Welcome to twinme.com on July 10 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to the Medicine WikiProject! There are only a few rules:
Shortcut:
WT:MED
  • This page is a place to discuss issues related to Wikipedia's medical articles and related policies.
  • If other topics are brought up, it's likely that they will be moved to the relevant sections of Wikipedia. Unless they're really interesting.
  • We are not able to provide any medical advice; please see your local health professional. Questions about medical subjects in general should be asked at the reference desk.
  • Don't shout, remain civil and treat each other with respect.
  • Please add new sections at the end of the page.
  • Threads older than 14 days are automatically archived.
  • Please wash any cups you use and clean up.
  • The 7 o'clock news always has priority on the tv, except when The Simpsons are on.
WikiProject Medicine Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
Merged WikiProject Preclinical medicine: 1 Merged WikiProject Clinical medicine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Medicine
WikiProject
General information
Project page talk
Manual of Style talk
Reliable sources talk
How to help
 → Collaboration of the Week talk
 → Nominations for deletion
 → Pages needing attention
 → Needing expert attention
 → Requested articles
 → Cleanup listing (top imp.)
 → Article alerts talk
 → Stub sorting talk
 → Popular pages talk
Missing Article Trophy talk
Participants talk
Portal talk
 This box: view • talk • edit  · changes


Contents

[edit] Private practice "Before & After" shots

What is going on? Why are private practices posting before and after shots to encyclopedia articles? What are the terms and conditions regarding this type of "contribution"? The pages that I have come across have become significantly less reputable due to these types of images being posted (and a *lot* less aesthetically pleasing). A list of the articles that I have found include: abdominoplasty, liposuction, rhinoplasty, and rhytidectomy, but the list is realistically longer than that. I am an avid medical photographer and have been given a great opportunity to take photos during actual surgeries, also having been given full legal rights from both the patients and surgeon to my images, and the rights to contribute my work to the Wikimedia projects and global community in general.

After adding some images to the abdominoplasty article, I was contacted by a Dr. Otto J. Placik from Arlington Heights, IL, USA regarding the article and that he was "there first" and would appreciate it if I would leave his work alone (I had edited one of his photo captions in the liposuction article to remove the phrase "PLEASE CLICK ON PHOTO FOR MORE INFORMATION")--with the subtle hint that my contributions are not welcome. He then proceeded to remove an extremely valuable and descriptive image of this surgery (which I re-added late last night after deciding to disregard his requests). How do I contact an administrator, or what is the Wikimedia/Wikipedia policy on this type of behavior? Dr. Otto Placik has also been "contributing" using multiple accounts, including Emilymiller123, Sarahjjohnson123, and the "anonymous" 75.63.221.230 IP address in an eff ort to ghost his marketing and self-promotion.

I'm not at all opposed to anyone from the medical community being involved in contributing to this great work. But seriously, what defines "crossing the line", and what can be done to keep people like Dr. Otto J. Placik from controlling and degrading the quality of this collaborative project? I'm new here, so I really don't know where to turn for help or advice on this matter. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paravis (talk • contribs) 18:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that some of this appears to be little more than advertising. Links to his personal pages must be removed.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sarahjjohnson123LeadSongDog come howl 21:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

DocJames you may agree with Paravis above that "links to his personal pages must be removed" when referring to me Otto Placik. but I have removed all links while the user you seem to agree with (Pararvis) continues to have links on all his phtos to a Dr. Michael Schwartz. I find this type of behavior dispicable and evidence that PAravis is operating in bad faith. How can he disparage me "keep people like Dr. Otto J. Placik from controlling and degrading the quality of this collaborative project" (his words) and he continues to attach links to a commercial website. Seems hypocritical to me! Otto Placik (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, advertising should be removed w/o hesitation. Fuzbaby (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a new low in the misuse of Wikipedia for advertising purposes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • As a plastic surgeon and wiki contributor, it gets under my skin when people try to use wikipedia as part of a marketing campaign. Periodically I try to cull some of the vanity bio pieces and listed a few today. PLEASE help remove these types of entries in the AFD section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Zbar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Steinbrech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_K._Herman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gentile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Charles_Edwards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrick_E._Antell

Thanks! Rob Droliver (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

About a year ago, there was a great deal of spam centered around a couple of now blacklisted physician directories -- cosmeticsurgery.com and plasticsurgery.com, along with a number fake blogs and websites, such as ienhance.com. I believe plasticsurgery.org was also blacklisted due to editing abuse (ignoring other editors, sockpuppeting, overzealous adding/readding of links), which I didn't agree with since it's the association website and probably useful as an external link when identified. I'm less clear about cosmeticsurgery.org, which is another association. Flowanda | Talk 21:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I posted the latest images edits at WP:RSPAM: [1]. Flowanda | Talk 01:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Paravis (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count COIBot • search an, ani, cn, an3 • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google) adding before and after images for a Dr. Michael S. Schwartz with direct links to his promotional website. Is that allowed? The source field on the image summary has a direct hyperlink to the physician's website and has terms of use that seem to give direct credit to this physician. I find this to be contradictory to the advertising bans and non-promotional nature of Wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fat_removal_using_cannula_during_tumescent_liposuction.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto Placik (talk • contribs) 07:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Otto Placik (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Oliver I am a little confused you state emphatically above: "As a plastic surgeon and wiki contributor, it gets under my skin when people try to use wikipedia as part of a marketing campaign." Yet you post links to your personal blog on your user page and ask Wikipedia visitors to go there and you also post "before and after pictures of breat augmentation" here: [2] and list yourself as author. Can you explain why this only applies to you and not to me. I would gladly post my pictures in the exact manner in which you posted yours. Would this meet with your satisfaction? Otto Placik (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Here are the standard rules of thumb:
  • Links to your own website in userspace are generally acceptable. Links to your own website in articles are not.
  • Identification of photographers on the image page itself (begins with File:) is acceptable and generally preferred. Naming the photographer in the article (e.g., in the caption underneath the picture) is strongly discouraged.
  • Links to your own website on the image page (File:Whatever.jpg) is generally accepted.
I hope this helps. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you WhatamIdoing. I believe my images are therefore in compliance. However, I have recieved numerous criticisms for links to my website on the image page itself as you state. User: Paravis amd Doc James above criticize links to my website and therefore I removed them. This seems very confusing.Otto Placik (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] MMR vaccine

