Misplaced Pages

Archives 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, 172, 173, 174 This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Centralized discussion Village pumps policy tech proposals idea lab WMF misc Refining the administrator elections process Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace Voluntary RfAs after resignation Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE LLM/chatbot comments in discussions For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard. view edit history watch archive talk purge

Glycyrrhetinic acid

Hi, rofl, yet again I need to ask your opinion. The glycyrrhetinic acid page's name does not reflect the INN of this drug which is enoxolone. Do you think I would be justified in moving the page? Fuse809 (talk) 08:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes move to the INN. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yet again there's a redirect page so I need you to do the move, please. Fuse809 (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you must have missed this message as I see you've done edits since I left this so I'm hoping a second message will grab your attention. Fuse809 (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I moved it already? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, rofl. Sorry. Didn't see that. Thanks. Fuse809 (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the response

Dr. James, many thanks for your response.

May I email you to continue this discussion? What is your address? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roguemed87 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

These a button to the left that says email user. If you click on it it will email me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Reverted edit

Hi Jmh649, can you revert your edit ? See Talk:Birth_control#Reverted_edit Thanks, KVDP (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I replied. I do not think that image is due weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Use of MEDRS and durability

The arguments here seem to be a bit of a stretch. Any suggestions? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

If the policies are from 50 years ago. We need to at least say they are. But it looks like this was done. What is the concern? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Question about class of our group project

Official title of the class is Movement Anatomy. We're learning about the muscles in our body and which movements they cause. Our group project was to choose a research topic dealing with muscles and/or overall movement. Our group chose cerebral palsy. Shankguam (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Probably a good place to start is by reviewing the content that is already there. Also we have a number of guidelines including WP:MEDRS, WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDHOW to help. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS talk page

I raised a question over there on which your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. At the bottom of the page, MEDRS and Toxicology. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Medical question

Hi. I see you are an M.D. I go to 12th grade of High School, a some-kind-of medical secondary school where we go to become nurses. (There are also some other departments such as those for laboratory technicians, pharmaceutical technicians, sanitary technicians, look up.) Anyway, I had this oral examination in Internal medicine, I didn't know the answer for this question ″What can be seen by biopsy in Chrohn’s disease?″. So I'm looking for a reference. I couldn't find the right answer, so can you give me one? Cheers, Alex 21:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The sections on pathophysiology and diagnosis discuss this to some extent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

• Forum: Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?

• Featured content: Odin salutes you

• WikiProject report: Racking brains with neuroscience

• Special report: Diary of a protester: Wikimedian perishes in Ukrainian unrest

• News and notes: Wikimedia chapters and communities challenge Commons' URAA policy

• Traffic report: Snow big deal

• Recent research: CSCW '14 retrospective; the impact of SOPA on deletionism

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Why can't I refute a secondary source with a primary source?

Conversation moved.

Please read WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

hi

hi, you left a message for me earlier? Usong725 (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

re reverted edits on "Diabetic ketoacidosis‎" and "Osteonecrosis of the jaw‎"

Hi, can you please explain why the edits on the said topics were reverted? Thank you Usong725 (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Usong725, the content was based on sources that were not strong enough for medical content in an encyclopedia. James suggested that you read WP:MEDRS, which outlines the requirements. I suggest the same. JFW | T@lk 10:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Early detection

Hi Doc. Thanks for your message... you're right. Regarding the sentence "Unfortunately, because of a lack of early detection strategies, the disease is usually advanced when the diagnosis is made", there are two options. I could change it to something like "Unfortunately, because most countries do not perform routine screening for gastric cancer, the disease is usually advanced when the diagnosis is made" or I could just change it back to "Unfortunately, because early stomach cancer causes few symptoms, the disease is usually advanced when the diagnosis is made." The first option sounds like a plug for gastric endoscopes, so I'll go with option 2. Hope that's okay. TTFN, Alan Merrit (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

How common does the disease need to be in a population before screening makes sense? This should be discussed in the prevention / screening section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for replying. I'm not an expert but it's my understanding prevalence of the disease within the target population is just one of many variables considered when deciding whether or not to screen. Other factors include sensitivity, specificity, safety, acceptability, cost of the screening test within the target population, also safety, efficacy, & cost of the treatment for the disease within the target population, fiscal resources of the country, whether healthcare in the country is predominantly private/public etc. Over time, screening tests and treatments both improve, and there comes a point when it makes sense to screen. I suspect this might be too complex an issue to include within the gastric carcinoma article. Up to you though. Have a good weekend. Alan Merrit (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree completely. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Ultimatum

'Dumbledore says people find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right,' said Hermione, of J. K. Rowling fame, in the Half-Blood Prince, on page ninety-five.

If you want to sell optimism and likely ultimate causes, then you will accept cancellation of your work.
If you want to sell drugs and doubt, then you will keep to your version of baby colic.
Bohgosity BumaskiL 75.152.124.107 (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is here to reflect the best available which I define as review articles and major medical textbooks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

According to Kelly Bonyata, a respected International Board Certified Lactation Consultant, who like wikipedia writes sourced scientific advice literature (Bachelor of Science), Cow's milk iz the most common food sensitivity for breast feeders to avoid passing on to nurslings. Like you, she haz direct experience with baby colic. Unlike you, she iz prepared to counsel mothers to read labels and avoid casseinates and whey. This research supports her counselling with the gold standard of experiemental design. You do not. Doctors like pills, because pills get results quickly and effectively when they work at all. Does that put you in a conflict of interest? I find you to be out of your field, because you practise emergency medicine, and we are talking about pediatrics. Why are you supporting your position with policy instead of science? Surely you can see that reviewers would need to be very ignorant of experimental design to say anything more than "Feeding changes usually are not advised.", which iz quite different from what you said, "Dietary changes by infants are generally not needed". Saying that physicians usually do not diet-counsel and saying that it does not need to be done are different things. Bohgosity BumaskiL 75.152.124.54 (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Simply find recent review articles in high quality sources for refs per WP:MEDRS. We must paraphrase. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

How came you to believe that guidelines are more authoritative than rigorous scientific method? 75.152.124.54 (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Kindly go bother someone else. If out are not interested in constructive discussion find another website or start your own blog. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments adjusted here

Okay so why do we use review articles rather than primary sources here at WikiProject Medicine? Review articles generally give a better overview of all the literature on a topic. Some studies find positive results other find negative results. Good review articles take all these into account and give them proper balance. Systematic reviews are deemed to be the best source of information for specific questions. Literature reviews are better for a general overview. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Man with hole in pocket feel cocky all day. Thanks. I started a web site and writing articles with points on USENET over fifteen years ago. I started blogging on facebook about five years ago. I only come to wikipedia when my content seems to be under attack, or when I find strong evidence for something on pubmed that really should hav more exposure. When it's more exposure for important information I want, I can usually change one line that iz already supported, and add a citation in a clause. I also fill in citation requests. I do hav persistent citations on wikipedia. I do not want to tell you where they are, because you are a deletionist with a heavy and authoritative knife. I do not blame you for trying to simplify and cut down baby colic. Unfortunately, quartering it, and cutting out my content based upon one review that found a lot of inconclusive evidence for just about everything it considered wuz too much. Perhaps you should start an independent writing career. I think your speaking career iz more useful, though, especially if there can be a greater degree of "we" in this discussion. I am not a pediatrician. I fell in with a group of wimin on facebook who are very wary of pediatricians, and who are not afraid to tell you why. 75.152.124.54 (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to ask for further opinions at WT:MED. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, further opinions do not count. I do not aim to change policy, so I should hav no need to gather consensus. It seems that on this particular article, I do need to gather consensus to do a deep reversion. That iz enough work for me. Policy refers to common sense in many places. Unfortunately, common sense iz rare, people are creatures of habit, and those habits create beliefs. In this case, habit of enforcing a content guideline haz created in many people a failure to understand what constitutes rigorous scientific method, and it iz not necessarily reviews. Even textbooks contain opinions. 75.152.124.54 (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Please notice that the template no longer tells people to delete primary sources, even if the guideline does. This guideline runs counter to WP:PSTS, which is policy that explicitly allows primary sources. What am I supposed to do if a primary source contains risk ratios, and a review does not? 75.152.124.54 (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

For what content? Often review articles will state by how much something changes risk. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Meta-analyticaL reviews calculate a summary odds ratio (SOR), which iz a risk ratio weighted for size of study. One man plus courage is a majority. I haven't even found RCTs about baby colic and chocolate, onions, or Brassica; no reviews, of course. Those are few and far between. For example, I found a meta-analysis for SIDS that means babies exclusively breastfed have a twenty-seven percent of normal risk for Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: Breastfeeding nearly quarters a baby's risk for SIDS. Recommendations from the United Nations and WHO about breastfeeding are not meta-analytical: They are popular reviews, though.172.219.255.215 (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Please write normally or do not write on my talk pages. There are reviews that cover diet and colic. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Your homework is piling up. My problem is more specific than diet and colic. White on black tells you more clearly who is speaking than nesting. Prove that there are reviews concerning brassica and chocolate, because I just showed evidence that there are none in searches that are one-hit wonders. 172.219.255.215 (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry not how it works. We use review articles because they show notability. If it is not commented on in a high quality secondary source it is not notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Risk ratios show that, not people. Facts are not a popularity contest. Why is it important for experimenters to be ignorant of whether their subject is a control? Bohgosity BumaskiL 172.219.255.215 (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

DOI

Hi, James, yet again I require your opinion. The DOI page is currently using a chembox, but as it's a recreationally used drug I think a drugbox might be more appropriate; what do you think? Fuse809 (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hum good question. I do not know about none medical drugs. Maybe post on the talk page first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit reversion

You should have left a message on the editor's talk page to explain this reversion, especially when the editor is new to Misplaced Pages. Axl ¤ 13:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes feel free to leave messages when I do not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That message is a pathetic attempt at trying to engage a new editor. I have sent a proper message. Axl ¤ 21:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Perfect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

refs?

What is it that you want references for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjones008 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You should be adding refs whenever you add content. This edit for example needs a ref Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding alkalinization of urine and uric acid stones, I'm right. The correction I was making was the previous version reported xanthine oxidase inhibition to be the primary therapy which is wrong. The reference shows that there is dramatic melting of large stones with alkalinization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtopf (talk • contribs) 07:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay but "cornerstone of treatment"?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtopf (talk • contribs) 07:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

How about "Raising the pH of the urine by potassium citrate or bicarbonate may dissolve uric acid stones"? with this ref http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21121431 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

We however discuss it already in detail here What was wrong with this bit? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Metformin

Hi Doc,

Thanks for your help with the Saxagliptin article, and with the other gliptin articles which I assume you reviewed as well.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but the most recent meta analyses I was able to find indicate no CV benefit for metformin or one that is just barely statistically significant and only in monotherapy. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22517929 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22509138 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21205121.

I realize that I'm splitting hairs here over a second tier drug. But am aiming for consistency. Best Formerly 98 (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Tread carefully when criticizing Arbcom

I agree with your questioning Arbcom but I wanted to stop by and give you a freindly suggestion to be careful. They have access to every tool and are allowed extremely wide latitude when doing things. They are generally above reproach and as you have seen much of their discussions are offline making it difficult to proove if their intent is for the betterment of the project or something personal. I have long though that Arbcom needs major reform, unfortunately the only ones who can do that currently are the WMF and much of the community is afraid to speak out against them. Those who do are usually banned. As you can see by AGK's comments, they start by eroding the editors standing in the project by making insinuations and accusations that are based on policy but are often out in left field if you catch my meaning. Good luck. Whiskeyseed (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)