Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Archive 5

message: I've been moving articles from :Category:Medicine to the appropriate subcategories, but there are a lot of articles and some help would be appreciated. In general, medical articles are categorised in two types categories: by the medical specialism they belong in (e.g. :Category:Pulmonology) and by their etiology (e.g. :Category:Autoimmune diseases and/or :Category:Eponymous diseases). JFW | T@lk 22:35, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll keep trying to lend a hand here! Erich 04:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Medicine 

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

message: Geez guys, it's boringly quiet here. I've noticed that the turnover rate of doctors here is fairly high. Has anyone seen User:Kd4ttc lately?
Anyway, please read Talk:Deaf and Talk:Models of deafness and shudder. JFW | T@lk 00:16, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Total correct 35/50, mastery correct 13/15, performance: satisfactory. JFW | T@lk 00:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor, are you there? 

message: Template:PMID was unnecessary. The Wiki now recognises PMID codes and automatically creates a link, much like ISBN codes. Please disregard the template and simply use  (see, no template!) JFW | T@lk 23:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks; very useful information!  Courtland  2005-01-31 USA ~19:20 EST
geez that is cool! when did they do that? (hey jfd are you going to take the test?? ) Erich 12:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

message: Hi. While going through the old pages above listed by SimonP, I wondered whether articles on ... arghh... diseases affecting the nervous system should go under what I thought sounded right (and what I started doing) :Category:Neurologic disorders or whether, as some have already done, put them in :Category:Neurology. I was figuring that "Neurologic disorders" would fit as a subcategory of :Category:Diseases but that "Neurology" would not because it's also the study of normal neural tissue function. What's the consensus view here? Alex.tan 05:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Diseases should be in both categories. Neurology is the field that deals with them, and neurologic disorders is the pathophysiological category. All autoimmune diseases are in :Category:Autoimmune diseases, even though they are also under :Category:Rheumatology, :Category:Pulmonology etc. JFW | T@lk 22:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Neurologic disorders" vs "Neurology"

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

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

message: Hey docs, it's very very quiet here. Would all of you mind helping out with obesity? I'm trying to get this article to featured article status in the view of all the media attention on this problem.
Also, I'm tidying up :Category:Medicine again. Some unscrupulous individuals think that they can categorise a medical article by slapping this category on it. Quod non. Please help sorting them out if you've got a minute. JFW | T@lk 07:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (Looking up from trench) Oh, it's you. Why don't you hop down in here with us and give us a hand instead of playing the tourist? alteripse 17:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categoryectomy 

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

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

message: Being new to wiki and having an intested in medicine, I was delighted to see that this project a) existed and b) was reasonably active.  I am a SHO in general medicine from Scotland and will be attempting to add my two-penneth to some articles, review stubs and generally help out.  There seems to be a lot of activity from a select few.  I hope that to be of use and also hope that you will help me in this new adventure.  I'll be attempting to coerse some of my colleagues to get involved.  If there is somewhere particular to start, mention it - if not I'll just take a look through the top priority page and see what the best use of my time will be. drjermy 14:25, 13 July 2005 (BST)
:Find your niche and hack away, I say. It's more about having fun. Tips from this old hand: (1) Use good references, (2) cover the main things, (3) remain systematic. JFW | T@lk 15:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Newbie

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

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

message: Achromatopsia currently redirects to Maskun, however, I was wondering if anyone would mind if I switched the redirect in the other direction. In Google, "Achromatopsia" gets about 20,700 hits and "Maskun" gets about 20,500 (but the vast majority appear to be Icelandic webpages or things unrelated to abnormal cone function). In PubMed, "Achromatopsia" gets 2,854 hits whereas "Maskun" gets only 1 (one). Please let me know if there are objections to switching the redirect. Edwardian 05:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Switching the redirect seems like a good idea; however, there's probably more to be done, as the two terms aren't synonymous.  Achromatopsia isn't only an inborn error of the cone; it's a general term for absence of color vision, and there's more than one kind of that, including permanent acquired achromatopsia from small right parieto-occipital strokes (some people argue that this is always color agnosia or color anomia, which verges on the philosophical.); and paroxysmal achromatopsia, described in some (extremely rare) cases of occipital lobe epilepsy (Brazis, Localization in Clinical Neurology mentions this; I've seen a case of it myself.)  -Ikkyu2 10:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent info. I've always used "color agnosia" when differentiating between the two (i.e. cone disorder vs. brain/mental disorder), but you're absolutely right. Edwardian 07:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect [[Maskun]] to [[Achromatopsia]]?