Can some physicians please put eyes on recent edits at MMR vaccine controversy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like his sources are accurate; as for their location or deserving their own section I'm not sure how it affects the balance and npov of the article. The part from the AMA about parents changing vaccine habbits, in particular is worth inclusion (somewhere in the article) as it is a growing public health concern both in the US and the UK. Fuzbaby (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it really relevant to the subject to compare public conerns (even if those concerns are unfounded) about vaccines to "holocaust denial" and anti-science conspiracies theories though? I think Sandy's reverts/deletions were good.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Struck out my comments, I see that you were just referring to public stats and not the other paragraph. Apologies Fuzbaby.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the other paragraph is harsh, and if the person wanted to include it could just say its a form of denailism; I don't think that would really add anything to the article though, and the link to the denailism wikipage at the end seems out of place. I think the AMA survey paragraph is relevant, though perhaps better moved to the section on disease outbreaks. Fuzbaby (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps stats were worth keeping, dunno Sandy's reasoning. How about raising it on the article talk page or with Sandy on her talk page? :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Not on my talk (eeeeek) ... I'm only able to keep up with my FAC duties these days, really busy ... that's why I brought this here, for others to work out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh ok no probs Sandy. I am not opposed to the stats being included, they are recent and should be interesting to the reader. The other paragraph clearly did need deleting. :) Why not just add the stats and ref back in Fuzbaby and if anyone challenges it you can take it to the article talk page. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Done! Fuzbaby (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The AMA poll isn't directly relevant to MMR vaccine controversy, as it doesn't mention MMR vaccine. It is a US poll, and the main US concerns about vaccines are not about MMR. (MMR concerns are more of a UK thing.) It might be suited for Vaccine controversy, I suppose, but it'd be much better to cite a review on the topic instead of that popular-press piece (see WP:MEDRS for why). Eubulides (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Public opinion polls aren't really a scientific statement and are unlikely to appear in a review article in my opinion. Improved sourcing might not be possible. Agree that it the stats are not directly relevant to MMR.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that sort of information isn't going to be on pubmed. However, I can't find the primary source from the AMAs website (even with member access) and I dislike using a secondary source. It is of growing concern in the US though (California) though not as bad as in the UK. Fuzbaby (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia, because it is an encyclopedia (a tertiary source) has a clearly stated preference for using secondary sources. Information about public opinion might well turn up in journal articles, since the public's beliefs about a medical intervention have a significant impact on public health. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I think in the case of the primary source being a publication of a professional organization that fits under the accepted use; more specifically though I meant I didn't like the current secondary source (press article). Fuzbaby (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Scholarly papers discussing the consequences of public perception on vaccination uptake absolutely belong in WP. See this list of papers since 2007 for several candidate examples. This one is as direct to the point as one might wish.LeadSongDog come howl 18:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Again?

I thought we'd been over this "endless case history" thing at Brown-Séquard syndrome with User:A E Francis before, but

In addition to getting these articles cleaned up (any volunteers?), should we consider specifically naming this problem at WP:MEDMOS#Writing_style? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to move his additions over to a page on WikiUniversity? Fuzbaby (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Deadfully misconceived/misplaced in wikipedia. Don't know about moving, but could copy & paste - whilst carefully written and interesting read for myself a doctor, the sections are at a level only suitable for a physician or medical student and are far too high a level for a general reader (i.e. insufficient explanation of what is being described, why certain details relevant etc etc) and WP:NOT#TEXTBOOK applies. This urgently needs relocating if anyone can figure out the WikiUniversity structures to link into - but sections need rapid removal from these articles in wikipedia. David Ruben Talk 00:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I've notified A E Francis of this discussion, as they are perhaps best to relocate material to WikiUniversity with a suitable introductory leadin section.David Ruben Talk 01:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the casuistry from failed back syndrome (is that not entirely NOR?) but in the other two the case reports are intertwined with the actual content and will need careful removal, ideally by the original author. We skirmished in the past over his list of causes for Brown-Sequard syndome. On a separate note, none of the extensive references are templated, which makes it harder to judge the content by the title (it's of the first author/journal/volume/pages variety). JFW | T@lk 07:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Blood type GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Blood type for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to clean it up a bit, drop me a line if you can think of anything else. Fuzbaby (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Dear doctors mess, can you please tell me how many total medical articles are on Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate it. I couldn't find a category for medicine to count myself. Greatly appreciated. Will crosspost at Reference Desk. 207.59.144.196 (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As of June 22,2009 there were 17,885 pages with the {{WikiProject Medicine}} banner. (See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality statistics) I'm not sure how far that number is from all articles in the root category (Category:Medicine). -Optigan13 (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The above ~18K number should be taken as no more than a very rough estimate. It includes pages that are not (now) considered to be within the scope of this project (e.g., some articles about anatomy and drugs), and does not include articles that do belong but haven't yet been tagged (e.g., new articles). It also includes articles that are within the scope of this project but that most people would not consider to be medical articles (e.g., articles about laws, physicians, pharmaceutical companies, and medical charities). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
One more minor point: the template is actually at {{WPMED}}; Template:WikiProject Medicine is a redirect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request by User:208.78.62.116

Dr please can you help with some points as regards to the relevance of parasitology to medicine? User:208.78.62.116

Reintroduce request that deleted previous section: Ward20 (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Try asking the question at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Plastic surgery photos

We need to add:

Paravis (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count COIBot • search an, ani, cn, an3 • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)

since the photos lead to Michael Schartz, a plastic surgeon's website. Flowanda | Talk 06:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that this needs review. Multiple photos contributed by User:Paravis for example [[3]] have direct links to a Dr. Michael S. Schwartz's website. He claims that he is giving credit and I agree that this is reasonable. However, it was my impression that direct links to a personal website for promotional purposes is strongly discouraged. I believe that Paravis should not be allowed to upload these images (I counted 17 photos) without removing the links. Changing the links to the Physician's name only would diminish the obvious nature of this blatant promotional use of Wikipedia and at least give the impression that his efforts were sincere in intent.--Otto Placik (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Scintific review

Hi all, I created the following SVGs, serving the wikiproject medicine, I want some review, thank you all :-)

Cone cell

Sperm

|

Struthers' ligament

Weber's syndrome

Parinaud's syndrome

Electrical conduction system of the heart

Organ of corti

Keratoconus

Thalmus

please comment on this MaenK.A.Talk 12:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The colors of the nuclei on Thalmus.png appear to be reversed. It would also be better if it were renamed to a variant of "Thalamus.png". --Arcadian (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Y Done MaenK.A.Talk
On Electrical conduction system of the heart.svg, it would be useful to label the left-anterior and left-posterior. (See Left bundle branch block for details.) --Arcadian (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
This next bit of feedback is trickier, but would be useful: On Midbraincrosssection.svg (and the derived diagrams), could you make the sensory tracts blue and the motor tracts red? This is fairly standard in most modern neuro texts I've seen (and the convention dates at least back to the classic edition of Gray's Anatomy). If you're not sure which is which, I'd be happy to advise. --Arcadian (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Y Done MaenK.A.Talk
Here are the new ones one is svg, and one is png

SVG

PNG
For File:Trig innervation.svg could you add in (as a light grey outline) the rest of the scalp/head and at least an indication of the start of the neck. Its quite hard othewise to see where the boundary lies with respect to the angle of the jaw, the ear etc. Thanks David Ruben Talk 03:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you be more specific about the heart conduction system labels??, and thank you for the constructive comments :-) MaenK.A.Talk 11:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
And thank you for all your image work! Per the heart conduction system: look at this and this. --Arcadian (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the aprecation, and I ll be working on that :-) MaenK.A.Talk 15:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Spongiosis

I have two very good sources that have conflicting information. One states spongiosis is intracellular edema, while the other states it is extracellular edema. Do any of you have additional sources that can be used to clarify what the strict definition of spongiosis is? Perhaps you could add them to the article? Thanks in advance for your help. ---kilbad (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image spam discussions

There are a number of images on various article pages that show uploaded photos to Wikimedia Commons that contain links to physicians' websites, including the editor above who complained about harassment. I think the notice I placed on this user's talk page provides the links to current and past discussions :[4]. I think the best way to keep the discussion together would be to make any replies to the WP:RSPAM noticeboard [5]. Thanks, Flowanda | Talk 00:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between marketing spam and legitimate photographic documentation of medical procedures. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to show off before/after images (or to enlarge these images, or place them in awkward parts of an article that are not subjectively related to the image). I have been given a great opportunity to take videos and photos by a surgeon. And even though I took the photos/videos, I am only documenting the artistic talent and work of the surgeon. How else would I give credit to my source?
You csn give credit by writing his name and eliminating the link--Otto Placik (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
And, in contrast with some images that are disrupting the aesthetics and functionality of certain articles, the work I am contributing is extremely informative and descriptive simply within the image itself. I have been studying Wikipedia's medical articles for over a year now; and there are definite "information gaps". It is in everyone's best interest for these gaps to be filled in appropriately. I feel as if that is exactly what I have been attempting to do, with trouble coming from an individual who felt as if his "territory" was being encroached upon.
I was actually almost denied the privilege of documenting any more surgeries after Otto Placik made phone calls to Michael Schwartz's office. It took me a day and a half to prove to Michael Schwartz that I had not been doing anything out of line, nor abusing Wikipedia's policies, nor making a bad name for him or his practice. And the phone call that started all this trouble for me was totally uncalled for, and quite unnecessary. I would have been really disappointed had I not been able to continue this work, since the media I capture gets better and better every time! Anyways, thanks for your concern. Paravis (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


The photos may provide some illustration but the direct link to his personal website is completely unnecessary and gives one the impression that you are promoting his services rather than achieving an educational intent. Give him credit but remove the link and your efforts will appear more honest in intent. --Otto Placik (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Real NICE guidelines

Talk:Benzodiazepine#Questions_about_U_Sheffield_paper has an open question about whether genuine, official NICE guidelines include statements like "The views expressed in this Publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of either the Royal College of General Practitioners or the National Institute for Clinical Excellence". If one (or more) of our UK editors could please take a look, I'd appreciate it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in the UK, but this is clearly "genuine" NICE guidance; it is Clinical guideline 22 ("Anxiety"), linked to as such from NICE's full list of published clinical guidelines. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I have a psychiatric text book which calls them "NICE guidelines".--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I would encourage some sustained follow-up attention to matters at Talk:Benzodiazepine from project editors; this sort of pettifogging (i.e. claiming at length that a NICE guideline is not a NICE guideline) seems to be a recurring theme. MastCell Talk 03:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The Maudsley hospital (most important psychiatric hospital in the UK, world famous) also refer to that paper as NICE guidelines. Another one is that the word general doesn't really mean general and arguing about that, filling talk pages arguing one word at a time. It is really frustrating these endless arguments and it has paralysed the editing environment and destroyed the article going to FA.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Colin has resolved this issue. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Good Lord. If an editor is capable of fighting tooth-and-nail like that to avoid conceding an inch even the most tangential issue, where they are clearly in the wrong, then what hope is there to move the article forward in a meaningful way? MastCell Talk 22:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

A new reason has come up now, apparently the NICE guidelines are too technical and long for non-professionals or something. This is what happens you resolve one frivilous problem and then another problem is found which you have to argue about. WP:DISRUPT is appropriate. This has been going on for over a month now. I should point out that due weight and balance is given to both sides of the controversy in this section. Benzodiazepine#Tolerance.2C_dependence_and_withdrawal This apparently isn't enough because by me citing the "extremist" NICE systematic review and the clinical guidelines in the anxiety section, I am being "radical".--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Colin's description of the NICE guidelines was fantastic. Colin, I don't suppose you'd move that into NICE guidelines for us, would you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Way to go, guys! You just decided by majority that a document saying "The views expressed in this Publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of either the Royal College of General Practitioners or the National Institute for Clinical Excellence" - is a NICE guideline. While a document[6] saying "This document, which contains the Institute's full guidance on Anxiety" is not a NICE guideline.

