Welcome to the Medicine WikiProject! There are only a few rules:
	Shortcut: WT:MED This page is a place to discuss issues related to Wikipedia's medical articles and related policies. If other topics are brought up, it's likely that they will be moved to the relevant sections of Wikipedia. Unless they're really interesting. We are not able to provide any medical advice; please see your local health professional. Questions about medical subjects in general should be asked at the reference desk. Don't shout, remain civil and treat each other with respect. Please add new sections at the end of the page. Threads older than 10 days are automatically archived. Please wash any cups you use and clean up. The 7 o'clock news always has priority on the tv, except when The Simpsons are on.
WikiProject Medicine Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
Merged WikiProject Preclinical medicine: 1	Merged WikiProject Clinical medicine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Medicine WikiProject
General information
Project page	talk
Manual of Style	talk
Reliable sources	talk
Departments  → Assessment (Log) talk  → FA review talk  → Featured topics proj. talk
Task forces (talk) Cardiology talk Dermatology talk Emergency and EMS talk Gastroenterology talk Hematology-oncology talk Medical genetics talk Nephrology talk Neurology talk Ophthalmology talk Pathology talk Psychiatry talk Pulmonology talk Radiology talk Reproductive medicine talk
How to help  → Collaboration of the Week talk  → Nominations for deletion  → Pages needing attention  → Needing expert attention  → Requested articles  → Cleanup listing (top imp.)  → Article alerts talk  → Stub sorting talk  → Popular pages talk
Missing Article Trophy	talk
Participants	talk
Portal	talk
Categories  → Project  → Articles by quality  → Articles by importance
This box: view • talk • edit  · changes

Contents 1 Immunizations and Juvenile dermatomyositis: The JDM article says immunizations are a common trigger of JDM.D 2 GA Reassessment of Malaria 3 New article 4 Request for peer review of SENSOR-Pesticides article 5 Rules of surgery 6 WPMED template 7 Expert needed at Medical uses of silver 8 Use of Combat Medics 9 Discovery and development of HIV pharmaceuticals 10 Please help improve the Psychopathy article 11 Lynch/HNPCC 12 Prevalence of disease in specific ethnic groups 13 Incidence (epidemiology) needs cites, rewrite 14 Case (medicine): Do we want? 15 Combining neuropathy articles 16 Nerve path template? 17 Icd9 v codes detail 18 Help needed on Megalomaniac paranoia 19 Hypertrichosis 20 Talk:Thiomersal controversy#Introduction Neutrality Dispute 21 Colostrum article may be POV/promotional 22 Benzodiazepine -- an Austrian invention 23 pubmed cits to wiki conversion tool, temporary test 24 drugs in phase II and III trials 25 Limits for advocacy 26 Cystic fibrosis FAR

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

The "Juvenile dermatomyositis" article says immunizations are a common trigger of JDM.

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] GA Reassessment of Malaria

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

[edit] New article

I am making a new article regarding Limb salvage surgery. If someone could proof read for me that would be very helpful. Since I had this type of operation performed on me I know a lot about it. - BennyK95 - Talk 19:14 ,October 5 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request for peer review of SENSOR-Pesticides article

I've listed the SENSOR-Pesticides article for peer review under the "natural sciences." I welcome the comments and suggestions of all most Wikipedians, but I'd really like a few comments from people that have a better understanding of medical surveillance (or just medicine in general). If you have a minute, please look over the article and offer your comments/suggestions/edits. It's not a long article, so it shouldn't take long! Thanks. Mmagdalene722 (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears Colin (talk · contribs) is willing to have a look at this? Maybe some other folks could help out as well. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Got some great comments from several reviewers, so I closed the PR. Thanks to all who helped! MMagdalene722^{talk to me} 13:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rules of surgery

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

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

[edit] WPMED template

I don't know how WikiProject templates work. Would it make sense to work a link to WP:MEDRS into {{WPMED}}? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think it's a shame there isn't a way (with my knowledge) to show WP:MEDRS in all edit headers pertaining to medical articles, but I don't think it's feasible. I'd support it being included on a talk page banner, but I don't know where it'd best fit. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  20:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the intricacies of templates, but {{WPMED}} depends on {{WPBannerMeta}} so it could use NOTE_7 to make extra optional information available. On the other hand, the MAIN_TEXT could be simply altered to include a sentence linking to WP:MEDRS. I've made a demo at Template:WPMED/sandbox, feel free to amend it.

