Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine/archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Old pages

A number of the oldest of the old pages listed on Special:Ancientpages are obscure diseases. It would be great if some of these could be dealt with by being categorized. Listed below are some of the oldest. - SimonP 17:13, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

We should in any case have redirects from all such articles without hyphens to the articles with the hyphen. - Nunh-huh 00:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I moved this to Sly syndrome so it matches the other mucopolysaccharidoses.
Seems to me that all these articles now have been categorized. Alex.tan 21:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Medicine

I've been moving articles from Category:Medicine to the appropriate subcategories, but there are a lot of articles and some help would be appreciated. In general, medical articles are categorised in two types categories: by the medical specialism they belong in (e.g. Category:Pulmonology) and by their etiology (e.g. Category:Autoimmune diseases and/or Category:Eponymous diseases). JFW | T@lk 22:35, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll keep trying to lend a hand here! Erich 04:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Seasons greeting

gedday all, hope all you northerners are keeping warm and hope all is well. Erich 04:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Doctor, are you there?

Geez guys, it's boringly quiet here. I've noticed that the turnover rate of doctors here is fairly high. Has anyone seen User:Kd4ttc lately?

Anyway, please read Talk:Deaf and Talk:Models of deafness and shudder. JFW | T@lk 00:16, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

dude! you're a fanatic!! good on you! I'm not sure if I can cope much more with deafness!! One of my colleagues just pointed me at the Australian Medical Council website - where they have a mock exam. After 50 questions (takes about 20min) you get a break down of your performance.

I gotta confess I was a bit anxious doing the test but was relieved to obtain the giddying ranking of 'satisfactory' (for the record I scored: 39/50 Mastery: 12/15) apparently I guess better than I thought!

go on give it a go and fess up your score! Erich 14:16, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Total Correct: 32/50; Mastery Correct: 12/15; Performance: Satisfactory I did it in 14 minutes, but I plead a whole lotta years since I had to think about old folks and pregnant women. Not one single question about endocrine or metabolic diseases! alteripse 02:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

yep it's definitely an exam for the jack of all trades. were you happy that the question on the astmatic kid had a single correct answer? I felt agrieved about getting that one wrong - given the paucity of detail in the question. go on JFW... 'fess up: how'd you go? Erich 13:15, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Total correct 35/50, mastery correct 13/15, performance: satisfactory. JFW | T@lk 00:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think I got that one right but I can't remember the choices. alteripse 14:34, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PMID

Template:PMID was unnecessary. The Wiki now recognises PMID codes and automatically creates a link, much like ISBN codes. Please disregard the template and simply use PMID 4957203 (see, no template!) JFW | T@lk 23:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

thanks; very useful information! Courtland 2005-01-31 USA ~19:20 EST

geez that is cool! when did they do that? (hey jfd are you going to take the test?? ) Erich 12:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just added pages for PMID and Wikipedia:PMID similiar to Wikipedia:ISBN. I'm not sure exactly how it works. Petersam 22:56, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:PMID is proposed to be deleted - Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:PMID Petersam 21:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Petersam, you're working much too hard :-) Compliments on that awesome job that I was reluctant too take on... JFW | T@lk 21:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


"Neurologic disorders" vs "Neurology"

Hi. While going through the old pages above listed by SimonP, I wondered whether articles on ... arghh... diseases affecting the nervous system should go under what I thought sounded right (and what I started doing) Category:Neurologic disorders or whether, as some have already done, put them in Category:Neurology. I was figuring that "Neurologic disorders" would fit as a subcategory of Category:Diseases but that "Neurology" would not because it's also the study of normal neural tissue function. What's the consensus view here? Alex.tan 05:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Diseases should be in both categories. Neurology is the field that deals with them, and neurologic disorders is the pathophysiological category. All autoimmune diseases are in Category:Autoimmune diseases, even though they are also under Category:Rheumatology, Category:Pulmonology etc. JFW | T@lk 22:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nephrotoxicity

Hepatotoxicity and neurotoxicity were extant, but today I finally started nephrotoxicity. Could all of you kindly add the drugs you know, and the mechanism? It is still very short. JFW | T@lk 22:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the topic of "Category:Disorders"

this is in regard to the listing of Category:Disorders on the Categories for Deletion page

In the discussion, we have gotten to the point of considering whether a "disorder" is a "disease" or vice versa. One proposal on the table is to delete Category:Disorders (the actual action would be a renaming to a specific disorder type, but that is tantamount to a delete). Another proposal is to keep Category:Disorders and actually place Category:Diseases as a sub-category of it (the reasoning is found in the discussion linked from above). One question is whether something like "growth disorder" as a category can be considered a viable child of "diseases" as a category; if it cannot, then maintaining a "disorders" category is pretty much a requirement.

It would be helpful if one or another of you could step into the discussion and provide some input that might help a decision be made.

Thanks in advance. Courtland 03:51, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Automatic tool for creating PubMed citations

In trying to cite my sources, I've found WikiBib very useful. However, that tool requires that you provide all the info (e.g. article title, journal, author, etc.), and I'm a bit too lazy for that. So I created a tool that can generate citations given just a PubMed ID, and I figured someone here might find it useful too. Cheers, David Iberri | Talk 05:56, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Wikiportal: Medicine

Work on the wikiportal Medicine has begun. I have added categories and wikiprojects, for other things your help will be needed. --Eleassar777 21:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Categoryectomy

Hey docs, it's very very quiet here. Would all of you mind helping out with obesity? I'm trying to get this article to featured article status in the view of all the media attention on this problem.

Also, I'm tidying up Category:Medicine again. Some unscrupulous individuals think that they can categorise a medical article by slapping this category on it. Quod non. Please help sorting them out if you've got a minute. JFW | T@lk 07:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Hey Dudes! just saying hello... nice to drop by and see you two still soldering on! I'm now at a kid's hospital (for 3/12s anyway) and life remains busy. My gasboys project is doing reasonably well and I'm still trying to encourage my colleagues to take an interest in wiki's. best wishes to all Erich 15:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Looking up from trench) Oh, it's you. Why don't you hop down in here with us and give us a hand instead of playing the tourist? alteripse 17:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

I propose using an infobox on pages for diseases and disorders. Here is a mockup I've come up with: Template:DiseaseDisorder_infobox. An example of how this would look is available here. --Arcadian 00:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The way you have designed the template invites a whole host of problems. It presumes that signs, symptoms, diagnosis and therapy are clear-cut. They are not. For example, you stated that gastroenteritis is treated with loperamide. That is generally, but there are too many "yes, but..." situations to blankly put this in the template.
The template contains entries for incidence and prevalence. These numbers are very dependant on population and location (e.g. hepatitis in Southeast Asia), again defying the purpose of a template.
I can only imagine one use for this template, which is linking numerical data, such as the ICD code and DSM IVR classification, as you rightly did. Otherwise, I am firmly opposed to its use on disease-related pages. JFW | T@lk 03:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I have revised the template to meet your specs. You can click here to see how it looks. In the long term, I'd hope we could consider putting some of those other categories back in, and I think I'm more optimistic than you are that we can find mutually agreeable sources (for example, we could use the ICD codes for symptoms and signs, and I know there are WHO sources for incidence and prevalence), and that the use of this template could be a useful nudge to the editors on some of the disease pages that are currently disasters. The field I'd argue for most is a Cause field, because I think that will help focus people's attention when they edit pages. But for now, if the only two fields we agree on are ICD and DSM, could we go forward with that, try it for a few months, and then if it goes smoothly, perhaps we could consider gradually expanding it? --Arcadian 04:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What if we redesigned it for unequivocal codes & terms such as ICD9, DSM IV, OMIM number, defective gene, defective enzyme, causal organism? Many diseases would have an association with more than 1 item in some of the fields (e.g., more than 1 OMIM number or infectious agent). We could list up to 5 of each, and if more are applicable, the box would say "multiple, see article". I am relatively lukewarm about this because I am realizing that most of the disease articles I have written have multiple genes or enzymes involved. OK forget it. I do agree entirely with you that there is no value to the boxes as offered with a few arbitrary signs and symptoms. Nice try by Arcadian; give him credit for effort anyway. alteripse 04:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • A thought in response to Alteripse's comments: perhaps we could address your concerns by putting fields in for "Parent" and "Children". For many of the diseases where there is ambiguity about the cause (for example, Gastroenteritis) we could use that as a consistent interface to drill down or drill up and resolve ambiguity. --Arcadian 04:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are parent and children some type of technical database terms describing a hierarchy? Explain a little what you mean? alteripse 05:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • For example, if there was a template on the Anemia page, because the causative agent is dependent upon the type, we wouldn't list the cause on that page, but instead say 'see children'. In the children section of the template, we would have links to the kinds of anemia, like Iron deficiency anemia or Megaloblastic anemia. Then, on those pages, the 'parent' field would have Anemia. Because the different kids of anemia present in similar ways, we could include the signs and symptoms on that parent page. --Arcadian 05:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Uh, in the present form it seems Leukemia has a DSM code (quod non, unless they have started coding the third axis now). I support Alteripse's idea to link other "discrete" values such as OMIM numbers. In theory MeSH headers could also be linked.
Without wanting to sound patronising, I think Arcadian is being too optimistic about medicine being systematic. What is considered a "cause" for a disease is often dependant on numerous risk factors. I would have serious misgivings about a definite "cause" being stamped on every medical article; again it smacks of oversimplification.
As for "parent" and "child", this is indeed confusing. Even iron deficiency has multiple unrelated causes. Let's just not do this. The category system is presently in use to classify diseases by the type (autoimmune, malignant, infectious) and by the specialism that deals with them. That should be sufficient. JFW | T@lk 05:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Per the above, I've added MeSH and OMIM. --Arcadian 11:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Haven't heard any feedback for a while -- any other changes that people want to the template before I start putting it on some of the pages? --Arcadian 19:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We are more dubious than ungrateful and don't want you to waste your efforts if we end up not being able to use the boxes without introducing errors. Why don't you put a couple of your proposed boxes on a couple of hematology or endocrinology articles (look at the ones JFW and I have been working on) and let us see if they might be applicable before you do a whole lot? alteripse 19:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to put more time into building the disease infoboxes if JFW is just going to revert them again as he did earlier this week, so I'd rather find out beforehand if they're okay before I invest the time. When he performed his reversions, he asked that I come to this page and get a consensus before proceeding, so that's what I'm doing here. To help facilitate consensus, I have removed everything but ICD from the initial Template:DiseaseDisorder_infobox. --Arcadian 20:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arcadian, I apologise for appearing heavy-handed, but there were big problems with the box, and on every page I found a reason why the box would not be appropriate. You've spent a lot of time on this, and I don't want to create the impression that us grumpy doctors are monopolising on medical articles (which I do occasionally tend to do).
ICD codes should apply to all diseases, while DSM-IVR or OMIM will not. I do warmly support your move to link ICD codes, which is probably the best classification of diseases we have at the moment. JFW | T@lk 22:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Evening chaps, just happened across this page and thought I'd say what a good idea I think the infobox is, and wondering if any of you would care to revisit it after a break of a few months? FWIW, I think the inclusion of OMIM & MeSH links but be quite sensible, as it would allow users to cross-over into those two databases for further research. Also, I've just added the UK's Read codes in a similar format to the ICD-10 page, as I thought if the info box were to go ahead it might be sensible to include all widely used classification standards (though that page might need a bit of work...). I look forward to further discussion! James Bedford 00:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Another one we might want to consider adding is ICD-O. Right now I've been adding those as subcodes to ICD-10, but it might be more precise to split them out. Perhaps we could have an 'other codes' section to handle codes that would not apply to all cases. By the way, thank you for creating List of Read Codes. What is the relationship between Read Codes and OPCS-4? Eventually I'd like to get infoboxes to support Procedure codes as well as Diagnosis codes, but I'm still trying to get a better understanding of international standards. (I'm not a doctor; I begin medical school in August 2006.) --Arcadian 17:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Cancer