You are too absorbed, LG and MS, in attacking me personally to look into the problem. Please note that Colin eventually agreed with me on the only issue I tried to clarify. He wrote ""full version" is the one they call the "full guideline", not the one they call the "NICE guideline" "The NICE guideline presents the recommendations from the full guideline in a format that focuses on implementation by healthcare professionals and NHS organisations" (bold mine, TSC)."

I agreed with Colin in principle that it does not really matter what to use:"Regardless, the recommendation sections of both documents say the same." He insisted that full NICE guideline is more appropriate, and I did not further argue with that. What is your problem, LG and MS? The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Colin explained the NICE articles to you but the problem is not NICE guidance. My problem is I just find you a difficult editor to get along with even in the most simplest of things.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Emotional Freedom Technique

I know I'm going to get pushback on this, but I am not pleased with a series of single studies with no aggregation being reported approvingly over at emotional freedom technique. So I've culled. I'd love to point out that the studies were almost universally flawed - small n, no control groups, poor follow-up, horrible methodology, published in partisan press, etc. (the only good study was negative, and it's not pubmed indexed [7]). As I said, my main concern is that the page reports the very small number of studies individually, with no aggregation. Since this is exploratory, with few studies, of little scientific merit, of a borderline pseudoscience, I'm rather uncomfortable with the the previous reporting of individual results, methodologies, etc. that existed before my trim. Spam is an obvious concern, as is WP:CRYSTAL. Opinions of experienced contributors is welcome and appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Emu oil: Can review for adspam please?

We have an article on Emu oil, which discusses various healthcare-related properties and uses of this substance.
The cites in this article seem to be largely from various promotional websites.
Could members of this project please review these cites for adspam? Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Behold the new, improved(?) version, now with 80% less infomercial tone and fewer citations to buy-emu-oil.com. The typical story: there are a handful of groups doing rodent-level research on the compound; it improves some cytokine parameters in some rodent models of inflammation in the hands of a few researchers; no human studies have been published. It is then marketed as a panacea; heck, it even made the FDA's roundup on "How to Spot Health Fraud" earlier this year. MastCell Talk 22:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Thx much. :-) -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

Sorry, we've probably been over this a bunch already, but we don't accept the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons as a reliable source, right? It's the publication of a fringe activist group as I understand it. I'm going to take something that uses it as a source out of shaken baby syndrome, see Talk:shaken baby syndrome#Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. delldot ∇. 23:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a very poor encyclopedic source; I could go into the details, but they are voluminous and I'll save that for later, if needed. MastCell Talk 23:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to thank whomever wrote the JPandS section of that article. It contains all the information I need to know about whether it's the kind of source that I'd want to use. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. :) Although, of course, it wasn't just me. MastCell Talk 18:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Chiari Institute

This new article seems very problematic. First it praises the institute citing articles that would not be good sources according to MEDRS, then it lists a number of "controversies" in ways that seem to violate BLP because they are based on poor sources. I bring this here because it's outside my domain; I only saw it as part of a Bot-search result. Looie496 (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP doesn't really apply to organizations. It looks like the quality of the refs has been upgraded, however: most of the lawsuit-related information is now cited to local newspaper articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
While it's extremely tangential, I'm going to plead WP:COI on this one for reasons which I won't elaborate here. Looks like the Daily News has really sunk their teeth into this one. MastCell Talk 18:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I entirely understand how to fix it. I've found an NBC report and an online UPI article, which say exactly the same thing as the Daily News articles. Is the Daily News not a credible source? I want to make this a working article, I think I'm just not understanding how to do that....(Rpenni (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC))
The Daily News is a bit tabloidy, but arguably useful. NBC and UPI are generally considered reliable sources. Those are general opinions; you might want to discuss the specific uses at Talk:The Chiari Institute, or possibly at the reliable sources noticeboard if more input is needed - though you might also get some additional input here, once I quiet down :) MastCell Talk 21:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you kindly.  :) I have added the NBC and UPI references, and added notes to the articles talk page. (Rpenni (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

[edit] Scope (drugs)

We've been refining our scope as part of our ongoing assessment work. Your opinions on the latest big-picture questions are wanted.

All of the following are within the scope of WP:PHARM. Are they also within WPMED's scope?

  1. Vaccines
  2. Medications
  3. Pharmaceutical companies

Options include everything from "Yes" to "No", with considerable room for complexity as needed. For example, someone might want WPMED to support major classes of medications (NSAIDs) but not individual medications (aspirin); to support over-the-counter drugs (aspirin) but not prescription-only medications (cisplatin); to support common medications (paroxetine) but not uncommon ones (alpha-galactosidase); to support legally regulated drugs but not "dietary supplements" — or any other system you think appropriate.

