Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Barbara (WVS) (talk | contribs) at 13:16, 23 July 2017 (→‎Resource templates on talk pages: ce). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Shortcut

    Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

    We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

    List of archives


    Options requested regarding diagram (File:CankerProcess.png) on mouth ulcer

    CankerProcess

    Editor is wishing to add this diagram. Thoughts? Many thanks, Matthew Ferguson (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I wonder if @VHenryArt: might be willing to make us an awesome image for that process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not based on this original research diagram I hope. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    well perhaps a link to a more adequate diagram (VHenryArt is great w/ images[2])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Any opinions? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Bump. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Future stuff and citations

    Today's Metrics meeting is talking about long-term, worldwide ideas for the future of the wikis. You can watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6nIP4VFIi8

    One of the ideas that's briefly covered may interest some here: Young readers care more about NPOV than about verifiability. They want to be able to trust what they're reading, and especially to trust that it is not overly or overtly biased. Citations are much less important to this group. (Most young people believe that anybody can find a citation that supports almost anything, and they're probably correct.)

    What's IMO not brought out so clearly in this particular talk is that the method of determining how much to trust a source is not very different from what we do on this page: They read something, and if they aren't certain about it, they talk to their friends about whether it's trustworthy. We, too, read things, and if we aren't certain about it, we talk to our wiki-friends here about whether it's reliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    We discuss refs here based on community principles, not what people "like". People sharing news their friends "like" is how fake news spreads and how people come to live in isolated bubbles. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I'm comfortable assuming that young people have no principles and make decisions based upon what they "like". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll get more comfortable with it as you get older. --RexxS (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I find that I'm rather strangely going in the opposite direction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For me this stresses the importance of being exposed to the right people and having access to the right/reliable sources, to avoid being mislead. At an early age I mostly had access to the material of a single propaganda organization to answer my many questions, until I was old enough to go at libraries unaccompanied and grant myself the right to read on "taboo" topics (including evolution); this was also pre-internet. It's also only from high-school and up, that I really could discuss with people outside of that organization. —PaleoNeonate - 20:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for sharing. The part you mention is at 24:45. Further in the video there is more discussion about how social relationships lead to content development, but I do not see that as someone concluding that citations are less relevant. I think the speaker is presenting lack of interest in citations as an opinion or perspective and not a finding backed by research or a conclusion established by evidence. As you say, even if readers are not imagining citations, I think they expect some kind of quality control whether that is conversations or anything else.
    In NYC we have good participation by people in their 20s at our programs. My perspective is that Wikipedians in general care more about citations than PhD level career researchers, and that people in their 20s are more likely to appreciate the citation rules than older people. While young people in general might not care about citations, I doubt that older people do either. The most common complaint that I hear about Wikipedia is that it is low quality, and the people who say that typically are not aware that Wikipedia requires citations. The second most common complaint that I hear about Wikipedia is that its quality is too high. I hear that from older people who feel attacked that Wikipedia requires citations to third party sources, and that Wikipedia will not accept their authority alone. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that this research is about Wikipedians. (I also don't know whether they've published their research yet, but they did the research themselves, so it's not just "an opinion".)
    I think your comment about the older generation being somewhat more likely to "accept their authority alone" lines up with this observation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    We generate our content based on high quality sources. Yes it is likely that most of our readers do not look at the sources. While I would not recommend they take us at face value, if they do not sure what more we can do other than to work to make our content more accurate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a fascinating discussion because out of all the MEDRS sources I've read I've noticed that even the best of sources delve into speculation at times. I find it hard to determine the 'worth' of such content even in the most excellent sources. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 16:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Action against spammers

    It might be Baader-Meinhof playing up again, but with a few recent cases and Ozzie10aaaa uncovering this — I came across an almost exact copy of that behaviour at hxbenefit.com.

