Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Archive 6

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Mess rules

There aren't many rules. Everybody is welcome here to discuss the project, and this is an informal place for informal thinking.
Introduce new topics under appropriate existing headings or at the bottom under a level 3 header (e.g. ===Recombinant amyloid===).
Please do not shout.
No brawling.
Please rinse your own coffee cups.

Wikimedschool Project

Let's make medical education inexpensive and readily available to everyone via wiki--with the highest respect for the laws and philosophies of each country and each person. It is time to make a wiki-medical school for the world. It respects people. It encourages people to live and achieve their dreams. It provides excellent information. It creates methods for self assessment. It prepares students to become physicians in their chosen country. Its students are those who lack access to medical education through other means. Its guiding principle is to help people live well. Please email me if you would like to help create this. --Tom,[email protected], --Kiteflyertom 06:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Morgellons

I'm not sure if any physicians have taken a look at this article. I've noticed that it has been accumulating external links of varying quality, but I've been hesitant to remove any, given the nature of the article. Read [1] for a more balanced review; unfortunately, I couldn't find anything at Pubmed. --Uthbrian (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd let it be. Looks pretty silly. The photomicrographs on the web page are clearly textile fibers. I've got better things to get into edit wars about. Kd4ttc 01:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I never heard of this, but will probably see one next week. It ought to be possible to put together a neutral article along the lines of the one you linked from Popular Mechanics. What is conspicuously missing from the article is a concise list of diagnostic criteria. alteripse 02:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a new phenomenon, an entirely patient created "disease". Probably impossible prior to the internet. Patients chat and diagnose themselves with this. Amazing.--John^DO|^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 21:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've asked a suitably qualified editor to see if he can improve it. Midgley 17:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Medical resident work hours

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

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

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

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

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

I think good articles of each will be/should be (if they are comprehensive and thoughtfully written) too long to be merged. David Ruben ^Talk 19:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

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

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

Categories for Merger

Disguised Whale.to

I didn't really know where to put this notice.... John (Whaleto) is now adding a "different" link to all of his articles (ex. [2]). The link is http:// www.vaccination.org.uk, which is quite obviously a copy of the whale.to site, or a transfer of the contents to a different location. I seem to be on his radar now, so I'll go remove all the links I can find. --CDN99 18:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

For heaven's sake... JFW | T@lk 21:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't find heaven, but here is [http: //www. vaccination.org.uk/vaccines/god.html God]--John^DO|^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 22:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If I were looking for God I wouldn't be looking on an anti-vaccination website :-). He has better places to hide Himself. JFW | T@lk 22:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

But we have Wikipedia! So if you are looking for God you even get a disambiguation page! God (disambiguation).Kd4ttc 22:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I love surrealistic discussions (just rereading this). JFW | T@lk 14:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Orthomolecular medicine

This article could use some NPOV.--John^DO|^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 20:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Again soliciting volunteers to prevent the alternative med crowd from running off with the kitchen sink.--John^DO|^{Speak your mind} 20:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

A single pro Orthomed editor has been pushing that POV vociferously across several related articles, such as Orthomolecular medicine, redox therapy, Megavitamin therapy, and Linus Pauling. Additional medical editors would be welcome and are needed if we are to have any pretense of scientific accuracy in these articles. --John^DO|^{Speak your mind} 22:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Electroconvulsive therapy

Is there any truth to the recent edit over there, or is this more anti-medicine propaganda? --Uthbrian (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes was a rant with no links provided to claimed sources. Topic is subject of much controversy and not unlike supposed suicide risk and SSRIs - a study just concluded gives statistical evidence (as opposed to anecdotal rumblings) that "Suicide rates were lower at all ages for men and women in the general population in the interval of high SSRI prescribing. We conclude that there is no evidence from this study of an increase in suicide rates following the introduction of SSRIs in the general population or in a high-risk inpatient sample." (PMID 16421463) . The issue over side effects and ECT has rumbled on for ages and is well covered in the article's talk page, so I have reverted back the edit and suggest any similar major edit be as a result of consensus within the talk page.David Ruben ^Talk 18:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice study you posted about the SSRIs. The only thing lacking was the power to discriminate clear effects in the younger age groups-- it would've been nice to resolve the supposed link between SSRI use in children/adolescents and suicide. It seems that psychiatric interventions are usually targets for criticism. --Uthbrian (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The anon in question reinserted his material, which I have reverted for poor citation. --John^DO|^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 21:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

And once again, it has surfaced. --John^DO|^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 22:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ive revert back again (with you disputed tag DocJonny), I hope annon user will respond, else we're heading for page/user block request (I'm not sure what WP does if an editor is annon) David Ruben ^Talk 00:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the anon user has finally posted some refs with his recent edits. --Uthbrian (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

These references include some interesting ones but look like they were copied wholesale from the reference sections of Anti-ECT websites. It seems unlikely to me that the editor has been reviewing 50+ year old out of print articles. They include some totally inappropriate ones such as court testimonies, an autobiography by a patient, and a videotaped deposition. These might be ok supporting historical detail but the editor is using them as documentation of ECT side-effects. N.B. The original article seems to be very poorly cited and we could use the assistance of editors with experience in the field to clean up the citations. --John^DO|^{Speak your mind} 22:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The editor is back and included a long diatribe alleging bias and a double standard. Looking at the poor citations for the rest of the article, he does have a leg to stand on there. However, he also reverted the article again prior to discussion. We need more editors with background. I fear we are headed to an RFC.--John^DO|^{Speak your mind} 03:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

While this is not germane to ECT directly, I've noticed that the anon user:85.195.123.29 contributing to the discussion has committed multiple acts of vandalism. --Uthbrian (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Impossible syndrome

Can someone help locate a reference to the original publication for this interesting complex of congenital malformations? --Rewster 23:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. --WS 14:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Metolazone: peer review/feedback requested

I just wrote metolazone. I'd appreciate if editors would take a look at it, leaving suggestions for improvement or revising it as they see fit. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Medical hygiene

I've added a new category for medical hygiene. Not sure if I've populated it to its full extent. Also, I wouldn't know where to begin for the article Medical hygiene. --Uthbrian (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a doctor and neither are most people, so you might want to either change or paraphrase "prophylaxis of iatrogenic infections" to "prevention of infection during medical treatment" or some such. Mike Dillon 16:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Uthbrian (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the enormous range of topics that have been referred to vaguely as "medical hygiene" in the last 1.5 centuries (like condom use), I wasn't sure what you meant. It sounds like nosocomial infection control is your central topic. Technically, that is not entirely congruent with iatrogenic infection as not all nosocomial infections can be blamed on the doctors or even specifically on the care itself, while there are a few subsets of iatrogenic infection that are not strictly nosocomial. Maybe several redirects are in order. Good topic though. alteripse 21:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly, I created the category after seeing Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery in Category:Hygiene. What do you think should be done with the cat? Is it worth salvaging or should I recommend it for deletion? --Uthbrian (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The list of topics is a good list. Leave it. Im a nitpicker about terminology sometimes. alteripse 03:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

Have you seen m:Cite/Cite.php? I think it's a great idea, and much easier to use and maintain than the other footnote systems I've seen. I've been testing it out on Metolazone and I think it's working pretty well. Well, hope it's able to help someone! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have seen it, but I don't like it. It makes the text very hard to read while editing. It is sad that there still isn't a better referenceing system. --WS 10:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a compromise. Alternatively, articles would need a seperate section where all the footnotes go. Of course the new system implies numbering problems. In my mind, what we need is a seperate window where users can list their sources using standardised formats (web page, newspaper, scientific journal, radio broadcast). In the article text, all he'd have to do is click on the relevant source. This approach would require modification of the editing window and heavy scripting, something the developers may be a bit loathe to do for compatibility reasons. JFW | T@lk 22:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it has its problems, but I still definitely prefer it over the old systems. The one system where you had to have the references in order and if someone rearranged the text all the references got mixed up was terrible. The other one where you can link text and footnotes isn't bad, but for someone like me who often uses the same source for multiple pieces of information, this new system is the best I've seen so far. And I'm sure it will be improved. Anyway, at least we have several options from which to choose. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Cite does seem to produce automatically sequencially numbered references and good duplicated-references, but I agree difficult to view page when editing. Two questions

Have you tried inserting multiple links to the same reference (e.g. when one provides a link to the whole article at a journel's website and a link to an abstract at PMID) ?
Does this work with the full reference markup provided by WS's bookmarklet of the PubMed-PMID tool (see here) which I think gives a consistant citation style, that should be encouraged ? David Ruben ^Talk 05:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your first question. A footnote may contain multiple links; is that what you're asking? Metolazone#References has a couple. I haven't used Wouterstomp's bookmarklet (I don't user Internet Explorer), but I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't work—you can put basically any wiki markup in the footnote, as far as I can tell. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have partially solved the problem of dificulty editing an article that uses cite. Take a look at this sample article. The reason it's not a complete solution is that in the references section, it backlinks to an area that is no longer visible. If there was a way to completely disable backlinking, I would consider this a complete solution. Ksheka 13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The solution is not to list all the references in an initial hidden section (using < !...>), which in the reference section will count as the 1st occasion of each citation, but rather include the <ref name="xxx"> ...reference details... </ref> details in the main article as each reference first occurs. Subsequent duplication of a reference is made by using just the reference name (i.e. <ref name="xxx" />). See reworked example. Instructions in m:Cite/Cite.php are really not clear for a new user (being more about how the software implements), so unless people wish to discuss this new system further, I will in a few days add some simple instructions under WikiProject Clinical medicine#References David Ruben ^Talk 13:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hold on, just seen [3] discussion, so this issue is getting discussed all over wiki-land. David Ruben ^Talk 13:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Prostate cancer on the main page

Prostate cancer will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on 29 January 2006! --WS 10:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wouterstomp admin!

