Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:19, 16 February 2013

Project Page
WPMED Newsletter and signup
Manual of style (medicine)
Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
List of participants
Popular pages
Assessment (Log)

How to help:
Article alerts and resources for editors
Articles for cleanup, deletion, and orphaned
Patrol recent changes and sort stubs
Requested articles

Categories:
Project
Articles by quality and importance

• WT:MED

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 Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

JMIR Wiki Medical Reviews

Per Gunther as posted JMIR Publications is currently (Jan 2013) pilot-testing an innovative peer-reviewed journal JMIR Wiki Medical Reviews which sets out to publish Misplaced Pages (Review) and Wikiversity (Original Works) papers. Authors who have made significant contributions to Misplaced Pages articles are invited to submit the article to http://wikimedical.jmir.org/author

JMIR Wiki Medical Reviews (JMIR Wiki Med Rev) is an innovative journal which takes the best wikipedia articles in medicine, peer-reviews them, and publishes them as citable scholarly review article, with the goals to 1) Improve Misplaced Pages articles, 2) enhance public trust in the accuracy of medical Misplaced Pages articles, 4) improve visibility and indexing of outstanding Misplaced Pages articles (e.g. by indexing in bibliographic databases and featuring them on JMIR), 5) to acknowledge authors who volunteer their time on wikipedia to improve articles by listing them as authors in a "citable" publication, 6) to add an additional layer of formal peer-review to wikipedia articles (JMIR Wiki Med Rev - About us/Focus and Scope)

JMIR Publications will publish the first 20 articles free of charge, deposit them in PubMed Central, and will apply for PubMed indexing. JMIR Wiki Medical Reviews is hoped to become the first peer-reviewed journal publishing Misplaced Pages articles.

Dr James Heilman has agreed to serve as Editor-in-chief, other editorial board members are to be recruited (ideally active in Misplaced Pages Medicine). Editorial board members encourage Misplaced Pages authors to submit their articles to the journal for peer-review, select external peer-reviewers, and guide articles through the peer-review process. The publisher (JMIR Publications, represented by Dr Gunther Eysenbach) will coordinate production, which includes converting the Misplaced Pages article into XML, and depositing the articles in various bibliographic databases and full text databases. It is hoped that the journal will be Medline-indexed and will receive an impact factor. For the latter it is important to primarily publish articles which will be highly cited.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic. I will be helping with this effort. Biosthmors (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, Doc James is always making me feel bad with all the wonderful work he does. Yobol (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

What can we do to help?Remember (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Awesome! Bagsy a place on the editorial board. Axl ¤ 00:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Does bagsy mean you want to be on the editorial board? I hope so, because I think that would be great news! Biosthmors (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

_{Yes. Although it may be British schoolboy slang. Axl ¤ 12:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)}

I agree with others. This is obviously great news. Flyer22 (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, to help this succeed, we need to produce great content for publication and/or serve on the editorial board. Biosthmors (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes exactly. I need all of you people to join me :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting, indeed. What a pity that I don't know English --SU ltd. (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You read, write and translate/understand English sufficiently enough, SU ltd. So I don't see why you wouldn't be able to participate, unless you are busy or would rather not. Flyer22 (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Flyer22. If you, a native speaker of English, consider my English sufficiently enough, then I’ll be glad to take part. I’ll be away about a month or two. As soon as I’m back, I’ll share my opinion on that if you consider it possible. Personally, I can’t agree with 7mike5000. To my mind, Jmh649 undertakes a great thing. --SU ltd. (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL, you created Russian versions of those soap opera couple articles I created, SU ltd.? *Blushes* I'm not sure how interested Russian audiences are or would be in those couples, but thank you for spreading the knowledge. Flyer22 (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, Russian audiences use Cyrillic script (unlike the Poles). If you see texts in a Latin alphabet, they can’t be written in Russian. Sometimes I write something in a foreign language just for a change because I neither watch TV nor listen to music. As for the rest of audiences, they don’t matter to me. They have undoubted right to watch TV and go to the cinema if they like. --SU ltd. (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

And about the encouragement, you're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I was not an author on the article, but Influenza seems like a good article to go through the publication process since it is already a FA and has lots of global public health implications. Remember (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. Will need a lead person take it on. IMO there is still some work to do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Would ketogenic diet be suitable? It needs an update with some recent reviews, though I don't think anything drastic will change as a result. Perhaps I may even get round to writing a decent epilepsy article. -- Colin° 16:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I sure hope ketogenic diet would fly. I want the journal to also have enough scope to publish fundamental topics to the field of medicine itself, such as blood coagulation and human circulatory system. I think we should use the journal to get topics that are valuable to medical students upgraded in quality. Medical students are a very valuable target audience or "constituency" for WikiProject Medicine. Biosthmors (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Must you keep raising the bar? You're making the rest of us look lazy... Now I'm wondering how Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Academic Journals is going to address this from secondary sources ;-) LeadSongDog come howl! 20:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I think he's a group account. That's the only possible explanation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've met one of him. My theory is some sort of space-time manipulation where he gets 48hr days and the rest of us struggle on 24. Certainly I don't know anyone who isn't also called James who gives more to Misplaced Pages. Colin° 11:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of encouragement. It has sort of gotten into my head that what we are doing here truly matters. I have been unable to shake this feeling and thus wondering around promoting Misplaced Pages to whomever I run across. I'm uncertain if I am starting to annoy people yet :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

My interest is piqued, but I'd appreciate clarification. Having recently signed up with the Misplaced Pages Education Program where I am getting a crash course in the ways of WP editing, primarily by our terrific Ambassador, Biosthmors. I have just explained to my students how a Misplaced Pages article should be written in the style of an encyclopedia and not in the style of a review article for a scientific or medical journal. Differences include the emphasis on secondary sources rather than primary sources in WP articles. This is in contrast to professional review articles which (speaking as a scientist, but not an MD) I would expect to include more information about the underlying research. Biolprof (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes so these are going to be Misplaced Pages style literature reviews which will be slightly different than standard literature reviews. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I just stopped by to post about another article (see below) and I just happened upon this thread. This is a great idea, and it is exciting! Good luck to all contributors and participants. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Authorship question

If someone were to support an article for publication as the author, what are the requirements? Do they have to have added a large portion of the text to the article? Do they just have to support it during review and make all the necessary corrections? I may be interested in helping to get an article published, but I don't want to bite off more than I can chew. Remember (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I doubt having to contribute a large portion of text would be a requirement. A current featured article might not need much updating on the prose and sources, but I do think an author should know the level of text–source integrity of the article and the recent literature. Biosthmors (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

As an author you need to feel comfortable standing behind the text as your name will be attached to it. Typically I would say this would require having made a fairly substantial contribution to it.

Typically this should apply for any article you have helped bring to GA/FA. I am hoping that this will encourage more people to get involved. Currently less than 1% of our medical articles has passed GA or FA thus there is a lot to chose from.

How we would handle authorship in cases where the submitting author is not one of the top authors I do not know yet. Instinctively I would prefer if this were not the case. If one has never made an edit to the article your name will not be applied. If one has only made minor changes you will be listed as a contributor rather than an author. Where this cut off will be than is the next question. Major journals allow ghost writing but this is not something I am happy with.

There is no perfect way to determine who has made the most contributions. We have this tool that breaks down edits by time and number by editor but of course different people edit in different style. Some people may make a bunch of grammar changes while other may write large amounts in one go. I think part of this will be discussion with the 10 most frequent authors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be interesting to have full disclosure and transparency -- that the reviewers are listed separately at the end of the article. I think this would increase the buy in from academia. Listing reviewers completely changes the game... but I think the idea is worth experimenting with. Nephron  T|C 01:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Editorial board size and responsibilities?