    What I suggest is a bot which patrols all our medical articles for newly added sources, which can be added to something similar to a watchlist. So far our catches seem to be almost incidental — when by chance someone finds a poor source being put to use one of the articles on their personal watchlist.

    The spammers know they risk getting caught, so apparently there is widespread use of VPNs to post these links, which means there is no easy way to track what a single user is doing. (Several of the links I saw posted were added from behind VPNs. This seems to be a downside of VPN-services registering very many IPs to avoid geo-blocking, which means we don't block them either. )

    What we can expect to achieve with such a bot is an overview of newly added links that:

    1. Doesn't rely on imperfect watch lists
    2. Can follow spammers as they move between IPs/accounts

    Doc James & Beetstra — are you aware of anything similar and does it seem feasible? James do you know anyone who might be willing to take it upon themselves to build such a bot? Carl Fredrik talk 09:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @CFCF: this could be easily done feeding of the freenode irc feeds of m:User:LiWa3 (in #wikipedia-en-spam for en.wikipedia). Interested editors could just already go there and lurk in the channel and pick 'm up by eye (though the channel is 'loud'). The tools are there to do manual research and/or on-wiki reporting (even from-channel adding it to XLinkBot is possible, blacklisting needs an intermediate Wikipedia edit). For those who do not have IRC access, there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports, which gets updated by User:COIBot with links that have either been reported by human editors, or by some simple algorithms from LiWa3/COIBot (basically: links that have never been used before are now added by only an IP who does not do anything else, and some similar statistics, it is not too sophisticated). Of course that list is does not have Medical attention.
    A bot could also easily read from that feed, matching article names against a list of medical articles, and maintaining an own list of articles. Similar or more sophisticated statistics could then create lists specifically for medical articles (similar to the LinkReports of COIBot). Hooking that back into COIBot for automatic report is trivial through changing it settings. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: — that would be awesome, and an automated report was exactly what I was looking for. Unfortunately I don't think there are enough of us around to monitor the IRC-channel, but a report where one can see all new links, and especially those posted only by new accounts or IPs, would be immensely helpful.
    For the record I updated our list of all medical articles just 5 minutes ago at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Lists of pages/Articles. (The reason we use that page and not the Category is because the recent changes tracking doesn't work with large? categories such as Category:All WikiProject Medicine articles.) Carl Fredrik talk 10:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @CFCF: One could start with watchlisting Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports, it is for everything that the statistics catch and for everything that gets reported to the monitored pages, but 'medical domainnames' might be visible (or one helps the community stopping some other spam, or at worst it can simply be ignored). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    In rebound of this ...

    Now, m:User:LiWa3 parses all edits and finds added external links (indiscriminate: references and regular). It then counts/stats examines those links. For those who do feel like lurking in the channel/helping with above situations - it would also be extremely helpful to do the opposite - tell LiWa3/COIBot that a certain domain is really not a problem (that is whitelist them in the bot). That makes the bot faster (which has an impact on how fast we detect spam) and makes the feed more useful (as we don't have to worry about all those). Help there would be appreciated, thanks in advance! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    thank you for the information--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Charlie Gard treatment controversy

    I'd been hoping to avoid this altogether but reading a news article about the case today prompted me to look at our article (currently getting ~4000 hits/day). Yikes - it could really use some more eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Gard treatment controversy Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    People are expecting us to discuss this issue in neutral terms. We should cover it somewhere IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect it's a lost cause, but I think hosting such a "discussion" is not the job of an encyclopedia. There's a tension between WP:NOTNEWS and the fact that in practice, many Wikpedians would love to have something about Charlie Gard on the WP front page, maybe in "In the news". Alexbrn (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTNEWS says "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events."
    So the question is, is this a significant current event? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the "significance" will only emerge in time (in maybe the spheres of medical ethics, reporting ethics, politics, law and religion). Writing about this topic right now gives us the kind of mess we had. Alexbrn (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I often turn to Wikipedia when I am interested in current events. Agree we cannot say that much right now and agree because it is such a popular topic it is hard to keep balanced. I am fine with merging somewhere but I am not sure were? This is more about states becoming involves politically in the discussion of medical futility. And whether just because one can try something should they. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is like the Terry Schiavo thing. it is so awful how people make political hay out of suffering like this. Jytdog (talk) 05:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And we have a 73K "good article" on the Terry case... Sometimes families go to the press / politicians when they disagree with a decision of the health care system. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Which happened a long time ago. I am not doubting that we could eventually create an article on this. Not now, and not in 2017 now. It is instructive to look at the history of efforts to get the Schiavo article promoted. Didn't make GA until a year after she died. De-listed in 2010. Relisted as GA only in Dec 2012. I worked with probably the worlds's expert on MCS and asked him about that case - he said that he was asked to comment a zillion times and always said no. She had almost no brain left, was not present, and was never coming back. There was never anything to talk about, medically. Even our "good article" doesn't come close to dealing with the reality. (the pain of the family was real. and terrible. but the pseudoscience was and is sickening - making political football out of pain is dogshit. ) Jytdog (talk) 05:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I just took a stroll to the shops to buy breakfast and the (British) red tops were all over this on their front pages ("Give our Charlie a miracle"). Getting back home I switch on Radio 4 and the first thing I hear is "Charlie Gard". In time, there will be considered overviews of these events but right now I'm just not sure such sources exist, commensurate with the gravity of the issues at stake. WP:TOOSOON. Alexbrn (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still needs eyes. Apparently it's "political" to call this disease "incurable"; and the medical stuff is ballooning again. Alexbrn (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've started a discussion at Talk:Charlie_Gard_treatment_controversy#How_to_cover_nucleoside_therapy.3F and input would be welcome. I think some medical stuff is needed to explain the judge's decision and to counter the tendency on the part of some editors to push the benefits of the experimental treatment proposed, but, as that treatment is so experimental, it is difficult to talk about it within WP:MEDRS. But saying nothing makes the judgement look heartless! Bondegezou (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You could try to find a statement from someone commenting about the controversy. That way it will be immune to MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks (and thanks also to others who have joined the discussion at Talk:Charlie_Gard_treatment_controversy). The source I was using was the court ruling, which is the judge's commentary on the controversy. But I see how there are still difficulties because this can end up making claims about the efficacy of a treatment.
    The article continues to develop: I think in a positive direction. Bondegezou (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is going to take too much of my time. Everyday there is a new issue. QuackGuru (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome

    ...perhaps add [3] to above article...(it is a review)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    [1]

    References

    1. ^ Viscomi, Carlo; Bottani, Emanuela; Zeviani, Massimo (2015). "Emerging concepts in the therapy of mitochondrial disease". Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Bioenergetics. 1847 (6–7): 544–557. doi:10.1016/j.bbabio.2015.03.001. ISSN 0005-2728.

    It says it is "Under a Creative Commons license." QuackGuru (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Pharmacoeconomics, disease burden, and WP:MEDRS

    MOS:PHARM indicates that economics on a drug page goes under Society and culture; MOS:MED indicates the same for economics w.r.t. diseases (presumably, the economics of pharmacotherapies would be covered here in addition to disease burden).

    That said, does pharmacoeconomics research fall more under the purview of WP:MEDRS (medical research) or WP:RS (economics research)? More specifically, I'm wondering if others think it's ok to cite both primary and secondary pubmed-indexed pharmacoeconomics research as opposed to exclusively pharmacoeconomics reviews given that we'd cover this topic under the society and culture heading. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If reviews are avaliable better to go with them. If they are not I guess the question is how controversial is the point? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... basically it just involves things like the financial cost vs the socioeconomic benefit (e.g., impact on quality of life) of pharmacotherapy. E.g., in regard to pediatric pancreatitis, this source explicitly covers annual cost: "Estimated annual costs of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, diabetic medications, and pain medications were $4,114, $1,761, and $614 per person, respectively." - PMID 26704866. I suppose if there's an actual statement of cost vs efficacy made in an article, it should probably be cited to a review though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Short answer: It's complicated.
    Long answer: It depends on what you're trying to write about. Primary sources can be the best possible sources, and even the most aggressive enforcers of MEDRS have to admit that MEDRS doesn't actually say that you can't ever WP:USEPRIMARY sources. The other problem with thinking in terms of "MEDRS only" is that MEDRS technically believes that only "medical journals" are "ideal", which is nonsense when we're talking about cross-disciplinary subjects, such as the history of medicine, the economics of medicine, the sociology of medicine, the religious aspects of medical practice, etc. An excellent paper in an reputable economics journal is better than a lousy paper in a not-so-reputable medical journal.
    Your answer: You're a good, highly experienced editor, and I fully trust your judgment. Why don't you just do what you sincerely believe is best for the article? The goal is a neutral, verifiable article. The goal isn't jumping through bureaucratic hoops about how exactly a single source compares to a theoretical ideal as expressed in one guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For the sake of any newer editors reading this: the cautions at wp:SECONDARY still pertain to non-medical assertions. Even if PMID 26704866 makes credible points which remain uncontradicted in newer publications, those points should not be recast into the voice of the encyclopedia. Rather, they should be reported as assertions with wp:intext attribution. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose this will surprise many editors here, but SECONDARY doesn't even mention WP:INTEXT attribution, much less require it every time a primary (or non-WP:INDY) source is used.
    Additionally, even under strict scrutiny, we routinely accept primary sources for certain content. For example, Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis#History (a Featured Article) cites six primary sources, and all of them are presented "in the voice of the encyclopedia". I would never object to encouraging everyone to "base articles upon" secondary sources, but it's important to remember that the requirement from the actual policy is only that a majority of content comes from secondary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback everyone. I think this was helpful for me in determining when it's appropriate for me to cite a claim on this topic with a primary source and when it isn't. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad digestion?

    I am seeking input into a Wikipedia article I just started for for healthy digestion. I am having research trouble finding appropriate sources and feeling a little confused about how it should be structured.

    Suppose that an otherwise healthy person eats nothing but Cheez Whiz and beer for a week. They experience diarrhea, constipation, heartburn, bloating, flatulence, and indigestion. Is there a name for this collection of general low-level gastrointestinal problems? "Gastrointestinal disease" is too extreme, and "Digestion", "Human digestive system", "Gastrointestinal tract", "Healthy diet", and other likely articles do not address this. What Wikipedia article covers that medical condition? Is the name "poor digestion"? There are lots of ways to get these symptoms. There are lots of popular press medical articles and books talking about healthy digestion.

    Does anyone have any suggestions for WP:MEDRS sources which discuss how a person can eat right, exercise, not smoke, avoid stress, and drink liquid to get digestive health? I have found this to be a slippery concept in academic literature, especially considering the large drug market for over-the-counter remedies. Perhaps I do not know the academic name for the concept, or perhaps it is too commonplace to discuss, or perhaps I am just failing to find papers. Alt-med sources have a lot to say about digestion but I would prefer to avoid those.

    All of those symptoms above have treatment sections where they talk about taking drugs. Typically, though, a person with these symptoms needs information about "healthy digestion", which is whatever lifestyle practices prevent these issues. I wanted to centralize discussion of digestion in one place and link the prevention section for various gastrointestinal conditions to one article. Thanks for any input anyone has into this topic. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be Gastrointestinal discomfort or gastrointestinal upset. We could have an article on that. Relates to dyspepsia, gastrointestinal cramps, bloating. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not convinced that the current definition is adequate:

    Healthy digestion, also called digestive health, results in the absorption of nutrients from food without distressing symptoms.

    Discomfort or occasional distressing symptoms is a fact of life, and a fact of digestion at times. Perfect health does not exist — and the definition in this article risks perpetuating that myth.

    There are even those that posit that irritable bowel syndrome is simply a result of our misguided expectations on perfect health at all times. This goes hand in hand with the fact that the best treatment for IBS is cognitive behavioural therapy.

    We're also taking the quoted definition from Elizabeth Lipski, who promotes holistic health and herbology according to her WP-page — not exactly mainstream, and not someone we'd want to quote for a definition of healthy digestion. Carl Fredrik talk 09:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ping BallenaBlanca who is a gastroenterologist. Carl Fredrik talk 09:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]
    Carl, why don't you just make a bold edit to improve it? Or talk about it on the article's talk page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally understand "good" or "healthy" digestion, those people who do not notice the digestion, as they do not have abdominal discomfort when they eat and apparently most of the food fits them good. Of course, it is related to good health and they do not have associated digestive intolerances.
    On the contrary "bad digestions" usually involve a malfunction of their digestive processes, which usually is evident by the presence of varied discomforts, in relation to food, ranging from burning, reflux, sometimes abdominal pain or malaise and frequent alteration of the intestinal habit (both diarrhea and constipation). Many of them are related to the presence of one or more associated food intolerances.
    Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 22:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Parkinson's disease TFA/citation needed tag

    I'd like to rerun Parkinson's disease as a main page TFA some time in August, but there is currently a "citation needed" tag. Would someone from this project be able to address it? I'll leave a note at the article talk page too. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    My suggestion is to delete the one sentence that needs a reference and proceed with the review. In the meantime we can look for a reference for the statement (if one exists). I couldn't find one offhand.
    Best Regards,
    Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 02:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sciatic nerve injury

    I came across the article sciatic nerve injury today. I am not a medical professional, but surely this is not the most accurate one-liner we could be using to describe this type of injury. I noticed it was created from a renamed user so wanted an opinion from someone more qualified to assess it if possible. Mkdw talk 03:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    could add[5][6],(however probably better to merge as subsection to related article...IMO)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirected it to a section in sciatic nerve that covers it better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Mkdw talk 18:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Women's safety section on Park

    I'm trying to argue that the "Women as a measure of safety" section on the Park article is pointless and unnecessary. Any agreement? 24.18.128.102 (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like it is a measure used by some. Not really medical but not sure the issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Improving Transfusion Knowledge on Wikipedia

    Fresh Frozen Plasma

    I was at a recent conference (International Society of Blood Transfusion) and have got transfusion specialists interested in helping to make transfusion knowledge better on Wikipedia. However I think I need help on how to do this, because I think with additional content some pages will need to be split and I will need to add some stubs for colleagues to amend/ add to. Can I get some assistance from a more experience editor on how to start developing this. TransfusionDoctor (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Splitting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    TransfusionDoctor, if you can figure out what you want to do, then people on this page can help you figure out how to do it (or help you figure out whether your initial idea is the best place to start). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you (or anyone) could probably take Serious Hazards of Transfusion to WP:DYK for a few hours on the Main Page if you wanted. The bit about only using male donors for FFP would probably make a fun hook. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I sent the article to DYK: Template:Did you know nominations/Serious Hazards of Transfusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome WAID!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    HVOD and Treatment

    If anyone has the chance, there's a COI request waiting for review. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    commented[7]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Worked on things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Popular press making medical claims

    Opinions appreciated here [8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]



    Detailed presentation of clinical effects of a drug

    What are folks thoughts about this kind of detailed presentation of Trifluoperazine#Effects? (copied below).

    Effects
    Trifluoperazine versus placebo for schizophrenia[1]
    Summary
    Trifluoperazine is an effective antipsychotic for people with schizophrenia but it increases the risk of extrapyramidal adverse effects.[1]

    References

    1. ^ a b Koch, K; Mansi, K; Haynes, E (2014). "Trifluoperazine versus placebo for schizophrenia". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 1: CD010226.pub2. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010226.pub2.

    I have seen this kind of thing with regard to receptor binding affinity but have never seen this before, that I recall. Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The Cochrane folks seem to be doing this. Lena08041993 would you please explain the plan here? thx Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Look useful on the page about the medication in question. Might be useful to abbreviate it further and remove some bold as:


    Trifluoperazine is an effective antipsychotic for people with schizophrenia but it increases the risk of extrapyramidal adverse effects.[1]

    References

    1. ^ Koch, K; Mansi, K; Haynes, E (2014). "Trifluoperazine versus placebo for schizophrenia". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 1: CD010226.pub2. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010226.pub2.
    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am pretty opposed to this. This gives a tremendous amount of WEIGHT to Cochrane content, which as I have noted several times here is too often driven by some ax the authors of specific publications are grinding, and is being added by people affiliated with Cochrane. This is GLAMish activity gone awry, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you thought if we tone it down / simplify it as above? I think it is a useful concept to provide further details from a systematic review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is better. We already regularly present data-driven content about adverse effects, in the Adverse effects section, and we ~sometimes ~ (not always) present content about evidence for efficacy in the Medical use section. Have wondered for a while now about how and if we should present detailed content about evidence. People keep wanting to add clinical trial data from primary sources and that is definitely not good. At least this is from reviews.
    In terms of the format, it is unclear to me why there is an "economic outcomes" row. Did some folks decide there should be a standard template and if so where was that discussion? And no, I don't like the table. We write prose. And the table gives a tremendous amount of WEIGHT and is spammy for Cochrane in my view.
    In terms of implementing, this has been getting stuck in various places. It should be under "Medical use".
    In the specific content implemented above, each "Findings in words" notes the strength of the evidence, and there is a redundant column for "strength of evidence". The repetition is not needed. That is just bad execution in this one instance, perhaps.
    I have not reviewed the actual content to see how well it reflects the source yet, nor checked to see if this specific source is mainstream or another wacky one. I no longer take it for granted that Cochrane reviews are solid. Also two cochrane reviews were done at the same time - PMID 25003310 and PMID 24414883 but this only summarized the latter. Which is odd. It does raise the question of how to deal with multiple reviews in this table format. Jytdog (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree should go under "medical uses" of the medication in question.
    Agree that we do not need duplication between the "findings in words" and the "quality of evidence". Best to go in the latter. I imagine the row for economic outcomes is there as evidence was looked for regarding that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The table also conflicts formatting-wise with the infobox now at Trifluoperazine and creates a big white space (e/g this version). No idea how this would function on mobile. We shouldn't be using this table format i think. Jytdog (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Have fixed the conflict formatting wise. On mobile the infobox takes up the whole width. This is why for diseases we moved much of the prior infobox to the bottom of the article. We should likely consider shortening infoboxes. Show / hide does not appear to work on mobile (something I did not know). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I prosified it here. Jytdog (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay sounds good. Have trimmed some overly technical stuff and clarified the ref along with adding further refs to the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a big slew of these User:Lena08041993/SecondBatch and User:Lena08041993/FirstBatch Jytdog (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello! Sorry for not replying earlier and causing this confusion Jytdog. I used the subpages you mentioned to create/work on these tables. The plan with the table is to share the "Summary of Findings" from a review with people who might be affected by the topic (patients/providers of healthcare) and this table layout seemed best to oversee all the information. Since the table can get quite big (such as Trifluoperazine) the collapse function was added. It was not my intention to promote or spam content about Cochrane, thats why I used the wording "A systematic review" instead of "A Cochrane review" when posting to articles (unless the review was already mentioned). But I get your concerns about the posts now. Lena08041993 (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much for replying and for working to improve WP!
    This is interesting on two levels - first, should we more regularly provide this kind of detailed data on efficacy, across our drug/intervention articles? We typically don't now. And second, is the table format OK, or should this be prose? This thread just opened and folks will weigh in over the next few days. If you could hold off on implementing further until we get a sense of the consensus that would be great. Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    re collapsing ("Since the table can get quite big (such as Trifluoperazine) the collapse function was added"). I note that table-collapsing does not work in mobile view (table is always uncollapsed=shown; no show/hide button). The design should keep this in mind. Best general solution I can think of is: try to use a section(header) to contain the large table (which is collapsible in mobile view). Of course this works best if the table is ~alone in the section. -DePiep (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Another design feature we could look at is:

    "A review of trifluoperazine found low quality evidence that it was effective for people with schizophrenia, however, it appears to increase the risk of extrapyramidal symptoms.[1] (further details)"

    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Koch, K; Mansi, K; Haynes, E (2014). "Trifluoperazine versus placebo for schizophrenia". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 1: CD010226.pub2. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010226.pub2.

    Response to HCV Cochrane review

    Published hereby the IDSA with good summary [9] IDSA is perfectly usable IMO. Discussion could go under society and culture as it did hit the main stream press. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    agree...[10]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Constituents of tobacco smoke has been nominated for discussion

    Category:Constituents of tobacco smoke, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Per WP:FORUMSHOP (aka WP:OTHERPARENT), discussion should take place in one single place. I strongly ask that this thread is no more expanded. See this CfD. -DePiep (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong place arguing
    Composition of tobacco smoke is part of the tobacco smoke article. Cats are acceptable. QuackGuru (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The list/tabular format is very limiting: Natural constituent of tobacco leaf/byproduct of tobacco curing/byproduct of combustion/ industry additive/glue/paper/filter (...by far the hardest to find info on) : carcinogenic/ otherwise toxic: Beneficial constituent?? Also a list means that any reference on the actual chemical's wiki page that it is a constituent of tobacco smoke can be removed - this removal process is happening on an industrial scale. I started [[Category:Constituents of tobacco smoke]] because of what I perceived as deficiencies in that list - it was zero help in comparing smoking & vaping and there are no WP:RS to back up what is there. I'm an intelligent bloke and I would just like some answers. Categorisation aids me navigate quickly adding that Info that is too nuanced to be listed/tabularised to the relevant article page as and when I come across it. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you did create a list it can be added to the see also section for relevant articles. QuackGuru (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    An unreferenced mention of a list in the see also section would have less weight/claim to relevance than my WP:RSs which are in the process of being removed, they would suffer the same fate...infact the justification would be stronger. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A list article must be referenced. QuackGuru (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it must and when I tried to find references to back up the existing (quantified) list I couldn't find them. I found references but the actual information; assessment of risk factors and method and units of measurements all differed such that I couldn't add the information to a meaningful list; hence I added the info to the article page and added the category to tie it all together. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Red links in infoboxes

    Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Red links in infoboxes. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]



    Resource templates on talk pages

    Per edits by User:Barbara (WVS) this template:

    Template:Reliable sources for medical articles

    Is being replaced by this: 

    {{Tmbox
|small = {{{small|}}}
|image=[[{{{image|File:Med template logo.png}}}|80px|alt=|link=]]
|text= <small>You can improve this article by using '''ideal sources''' as references to support medical and health content added to this article. These sources are defined in the guideline ''[[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)]]''. ''Medical text books'', ''governmental health agencies'' and ''medical [[review articles]]'' are excellent sources. Here are links to some sources of information about '''{{PAGENAME}}'''.<br /> 
* [[PubMed]] provides '''[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term={{urlencode:( "{{PAGENAME}}" {{#if:{{{synonym1|}}}|OR {{{synonym1}}} {{#if:{{{synonym2|}}}|OR {{{synonym2}}} {{#if:{{{synonym3|}}}|OR {{{synonym3}}}}}}}}}) AND Review[ptyp] AND "last 5 years"[PDat]|QUERY}} review articles from the past five years]''' (limit to '''[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term={{urlencode:( "{{PAGENAME}}" {{#if:{{{synonym1|}}}|OR {{{synonym1}}} {{#if:{{{synonym2|}}}|OR {{{synonym2}}} {{#if:{{{synonym3|}}}|OR {{{synonym3}}}}}}}}}) AND Review[ptyp] AND free full text[sb] AND "last 5 years"[PDat]|QUERY}} free review articles]''' or to '''[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/?term={{urlencode:( "{{PAGENAME}}" {{#if:{{{synonym1|}}}|OR {{{synonym1}}} {{#if:{{{synonym2|}}}|OR {{{synonym2}}} {{#if:{{{synonym3|}}}|OR {{{synonym3}}}}}}}}})|QUERY}} systematic reviews]''')
* The [[Trip (search engine)|TRIP database]] provides '''[https://www.tripdatabase.com/search?categoryid=1,11,16,18,10,9,4&criteria={{urlencode:"{{PAGENAME}}"|QUERY}} clinical publications about evidence-based medicine]'''.
* The Cochrane database provides access to full text evidence-based medical content: '''[http://www.cochrane.org/search/site/?{{urlencode:"{{PAGENAME}}"|QUERY}} clinical publications about evidence-based medicine]'''.
* The [[Centre for Reviews and Dissemination]] issues [[Health technology assessment]]s. Enter {{PAGENAME}} into the  '''[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/ searchbox]'''.
*The [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] provides access to medical and health content: Enter {{PAGENAME}} '''[https://search.cdc.gov/search? in the searchbox]'''</small>
}}

    IMO consensus for a large scale change should occur before this is done more. My question is why not get consensus to update the original template? Also all this extra text on talk pages make them more confusing to edit. It also makes wide scale changes much harder. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I tried to get consensus before for improving the template via the proj med talk page with very little input and with only one small change. I brought it up and it didn't fly. At this point, the coding is not a template. I am the only one using it as far as I know. Also, I don't know to get the name of the page to automatically appear in the search box for the CDC and HTA. I am an amateur 'coder' at this point and if you want to turn this into a search template that enters the search term in the search box for the CDC and HTA websites you'll need someone smarter than I am. (There are a lot of folks that fit that description)
    As for making talk pages more confusing to edit, comments usually appear at the bottom of a talk page and only those who want to reassess an article need to go into the project templates. The project templates are quite distinct from my coding.
    I am not presuming or even proposing to replace the current template or make a wide scale change. There is consensus on its use. I've been inserting my coding onto the talk pages of articles that I want to edit to help me find additional sources. It is not in wide use and I am not trying to get it widely used. It is much faster than going to all the search sites than manual entry. My coding is more compact and with more search options. I liked using a small font and a 'cooler' graphic. I am not optimistic on getting consensus for these either.
    Best Regards,
    Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 16:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    That mess up there looks like this in the real world:

    Many articles we follow are not exclusively medical subjects. It may be desirable to have an expanded search system on selected articles. It looks like we could resolve most of Doc James' concerns merely by pasting the code into something named Template:Expanded reliable sources for medical content and transcluding the new template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    When I create a talk page or edit a talk page of an article that contains both medical and non-medical content, I use this template in addition to the med template:
    {{Friendly search suggestions}}
    Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Putting it into a template would very much be an improvement.
    Merging changes into the existing template would be even better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a merge. Everything in the current template is contained in the code.
    Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Persephone Borrow

    This person looks like a notable medical researcher to me, who has made an impact in the medical field. I was wondering if some persons from this project could take a look at this article (here) and see if they agree. I checked Google Scholar (here) and it seems she has co-authored some highly cited papers. You will notice that she is the lead author on the first two papers which have a combined total of a little more than 3300 citations. Then on third paper she is the second author with a bit more than 1000 citations, and so on... Thanks in advance for taking a look. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for posting. Seems to meet NPROF. I added a women scientist cat and wikiproject, which might draw more eyeballs. Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=791946068"