I'm trying to bring cancer to featured article status. Could you all have a look and improve what is necessary? JFW | T@lk 09:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nice article! I contributed a bit more. alteripse 13:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hypoglycemia

I just "completed" (nothing is ever complete here) a major rewrite of a previously really crappy article and would be grateful for medical peer review of hypoglycemia. I am working on diabetic hypoglycemia and congenital hyperinsulinism. thanks alteripse 04:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Newbie

Being new to wiki and having an intested in medicine, I was delighted to see that this project a) existed and b) was reasonably active. I am a SHO in general medicine from Scotland and will be attempting to add my two-penneth to some articles, review stubs and generally help out. There seems to be a lot of activity from a select few. I hope that to be of use and also hope that you will help me in this new adventure. I'll be attempting to coerse some of my colleagues to get involved. If there is somewhere particular to start, mention it - if not I'll just take a look through the top priority page and see what the best use of my time will be. drjermy 14:25, 13 July 2005 (BST)

Find your niche and hack away, I say. It's more about having fun. Tips from this old hand: (1) Use good references, (2) cover the main things, (3) remain systematic. JFW | T@lk 15:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Preclinical medicine/medical science project

Hi all, I am PhatRita, a medical student. I have been following this project recently with interest. I think the same format and organistion could be applied with great effect to subjects on preclinical medicine such as human anatomy and physiology. The pages there are a mess. They face several problems which include:

  • lack of agreement on whether to use lay or professional terms such as "superior" vs "above"
  • lack of organisation on materials - redirections problems such as upper limb to arm (which is anatomically incorrect) and so on.
  • lack of material full stop. There is so much to expand on. Many entries, especially anatomy, are one sentence and are stubs.
  • lack of clinical relevance. Pages have no links to clinically important subjects, eg wrist and carpal tunnel syndrome
  • some information is misleading, perhaps peer reviewing could help?
  • many pages are both animal and human together. It makes pages sometimes unreadable and sometimes complex and misleading.

Just take a look at the human physiology page to see what I mean.

The project could provide:

  • a central organisation
  • highlight and attract more involvement
  • improve the quality and linking to clinically relevant subjects
  • peer reviewing could further help this
  • separation of human medical science as a stand alone subject, which is important clinically.

What do you think? Please mail me with suggestions and interest thanks

PhatRita 12:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Although lacking time myself, I warmly support PhatRita in this quest. Basic science is still immensely poorly covered, and organisation is sorely lacking. The problem lies partially at the rather unglamorous character of basic anatomy, however important to any surgeon (or even for the sake of science). I was utterly shocked that I had to start mediastinum almost four years after Wikipedia was started. JFW | T@lk 00:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


I have started the Preclinical medicine page. If you are interested in helping in any way, please have a look! PhatRita 00:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


Sure, welcome, and have at it! When it's really bad, you can really make it better. I've been splitting my toil between clinical and a few biochemistry/physiology topics, as well as lounging about the ref desk. alteripse 00:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

First of all, welcome, PhatRita! I agree with the issues you have raised. Unfortunately, medical students and doctors tend to be extremely busy which is part of the reason why these articles are not in top shape, I suspect. Now that I'm an intern, I've become busier than I ever was, and I've had to severely cut back my time on Wikipedia (I haven't even listed myself as a member of this WikiProject, which I probably should do). Recently I've been focusing on new articles, picking medical ones from Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, varying somewhat between basic science and clinical articles (my recent ones have been Chromoblastomycosis, Mastoiditis, Transaminase, Soleus muscle, and Acrocyanosis). I agree with JDW about the difficulty in writing anatomy articles—I put everything I could think of in Soleus muscle and it was a stretch at that. I've been collecting links to articles that need work but my list grows faster than I can attack it. I don't know how many people are active here, but perhaps we could consider some type of collaboration of the fortnight or something if there are enough. Or at least an internal peer review—I know I wouldn't mind others in the medical profession (or about to enter!) taking a look at the articles I write. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
In fact, the more I think about it, I like the idea of having a weekly or fortnightly collaboration. Would anyone else be interested? Of course there would be no obligation to contribute, but if we had several people poke their heads in it could really help. There are many medical articles that really should be a lot better than they are—like SIRS for instance. I wouldn't mind setting up and maintaing the collaboration page. Maybe we could alternate between clinical and pre-clinical topics. Laypeople would also be welcome, especially to ensure that the articles are understandable. Thoughts? — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:28, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Hi all again, thanks for your comments and suggestions. I think Knowledge Seeker's idea of a COTW is a good idea, just to get the process of improving the pages off the ground. Maybe sometime down the road we can think about expanding it into a more ambitious project if needs be. If possible we could program a new tag like COTW Medicine or something, to stick on nominees. In fact, why not stamp a seal like "improved with the COTW medicine" and maybe that will attract more support.
Whenever I write about a topic on anatomy or other basic sciences, I always forget an important point or maybe a certain object has a different name, eg sternal angle/Louis etc. Peer reviewing as part of the collaboration is very useful.
If you could make a page for this purpose, I'll be happy to help you maintain and improve. Are there any interested people for the first collaboration?
PhatRita 12:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I started it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/MCOTF (or use shortcut WP:MCOTF). PhatRita and anyone who is interested, please head over to the talk page to help plan the details (or just to let us know you are interested in participating, even if infrequently). Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:31, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I warmly greet these ideas and will surely contribute sooner rather than later. This fortnight collaboration should also be mentioned at the Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Medicine.

As there was talk about anatomy, I would specifically like to point out that it would be very appreciated if Latin redirects were created to the relevant topics. The same could possibly apply also to other topics. You know, it is often quite difficult for us non-native English medicine students to figure out English names. --Eleassar my talk 11:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Immunosuppressive drug

I think the articles immunosuppression and immunosuppressive drug should be merged into a new one called "immunosuppressive therapy" (currently a redirect) or perhaps even simply to "immunosuppression" (but I'm afraid it wouldn't be enough balanced then). Otherwise "immunosuppression" won't develop. Any thoughts? --Eleassar my talk 11:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


Improvement Drive

The article H5N1 has been listed to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. You can add your vote there if you would like to support the article.--Fenice 06:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Fenice 06:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Redirect Maskun to Achromatopsia?

Achromatopsia currently redirects to Maskun, however, I was wondering if anyone would mind if I switched the redirect in the other direction. In Google, "Achromatopsia" gets about 20,700 hits and "Maskun" gets about 20,500 (but the vast majority appear to be Icelandic webpages or things unrelated to abnormal cone function). In PubMed, "Achromatopsia" gets 2,854 hits whereas "Maskun" gets only 1 (one). Please let me know if there are objections to switching the redirect. Edwardian 05:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Switching the redirect seems like a good idea; however, there's probably more to be done, as the two terms aren't synonymous. Achromatopsia isn't only an inborn error of the cone; it's a general term for absence of color vision, and there's more than one kind of that, including permanent acquired achromatopsia from small right parieto-occipital strokes (some people argue that this is always color agnosia or color anomia, which verges on the philosophical.); and paroxysmal achromatopsia, described in some (extremely rare) cases of occipital lobe epilepsy (Brazis, Localization in Clinical Neurology mentions this; I've seen a case of it myself.) -Ikkyu2 10:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Excellent info. I've always used "color agnosia" when differentiating between the two (i.e. cone disorder vs. brain/mental disorder), but you're absolutely right. Edwardian 07:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Traumatology

Hi, I might be writing this in the wrong place, completely new @ WP and haven't really got a hold of it yet. I'm a doctor specializing in Intensive Care/Disaster medicine with special interest in Trauma Surgery. Therefor, naturally, I'd like to contribute in these specific areas. Looking at the traumatology page, there is a chapter on some half New age, half alternative medicine thing, could you please take a look at this? I really don't know how to split an article but feel strongly that that part should not be there! Also, is this the place to discuss all issues/questions in the WP medical community? Lastly (sorry for grouping question), where can I read about the legal implications of what I might write here @ WP?--Johan M 08:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

You are in the right place. I deleted the traumatology New age nonsense (see article/discussion for reasons). I've put my thoughts on legal issues on your discussion page User talk:Johan Malmgren -David Ruben 12:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and the information! After finishing working on my new apartment I will take a big bite at rewriting the traumatology page!--Johan M 18:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you expecting any practical examples? :-) JFW | T@lk 22:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course, considering where my thumbs are placed, I expect to put up some nice pictures of selfinflicted injuries, maybe a table of what kind of injuries could be associated to what tools!? :-) --Johan M 01:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Heh. JFW | T@lk 01:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I would also be interested in contributing to Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology. I am a consultant orthopaedic surgeon and editor of Orthopaedic Web Links If David Ruben is acting as overall editor for orthopaedic surgery perhaps he can give me some direction. I have added a couple of comments to the talk sections of Traumatology and Orthopaedic Surgery but haven't quite got all the wiki conventions and customs straightened out. I am giving a lecture at UBC (Vancouver) next week about Internet activity for orthopaedic surgeons. Do you want me to direct them your way?--Mylesclough 06:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, an orthopod! It would only be reasonable to make you overall editor for orthopaedic surgery. PLEASE tell the UBC about the dire need of orthopaedic articles on Wikipedia. The present info is written by lay people and of low-to-very-low quality. Most docs here are either medics or GPs, and surgeons and orthopods are urgently required for the relevant pages! JFW | T@lk 17:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Academic egos are fragile, poor souls, and there is very little credit for contributing to the Internet. On Wikipedia it seems as if anonymity is preferred. The mulitple editing model means that no one person (or team) can be credited with the article. I like it, but it will be tough to sell to people who are a)busy b)involved in publish-or-perish. So I will put out the message but have some doubts of its reception.
What is the status of the Medical Wiki? The links to it don't work at the moment --Mylesclough 22:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I am not aware of any large-scale comprehensive medical wiki. I agree that it takes a particular mind-set to contribute fruitfully to Wikipedia; there is scepticism about its accuracy. It would be great of you'd be able to enthuse any orthopods in our work. Some pages (such as asthma) are really great now, and with orthopaedic and traumatological problems being so common Wikipedia should not lag behind to inform the public. JFW | T@lk 16:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Category

Category:Medicine has been flooded with irrelevant stuff, e.g. poultry viruses. Could anyone help me depopulating it? JFW | T@lk 01:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

How's that done? Simply remove the category template from the offending articles?—Encephalon | ζ  01:35:35, 2005-08-25 (UTC)

Yeah, or even better finding a more appropriate category. JFW | T@lk 01:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"been flooded", have you identified someone actively adding Category:Medicine tags, or is this just sloppy entries over time? Will try and help out David Ruben 02:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah, get the gist - full of paracytology drugs... will edit away David Ruben 02:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Asthma is a featured article candidate

I'm trying to get Asthma promoted to FA status. Please visit the nomination and help improve the article, if you are interested. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:44, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Cholesterol

Please beware, some character is editing Alzheimer/cholesterol/statin-related articles to reflect some fringe POV that cholesterol deficiency causes AD. Please revert on sight. 195.10.45.152 11:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Epilepsy

I have been taking a whack at epilepsy and some related pages lately. I welcome your feedback or edits! By the way, how come I'm the only American doctor here? -Ikkyu2 10:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice work. See list on one of the medical project pages: there have been a few American doctors over the last year but they come and go. alteripse 13:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
What makes you think you're the only American doctor? If you're counting residents, I'm one too. — Knowledge Seeker দ 16:18, August 30, 2005 (UTC) Residents certainly count! alteripse 16:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Finding those medically inclined

Just discovered Wikipedia and the medical part of it. Have been adding categories to userpages of those suspected of being doctors or students. Should I have forgotten any please leave a category on your/their page. Here are the ones already guilty of being a doctor or student.

Furthermore I found some pages (Hypermagnesemia, Hypomagnesemia, Paracentesis, Pleural effusion, Pulmonary edema, Thoracentesis) that need extra work. Presently I will redo these and hope they will be more up to standard.

On these pages (Acute respiratory distress syndrome,Chest tube, Pleural effusion, Pneumothorax, Pulmonary edema, Thoracentesis) I would like to insert pictures but I am not sure if the ones I have are allowed. I have some nice ones from the net or out of medical journals. Maybe some of you might help. --Nomen Nescio 18:16, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Nescio, you're working unbelievably hard! Don't get overworked! You are likely to find many other medical pages that are substandard. We have the Medical Collaboration of the Week to iron out the most sorry examples, but the ones you've identified could all do with work.
Images are a sore point. I always carry a small digital camera, but the most interesting images are of patients or their imaging, both of which have ethical concerns. Images from US Government sources are widely available, though, and could fix this problem. Alternatively, you may ask your patients if they would object against inclusion of an image in Wikipedia. I did this with Hickman line, but in an ideal world a written permission should be obtained.
Images of medical technology should be easy to obtain (just snap a picture of a CVVH machine, a mechanical ventilator or a chest drain) but are less illustrative. JFW | T@lk 20:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Cerebellum

Nrets and I have spent a lot of time on the cerebellum article. It went to peer-review without much action. It's now up as a FAC. It would be great if some docs could head over and critique the work of a neuroscience grad student and offer their opinions. :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 03:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. In fact, probably overdone. -Ikkyu2 06:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I found it quite difficult to read, even though I've just finished neuroanatomy a months ago. I think a bit more wikifying is needed. There are several terms which I think you should clarify, such as phylogenetic and lesions (instead of relying on redirecting) - eg lesion (damage to the nerve) etc.
The main concern I have is the "lesions of the cerebellum" section, which is a mass of writing. The only clearly visible disease, Parkinson's, is actually a disorder in the sunstantia nigra in the deep grey mass of the midbrain.
I also think that some terms should be bullet pointed - such as atresia, dysdochokinesia (spelling?), ataxia and so on. Clinical detection of cerebellar disorders should be included. I will try and fill most of these in. But it does look promising. PhatRita 15:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Re phatRita's remarks, Thanks for your input. I think that several topics in this article are simply touched upon since they could be greatly expanded into their own articles, such as: Cerebellar disorders or Computational theories of cerebellar function. The way the article stands now there is a bit of a general overview, anatomy, cellular physiology, and medical conditions. While neither section is as comprehensive as it may be, they do serve to give a general overview of the cerebellum, what it does and how it's studied. Therefore, much of the elaboration on the medically-related terms might be better in a separate page. Nrets 16:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Lymphatic system

Hi. I got into this argument with User:Tarnas who is insisting that manual lymph drainage actually works, or rather, that there is evidence supporting it. I found a Cochrane review article that says quite simply that there is no evidence it provides a benefit over bandaging. He's not a medico and has criticised my quoting of the Cochrane article on his scanning of the abstract... I would appreciate it if someone helps me explain Cochrane reviews to him ... in words other than just mine. Thanks in advance. Alex.tan 15:10, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Will look it over in a couple of hours.—Encephalon | ζ  15:12:51, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

Asthma is now a featured article!

Thank you to all who worked on it. About time medicine gets some more representation! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:07, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

And congratulations too to User:Nrets and User:Semiconscious, for their work in bring Cerebellum to featured status too! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:09, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Wow! I'm very pleased both of these articles have moved on to FA status. A lot of hard work went into these two articles, and it has indeed paid off. Great job, let's keep the medicine articles coming! Semiconscious (talk · home) 18:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Reorganize?

I have some lofty ideas for new medicine subprojects, but I am unsure where to set them up. One is to revamp the "medical article workshop" page as discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Collaboration. Another is to implement something like what is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Medicine Collaboration of the Week#Systematic covarage of topics. The question is, should I do it here or at a new Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine? My first inclination is to do it here, but I would want to significantly redo the project page and perhaps some of the other pages, and other users might prefer this project the way it is and won't appreciate me messing it all up. Also, neither of these idease are limited to clinical medicine; they would include preclinical medicine too. The problem, though, with making a parent WikiProject is that it would just add more complexity that might be unnecessary. In any case I have no desire to modify things like the template or infoboxes and such; I am interested in coordinating work and highlighting areas for improvement and such. Any thoughts? — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:34, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Myocardial infarction

The need to patrol medical articles is again emphasised. Have a look on Talk:Myocardial infarction. A well-meaning chap who thinks ouabain will cure myocardial infarction tries to push a link to his website. The danger of this is the pseudoscience dressed up as scientific opinion. Please be vigilant, all. JFW | T@lk 12:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I've left a message on the Myocardial infarction talk page too. I've provided links to Wikipedia's policy of no original research, verifiability and NPOV. I've also offered a mild middle ground, for the author to mention that ouabain is used in some alternative treatment, bu that it hasn't been tested thoroughly. Let's see if the user adds this info in a neutral (and factual) way. Mindmatrix 20:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Infoboxes

This is not the first time I've had trouble with Arcadian's infoboxes. He has been inserting these into medical articles without little discussion with the members of this Wikiproject, and although the effort is laudable in itself I've found many inconsistencies and problems.

A recent discussion concerns ataxia. Arcadian inserted a box here, as ICD10 has a "category R" for symptoms not otherwise classified (NOS). I think the presence of a box on a "symptom" page creates massive confusion, and am against its use. What do the others think of this? JFW | T@lk 20:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Jfdwolff -- despite what you wrote on my talk page, I did address your issue, on the talk page for the template. Feel free to check the timestamps. But since the topic has been moved here now: Here's your original statement:
Could you please respond to my message before putting the box back? Ataxia is not a diagnosis, and even the ICD itself recognises this. I think that by putting ICD boxes on symptom pages we cause confusion. JFW | T@lk 20:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Several forms of Ataxia are listed in ICD-10 as "Diseases of the nervous system". [1]. Also, ataxia on its own is listed in ICD-10 under "Symptoms and signs involving the nervous and musculoskeletal systems". [2]. You said that I recreated the DiseaseDisorder infobox, but if you read the talk page you would have seen that I created another template called "SignSymptom infobox" to address your concern. Please tell me what you feel was so inaccurate about what I added that you had to revert it without going to the talk page first. --Arcadian 21:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, your SignSymptom box looks deceptively like the DiseaseDisorder box, to the point that I failed to notice the difference. The talk page of the template is not on my Watchlist, and I don't understand what made you think that it is.
We have had run-ins in the past on this. Your effort is laudable and I agree it is useful to continue the most common medical classification system on Wikipedia (as we do already with enzymes, pharmacological agents etc). My gripe is your working without much consensus. For example, container pages (e.g. leukemia, lymphoma) should not have boxes because these are not actual disease entities, and discussing this subject here would have elicited a response from most medically involved people on Wikipedia. I've also had to tidy up after you on various occasions (diff, diff, diff).
Please do not interpret my actions as hostile, but I honesty wish you'd discuss things better. JFW | T@lk 22:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
(biting my tongue...) I would be delighted to address JFW's concerns about the Template talk:DiseaseDisorder infobox. I've added his concerns to the talk page, and I invite everybody on this page to offer feedback and help drive to a consensus. --Arcadian 00:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why anyone thinks ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes are useful information to include. They're a means of coding billing records rather than a classification designed to enhance understanding of pathophysiology. Putting them in a box unduly emphasizes the trivial. - Nunh-huh 02:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Ulzim semi paralysis

While reading up for an article, I came across an obit which says that he died after a prolonged illness due to ulzim semi paralysis. Google is completely silent about this disease. Is there really such a disease or could it be a typo ? Tia, Tintin 04:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with this condition, but that could be a reflection of my lack of knowledge or it could be not recognized in Western medicine. I can't offhand think of any similarly named condition. If it's unverifiable, it should be removed from the article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:48, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I found this: "Divecha, Ramesh Vithaldas, died on February 19, 2003, aged 75, having suffered from Alzheimer's disease." [3] Edwardian 06:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Wisden is the more authentic source. I'll modify the article (Add : Somebody has already fixed it) Tintin 07:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Ulzim = Alzheim! Of course! Why didn't we think of that? alteripse 10:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Science pearls

Hello, Please notice this project. I hope that the List of publications in medicine will be adopted by the clinical medicine project. Thanks,APH 06:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I've neglected this list, and perhaps we should discuss the scope here a little bit, before it's flooded. JFW | T@lk 16:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm flattered from your proposal to discuss the scope of the list. My medical experience ends in going to a physician once in a while. Why don't you write how do you see the scope of the list and I'll try to comment on it. At the project page, you wrote that you worked on medical article that are suitable to the list. Which article are they? APH 05:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I try to insert classic references into articles when I come accross them, such as William Damashek proposing the classification of "myeloproliferative disease" for PRV/ET/CML or Herrick demonstrating that myocardial infarction is caused by coronary thrombus. These can be added to the List of Publications without much extra fanfare.
However, Ksheka, our now-departed Wiki cardiologist, was concerned that there are so many breakthrough articles that it is hard to decide which ones have affected the field enough to warrant inclusion. For an immunologist, the description of ANCAs may be a major breakthrough, while a pediatric surgeon would not count this as significant. JFW | T@lk 17:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

CVA or stroke?

See Talk:Cerebrovascular accident#CVA should redirect to stroke. I'm undecided. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Article for deletion: Allopathic medicine

I thought some of you might be interested in knowing that Allopathic medicine appears to have been nominated for AFD, although I'm not sure it appears on the main AFD page. Edwardian 04:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Pox party

Dear Doctors, I wonder if anyone here would be interested in checking out the Pox party article. User:SoothingR has turned the 2-liner into a useful stub, but I thought it could use some professional attention. I hope no one is actually hosting such parties. Thanks. -- PFHLai 14:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Template

What about adding 'natural history'? atleast in nephrology it makes sense (i.e something like minimal change disease will eventually remit even without treatment, whereas FSGS will not). Potential cons: less significance in other areas/fields and i am not sure it will make sense to lay readers. Hswapnil 18:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Main Page

In case you're interested. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations! Edwardian 06:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hypomagnesemia

Have finished this article. Maybe one of you might look at it and see if anything needs to be corrected. TIA --Nomen Nescio 18:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice, lots of info added, but keep in mind that you are not writing this in a medical textbook. I.e. explain things where necessairy and don't use phrases like "When confronted with low levels of magnesium we must think of the following conditions". Needs some more editing. --WS 18:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, it is more or less complete as article I would think.--Nomen Nescio 22:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Multiple sclerosis is a Wikipedia:Featured article!

Congratulations to all those who helped our collaboration achieve its second featured article! They did an amazing job (I didn't help at all, but the article turned out just fine without me). We're working on Pneumonia right now—feel free to pitch in. Hopefully we can nominate it for FAC soon (and I hope my workload eases up and I'll be able to spend more time on the wiki). — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Corrupted Blood copyedit.

Yes, I know it is a video game article. But would a kind soul in medical field please copyedit real life comparison section? Thanks. SYSS Mouse 13:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Done - InvictaHOG 15:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

RFC

A user (Ombudsman (talk · contribs)) has been pushing an external link that blames vaccination for basically everything on a few pages. This has now gone for RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ombudsman. Kindly have a look, please. After all, shaken baby syndrome is really the result of vaccination. Or is it? JFW | T@lk 22:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Nursing plans

Someone has uploaded a large number of pages containing nursing care plans. THB (talk · contribs) kindly moved them into one category, namely Category:Nursing care plans. I have looked at a number of these pages, and feel that most of their material is redundant.

Could you docs please comment on Category_talk:Nursing care plans what you think? I'm in doubt whether to merge the contents and delete the page titles, or whether to send the whole lot to AFD. JFW | T@lk 14:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It's on VFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nursing care plans. JFW | T@lk 18:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

RFC: Talk:American Medical Association

For those who might be interested, I've put up an RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, natural science, and technology asking if the POV flag in the American Medical Association article should stay or go. Does the article reflect a bias critical of the AMA or not? Thanks. Edwardian 05:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Sonography?

I'm debating with a new contributor whether medical ultrasonography should be renamed to sonography. Please offer your views on Talk:Medical ultrasonography. JFW | T@lk 01:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

New project member

Hello, I joined WikiProject Clinical medicine to work on articles related to pregnancy. This is a tricky area because it encompasses developmental biology, obstetrics, and childbirth. I’ve developed a preliminary plan of attack. Is anyone working on OB/GYN articles? I’ve already found several duplicate articles that need to be merged. Will bring these and other articles to the group for discussion as needed.--FloNight 17:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Some of the articles I have worked on (see my user page for a list) are at least partly gynecologic or neonatal. Don't wreak major surgery on these without discussion, but let me know if you want support for your work on the many gyn, obstetric, and perinatal articles that need help or reorganization. We need an expert in those areas. alteripse 19:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer

I just found this disclaimer. I guess it has been around for awhile but its use doesn't appear to be widespread. Does anyone think this, or some form of it, should be added to appropriate articles? If so, would it be better to make a "Medical disclaimer" tag to be added to appropriate articles instead? Edwardian 00:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

There was a flurry of "disclaimer" making when templates first came out. We had disclaimers for legal and medical advice and nearly anything else you can imagine. Articles got cluttered up with them, and a decision was made that one link to the general disclaimer on every page would suffice (it's at the bottom of each served page as "Disclaimers"). The template you have found is linked to at the top of the general disclaimer page. It shouldn't be used in any actual articles. I think this is probably just fine as it is. - Nunh-huh 01:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Thanks! Edwardian 04:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Interface with veterinary medicine?

It's been brought up at FAC for pneumonia that we currently don't interface with those among us who treat animals. Is there a precedent that we've established that I just don't know? I would be in favor of splitting any medical article into a (human) and (non-human) article with a possible disambiguation at the top if there is an existing article. Any thoughts? InvictaHOG 11:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You want to split H5N1 into one for humans and one for nonhumans? Or just the symptoms and treatments? How about taking it one article at a time, each on its own merits? I've found it best to let articles organically grow and split off other articles as needed. Things like wiki-articles that evolve over time seem to work best that way. WAS 4.250 22:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ideally, I think it would be nice to split H5N1 into an article about the causative organism and a separate article for the human disease which results. Then, if someone were to write extensively about the manifestations of H5N1 in birds, going into detail about the unique pathophysiology, etc., then I think it would be nice to have a dedicated article linked to H5N1 (non-human) at the top of the H5N1 organism/human disease page. It would be nice to have a plan for what to do about renal disease in cats, diabetes in dogs, etc. They are important articles, but I don't think that making every disease (ie diabetes, cancer) into a clearinghouse for every species makes sense. Better to let the disease name represent human disease and have a disambiguation link for any animal pages.
However, I also like organic growth of wikis. I was just hoping not to reinvent the wheel if this situation had come up before (ie questions about pneumonia in other species on the FAC) InvictaHOG 23:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Psychiatry under attack

The Wiki is sorely lacking psychiatrists. This is a sorry time for psychiatry. Some delightful anti-psychiatry-affiliated editors have marched onto the Wiki with a big box of POV and are now unpacking their ware at various mental health-related articles.

Being the busybody that I am I have asked Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC (talk · contribs) to be more NPOV in her work on psychiatry, clinical depression, E. Fuller Torrey, chemical imbalance theory, bipolar disorder and electroconvulsive therapy. I may need some help to lick these articles into a semblance of shape, as presently some of them are in a deplorable state.

Does any of you know a knowledgeable psychiatrist who would be interested in working on the Wiki?

PS has anyone followed the incident surrounding Simon Wessely? Jimbo intervened. JFW | T@lk 00:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Main Page

Multiple sclerosis. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hepatitis C

I've done some work on hepatitis C. Could you all have a look to see if anything significant has been left out? We may be able to make this an MCOTW at some point, but images will be needed. JFW | T@lk 22:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I've mentioned this one as a potential in the past. It's discrete, well-defined, common, and has many misperceptions. It was missing a lot before and looks a lot better now with genotypes, etc. It really needs a large section on complications like HCC, UGIB, ESLD, etc. Great work! InvictaHOG 01:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

We do need to cover cirrhosis and HCC, but there should not be too much duplication with the HCC/UGIB/ESLD pages unless these are issues that are peculiar for HCC cirrhosis. I should have mentioned liver biopsy as a tool to assess the degree of cirrhosis, and α-FP and annual CTs to assess for HCC. JFW | T@lk 09:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, other preventative issues like vaccination for hepA/B, endoscopy to quantify varices, etc. InvictaHOG 10:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I added new section on pregnancy and breastfeeding. I think we need a preventative section with specific statements about prevention. I've started working on it. Also, the final draft of the lead paragraph will need more plain english sentences.--FloNight 11:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hypnosis

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Help is needed with the article on hypnosis, please see the recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pseudoscience. linas 02:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine

As discussed at Wikipedia talk:Medicine Collaboration of the Week#Systematic coverage of topics, it would be nice to have a place we can identify articles that need work, even though they may not be selected for the Collaboration. As I think I mentioned before here, I have begun work to try to organize this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. I don't know the best place for this, but since I'd like it to include both clinical and pre-clinical topics, it didn't make sense to place it at either one, nor does it really fit at WP:MCOTW either. The design and inspiration come from Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war#List of pages covered by the projectand Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Organization. Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/top priority and Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/categorizations will be useful in providing inspiration. I welcome any comments, suggestions, or assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Awesome, I'd been reading that earlier this week after thinking that I keep coming across good (and bad) medical pages that would be nice to target, even with drive-by improvements from time to time. InvictaHOG 12:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Seldinger technique

I wrote Seldinger technique. Comments please, and links from other articles... JFW | T@lk 11:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice. I've been meaning to bring up moving central line to something more appropriate like central venous line or central venous catheter. I'd prefer the latter, but since it's come up I'll take any objections before I do it! InvictaHOG 15:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say central venous catheter. Will also remove the confusion with the red line on the London Underground map. JFW | T@lk 08:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice job, Jfdwolff. Can't really add anything! — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

First aid technique

Question crossposted from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science.

What is the technique of checking for brain trauma through eye movement properly called? Thanks in advance.

Circeus 21:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's usually just described. Something along the lines of "checking extraocular movements." Typically, "extraocular movements intact" or EOMI if normal. Checking the pupils is separate, of course. InvictaHOG 21:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Googling for "extraocular movement" was very useful. Thanks ^_^Circeus 21:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Checking the pupils response to light to assess brain stem function is called pupillary reflex. --WS 22:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Name of eponymous diseases

I was wondering how eponymous diseases should be named. Is it with or without 's after the name of the doctor/describer. E.g. for an article I created recently, would the correct name be Farber disease or Farber's disease? At Category:Eponymous diseases and List of eponymous diseases both seem to be used. What is most correct here? --WS 23:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been picking my way through some of the eponymous signs while I've been busy and have run into the same issue. I think that both should be linked to the same page (ie Farber's disease should not be red!). I think that the most appropriate way (from what I've read) to do it is without the apostrophe. After all, no one owns the disease, etc. Some diseases just sound better with the s, though! InvictaHOG 23:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Good question. I think the current styles are shifting toward not using the apostrophe. My personal preference, though, is to use it (I can't bring myself to say Alzheimer disease instead of Alzheimer's disease). Not very helpful, I know—I guess I'd be in favor of using them, but I don't know what others' opinions are. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

New articles

I have been busy adding a lot of new articles the last few days. Please have a look and improve them where needed. But what most of them lack most is incoming links. So if you know any article that should link to them, please add links. The articles: Cholesteryl ester storage disease, Farber disease, Wolman disease, Lipid storage disorder, Pachydermoperiostosis, Pachygyria, Prostatic acid phosphatase, Bronchopulmonary dysplasia, Body donation, Widened mediastinum, Bifurcated rib, Neurolysis, Glossopharyngeal breathing, AIDS dementia complex, Annular pancreas, Congenital afibrinogenemia, Accessory pancreas, Pancreas divisum, Drion's pill, Megarectum --WS 23:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know Huib Drion had international fame! JFW | T@lk 00:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Well I am not sure he is that famous outside of the Netherlands, but he did make it into the BMJ. You make it sound like you knew him personally? --WS 00:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Nah. Just interested in medical ethics. JFW | T@lk 03:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Prostate cancer staging

Following a suggestion from User:InvictaHOG, I split off Prostate cancer#Stages to a new article, Prostate cancer staging. As far as I know, this is the first Wikipedia staging article and I wasn't entirely sure how to structure it, how much detail to include, and so on. And of course, writing for a lay audience is a bit challenging. If anyone has a free minute, could you take a look at it and suggest/make any changes? Ideas for a different title are also welcome. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it tonight. Should be able to really work on prostate cancer now that I'm back from Thanksgiving! InvictaHOG 01:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
It looks superb! Prostate cancer is one of the more difficult ones to start with as far as staging is concerned, too! InvictaHOG 03:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Cancer on peer review

I've put up cancer for peer review. JFW | T@lk 21:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Main Page

Pneumonia's on the Main Page. Way to improve the visibility and quality of medical articles on Wikipedia! — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Obesity

I'm having a rather tiresome discussion with an editor who feels we should be touting recent research findings prominently in the intro. Please have a look. I've asked for an RFC as well. JFW | T@lk 02:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC) obesity (making the path from here easier)

Lactic acidosis

Would somebody mind taking a look at this edit to Lactic acidosis? It may be legitimate, but it's a big change, and it's by an anon with only 3 edits, and I'm not really familiar enough with the subject to evaluate the new information. --Arcadian 05:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Both of the edits should be reverted. Until I see evidence that basic chemistry has shifted dramatically in the last few days, there's no need for it to stay. Ask nicely for references, though, because it certainly doesn't seem malicious! InvictaHOG 05:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Nature/Accuracy

Nature recently did a comparison of the accuracy of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica's science articles. The following is a list of articles in Wikipedia (on biological/medical subjects) which they examined, with the number of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements they noted.

Of course, we don't know what version they examined, so there could be more errors or less errors at present. It might be nice to look and see if we can catch some. (They haven't published the specifics, though I gather we've requested them from them. It would be interesting to know what were counted as errors, so if you find one, you might want to discuss it on the article's talk page. - Nunh-huh 00:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The working page for corrections is Wikipedia:External_peer_review/Nature_December_2005/Errors. Several of the as-yet-uncorrected articles are medical. Please help by reviewing the articles in areas in which you have expertise. - Nunh-huh 18:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

National Health Service

Can someone in the know take a good look at this? Some of it is quite good, but it needs some work. I have hacked off some of the more POV/ irrelevant bits, but the introductory paragraph especially needs a good edit. At the moment it goes on about PFI hospitals and GPs being private practitioners. Interesting, but not part of the intro. Could do much better.Jellytussle 06:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS category

Hi - I'm posting this here because Wikipedia:WikiProject Aids appears to be defunct. Is there any reason I shouldn't move all the antiretroviral drugs from Category:HIV/AIDS into a new subcategory, Category:HIV/AIDS medications or some such? The main category looks a bit large. Thanks - ←Hob 06:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion

Have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical controversies, please. JFW | T@lk 14:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Indeed, vote to delete. The article in question is highly POV and fails even to discuss the socio-policical aspects that might be worthy of reflection. Its important that we help WP to be an encyclopedia of fact (which of course includes NPOV recording of sociological movements & events) rather than seeming to give unscientific quacker/'alternative' the dignity of having equal standing into researched development. David Ruben 01:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


Infobox Help

I want to create a hospital infobox, but I don't have the wiki-expertise to do it properly. Is there anyone here willing to go in on the project? I already have a basic format:

  • name
  • location
  • number of beds
  • affliation (school, private, religious, public, etc.)
  • certification (trauma level, etc)
  • website

Ideas? Kerowyn 23:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I suggest careful consideration as to your intensions here - do you seek to add local district general hospitals ? If so then it will go the way of schools with most articles being nominated for deletion (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Education for a general list of discussions involving deletion of education-related articles). In essence a body must have special significance, apart from being the sole provider of a service to a small community, to be in Wikipedia. Hence local grocery stores are not mentioned but the socio-economic significance of Walmart (US) and Tesco (UK) warrent. Thus St Thomas' Hospital is valid as both for its historical 12th Centuary origins, a major medical school, and site of the UK's first nursing school set up by Florence Nightingale with wards named both after her and in recognition of her work (eg Scutari ward).
  • So I ask again, what is the point an 'infobox' ? Number of beds is pointless statistics (services in the UK are constantly being shifted between sites and forthcoming changes are likely to see patients forced to attend a greater range of hospitals) and it is of no interest to even the local community. Waiting times for outpatient & inpatient care are important to patients, which medical school the studients they might encounter come from is not. :-) davidruben 00:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Kerowyn: I've created a stub at Template:Hospital, and shown an example of it at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. To add or remove fields, first edit the template, and then make a parallel edit on the hospital page. It's very simple and bare-bones, but it should be enough for you to get started. And if you've got any questions on how to edit templates to make them fancier, feel free to ask on my talk page. David: I see your point, but we've already had List of hospitals for over two years, and I do see benefits for providing a more standard appearance for the hospital articles we already have. --Arcadian 03:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Arcadian. A standardized box on hospitals may be helpful, even if the information may be perceived as trivial. (And regarding the schools...I thought that debate was already closed...with the consensus on keeping high school articles). Andrew73 13:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Andrew -- I noticed that wanted to put in a year founded field. You were on the right track, and I think your idea to add that field was a good one, so I restored your edit, and showed it in use at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. The only thing I changed from your version was shortening the header, and adding the pipe, so that if the field was omitted, the field shows up as a blank space instead of having the field name in brackets. --Arcadian 15:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank for fixing it! Andrew73 16:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to recommend making the whole "Founded" row disappear if the Founded parameter is missing, instead of defaulting to a blank cell. This can be done using the "hiddenStructure" CSS class. I've prototyped what needs to be done at User:Mike Dillon/Template:Hospital. Mike Dillon 19:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
All great additions. It looks a bit bare though. I was relucant to have a section for a photo or logo, but it might look better with a photo section. Kerowyn 05:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks Arcadian. I've been doing stub sorting in the medical section, and it seems to me that infoboxes are a good way of standardizing articles about hospitals. Some are only a sentence long. And David, in the United States at least, the number of beds in a hospital is a good indication of size and services, while waiting time varies wildly depending on the time of day. If a patient is choosing a hospital, then Wikipedia probably isn't they primary source of information. But as I said, I only have a basic idea of what might need to be included in an infobox. Kerowyn 04:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Another thought, while I'm here. How are hospitals accredited in the UK? I know the US system of ranking trauma centers (Level I trauma center , etc., but I assume the rest of the world uses different systems. Kerowyn 04:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
        • In UK individual hopsitals, being part of the NHS, do not need to be complete providers of all services in an attempt to compete against their neighboughs. Hospitals are arranged in Hospital Trusts which consist of one or more hospitals, each of which may be spread over a couple of sites. The Hospital Trusts tender their services to the purchasing community-based PCTs. Hence most routine services are provided within each Hospital Trust, but not necessarily at each Hospital site. Specialist services may be located at just one hospital (eg maternity services) but not another. Tertiary level specialities (eg neurosurgery, kidney dialysis, transplatation) might not be provided by a particular Hospital Trust at all, and is instead commission by the PCT from a different Hospital Trust who provides that service for a whole region of the country. Emergency (Trauma) centers are provided by all Hospital Trusts, but not necessarily at each hospital site. So the question of bed numbers indicating levels of service are meaningless. e.g Barnet Hospital is a District hospital with a full casualty, with Edgware Community hospital having outpatients, day-surgery and a midwife-only Birthing Unit (any complications ambulanced across to Barnet). In addition there is Finchley Memorial community hospital which only provides outpatients services. A few years ago, Chase Farm Hospital which had a complete range of services was forced into merger with its larger Barnet/Edgware/Finchley group. Bed numbers are irrelevant - if one lives in Edgware, one must travel to Barnet for casualty, if living in Barnet and desire not to have any Obstetrician, then must travel to Edgware for their Birthing Unit. Overall NHS bed numbers have been reduced in the last 10years (more day-case surgery, recognition of need to get mobile after operations to reduce risk of DVTs, and primarily for cost-cutting) and the current >100% bed-occupancy rate (new patient placed in a bed whilst its previous occupant awaits to be discharged home) is in part causing greater complications after discharge, more work for General Practitioners, and may be contributing to the spread of MRSA in UK hospitals.
        • Ok I accept it is important to try and have a style standardisation of those hospital articles WP already has.
        • As for that list of UK hospitals, I see most do not yet have WP articles. Of these, most probably should never be given a WP article. Might I propose the title of the lists be changed to 'Notable UK Hospitals listed by Wikipedia' etc ('notable' can be debated endlessly of course, but at least this would indicate an intension to be selective). I'm generally a WP inclusionist, but.... davidruben 16:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I think we should include bed number as a indication of hospital size. What I mean to ask is: how are trauma centers ranked? In the US a Level I trauma center has more services and staff to deal with emergencies, while Level II and Level III centers have fewer services. Is there a similar indicator for UK trauma centers? And I'd like to edit the infobox to include hospital specialities, for children's hospitals, etc.
          • As for the list of UK hospitals changing the title to notable hospitals is probably a good idea. It'd be nice if we could give every hospital on the planet a short article, but it's not necessary or practical. It wouldn't be a bad idea to change all the hospital lists to notable hospital. Kerowyn 05:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Is there any readily available source of this information? Cedars-Sinai, for example, is affiliated with UCLA Medical School. Isn't that the kind of affiliation you meant? And it seems to me that maintaining accurate and specific numbers of beds would be a bit of a nightmare. - Nunh-huh 06:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
              • Yes, that is the sort of affiliation I meant. Any medical schools and organizations that play a major role in administrating the hospital should be listed as affiliated organization. I realize that could add up to a lot of organizations for some hospitals, but one or two of the most important organizations should be enough.
I'm not sure if the certification section is clear though. What I mean by that is Level I trauma center etc, which is a important indicator of trauma staff and services in the US. Maybe that should be changed to "trauma certification" for clarity?
The main source of information is the hospital website, which ought to be fairly accurate. Bed numbers don't fluctuate that much unless the hospital undergoes a major renovation. It shouldn't be too hard to keep up to date. Kerowyn 07:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Userboxes

I think the Wikipedia:Userboxes are rather silly, and yet they're strangely amusing as well. On a whim, I created {{user physician}} which you may place on your user page if you so desire. It will automatically place you in Category:Physician Wikipedians as well. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

And now there's {{user doctor}} as well. Enjoy! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks KS, it's stunning. JFW | T@lk 13:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

And just down the hall I've added Category:Nurse Wikipedians - but haven't got a good icon for a userbox... ←Hob 01:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

And you got it right to just have the one snake. Kd4ttc 01:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Famous patients

I'm starting to get intractable urticaria from the long lists of "famous patients" in many health-related articles. On ovarian cancer the editors were even using horrible terminology like "stage IV disease, presently battling cancer" etc etc. We've had a succesful deletion of a list of famous pneumonia patients split off from pneumonia. I think we need to discuss a guideline for inclusion, possibly in the form of Wikipedia:Notable patients.

If a page on a person mentions his disease history or cause of death, there is no immediate need to cross-reference this to the relevant disease page. Only under very strict conditions should someone be included in a "list of notable cases":

  • The disease episode made newspaper headlines
  • The disease episode made an important contribution to the public perception of an illness (e.g. George Best and cirrhosis, Michael J. Fox and Parkinson's disease)
  • The impact is lasting, not just through a memorial research funds trust
  • There is reliable outside support (e.g. doctors commenting in newspaper articles, such as prof Roger Williams did in George Best's case).

Please tell me what you all think, and we can start up the guideline. It can then be used to clobber crufty editors who insist on including their icon's ingrown toenail in the relevant article. JFW | T@lk 13:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I split off the long breast cancer list, as I'm sure you saw. I personally don't care much if such lists exist, but I think that there should be references for each person and I think that large lists should be spun off into their own articles as soon as possible. InvictaHOG 17:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I did the same with the list of fat folks. If we just delete them from the article, we will either have reinsertions or edit wars. This way, we can thank them for their industry and send them off to play elsewhere. alteripse 22:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

List of famous Parkinson's disease patients was split off from the PD page and is now up for deletion. It's another test case. JFW | T@lk 15:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

There are some pretty famous patients, though. Lou Gehrig and Henrietta Lacks. There is also a role for famous people bringing diseases to national attention. Lou G was one. The husband of Katie Couric was another (whose death prompted a number of patients to see me after his wife, Katie, graciously had her colonoscopy done on TV). Kd4ttc 01:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

External links

Inspired by JFW's proposal above, I'd like to propose that we define standards for what constitutes Original research when adding external links to medical articles. Here's a draft -- For a link to be added to a medical article, it must meet at least one of the following three criteria:

  • The article has a PubMed ID.
  • The domain of the URL is from a hospital or accredited university.
  • The domain has a Alexa Internet ranking of ten thousand or less. (This wouldn't apply for blogs or other personal accounts that would piggyback on the Alexa ranking of the parent.) --Arcadian 18:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Links with PubMed IDs should be deleted. If they are references, they should be cited as references, and if they're not then the don't belong in the external links section. Peer-reviewed research is of a higher information quality than people's websites etc.
Blogs are unacceptable unless the blog itself is inherently notable, usually because the blogger is inherently notable. I feel strongly blogs are extremely inadequate as sources of any form of medical knowledge, unless - again - written by experts.
"Information" pages are commonly added by anons. Anyone can write "information", even doctors, but if this information is not peer-reviewed or underwritten by a professional organisation it is completely random. I now remove links as "non-authoratitive" if they are full of Google ads or promote non-standard treatments. JFW | T@lk 15:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I may have miscommunicated -- what I meant when I said "wouldn't apply" was that the benefit of a high alexa ranking shouldn't count in the favor of a blog, because the alexa ranking refered to the host, not to the site. That criteria was meant to be anti-blog, not pro-blog, though I can see how what I wrote could be read the other way. --Arcadian 17:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Also the link should have some additional value to the article. Far too often a link is added to a page about the same subject which actually has far less information than the wikipedia article itself. --WS 18:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Carcinogenesis

Carcinogenesis is under an orthomolecular attack. JFW | T@lk 16:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have perused the deleted section on microevolution. What a load of nonsense. Someone has taken clonal selection and made a number of knights move assumptions. The specific statements are often innaccurate, incorrect, or out of context. Belongs firmly in the fringe hypotheses section. well done.Jellytussle 20:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The section on microevolution is back. It is now one of the largest sections on the page. If I delete it , someone will just revert the page. These folks do not appear amenable to reasoned discussion. The carcinogenesis article will have no credibility until it is stable, and scientifically rigorous. Solution?Jellytussle 16:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The book is clearly not an appropriate source for a medical article. I think their insertion is practically commercial spam for the book. --DocJohnny 16:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

We need some admin assistance on the carcinogenesis article, and the microevolutionary model of cancer article. Is a self-published book really appropriate for science/medicine articles? The three editors who repeatedly insert these assertions are very well versed with this "theory". I suspect they are the authors, perhaps even the same person. --DocJohnny 19:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


TONS is back. Jellytussle 02:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Stealth-adapted viruses

Anyone fancy an interesting read? Stealth-adapted viruses. JFW | T@lk 09:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is another one of Ombudsman's creations! Andrew73 21:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Genetic home reference

A lot of medical pages incorporate text from the genetic home reference website [4]. One of these, PPOX has been tagged as a copyright violation, because the terms and conditions [5] are not compatible with wikipedia. The copyright link at the bottom of the website [6] however clearly states that all information on the website is in the public domain. Which one is right and what should we do with this? --WS 22:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to satisfy the terms by placing the appropriate acknowledgement at the bottom. Unlike Prader-Willi syndrome, which is copied almost wholesale from genetests.org but which seems to grant copying with appropriate source and copyright information. I say it's valid and the copyvio should be lifted. InvictaHOG 22:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Category from hell

Ombudsman (talk · contribs) has created a new toy, called Category:Medical controversies. I have created a WP:CFD for it at CFD/Medical controversies. Please offer your opinion. JFW | T@lk 19:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Calling it a category from hell is a bit of an exaggeration I think. --WS 00:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait for the trolling to begin. Then we will see whether it's truly from hell. JFW | T@lk 00:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Well done JFW for spoting this attempted addition after the article of the same name got deleted. Is this a single user's action, or has this happened previously on WP? If so, how do you search/spot such things, i.e. anyway to help ? David Ruben Talk 02:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This single user is the most tenacious anti-vaccine editor on Wikipedia, and has filled many articles with his choice anti-science on the subject of vaccination. Everything sounds nice and NPOV, but when the matter is investigated one encounters dangerous lunacy, notoriety and dishonesty. Viera Scheibner, for example, was touted (by another editor) as a scientist with scientific arguments against vaccination until it turned out she had not published more than one paper on a medical topic, was the recipient of the Australian Skeptics' "Bent Spoon Award" and was the subject of an article in Vaccine detailing her views and modus operandi. This has to stop. JFW | T@lk 08:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Infobox change -- support for images

FYI, I've added optional parameters in Template:DiseaseDisorder infobox for image and caption. An example of it in use is at Laryngomalacia. I don't think this is too controversial, but I wanted to keep you in the loop. --Arcadian 16:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. --WS 18:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I've made another change here, so that an ICD-O code, if present, appears on its own line (previously I had beeen putting ICD-O codes on the same line as ICD-10. An example of this in use is at Waldenström macroglobulinemia. I figured that was uncontroversial so I made the change without asking, but I have another change I'd like to propose that I wanted to ask about first. There are a few sources about medical conditions that I think are reliable and comprehensive enough to warrant inclusion in the template at the top of the article, to faciliate more consistent navigation. The four I've got in mind are OMIM, MedlinePlus, eMedicine, and Diseases Database. Two of them are commercial sites (eMedicine and DD) but for both of them, the signal-to-noise ratio is really good. The rows would only be visible if the fields were populated. Examples of the last three are available at the bottom of Waldenström macroglobulinemia. Are there any objections (or suggestions for more appropriate sources)? --Arcadian 18:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
FYI, the format and name of the template were changed last night by User:Netoholic, apparently as he did to many other templates last night. For now, I've reverted the formatting change but left the new name, and left a edit summary requesting that formatting changes be discussed here. Per the change described above, I'll assume if there is no objection by tomorrow that it is okay to put those new optional fields in.--Arcadian 22:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Motor Neuron Disease

It seems that the articles do exist to populate this category. I found articles for Monomelic amyotrophy, Primary lateral sclerosis, Post polio syndrome, and Infantile spinal muscular atrophy. Perhaps we should reverse the CFD petition.--DocJohnny 00:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Redundant Cancer Pages?

Experimental cancer treatment This page is badly defined with a mix of genuinely experimental treatments (with explanations of variable quality) and some complete quackery. The quote "The entries listed below vary between theoretical therapies and treatments that will most likely become standard procedures within the next few years." is certainly not justified. There is no mention of formal cancer trial structure etc. Needs a good prune, or to have the good bits merged, or to be deleted altogether.

Tumor Some useful stuff here but really does not need to be separate from Cancer. Jellytussle 00:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

MCOTW

Afib has been on awhile — I intend to work on it when I get time and get it to featured article status. However, the next month is going to be busy for me and it looks like work has stalled, so I was thinking others may want to move on to the next topic (AIDS has a lot of votes!) InvictaHOG 19:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That is fine with me, don't have much to add to AF myself. AIDS will be quite a challenge I think. --WS 18:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
It's fine with me, as I've been pretty inactive recently, but perhaps this discussion should be taking place at WP:MCOTW's talk page, not here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
There wasn't any obvious place to put it there...maybe we could just make a discussion section InvictaHOG 03:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Week? — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
You mean aside from the fact that I forgot it existed?!? :) InvictaHOG 03:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Template

I am moving Template:DiseaseDisorder infobox to Template:Infobox Disease because that is the naming convention used (Wikipedia:Infobox templates). I am also updating a number of other formatting problems, such as failure to use proper row headers (see Wikipedia:Accessibility). I was accused in a recent edit summary by User:Arcadian of acting "unilaterally", though this is a wiki and he should get over it, so I'm posting here. -- Netoholic @ 17:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. Such moves affecting many articles are still best discussed with the people most affected by it. Arcadian, having worked a lot on this template, should at least been notified well in advance. JFW | T@lk 18:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
That is like me coming in here and saying that I'd like Arcadian to give me advance notice of any future changes as well. This is a Wiki, remember? My changes were not that radical. They were subtle changes to the table structure that was done for good reason and to make this template a bit more standard. -- Netoholic @ 18:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It was the move I was referring to. JFW | T@lk 22:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not that shocking. We have a naming convention and redirects work well (no need to adjust the articles immediately). Basically the move is to prevent someone from independently developing a template with a similar function, which sometimes happens. -- Netoholic @ 23:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Pubmed reference bookmarklet

Hi, I created a handy bookmarklet that will make a wikipedia reference when used on a pubmed abstract page, using Diberri's pmid converter. Add a bookmark to your bookmark toolbar with the following url:

javascript:(function(){ var e,s; IB=1; function isDigit(c) { return (%220%22 <= c && c <= %229%22) } L = location.href; LL =L.length; for (e=LL-1; e>=0; --e) if (isDigit(L.charAt(e))) { for(s=e-1; s>=0; --s) if (!isDigit(L.charAt(s))) break; break; } ++s; if (e<0) return; if ((L.substring(s-10,s))=='list_uids=')pmid = L.substring(s,e+1); w=open('http://diberri.dyndns.org/pubmed.html?pmid=' + pmid,'add','width=800,height=300,scrollbars,resizable'); })();

When clicked while on a pubmed abstract page, it will open a new window with the properly formatted wikipedia citation for the article. Let me know if it works and if you think it is useful. I only tested it on firefox, I don't know if it works on internet explorer. --WS 10:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool ! Yes works in I.E.:

  1. Create a bookmark with a suitable name
  2. Then right click on it and select Properties
  3. Paste across to the URL box the javascript line given above in its entirity.
  4. Whenever in a PubMed summary page, just click on the bookmarked link and a separate window pops open.

One critism of the PMID converter - the title of the article is enclosed in single square brackets '[....]' - is this correct ? David Ruben Talk 20:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That is done by pubmed for articles that are in foreign languages. English articles don't have them. --WS 23:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks David Ruben Talk 00:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I probably will put up an improved version here tomorrow that should work better than the current one. --WS 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This one should work better (thanks to David Iberri):

javascript:(function(){var url = location.href;var pmid = url.match(/list_uids\=(\d+)/);if( pmid ) w=open('http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/cite/?type=pmid&id=' + pmid[1],'add','width=800,height=300,scrollbars,resizable');})();

One small problem: on firefox on windows, the window pops up in the background, if anyone knows how to solve that... --WS 12:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Microevolutionary model of cancer

I have nominated this page for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microevolutionary model of cancer. It is orthomolecular pseudoscience. JFW | T@lk 15:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

MSF peer review

I thought there might be some people in this project with an interest in Médecins Sans Frontières, so I thought I'd stop by and say I just submitted the article for peer review. I'm trying to improve it to FA status. --CDN99 19:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Work todo!

We still need to create articles for 5619 diseases! :-) See the brand new Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Missing diseases --WS 16:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


This is commendable, but a perusal through the first half of "A" raises some issues:
  • Acute myeloblastic leukaemia types 1-7 are covered, more or less in the AML page.
  • Adenocarcinoma of the lung is covered on the lung cancer page. a separate page on NSCLC might be reasonable
  • Adrenal hyperplasia (and variants of that title) has quite a good page already.
  • Alpha thalassaemia is covered on the Thalassaemia page
  • Anaplastic thyroid cancer has a brief mention on the Thyroid cancer page.
  • etc etc.

Do you want us to delete from that list anything which has obviously been covered in an appropriate section already? Jellytussle 18:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The list was compiled from all red links in the list of diseases. For a lot of them a simple redirect is appropriate and should be enough (that is true for most of the cases you mention). But for others creating a small stub is better than a redirect, e.g. for nsclc that probably deserves its own article I think. I think it should be decided on a case-to-case basis. --WS 18:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed - I have already added 3 missing redirects so that all combinations of Alpha/Beta Thalassaemia (plus lowercase 't', plus for US spelling) have been included. David Ruben Talk 22:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
See also these guidelines at the project page. --WS 23:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I did a few too. Some are just a little odd. I made redirects from terms like buffalo hump to kyphosis, but deleted hypochodriasis with there already being an article on hypochondria. A lot of these article requests could be satisfied with redirects to Wikipedia articles. I suppose we should be sure there is something in the article relevant to the redirect. Kd4ttc 23:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Some are actually quite some fun to create. Ever heard about the blue diaper syndrome? :-) --WS 01:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a fascinating one! Too bad it's not quite long enough for "Did you know?"... By the way, am I correct in thinking that it is better to NOT delete items on the list, because then there will still be red links out there? Better to create a redirect, create a stub, or go to the linking articles and fix their links so they point to the correct article. --Rewster 02:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes you are correct. Btw. another nice one: Blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome: "cutaneous hemangiomas that have the look and feel of rubber nipples" --WS 03:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh and from time to time, the blue links should be removed, but be sure to update the count and expected finish date at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Progress as well if you do that :-) --WS 03:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Meetings

I will be in Los Angeles, USA for the DDW meeting in May, 2006. Kd4ttc 23:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hypoxia (medical)==Hypoxemia?

I'm not a clinician, and not familiar with typical use of these terms so I was unsure if I should put a merge tag on these articles. If merging the two is not advisable, hypoxemia could do with some cleanup. --Uthbrian (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The terms are synonymous in most concepts. The extreme nitpickers among us would distinguish the two as follows: Hypoxia is a general deficiency of oxygen in the body. Hypoxemia is a deficiency of oxygen in the blood. You dont get one without the other and in clinical care people use the term hypoxia to mean both. So the articles should be merged with a one sentence explanation of the difference. alteripse 13:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I've put a request for merge tag. Andrew73 14:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Can I be a bit of a nit-picker? I agree that the terms are synonymous to some extent. I do not have a medical dictionary at hand, and I would be grateful if someone could check this, but in think there is an important distinction which is clinically relevant. Hypoxaemia is a generalised lack of oxygen in the blood, which can be caused by number of pathologies, as listed on the relevant page. Hypoxia, in my book, is more about a regional lack of oxygen. As such, hypoxia can happily exist without hypoxaemia. Some examples, and why they are relevant:

  • Tumour hypoxia. This is a major cause of tumour resistance to radiotherapy, and also to chemotherapy. It is caused by tumour growth oustripping blood supply. The result is necrotic tumour, and hypoxic, but viable tumour cells. There is a specialised branch of cancer research looking at this, using such esoteric devices as eppendorf electrodes. The hypoxic sensitising drug tirapazamine is one of a family of pharmaceuticals that have been developed to exploit this.
  • Infectious abscesses, empyema. Generally termed hypoxic rather than hypoxaemic. Low oxygen tension allows growth of anaerobic bacteria. Antibiotic penetration is poor due to poor local perfusion.
  • Ischaemic limbs, digits etc. Are these hypoxic or hypoxaemic? Need to ask a vascular surgeon.
  • Cerebral hypoxia. As in Ischaemic stroke, hanging, strangulation.
  • Myocardial infarction. Locally hypoxic myocardium dies with the well known sequelae.

Sorry to be a pedant. Very happy to be contradicted. Jellytussle 04:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh I can identify with pedantry or I wouldn't be here, but we more commonly say a person is hypoxic than hypoxemic, don't we, and mean the same thing? But I admit, you have identified a couple more contexts in which the terms are not equivalent. Do you think they should be kept as two separate articles? I will also admit I havent even looked at the contents. alteripse 05:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I say someone is hypoxic when technically they are hypoxaemic. Can we have a page entitled "Hypoxia and Hypoxaemia" which clearly explains the differences and common points (and explains the slack jargon) and then points to the relevant detailed syndromes? Or perhaps Hypoxia, with sections on generalised hypoxia (AKA hypoxaemia) and regionalhypoxia. Hmm. I seem to have argued myself into agreeing with the merge idea. Jellytussle 05:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hypoxemia is when blood oxygen is low. Hypoxia is when tissue oxygen is low. Hypoxic is a term meaning less oxygen than should be there. I'd vote to put stuff under hypoxia, with hypoxemia being when blood is hypoxic. Kd4ttc 02:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge Never heard the term Hypoxaemia used in the UK during my time in hospital or as a GP since, always Hypoxia. However, on it own this is always taken to mean 'the patient as a whole is hypoxic'. Whilst I agree that the term hypoxia can be qualified with regional locations (as per good examples above), a patient who has hypoxaemia will have tissues that are hypoxic and so the same discussion then ensues as to the resulting effects. I would suggest merging into Hypoxia, with a small inclusion as to the terms hypoxia vs hypoxaemia, then the causes of both generalised lack oxygen (hypoxaemia) as opposed to localised restriction. The current Hypoxia (medical) article already has in its introduction the body as a whole (generalized hypoxia) or region of the body (tissue hypoxia), but this is developed no further - so merge the two with separate sections/sub-sections as required. David Ruben Talk 03:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Given that the pages are marked with merge tags, discussion should occur on the relevant Talk:Hypoxia (medical) page as anyone non-medical will not think to look at this Doctor's Mess page. I have therefore been bold and copied the above discussion to the talk page - please continue discussing there. David Ruben Talk 03:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Morgellons

I'm not sure if any physicians have taken a look at this article. I've noticed that it has been accumulating external links of varying quality, but I've been hesitant to remove any, given the nature of the article. Read [7] for a more balanced review; unfortunately, I couldn't find anything at Pubmed. --Uthbrian (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd let it be. Looks pretty silly. The photomicrographs on the web page are clearly textile fibers. I've got better things to get into edit wars about. Kd4ttc 01:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I never heard of this, but will probably see one next week. It ought to be possible to put together a neutral article along the lines of the one you linked from Popular Mechanics. What is conspicuously missing from the article is a concise list of diagnostic criteria. alteripse 02:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Medical resident work hours

Anyone who has an opinion on whether or not medical resident work hours should be merged with residency (medicine), state it here. Ombudsman will make a big fuss after I merge it (just like he did after I merged Medical residency with residency(medicine)), so I want a consensus here to refer to. The consensus on Talk:Medical resident work hours was 4 merge v 2 don't merge, but I'd like some more opinions from those who didn't vote. --CDN99 16:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

MERGE. There is merit to both, though. The work hour article is long enough, but perhaps would be shortened if put in the context of residency. I think you could do a nice article on residency and merge them. I would merge if you are committed to doing a nice edit job as a dedicated project. It could put the work hour story into perspective. There are patient care issues that are worse with the time limits such as continuity of care that do not get measured in the error rate data. Kd4ttc

I think I've already voted, but this article was created by Ombudsman to further his doctor-bashing agenda. A good stab at NPOV may be necessary. JFW | T@lk 17:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with Merge - Both are reasonably long articles although I agree (JFW) that both could do with editing-down and rewording of their current content. However both need further expanding/boadening:

  • The residency article in particular could do with expansion to cover the situation in other countries (currently terribly US-centric).
  • The working hours can have a useful discussion on:
    • rotas
    • doctor fatigue. Is it better to get no sleep during a night shift covering for several teams, or being on-call more often covering fewer patients and so getting some sleep?
    • Does doctor fatigue cause greater clinical errors. Unfortunately, for the juniors medical staff, much of the the evidence in the UK suggested not: it did take longer to make decisions and more care (ie greater effort) made to ensure not making errors (ie more looking up of information or dosages calculated twice to make sure)
    • Access to training
    • EU vs UK in implementing changes, relationship between those in training and consultants (who after all tend to control the Medical regulatory authorities).
I think good articles of each will be/should be (if they are comprehensive and thoughtfully written) too long to be merged. David Ruben Talk 19:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Coronary care unit - please comment and expand. JFW | T@lk 17:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, Intra-aortic balloon pump presented for your pleasure.--DocJohnny 07:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Archive time?

This page is getting to be huge. Kerowyn 08:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)