Whatever your personal opinions, please feel free to share them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to say yes, yes and no in that order. Vaccines and medications have clear implications within medicine (medication, medicine, anyone seeing the similarity?). Pharmaceutical companies, on the other hand, have little relevance to the practice of clinical medicine itself. I think that should remain entirely under WP:PHARM's scope. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  22:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
My vote is 1. Yes, definitely, without a doubt, 100%. 2. Yes, but not dietary suppliments unless they have a clear role in medicine (so mostly, no on dietary suppliments, but I can see room for exceptions). 3. No, however, I do think that medical device manufacturers and their products that are commonly used could be in the scope of the project, as could articles about events surrounding pharma companies that affect healthcare. Additionally, perhaps as a #4, articles related to medical practice and education?Fuzbaby (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Compulsive overeating and friends

Seems there are 4 seperate articles, mostly stubs, that deal with practically the same subject. I am not good with merging pages that are in different stances, but I thought I'd provide the list for anyone interested in it.

I'm sure with some searching another one or two may be uncovered. These articles all have merge templates but no discussion on the proposed merge has begun. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Bulimia nervosa is a far better article. Polyphagia is a stub.LeadSongDog come howl 19:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Bulimia is a related condition that also includes the purging behavior in addition to this binge eating. Compulsive overeating is basically eating a lot. Polyphagia seems like it would be a much better suitor for the information to end up. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note the hatnote on Polyphagia; I think the biological usage is the more notable one, in which case this article should be about polyphagia in the biological sense, which refers to having a very broad diet, similar to omnivory. --Una Smith (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Shared decision making

I recently ported Shared decision making over from CZ (recent update of licenses allows this granted that acknowledgment is given) and since it is related to medicine, I was hoping someone here can give an expert view on it. Mainly to check for NPOV, references are valid and ensure the article is not biased etc, since I have heard that some of the articles over at CZ (such as the ones about homeopathy) are pushed towards a POV. Cheers. Calaka (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alcohol and cancer

The alcohol and cancer page is a mess. A bit of quick background, as some of you may remember I raised problems (which are now resolved) a while back with the long-term effects of alcohol article regarding it being severely abused by a sociologist from the drinks industry who had a wealth of references to give massive undue weight to the benefits of moderate alcohol, misusing references and using old sources which were disproven with later research etc etc. The same thing happened with the alcohol and cancer page. Anyway one of the main problems is editors copying and pasting sentences from references and doing direct quotes. This editing style was used by the sociologist (who is banned now after resorting to sockpuppeteering), the response of some of the community was then to copy the editing style of the sociologist by doing direct copy and paste tactics, wrongly thinking that this would mean that the "alcohol industry" wouldn't be able to "touch their edits". It has resulted in a comprehensive article but is borderline violating copyright issues throughout it. It would be a shame to just delete all of the hard work. If the community could reword these quotes we could end up with a reasonable B class medicine article. Please join in and lend a helping hand to fix this article. It's been a mess with these quotes for over a year and is only partially resolved. Thanks. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a slight correction to the above: One of the sociologist / lobbyist's many tricks was to give his own highly tendentious 'interpretations' of some research papers. A good example is here [8] where one of his sock puppets presents a study on mice as being a study on rats (God knows what was going through his mind at the time). By directly quoting what the researchers actually said, I and a few others limited his room for manoeuvre. However the article has consequently become a mass of quotes, though quoting typically one sentence from a paper's conclusion isn't a copyright violation as Literaturegeek seems to fear. I second Literaturegeek's plea; the article does need expert attention from someone with medical knowledge. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] On the subject of cancer

When clicking on some of the cancer links on the alcohol and cancer page, I stumbled across an old unresolved merge proposal. See Salivary gland neoplasm, I was about to merge them myself but then realised a neoplasm can be benign so then had second thoughts and thought I would bring it to the attention of this project.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Skin Grafting

This message is in reference to the existing Skin grafting article, and the final image that is displayed (a skin graft applied to a lower leg trauma injury, benefiting from VAC). The photograph is of my own leg, and was taken in December 2007 following a motorcycle accident. Would the article benefit from having a photograph of the graft now it is completely healed, with no moist areas? And how about any intermediate images? I can try to crop and rotate to the same orientation so the images are consistent. Furthermore, would the article benefit from any reference to long-term implications of full thickness grafts and their potential impact on the lymphatic system? For example, where mine is sited means that I suffer from significant swelling without several hours of daily elevation. Clearly this is not going to affect every patient but is a potential long-term complication as a result of having a skin graft. This can also be accommodated in an image time-line if I do contribute one in the manner I have suggested - I can intentionally lay up to make the surrounding tissue sit flush with the graft on the edge where the tissue loss is at its thinnest, and likewise I can intentionally keep the leg down for a day or two to swell up somewhat grotesquely, and make the surrounding tissue taught and angry. Would this be of any use whatsoever, or would it over-complicate the article? To make this clear, I'm not doing this for some sort of personal kick of sharing photos of my injuries - I personally feel that it would be of some use to patients to see how things might possibly look during the healing process as well as possibly illustrating possible long-term side effects, but of course if it would detract from the factual nature of "what is a skin graft" then I will bow to your collective greater knowledge and not embark on this little project. If anyone from the profession wants to see the intermediate-stage images I intend to use (not yet rotated etc) then I've put them on photobucket - you can view them through the following links: [9] [10] [11]. I've not yet uploaded the fully healed images. I would of course be happy to work with anyone from the profession in creating any amendment to make it relevant from the get-go, and save people the effort of re-edits later. Thanks. --El Gordo 78 (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Calling to all Active WPMED Contributors!

Calling all Active WPMED Contributors!

The Wikiversity School of Medicine has invited us to help and contribute to their articles pertaining to the Wikiversity School of Medicine!

You can meet the crew at the School of Medicine's talk page.

Have a look at School of Medicine task list to see where you can help.

Glance through Wikiversity Policy and Guidelines before contributing.

I saw they where looking for some experts in medicine and were lacking in participants, so I decided to go ahead and volunteer ourselves to go help them. Renaissancee (talk) 04:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to contribute.