message: :Category:Medicine has been flooded with irrelevant stuff, e.g. poultry viruses. Could anyone help me depopulating it? JFW | T@lk 01:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How's that done? Simply remove the category template from the offending articles?—Encephalon | ζ  01:35:35, 2005-08-25 (UTC)
Yeah, or even better finding a more appropriate category. JFW | T@lk 01:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

text: "been flooded", have you identified someone actively adding :Category:Medicine tags, or is this just sloppy entries over time?  Will try and help out David Ruben 02:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Ah, get the gist - full of paracytology drugs... will edit away David Ruben 02:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

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

message: I have been taking a whack at epilepsy and some related pages lately.  I welcome your feedback or edits!   By the way, how come I'm the only American doctor here?  -Ikkyu2 10:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work. See list on one of the medical project pages: there have been a few American doctors over the last year but they come and go. alteripse 13:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: What makes you think you're the only American doctor? If you're counting residents, I'm one too. — Knowledge Seeker দ 16:18, August 30, 2005 (UTC) Residents certainly count! alteripse 16:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epilepsy 

message: Just discovered Wikipedia and the medical part of it. Have been adding categories to userpages of those suspected of being doctors or students. Should I have forgotten any please leave a category on your/their page. Here are the ones already guilty of being a doctor or student.
Furthermore I found some pages  (Hypermagnesemia, Hypomagnesemia, Paracentesis, Pleural effusion, Pulmonary edema, Thoracentesis) that need extra work. Presently I will redo these and hope they will be more up to standard. 
On these pages (Acute respiratory distress syndrome,Chest tube, Pleural effusion, Pneumothorax, Pulmonary edema, Thoracentesis) I would like to insert pictures but I am not sure if the ones I have are allowed. I have some nice ones from the net or out of medical journals. Maybe some of you might help. --Nomen Nescio 18:16, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
:Nescio, you're working unbelievably hard! Don't get overworked! You are likely to find many other medical pages that are substandard. We have the Medical Collaboration of the Week to iron out the most sorry examples, but the ones you've identified could all do with work.
:Images are a sore point. I always carry a small digital camera, but the most interesting images are of patients or their imaging, both of which have ethical concerns. Images from US Government sources are widely available, though, and could fix this problem. Alternatively, you may ask your patients if they would object against inclusion of an image in Wikipedia. I did this with Hickman line, but in an ideal world a written permission should be obtained.
:Images of medical technology should be easy to obtain (just snap a picture of a CVVH machine, a mechanical ventilator or a chest drain) but are less illustrative. JFW | T@lk 20:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finding those medically inclined 

message: Thank you to all who worked on it. About time medicine gets some more representation! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:07, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
:And congratulations too to User:Nrets and User:Semiconscious, for their work in bring Cerebellum to featured status too! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:09, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
:Wow! I'm very pleased both of these articles have moved on to FA status. A lot of hard work went into these two articles, and it has indeed paid off. Great job, let's keep the medicine articles coming! Semiconscious (talk · home) 18:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Asthma]] is now a [[WP:FA|featured article]]! 

message: The need to patrol medical articles is again emphasised. Have a look on Talk:Myocardial infarction. A well-meaning chap who thinks ouabain will cure myocardial infarction tries to push a link to his website. The danger of this is the pseudoscience dressed up as scientific opinion. Please be vigilant, all. JFW | T@lk 12:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left a message on the Myocardial infarction talk page too. I've provided links to Wikipedia's policy of no original research, verifiability and NPOV. I've also offered a mild middle ground, for the author to mention that ouabain is used in some alternative treatment, bu that it hasn't been tested thoroughly. Let's see if the user adds this info in a neutral (and factual) way. Mindmatrix 20:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myocardial infarction 

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

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

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

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

message: In case you're interested. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations! Edwardian 06:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Main Page]] 

message: Have finished this article. Maybe one of you might look at it and see if anything needs to be corrected. TIA --Nomen Nescio 18:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice, lots of info added, but keep in mind that you are not writing this in a medical textbook. I.e. explain things where necessairy and don't use phrases like "When confronted with low levels of magnesium we must think of the following conditions". Needs some more editing. --WS 18:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it is more or less complete as article I would think.--Nomen Nescio 22:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypomagnesemia 

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

message: Yes, I know it is a video game article. But would a kind soul in medical field please copyedit real life comparison section? Thanks. SYSS Mouse 13:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - InvictaHOG 15:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Corrupted Blood]] copyedit. 

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

message: Someone has uploaded a large number of pages containing nursing care plans.  kindly moved them into one category, namely :Category:Nursing care plans. I have looked at a number of these pages, and feel that most of their material is redundant.
Could you docs please comment on :Category_talk:Nursing care plans what you think? I'm in doubt whether to merge the contents and delete the page titles, or whether to send the whole lot to AFD. JFW | T@lk 14:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's on VFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nursing care plans. JFW | T@lk 18:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nursing plans

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

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

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

message: I just found this disclaimer. I guess it has been around for awhile but its use doesn't appear to be widespread. Does anyone think this, or some form of it, should be added to appropriate articles? If so, would it be better to make a "Medical disclaimer" tag to be added to appropriate articles instead? Edwardian 00:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a flurry of "disclaimer" making when templates first came out. We had disclaimers for legal and medical advice and nearly anything else you can imagine. Articles got cluttered up with them, and a decision was made that one link to the general disclaimer on every page would suffice (it's at the bottom of each served page as "Disclaimers"). The template you have found is linked to at the top of the general disclaimer page. It shouldn't be used in any actual articles. I think this is probably just fine as it is. - Nunh-huh 01:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Thanks! Edwardian 04:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer]]

message: The Wiki is sorely lacking psychiatrists. This is a sorry time for psychiatry. Some delightful anti-psychiatry-affiliated editors have marched onto the Wiki with a big box of POV and are now unpacking their ware at various mental health-related articles.
Being the busybody that I am I have asked  to be more NPOV in her work on psychiatry, clinical depression, E. Fuller Torrey, chemical imbalance theory, bipolar disorder and electroconvulsive therapy. I may need some help to lick these articles into a semblance of shape, as presently some of them are in a deplorable state.
Does any of you know a knowledgeable psychiatrist who would be interested in working on the Wiki?
PS has anyone followed the incident surrounding Simon Wessely? Jimbo intervened. JFW | T@lk 00:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychiatry under attack 

message: Multiple sclerosis. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Main Page]] 

message: I've done some work on hepatitis C. Could you all have a look to see if anything significant has been left out? We may be able to make this an MCOTW at some point, but images will be needed. JFW | T@lk 22:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've mentioned this one as a potential in the past. It's discrete, well-defined, common, and has many misperceptions. It was missing a lot before and looks a lot better now with genotypes, etc. It really needs a large section on complications like HCC, UGIB, ESLD, etc. Great work! InvictaHOG 01:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, other preventative issues like vaccination for hepA/B, endoscopy to quantify varices, etc. InvictaHOG 10:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hepatitis C 

message: Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Help is needed with the article on hypnosis, please see the recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pseudoscience. linas 02:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypnosis 

message: As discussed at Wikipedia talk:Medicine Collaboration of the Week#Systematic coverage of topics, it would be nice to have a place we can identify articles that need work, even though they may not be selected for the Collaboration. As I think I mentioned before here, I have begun work to try to organize this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. I don't know the best place for this, but since I'd like it to include both clinical and pre-clinical topics, it didn't make sense to place it at either one, nor does it really fit at WP:MCOTW either. The design and inspiration come from Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war#List of pages covered by the projectand Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Organization. Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/top priority and Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/categorizations will be useful in providing inspiration. I welcome any comments, suggestions, or assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome, I'd been reading that earlier this week after thinking that I keep coming across good (and bad) medical pages that would be nice to target, even with drive-by improvements from time to time. InvictaHOG 12:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine]] 

message: I wrote Seldinger technique. Comments please, and links from other articles... JFW | T@lk 11:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. I've been meaning to bring up moving central line to something more appropriate like central venous line or central venous catheter. I'd prefer the latter, but since it's come up I'll take any objections before I do it! InvictaHOG 15:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

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

message: Question crossposted from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science.
What is the technique of checking for brain trauma through eye movement properly called? Thanks in advance.
Circeus 21:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Googling for "extraocular movement" was very useful. Thanks ^_^Circeus 21:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Checking the pupils response to light to assess brain stem function is called pupillary reflex. --WS 22:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First aid technique 

message: I was wondering how eponymous diseases should be named. Is it with or without 's after the name of the doctor/describer. E.g. for an article I created recently, would the correct name be Farber disease or Farber's disease? At :Category:Eponymous diseases and List of eponymous diseases both seem to be used. What is most correct here? --WS 23:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been picking my way through some of the eponymous signs while I've been busy and have run into the same issue. I think that both should be linked to the same page (ie Farber's disease should not be red!). I think that the most appropriate way (from what I've read) to do it is without the apostrophe. After all, no one owns the disease, etc. Some diseases just sound better with the s, though! InvictaHOG 23:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. I think the current styles are shifting toward not using the apostrophe. My personal preference, though, is to use it (I can't bring myself to say Alzheimer disease instead of Alzheimer's disease). Not very helpful, I know—I guess I'd be in favor of using them, but I don't know what others' opinions are. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of eponymous diseases 

message: I have been busy adding a lot of new articles the last few days. Please have a look and improve them where needed. But what most of them lack most is incoming links. So if you know any article that should link to them, please add links.
The articles: Cholesteryl ester storage disease, Farber disease, Wolman disease, Lipid storage disorder, Pachydermoperiostosis, Pachygyria, Prostatic acid phosphatase, Bronchopulmonary dysplasia, Body donation, Widened mediastinum, Bifurcated rib, Neurolysis, Glossopharyngeal breathing, AIDS dementia complex, Annular pancreas, Congenital afibrinogenemia, Accessory pancreas, Pancreas divisum, Drion's pill, Megarectum --WS 23:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know Huib Drion had international fame! JFW | T@lk 00:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I am not sure he is that famous outside of the Netherlands, but he did make it into the BMJ. You make it sound like you knew him personally? --WS 00:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Nah. Just interested in medical ethics. JFW | T@lk 03:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New articles 

message: Following a suggestion from User:InvictaHOG, I split off Prostate cancer#Stages to a new article, Prostate cancer staging. As far as I know, this is the first Wikipedia staging article and I wasn't entirely sure how to structure it, how much detail to include, and so on. And of course, writing for a lay audience is a bit challenging. If anyone has a free minute, could you take a look at it and suggest/make any changes? Ideas for a different title are also welcome. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look at it tonight. Should be able to really work on prostate cancer now that I'm back from Thanksgiving! InvictaHOG 01:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It looks superb! Prostate cancer is one of the more difficult ones to start with as far as staging is concerned, too! InvictaHOG 03:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prostate cancer staging 

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

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

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

message: Would somebody mind taking a look at this edit to Lactic acidosis? It may be legitimate, but it's a big change, and it's by an anon with only 3 edits, and I'm not really familiar enough with the subject to evaluate the new information. --Arcadian 05:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of the edits should be reverted. Until I see evidence that basic chemistry has shifted dramatically in the last few days, there's no need for it to stay. Ask nicely for references, though, because it certainly doesn't seem malicious! InvictaHOG 05:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lactic acidosis

message: Nature recently did a comparison of the accuracy of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica's science articles. The following is a list of articles in Wikipedia (on biological/medical subjects) which they examined, with the number of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements they noted.  
*Agent Orange	2
*CJD (presumably Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease) 5
*Ethanol	5
*Lymphocyte	2
*Mutation	6
*Pheromone	2
*Prion	7
*Thyroid	7
*Andreas Vesalius	4
*West Nile Virus	5
Of course, we don't know what version they examined, so there could be more errors or less errors at present. It might be nice to look and see if we can catch some.  (They haven't published the specifics, though I gather we've requested them from them. It would be interesting to know what were counted as errors, so if you find one, you might want to discuss it on the article's talk page. - Nunh-huh 00:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nature/Accuracy 

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

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

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

message: I think the Wikipedia:Userboxes are rather silly, and yet they're strangely amusing as well. On a whim, I created  which you may place on your user page if you so desire. It will automatically place you in :Category:Physician Wikipedians as well. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And now there's  as well. Enjoy! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

message: I'm starting to get intractable urticaria from the long lists of "famous patients" in many health-related articles. On ovarian cancer the editors were even using horrible terminology like "stage IV disease, presently battling cancer" etc etc. We've had a succesful deletion of a list of famous pneumonia patients split off from pneumonia. I think we need to discuss a guideline for inclusion, possibly in the form of Wikipedia:Notable patients.
If a page on a person mentions his disease history or cause of death, there is no immediate need to cross-reference this to the relevant disease page. Only under very strict conditions should someone be included in a "list of notable cases":
* The disease episode made newspaper headlines
* The disease episode made an important contribution to the public perception of an illness (e.g. George Best and cirrhosis, Michael J. Fox and Parkinson's disease)
* The impact is lasting, not just through a memorial research funds trust
* There is reliable outside support (e.g. doctors commenting in newspaper articles, such as prof Roger Williams did in George Best's case).
Please tell me what you all think, and we can start up the guideline. It can then be used to clobber crufty editors who insist on including their icon's ingrown toenail in the relevant article. JFW | T@lk 13:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I split off the long breast cancer list, as I'm sure you saw. I personally don't care much if such lists exist, but I think that there should be references for each person and I think that large lists should be spun off into their own articles as soon as possible. InvictaHOG 17:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I did the same with the list of fat folks. If we just delete them from the article, we will either have reinsertions or edit wars. This way, we can thank them for their industry and send them off to play elsewhere. alteripse 22:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous patients 

message: Carcinogenesis is under an orthomolecular attack. JFW | T@lk 16:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have perused the deleted section on microevolution. What a load of nonsense. Someone has taken clonal selection and made a number of knights move assumptions. The specific statements are often innaccurate, incorrect, or out of context. Belongs firmly in the fringe hypotheses section. well done.Jellytussle 20:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

message: Anyone fancy an interesting read? Stealth-adapted viruses. JFW | T@lk 09:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is another one of Ombudsman's creations!  Andrew73 21:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stealth-adapted viruses 

message: A lot of medical pages incorporate text from the genetic home reference website . One of these, PPOX has been tagged as a copyright violation, because the terms and conditions  are not compatible with wikipedia. The copyright link at the bottom of the website  however clearly states that all information on the website is in the public domain. Which one is right and what should we do with this? --WS 22:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to satisfy the terms by placing the appropriate acknowledgement at the bottom. Unlike Prader-Willi syndrome, which is copied almost wholesale from genetests.org but which seems to grant copying with appropriate source and copyright information. I say it's valid and the copyvio should be lifted. InvictaHOG 22:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic home reference 

message: has created a new toy, called :Category:Medical controversies. I have created a WP:CFD for it at CFD/Medical controversies. Please offer your opinion. JFW | T@lk 19:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling it a category from hell is a bit of an exaggeration I think. --WS 00:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category from hell 

message: FYI, I've added optional parameters in Template:DiseaseDisorder infobox for image and caption. An example of it in use is at Laryngomalacia. I don't think this is too controversial, but I wanted to keep you in the loop. --Arcadian 16:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. --WS 18:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've made another change here, so that an ICD-O code, if present, appears on its own line (previously I had beeen putting ICD-O codes on the same line as ICD-10. An example of this in use is at Waldenström macroglobulinemia. I figured that was uncontroversial so I made the change without asking, but I have another change I'd like to propose that I wanted to ask about first. There are a few sources about medical conditions that I think are reliable and comprehensive enough to warrant inclusion in the template at the top of the article, to faciliate more consistent navigation. The four I've got in mind are OMIM,  MedlinePlus, eMedicine, and Diseases Database. Two of them are commercial sites (eMedicine and DD) but for both of them, the signal-to-noise ratio is really good. The rows would only be visible if the fields were populated. Examples of the last three are available at the bottom of Waldenström macroglobulinemia. Are there any objections (or suggestions for more appropriate sources)?  --Arcadian 18:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  FYI, the format and name of the template were changed last night by User:Netoholic, apparently as he did to many other templates last night. For now, I've reverted the formatting change but left the new name, and left a edit summary requesting that formatting changes be discussed here. Per the change described above, I'll assume if there is no objection by tomorrow that it is okay to put those new optional fields in.--Arcadian 22:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox change -- support for images

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

message: Experimental cancer treatment
This page is badly defined with a mix of genuinely experimental treatments (with explanations of variable quality) and some complete quackery. 
The quote "The entries listed below vary between theoretical therapies and treatments that will most likely become standard procedures within the next few years."
is certainly not justified. There is no mention of formal cancer trial structure etc. Needs a good prune, or to have the good bits merged, or to be deleted altogether.
Tumor
Some useful stuff here but really does not need to be separate from Cancer.
Jellytussle 00:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant Cancer Pages? 

message: Afib has been on awhile — I intend to work on it when I get time and get it to featured article status. However, the next month is going to be busy for me and it looks like work has stalled, so I was thinking others may want to move on to the next topic (AIDS has a lot of votes!) InvictaHOG 19:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is fine with me, don't have much to add to AF myself. AIDS will be quite a challenge I think. --WS 18:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine with me, as I've been pretty inactive recently, but perhaps this discussion should be taking place at WP:MCOTW's talk page, not here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There wasn't any obvious place to put it there...maybe we could just make a discussion section InvictaHOG 03:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Week? — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You mean aside from the fact that I forgot it existed?!? :) InvictaHOG 03:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MCOTW

message: I am moving Template:DiseaseDisorder infobox to Template:Infobox Disease because that is the naming convention used (Wikipedia:Infobox templates).  I am also updating a number of other formatting problems, such as failure to use proper row headers (see Wikipedia:Accessibility).  I was accused in a recent edit summary by User:Arcadian of acting "unilaterally", though this is a wiki and he should get over it, so I'm posting here. --  Netoholic @ 17:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for letting us know. Such moves affecting many articles are still best discussed with the people most affected by it. Arcadian, having worked a lot on this template, should at least been notified well in advance. JFW | T@lk 18:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is like me coming in here and saying that I'd like Arcadian to give me advance notice of any future changes as well.  This is a Wiki, remember? My changes were not that radical. They were subtle changes to the table structure that was done for good reason and to make this template a bit more standard. -- Netoholic @ 18:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Hi, I created a handy bookmarklet that will make a wikipedia reference when used on a pubmed abstract page, using Diberri's pmid converter. Add a bookmark to your bookmark toolbar with the following url:
 javascript:(function(){ var e,s; IB=1; function isDigit(c) { return (%220%22 <= c && c <= %229%22) } L = location.href; LL =L.length; for (e=LL-1; e>=0; --e) if (isDigit(L.charAt(e))) { for(s=e-1; s>=0; --s) if (!isDigit(L.charAt(s))) break; break; } ++s; if (e<0) return; if ((L.substring(s-10,s))=='list_uids=')pmid = L.substring(s,e+1); w=open('http://diberri.dyndns.org/pubmed.html?pmid=' + pmid,'add','width=800,height=300,scrollbars,resizable'); })();
When clicked while on a pubmed abstract page, it will open a new window with the properly formatted wikipedia citation for the article. Let me know if it works and if you think it is useful. I only tested it on firefox, I don't know if it works on internet explorer. --WS 10:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is done by pubmed for articles that are in foreign languages. English articles don't have them. --WS 23:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, thanks David Ruben  Talk  00:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pubmed reference bookmarklet

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

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

message: We still need to create articles for 5619 diseases! :-) See the brand new Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Missing diseases --WS 16:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is commendable, but a perusal through the first half of "A" raises some issues:
*Acute myeloblastic leukaemia types 1-7 are covered, more or less in the AML page.
*Adenocarcinoma of the lung is covered on the lung cancer page. a separate page on NSCLC might be reasonable
*Adrenal hyperplasia (and variants of that title) has quite a good page already.
*Alpha thalassaemia is covered on the Thalassaemia page
*Anaplastic thyroid cancer has a brief mention on the Thyroid cancer page.
*etc etc.
Do you want us to delete from that list anything which has obviously been covered in an appropriate section already?
Jellytussle 18:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The list was compiled from all red links in the list of diseases. For a lot of them a simple redirect is appropriate and should be enough (that is true for most of the cases you mention). But for others creating a small stub is better than a redirect, e.g. for nsclc that probably deserves its own article I think. I think it should be decided on a case-to-case basis. --WS 18:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed - I have already added 3 missing redirects so that all combinations of Alpha/Beta Thalassaemia (plus lowercase 't', plus for US spelling) have been included. David Ruben  Talk  22:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See also these guidelines at the project page. --WS 23:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I did a few too.  Some are just a little odd.  I made redirects from terms like buffalo hump to kyphosis, but deleted hypochodriasis with there already being an article on hypochondria.  A lot of these article requests could be satisfied with redirects to Wikipedia articles.  I suppose we should be sure there is something in the article relevant to the redirect.  Kd4ttc 23:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: I'm not a clinician, and not familiar with typical use of these terms so I was unsure if I should put a merge tag on these articles.  If merging the two is not advisable, hypoxemia could do with some cleanup.  --Uthbrian (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The terms are synonymous in most concepts. The extreme nitpickers among us would distinguish the two as follows: Hypoxia is a general deficiency of oxygen in the body. Hypoxemia is a deficiency of oxygen in the blood. You dont get one without the other and in clinical care people use the term hypoxia to mean both. So the articles should be merged with a one sentence explanation of the difference. alteripse 13:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've put a request for merge tag.  Andrew73 14:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

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

message: 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  for a more balanced review; unfortunately, I couldn't find anything at Pubmed.  --Uthbrian (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Morgellons]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Medical resident work hours 

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

message: This page is getting to be huge. Kerowyn 08:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive time?