I think I should caution that other WikiProjects, which have articles shared with us, may not necessarily agree to us unilaterally placing a restriction on how sources may be used (however desirable that may be). You may wish to reflect on that before implementing changes to the {{WPMED}} banner. --RexxS (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I added a few words to hopefully overcome that issue you just raised. Perhaps not, though. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  00:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

I've changed the sandbox to: Guidance on the style of the article is at Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) and on sources at Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) - as one way of not seeming to insist on our standards if other wikiprojects are involved.

If that's not strong enough, how about expanding Cyclonenim's text to read: This article should conform to the requirements of Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) and Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) unless the primary topic is that covered by another WikiProject.? --RexxS (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

RexxS's current version should be sufficient. Any article that this project covers, no matter what importance, should be written such that it can progress to FA status. For any article to reach FA, it must follow the manual of style and have reliable sources - these are the basis on which WPMED assesses its articles. If the MOS and RS for medicine-related articles is more strict than other guidelines, then our assessment of the article might be different than a project without its own (or with lesser) guidelines. If anything, I would like to see the verbiage decreased. Maybe something like: This page is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. It should conform to the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and contain Reliable sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctors' mess. --Scott Alter 05:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Another possibility is to conditionally show these links if the page is an article. I don't think it is appropriate to have this extra sentence on non-articles (templates, categories, files, etc). --Scott Alter 05:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I like the 'conditional display' idea.

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

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

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

Quite right too! All of our guidelines (and policies - except WP:5P) are descriptive, not prescriptive, in that they document practices on wikipedia and the consensus that exists for them. Their real use (as Literaturegeek points out) is to inform editors that other editors have reached a consensus about a particular way of doing things. I think it would be valuable to have a reminder about what is documented at WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS on the talk page of every article where they are relevant. --RexxS (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with your statement to a first approximation, there are a few bits of policy that are prescriptive, such as WP:COPYVIO and WP:Libel (which ultimately must conform with the Wikimedia Foundation's policy, irrespective of the community's opinion). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's why they're called "policies", not "guidelines". Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, I seem to have stirred up something here.

@WhatamIdoing: "Respect copyright" is part of the third pillar, so it is prescriptive as I already mentioned. WP:Libel is an interesting policy, but is clearly descriptive, not prescriptive. "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory" - if this were prescriptive, I'd be obliged to removed any defamatory statement I saw, which is obviously an unenforceable prescription. What it actually does is document the fact that any editor may remove libellous material, not place an obligation on them to do so.

@Axl: Actually, the only difference between Wikipedia polices and guidelines is the degree to which we may expect exceptions. WP:PG contrasts them in this way: "Guidelines are considered more advisory than policies" and "Where a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, the policy normally takes precedence". Otherwise they are treated the same, and since both represent consensus, neither is optional unless WP:IAR applies. --RexxS (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

RexxS, I respectfully disagree. We seem to have different opinions regarding the meaning of the word "advisory". Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't read too much into the phrasing of WP:POLICY at the moment. There's been a major dispute there (of the kind in which someone says "There's too much about sanctions here" and then proceeds to increase the number of sentences about sanctions) for the last few weeks, and much of the wording is approximate at best. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Okay. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Expert needed at Medical uses of silver

When the article Medical uses of silver (formerly "Colloidal silver") was discussed at the ANI and the fringe theories noticeboard recently, I decided that I might take a closer look at it to see whether it would be possible to identify the core of the controversy and to fix it. Despite some difficulties (I had to file my first request for checkuser), I think I was largely successful. In any case, I don't think that there is much more I could contribute to the article. The most reputable sources are all articles in medical journals to which I don't have access. To improve the article further, we would need someone who does have access to them. So, if anyone is interested: --> Medical uses of silver<--. Zara1709 (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I left the article after it became the site of seriously abusive agenda-driven editing. Since then it appears to have been protected several times due to edit-warring. I had contributed many of the reliable sources to the article when it was titled colloidal silver, and I have pretty complete access to medical journals. I will go back and look again, but I need a break from the madness. Anyone else? MastCell ^Talk 01:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Use of Combat Medics

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

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, so your "argument piece" is not useful here.

I see that you've found the WT:EMS task force; perhaps someone there will be interested in your research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Discovery and development of HIV pharmaceuticals

Now, these articles do look very good, but

• Special:Contributions/Hopur32009
• Special:Contributions/Aslimarati
• Special:Contributions/Hop12009

....have each individually created...

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

...anyone else a little creeped out by that? No talk page development, no edit summaries, no varied article editing - just their article and to wikilink it to other secondary articles. I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth, cause this is generally good stuff, but it is most likely one person. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a group of students from the University of Iceland, nothing sinister :) They've done this before last year (my guess is it's part of the curriculum), and produced some very good articles. See their recent request for assessment at WP:PHARM. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Goodie! Sounds like a cool professor to me. Here's the archive link for anyone interested: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Archive_2#University_project.3F. Thanks for letting me know Fvas. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Please help improve the Psychopathy article

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

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

Three areas for improvement include:

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

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

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

Thanks; I didn't know that resource existed. I pinged the editors who have commented at Talk recently. Alamanth (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think SandyGeorgia will be shocked to discover that User:Alamanth is none other than our old friend User:Zeraeph - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zeraeph --Penbat (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you think it would shock me, but thanks for the info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lynch/HNPCC

There is interest in restructuring the Lynch Syndrome and HNPCC pages, but contributors are a bit muddled about how it might be restructured in a way that was scientifically accurate and helpful to patients. I would encourage participation in the move request talk page [[1]]. After a bit more input we'll restructure the pages, and rewrite the content to be of higher quality. Contributions welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.41.133 (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Prevalence of disease in specific ethnic groups

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illness among Jews. Newman Luke (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Incidence (epidemiology) needs cites, rewrite

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

Use google books. Find a text book. Use deberri and the ISBN to generate the ref. Add the page number you find the info on to the ref. This text may work [2] Hope this helps and let me know if you have any problems. This should make you qualified :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Case (medicine): Do we want?

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

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

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

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

[edit] Combining neuropathy articles

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

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

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

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

[edit] Nerve path template?

Hey all, I have just created this template for nerves: {{User:Captain-n00dle/Sandbox4}} and would like to know if you think it would be at all useful. I shall provide some examples: (I removed these previous examples because I changed the template)

Please message back with any suggestions, and discuss whether this template could be useful. Thanks, best regards, Captain n00dle ^T/_C 02:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I also just added another condition: small=yes now makes the text 80% and gives a grey background Captain n00dle ^T/_C 02:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You could also add if it contain motor sensory or both. Might be better if the template was long and narrow rather than short and wide. And thus could go on the left side.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is somewhat redundant to the existing nerve templates, but if it is created, it should probably be in the long and narrow format, so that it's stackable, and is compatible with a greater variety of displays. --Arcadian (talk) 06:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Jmh649, with motor sensory or both, would that be each nerve or just the terminal branch? Arcadian, there appears to be only one nerve template ({{Infobox_nerve}}) which doesn't have an option for root values and only has options for branch to and branch from. Perhaps my template would be useful for nerves who's path may be slightly complicated, for example:

Superior innervation of Sternohyoid Root: C1, → Hypoglossal nerve → Superior root of ansa cervicalis → branch to Sternohyoid muscle (Motor)

Inferior innervation of Sternohyoid Root: C2, C3, → Inferior root of ansa cervicalis → branch to Sternohyoid muscle (Motor)

Thanks, best regards, Captain n00dle ^T/_C 11:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

p.s. I just updated User:Captain-n00dle/Sandbox4 with documentation so that you can see what the variables are. Regards, Captain n00dle ^T/_C 13:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking even more narrow. Were the arrows pointing down rather than to the right and each line hold one nerve / branch / root description.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean were they pointing down? Or were you suggesting to put arrows pointing down? I didn't quite follow you :-s I can make it thinner it is easy, but I used this standard width template: {{Side box}} Regards, Captain n00dle ^T/_C 20:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

How about this:

Inferior innervation of Sternohyoid Root: C2, C3,  ↓ Inferior root of ansa cervicalis ↓ branch to Sternohyoid muscle (Motor)

Inferior innervation of Sternohyoid Root: C2, C3,  ↓ Inferior root of ansa cervicalis ↓ branch to Sternohyoid muscle (Motor)

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

Can we use this arrow ↓ Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Like that? and yes as long as all browsers can see it Captain n00dle ^T/_C 21:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) better yet. How does it look it the arrow is centered and on a line of its own?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Here it is. I can't decide which is better Captain n00dle ^T/_C 22:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Okay, I will do that tomorrow, my anatomy homework needs completing by tomorrow ^_- Captain n00dle ^T/_C 23:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Could this be added as a field into Template:Infobox nerve? When we have multiple navigation tools in the upper right hand corner, it can lead to navigation issues. --Arcadian (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I can try :-) give me a bit of time with that one Captain n00dle ^T/_C 22:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Icd9 v codes detail

Aren't these codes found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, rather than in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems? Why should there be a note that the codes are in the public domain? The introduction to this list leaves a lot to be desired. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Note is due to copyright. The ICD 10 was created to deal with some of the draw back of the ICD 9 codes. The ICD codes cover all of health care well the DSM is just psychiatry.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed on Megalomaniac paranoia

I have a deletion request Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megalomaniac paranoia which needs more opinions. As i understand it, megalomania is still a commonly used word by the general public as a synonym for grandiosity but ceased to be recognised as a medical condition a long time ago if it ever was (nothing in DSM or ICD). There are plenty of problems with both megalomania and Megalomaniac paranoia articles--Penbat (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This needs more attention from wiki med project, an editor there is getting rather defensive over this article making erroneous accusations against myself and Penbat.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

It's in the (vertical) navbox at the top of most WPMED pages. Look for "How to help", then "Nominations for deletion".

Personally, I don't like keeping it in my watchlist. Instead, I've bookmarked it in a folder with other pages that I like to keep track of (or, in the case of User:MastCell/FDA links, which is also in that list, "pages that I apparently like to ignore"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hypertrichosis

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

[edit] Talk:Thiomersal controversy#Introduction Neutrality Dispute

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

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

[edit] Colostrum article may be POV/promotional

The article Colostrum has a distinct promotional tone to it, but it appears to be well-cited and I don't know near enough to determine if the citations are representative of mainstream opinion on the topic. Can someone more knowledgeable take a look at it? YeOldeSacke (talk) 07:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no specific knowledge of the effects of colostrum, but I share YeOldeSacke's concern, and indeed fear that some of this may be pseudoscience. My interest is in dementia, so I've looked up the two relevant references:

• "As our bodies age, they produce less IGF-1, which makes it more difficult to lose weight and can often lead to the development of type 2 diabetes and even dementia.[36]" (Arai et al.) This study found p=0.049 for a higher prevalence of dementia in people of around 100 years of age with lower-than-median blood IGF-1 levels than those with higher-than-median levels. As no attempt is made to correct for the many multiple comparisons in the paper, this is not a statistically significant finding. Even if true, it would be an observational finding and would not establish causality. The reference therefore does not support the statement.
• "PRP has also proven to be effective in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease[62]" (Bilikiewicz and Gaus). I have only been able to look at the abstract of this paper. The key claim in the abstract is that ""The [overall] analysis at week 15 [the end of the double-blind period] showed a stabilizing effect of Colostrinin on cognitive function in ADAS-cog (p = 0.02)". 15 weeks is not enough to show a stabilizing effect, since no significant deterioration would be expected over this period in the untreated patients. The authors do not claim to have shown any improvement in the treated group. There was also a second primary outcome, CGIC, in relation to which no effect is reported, so again the p-value for the ADAS-cog outcome should be corrected for at least two comparisons. Again, the reference does not support the article's claim.

Parts of the article are worded like an advertisement, e.g. "Literally hundreds of scientific, peer-reviewed research studies...", and use potentially misleading wording such as "Colostrum has been used by athletes to improve their performance" which appears to claim that colostrum improves athletes' performance while not actually claiming this.

I would also point out that the parts of the article which give cause for concern (diff) are the work of User:Lamasboy. This is a redlinked username, and no contributions have been made to any other articles under this name.

The same user inserted an external link to www.icnr.org. On this website, it is claimed that "Medical Research shows that Colostrum is possibly the one supplement that can help everyone that’s ill.", and colostrum is claimed to be "anti-aging" as well as effective against AIDS.

I leave other editors to draw their own conclusions, but would support a revert to undo Lamasboy's contributions.

Neurotip (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that the website is for the purpose to deceive the vulnerable and gullible into buying their product via deceitful claims. Wikipedia should not be used to promote this charlatan stuff so have removed the external link.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

One might make similar comments about one of the other external links, which makes similar claims alongside nonsense such as "Antibiotics kill all bacteria in our bodies" and "With the use of colostrums helps support your immune system naturally is your best defense against illnesses [sic]." Neurotip (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I deleted that one shortly before you sent this message. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

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

This article illustrates a difficult area and a significant challenge that Wikipedia faces. There are actually a number of primary studies (mostly in vitro and animal models) suggesting health benefits from bovine colostrum, published by reputable journals. There are also a few review articles (e.g. PMID 18538107) on the topic. Here is the problem: colostrum has advocates in the scientific community, and a research base supporting its use. However, it has not caught on the to the extent that this research has been subjected to extensive critical review. When ideas are limited to relatively small groups, then the result is a volume of largely positive results without much in the way of critical evaluation or context. This makes it hard to present the topic rationally on Wikipedia - any summary of the published literature will be overwhelmingly positive, but yet the application of bovine colostrum remains largely non-mainstream. Reflecting that distinction without veering into excessively positive and caveat-free coverage (as the colostrum article currently contains) is difficult or impossible under current policy. My 2 cents, anyway. MastCell ^Talk 19:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Another controversial (or difficult) article on wikipedia! I thought when I read the web site and comments here that this was just some weird remedy being touted for sale. I had no idea it had been subjected to quite a lot of research with positive results albeit mostly primary sources. I guess it is a matter of keeping out dubious statements and weak refs etc.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting situation. Still, the Human consumption section of the article is more than just biased: it's written like an advertisement, the wording is misleading, at least some of the references don't support the relevant statements, and there are statements which are simply false ("there are no side effects from its use"). Nonetheless, the references are not irrelevant and the section could potentially be rewritten. Is there a way of removing the section but keeping it in a safe place until someone wants to rewrite it? Neurotip (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Just tag it {{npov}} or whatever you think fits and leave it there. Explain your concerns about the section on the article's talk page. --Una Smith (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Benzodiazepine -- an Austrian invention

Would editors here please have a look into the slow edit war with an IP/newbie on whether the Benzodiazepines count as an "Austrian invention". Colin°^Talk 22:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I had already blocked TSChymist (talk · contribs). It's not clear to me whether this is an impostor or a sockpuppet of The Sceptical Chymist (talk · contribs) - my question in that regard went unanswered. It would still be worth having uninvolved editors weigh in on the content question, I suppose. MastCell ^Talk 22:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

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

He followed my contribs over to antibiotic resistance as well.[3].--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

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

If anybody is interested in knowing the motivations behind this, it is sustained disruptive editing on paroxetine article, which has calmed down a bit with the sock blocks. The article has an FDA citation which states that paroxetine (seroxat, paxil) is unsafe in pregnancy and recommends switching to or using different SSRIs during pregnancy and also about suicidal information and edit warring over it, faking refs, using irrelevant refs or primary sources to delete or debunk it. Mwalla's actions, assuming bad faith per WP:COMMONSENSE is likely connected to ongoing multi-million dollar lawsuits against GSK about these issues.[4],[5]. This drama spilt out onto this wiki med project talk page a year or so ago and I went over to the article and contributed to some of the talk page over there (not realising how political an article it was). I reverted talk page vandalism to user comments and faked refs of Mwalla and I must have had views another editor didn't like, I think I agreed with another editor about it being misleading to general public/lay person to say antidepressants were non-habit forming. The result is that I have Mwalla and his army of sockpuppets and another editor who have started a campaign of hounding me popping up on admin noticeboards, wiki projects and even arbcom (as an "independent" "concerned" wikipedian) alledging all sorts of distortions like ownership (which is ironic because it was I, not them who was forced off of the article), hounding, POV, civilty issues (which I have been during a couple of heated disputes). This then leads admins to accuse me of being the harasser and me the problem editor. The drama with Mwalla and myself might end or at least reduce when the class action lawsuits are finished or else if I give up reporting his sockpuppeteering to WP:SPI. I was content to allow myself to be hounded off of the article because I don't have any big interest in antidepressants but sadly a battleground against me still persists.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] pubmed cits to wiki conversion tool, temporary test

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

http://www.spottext.com/wikimed.cfm?url=integrin+signalling

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

Good job, beta tested and working fine here. :) I look forward to seeing the final product. Are you planning to give it a web based GUI?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No plans, just getting feedback. I'd have to find a more permanent host etc. I'll see if we could put it up as ad supported if there is enough demand. But, I'd also have to fix the implementation ( I'm not even sure if two simultaneous users would get results comingled LOL)

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

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

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

Great idea and seems to work fine on a very quick test. I hope you find a permanent home for it; it'd certainly make me more likely to reference my contributions properly. Thanks. Neurotip (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, if we can get a little more feedback maybe I can clean it up and put it somewhere. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] drugs in phase II and III trials

an interesting question about when they are notable has come up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ALD518. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Limits for advocacy

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

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

WP:MEDRS does not apply, because it's not being used as a reliable source. WP:MEDMOS#External_links does apply, but probably won't be much help, as its primary focus is eliminating charity- and fundraising-related spam.

Non-RS websites are permitted in external links: see WP:ELMAYBE #4. (If they weren't, then the Quackwatch links would have to be removed as well.)

Depending on the details, you might consider the applicability of WP:ELNO#EL2. You can post such questions to the external links noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Craniosacral therapy is covered by MEDRS, which is why I'm here. I also came here because the last time this situation came up, I approached MEDRS and was told to come here because more medically savvy editors are here. You're probably right that WP:ELNO#EL2 also applies. (We should have a MEDEL guideline ;-) The link does seem to violate "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints which such sites are presenting." (WP:EL) What are your thoughts on this aspect?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Cystic fibrosis FAR

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