Is tuition going to be free? :-) Fuzbaby (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, I hope so. You'll just have to pay for boarding and necessities only. ;) Renaissancee (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's accredited, but when has that ever stopped people from handing out medical degrees? :) MastCell Talk 04:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
citizendium could use some medical authors and editors too - can we make more recruitment flyers for this talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.61 (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Every wiki thinks that it needs more editors. I don't think that we actually want to turn into a recruiting forum for any of them. More time spent at another wiki usually means less time spent here. I see no reason why Wikipedia would want to encourage its editor to do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Placebo

In the Symptoms and conditions section of the article there is a list of conditions with references to placebo controlled studies and metastudies. The only explanation for the list is "List of medical conditions". There has been some discussion of keeping the list as is or removing it until better context for the list is included in the article here. Some more input or clarification would be appreciated. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Three reasons exist for this section.
  1. The list follows individual discussions of three conditions in which the placebo effect is found: pain, depression and gastric and duodenal ulcers. Without the list after these three separate discussions, readers of the article might mistakenly feel that research has only been published upon them and the placebo effect, whereas in fact, the three are detailed largely as illustrations. One possibility is that the list is expanded into similar discussions on each of the listed conditions. But that would greatly extend the length of the article: to list the existence of such work rather than fully detail them individually is a compromise.
  2. A key aspect of the placebo effect is the diversity of symptoms and conditions that it effects. This is implied elsewhere in the article by the use of abstract words such as “condition” but the collecting together of differing conditions in the list directly shows this.
  3. It has a further reading role. It provides in a bulleted alphabetized list additional reading for those wanting to read about the placebo effect where in various conditions it has been researched and reviewed. If an individual reader has an interest in a particular condition they might want to read more about the placebo effect and that condition. The list provides the opportunity for doing this. Again it could be done differently with each condition directly linked to further relevant reading rather than a numbered citation. But in any article there is a compromise between space and providing information a reader might reasonably appreciate. --LittleHow (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you just write two sentences to introduce the list? Perhaps something like "Sham treatments have been used in dozens of conditions. Here is a partial list..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I did some work on this a while ago. There are a bunch of examples in prose in the Placebo#Definitions.2C_effects.2C_and_ethics section and the Placebo#Expectancy_and_conditioning section. II | (t - c) 19:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Snakebite article

Hi everyone,

I've been editing the snakebite article recently (I'm 98.232.98.144 (talk · contribs) when too lazy to log in) and I noticed it is rated as mid-importance for this Wikiproject group. The article is also a former good article, but was demoted for a variety of reasons. I've tried to address some of the problems on the to-do list, but I don't have enough free time in my day to do everything I'd like to. The article as it is now has the potential to regain good article status with a little more work, but I would like help from this group if anyone's willing. It would be nice to have some fresh eyes look over it and note potential problems and improvements, and add citation tags where they're needed. Thanks!--Eightofnine (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force

...is open for business. See the talk page and join in the fun. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The diabetes quagmire

For a long time I have been disappointed with the quality of the diabetes content on Wikipedia. Given the large amount of articles involved I thought this might be right forum to raise these issues. To be honest, I think one of the main problems is the lack of agreement whether all content should remain on diabetes mellitus (lumpers) or whether this should be a placeholder article that primarily links to numerous subarticles (splitters).

Could I make the following proposals:

  • The "main" diabetes article discusses only the presenting symptoms, diagnosis (especially how to distinguish the subtypes) and the complications. It splits off all relevant subcontent at a high level (e.g. not spending too much time on the various oral hypoglycaemics in DM2 or attempts to cure DM1).
  • The "main" article is sourced only sparsely with the very highest quality WP:MEDRS sources (reviews in high-impact journals).
  • The subarticles are allowed to refer back to the main article with regards to the unified content (e.g. complications) without duplicating all that is already in the main article.

It would be lovely to have a task force set up for diabetes and endocrinology, but I suspect there is not currently enough manpower to do this. JFW | T@lk 10:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur with User:Jfdwolff. As a relative newcomer to the diabetes articles, I found it very frustrating to find so many articles on the subject spread throughout Wikipedia. There is tremendous duplication. Having it all in one article would be best (one-stop shopping). However, the main article already has a size advisory.
  • Between JFW's alternatives, "DM" should become a placeholder article that primarily links to numerous subarticles (splitters).
  • The "main" [[Diabetes Mellitus]] (DM) article should keep its redirect from [[Diabetes]].
I will be glad to assist. Thanks. Afaprof01 (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] added ca risk to azo dye drug.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenazopyridine#Cancer_Risk

i know this page is monitored by the makers of this drug. Please help me bring middle of the road information to the article about azo dyes. Does the pharm box at the top have a category for class of pharmaceutical? Thanks, 99.22.220.61 (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't you use information specific to phenazopyridine, such as its profile in the latest edition of the Report on Carcinogens (which notes there is "inadequate evidence" of a cancer risk in humans)?
There's no field in the Drugbox for drug class—it's been discussed before, but found unnecessary if memory serves. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I think this needs to be removed. The "azo dyes cause cancer" source is specifically about unrelated (now banned) azo dyes. There's no connection to this azo dye. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I added "While Phenazopyridine has never been shown to cause human cancer, evidence from animal models suggests that it's potentially carcinogenic [1]" ...or we could just delete the section. Fuzbaby (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I vote keep (I'm the person who made the first post = don't know if my ip address has chnged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.61 (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I could go either way with respect to inclusion or removal, but since the cancer risk in humans is essentially speculative, perhaps it should be merged with the adverse effects section instead of appearing separately/importantly in the table of contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


The source actually says that limited tests in humans have shown no increased risk of cancer. I think that this should be included in the article as well as the animal sttudies.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I've merged the two sections.Fuzbaby (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Corposcindosis

