeeds 3% in a population (WHO/UNAIDS). That's not the case in the West. Note the WHO/UNAIDS publication is 2007. I.E. only part of Africa, and small pockets (IV users) in the West. Other benefits are recognized as more important, and they are properly carried in the body. Along with full information on HIV and infection rates. So you think it belong in the lede?Earthsales5 (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Review publications are neither "recent news" or "blogs". They are a reflection of scientific opinion on a topic. They form the foundation of Wikipedia sourcing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

User is now blocked as a sock puppet.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment - Santorum (neologism)

• Santorum (neologism)

Request for Comment discussion started, please see Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal_to_rename.2C_redirect.2C_and_merge_content.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe that this article is in the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree, completely out of scope.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Please leave us out of that. What's medical there? JFW | T@lk 23:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Category that worries me

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 1#Category:Idiopathic diseases

This category (idiopathic diseases) is going to be a battleground. I am personally uncertain when to include a condition into that category or not. If a condition is partially understood, does it belong there? If the cause is known but the mechanism unclear, does it belong there? I think it is a very unhelpful category. JFW | T@lk 06:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 E. coli O104:H4 outbreak

People are adding all kinds of Original Research to 2011 E. coli O104:H4 outbreak. Some of the how-to advice is dangerous to the public health. Please watchlist it! Speciate (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. We need more competent people...--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, if someone wants to write an article on toxicoinfection it might be a timely piece. I'm really only aware of the existence and general idea, but in the context of EHEC it might be a good one to have. SDY (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Firefox tool to format PubMed citations

I've been working on a small add-on to Firefox to make it quicker and easier to format medical references. The add-on works like this: you just highlight a PubMed ID number (or any number) in the text of your browser window and right-click (or whatever the Mac equivalent is?) The pop-up menu will contain an option saying: "Format PubMed ID for Wikipedia...". Select it and a box will pop up with the formatted reference (in {{cite journal}} format), which you can cut & paste into the article.

It sounds a bit complex, but I've found it saves a ton of time since you don't have to juggle any additional windows to format PubMed ID's. You just right-click the ID number from PubMed, and you get a formatted reference ready to paste into an article. It calls Diberri's citation-formatting tool behind the scenes, so it won't work if that tool is down, but it seems to be working fine at the moment.

Anyhow, I'm still ironing out a few final issues, and it's not particularly polished, but it works for me on Firefox 4.0.1 (haven't tested older versions). If you're interested, let me know... I may see about uploading it to the Mozilla add-on repository, or I can just send you the installation instructions, which are simple (and the source code, if you like). MastCell ^Talk 17:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Should we comment here then? I for one would definitely be interested in using this. NW (Talk) 17:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Count me in as interested as well. Yobol (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I use Firefox at home. I am interested. Although I am reluctant to "beta-test" developing software. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds great. Count me in! JFW | T@lk 19:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to make it for chrome aswell? I use firefox sometimes but using chrome more and as soon as their new laptops come out I am getting one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Naming

Could people weight in here Talk:Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity#Please_revert_the_undiscussed_move regarding article naming. The question is should we go with the most recent review article and the WHO or use a historical term.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)