Boys, Wouterstomp (talk · contribs) has received admin powers. Good luck with the mop, Wouter! JFW | T@lk 22:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :-) --WS 22:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Cerebral sinus thrombosis

I'm starting to wonder if we actually have a page on this. I've checked for various spellings. In any case, I'm interested in writing that from scratch, using Prof J. Stam's April 2005 review in the NEJM as an outline. What title should I use? JFW | T@lk 21:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Good topic, use it as the title. I have taken care of one case resulting from extreme iron deficiency and another from extreme hypernatremic dehydration. alteripse 01:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Hypernatremic dehydration is also missing. Perhaps it could be a redirect to Hypernatremia. Mike Dillon 02:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, Hypernatremia has a red link to Dural sinus thrombosis, which I would assume should redirect to the Cerebral sinus thrombosis (unless the "cerebral sinus" and "dural sinus" aren't the same sinus). For that matter, the sinuses are not even discussed in the "Composition" section of Telencephalon or in the Cerebral cortex article. Mike Dillon 02:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, Google gives "dural sinus thrombosis" 25,600 hits and just 952 for "cerebral sinus thrombosis". --David Iberri (talk) 12:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I just wrote dural venous sinuses --David Iberri (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This is why WikiProject Clinical medicine rules! You all are so methodical and efficient. Mike Dillon 15:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I like sinus thrombosis, cerebral sinus thrombosis, dural sinus thrombosis, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. In practice, I have tended to use more specific terms, such as superior sagittal sinus thrombosis, transverse sinus thrombosis, thrombosis of the torcula herophili, and so on. I'd suggest that all of the above (ok, maybe not T. of the T.H.) be redirected to whichever you pick. :) -- Ikkyu2 04:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Naming convention

I have looked and looked and looked but cannot find a guideline or any other statement in wikipedia that naming conventions of diseases should be written as their proper medical name, as opposed to the common term. I am assuming there must be policy somewhere since heart attack redirects to myocardial infarction, but can anyone point me in the right direction? If there such a statement, I would be able to write any future articles using that convention. Thanks. - Dozenist talk 16:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It's on the project page to which this discussion page is attached: Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine#The naming issue. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I saw it written there, but I expected it to be mentioned elsewhere, such as WP:NAME. Is there any way for this naming convention to be mentioned on WP:NAME or one similar to it so that the naming of articles on diseases be under some wikipedia policy or guideline? And thanks for the quick response. - Dozenist talk 21:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the event that there is no other "official" page that this naming convention is written, I suggest that we bring the topic up in WP:NAME and submit it as a proposal. Otherwise, we will eventually see continuing objections to the naming of disease-related articles. - Dozenist talk 19:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hypergymnasia

I just happened to find Hypergymnasia, created a few days ago. Are there any references for this phenomenon? There are only 51 Google hits. Mike Dillon 23:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I would have used the term compulsive exercise, but if I were going to dress it in greek because excessive exercise is too intelligible, I would have picked a term that meant something different from "excessive nakedness". alteripse 00:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Alteripase summarized this as "How con you be excessively naked". I'm afraid to tread on the category of people who are excessively naked. Kd4ttc 00:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, gymnotes means nakedness; gymnasia means "exercise" or "training while naked", not just "nakedness". (per Middle Liddell) Mike Dillon 01:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I have the old unabridged Liddell ("my Liddell's bigger than your Liddell..."), but I have to confess it confirms that exercise is an alternative meaning, so I stand reluctantly corrected. alteripse 01:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Can I quote you on the "my Liddell's bigger than your Liddell..." quip? I got quite a kick out it. Thanks, and I'll try to quit bugging the doctors for a while. I'm sure there are excellent articles you all could be writing instead of reading this. Mike Dillon 02:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thrombolysis, Fibrinolysis, etc.

I noticed that we have 2 pairs of similar articles: Thrombolysis & Fibrinolysis, as well as Thrombolytic drug & Fibrinolytic. Should we merge these, and if so, which ones should be kept as the main articles? --Uthbrian (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll do some merges and redirects. Thrombolysis != fibrinolysis. Thrombolysis is the pharmacological treatment of thrombotic disease with the help of agents that accellerate physiological fibrinolysis. JFW | T@lk 11:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clearing that up, JFW! --Uthbrian (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The vaccine bullies

Please vote keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-vaccinationists. JFW | T@lk 11:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You could drop in on the page as well, if you can stand it... There is a possible replacement version growing at Anti-vaccinationist/catholic herald whcih is based on the remarkably civilised collaborative product at anti-catholicism - a page that casts a distinct light on the proceedings around vaccination and immunisation. Midgley 17:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Pharmaceutical companies

I'm pretty sure I saw an article on Wikipedia about a movement of doctors who were refusing to accept gifts from pharmaceutical companies. Does anyone know the name of it? --Kerowyn 00:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about doctors, but there is the PharmFree campaign by the American Medical Student Association. Additionally, I think there was a recent article regarding the issue in the Journal of the American Medical Association (PMID 16434633). --Uthbrian (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I join?

Hi I am a life sciences student studying towards medical school, I am also a Red Cross First Responder. I may not be able to help do much, but I can help wikify, clean up, and help write articles. Mike _{(T C)} 05:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly; please do! You don't need permission; just roll up your sleeves and get to work! Feel free to add your name to the list on the project page as well. You may also be interested in helping out at the Medicine Collaboration of the Week. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Bates Method

I hate to waste anyone's time on non-mainstream topics, but I would be much obliged to anyone with a bit of spare time interested in lending a hand to keep things neutral in Bates Method. One editor continually inserts his own interpretation of research into the article rather than accurately portraying what those studies actually state. I've pointed out three times that one study states exactly the opposite of what he thinks it states, but he won't allow it to be changed. Thanks! AED 19:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Quack Watch

Is anyone doing this? I'm starting to see quackery everywhere on the WP; it recently invaded my pet article epilepsy, in the form of a representative of the IAHP.

I made some weaselly edits to that article, but it got me wondering if anyone is keeping an eye out for this on a larger scale, in the name of promulgating our particular systemic bias. (qq.v. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias). Ikkyu2 04:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

There is quackery all around. Most of it is confined to specific articles, which tend to be poor on evidence. The most trouble we have had is with orthomolecular characters, who aggressively promote their version of pseudoscience (see Talk:Carcinogenesis for an interesting exchange).

I share your worries about systemic bias, but I've also encountered the following: almost all alternative treatments inserted into Wikipedia are a titre personnel. "Dr Donald Quack, M.D. [note the prominent display of academic qualifications] has pioneered the use of lemongrass in gastric ulcers." Most of this almost immediately amounts to self-promotion, vanity, advertising and what-have-you. Personally I hotly agree that the common cold article should mention echinacea, as well as the poor results of this plant in controlled trials. We need to update benign prostatic hypertrophy to mention saw palmetto, and plantar fasciitis cannot be complete without the magnetic insoles.

Sadly, those editors interested in advancing the alternative viewpoint have typically been belligerent, subversive, aggressive, rude and POV. Wikipedia could do with more real information on alternative medicine. JFW | T@lk 20:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I was just asking if anyone's put together a QuackWatch page - somewhere us physiciwikipedian types could go to see what the latest nonsense du jour is, and contribute our POV. For instance, IAHP started off as a glowing endorsement of a quack organization; now that I'm done with it, anyone who reads the article will realize that there's serious controversy about their methods.

We should have a page to co-ordinate our efforts against these types of organizations. And I say this as someone who is an expert on a particular POV, namely that of traditional Western medicine; not to have our POV included in articles like this makes the Wikipedia worse. Ikkyu2 22:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

See for example shaken baby syndrome, where an anonymous editor is essentially arguing that vitamin C deficiency as a cause for shaken baby syndrome is mainstream science based one person's opinion! Andrew73 22:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Look at the edit history of gold salts and my revision as discussed on the talk:Gold salts page. JFW | T@lk 23:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Homefirst Health Services (see the talk page: apparently I am not allowed to have an opinion). JFW | T@lk 22:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

There were extensive problems with iridology a while back. Rich Farmbrough. 21:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't even get me started on the issues with psychiatry and psychology... If someone makes a list of quack-watchers, I'll be the first on it. Ugh. S e miconscious • talk 21:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear, Semiconscious. I'm a psychiatry resident who's pretty new to Wikipedia, and I actually tried to check the Electroconvulsive Therapy page to see if it had any interesting or useful information -- what a mess. Then I checked out Psychiatry -- much the same. You all are champs for your valiant efforts on those pages -- I'd love to help fix them but it seems a bit daunting. SNG | ^{Talk to me.} 20:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh. My. God. The ECT page is scary. Have you looked at the comments page? JFW has been a hero on both that page and psychiatry. Well done! S e miconscious • talk 21:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

And it seems like most opioid-related article seems to be frequented by vehement "anti-prohibitionists" and/or recreational users. -Techelf 10:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! I'm about as lax about drug use as a person living in Berkeley can be, but some of these folks editing these pages are quite over the top. S e miconscious • talk 21:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I realize this goes against the spirit of Wiki, but perhaps for certain topics, there needs to be a minimum standard level of expertise required in order to get your edits published. It does end up diminishing the quality of information when people essentially "spam" the wiki with angry, politicized and scientifically unsupported claims. At some point, I would love to see a Wiki created by medical professionals geared toward medical professionals that would allow a searchable, hyperlinked nexus of medical literature, which could be added to, and edited in real time as new articles came out. Text books are always about 2-3 years behind, and are not easily searchable. Usually, when you need info, you need it "at the bedside" and you do not have time to do a medline search to answer quick questions about treatment options for unusual conditions.--Dleicken 06:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the sentiment, but part of the benefit of an open policy is that knowledgeable laypeople can also contribute:
- They may devote far more time researching and keeping abreast of the totality of published literature, compared to myself as a Generall Practictioner (eg IBSgroup is I belive not a doctor but is engaged in useful collaboration with a gastroenterologist over the IBS article).
- Also non-medics can improve the English of doctors, making articles much easier to read.
If one has a doctor-only service, then the risk is that the articles are seen as authoritive and as such individual Doctor editors might be held more accountable for the information:
- e.g. if Dr A asserts X & Y in 2005 and then Dr B the following year updates X but fails edit recent advancement in Y, then is Dr A or B liable for harm caused by someone following the out-of-date point Y ?
- A doctor only-site might also be seen as providing authorative & comprehensive medical advice, the last thing any medical website wants to be seen as providing (e.g. If an article on abnormal LFTs mentions just "remember Wilson's disease", then though this is a useful note to other doctors, it clearly should not be inferred that all patients should always be tested for this)
If the site is closed, i.e. only doctors can access the site, then it will be less widely used:
- Other doctors are unlikely to encounter the site (wikipedia will not appreciate an advertising footnote on every medical-topic page stating "for correct information see wikidoctor")
- Wikipedia is the largest encyclopadia, and it is increasingly likely that patients will refer to it - I would like to think they are provided with a reasonable background to a topic, rather than having to waste much of a consultation time arguing against misinformation from a long computer printout they wave in my face, before even being able to offer the correct state of medical science/application.
If one is to restrict a site to doctors, how is one to verify this? Faillure to do so risks subtle vandalism that may be very hard for a non-specialist to pick up. Anyone can look up my GMC number here in the UK, so proof of identify comes not from my knowing my registration number but having a current physical certificate. Who is going to want to send their original certificates to a website, and which website wants to try vetting authenticity of documents received and being responsible for safe return. Then there is the USA - is there one registration systems or one-per state ? And lets not forget rest of English speaking world (Australia, Canada, Carribean, New Zealand, Ireland etc), and I know I can not even read most of the world's non-english medical certificates (could be laundery bills or certificate of being a Quack). Tricky...
Having stated all this, there already seems to be the start of such a wiki - http://ganfyd.org "The free medical knowledge base that anyone can read and any registered medical practitioner may edit. Ganfyd is a collaborative medical reference by medical professionals and invited non-medical experts." I have not really used the site myself, so am unable to report on its strengths or weaknesses. David Ruben ^Talk 13:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It is very strong<grin> I wrote the licence for it, and have a considerable interest as well as being b'crat and having root access to the servers. An interesting contrast between working there and here, apart from the exceding high standard we impose upon ourselves - none but the best anecdotes, and those in AnecdoteBoxes - is the complete absence of nuts, and a complete absence of friction and emotional-based argument. Thus far. I believe that with the number and range of doctors, and the degree of care we apply, Ganfyd is now a WP:RS and therefore of service to this community. The two-way traffic will only improve both, but it may be particularly interesting to observe how an article written by one person and simultaneously added to both Ganfyd and WP diverges. Midgley 16:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Put me down for the WPQuackWatch as well. I propose that we treat with institutionalised scepticism any editor whose long record of contributions covers only a cingle topic. Midgley 16:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Gold salts

On Talk:Gold salts there is now an RFC ongoing on the use of gold salts for autism and whether this information should be a prominent part of the article. Please give your views. JFW | T@lk 22:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Compliance & Concordance

I have had a go at writing Compliance (medicine) which is both about drug compliance and treatment more generally. In the UK, at least, this became very 'fashionable' to discuss some years ago and the Government (NHS) developed a term 'Concordance'. 'Concordance', aside from confusing most people, was meant to be an approach at engaging patients in their treatment care to jointly decide and agree upon options, and so (hopefully) reduce non-compliance.

I do think the two terms (Compliance and Concordance) so closely deal with the same issues that splitting them into 2 article will just end up duplicating most points.

This is (potentially) a large topic, so I would welcome any comments or contributions.David Ruben ^Talk 16:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

In the US, there has been an attempt to change to "adherence" because it sounds more active and respectful than "compliance". Can you include this? alteripse 17:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Open tasks list

Please help to keep the Biology portal's Open tasks list up to date. This is one of our main communication methods to help get newcomers more involved in editing articles. It contains a list of articles that need improving, articles that need creating, articles that need cleanup, etc. And of course, if you have the time, please help and work on some of the tasks on that list! --Cyde Weys 05:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Quackwatch: Mesotherapy

Anyone ever heard of Mesotherapy? It sounds a bit fishy to me. --Uthbrian (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It does sound quite dubious. Andrew73 23:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It is crap. It reads like advertising blurb, using wiki to give gravitas and credence to nonsense pseudoscience. Should be taken out and shot at the earliest opportunity.Jellytussle 04:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. After I removed the copyright violations, there isn't much left of the article now. -AED 23:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium

A lot of shady epidemiological evidence is being thrown up on this topic by a single editor, an admitted anti-DU activist. I have no qualms with activism, but wikipedia is supposed to maintain a neutral point of view, and my personal opinion is that this and related wiki articles currently present a bias not supported by the literature, or respected scientific bodies such as the World Health Organization.

Anyone interested in joining this discussion can do so here:

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles

Dr U 05:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive: Contact lens

Contact lens is currently at the top of Wikipedia's Article Improvement Drive list, and stands a good chance of being selected next with a few more votes. I would be appreciative if anyone would like to lend a hand or recommend additions or changes in the talk page. Mille grazie! -AED 23:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving content to own page

I would like to move the content at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine#Template onto its own page (something like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine/Template for medical conditions). Are there any objections? --Arcadian 03:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea! AED 06:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I can take this opportunity to bring up a dilemma with the template: I've been tying to improve the Tourette syndrome article (currently on a mini-break because of some family issues, but I'll go at it again in about a month). I can't make the order suggested in the template work in that article. Prognosis (which is a little understood aspect of Tourette's) affects how one writes about diagnosis and treatment, so putting it below those two doesn't seem to work ? Since MOST people with TS get better with time, many adults are misdiagnosed, and treatment isn't always needed ... so prognosis information needs to come up front, as it does impact treatment decisions and even prevalence estimates. I could use help on this, since I'm not a medical professional. Sandy 14:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have split out the page as described above. I'll try to make sure that for the next month or so that changes there are also discussed here during the transition, but I'd recommend adding that page to your watchlist. Per Sandy's query above: one option might be to include watchful waiting as a potential "treatment" for Tourette syndrome. I also see the heading "Sociological and cultural aspects" there -- it might make sense to add this as an optional heading at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine/Template for medical conditions. --Arcadian 20:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, Arcadian. The "sociological and cultural aspects" was a term for lumping together a lot of stuff that may not belong in a medical article. I'm still fishing around for a better title to that section, and am not convinced of the place for that information in the article anyway, but it's "popular" informaton that is difficult to delete. It's interesting that you like the title of that section. When I have time to work on the article again, maybe I can find a way to make that section more workable. Sandy 21:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Coombs test needs some help

Hi, the Coombs test (talk) needs some help/guidance/opinions on how the structure of the article should be and how the diagram in the article should look like. The discussion about the diagram also continues on my talk page.

Several points of the article are at discussion, like the general structure, the complexity of the article and how to make it suitable for the non-medical crowd, and how the diagram should look like in order to be comprehendable.

The general goal (IMO) would be to get other people's opinions on the article and make it correct and suitable for a wide audience (like every other Wikipedia article...).

Hope you can help! A. Rad 16:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I jumped on it and did some major re-ordering, with a medical student/general reader mindset (the lab technique and Coombs reagent bits were moved further down). I don't think the article is perfect yet... but it's closer. Nephron 11:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

List of people believed to have epilepsy

I've initiated a peer review on this article. I know it is not a 100% medical article, but it would be great to have some of your expert comments --Colin°^Talk 13:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Mercury rising

Anyone wants to turn Boyd Haley into NPOV? JFW | T@lk 00:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Health controversies

Might want to watch this with a skeptical eye. AED 07:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 20:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Finally some progress towards WP 1.0, but there will need be some careful thinking as to precise definitions the criteria use, and how apply the criteria both in general and to medical topics. I brain-storm a few thoughts below:

Even medical articles which have reached Featured status have since been heavily edited (e.g. Asthma) often with linkspams, so which version will get used ? Other articles that cover topics farely comprehensively e.g. Asthma get heavily edited with alternative points of view & linkfarms.
Medicine advances and few articles in wikipedia on medical topics are concerned mostly with historical narrative which might be seen as "complete". Hence an article on Cancer X is likely to have its description of what it is (a cancer of X) & date of 1st description remain constant over time. But if a new test or a new chemotherapy combination replaces the existing gold standards, then the article needs heavy editing. Who decides who may update a topic? There is a further risk that a specialist from a specialist research-centre adds description of some new test/treatment as if replacing the gold-standard (which it might in a few years and few extra millions spent), yet this remains unavailable outside of a research-specialist centre or anywhere in other countries (who continue using existing gold standards). An example of bias might be pneumonia and whilst it reads like a good medical textbook, most cases are treated in community by GPs who have no access (in UK) to performing blood cultures, can't treat on basis of Xrays (may be requested & taken, but report takes few days to 2 weeks to come back from hospitals), and must empiricallty treat whilst awaiting outcome of sputum cultures.
Medical topics are covered in a patchy manner. Hence however brilliant a featured article might be on the Aspartate transaminase liver blood test (with description of enzyme identidfication, structure, test development and interpretation), the article is not going to be included in WP 1.0 if the other LFTs enzymes articles, hepatitis or liver disease articles are poor (I doubt WP 1.0 will have an article on a Boeing 747's front wheel brake, if article on either the 747 or Boeing are not worthy of inclusion). David Ruben ^Talk 14:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. We are in fact looking at both importance and quality as issues - the posting is just our initial contact to get the discussion started. There are many thousands of articles we want to include, and we will be very dependent on the individual WikiProjects to guide us through. Before we publish each project will probably need to tell us (a) Which articles are the most important (b) Which articles make up "complete sets" (for example we want all of the Solar System planets or the chemical elements, not just some of them) and (c) Which of them are good quality articles? I know that the Medicine WikiProject already has a worklist which is probably the ideal way to keep track of such things (would that worklist cover a lot of material from this project too? If not, then what we probably want initially is a list of the articles that you consider "worth publishing" - decent quality, and important enough. Any suggestions? Thanks, Walkerma 04:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-psychiatry

Hello - I was wondering if anyone associated with this WikiProject cared to take a look at Anti-psychiatry, which currently strikes me as a big pile of unsourced POV. It's not my area, though, so I feel limited in the amount of good I can do there. --Dcfleck 14:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Similar to autism epidemic: hard to know where to start, but a lot of unsubstantiated POV. I wish I could help, but also feel limited in tackling either of these. Sandy 15:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Chaps & lasses, please have a look at the RFC on Psychiatry, specifically "cures are not expected in psychiatry". JFW | T@lk 20:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the anti-psychiatry page, I agree that is needs some work. Psychiatry is actually my field, but I wonder if that doesn't actually make me a bit unqualified, or over-qualified, or something, to edit an article about "anti-psychiatry". I'm actually quite glad to know more about the existence of this "movement," or at least this collection of ideas -- and given that psychiatrists are the only speciality of medicine which routinely treats patients against their will, I'm also quite glad to have a set of vocal, opinionated critics around to keep checks and balances robust. Unfortunately, they're going to shoot themselves in the foot and come off sounding like an angry fringe if they don't keep things factual, well-referenced, and NPOV. I'll have a look around it, and see what I think I can contribute, but I think that major changes or criticism of the page might be more well-received by thoughtful, more ostensibly psychiatry-neutral people (presumably such as you both, Dcfleck and Sandy). Scot ^→Talk 06:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW -- Rockpocket and Dcfleck are doing some great work over there. Scot ^→Talk 03:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

peer review please

Artificial_induction_of_immunity. David Ruben kindly made a number of suggestions, which I've largely not implemented in order not to have a huge string of Midgley in the edit trail, and he has also kindly improved it considerably. I'd be grateful for more views and more edits. It is not intended to be a huge heavy duty artilc on everything, more a quick (but encyclopedic) overview on one large aspect of preventing disease, and some context on it, leading to a set of existing articles that cover each part in encyclopedic detail. Midgley 17:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Passive smoking and relative risk

I'm looking for a little reinforcement at relative risk-- something that is at the centre of a debate about passive smoking that's been brewing for a while. Some guy in the UK (along with a few tobacco lobbyists) thinks we should ignore significant findings (P<0.05) where the RR<2.0 -- ("A relative risk of 1.5 is not acceptable as significant..." [4][5]). Any EBM keeners out there that want to help debunk this? Nephron 00:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't the US Surgeon general recently made a statement as to the danger of second-hand smoke?

I'm waiting for all the quackwatch fans to start rebutting this claim - in fact, some already are!MollyBloom 05:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Speciality templates

I started a general surgery template (which is pretty messy at the moment/confused) because was based on the gastroenterology template. In creating the template I realized that the gastroenterology one isn't really about gastroentrology-- it is about diseases, signs and symptoms (ie. nausea and vomiting are NOT diseases) of the GI tract. Many of the diseases on the gastroenterology template are family medicine things... others are surgical things (e.g. appendicitis). Where are we going to draw the line?

I think the gastroenterology template -- in its current form would be better named "Signs, symptoms and disorders of the gastrointestinal tract".

The other question is-- are we going to make templates based on systems? The gastroenterology template is a systems template... it isn't based on the speciality. Is there a guideline about these sorts of templates?

I think we should have two sets of templates-- one on the organ systems... another set for the specialities. For the speciality templates-- we have to decide how to structure them. The GS template is a mess at the moment 'cause I couldn't really decide between diseases and surgeries. For the GS template... it probably makes more sense to have the surgeries listed--what a surgeon does and have in brackets what the surgeries are done for (i.e. large bowel resection (trauma, colon cancer, bowel infarct due to septic emboli, volvulus), appendectomy (appendicitis). Any thoughts on this?

It looks like the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine/Template_for_medical_conditions will need some revision. I mention it here-- 'cause the templates are stuck on the main page of the clinical medicine project-- and it doesn't neatly fit into the heading "Template_for_medical_conditions". Nephron 03:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Choice of drug names

There has been, until now, a general consensus on using the WHO International Nonproprietary Name for drugs. The article for cyclosporine probably therefore should be moved to its INN of Ciclosporin, but this is being disputed. David Ruben ^Talk 15:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I wheel warred about that a while ago. I am in favour of ciclosporin, just as much as I prescribe furosemide instead of frusemide for our basal crackles with puffy legs. JFW | T@lk 16:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Other editors agreed Cyclopsporin was USAN, so moved to INN. David Ruben ^Talk 02:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Expect...

Some orthomolecular trolling from 209.242.37.98 (talk · contribs). JFW | T@lk 21:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

And now for something totally different...

How can you tell a boy will grow up to be a pathologist?

When his mother asks him something, and he responds: "Ah dunno, ma". JFW | T@lk 21:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments: LASIK

Another anonymous editor in LASIK is pushing his POV by inserting unreferenced assertions and removing others that are referenced. I have a citation reporting that complications are "uncommon" (not rare - even though I have one of those, too), but it keeps getting removed to leave the impression that they are common. If anyone wants to lend a hand, it would be most appreciated. Thanks! -AED 01:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments: Universal health care/Talk:Universal health care

I've put up an RFC inWikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics regarding Talk:Universal health care: "Dispute concerning what information should be included in the sections describing support for universal health care and opposition to universal health care. Which commonly cited reasons for and against universal health care should be listed?" Although this topic is not directly related to clinical medicine, people who monitor this page generally have an objective take on controversial issues that I thought would helpful to that article. Thanks again! -AED 04:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments: Keratoconus

The ophthalmic disorder Keratoconus has been a featured article candidate for a while now, but so far has received comments only from a relatively small number of editors. If anyone, particularly from the wider medical community, has views on how the article can be improved, they would be very welcome at its candidature page. Thanks! --BillC 12:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to BillC's hard work, Keratoconus is a featured article! Please check it out and offer any insight.-AED 08:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Keratoconus is on the Main page today. -AED 00:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Template for medical conditions

I've made some modifications to Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Template for medical conditions, and I would appreciate feedback and further modifications. (Once the page has stabilized, I'd like to get another round of feedback at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), but I'd rather have the first pass come from this community.) --Arcadian 19:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd argue with this: "Use of ICD or other classification systems is preferable." It's quite clear to me that use of a clear explanation in English is preferable, and I'd also argue that ICD-9 or ICD-10 etc codes are of no use to anyone using this encyclopedia: such codes are used to facilitate billing rather than understanding. - Nunh-huh 19:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC) ( there's also a small spelling error in the preceding sentence, "varities" for "varieties").

I have removed the offending phrase (and also fixed the spelling error.) --Arcadian 20:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"I'd also argue that ICD-9 or ICD-10 etc codes are of no use to anyone using this encyclopedia: such codes are used to facilitate billing rather than understanding."

That is incorrect. Although they may be used for billing, the ICD codes are used for what they say: International Classification of Disease. This is helpful if people in different parts of the world want to be sure that they are talking about the same thing. It is also immensely useful for audit and epidemiology.Jellytussle 20:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Your mileage may differ. They are codifications made for statistical work - and mostly used for billing - and "using the same code" for a thing is no substitute for actually talking about the same thing. - Nunh-huh 22:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well all I can say is that in my own practice, in a socialised medical system (the British NHS) where billing is generally not an issue, these codes are very useful. Your practice may well differ. Where do you work? There is also an argument that ICD codes act as a standard baseline on the wiki medical pages, which are often subject to a large degree of vague editing. I agree that the ICD code is not a substitute for a well written discourse. It is however complementary. Comments from a pathologist would be helpful. Jellytussle 22:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

(For the benefit of others monitoring the thread, more details are available at International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. I believe Jellytussle's position is more well supported than Nunh-huh's, but IANAD.) --Arcadian 22:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

IYWAD, you'd have realized that ICD-9 codes have no particular impact on, and no discerible benefit for, clinical patient care. The codes are usually provided by coders who have never seen that patient and possess only a rudimentary understanding of clinical medicine. Their use even as statistical data is problematic, and tolerable only because it has so little effect on anything. - Nunh-huh 23:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added some comments to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Template for medical conditions --Colin°^Talk 15:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

In UK general practice codes (Read rather than directly ICD) are generally added by the clinicians treating the patient. In specialist IT systems they are generally built into workflow, or should be, and thus added as part of what the clincians do. In a hospital which uses electronic notes they are likely to be made using some codes, inevitably if the terminal is in the basement they will be entered by someone from paper notes...

In the 70s the Reigenstrief Institute was doing work on clincial hinting using codification of the out patient notes...that leads us into ontology and computing.

Although there is a need to define the meaing of the phrases used in codes - the rubric - they are less variable in interpretation between doctors than are plain English notes. There is alot of work on this. Midgley 16:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Autism epidemic

FYI: Autism epidemic is on AFD -AED 06:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Autism (incidence) is what is left if you take the unverified and POV out of Autism epidemic and then add a few minor bits, like a definition. SO if epidemic goes away, or if the proactive merge is retroactively decided upon, no information will be lost. You might find the rfa worth looking at though. Midgley 20:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hymen defintion

I have started a discussion about the more precise anatomical definition of a hymen, and it would be very nice to get input from people with more knowledge on this issue like med students or perhaps even doctors or experts in anatomy. The discussion can be found here.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Medical Subject Headings

Any objections if I add Medical Subject Headings as an optional field to Template:Infobox Disease? --Arcadian 20:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added this field. --Arcadian 14:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC: Tuberculosis treatment

Done a big rewrite. Now too big! Help! --Gak 18:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Carpal tunnel syndrome, etc.

Hello, all. This is just Wikipedia Quackwatch Part Deux, really; but I'm instead plonking it here in a barefaced attempt to get it read by more of you. My knowledge of medicine is minimal but I think that (because I don't smoke?) my nose is fairly sensitive to the aroma of spam. And I sense this aroma a lot of the time in Carpal tunnel syndrome, Repetitive strain injury, Soft tissue therapy, etc. (No, I haven't dared look at anything related to weight reduction.) Commonly, a clinic or an MD is cited has having shown or achieved this or that; even if the claim is true, there are of course clinics and clinics, and MDs and MDs. Mainstream medical opinion may err at times but I trust it very much more than I trust some single glib self-described MD whose company website is set up to take credit card orders.

One cynical view is that the core of WP is really just a congeries of fancruft: it's a good place to find out about Star Wars minutiae, but no sane person would use it as any kind of medical reference. Cynical or otherwise, that seems not to be true: Carpal tunnel syndrome is linked from this Houston Chronicle page. Even though this Chronicle page right now doubles as an advert for McDonald's junk food, some people might take it seriously.

What we need is some good sense from experts. Thank you! -- Hoary 10:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Carpal tunnel syndrome is real, but its relationship to "repetitive strain injury" is what is controversial. --Gak 18:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think there's more about it that's controversial. Take a look at this diff, which shows the multiple, consecutive (and hazily spelled) contributions by a single IP. After he'd put it all in, I reverted the lot. He'd put this stuff in previously; it was reverted previously. He'll put it in again, I suppose. Many articles are battlegrounds between people more or less overtly selling nostrums and spam-zappers such as myself. My knowledge of medicine is low even by layman standards, and I'm uncomfortable editing such pages. I'd delightedly forfeit my right to do so via some new arrangement whereby only people with qualifications from recognized medical institutions could edit, but that's not going to happen any time soon. -- Hoary 03:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I tend to think the revert wars have some use--i.e. you actually learn things along the way. If you take BS some guy is trying to ram down your throat and out-smart 'em by explaining it better-- (so they understand) everybody wins. Beyond that... I think peer-review will eventually come --see Wikipedia:Scientific_peer_review. Nephron T|C 04:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, conceivably. I don't think there's much chance of persuading the rammer of BS that he's wrong, because I suspect that he is doing it as a way of spamming his website and thus of increasing his personal revenue. On the other hand I have no hard evidence for this and no inclination to go looking for any: even if I found it and presented it, the proven spammer would likely lie low for a short period and then pop up with a new username. By becoming involved in an edit war, then (aside from the various things that are wrong with edit wars), I may indeed manage to educate myself to some extent in the issues involved. But dribs and drabs of such "education" can't rival a halfway decent medical school. Underinformed edit warring seems an absolutely batty way to create articles in anything calling itself an encyclopedia (as opposed to, for example, an elaborate multi-player game, or parody). I do understand that the time and energies of those people who are medically qualified are probably much better devoted to the practice and teaching of medicine than to battles with quacks in this rickety edifice. Trouble is, people may take seriously what they read in Wikipedia.... Hoary 05:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I am indeed a orthopaedic hand surgeon (MD) and took an interest in the carpal tunnel section. I made the mistake of giving a @#$#% what was said in the entry. Once I understood the wiki concept I thought it was so cool and was personally affronted by the selfishness displayed by the spammers that have frequently made the entry their home. As I entered in the CTS discussion area, CTS is a hot $$$$ item and people are out to make money out of it. Wiki is free advertising so people are quick to grab, their entries like so much graffiti on a billboard. I have no authority, but was happy to see honest users take an interest in maintaining the purity, honesty and selflessness of the information. Contact me for questions or if there is anything I can do to help.

Rogerdoger 06:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Roger, what you can do to help is . . . well, what you're already doing to help. (Many thanks!) But right now there's just one of you, without commercial motivation, versus several users who do seem to have commercial motivation. I hope that you can get more support here (while realizing that other medically qualified contributors to WP may already have their hands full keeping snake-oil-sellers out of articles on diet, sex, and all those other mass obsessions that fill the incoming "Trash" folder of my email account). -- Hoary 07:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Radiocontrast and Contrast medium

I think Contrast medium should be merged into Radiocontrast. It probably doesn't need much discussion, considering the amount of text in the two articles, but since I don't know enough to do the merge myself anyway...discuss :-) JVinocur (talk · contribs)

I agree. JFW | T@lk 08:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I (respectfully) disagree. As I understand it, contrast media for MRI studies would not count as radiocontrast. Maybe this article (Contrast medium) should rather be expanded past radioopaque substances, to encompass contrast media for other studies. For example, bubbles used in echocardiography to assess for septal defects? Terrace4 00:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's only have this conversation in one place. Anyone interested, please join us at Talk:Contrast medium.

Embryology - What is to be done about it?

{I originally posted this elsewhere in the Project} I noticed when adding in information for some articles (serous membrane) a reference to the embryological origin of these stuctures would be useful. Adding these in I noticed many of my Wikilinks went nowhere, terms like trilaminar embryo didn't exist on Wikipedia! I poddled along and created a stub for this particular entry (which I believe should be merged with a larger article) but I see a greater need for a general overview of human embryogenesis. Those interested should look over at the discussion page Talk:Human_embryogenesis -- Serephine / talk - 10:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Epilepsy and the use of magnesium and vitamin B6

User Mihai cartoaje added some text regarding the use of magnesium and vitamin B6 to the Epilepsy article. I removed it to the talk page as I regarded it as irrelavant to this article and also non-notable research. I also added a comment on Mihai's talk page. Mihai disagreed, requested another opinion, and after 24 hours with no response restored the text. I too would be grateful for other opinions. Please post your replies on the Talk:Epilepsy page. Regards, Colin°^Talk 10:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I decided to leave a message on Mihai cartoaje's talk page. Nephron T|C 22:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Dr." and professional degree

When formatting the first line of an article, do you guys have a preference for any of the following:

- Dr. John Smith, M.D. is a physician from Anytown, USA.
- Dr. John Smith, M.D. is a physician from Anytown, USA.
- Dr. John Smith, M.D. is a physician from Anytown, USA.
- Dr. John Smith, M.D. is a physician from Anytown, USA.
- Dr. John Smith is a physician from Anytown, USA.
- Dr. John Smith is a physician from Anytown, USA.
- John Smith, M.D. is a physician from Anytown, USA.
- John Smith, M.D. is a physician from Anytown, USA.
- John Smith is a physician from Anytown, USA.

Other thoughts? Thanks! -AED 21:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of leaving out both the Dr. and the M.D. Otherwise the article looks like something about a dubious product or practice that's trying to pad on the credentials. Andrew73 21:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question. Let's see...Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Academic titles is pretty clear that "Dr." should not be used. It's not as clear about the degree, but from the examples given I'd say it's leaning on the side of against. (But then, there's also some fairly recent and inconclusive discussion on the corresponding talk page...) — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 22:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for leaving anything but the name out. If it's important that he/she is/was a doctor, then it should be mentioned in the text InvictaHOG 23:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. MD as a primary medical degree is a N. American thing. In other parts of the world, MD is a purely postgraduate qualification. In addition, in the UK, for eaxmple, surgeons are referred to as Mr, Mrs, Miss, or Ms, ie anything but Dr. Avoid confusion and leave out all but the name.Jellytussle 00:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The combination of Dr and M.D. is hyper-American and is also, as Andrew rightly says, indicative of advertising dubious stuff. I wouldn't object to "Dr John Smith is a physician from [...]; he obtained his M.D. in 1946 at Johns Hopkins [...]". In the public debate many people are known by their titles (but I would avoid boldfacing the title). JFW | T@lk 11:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and the link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Academic titles. My own preference is also to omit "Dr." and "M.D.". I've come across a few articles were this issue was applicable and wasn't sure what to do. Thanks again! -AED 16:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael Woodruff

The article on Michael Woodruff, a pioneer in organ transplantation is undergoing a peer review. To encourage participation, I've made requests on several talk pages for people to participate. So, I'd like to encourage everyone here to participate at Wikipedia:Peer review/Michael Woodruff/archive1. Thanks very much! Cool3 18:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

NHS project

I have optimistically launched Wikipedia:Wikiproject National Health Service - interested? - know anyone else who might be? - do please visit and comment/contribute if you wish --Smerus 22:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Cancer immunotherapy

Can someone with a bit more time and energy than me have a critical look at Cancer immunotherapy. The page has great potential, but is rather off course with respect to the mode of action of current biologicals. See my comments in the discussion. Thanks. Jellytussle 23:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Cystic fibrosis

Last week's MCOTW is currently on peer review. Head on over and let us know what you think! InvictaHOG 04:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Kasabach-Merritt Syndrome feedback request

I just wrote my first stub, Kasabach-Merritt Syndrome. Don't worry, I'm not about to nominate this for MCOTW, but I was hoping a few people could look it over just so I get some feedback to keep in mind for next time. Thanks! — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 05:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's one of my favourite eponyms! I'll peek at it. Thanks for making the article! -- Samir

धर्म 05:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Impressive turnaround time, folks. Half a day goes by, and I've gotten copy-editing, content addition, complete redo of reference format (I didn't even know you could do that!), and confidence-boosting comments. — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 12:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed wikiproject on First Aid

Would really appreciate some support on this. There are a lot of us about who edit these articles, and we could do with some clear organisation and focus. See User:John24601/Wikiprojectfirstaid for more details!!! Thanks --John24601 20:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Question

Is there any consensus on what to do if there is an article regarding an instrument and an article detailing the use of that instrument? For example, Tonometer and Tonometry. Should both articles exist or should one redirect to the other? -AED 18:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Same with Proctoscopy and Proctoscope. --Steven Fruitsmaak 20:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I vote for combining the two articles and using a redirect from the other name. As to whether to make the instrument or the procedure the primary article, I don't think we have a policy and I suggest you take your pick and make it how you want. alteripse 02:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

My vote would also be to combine them. Does anyone have any preference for which direction the redirect takes place? For example, Endoscope redirects to Endoscopy, but Ophthalmoscopy redirects to Ophthalmoscope. I don't know if consistency in this really matters to anyone, but I thought I would check. -AED 03:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The tool is part of the science, but the science isn't part of the tool - so I'd vote for science as the main and tools as redirects. Leevanjackson 10:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Might the tool article contain detail of the history - the early petrol-driven ophthalmoscopes for instance - whereas the science of using it would probably focus on the current use of the current devices? Midgley 11:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Petrol-driven ophthalmoscopes? Really? Now I am imagining the even more primitive wood-burning ones! alteripse 11:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, one article with a redirect from the tool to the science. --Steven Fruitsmaak 12:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Can I throw the cat amongst the canaries and note that Tonometry (both applanation and indentation) is used to assess capsular fibrosis and capsular contracture of reconstructed breasts by both aesthetic surgeons and oncological surgeons/radiation oncologists? There is no mention of this in the article as it stands.Jellytussle 16:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless there any objections, I'm probably going to merge Tonometer with Tonometry. -AED 04:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's that time of the month again

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evelyn Pringle. JFW | T@lk 14:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Feedback request: Colectomy

Hi. I´ve been contributing on a small scale for some time now, mainly on topic related to surgery. I'd love some feedback on colectomy. Just expanded from a stub, and I think there's still quite a bit of work to do. However, I fear it's getting too technical. Any input is appreciated.

I´d also like feedback on my other contributions (all of the pertaining to surgery) - please visit my user page. --Iglesias 00:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources & images please. JFW | T@lk 06:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent article idea. Refs would be great -- Samir धर्म 07:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

health scam editing - reversion

May I direct the attention of anyone who is up to this ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mucoid_plaque Midgley 03:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Quackery Category up for deletion

As of 24th May the Quackery category has been nominated for deltion - I think it would be useful to keep as a sub-category of Pseudoscience. See Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 24 David Ruben ^Talk 03:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Public Health Category: Request for Help

Is anyone interested in forming a project to work systematically on Public Health articles? This category gets no love and it needs it--there is so much bad public health information on the web! Museumfreak 01:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Medicine

I nominated Portal:Medicine for featured portal, don't know if many of you use it, check it out, your opinion is welcome! --Steven Fruitsmaak 18:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Move malignant melanoma

I have asked for the malignant melanoma article to be renamed simply melanoma reflecting currnet usage and the absence of a benign melanoma. A poll in underway. Any votes for or against on the melanoma talk page please. ps any other Plastic Surgeons out there? Will TALK 05:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

We have no plastic surgeons. They're too busy. We have a few surgeons, but they contribute intermittently. JFW | T@lk 07:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Crohn's disease got FUBAR'ed

In the Crohn's disease article, I just noticed that a lot of text was copied from Mayoclinic.com. The edits replacing original content with Mayoclinic's text can be seen at [6]. I'm not sure if it should just be reverted to avoid copyright violation. --Uthbrian (talk) 07:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it does seem to be a blatant copyvio of the Mayo Clinic page. I think reversion with explanation seems justified. -Techelf 08:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been unable to really fault the material that was added, but if it's a copyvio then I agree on the FUBAR bit; it is also messy and very speculative at times. I think we should engage User:Samir (The Scope) to improve that page in the way he improved ulcerative colitis. JFW | T@lk 17:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with reversion. I'll work on the article shortly... -- Samir धर्म 07:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments: Talk:Seeing with your ears

Should Seeing with your ears be merged with Human echolocation or Visual prosthetic or both? -AED 17:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The Endo Unit is now open!

And you're invited to help out. Please check out WikiProject Gastroenterology when you get a chance. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 08:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Desoxyn

There is a discussion ongoing at Talk:Desoxyn about whether or not Desoxyn should be merged with methamphetamine. I argue that they should be merged, following convention in Wikipedia where brand names redirect to the generic names. Others (or mainly one editor) differs. Thoughts out there? Andrew73 03:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Article for deletion

Thought some of you might be interested in this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diet of Worms (Medicine). -AED 22:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Breast implant article

I would like to encourage other physcian wikipedians to review the swamp that the article on breast implants has become. It's devolved into the personal crusade by one editor jglaw to make the entry into a partisan treatise on why breast implants are evil & how the medical establishment can't be trusted to study the issue. For those unfamiliar with the systemic reviews of this see this summary for a starting point[7], [8]. As web-based sources like wikipedia become more common as a tool for reference, we have a duty to take some editorial control over medical areas to strive for evidenced based medical information being presented. I don't like the tension that is developing with this other editor (who is both bright & energetic, but hostile to the mainstream views) & ideally more people familiar with interpreting the medical literature would contribute to diffuse this log-jam.Droliver 23:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I cannot stop wondering if jglaw is a compensation lawyer attempting to maximise negative exposure of breast implants. To speak with my old friend Ombudsman: behind every POV debate is a conflict of interest. JFW | T@lk 23:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Declared to be a lawyer - doctor of jurisprudence user box and other comments. However the interest seems to be personal, in that she made the mistake of seeking and getting breast implants and now resents this happening. I'll not link, but it was all on WP. I do observe Ombudsman with some fascination, the two are not similar, Ombudsman applying his considerable energies to a wide variety of causes and articles. I'm unsure if other areas than medicine observe that editors whose range only includes one single topic are not the most encyclopaedic contributors? I feel there is scope for an essay somewhere in the WP space on the difference between being knowledgeable and writing of a topic, and bending WP to the serives of an all-consuming passion. I suggest meanwhile that jglaw is due for an RFC, based on past and present behaviour, but I seem to be involved in enough RFcs and other aspects that I'm not the best person to initiate it, if indeed it is needed. Midgley 16:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you define "one single topic", Midgley? Ombudsman has in fact contributed quite a lot of fairly encyclopedic material - but it lacks in balance (the backbone of gold salts matched the contributions of medically qualified editors). I wonder what the RFAr will bring. In contrast, jglaw is a single-issue editor who will either submit to policy or go violently in a blaze of fire and blocks. I've witnessed this process enough to predict the outcome. Some editors will simply not agree that their forcefully held opinion is just... opinion and cannot replace fact. Editing Wikipedia is as much about content as it is about collaborative writing. The more controversial a subject gets, the more unqualified and poorly informed loudmouths it attracts. There will be no edit war over POEMS syndrome, but there will be an edit war over chronic fatigue syndrome (in a few weeks, I predict). This is probably one of the greatest curses of writing in the public discourse. JFW | T@lk 20:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You are pretty quick to judge something you know absolutely nothing about. I haven't gone out with a blaze of fire and blocks, and I won't. Good luck to you, though, if this is the way you collaborate - by talking about people behind their backs. What a group of harpies here.,MollyBloom 05:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion took place almost a month ago. Contrary to yourself, I have worked extensively with single-issue editors who have felt the need to defend a viewpoint not particularily well accepted by many other editors. I'm pleased that you seem not to fit in that category. If you don't like people talking behind your back you might as well stop contributing to Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 14:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is unfortunate that there are those who devote an entire page to bashing other editors. I am still farily new to Wikipedia, and I also work, so I edit when I can. And no, I am not a single-issue editor, although I have dealt with one. It is frustrating.jgwlaw 18:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Where's that page devoted to bashing other editors? I'd love to see it. JFW | T@lk 19:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have seen a lot of gossiping and bashing here. In contrast, other project pages don't do this. But as you said, this was almost a month old. jgwlaw 20:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Midgley is agreeing that Ombudsman contributes to a wide variety of of causes and articles and we'd all agree that he/she writes well and adds a lot of great content. I do worry about jglaw - her attachment to the AfD on Maxwell is pretty fierce. Just the act of my voting prompted multiple replies both on the AfD and on my talk page! InvictaHOG 21:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Invicta, you would be better served if you would worry less about me, and more about your own interests.MollyBloom 05:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ombudsman is indeed exceptional. The effort he applies could be far more effective, and I suspect that the effort he soaks up could also be. The ArbCom ruling may make a difference, but there is as yet no sign at all of him noticing it. (Except as more persecution). jglaw is branching out a little, which can be nothing but good - there is some expertise there that will be an asset to Asbestos/is. Midgley 16:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Midgely, it was never an accurate statement to say I am a 'single-issue' editor. I am still fairly new to Wikipedia. THe BI article was what I began editing. Of course I would have more edits on this. I have only been editing Wikipedia for a couple of months. I have since branched out to asbestos, asbestos and the law, politics, other legal issues, etc. IT does take time to get one's feet wet. The BI article was most interesting to me, because it initially read like an advertisement for BI. I have read other articles by the same author that are equally poorly written and refernced. If a doctor wants to be treated as a professional and expert, he needs to act and write like one. The BI article is of interest, because there still is genuine scientific controversy about their safety, particularly with rupture. The edits I added were referenced and properly written, An epidemiologist and expert on breast implants also contributed, and was demonized by the same pro-implant doctor. I am not going to belabor this, but suffice to say that MDs also have agendas that are not necessarily 'scientific'.

Also, if you read my bio, in addition to law, I have degrees in math and science. I am hardly ignorant, and I understand more than some would like to admit, it seems.MollyBloom 05:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Experts on BI Articles

As I said, I was not the only one editing this article. For a little perspective, here is a comment by an expert that Oliver has summarily dismissed.MollyBloom 06:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this JFW's or Oliver's idea of a loudmouth ignorant editor? Or does that refer only to my edits? Because many of the edits I restored were not written by me, but by Dr. Zuckerman. I doubt that Rob Oliver's MD from the University of South Alabama makes him more of an expert than Dr. Zuckerman's PhD and post doctoral epidemiology training at Yale University.

Last week, I testified on breast implants for the Health Committee of the Canadian Parliament. I was invited because I am an epidemiologist (post doctoral training at Yale Medical School) and internationally recognized expert on this topic. There are still many unanswered questions about the risks and benefits of breast implants, and much controversy. That's why the FDA and Health Canada are both unsure whether to approve silicone gel breast implants. Last week I also spoke at a Women's Health conference in Virginia, on a panel with a plastic surgeon. We talked about the risks and benefits and agreed on almost everything regarding breast implants. I have repeatedly added research data to this article, and Dr Oliver keeps removing it. I want this article to be accurate, but I have a fulltime job as the director of a research center and I don't think it is fair for me to have to keep putting back information that he removes for no scientific reason. He is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
I have taught at Yale and Vassar, and was the director of a major research project at Harvard. What research credentials does Dr Oliver have that entitles him to keep deleting my scientific additions to this article? (Dr. Zuckerman wrote this as can be seen from the history.)

and

As the president of a nationally-respected independent think tank that has been quoted in every national newspaper, magazine, and TV network (and has over 40,000 entries in google), I am tired of Dr. Oliver's bullying comments and repeated deletions of scientific facts and analyses that I have contributed to this article. And, I am offended by Dr Oliver's repeated slurs against the National Research Center for Women & Families, an organization that he apparently knows nothing about. Dr. Oliver, you are entitled to your opinion but you should not be making up facts in Wikipedia. I don't want to be rude, but the truth is I have never seen you interviewed as an expert on this topic by the major media, nor have I seen even one article by you on breast implants in the peer-reviewed medical literature. I understand that you have strongly-held views on the topic but you don't seem to have an objective grasp of the research. I have published dozens of articles on health topics, including breast implants, in peer-reviewed medical journals, and I am happy to defend anything I have written. Feel free to debate me in this discussion area, but please stop deleting my additions to this article. Drzuckerman 04:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Dr Zuckerman

On Wikipedia, personal credentials have some weight, but not in the way you'd like them to. Most discussions are supposed to revolve around the facts, not about their sources. You should not be questioning Dr Oliver's credentials. I have personally edited a number of articles about conditions I have not managed, let alone published about. Does that make me an inferior Wikipedia editor? JFW | T@lk 19:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. But Oliver has attacked this epidemiologist and me. In fact, he seems to think he (or other MDs) have " a duty to take some editorial control over medical areas to strive for evidenced based medical information being presented." This implies that he believes only medical doctors should edit such articles. In fact, epidemiologists are better qualified in some areas to discuss studies and the like, than a surgeon who has not specialized in this area. But of course, with WIkopedia, all kinds of experts and lay people are invited to participate responsibly.

Of course, facts need to be discussed. But as you know, facts can be 'selectively' chosen. That is what I, Dr. Zuckerman, and others have complained about. All statements made and referenced on this article that I have made, or that Dr. Zuckerman has made are facts. Other medical doctors have agreed the controversy needs to be discussed, but Oliver has claimed there is no controversy. This is flatly untrue. Now I am not going to get into a further argument here about this. jgwlaw 20:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you need some mediation on that article, Molly. JFW | T@lk 21:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no mediation possible with Molly on this. I've tried repeatedly to bring her into a mainstream treatment of this to no avail. My selective inclusion of studies is limited to the large number of systemic reviews which have addressed this to this point.

As an aside. Dr. Zuckerman, the editor referred to, is the single most prominent anti-implant crusader in the world. While she's clearly an expert in the political manuevering in that area, the positions and conclusions embraced by her are not endorsed by the FDA, Institute of Medicine, the AMA, the American Society of Plastic Surgery, the American collge of Rheumatology, or the health ministries of any other country in the world.Droliver 18:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe Oliver is correct. There is no mediation that is possible because he deletes all references that he does not like, and ignores the references in the articles that he cites, that suggest a need for further study. None of the institutes that Oliver reference say anything about Dr. Zuckerman. He is again slanting all of this. Dr. Zuckerman is a Yale trained epidemiologist, who has directed research projects at Harvard, and taught at Vassar and Yale. She has referenced everything she has written, and added citations, as have I. Rob Oliver has a POV that has compelled him to push his 'pro-implant' stance all over Wikipedia. Even other plastic surgeons came on and stated there was still controversy, and Rob ignored him. This is the problem we face here.172.148.137.229 02:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and speaking of a one-issue editor, Rob Oliver fits the bill. He is obsessed about breast implants, which is what he does, and even denies there is any controversy over them. The only things he has done on WIkipedia at all relate to breast implants, or putting up puff pieces on his favorite professors.172.148.137.229 02:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

...speaking of lawyers

...I've noticed that User:MonheitLaw has been ambulance-chasing. It would be great if someone could check his creations of Biomedical tissue and Aprotinin to make sure that they meet Wiki's NPOV and verifiability policies. -AED 00:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I've made it a bit better (aprotinin, that is). JFW | T@lk 02:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks much better now. Good work! -AED 02:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a confusing sentence. Perhaps, JFW, you could rewrite to be a bit more comprehensible?

" Anaphylaxis occurs at a rate of 1:200 in first-time use, but serology (antibodies against aprotinin) is not advocated to prevent anaphylaxis on reexposure due to metholodological problems[2]." From this sentence, it appears that the writer means that serology is an antibody, and that it is not advocated to prevent anaphylaxis (although I don't think that is what you mean)... Wikipedia should be written for the general population, not medical professionals. Even if the audience were medical professionals, the sentence is still awkward.jgwlaw 02:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How about you put this on Talk:Aprotinin, where it belongs? JFW | T@lk 14:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Since it was discussed here, it seems logical that it be added here. In fact, that seems to be the norm on topics discussed here. Not sure why this is different. Also, since you evidently wrote this, it makes sense to place it where you will see it. But, since you asked, I did add it on the talk page. Hopefully someone will rewrite it. If not, it will remain as it is - which is badly written and not readable. jgwlaw 03:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Category for deletion?

Does Category:Ophthalmologic inflammations warrant keeping per Wikipedia:Categorization guidelines? It seems a bit specific to me. Thoughts? -AED 03:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It is silly. Just because it's an -itis and occurs in the eye does not make it useful category material. Dacryoadenitis and uveitis are utterly unrelated conditions and treated in an almost diametrically opposite way! JFW | T@lk 06:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Midgley 16:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

In the event you would like to share your comments, I listed Category:Ophthalmologic inflammations here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 5. -AED 00:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Endoscopic foreign body retrieval

I'd appreciate comments -- particularly if anyone is experienced with foreign body removal using the foley catheter trick, which I didn't add to this article! I've only done it once -- Samir धर्म 07:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That trick is described on http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic379.htm along with other methods to remove ingested foreign bodies. I think it would be better to create a ingested foreign body article (like that emedicine page) that describes all the methods used to remove it, not only endoscopic. I think this is a little bit too specific to devote a whole article to it. --WS 12:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Cystic fibrosis FAC

Cystic fibrosis, previously a medicine collaboration of the week is now a featured article candidate! --WS 22:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge

If anyone is interested, it has been suggested that Diet and Heart Disease be merged with Coronary heart disease. (See Talk:Diet and Heart Disease). -AED 06:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Metoclopramide & Milk fetishism

New User:Anon! added Milk fetishism to a number of articles on drugs or herbal products used to induce lactation for this fetishism. I initially revert the addition of this link on Metoclopramide as being nonsense, and this has be re-inserted. To be fair (WP:AGF) metoclopramide may well be so used, but it is clearly off-label use - which normally is a term used for drugs being prescribed by a doctor for other uses than that licensed, rather than illegally obtaining prescription drugs without a prescription for alternative uses. I am sure many drugs are off-label used by patients obtaining through on-line pharmacies without prescription/medical advice, but does this mean all such (mis-)uses need be included as significant 'See also' links in articles on wikipedia ? Remember whilst significant minority viewpoints must be included under WP:NPOV, trivial minority views do not.

Please also see the discussion added to Milk fetishism advising what doses of Metoclopramide to take (here) which I edited down to this.

I generally try and adhere to WP:1RR, so I should welcome some input from others on all of this at Talk:Metoclopramide. David Ruben ^Talk 23:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments regarding "External links" contributions

Wccaccamise appears to be a retired ophthalmologist (and clinical instructor in ophthalmology) who has recently contributed to various articles a few links to his own photographs and images on a University of Iowa website. Overall, I think the images are excellent and very useful contributions; however, I was wondering if someone might review his contributions and offer a suggestion here as to how they might be properly linked in order not to appear as linkspam. -AED 16:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...a few thoughts:

Edit summaries always help.
I'm concerned because "a primary policy of Wikipedia is that no one from a particular site/organization should post links to that organization/site etc" (see Wikipedia:External links#Links to normally avoid).
If he retains copyright on these photos, he could release them under an appropriate license and contribute them directly. I think this would be a great approach, if feasible. (And someone could help with the mechanics of uploading and tagging, if necessary.)

— JVinocur (talk • contribs) 18:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I should have said, see more general recommendations at Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer. — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 18:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I had a go at using suitable citation template markup for Chalazion (see here) which he went and disrupted (see here) - so I wonder if this is either inexperience at wikipedia and not realising what I had done, or a possessive-ownership issue wishing to display the full url address (rather than just letting the hyperlinked-explanation pointing to that webpage) David Ruben ^Talk 18:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I edited Eye cancer according to your suggested template, but it looks like a bot has reverted all of the others. -AED 22:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Announcing the Grand Opening of the Wikipedia Dialysis Centre...

I've created a project to coordinate the edits of the nephrology articles. With a million patients on dialysis worldwide[9] --and the numbers increasing, but awareness among the public low[10] the Wikipedia dialysis centre has its work cut-out.

You're welcome to browse through the pages of the project (WikiProject Nephrology) and join, if you have an interest in the marvelous organs that (to shamelessly alter a quote from Isak Dinesen) turn, with infinite artfulness, red wine of Shiraz into urine. Nephron T|C 05:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for Spelling/Grammar Check

Hello, I have created the article Transfusion-associated graft versus host disease. My first language is not English, though, so I would appreciate if someone checked my spelling / grammar etc. as there might be some issues. Thx ackoz 15:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I gave it a copyediting. It's a nice article, good job! It's always better, however, to cite the references for individual statements, such as several of the numeric assertions that are in the article. If you need help with the cite.php template, just let someone know! InvictaHOG 20:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work. I made a few small changes, more along the lines of polishing than any actual spelling/grammar stuff. I agree that more fine-grained citation would be useful. (And if you're looking for a new project, the main GvHD article could use a little refocusing, I think.) — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 00:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia guru help request

I just noticed that there are two separate articles, Transposition of the great arteries and Transposition of the great arteries, nearly identical but not a redirect. Oh, and one of the talk pages redirects to the other... I can't quite piece together what sequence of events led to the current state, and I am definitely not comfortable trying to resolve this myself. Can someone with more Wikipedia experience take a stab at this? — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 01:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume that you are talking about transposition of the great vessels and transposition of the great arteries because the two that you linked to are the same to my eye! I'll look at merging arteries with vessels - InvictaHOG 01:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, complete copy/paste error there. Indeed, I meant the TGV and TGA articles. And thanks! — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 09:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

RfC on merge

Should Photoreceptor cell merge into Photoreceptor, should Photoreceptor merge into Photoreceptor cell, or neither? Comments welcome at Talk:Photoreceptor cell. Thanks! -AED 06:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Self-experimentation in medicine

Hi everybody, I just created Self-experimentation in medicine. I was hoping people here can provide some more examples and maybe someone can write a paragraph on the ethical aspects. --WS 23:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Great idea for an article! -- Samir धर्म 03:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm intrigued, but you already covered all of the examples I can think of off the top of my head. (Incidentally, the article is a little jargon-y at the moment, you might try harder to aim at a general audience.) — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 22:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I know, there is still lots of room for improvement, I just made a start. --WS 22:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Jala neti and Nasal irrigation

Any ENT specialists out there? I think nasal irrigation needs an overhaul. It looks like Jala neti, with an alternative medicine bent, dups a lot of the material. Any thoughts on a merge? Nephron T|C 08:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

William Coley, Coley's Toxins, C-Vax

Could someone who is feeling energetic take a critical look at The following: William Coley, Coley's Toxins, C-Vax ? The first two pertain to a historical 19th century cancer treatment. I am concerned however that this is alt.med getting in by the back door. This can be appreciated when one looks at the tone of the first two pieces. As history they are very badly written, as science even more so. They link to some very dubious sites. Coley is legitimately mentioned in the history section of Cancer and probably deserves his own biography page, but what is currently in place is inappropriate, POV, and of a low standard.

Please see my comments in the discussion section of William Coley.

Jellytussle 05:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Niacin

This article has been filled with orthomolecular crap recently. I am unable to trace and fix it alone. Someone should propose a policy that would prevent the minority pseudoscientific to be pushed into articles.

ackoz 08:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

And the same for natural desiccated thyroid hormones. JFW | T@lk 09:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Revised. alteripse 05:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have listed a RfArb with those two editors for violating the WP:NPOV by making a minority view to be the mainstay of the articles. I don't think the ArbCom will accept it, though. Anybody knows about some sources that would demonstrate that CAM methods and Orthomolecular medicine in particular are a minority view among the experts? ackoz

18:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Might we find accounts from the companies making and selling the remedies as an indication of their relative use? Midgley 10:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Abdominal_aortic_aneurysm

Again, I am here to ask someone who could check my English spelling/grammar. I also used a Czech source this time, and switching between two languages is confusing, so I think my English will be even more distorted in this one. ackoz 18:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Famous people with...

I've watched this happen in Heterochromia, now I'm watching it happen in Eyebrow. Someone mentions a celebrity with such-and-such a condition, then a list of celebrities with the condition develops, then fictional characters with the condition are added! Soon, the sections regarding who-has-what are the largest parts of the article. Are there any policies or guidelines about this, or suggestions for what can (or should) be done? -AED 20:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Some user "Added Hernias in Pop Culture section, which will surely become the apogee of Wikipedia knowledge". I personally think there is some truth to this... you can't find such information in a classic encyclopedia, but it might be interesting. I've had times when I was looking for famous patients of this or that disease. --Steven Fruitsmaak 21:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's impressive. What if you Be Bold and move the lists onto a /Subpage? That would perhaps satisfy everyone... — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 22:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Usually when there are a lot, I create a list page and just link it. InvictaHOG 10:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Lists of patients are Vanispamcruftisement. I think this WikiProject should devise a policy by which inclusions to these lists can be minimised. I propose: (1) a reliable source for each, (2) evidence that this has lastingly affected the popular perception of a condition (e.g. Stephen Hawking and ALS). JFW | T@lk 13:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I also think that requiring references would be a viable way to slow this trend. — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 18:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the lists have some use-- and are sort of interesting. I'll admit to editing one about brain tumours. That said, I concur with the above about references-- but would take it one step further; I think we should strive to every significant fact in Wikipedia having a reference (as WP:REF suggests we ought to). One way to encourage clean-up is adding the needs refs banner -- {{unreferenced}} -- to articles like that. Nephron T|C 19:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I like JFW's idea of using this Project to devise a policy. I've tried the {{unreferenced}} tag in some places with little success. Perhaps we could devise a policy and make a new tag to go specifically at the top of those lists that would give contributors a certain amount of time to comply with providing a citation, etc. -AED 18:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think this should be broader than this project? I have seen a number of non-medical articles that make claims and statements without any citation. It would seem more appropriate to discuss a policy like this on a general Wiki forum.MollyBloom 06:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Writing medical articles

After desperately looking for guidance about this subject and not finding any, except a little about sections, I created this page: Writing medical articles . I haven't linked it from anywhere, thought maybe it could find a place in WP:medicine, or elsewhere? I would appreciate comments on it, please expand with your own experience, and tell me what to do with it! --Steven Fruitsmaak 15:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That is beautiful Steven. I like the level-headed advice on lists of cruft and disclaimers, things that have been bugging medical articles for the last 2 years at least. I think we should make that page live and use it as much as possible. Specifically, we should stick to the layout: (1) what symptoms characterise the condition, (2) how is it diagnosed, (3) what causes it and how does it develop, (4) how is it treated, (5) what are its epidemiological and prognostic characteristics, (6) what are its social, political etc consequences (7) references, links. I have tried to enforce this system on as many pages as possible. JFW | T@lk 13:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There is some overlap here with Template for medical conditions. Obviously, not everything medical is a "medical condition" but there is so much overlap that a merge would be helpful. Colin°^Talk 07:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:WPCM member

This user is a participant in WikiProject Medicine.

I've created Template:WPCM member . Is it correct that it didn't exist yet? I didn't create a category for "wikipedians member of WPCM", if someone thinks it is necessary I will. --Steven Fruitsmaak 15:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice! JFW | T@lk 13:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Whaleto

I notice with extreme delight that John Whale's website is now spamblacklisted (vaccination. org. uk). JFW | T@lk 13:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

W00t! I took a look at that site-- it is filled with half-truths and distortions. Only the ill-informed and misguided would use it as a reference. Nephron T|C 21:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

au contraire, it is useful to the malign. Midgley 12:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Giaconda

Information about this recent pharmaceutical upstart has been spammed throughout a massive amount of drugs articles. I suspect this may not be justified. Could someone have a look? JFW | T@lk 08:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Edward Tobinick

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Tobinick. JFW | T@lk 11:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This one could really use some review by the physicians and medical students around here. Please take a peek. -AED 17:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

GAnominees

More articles in our field should reach this status. I've started by nominating Acne vulgaris, Alzheimer's disease, Breast cancer, Clinical depression and Colorectal cancer.--Steven Fruitsmaak 19:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of them are in urgent need of maintenance. Colorectal cancer is not bad but we need more material on screening, better references for the treatment of non-localised disease and some resources on surgical management of metastatic disease (isolated liver metastasis is treated surgically these days).

Alzheimer's disease is an accumulation of poorly contexted individual studies and lots of rubbish on ineffective dietary interventions.

Breast cancer lacks any form of verifiability.

Clinical depression same.

We need to do a lot more work on all those articles before we can even dream of getting GA status. JFW | T@lk 20:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Fat

There's a complete mess of articles on abnormal lipids: Hyperlipoproteinemia, Dyslipidemia, Hyperlipidemia, Hypertriglyceridemia, Hypercholesterolemia... I'm thinking of merging the whole lot into one article on blood fats, with subarticles on specific subforms (broad beta disease, hyperchylomicronemia, familial hypertriglyceridemia). What is the preferred page title for the "general" lipid disorders article? I'm personally a proponent of hyperlipidemia as the main title, which catches all. JFW | T@lk 20:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. I got your back. alteripse 21:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup. ackoz

21:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hyperlipidemia as a main title seems most appropriate. Definitely agree with the need for restructuring -- Samir धर्म 21:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Dyslipidemia" is not necessarily hyperlipidemia. Hypocholesterolemia, hypobetalipoproteinemia, and abetalipoproteinemia are dyslipidemias but not hyperlipidemias. --Arcadian 04:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is that big of a mess, as all these articles refer to seperate, but closely related conditions. I tink it would be best to have a general overview on the dylipemia article, with links to the specific articles. --WS 20:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Disorders of Lipid Metabolism is probably the best, if dyslipidaemia, hyperlipidaemia, FHC, Tangier disease et al can automatically go there. Jellytussle 22:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Here is a proposed hierarchy

Disorders of lipid metabolism (better title than dyslipidemia, which can be mentioned in first line as medical term) brief overview, including Hyperlipidemia as a subset
- Hyperlipidemia, also an overview, but this can have most of the cardiovascular risk information, which overlaps so much for the individual disorders
  - Each individual form of hyperlipidemia can have its own brief article with description of distinctive aspects

alteripse 10:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've split back out dyslipidaemia, per the above, but of course further review/edits are welcome. But should we really equate "dyslipidaemia" and "disorders of lipid metabolism"? In the short term, wouldn't diet affect the former but not the latter? I won't object if it is moved, though. --Arcadian 15:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

But should we really equate "dyslipidaemia" and "disorders of lipid metabolism"? In the short term, wouldn't diet affect the former but not the latter? They are part of the same spectrum, and should be classified under the same heading. Diet will effect some disorders of lipid metabolism and not others. dyslipidaemia is not a precise term in itself. Jellytussle 16:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think dyslipidaemia covers it all - it's the same as any other dys: dystonia, dysphagia, dyspepsia. The term is roughly synonymous with "disorders of lipid metabolism" as the "dys" of the lipids is generally due to metabolic abnormalities. Thompson (PMID 15253984) argues that dyslipidaemia is a more correct term. JFW | T@lk 17:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

PubMed citations - javascript

~~Petrosino~~Diberri put together a ~~little javascript~~ program to automagically generated PubMed references (among other things-- DrugBank, Proteins etc.) in the desired form.

The script can be found here:

http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates/

I've activated it "manually". It is a neat little script. Try it out.

Apparently, there is another way to activate it...

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

I haven't quite figured that one out... but may it will work for you. Nephron T|C 04:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Details of how to make a bookmarklet that activates the javascript tool are given at Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Template for medical conditions#References * David Ruben ^Talk 14:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Based on the notes in bookmarklet--the sequence is different for different browsers. Looks like the refs section has to be up-dated to be made browser-nondiscriminatory... Nephron T|C 05:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The directions indicate the provided method works in IE. I can also confirm it works in Firefox, after testing just now. --David Iberri (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

A speciality (neurology) and its diseases

Is there a rule about specialities and diseases?

I've noticed that Category:Neurology -- is very sparse... and most of the neurological diseases are in Category:Neurological disorders.

This is unlike gastroenterology and nephrology-- where the diseases are listed in the categories -- Category:Gastroenterology for GI and Category:Nephrology for Nephro.

Any thoughts on this?

I think the neurological disorders category should be merged into the neurology category and that the rule should be established that the diseases should bear the category of the speciality (e.g. Crohn's disease is in Category:Gastroenterology --NOT in a category called Category:GI disorders or Category:Gastrointestinal disorders). Nephron T|C 04:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have personally always listed diseases under their specialty and not their organ system, but for neurology there have typically been separate categories. I suspect a merge may be in order. JFW | T@lk 07:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct page?

Hi folks

I'm new here, and am still finding my way around. At the top of the page, it says request for peer reviews should be placed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine/Collaboration which I have duly done; but looking at the history, edits appear to be made about once a month on that page and I've noticed several recent requests for reviews on this page. Has the policy changed, is the collaboration page still functional, and where should I be putting review requests?

Cheers

Iain Joncomelately 09:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of us watch all of the pages anyway, so put them wherever you feel most welcome! InvictaHOG 01:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please watch

Please watch amygdala. It might not need to be peer reviewed now, but soon...

Thank you. Koalabyte 01:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Medical Dictionary Wiki proposal

I came across the suggestion on metawiki for a Medical dictionary wiki. I suspect wikidictionary is adequate for any deifinition of terms and conditions best left as wikipedia articles. A "how-to-guide" of actually treating people seems inappropriate to me - its a fork of infomation, who has time to edit twice the number of articles, how are they to verify the credentials of editors, even some acredited doctors have non-mainstream views (who will act as judge). Hmmm highly problematic, let alone legal implications. David Ruben ^Talk 17:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering why medical doctors feel that medical articles can only be edited by their own profession? Wikipedia is, by definition, open source. Should we have only lawyers editing articles about law? Or only mathematicians editing about math? Or ...etc. If that is going to be the case, then Wikiipedia will no longer be open source. Maybe that is where Wikipedia will evolve. jgwlaw 03:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Jgwlaw? I am wondering how you arrived at this conclusion. Please don't make deliberately inflammatory statements. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Jggwlaw - you misunderstand twice over - firstly I made/intended no suggestion that non-medics could not edit medical articles in wikipedia (indeed anyone may join in with this project, or sign themselves as a participant) - secondly the proposal in question is to create an entirely new body of work quite distinct & separate from wikitionary and wikipedia. It was the need for an additional block of information that I am unconvinced by (or at the very least a lower-level school/undergraduate work might be included in wikibooks). Also you will note (if you look at the discussion page for it) that it was the proposal itself that suggests that only medics could contribute to it. Suggestions/votes against the proposal should be posted to its project page (Medical dictionary wiki) not here in "friendly co-operative" wikipedia - I only added the item to this page to flag the possible new duplicating item of the Wikimedia foundation :-) David Ruben ^Talk 18:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Family trees & breaking down a DDx

I've discovered family trees. They are sort of neat for working through compliated DDxs.

Here is one I created for neonatal jaundice:

Neonatal jaundice

Unconjugated bilirubin

Post-hepatic

Non-hemolytic

Intrinsic causes

Extrinsic causes

I think we ought to make use of 'em more often. If any one wants one crafted... let me know. An example is here. I created a bunch here. I think one for anemia would be a good thing... and it would be interesting to make a family tree that shows schematically the vascular branching. Nephron T|C 06:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's pretty cool! And it's a pretty ingenious way of making family trees in the first place. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Input requested at Nomenclature of monoclonal antibodies

I haven't been able to really edit Wikipedia in quite some time, but I'm going to try to make an effort to contribute more now. I just wrote Nomenclature of monoclonal antibodies. If anyone has time, pop over to see if there's anything to correct or reword. Also, I tried to make sure laypeople could easily understand it, but if that can be improved, please feel free to change it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a great start. I categorized it (Immnology); but cant' fix the table. The right side border is not closed for me. NCurse_work 11:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's awesome because I never knew that there was a secret code for those names! I caught onto the mab, but thought that the drug companies were just trying to make them difficult to say. Learn something new every day! InvictaHOG 12:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought it was pretty cool, too, which is why I wanted to write an article on it. There probably isn't really any more to be said, though. Guess I won't be nominating it for MCOTW then! (though I may submit it to DYK). — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't submit it, I've already done it. :) Talk:Nomenclature_of_monoclonal_antibodies and Portal:Medicine/Did_you_know... NCurse_work 08:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I've always wondered how they name this MoAbs. Well done, KS! JFW | T@lk 07:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Porphyria

65.193.216.70 (talk · contribs) seems to think half the world must have porphyria. I've had to revert almost all these editor's contributions, as they were far-fetched and unsourced. Does everyone agree? There may some useful information that I've scrubbed accidentally. JFW | T@lk 21:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Rare condition with large range of symptoms - so yes I suspect many articles might contain information about porphyria, but that does not make this the primary condition to be considered (atrial myxoma is not the commonest cause of atrial fibrillation). Articles need balance, as well as good citations for information most doctors would struggle to be able to immediately verify. David Ruben ^Talk 22:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You did well. And Davidruben +1... NCurse_work 08:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

But please peruse that user's contributions, because there may still be useful material in there. I've also asked for a cleanup of porphyria, which has become very messy after editing spates by Cheryln (talk · contribs)[11] and 65.193.216.70 (talk · contribs)[12]. JFW | T@lk 09:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)