This new article seems very problematic. It defines a syndrome that gets no hits on Google Scholar or Pubmed. A reference is given in the article which I can't check; the real source of the term seems to be an online petition at http : //www.petitiononline.com/consent/petition.html (address munged to get around blacklist). I'm inclined to think the article should go where the woodbine twineth, and wonder if others have an opinion. Looie496 (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Cites editor's own wiki site and googling seems to provide just 2 doctors who mention term at all - fails even qualify as a trivial minority. I've tagged article and commented on talk page - I suspect it should be re-deleted (if I read the notes on WP:SPEEDY G4 should not be invoked twice and I'm unclear on the previous deletion process used) per WP:RECREATE (on basis of lack "Notability status has changed" and "Advertising, Self-promotion, Spam Pages intended to promote a person, company, organization, or cause" per "cause" as set out in editor's own blog). David Ruben Talk 00:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see anything to verify that the page was previously deleted? I have tagged the article for speedy deletion.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Its shown for admins at the top of edit history to view or restore past edits. David Ruben Talk 01:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
You may want to have a look at this. LG, the prior deletion discussion is here. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I've also removed {{db-hoax}} as it does not apply here—that's reserved for patently false content in the vein of "Jack B. Vandal will be the 134th president of the united states in 2014 when he leaves high school". This should probably be taken to AfD instead. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The term "corposcindosis" is mentioned in this ref.[12]. Perhaps it is noteworthy? I dunno, only one ref though but then again it isn't an official diagnostic term. Hmmm.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I did look at those links FV and they seemed to verify the term was original research but then I saw that ref in the article and thought hmmm. Thanks for removing the deletion tag.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the article should be deleted but the citation referencing and describing corposcindosis should be given a small mention in the Endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy article? That is what I am leaning towards in opinion.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I striked out above comment as I see that there is already mention of this ref in the risks and controversy section of the Endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy article. My twinkle tool has an option to request speedy deletion of content that was previously deleted.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I see the article has been deleted by another admin per G4 recreation of a deleted page. David Ruben Talk 20:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] azo compound CA risk removed

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azo_compound&diff=300486336&oldid=300482297

i don't really agree with this edit. just because something isn't made doesnt mean that patients have not been exposed previously - also seems like historic info. Anyone else getting my monitored by drug companies suspicion? I mean, monitor the tylenol article's history... sigh - wp is far from perfect... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.61 (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really, but I'm starting to suspect that you don't quite grasp the fact that there are different types of azo dyes. Just because "this" azo dye is associated with cancer doesn't mean that "all" azo dyes are. It's like saying that "drugs are bad, so I'll refuse everything to aspirin to anesthesia with the same vehemence that I would reject heroin and LSD." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
surely one should at least state that some azo compounds have historically been not only associated but have been proven to cause cancer - to go further would be to specify which ones those are, state them, and state if they are still in use (off market in usa doesnt mean off market everywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.61 (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, the article does state "Azo dyes derived from benzidine are carcinogens". I would support reintroducing an explicit mention of the risk of bladder cancer, which has been well established for decades. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Redesign of FDA's website

Dear all!

Since mid-2008 FDA is redesigning their website. As of June 2009 practically all document names and paths were altered without automatic redirects. I would estimate that hundreds of reference links in WP are affected and lead to an HTTP-404 error page. Unfortunatelly if in the linked reference the title of the document is not given, any attempt to find the resource at FDA's site is futile. Sometimes even giving the exact title of the document FDA's search page lead to electronic nirvana. :-(

Accessibility of the site is poor, since previously many documents existed in two versions: HTML and PDF - HTML-versions were removed in the majority of cases. Documents' titles often contained information whether the version was a draft (XXXXdft.pdf) or final (XXXXfnl.pdf). Such an information is lost in the new system, where all documents are of the type ucmXXXXXX.yyy or UCMXXXXXX.yyy. XXXXXX is a six digit number, yyy is the file extension (pdf, rarely htm). Cave: ucm and UCM are case-sensitive.

Some (funny?) examples (no links, only to show differences):

Document title:

ANDA CHECKLIST FOR CTD or eCTD FORMAT FOR COMPLETENESS and ACCEPTABILITY of an APPLICATION FOR FILING

old URL:

http://www.fda.gov/cder/ogd/anda_checklist.pdf

new URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/HowDrugsareDevelopedandApproved/ApprovalApplications/AbbreviatedNewDrugApplicationANDAGenerics/UCM154150.pdf

Formatting of Bioequivalence Summary Tables

old URLs:

DBE_tables.pdf

DBE_tables.doc

new URLs: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/HowDrugsareDevelopedandApproved/ApprovalApplications/AbbreviatedNewDrugApplicationANDAGenerics/UCM120957.pdf http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/HowDrugsareDevelopedandApproved/ApprovalApplications/AbbreviatedNewDrugApplicationANDAGenerics/ucm120960.doc (notice the different XXXXXX and ucm vs. UCM)

It would be nice if we could start to update these references before a deadlink-bot removes them (would be terribly bad, because without the old title you have no chance locating the new one at FDA). Please see this as an invitation, but don't expect too much help from myself - I'm quite busy cleaning up articles at my home-wiki (German WP).