I was thinking of doing some outreach to M.D.s or Ph.D.s without current involvement in Misplaced Pages to invite them to participate as an editorial board member of JMIR Wiki Medical Reviews. Do we have a theoretical maximum of people for positions on the editorial board? 10? 15? 20? What are the expectations? A certain amount of peer-reviews? Biosthmors (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably best to direct this to Gunther. I am not sure how many people he wishes. I am going to ask a few docs at UCLA if they would be interested. A number have expressed interest in Misplaced Pages before. I have already sent a note to UCSF. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're still looking for people for the editorial board -- you can put my name into the ring. I started as a staff physician in August -- that's why I haven't been around much lately. I have a university affiliation (clinical professorship) -- as of November. If you're looking for other university types -- I'd suggest Samir (User:Samir). He is at the same institution as Gunther... and I know they know one another already as I sat around a table with both of them. Nephron  T|C 01:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, just saying, outreach to D.O. physicians should be included as well along with M.D.s and Ph.D.s who are currently involved in Misplaced Pages.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I have created a specific page here for all interested Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/JMIR Wiki Medical Reviews. Please add your names if interested in being on the editorial board. I assume real names will be required. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Another of Gunther's undertakings, WebCite, is currently under discussion at meta:WebCite and at VPT. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Feedback trends

In the WP:Article feedback tool/Version 5 comments, I've recently seen a lot of requests for information about prognosis. If you've got a list of articles that you usually take care of, you might want to see whether it would benefit from a ==Prognosis== section. Some of our readers need even the basics spelled out, so don't be afraid to include a sentence or two that tells people what's obvious to you or that repeats information briefly touched on in passing earlier in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for raising that point. I agree. Biosthmors (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

This is likely because of the all the publicity around the PLoS Medicine/BMJ Open work being published on the inaccuracy and problems of prognosis research, and getting more evidence-based and rigorous about research claims on prognosis: see a blog summarising it here.Hildabast (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting link. I don't think that's what's driving this, though, because the comments seem to be a lot more like "How long do people live with this?" or "My family member has this, and..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Ionized jewelry and Magnet therapy

Could someone have a look, regarding a 9-year-old primary report on the efficacy of jewelry for relieving muscular pain? -- Scray (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Correction: different references on the two pages, with opposite positions, but the same issue (old, primary ref for a medical claim). -- Scray (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

In "Magnet therapy", are you referring to this study? As far as I can tell, it is the only double-blind placebo-controlled RCT of magnet therapy. Therefore I think that there is some value in keeping it in the article. Also, the reference is from 2009—it is not old. Axl ¤ 10:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, this paper and this paper imply that several RCTs have been done to examine magnet therapy, although I have been unable to find them. (Oddly, the wording in the two abstracts is suspiciously similar; the authors are different.) Axl ¤ 10:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's a systematic review of magnet therapy for pain. Although it's from 2007 (which is older than 5 years, which is the median shelf life for a systematic review in health), it shows multiple trials, with the conclusion that it hasn't been shown to be effective. Here's a page at NIH's NCCAM on the subject, which has been just been updated, and they continue to conclude that it doesn't work (despite one trial suggesting benefit).Hildabast (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

THC for hyperemesis gravidarum

A user is trying to use a small primary research study to state the above is effective . Comments? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Added. Zad68 19:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

User is very persistent. Anyone else?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Jmh649 (aka Doc James), you have significantly mischaracterized what I was trying to include in the article. I certainly was not trying to state that "THC for hyperemesis gravidarum is effective". Instead, I merely stated, as anyone can verify, that "a 2005 survey in British Columbia, Canada, found cannabis sativa to have been 'extremely effective' and 'effective' in the treatment of symptoms of HG." That is substantially different from what you declared that I had stated. Perhaps your incorrect characterization explains the mindset of people who showed up, e.g. Zad68. If you think it is a correct characterization then that also appears to explain your apparent and ongoing objection to including any reference to cannabinoids in the article, despite a leading 2012 book stating that "Treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum is primarily symptomatic" (Gabbe, Obstetrics, 2012), and antiemetics are used for treatment, and it is well established that antiemetics include cannabinoids. Significantly, the antiemetics article itself already contains a reference to nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (specifically to morning sickness), and I did not put it there. Given that marijuana is the most commonly used illegal drug in pregnancy, we should expect that pregnant readers of the HG article may be at least considering using cannabis, so we should at least put a warning there or something. Maybe just something like the following that is already in the article: 'Ondansetron may be beneficial, however, there are some concerns regarding an association with cleft palate, and there is little high quality data." A similar statement would be "Cannabinoids may be effective, however, there are some concerns about xyz, and there is little high quality data." JonathanFreed (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Where does it say that "Cannabinoids may be effective"? All I have ever asked for is a high quality secondary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan. Thanks for your efforts here, have you read over all of the literature that has cited PMID 16401527 and its republished article? I'm wondering why this diff says "Though its results apparently have yet to be reproduced or reviewed in a secondary source". Google says PMID 16401527 has been cited nine times, for example. Biosthmors (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Jmh649 (aka DocJames) and Biosthmors, I would like to provide a high-quality secondary source, and no, I have not read over all the literature that has cited PMID 16401527 and its republished article. Biosthmors, I have not been able to reproduce the Google results you described. As may be painfully obvious by now, I do not have ready access to the same resources as others. JonathanFreed (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Consequently you need to rely on those who do have access to these sources. If you are told that nobody has been able to find a secondary source that explicitly discusses THC in managing HG, then it is perverse to continually insist that a primary study from 2005 should be used as a source. The 'mindset' of which you complain is that of respecting secondary sources. Your chain of logic: "HG is managed by antiemetics; THC is an antiemetic; therefore HG is managed by THC" is such a clear case of synthesis that it ought to be used as a textbook-example of how not to use primary sources in Misplaced Pages. --RexxS (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I have just replied to Jonathan at Talk:Hyperemesis gravidarum stating pretty much exactly the same thing. Zad68 13:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

RexxS, you have not correctly stated my chain of logic and you have attributed a conclusion to me that I have not made and do not support. You have done so despite my response just above to Jmh649 about mischaracterizing what I tried to include in the HG article. It's challenging for Misplaced Pages to progress when assertions are falsely attributed to others.

Admittedly, I only recently learned of WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDREV after being graciously pointed to it. (By the way, please do not bite the newcomers.)

Unlike how you have asserted, I have not continually insisted that a primary study from 2005 should be used as a source when others have been unable to find a secondary source that explicitly discusses THC in managing HG. Go look at the relevant section on the HG talk page and you won't see an single reference to that primary study. Look at this section in this talk page and you won't see any insisting, let alone "continual insisting". Your assertion of the same is unfounded. My contemplated set of three loosely related statements does not reference that study.

Since I was pointed to WP:MEDREV, and especially since my edit where I finally felt that I had at least a slight grasp of WP:MEDREV's requirements (albeit one that was rejected), I have not tried to state or imply that "HG is managed by THC" or any variation of that. I have reviewed my edits to help me be sure of that. Further, I have not found an addition of mine (as opposed to a reversion or restoration) at any point in time where I have explicitly made that conclusion you have attributed to me. With specific regards to the "small primary research study" that played a central role in starting this whole debate (specifically PMID 16401527), I have been very careful to state just that "Marijuana, specifically cannabis sativa, was found in a 2006 study to have been 'extremely effective' and 'effective' in the treatment of symptoms of HG". Neither the study nor I jumped to the conclusion that THC or indeed any cannabinoid is effective in treating HG itself, or that "HG is managed by THC" (your words). Even further, I have not supported and do not support any such conclusion whether it is explicit or implied. That conclusion is simply not supported by the study. I can understand how some may think that my set of three loosely related statements implies that conclusion, but that is still not a conclusion that I am personally expressing or implying nor do I support it. My conclusion is limited to the symptoms alone. My variation of your words would be something like but not necessarily exactly like the following: "treatment of HG is primarily symptomatic; hyperemesis is a symptom; cannabinoids are used to treat emetic symptoms; however, this does not mean that cannabinoids are a treatment for HG." Then risks can be discussed. I stand by my statement in response to Jmh649 that marijuana is the most commonly used illegal drug in pregnancy, so we should expect that pregnant readers of the HG article may be at least considering using cannabis, so we should not just ignore the fact that cannabinoids are used to treat emetic symptoms, and it is possible to present the information in a balanced way that expressly acknowledges the lack of a conclusion about cannabinoids for HG (versus for its symptoms) and the risks of cannabinoids relative to pregnancy.

"The 'mindset' of which complain" is certainly not that of respecting secondary sources. I respect WP:MEDREV. The 'mindset' that I mentioned was an apparent mindset of thinking that I was pushing a "THC is effective for HG!" viewpoint. Your own post exemplifies that apparent mindset by its false attribution of assertions and a conclusion to me.

RexxS, yes, I engaged in edit warring and was blocked for 24 hours, and no I am not perfect, but that is not a reason to pile on at this point. Respectfully beg you don't bite the newcomer in this area of articles about medicine, assume good faith, etc. If you want to respond and cite advice, guidelines, or policies right back at me, then fine, I am happy to let you have the last word, but please otherwise stop and reevaluate what I have and have not been asserting. JonathanFreed (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

For our purposes, "One study found that it is effective" and "It is effective" are not materially different. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing: Huh? If there is no material difference between "one study found that it is effective" and "it is effective" then one could reasonably say that something is effective based on the results of just one single study. I don't think that's what you meant? In any case, my understanding is that far more than one study has found that a cannabinoid is effective in the treatment of emesis. See Tetrahydrocannabinol. JonathanFreed (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't assume that our users will be reading the text so closely, because experience has proven that most of them don't. You might mean "Hey, it was just one study, which doesn't mean a lot". Many of them hear, "Wow! An actual scientist did a study, so this is scientifically proven to be effective!"

Consequently, if only one study came up with a result, we tend to omit it entirely. In wikijargon, we say that just one study is non-neutral because it gives too much WP:WEIGHT to one treatment that hasn't been replicated and isn't approved for use anywhere.

NB that this isn't some anti-marijuana campaign: the rules are the same for every treatment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure it's true that you could find plenty of studies that support the use of cannabinoids for anti-emetic purposes, but I have not been able to find any peer-reviewed articles suggesting that they have a place in the treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum specifically. It appears that other anti-emetics such as ondansetron (just as an example) are used. I couldn't find any studies supporting its use in HG even though cannabinoids have known anti-emetic effects.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The study quoted isn't a study of the effectiveness: it's about people's opinions of whether it's effective, which is not the same thing. People reporting that in their belief something works, can't be enough justification. For any treatment proposed for pregnancy, an essential step also has to be addressing the safety of use in pregnancy, including for the fetus. As with smoking tobacco, the risks of smoking cannabis are an issue that comes up in perinatal research. Good evidence would also be needed about cannabis for treating emesis: vomiting, after all, is an adverse effect of cannabis use (see this systematic review)Hildabast (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Ideas needed

So I've finally cleared out Commons:Category:Diseases and disorders. I believe that it only took me about ten months to get everything into subcategories. Now I've moved on to commons:Category:Medicine and am looking at the subcategory structure. I've already done the easy stuff, but there are some lingering problems (like one category named "medicine advertisements" and another named "drug advertisements").

One thing I'm trying to sort out is where one puts things about what you might call styles of caring for patients. Clown Care is presumably a type of something: what's the "something"? Similarly, there are health outreach programs, medical missionaries (religious and otherwise), healthcare provided by the military for public relations purposes, etc. It seems to me that these are all the same kind of "something", but what are they? Does anyone have any suggestions for a category name? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Why not Healthcare? --Hordaland (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Thanks for all your work on this. I assume the category backlogs of unassessed medical articles went down because of you too. Thanks! And feel free to clarify things at WP:MEDPIC if you think it would be helpful. Biosthmors (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This last round, the assessment backlog reduction was almost entirely due to Scottalter, who completely cleared both categories. I did maybe 2% of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Clown Care looks like entertainment, not a form of healthcare at all. Axl ¤ 19:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Laughter is the best medicine Axl =D Lesion (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

=). Biosthmors (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I learned about it in medical school. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

LOL indeed! Axl ¤ 01:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I need something more specific than "health care". Putting Clown Care as a subcat of Cat:Health care puts it on par with such broad subjects as Cat:Medicine and Cat:Health insurance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe "therapy" since that is its intent, in line with animal-assisted therapy? Biosthmors (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure clown care should go with the others you mention...its more of a patient care philosophy. For the others, how about Category:Health care provision? Lesion (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a category for psychological or psychosocial support? Or some version of that. That's how I would classify clown care.Hildabast (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Lateral surface of the cranium

Hi. This is a question relating to lobotomy. Does the term "lateral surface of the cranium" indicate the side of the skull?. Thanks. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Either the inside or the outside. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Drilling into in this case. Thanks very much. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

_{James, we're not supposed to give medical advice here. Axl ¤ 12:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)}

Someone will probably clarify instructions on contraception next, then Vatican City could declare war. I hope we have contingency plans. Biosthmors (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Persistent IP attacks on Physical medicine and rehabilitation

There is a very persistent editor who uses a variety of IPs who has been editing the article over a very long long time. Their edits ammount to an OR POV attack on the very existence of this field of medicine. The editor seems to have a personal vendetta against the existence of physiarty. Their edits turns the article into self-contradictory nonsense. I've had the page protected in the past but as soon as the protection expires the editor returns - with a different IP so their previous record doesn't show up. Roger (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Semi protected for 6 months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Just an FYI if anyone here cares to join the conversation - the IP has (at last) opened a discussion of their position at Talk:Physical medicine and rehabilitation#Article is flawed. Roger (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ehlers–Danlos syndrome

An anon has been blanking a section at Ehlers–Danlos syndrome with edit summaries saying it is advertising. Could someone with more knowledge than me please take a look at whether this is justified. Thanks.-gadfium 20:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's an example of the blanking. It's about the use of Arthrodesis to deal with repeated dislocations. The unregistered user seems to think it was written by a surgeon for the purpose of "advertising" the surgery. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The content is support by old primary research. Not appropriate and I support this removal. If better refs can be found and summarized than feel free to return content on this topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll let the anon edit stand.-gadfium 20:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ankle jerk reflex

A series of Laurel and Hardy edits has left this in a confused state. Please help. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

What is the issue? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A couple of kind editors seem to have fixed it. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for comments on proposed rename

I started a debate a few weeks ago to rename Aphthous ulcer to Recurrent oral aphthae, as per ICD-10 (if we should be following this). Requesting comments... Lesion (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. I commented there. Biosthmors (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Currently there is still no consensus, so I request a few more comments. I have presented useful info form pubmed searches in tables which may help editors quickly decide what term may be most appropriate without spending much of their own time. Lesion (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Substance abuse and rehabilitation, and related topics

Is this WikiProject interested in substance abuse and related topics? There are many "opportunities" to improve articles in these areas, and I find that few of the articles in Category:Drug rehabilitation, Category:Drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers, and related categories are tagged for this WikiProject (or any other). If this WikiProject isn't interested, is there another relevant project? --Orlady (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants will be interested in some of them. We take pretty much any article with a significant part in it about diseases, treatments, or other obviously medical issues. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't see you picking up articles like Twelve-step program, then... --Orlady (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

And feel free to jump on in and begin improving. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

My history indicates that I am not reluctant to edit these articles! I'm just hoping that there's someone around here who has some relevant expertise. --Orlady (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a very important topic area which effects enormous numbers of people world wide with serious consequences. Only a few people regularly edit those articles and it is good to see you making an effort - I did a lot of work in medical aspects of addiction, like differential diagnosis in mental health, dependence and withdrawal etc but I didn't do much of anything to the actual recovery group pages. You can hit me up on my talk page if you need some help with something although I am not on wikipedia as often these days.--MrADHD | T@1k? 03:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Epidemiology of teenage pregnancy article moved to Rates of teenage pregnancy

I decided to inform the project of this move in case any of you want to weigh in on it. The editor must mean that documenting the rates is not a medical issue. I state that because pregnancy is a medical issue. And because it is, I feel that the pregnancy rates fall under that category.

I'll also let the editor know that I've started a discussion about it here at this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the idea that this is not a medical issue, and have therefore reverted the move (and the other associated changes). I will inform the editor. Basalisk ⁄_berate 19:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree better where it was before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You've reverted my changes, but you didn't bother to inform me. Not only that, but you've not explained why you disagree with the move.

The reasons why I moved the article are these: 1. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, epidemiology is " a branch of medical science that deals with the incidence, distribution, and control of disease in a population." Teenage pregnancy isn't a disease. 2. If teenage pregnancy was a disease, it would have an entry in one of disease lists. I failed to find any such entry.

Therefore I move the article back to Rates of teenage pregnancy.--Seerus (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I informed you of this discussion and explained why I disagree (above); it doesn't take much more explanation than that. As for me reverting you here and here, there is no obligation to inform you of any revert. If you want to know about changes to an article, you are supposed to keep up with those changes yourself, just as you've been doing, or by using a WP:WATCHLIST. And I explained my reasons for reverting you in my edit summaries. Flyer22 (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see that you are referring to this move by Basalisk. One thing you need to keep in mind, Seerus, is the WP:Edit warring policy. The three-revert rule is a part of that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You wanting to move the article is something that should have been discussed first. Flyer22 (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I keep that rule in mind, any edit warring could be prevented if people here cooperated and didn't just revert the changes back. I'm sorry for moving the article, but I thought it was obvious that it wasn't a medical disorder. It can't be called epidemiology, it's a social issue. --Seerus (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry I didn't inform you; I actually went to your talk page after posting here, and realised that someone had already informed you of this discussion. The problem here is that you are basing your move on your own subjective opinion that teenage pregnancy is not a medical issue. You're right in saying that teenage pregnancy is not a disease, but pregnancy in general certainly is a medical issue (I think the fact that the vast majority of births happen in hospital, and that women are monitored by doctors and other health care professionals throughout their pregnancy is evidence enough of this). The way we work on wikipedia in this situation can be summed up as bold, revert, discuss. This means that someone makes a bold change. Then, if someone else disagrees, they revert it, and then discussion takes place. It is your responsibility to convince everyone that the change you're trying to implement should take place, and you should do that via discussion, not just trying to force your changes through via edit warring. I have reverted the move one last time, as I assume you were unaware of both BRD and the edit warring policy, and hope you will engage in discussion rather than simply reverting again. Basalisk ⁄_berate 08:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I stated my reasons why teenage pregnancy is not a medical issue. You just said that you thought it was a medical issue. Do you have anything more than your feelings? Otherwise this debate won't move anywhere. --Seerus (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Well dealt with in medical textbooks and journal articles. More than 1000 article come up on pubmed with more than 100 being review articles. The World Health Organization covers it calling it adolescent pregnancy as does medline which states that most teenagers do not wish to be pregnant Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course teenage pregnancy is a health issue. That's not the question at all. The problem is that epidemiologists have widened their use of the term epidemiology in a way that is simply not reflected in how the general public understands the word. Teenage pregnancy is not a disease. If there are epidemies of it, then these are purely figurative, in a manner of speaking, just like epidemies of intelligence. Hans Adler 10:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Almost anything can be a medical issue. Birth control is a medical issue. What I meant specifically was a medical condition, i.e. disease. And that's what teenage pregnancy is most clearly not. You won't find a single article where teenage pregnancy is classified as a medical condition. --Seerus (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Seerus, pregnancy, no matter what age, is called a medical condition; this can be seen in many medical textbooks and medical journals. Flyer22 (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

We even have half a medical subspecially "Obstetrics" that revolved around it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, no matter what age. I repeat, there is no medical condition called "teenage pregnancy."--Seerus (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Some questions from an irritated layman:

• Epidemiology of teenage pregnancy is an article title like epidemiology of snakebites, epidemiology of motor vehicle collisions or epidemiology of binge drinking. Epidemiology of childbirth is not even a redirect to Birth rate or Total fertility rate, nor is it a disambiguation page. It is a redlink. Epidemiology of pregnancy, epidemiology of contraception and epidemiology of physical exercise (not a redirect to exercise trends) are also redlinks. What is the difference, if it is not that undesirable things that should be prevented get an "epidemiology" article, whereas desirable things don't, or if they do it's named differently?
• Given that teenage pregnancies were perfectly normal over millions of years, and in fact most likely were necessary for the survival of humanity. And given that they are still perfectly normal in some cultures and stopped being normal only recently in the others. And given that nothing much has changed biologically in the recent few hundred thousand years. And given that the definition of teenage pregnancy includes pregnancies by 19-year-old healthy and wealthy married adult women who first had sex at the age of 18, and had it in part for the purpose of procreation. Is there a basis for considering teenage pregnancies in general undesirable, as opposed to only certain teenage pregnancies in certain specific social contexts? If so, why is this basis not stated in the article teenage pregnancy?
• I am also surprised that the article teenage pregnancy makes no effort to break down the effects of pregnancy according to age group. The age of 20 is an a priori arbitrary cut-off date, and it is simply not reasonable to expect that it is a hard threshold, or even that it is a better cut-off date than the age of 17 or 22.
• What is the expected emotional reaction of a 19-year old pregnant married woman in India to an article title "epidemiology of teenage pregnancy"?

Additional food for thought: The article Genesis creation myth was moved to Genesis creation narrative some time ago, not because its topic is not a creation myth in its most strict sense (it is the prototypical creation myth), but because creationists feel offended by the associations of the word myth in its non-technical sense and article titles must be neutral. Hans Adler 09:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

We would have an article on Epidemiology of pregnancy if this content grew beyond the current article. Epidemiology does not have a negative connotation. Epidemiology "is the study of the patterns, causes, and effects of health" as well as disease. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Epidemiology certainly has strongly negative connotations for just about anyone who hasn't been in a course on epidemiology or is otherwise used to medical lingo. There is a big difference between the technical definition and the one that has made it into dictionaries. For example:

• WHO: Epidemiology is the study of the distribution and determinants of health-related states or events (including disease), and the application of this study to the control of diseases and other health problems.
• Merriam-Webster: (1) a branch of medical science that deals with the incidence, distribution, and control of disease in a population; (2) the sum of the factors controlling the presence or absence of a disease or pathogen.

Even the WHO definition carries the negative connotation, but the Merriam-Webster definition doesn't even formally cover use of the term for positive or indifferent things. Teenage pregnancy, certainly early teenage pregnancy, is a factor in the epidemiology (WHO sense) of various medical conditions and maybe to some extent in the epidemiology (M-W sense 2) of diseases or pathogens. But teenage pregnancy cannot have an epidemiology in the M-W sense because it is not even close to being a disease or pathogen.

There is a lot more reason to avoid epidemiology than to avoid myth :

• The negative connotations of epidemiology are plain from the word's etymology and in most mainstream dictionaries they are present in all definitions. The negative connotation of being undesirable is factually wrong in many cases, and a large number of our readers can see this when presented with these individual cases.
• Every reasonable dictionary carries at least one definition of myth without connotations of untruth, and it's the one intended in the title. (The word's etymology is unknown.) The negative connotation of the story being wrong is factually correct and only a small number of fringers really thinks otherwise.

Hans Adler 10:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

TLDR version: It takes a déformation professionelle or a serious lack of global perspective to deny that the title "epidemiology of teenage pregnancy" is deeply offensive. Hans Adler 10:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry it is not offensive as an English term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Summary of my comments above: When you say "epidemiology of X", then X is originally a disease that you want to prevent, but has been widened to any health problem. There is no "epidemiology of Y", where Y is not a health problem but just some arbitrary factor that makes some health problem X more (or less) likely. Teenage pregnancies can be a factor in the epidemiology of X, for various values of X, but most are not a health problem per se. (Actually there is a usage "epidemiology of Y" where Y is just any factor, but that's a recent and very significant widening of the technical term that is not understood by the general public and hasn't made it into dictionaries.)

In addition, even as a factor for health problems, teenage pregnancies are not particularly convincing. In Germany, a high-risk pregnancy is one under the age of 18, not under the age of 20. It appears that some other countries (US?) even make it under the age of 15. As of 2006, at the time of birth or abortion after a 'teenage' pregnancy, the mother was three times as likely to be aged 18-19 as she was likely to be aged below 18. (Pregnancy rate 122.3 for 18-19, 38.9 for 15-17, 7.1 for 14 or younger.) Hans Adler 10:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears that most teenagers wish to prevent them per the ref above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you (Hans) mean by "not a health problem but just some arbitrary factor that makes some health problem X more (or less) likely". Does tobacco use count? Tobacco is a plant, not a health problem, but does it count as "some arbitrary factor"? Do you require something that is not so obviously causative? There have been epidemiological studies on the colors of the vehicles involved in collisions, like PMID 12410016. Surely the color of paint is not considered a health problem. Does that count as "some arbitrary factor"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hans, thanks for posting here, but I think the word you should use is risk factor and not "health problem". Epidemiology of any risk factor (including pregnancy) could be a valid article title. Pregnancy is a risk factor for DVT, for example. And drunk walking is a risk factor article I created, as is prothrombin G20210A (to quasi-arbitrarily self-cite). Biosthmors (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Surely risk factors are "determinants of health-related states or events", as the WHO quote you cite above says. Biosthmors (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I have said it often enough and wonder why I apparently have to repeat it:

• "Epidemiology of " is a well known expression that appears in just about any dictionary and that everybody understands.
• Constructions of the form "epidemiology of " are not known to the general public. This is not a usage that can be found in normal dictionaries. This is the kind of jargons that journalists automatically correct after interviewing a medical researcher.

The linguistic mechanism by which such a word is broadened in this way is totally obvious to me (if anyone is interested, I can explain it), but it hasn't made general use yet. The reactions of people without serious exposition to medical jargon to various 'epidemiologies' will be roughly be as follows:

• "Epidemiology of influenza" - Nothing remarkable, this is the most original meaning: study of epidemies.
• "Epidemiology of cancer" - "OK, they have widened it a bit. Cancer is not usually considered to be infective and cause epidemies, but they probably don't mean to imply that."
• "Epidemiology of snakebites" - "Pretty weird. They seem to have widened the meaning of 'epidemiology' quite a bit if they even count accidents now."
• "Epidemiology of tobacco use" - "Are they seriously applying that word to things that one doesn't go to the doctor for? Amazing."
• "Epidemiology of pregnancy" - "It's amazing with what misogynist doctors can come up. Since when is pregnancy a disease? Quite offensive!"
• "Epidemiology of teenage pregnancy" - "Oh! Doctors consider teenage pregnancy a disease! I had no idea it's as bad as that. I should have known this a few weeks earlier. Maybe I should ask Dr. ___ whether it wouldn't be better to have an abortion now and try again next year when I'm twenty. What a pity, we were already thinking about names!"

I consider this a very serious problem with the title. It doesn't even seem to be a purely medical article anyway, and there is no reason to insist that medical terminology takes precedence over the terminology that would be preferred in the social sciences. It doesn't seem to make much sense as a medical topic. For that, I would expect an article about the rates (still not epidemiology!) of pre-adolescent pregnancies or a similar class of pregnancies that does not lump medically harmless pregnancies together with high-risk pregnancies just because they tend to be conflated in discussions about social issues. Hans Adler 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I do see the issue you're pointing at now, thanks. Sorry. I do tend to skim things sometimes. When I searched for http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=epidemiology+AND+factor+V+leiden (as factor V Leiden is a well-known risk factor) there were a lot of "prevalence of..." in article titles. Prevalence of teenage pregnancy might work nicely. Biosthmors (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would be perfect! Hans Adler 21:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

As a note, something I considered is that a lot of laypeople don't know what epidemiology means; they have to look it up in the dictionary. And what they find in the dictionaries will be what Seerus and Hans Adler mentioned about that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Although, of course, they could read our Epidemiology article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Epidemiology includes prevalence but is a broader term. I guess we could call it prevalence of pregnancy. But epidemiology is not an "insulting" term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

In general use: Yes, it is insulting, although this may be different ten years from now when this novel medical use of the word has trickled down into general use. This is not a medical question that can be arbitrated by medical experts. It is a question for linguists, most easily settled by reading general dictionaries. And the results are clear. I also note that you have not addressed my other arguments either: How are the common pregnancies of 19-year-olds a medical problem that can be lumped together with the rare pregnancies of 13-year-olds? Seeing pregnancies of 19-year-olds as a medical problem just doesn't make sense medically, only socially. So it's not even a medical topic in the first place.

But so long as we can all agree on using "prevalence", we don't have to continue the discussion. From my point of view, that's not even a compromise, it's a perfect solution to the problem. I would even suggest to follow the distinction 'epidemiology' of medical problems / 'prevalency' of risk factors in general for all similar article titles, as this is better style even in non-controversial cases. Is there any problem with that from a medical point of view? Hans Adler 09:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Pregnancies generally are seen as a medical issue. So I am not sure how in a specific age they should no longer be seen as a medical issue.

In general use in my area of the English speaking world epidemiology is not insulting.

The OED states "the branch of medicine which deals with the incidence, distribution, and possible control of diseases and other factors relating to health". So is pregnancy a factor that relates to health? Fairly obviously it is.

What does the medical literature use? This has a section on "epidemiology of adolescent pregancy" as does this one Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hans Adler, 13-year-olds being pregnant is not rare; in fact, I'm not certain if pregnancies among 19-year-olds is more common than pregnancies among 13-year-olds. Flyer22 (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes pregnancies among 19 year olds are more common. But that is really beside the point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not beside the point that teenage pregnancy, as opposed to pregnancy or pre-adolescent pregnancy, is obviously not primarily a medical topic. Hans Adler 18:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

18-19 is three times as common in the US as 17 and below. That seems close enough, and in fact it's even better for my argument. I just felt it was too long for literal repetition. I gave the data above including a source. Hans Adler 18:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Either you have no sense of language at all, or you are playing that part. The fact that you are not even responding to the other questions such as whether "prevalence" is acceptable to you makes it hard to assume good faith. Please help me with that by putting a few brain cells into this discussion.

Your OED quotation is completely useless in this case because it is about the entire field, not about any meaning that could be directly associated with constructions of the form "epidemiology of X". There is only one epidemiology in the sense of that OED definition, it is a field of medicine that is taught to medical students (I assume), and there is no way that it can be called "epidemiology of X".

Consider pharmacology, for example, which according to WP "is the branch of medicine and biology concerned with the study of drug action, where a drug can be broadly defined as any man-made, natural, or endogenous (within the cell) molecule which exerts a biochemical and/or physiological effect on the cell, tissue, organ, or organism." That's not an excuse to name an article about drugs for cows "pharmacology of bovines". Pharmacology is surely interested in bovines, but the term is not normally used in this way. The term epidemiology is used in this way by experts but not by normal people. I have explained why this is a problem, but you are clearly practising the WP:IDHT of driving other editors mad.

Also, stop your incantations that pregnancy is a medical topic. Neither does it follows from this that pregnancies in 12th century southern France is a medical topic, nor that pregnancy in literature, pregnancy in homosexual aliens, or indeed teenage pregnancy is a medical topic. If it's a sub-topic of pregnancy that has been selected for primarily social reasons, then it's not primarily a medical topic. (Of course MEDRS still applies to medical claims, in case you are worried about that. It applies to medical claims everywhere.) Nor would that be an excuse to summarily dismiss NPOV concerns based on, actually I am not even sure what you are trying to base your summary dismissal on. It's just like banging your fist on the table because you have all the authority and I am just an intrusive nobody. Doesn't make you appear as intelligent or authoritative as reasonable responses would do. Hans Adler 18:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Struck. Sorry for this. I got angry due to a misunderstanding on my side that followed some more general miscommunication issues. Hans Adler 20:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: I just saw that you actually sort of agreed that the article can be called prevalence of pregnancy. Your last post suggested otherwise to me as you appeared to be building a front line defence against any possible change of the title. Looked like seriously ownership issues to me, but apparently I was wrong. Sorry. Hans Adler 18:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are referring to me having ownership issues. I have never edited this article as far as I am aware. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Move epidemiology of teenage pregnancy to prevalence of teenage pregnancy

• Support. Doing it this way because there has already been a little move war. For the reasons for this proposal see above. Hans Adler 18:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral Oppose Per WAIDs argument. I think things are fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• I'm also neutral on this. But I support the move because of what I stated above about a lot of laypeople not knowing what epidemiology means (although, as I also noted, they could read our Epidemiology article for information on it). Flyer22 (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

  The epidemiology article is about the field, which is Merriam-Webster definition (1). The problem is that this is clearly not intended in titles such as "epidemiology of pregnancy". I strongly doubt that there is a subfield of epidemiology that is concerned with everything related to pregnancy. And if there is, it's not even mentioned in the article. "Epidemiology of X" in the sense of the article is Merriam-Webster definition (2), or rather a generalisation that is not yet covered in Merriam-Webster. And the generalisation is the problem: Merriam-Webster definition (2) only works when X is a disease 0r similar unwanted problem.

  A linguistic study would no doubt show a gradual move in the medical literature from using only "epidemiology of " via "epidemiology of " to acceptability of "epidemiology of ". Such developments are usually followed by the general public, but with a delay. You will have trouble finding "epidemiology of pregnancy" in newspapers, even though the word "epidemiology" alone or in connection with a disease occurs there occasionally. Hans Adler 20:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• I slightly prefer epidemiology because it is a bigger topic than simply prevalence and because it matches our advice about section names and is therefore consistent with the main article and with other articles. I do not agree with this unsupported assertion that epidemiology concerns itself only with true medical diseases. There have been scholarly publications on the epidemiology of computer malware, for example, as well as for viewing porn or gambling online. On the 'positive' side, see things like PMID 12972873 and PMID 15710270 on "the epidemiology of walking". Many sources discuss the epidemiology of teenage pregnancy or births to teenagers, using those titles; there are also sources like PMID 22289743 that focus on the epidemiology of births in general. This is not an insulting term, and it is one of the titles used by reliable scholarly sources to describe this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

  "unsupported assertion that epidemiology concerns itself only with true medical diseases". You are overstating it, and when stated correctly it has been supported with evidence (Merriam-Webster). The real statement is that "epidemiology" has two related definitions in general use dictionaries. (1) a field of study, (2) a collection of data related to the prevalence of a disease or similar problem. The intended meaning here is (3) a collection of data related to a risk factor. The problem is that (3) is expert jargon that cannot be found in standard dictionaries yet. As (1) is obviously not meant, that leaves only (2) for the interpretation by a normal reader: teenage pregnancy, pregnany, walking, porn consumption, car collisions etc. are diseases or at least near-diseases.

  I don't see why the naming guideline can't take this problem into account and explicitly prefer "prevalency" in the case of general risk factors. This will nicely separate diseases from risk factors, and it is not a problem if articles go slightly beyond the literal meaning of the title, so long as they stay roughly on topic. Hans Adler 20:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Note: What WhatamIdoing stated above is why I don't fully support the move. Before WhatamIdoing's post about "prevalence" not adequately describing what the article covers, it was brought up above. Perhaps a different title suggestion is in order, with "prevalence" remaining in the heading, but being combined with different words...such as Prevalence of teenage pregnancy. Obviously the "and so and so" part is whatever words we'd fill the blank in with. Flyer22 (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Veins

Hi. I'm new here and I would like to stay even if I'm Portuguese. Veins, arteries, heart, are my passion. I did an article about a special GSV tributary, the accessory saphenous vein, I did it in a subpage but now I realize that the main page has been redirected to saphenous vein. That vein is really important in varicose vein disease and has a different treatment. It deserves its own page. Is it possible to undo that redirect? This is my subpage: User:Nini00/Acessory saphenous vein so you can check my work, and I wait yet another image. Thank you for your help Nini 20:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome. Maybe this template is of use for the page you are writing...Another quick bit of advice is to write in paragraphs instead of bullet points. Thanks for contributions. Lesion (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Nini 21:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

And to kind of answer your question about the redirect, all I see is that, so it doesn't look like it was ever published under that title. Which redirect were you talking about? Biosthmors (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok I understand. Sorry for my poor experience in WP. I can publish the article. Thank you for help Nini 10:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Name-dropping vs useful lead for more information

What's the WP:MED standard for discussing work related to a drug? In particular, how much discussion and credentialing is appropriate when mentioning a lead researcher? At Pomalidomide and Thalidomide, several IPs (with suspicious geolocation) are insisting that we include name and affiliation in the body (edit-summary: "This lab discovered the drug and still works on such compounds Readers may want to contact this lab and need this info"). User:Edgar181 (who is mostly inactive at the moment) raised a WP:CREDENTIAL concern in part, and I went further with removing it to focus on the actual article topic and not giving essentially sole credit to the one lab's PI (edit-summaries: "no need to name-drop, especially since it's cited to a reliable source and is drifting off-topic for this article", "this is an encyclopedia, not a literature-review"). DMacks (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

In the history section it would be okay. In the "medical uses" section no one should be mentioned and it should be based on secondary source. This article is bad ThalidomideDoc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I would avoid entirely statements like this. We don't need articles littered with references to "studies done in Dr So-and-so's lab at Big Hospital". However, it would be fine to include a factual statement about the discovery, like "The first published descriptions of this compound were written by Alice Expert at Big Hospital", if you could find an independent source that directly says that this was the first published description. (It's not good enough to do a PubMed search and decide for yourself that the oldest thing listed there is truly the first published description.)

You might like to read WP:MEDMOS#Writing style as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Serious copyright problems at Caring_for_people_with_dementia

All the section (very big section) in Caring_for_people_with_dementia#Environmental_design_and_assistive_technology seems to be a wayyyyyyyyyy to close paraphrase of the cited article in it. Moreover, it is based in wikiuniversity text, so problems with copyright may not end here. To make it even more complicated it seems that the editor that added such content (User:Jtneill) was an experienced one. Since I have not edited for a while I am really not sure how to act. --Garrondo (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay removed the section in question. Described the concerns on the talk page and left a note on the users talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

OHSU Project

I have been in talks with some faculty at OHSU School of Medicine for a few months now about a wiki editing pilot project. I just spoke with the students (a total of 8, so it should be quite manageable) about editing the ins and outs of editing wikipedia a bit. It is part of a course on pharmacology, and the "prompt" they were given had something to do with methamphetamine, or perhaps other sympathomimetics or indications for same. And FWIW, I have also spoken a bit with Lane Rasberry and Doc James about this in the past, it's just now getting going.

I just wanted to drop everyone (WP:USEP WP:ENB, WP:MED, WP:PHARM) a note who might be interacting with some of these folks over the next month or two (the course runs until April 10). I gave them a rundown on some of the common mistakes students make as part of these projects, e.g. assuming that one's edits have to stay up in order for them to be useful as a grade (which I've seen a number of times). I am confident they will be able to avoid most of these common pitfalls.

As it stands it appears that they will be looking for either stubs to build out that are related to the clinical vignette that is their initial prompt; they might instead/also work on rewriting part of an article that is jargon-laden or otherwise confusing to adhere more closely to WP:MEDMOS. The consensus was that they would try and sandbox everything before putting it in an actual article.

Most of them, as of right now, do not have WP accounts, but should be making them soon. If you see them around, say Hi!

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

---Updated links UseTheCommandLine (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Veins Ultrasonography

I have 2 questions about this future page:

• 1 - is COI, because I am very close of this subject, it is my work, is my passion.
• 2 - is the title, because for lower limbs and to study varicose veins, this examen is really special and it will be more and more as the evolution in treatment will grow. I would like your advice before translate User:Nini00/Lower limbs venous ultrasonography to English (I suppose you have a translator Pt/En). What would be the best title? "Lower limbs venous ultrasonography" is the one I prefer (limb or limbs?).

Thank you for your advice Nini 11:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

As long as the subject is notable (supported by a number of acceptable sources), and the article contains no original research and is written in a neutral point of view, there is no problem.

The translation task force may be able to help you with that issue.

I would suggest you follow the term most commonly used in the supporting sources.

You may find this guide useful: WP:MEDMOS#Medical tests. Hope this helps... Lesion (talk) 12:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Lesion. The big thing is sourcing. As long as it is supported by high quality secondary sources there should not be a problem.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. The subject is supported by high quality sources, even WHO. Nini 17:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay will take a look when you have it translated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:MEDCOI. Being a healthcare professional is not a conflict of interest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Now if you were working for a company that sells treatments for the issue in question that would be a different matter :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't sell anything, thanks God. I'll pay attention mainly to my academic opinions about some subjects. I will be impartial. You can follow the article at User:Nini00/Lower limbs venous ultrasonography. Nini 14:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments requested

I noticed it has been proposed (by user:coin459) that drooling be merged with hypersalivation. Not sure if this is the best thing to do since hypersalivation is specifically overproductiong of saliva, and whilst this is the main cause of drooling, the latter may also be caused by "inability to retain saliva within the mouth (incontinence of saliva), or problems with swallowing (dysphagia/odynophagia)"...both of which may occur with normal saliva output. On the other hand, I recently reworked xerostomia/hyposalivation, a very similar scenario: 2 very close topics which are almost inseparable, hyposalivation being a topic contained within xerostomia, but xerostomia meaning slightly more. Hyposalivation was a redirect back to xerostomia. I decided in the end to just build the xerostomia page, although it ended up containing much info on hyposalivation. Comments requested for drooling/hypersalivation merge, the consensus of which may lead to changes to xerostomia/hyposalivation... Lesion (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. Fusion is not appropriated. They are different things. Hypersalivation can exist without drooling and this one can exist without hypersalivation. Even the synonym is wrong in drooling article. Is not a synonym of hypersalivation. Nini 13:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes should not be merged. Some people with normal salivation drool due to a stroke. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Ptyalism is different from drooling in the same way polyuria is different from enuresis. alteripse (talk) 04:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Hi guys! I was referred here by Ocaasi who has been providing me with careful guidance in editing Chiropractic. The main issues identified were NPOV and length. The article contained a lot of puffery (both pro/con) and tended the use primary sources in an uneven way when more current secondary sources were available. In order to raise the reliability and quality of the page, WP:MED and WP:MEDRS and WP:PSMED were used to introduce the proper manual of style for the article. I believe it accurately reflects the spirit and intent of WP:MED. This is a sincere attempt to open dialogue for an evidence-based discussion of chiropractic, but also for other traditional/CAM disciplines that have developed a legitimate scientific research base. Too often those articles have strong bias, pro or con, because WP:MED does not enforce WP:PSMED and WP:MEDRS in a consistent way. They should be under the WP:MED project so standards can be raised for editing thereby attracting academics and scholars as opposed to idealogues on both sides. In my opinion the best way to move forward is using a scientific point of view (SPOV) to achieve NPOV. Just offering a critical eye to controversial topics in medicine and how to resolve them in an evidence-based way. Regards, DVMt (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of us who try to apply WP:MEDRS the best we can. But we of course have been been able to apply it to a limited extend as the number of articles that fall under WP:MED is huge.

Typically if you are using systematic review from the last 3-5 years that are pubmed indexed all should be well. It gets more complicated of course when recent systematic reviews disagree with each other.

Is there a specific issue you wish looked at? Often one has to go RfC by RfC with controversial topics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with the wording you use, "legitimate scientific research base" almost implies "evidence base". Complimentary medicine, almost by definition I would say has no evidence base. But I think you meant, "people are researching it" which is not the same as "evidence base"? Due to the nature of these topics, I would also say that using a scientific point of view on these articles would definitely introduce "bias", no? ... Lesion (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes one of the difficulties with chiropractics is that there is a great deal of pseudoscience mixed in with some legitimate research. When one looks at the legitimate research however some interpret it as positive and other interpret it as equivalent to conservative care.

Thrown into it an entire profession that makes its livelihood off it "being beneficial" and one has a situation where "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Doc James. Agreed, when possible the most recent systematic reviews have been used and if they disagree; both sides are mentioned. Such as the case regarding spinal manipulation and stroke. I was writing because just to inform the community that to take a peek at the article because NPOV was obtained by simply using a scientific consensus that chiropractors are regarded as MSK specialists. Now that the article reflects that, it is in stable form. Also, it follows the proper MoS for medical specialities. Essentially I'm just trying to be as transparent as possible because I know that article was very unreliable both critical and supportive. This version addresses all the problems that were plaguing the article for years on WP and causing a lot of problems for editors, admins, etc. It reflects chiropractors in 2013 but nonetheless specifically mention its controversies both internally and externally. If we basically agree that chiropractic is appropriate and legitimate for MSK disorders I believe we can achieve consensus on the topic. It would be a major benefit to WP:MED, WP in general and rational skeptics who stick to an evidence-based approach at editing. The pseudoscience and legitimacy are discussed at depth in the article and resolves around MSK specialists vs. subluxation-based doctors. Lesion, that is a common myth that chiropractors don't have an evidence base. Please see evidence-based practice guidelines at the article itself. I was surprised too honestly. It makes it easier to evaluate what a 'good' chiropractor is/does from the fringe in the profession. Defining these elements was key to achieving scientific consensus for appropriate chiropractic interventions which is essentially MSK care with manual and manipulative therapies. DVMt (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Orthopods are MSK specialist. Will need to look.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

if there is a scientific evidence base for something, then can it really be called complimentary medicine? Lesion (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Lesion, this is a critical issue you raise. It's up to you, me and others to critically evaluate the research base and make that conclusion. Based on my research I would argue that there is an evidence base for management of spinal and MSK issues. DVMt (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

An issue, the article says "Manual and conservative therapies commonly used by chiropractors are effective for the treatment of low back pain," and bases it on this 2011 Cochrane review which states "High quality evidence suggests that there is no clinically relevant difference between SMT and other interventions for reducing pain and improving function in patients with chronic low-back pain.". I not convinced the ref supports the text in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Well if that's the main issue, specifically chronic low back pain, then that can be mentioned or omitted as effectiveness. I don't think our viewpoints are different here, probably just finding common language. DVMt (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Our article than states without qualifications "Spinal manipulation, commonly used by chiropractors and other manual medicine practitioners are effective for the treatment of spinal pain, including low back pain, neck pain, some forms of headache and a number of extremity joint conditions such as shoulder and hip pain" supported the journal Chiropr Osteopat. Yet we have this more recent systematic review that states "Collectively, these data fail to demonstrate that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for pain management." . PMID 22621391. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help) So I think we have a huge problem. It appears that our article just picks up the positive research and presents it while ignoring the research that disagrees. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyway looks like an attempt to whitewash the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Disagreed Doc James. However, we can discuss this with other regular editors at the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DVMt (talk • contribs) 02:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A quick search of reviews for spinal manipulation and headaches reveals multiple systematic reviews like PMID 22621391, PMID 21511952, PMID 21649656, PMID 22460941 have been ignored, while one of the two reviews mentioned, PMID 21298314 was misrepresented in that our article does not mention the caveats the authors of the review felt merited mentioning in the conclusions (no firm conclusions, low quality evidence, etc). That was just looking at one of the outcomes with spinal manipulation, I shudder to think what a more in depth search of other areas will show. It is hard to come to a conclusion other than that there is rampant white washing. Yobol (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why they can't be inserted in the article, nonetheless there is disagreement. We must also separate manual therapy from spinal manipulation as the two are not synonymous. DVMt (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A recurring theme in articles on CAM methodologies that we really need to clarify hinges on the statistical impossibility of proving the proposition that one specific inert intervention is not more effective than a placebo. Time after time we see reviews look at such results and give a feeble conclusion that larger sample populations are needed (when infinite sample populations would still be "inconclusive") or that better methodology is needed. The simple truth is that placebos are indistinguishable from each other. Hence any attempt to show a CAM methodology's efficacy in a placebo-controlled trial must be regarded as ill-conceived, with a high probability of false "success" at a low confidence level. Rather, the comparison should be against the best known standard of care. With a few exceptions, our CAM articles have failed to clearly convey this problem to readers. We should be able to find a consistent, clear way to convey this. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point, but I disagree that all placebo effects are equal. You get things happening like larger sugar pills being more effective than smaller ones, or blue sugar pills being more effective for depression than another color... Lesion (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Not possible in a true double blind trial, of course. There is, too, the problem that "individualized" treatment is often an "essential" aspect of CAM methods, effectively saying "who needs scientific method, when we have revealed Truth?" LeadSongDog come howl! 03:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Including more expensive placebos are better than inexpensive placeboes :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

"Complementary" medicine frequently has an evidence base, but it's things like "research proves that getting a massage is pleasant and relaxing", not "research proves that massage kills cancer cells".

I don't think that chiropractic counts as 'complementary', since its notion is that all you need for a crick in the neck (why is this still a red link?) is a spinal adjustment, rather than a spinal adjustment plus some other treatment. That's the meaning of "complementary": things that go with something else, like complement goods or complementary angles. Chiropractic is likely to be more precisely labeled as an alternative approach, as in "If you wake up with a crick in your neck, you can wait until it goes away on its own, or "alternatively", you can get a spinal adjustment to get rid of it immediately". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree fits in more with alternative than complementary within the CAM framework. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Some talk about scam (Supplements, Complementary and Alternative Medicine) or (s)cam (supposedly complementary and alternative medicine) (Ok, they do say quite ironically): Nevertheless even in the blog I linked (sciencebasedmedicine), which is as far as anybody can get against cam they say that chiropraxi is a special case since it probably serves for 1 thing (mostly back pain), but the problem is that most chiropractors say it serves for everything.--Garrondo (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Vertebral subluxation

Sadly we appear to have the same problem of down-playing of the mainstream view at Vertebral subluxation as well. If you compare the current version with that of 22 January 2013, you can see how for example the criticism section has now been reduced to a single paragraph. --RexxS (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Have restored the previous version there too. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Rename Glossodynia to Burning mouth syndrome ?

ICD-10 uses Glossodynia . The one Cochrane RV of this topic uses the term "Burning mouth syndrome". Lesion (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Why not just use a redirect? should have checked before commenting, sorry -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

And online mainstream tertiary sources (Mayo, NIH) appear to favor burning mouth syndrome, so that's what I say it should be. Biosthmors (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

By logic Glossodynia is just a symptom which means pain or dysaesthesia which can be caused by many pathologic issues. Which brings us to the "syndrome" definition. So "Burning mouth syndrome" is by logic the correct term in my humble opinion. DocElisa 09:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Even though "glossodynia" could be translated from its root words glossa - tongue odyne - pain ; in publications it is almost universally a term used as a synonym for burning mouth syndrome. If you want to say a painful tongue as a symptom with many possibly causes, not just burning mouth syndrome/glossodynia, then I suggest "glossitis" (although this implies inflammation specifically rather than pain) or just "tongue pain" or even "glossalgia".

Anyway, I feel 3 for and none against is a good enough consensus. Thanks for comments. Lesion (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Empty section template for medical articles

I just added a couple {{empty section}}'s to burning mouth syndrome, and it made me think we should probably have one specific to medical articles that links to WP:MEDRS. I think this would help us keep track of how incomplete articles are and it parallels with User:WhatamIdoing's recent comments about making sure we have prognosis sections, if I remember correctly. Biosthmors (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Simplification template

Hello, I was just looking at the reader feedback on the asthma article.

It seems that a fair proportion of the people reading the article were struggling with what they consider complex terminology, but much of the article seems quite correctly encyclopedic to me (I'm not a medical professional - and I can follow the article without much problem, and there are hyperlinks for any tricky bits).

So, it occurred to me that there are two reasons people will be consulting the asthma article (and in general looking at medical/disease type articles), either someone who is looking for some detailed nuance (who will want the article in much the same state as it currently stands), or someone who is looking for the broader overview (symptoms, causes, if they are contagious, treatments, outcome).

I think the people in the second category - especially if they are children may find it easier to look at simple:asthma than asthma, but I think the 'simple english' pages are not well known by those unfamiliar with wikipedia, so... I wondered about whether there ought to be a hatnote at the top of the asthma article saying something like If the medical terminology is too complex, and you just want a broad overview, you might like to check out ].

Then I thought it might be a good idea to have that a generic hatnote template for all medical articles?Though the person adding the template might also then want to check that the simple equivalent was suitably worded.

The other idea I had was just a general attempt to run through existing articles looking for a info box for diseases with a view to spotting whether they listed symptoms, causes, contagious/vector, treatments, treated/untreated outcome. I've added this project to my watchlist for a while, I don't know if this has already been discussed. EdwardLane (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

There's certainly an attraction to the idea, though the wording might be improved. Perhaps just "A Simple English version of this article is available at Simple:Asthma." Having that link hidden in the list of interlanguage links has never seemed very satisfactory. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I like your wording EdwardLane (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Efforts are currently ongoing to move simple English to the top of the language list. I see this as a good idea. Proposed here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I think anyone writing a article within in this project is aware of a need to provide both an encyclopedic article, and at the same time knows that almost all people accessing the page will be doing so primarily because of questions about their own health, or their family or someone they know. However, as per WP:MEDMOS articles are not supposed to be "patient information leaflets". Personally I try to balance this by writing the lead in a slightly different style to the body of the article. The lead is almost a plain language summary, and avoids unnecessary jargon. The lead is like a summary for the people in the second category you describe, and the rest of the article goes into much greater depth, and does not avoid medical terminology, although these are wikilinked and/or explained in parentheses. Nesting of related articles also allows for even greater detail of subtopics. In this respect, there is a "level of service" depending upon what the readers are after: basic information, encyclopedic and academic.

Lead: synonyms, basic definition, summary of content e.g. symptoms, classification, etc etc

Body of article...

==Classification==

{{main:Classification of syndrome XX}}

1 or 2 paragraph summary of Classification of syndrome XX.

==Symptoms==

{{main:Symptoms of syndrome XX}}

etc.

I think the plain language summary would be great to highlight to readers, and this could certainly be done as some kind of standard template/ hatnote. Great idea. Lesion (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I am hesitant to add another type of hatnote to the lead. Many articles already have a couple of these which begins to push the beginning of the article a fair ways down. That is why I like the language link solution. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Good article diff

Is this in any way an improvement? Maybe someone knows off the top of their head. I don't. Biosthmors (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember if at the 3rd week of fetus development there is a distinction between nasal and oral cavity. I think there is no difference yet so oral cavity is the correct term. If is true it can be an improvement. DocElisa 22:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• By the way I'm Nini00, I changed my name. The first one has been choosen by my daugther, we were palying at Web. It was too childish so I have asked her permission to change it... DocElisa 22:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • We're glad to have you! Welcome. =) Biosthmors (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you DocElisa 09:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I did a title error

Yes I did an error: Accessory saphenous vein must be deleted or redirected to Anterior accessory saphenous vein. This is the name in the new terminology and is in accord with the Latin name. I can't do it... yet. And instead to move to the new title I have created the new page (idiot newbie I am ...) Thank you for correction DocElisa 09:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I think keep accessory saphenous vein as a redirect in case people search for the older name... Lesion (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Is what I think and is done. Thanks DocElisa 14:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Eyes, please

... upon Ted Kaptchuk, Irving Kirsch, and Program in Placebo Studies. There seems to be some first-party editing but some cleanup might rescue the articles. Is it worth the effort? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Kirsch and the Program might need to be merged, the only significant media coverage I was able to find was a New Yorker article. i haven't done anything but glance at it, but it isnt immediately clear to me whether it's about the man or the program. I am unclear on how to justify the Kirsch article, it may need to go to AfD (though admittedly i am a bit trigger happy with AfD). -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Kirsch is definitely notable. The article doesn't seem too bad to me: not too autobiography/resume. Can't comment about the notability of the other two, but don't see any harm in having both. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm still concerned at the apparent COI. There's a nasty policy gap around accounts that appear to be real names editing related content. We really need to either require verification of that identity or presume COI for such usernames. I certainly wouldn't want to discourage editors with such expertise from participating, but this runs perilously close to violating wp:NOTWEBHOST. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Lower limbs venous ultrasonography

About 50% of the whole article Lower limbs venous ultrasonography is launched. All comments and corrections are welcome. Thank you. DocElisa 19:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Great! I should find ways to link this from DVT. One thing I noticed were citations to a 1998 WHO source. Could we get anything more updated, per WP:MEDDATE? Thanks again! Biosthmors (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll try. WHO doesn't need to work about this subject nowadays because in USA, Germany, UK, France, Italy and others there are already specialized centers to prepare physicians. So 1998 is too old document for USA but for other countries like Portugal, Brasil, Grece, most of Africa countries that document is not old... unfortunately. DocElisa 00:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

About DVT I think that's very important to link this article but I don't know very well how to do it because all the directions are about the compression ultrasound (a quick and incomplete examination made in a hurry) and the idea that the lower leg DVT doesn't need to be treated. I don't agree with this because lots of patients will be at risk to have a pulmonary embolism if we generalize this idea on web. So I can't modify nothing without permission. My experience over 25 years treating vein diseases (I'm cardiologist but in 1987 I left the pump and I became "plumber" - unfortunately I'm old) teach me that we must treat DVT even while we wait diagnosis confirmation (it's easy to stop lovenox treatment is hard or impossible to treat a DVT with more than 24 hours evolution due to cloth organization). DocElisa 13:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:KIS label

Your WP:Keep It Simple label, Template:User label WPMedicine {{User label WPMedicine}} (t/l) is in danger of being deleted. See (Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 6#Template:User_label.) If you still want it, you may wish to move it to project space, perhaps a redirect page Template:Label_WPMedicine or Template:Label_WikiProject_Medicine by placing {{db-move|Template:User label WPMedicine|]}} above the redirect. Also see {{user label}} for technical details. Feel free to review my planning page, User:PC-XT/KIS, and talk there if you have questions. PC-XT (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Injection fraction

I just ran into the article Injection fraction. To my untrained eye it doesn't look like real medicine. I'd like the opinion of those who have more knowledge than me. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well... for me this is new... I'm cardiologist since long long time ago. Big confusion! No sources, good imagination! DocElisa 02:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Look at editor's UP and Talk too is strange DocElisa 02:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

OMG! is not only injection fraction he is changing lots of articles in cardiac physiology! and others. Where he(she) edits little things are changed, apparently not wrong but in fact they are here. I´m looking his edits since 1 hour ago and they are all little but changing the sentence meaning. It will be a big work to correct all. DocElisa 03:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and submit Injection fraction to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. If you're seeing a dangerous pattern, maybe we should get an administrator involved. The idea of somebody changing medical stuff chills me. SchreiberBike (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Injection fraction. SchreiberBike (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This seems to go back to his earliest edits in 2007. References never seem to be provided. Very troubling! LeadSongDog come howl! 07:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Davidruben (talk · contribs) and myself have been trying to work with this editor for ages. Lacking the time I have not tried to verify the content in articles he started. I agree that AFD seems a good place for this walled garden of weird stuff. JFW | T@lk 07:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Another "Bicholin conflict" but in Medicine, and on many articles!!! very troubling as you say DocElisa 08:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

With the "translation task force project" this kind of issue is really a danger. I think all medical stuff must be verified. It seems a very hard work is it possible? DocElisa 13:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• For example in 2007 in multiple sclerosis the blood brain barrier was well described as an "endothelial" system, in 2008 is already twisted to a "capillary system" what is wrong. I noted it when I have verified the Portuguese translation of this article. DocElisa 13:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have taken a red pen to the obtuse turgid English, removed speculation, statements of what can not be described to a mere "lay" encyclopedia readers, and generally trimmed the article to make some sort of readable paragraphs. I've also removed analogies of buckets (idk), ballistic recoil... Hope this edit is an improvement. That editor with probable coi issue on this topic, previously blocked following repeated warnings and discussion. Such technobabble editing is very hard for other editors to rephrase, and so such distruptive contributions are particularly annoying. David Ruben 22:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

discussion at WT:MEDRS over recommendations against including primary study results

FYI, there is currently an active discussion at WT:MEDRS over a proposal to weaken the current recommendations in WP:MEDRS against the inclusion of primary studies. Participation would be appreciated! Cheers... Zad68 16:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Check of new ventricular dyssynchrony article

Hi All,

I just created a stub article on Ventricular dyssynchrony. It's my first medical article and I am not a medical expert. I am looking for someone more knowledgeable to take a quick look at the content to make sure I haven't said something horribly wrong. If this is not the right venue to ask such a favor, where would be a more appropriate location?

Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome. This is a great place to ask for help. I've never heard of that before, so I'll leave the once-over to someone else, but you are in the right place, and I'm sure someone will have a look before long. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

After a quick look on your article. There's nothing horribly wrong. Is a good beginning for an article.

Just some ideas to expand the article:

1 - may be good to expand this theme talking about physiology

• little atrio-ventricular dyssynchrony is physiologic, atria contracts before ventricles
• little dyssynchrony between ventricles is physiologic too and is the reason for the phonographic components of heart sounds

2 - May be better to expand physiopathology too (a little bit)

• a bigger dysssynchony is usually secondary to conduction problems with electrical dyssynchrony. I'm not sure if dyssynchrony leads to heart failure or if heart failure leads to dyssynchrony. Any way, what is sure is: dyssynchrony worses a pre-existing heart failure and an appropriate pacing improves these patients

3 - Tell us what it is "resynchronization therapy"

Well done, go ahead. Regards DocElisa 23:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much, DocElisa, for reviewing the article! And thanks for the suggestions for improvements and a better description of the relation between dyssynchrony and heart failure. Regards, --Mark viking (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Should this be listed under Category:Cardiac dysrhythmia? Under the more general category of Heart diseases? Somewhere else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right about Category:Cardiac dysrhythmia. The Pacemaker syndrome article is under that category and also talks about AV dyssynchrony. I've added the category to the article. I've removed Cardiology, because that is implied by Cardiac dysrhythmia and it looks like the Heart diseases category is also implied by it. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Heads up

Wikidata is going live. This will affect the WP:Interwiki links to articles in other languages. See meta:Wikidata/Deployment_Questions for more information. The practical point is this: if you see someone removing all the interlanguage links, please check the article, not just the diff, to see whether the links still appear in the usual place (on the left, in "Languages" underneath the Toolbox and Print/Export sections, if you're using the normal skin). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Engaging with other language WikiProject Medicines to collaborate on regional effort

Hi all. In relation to my experiment on Regional variation in standards of care, could someone help me with the following. I see that there are different WikiProject Medicines depending on the language version you choose in the left sidebar. While supporting the main disease state article (English version), it will take a collective effort from people within respective regions and language domains to support supplying information on the variations of how diseases are viewed and tackled in those respective regions. My question is:

Is there currently a method in place to alert and communicate with other WikiProject Medicine language domains on a collective effort such as this experiment (e.g. a channel for all WikiProject Medicine languages to view and see)?

Thanks. GT67 (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Toxoplasmosis#Signs_and_symptoms

Can an expert take a look at Toxoplasmosis#Signs_and_symptoms? It needs a bit of a tweak for readability. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

CardioNetworks (ECGpedia, echopedia) upload

There is a discussion at commons:Commons:Bots/Requests/Smallbot 8 as to whether the upload is worthwhile.Smallman12q (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)