Heads up! -- Alfie±Talk 15:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

First a query - is ucm reserved for .doc format and UCM for .pdf as seems case in examples given above, or is it random ?
The pattern ucmXXXXX.yyy applies to virtually all files regardless the type (though there are some exceptions, especially in the dockets-area of the site). I guess the lower/upper cases are random (pros at work).
As a quick test, this did not seem case-sensitive to me.
SUPAC-IR: Immediate-Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms: Scale-Up and Post-Approval Changes: Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls, In Vitro Dissolution Testing, and In Vivo Bioequivalence Documentation ucm070636.pdf (small letters), SUPAC-MR: Modified Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms UCM070640.pdf (capital letters). I used the links ‘as-is’ from FDA's site. But you are right, the call to the URL is not case-sensitive.
Perhaps a good moment to set up a {{FDAlink}} template to help with this and at least if in the future the FDA website folders are rearranged, then we can apply a quick fix (ie. apply single change to part of the template, but not if article XXXXXX numbers change).
I have no idea how the old 4-digit numbers relate to the new 6-digit numbers (I even tried to find a function whithout avail). Mainly older documents have lower numbers, but maybe they used a random generator in other cases. Example: the GLP-rules from Sept 1987 exist in two formats: UCM133730.pdf and ucm072706.htm… See the system?
I envisage {{FDAlink}} might take following 4/5 parameters:
  • Area - ie "Drug application" in above examples
  • Target - to specify ucm vs UCM if we must
  • Article - the XXXXXX bit
  • Display - for the article name we wish to show
  • accessdate - optional parameter
Hence in last example: {{FDAlink|Drug application|UCM|120957|DBE tables|2009-07-09}}
might be shown as: FDA DBE tables. Drug application. Accessed on 9 July 2009
David Ruben Talk 17:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Good idea. I'm only afraid if nobody starts editing the references, they will be removed. I think there's a bot for such cases, but since EN:WP is not my main wiki, I'm not sure. Right now there is still a chance for manual corrections. It will be a cumbersome job anyhow. - -Alfie±Talk 18:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that any "dead-link bot" removes references on the English Wikipedia. I think it's more common to tag it with {{deadlink}} instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Special:Linksearch showed me about 3,400 links to *.fda.gov. My spot check of about 20 on the last page (i.e., not random) showed more than half were deadlinks. I wish there were a way to make Linksearch list links only in the main namespace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
“about 3,400 links […] more than half were deadlinks.” Oh wow! Higher than my ‘guestimate’. I looked at the documentation of {{deadlink}}; the original link-text stays intact. So we have time to search FDA's site. I'll correct links time allowing, but I think that need we need some volunteers. -- Alfie±Talk 19:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
If it helps, url:fda.gov site:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ -deadlink gives 139 pages result vice 19 pages for deadlink LeadSongDog come howl 19:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It might take less time to write a petition to the FDA to revert back to their old network :-) Fuzbaby (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Anyone on speaking terms with a congresscritter? LeadSongDog come howl 20:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
This is probably a good job for a bot. The weblinkchecker script could probably be tweaked to check all of the article-space links to *.fda.gov and collect the dead ones. From there, they'd probably need to be replaced or redirected by hand, which would be faster than trying to code the logic necessary to find the new link. I can give this a shot, but it might be worth enlisting someone handier with Python and the MediaWiki API. MastCell Talk 21:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think I can make headway on this tonight, hopefully without destroying Wikipedia via an accidental denial-of-service attack. It should be easy to pull all of the mainspace external links to *.fda.gov, check them for 404 errors, and throw the results into a tab-delimited text file or some sort of useful format. Depending on how many we're talking about, they could be split up among us and fixed pretty quickly. MastCell Talk 00:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Let me know how many different areas of the FDA website we're looking at - if a limited number then I can make that FDAlink template, but if folder/subfolder names are of a huge number then this will be one for hand coding/mrking up the links (which risks this all happening again at the next FDA website revamp) David Ruben Talk 00:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
If you want to read some Newspeak see FDA's statement about the redesign. They started with some cosmetics in mid-2008, but pushed the button on June 1st. And yes, I have already send e-mails asking for documents I could not find any more. Got a response of the type “Thank you for your inquiry to the Division of Drug Information in Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration. We are aware of the problem and will forward your inquiry blabla”. I don't think they will change anything in the near future (the old system was in place for 15 years). Funny enough that all PDFs I've came across at the FDA were not updated, i.e. embedded links end up in Nirvana as well. For some further goodies see this post. -- Alfie±Talk 01:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I forgot: If you create a template {{FDAlink}}, please include another optional parameter 'documentdate' since some documents are legally binding. -- Alfie±Talk 10:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fibromyalgia

Yes, I can hear the groans. No, Guido isn't back. However, this rather controversial article has been getting a lot of edits that could use educated oversight. RetroS1mone (talk · contribs), a strong-willed editor with a strong point of view and limited English skills, has been making massive edits to the article with minimal discussion, and trampling over doubts expressed on the talk page. In particular he is greatly increasing the weight given to the belief that FM is frequently faked. He has shortened the article by over 10% today alone, and massively rearranged what is left, making it impossible for me to figure out what he has changed. I hasten to admit that my knowledge of this syndrome is limited, and I'm probably going to bow out after bringing the issue here. Looie496 (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

While heavy-handed edits to controversial articles are likely to cause trouble, I think RetroS1mone could do with some assistance. This user does indeed have a strong POV but represents an important school of thought that is often delegitimised. On chronic fatigue syndrome it is apparently not politically correct to suggest that psychological factors predispose to the development of this condition. Clearly, the FM article is not being watched by the clutch of editors that do battle on CFS. JFW | T@lk 16:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Quad test

Please evaluate this: Quad test.RobSchop [just shout!] 08:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question re File:Endocarditis ultrasound.gif

My echo-reading skills are pretty much nonexistent, what with my not being a doctor and all (or nurse, or radiology tech...). What am I seeing here—is this a parasternal short-axis view, as I presume? I haven't seen an annotated echo in years, and I'm having trouble correlating this to the anatomy. I could always Google "atlas of echocardiography" or something, but then what would be the use of having so many fine medical professionals on WP? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations - it's a boy! :) MastCell Talk 17:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, OK then—but how far along is it? I swear, it's not mine... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Come on folks, you're missing the obvious point - its twins :-) David Ruben Talk 01:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Translation please

"Panic attack and anxiety can occur, also delusional behavior, including somatoform delusions, sometimes accompanied by a depersonalization or derealization syndrome similar to what was seen in the past in the prodromal or early stages of general paresis.[2][3]"

From the Lyme disease article in Lyme_disease#Stage_3:_Late_persistent_infection. I'd like to put this in lay-friendly language, but I can't understand it to do so! Tim Vickers (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs