Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 6

message: A request for peer review has been opened for Introduction to virus.  That is a request for editors like you to review the article.  --Una Smith (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Introduction to virus]] 

message: Hi! Could somebody, who knows enough about this matter, help? This article seems to involve legal and medical aspects... See main article Ryke Geerd Hamer... I personally would like to delete that article, but there seem to be quite rampant proponents for that article... I made that request already here, but got no reply yet... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think the article should be deleted.  There's a summary in Hamer's biography, which is plenty of attention for this bit of obscure quackery.  Germanic New Medicine could turn into a redirect page for the article on its "inventor."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Germanic New Medicine]] / request for help 

message: I significantly expanded this stub and nominated it for DYK on the main page (although it might still be 300 words short...). Please check it out, have a read and correct my spelling/grammar/wording and all the rest. Many thanks, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Irritable hip]] 

message: Comments invited on Talk:Cancer on the role of industrial pollutants and cancer. JFW | T@lk 16:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pollution and cancer 

message: I plan to submit for FAC early in the new year and the article would benefit from some input from the team. Please have a look at it. I will need some support on this.--GrahamColmTalk 17:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rotavirus]] 

message: I've nominated Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act, a featured article, to appear on the Main Page on January 16 2008, the 52nd anniversary of the introduction of the Act into the US Congress. Please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#January 16. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act]] Main Page nomination 

message: Are  adding external links on multiple topics to 
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/ (ATSDR - Case Studies in Environmental Medicine) helpful ? I suspect not in this blanket manner. David Ruben  Talk  02:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support removal of all links. What has Anniston, Alabama got to do with PCBs that is so important as to merit links? JFW | T@lk 22:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So done where they were the originator of the link. A WHOIS search was most illuminating - registered to The United States Centers For Disease Control in Atlanta, so WP:COI ! David Ruben  Talk  01:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, but what's their incentive for spamming? Are they trying to promote their work or something? Cool Hand Luke 01:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Do we need a motive? After the Bogdanov Affair I am convinced that scientists are not below using Wikipedia to further their personal agendas. JFW | T@lk 08:59, 23 December 2007 
some a y'all are paranoids, thats an official US government agency, how could ur own government and its official departments be spamming? yes its a "sensitive agency" in this day and age, and it does look like though this department is subtley encouraging people to join in to this research area, but its not exactly a spam the one i saw, its not saying "buy our product 19.95", but i will try to make some time to look at other examples, and cool name cool-hand-luke! 83.79.143.64 (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: "Spamming" on Wikipedia does not necessarily mean intent to sell a product. It may also serve to increase exposure to certain ideas or publications, fundraising or somesuch. Using Wikipedia for this purpose is generally frowned upon, as per WP:NOT, WP:EL and other content guidelines. JFW | T@lk 13:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proliferation of Case Studies in Environmental Medicine external links 

message: Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oxygen. --mav (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Reactive attachment disorder is at peer review. --WS (talk) 13:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Oxygen]] at FAC 

message: Two editors have tried to put a Google Groups URL on Devic's disease. Opinions are invited on Talk:Devic's disease. JFW | T@lk 16:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Devic's disease 

message: Should the article Paleolithic style diet be part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine (since it could be considered as a form of evolutionary medicine), or would it be more appropriately included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Medicine? Thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paleolithic style diet 

message: Could other editors look at Haloperidol repeated deletion of material on its emergency psychiatric role (albeit declining role as I had modified and cited), what seems POV-pushing undue-weight anti-psychiatry insertion of "Torture, Punishment, Interrogation" sections (also see discussion threads) and other minor disruption to the article. David Ruben  Talk  20:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've semi-protected it given the volume of edit-warring by this dynamic IP. This will hopefully encourage discussion rather than edit-warring regarding these controversial proposed edits. MastCell Talk 20:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haloperidol 

message: Ovarian cancer could use some attention;  it is accumulating text about that new miracle cancer treatment, a dab of ginger. The same text appears on Ginger. --Una Smith (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ginger as a treatment is right up there with marshmallow fluff. Thanks for the note. Antelan talk 06:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, good old-fashioned skepticism... Brings tears to my eyes... Seriously, when there are further studies (i.e. in vivo ones, maybe even on people some day), this may certainly warrant a mention. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ginger and cancer 

message: I am pleased to report that every article in WikiProject Medicine's automatically assessed articles category has been manually reviewed.  The category is now empty, and I'll be getting back to my usual list of unassessed articles soon.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is brilliant. Compliments to the reviewers. Perhaps you could report here quickly which important articles are in serious need of improvement? JFW | T@lk 20:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The WPMED Quality vs Importance table shows over 50 articles of Top importance with quality below GA.  Most (all?) of the 50 are listed here. --Una Smith (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that, WhatamIdoing. Unprotected sex needs urgent redirection to safe sex, which provides much more context and deals with the relevant topic comprehensively. I totally agree that anatomy, physiology, pathology and articles about the main medical specialties are in need of improvement. JFW | T@lk 01:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I merged Unprotected sex into Safe sex. --Una Smith (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Quality is probably judged quite accurately but we need to look at priority: I don't think we have our priorities straight, especially if you consider the commonest keywords on search engines are probably diabetes and all conditions related to gynecology (such as vaginal infection) and pediatrics. I think we should be more aware of our position on search engines, and were possible article titles should match likely keywords, plus priority should go to popular health searches. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 01:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Could someone build an index to medical articles by priority (=importance)?  That would be somewhat helpful here. --Una Smith (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem with importance categories is that they are not subdivided by quality. :-)  So, for example, to find the one article rated Top and Stub I estimate its relative position in the articles-by-quality index by adding the row totals for FA, A, GA, and B, and dividing by 400.  That gives me a rough idea which index page to look on.  In some cases, it would be helpful to have a parallel index of articles-by-importance. --Una Smith (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Opinions on importance must be guided by an overarching principle. Is an important article (1) a "big killer", (2) a popular search term on Google, (3) a common chronic but non-lethal disease, (4) something weird & horrible? I have previously felt that we should have very good articles on cancer, heart disease, stroke etc, but I agree with Steven that most people will be looking for high-quality content on how to treat their acne, stop getting vaginal candidiasis or find something to take them through the day when they've got a headache. With most of us being either medical students or practising doctors, it is easily forgotten that mouth ulcers may be more debilitating than community-acquired pneumonia. Perhaps a hierarchy of importance would need to take into account both the popularity of the subject and their impact on health in general. JFW | T@lk 08:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triumph 

message: My husband has been going to doctors, had an MRI, had X-rays, and they can't figure out what is wrong with his shoulder/neck area.  He is in so much pain, and they can't put their finger on it.  Chiropractor and family doctor haven't figured it out yet.  Any thoughts on what it could be?  He was in a motorcycle accident about 10 years ago, and has a large scar on his shoulder blade if that means anything.  Thank you68.79.97.243 (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry that your husband is in pain.  However, this page won't attract much useful help; it's primarily about which medicine-related articles need some editing work.  May I suggest that you post your question at the reference desk instead?   WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Folks, if if this were your concern, how would you use Wikipedia to answer it?  Where would you start looking?  How about Neck pain?  Imagine for a moment you are this reader, who may be struggling to express her questions.  Her husbands' doctors seem to have ruled out local physical causes of pain, which leaves what alternatives?  Some come to my mind immediately:  Referred pain and (ahem) zoster sine herpete and/or Postherpetic neuralgia.  Can you see how Neck pain could be improved, to help this reader (and others) find answers to her questions? --Una Smith (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulged disc/neck/shoulder pain/no one knows 

message: Anyone else noticed and/or consider it problematical that the Vitamin C article on the supposedly more authoritative Citizendium is being largely written by an ex-Wikipedia editor who exhibited a strong pro-megadosage alignment here? The Citizendium piece - currently at draft stage - has a distinctly polemical edge to its general historical section, and its links focus heavily on sources that would be viewed as partisan here. 86.155.205.144 (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck dealing with this Paulingite. I'm afraid we can do little about problems on Citizendium. JFW | T@lk 20:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it interesting, though, that a more authoritative, accurate, and neutral representation of the state of the art can be achieved via controlled chaos (Wikipedia), as opposed to Citizendium's approach? Of course, entrusting the Vitamin C article to an editor with a chip on his shoulder about "the costs in terms of suffering and early deaths of the lack of conscience of many scientists in the life sciences", who was unable to work within the constraints of verifiability, neutrality and collaboration on Wikipedia, probably does not help matters. MastCell Talk 20:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair to Citizendium, the article hasn't yet been approved; but that it's been allowed to develop so far, even as a draft, with such blatant bias isn't a good sign. Anyhow, just a heads-up for anyone interested. 217.44.18.22 (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vitamin C on Citizendium 

message: Hi all,
could anyone create a little Project welcome message for new editors who add themselves to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Participants, so that people watching that page can welcome newcomers and point them to essential resources like this talk page, collaboration, WP:MEDMOS, Portal:Medicine, ...
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participant welcome 

message: I'm sorry for the late update, but I didn't want to choose a new collaboration until the reconstrution process is finished. So we should start the new year with focusing on the Rhabdomyolysis article. Happy new year and thank you for your important and valuable contribution to the medical part of our encyclopaedia. I hope we can work together in 2008 as well. NCurse  work 22:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Berci. I think most us will have something to contribute to rhabdomyolysis. From the discussions (now archived) I think there was consensus that MCOTW needed overhaul, but there is no consensus as to what needed to happen. So I agree that we might as well continue trying... JFW | T@lk 00:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New collaboration of the fortnight 

message: Common cold has been nominated for good article status.  Comments (and improvements) solicited. Regards—G716 <T·C> 04:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Common cold]] nominated for GA 

message: Help would be appreciated.  --Una Smith (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Infectious diarrhea]] needs cleanup 

message: Factors that trigger vasoconstriction are of exogenous origin, i.e. medication, endogenous, i.e. as a response from the body itself and others.
Isn't the use of endogenous as an example of exogenous a contradiction? 201.230.69.224 (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That appears to be a copyediting error.  Please be bold and fix it.  --Una Smith (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Please be bold and fix it.  --Una Smith (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vasoconstriction 

message: On the dysmetria page it is stated that: "Hypermetria describes undershooting intended position and hypometria describes overshooting intended position". As far as I'm aware, hypermetria means 'too much movement' which would imply the overshooting of the intended position. Hypometria implies a lack of movement, which results in undershooting. In other words: shouldn't those two descriptions be switched?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.82.49.207 (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they should.  Please go right ahead and do it.  --Una Smith (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it myself. --Una Smith (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dysmetria]] article 

message: The intro to Fibromyalgia includes this statement cited from Rheum Int, specifically here:
"Though recognized as an independent clinical syndrome, the pathophysiology behind fibromyalgia may actually be secondary to several clinical entities, ranging from a mild, idiopathic inflammatory process in some individuals, to a somatoform disorder resulting from clinical depression in others, with probable overlaps in between.  Current diagnostic criteria are insufficient to differentiate these entities."
This statement has been repeatedly removed by one individual b/c he states that it is "controversial."
My recollection was that the American College of Rhemotology issued a very similar statement in times past.  Is this statement truly controversial, or am simply misinterpreting medical consensus? Djma12 (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this individual providing any mainstream sources that dispute that the ACR article? Antelan talk 05:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he is not.  He simply states that he finds it "dubious". Djma12 (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The solution is simple:  find a source for the disputed statement, and cite the source. --Una Smith (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The burden, of course, will be on the person who thinks that this source exists. Not saying that I doubt it exists, because I simply don't know, but I am saying that Djma12 should certainly not be expected to bear this burden. Antelan talk 17:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Heck, on Wikipedia the fact that HIV causes AIDS is apparently "controversial". :) I agree with the earlier comments, but would just add that the sentences listed at the top of the thread by User:Djma12 contain some heavy-duty medicalese. I'm not in favor of unecessarily dumbing things down, but is this material described more accesibly elsewhere in the article? MastCell Talk 22:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can try to make the intro a little more accessible if that will help :-) Djma12 (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fibromyalgia Pathophysiology 

message: An RfC has been created on  Talk:Biopsychiatry controversy on the subject: "Is the majority viewpoint of the psychiatric profession, and particularly of the psychiatric research community, that the biopsychiatric model of psychiatry is, by and large, accepted or rejected?" Comments from editors involved in this article/project may prove useful. HrafnTalkStalk 06:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on [[Talk:Biopsychiatry controversy]] 

message: Our friend User:Emmanuelm has reinserted his "soft redirects" into tumor and neoplasia articles again.  Several editors disagreed with his zero-consensus decision to discourage expansion of those articles a few weeks ago.  I have restarted the talk page discussion on Talk:Neoplasia.  Does anyone have a suggestion for making this stop on a more permanent basis?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I discussed these points in the talk page of Neoplasia. Emmanuelm (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emmanuelm, again 

message: The medical term "functional" is something that many patients do not understand, and as yet it is also not well explained on Wikipedia.  --Una Smith (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cynically, jfdwolff commented: are you suggesting doctors do understand? JFW | T@lk 18:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Functional" 

message: Anyone in the mood to tidy up a recent addition to thyroid hormone resistance. I looked at it, realised it was potentially useful, but then lost the will to do anything potentially complicated. JFW | T@lk 21:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Felt sorry for you, then started to actually read the turgid soul-sapping article promoting idea of T3 deficiency as cause fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome ... deletion seemed a simple approach, but suspect might just breach WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:AGF and everything else we hold dear :-) Lets see how far I can get (I doubt very far)....David Ruben  Talk  01:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No apparent PubMed hits to directly support 3 doctors views as boldly as the edits suggest. Totally lacks citations from reliable sources to verify, and even if this addressed then WP:UNDUE weight applies to length of this. see Talk:Thyroid hormone resistance#January 2008 edits. For now I've moved to its own section of Thyroid hormone resistance#Claims of cause of fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndromes and suitably tagged, but in all honesty might be better removed and placed into talk page to be discussed & worked-up, to be then promptly précised-down :-) David Ruben  Talk  02:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you notice that, according to one of the sources, the 8th International Workshop on Resistance to Thyroid Hormone was held in October 2007 on San Miguel in the Azores? I think priority one is for us to attend the next meeting (in Ibiza?) and go from there. We need to be educated on the subject, after all. MastCell Talk 04:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey sounds good to me, certainly an improvement on past wikimeetup locations :-) But what to call it on my year performance assessment - Wikidays or holipedia clearly not work-related, certainly wikiference less suspect than conpedia ?  David Ruben  Talk  23:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It appears that the information was added by an anonymous editor who was describing her (his?) personal experience/beliefs.  I don't really think we'll be able to get useful sources from the editor.  I doubt that we'd even be able to successfully contact the editor.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thyroid hormone resistance 

message: The Acoustic Neuroma article discusses the two available courses of treatment (microsurgery and radiotherapy), but does not discuss available literature on treatment outcomes. While a surgical procedure is a 'success' if the neuroma is removed, to the patient, post-surgery consequences are extremely important, and are not discussed to any great extent, but should be.
There appears to be conservative bias towards microsurgery in this article. The very high proportion of microsurgery patients that experience post-operative disability, long recovery periods, hearing loss and facial nerve damage, including pain and numbness of facial muscles should be taken into account in recommending treatment, especially since radiosurgery results appear to be improving and post operative complications are few.
Current literature seems to recommend microsurgery in cases where the neuroma is very large in size, growing rapidly or both and threatening imminent injury to the patient -- in that case, radiosurgery is not indicated as it is likely to produce short term post procedure swelling.
However, in many cases, the long recovery period, risk of facial nerve damage and hearing loss can be a very significant factor to most patients, especially if it interferes with future employment or activity. Radiosurgery is an important treatment alternative and may be the only reasonable course of treatment for those with slow growing, relatively small neuromas. Rarkm (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Go right ahead.  That article needs work.  So do the related articles below. --Una Smith (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Rarkm, you have the advantage of being an ideal reader for these articles.  Edit them for the person you were back when "neuroma" was not part of your vocabulary.  Make a list of the things you were confused about, the "oh, now I get it" key details, etc.  To get sources that are not free on the internet, try interlibrary loan at a public library in your area, or e-mail the corresponding authors.  You can get their e-mails often by following links from PubMed to the journal publisher website, where the article abstract page may reveal the e-mail address.  Sometimes the e-mail address is in the PubMed record and will display if you use one of the more detailed views such as Abstract or Abstract Plus.  Or do a Google search on the first or last author in the author list, and find the author that way.  Explain you want a reprint of the article for Wikipedia.  In my experience, most authors are delighted to help in this way.  If all else fails, let us know what you need and maybe someone here can get you a copy.  --Una Smith (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acoustic Neuroma (Vestibular Neuroma): Treatment outcomes 

message: There's a small overlapping mess in the Dose-related articles.  Dosing has been asserted to be materially different from Dose (toxicology, medicine).  Pages in the orbit include:
* Dose Profile
* Dose concentration
* Effective dose
* Absorbed dose
* Equivalent dose
and possibly more.  Anyone want to take a crack at it?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dose 

message: Why is medical advice a simple redirect to physician?  I think that something more like legal advice would be appropriate.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  --Una Smith (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, I've started the new medical advice page.  I can't believe how hard it was to find sources.  Surely there's a textbook someplace that says, "Medical advice involves these three things, and don't do it until you're duly licensed"?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical advice 

message: It is not our job as WP editors to say whether or not a given clinical trial has merit.  I know it can be hard for a physician (or physician in training :-) to suspend the practice of giving advice.  In the case of a condition such as Alzheimer's disease, or AIDS, where there are many, many trials underway, I think WP can play an important role in grouping these trials according to approach, in explaining their immediate objectives and the scientific reasoning behind their designs, and in reporting their outcomes.
On Spina bifida, I wrote a very brief summary of one clinical trial, replacing text added by someone with an apparent interest in recruiting patients for the trial.  It is not a very good example of "just the facts ma'am", but it is an example.
There is incredible bitterness among many parents of children enrolled in clinical trials, the common theme being that although the parents were informed they did not really understand what they were signing up for.  Their primary sources of information are twofold:  recruiters and other parents on private support groups.  Recruiters have a vested interest.  Support groups often are weak on the crucial technical details and sometimes forbid debate and full exchange of information (which may be mis-labeled as "medical advice").
Another gap in information that I see often is this:  when a clinical trial is suspended or terminated, there may be no public explanation of why, and patients often do not recognize these steps as red flags.
--Una Smith (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You've identified two major problems in clinical research: the quality and "informedness" of informed consent, and the non-publication of negative results or suspended trials. However, the leap seems to be that Wikipedia should try to fix these problems. I don't think that's the role of Wikipedia. We should definitely not be tolerating overt "recruitment" for clinical trials here. On the other hand, we should not be in the business of raising "red flags" or trying to explain a clinical trial more fully than its IRB-approved consent documents do. MastCell Talk 22:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ... which is why we need some general guidelines an which studies are and which ones are not useful/notable without prejudice on the methodology etc. When faced with a multiplicity of research (as in Alzheimer's), a lot of weeding out can be done by selecting phase III (or maximally phase II in extremely promising interventions) trials in journals with a highish impact factor. JFW | T@lk 06:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in general. However, some fields are less evidence-based than others (I'm thinking of my own here). Many interventions are adopted based on Phase II (or worse) data, while some Phase III trials fail to have an impact on practice for a variety of reasons. I don't know what the best answer is - I wouldn't want to exclude important studies with a "Phase III" requirement, but we ought to have some formal means of filtering out the dozens of pilot studies which tend to find their way into articles. It might be best to start with standard practice guidelines from major organizations, or Cochrane-type evidence reviews, and work backward to the primary sources used by those expert groups (to avoid potentially idiosyncratic use of the evidence). Of course, not every topic has a Cochrane review available... MastCell Talk 23:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Information without judicious opinion

message: This article is in desperate need for editing from qualified individuals well versed in the medical literature.  There is also an edit war with a solitary editor who keeps reverting RFC opinion concerning the intro.  
Please feel free to stop by and give your opinion in the RFC on the talk page. Djma12 (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the feeling that solitary editor is well on his way to the Arbitration Committee. JFW | T@lk 23:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help with [[Fibromyalgia]]!! 

message: Anyone with knowlege or interest in the OPV AIDS hypothesis is invited to stop by and contribute. I'm not an expert by any means. There is a definite push to assign more WP:WEIGHT to the hypothesis, and currently we're being offered citations to the Papua New Guinea Medical Journal (seriously) and to rejected submissions to Science available on various websites as weighty and reliable sources. MastCell Talk 19:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OPV AIDS hypothesis 

message: A move of Down syndrome to Down's Syndrome has been proposed. Anyone care to weigh in? My watchlist is quickly, quickly becoming unmanageable...Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Down syndrome move request 

message: Anybody want to write Critical illness polyneuropathy? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd love to, but not before I've improved rhabdomyolysis, myasthenia gravis, stroke, alcoholic hepatitis etc. JFW | T@lk 21:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just surprised we don't have this... I keep being surprised by the amount of work that is still ahead of us. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pfft.  We're just trying to capture centuries of medical discovery, worldwide. --Una Smith (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm looking at it too. There is quite a bit of overlap with critical illness myopathy, so I'm thinking of making that a redirect and covering both in the article. Probably too much overlap to generate two separate articles. MastCell Talk 23:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested article 

message: I am brand new to Wikipedia. I would like some help spreading the word about a treatment for Alzheimer’s called Cognitive Retention Therapy that was developed by my Uncle based on my Grandmother Mira Ashby's work for Brain injury rehabilitation.
Thanks for any help you can provide.
Chris Ashby (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Help please

message: This is a courtesy notice that the article  Adult-child sex has been nominated for deletion.
Discussion in progress at this link:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination)
All editors are welcome to enter comments. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Adult-child sex]] - article nominated for deletion 

message: I killed a bunch of chat rooms and blogs from medicine-related articles today.  There's probably many more to go, but it's a start.  You are hereby warned that the usual patient advocates may be irritated about having their favorite chat room delisted.  I am watching very few of these pages, so please feel free to find me on my talk page if you want me involved in any discussions that come up.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An anonymous editor keeps deleting an encyclopedic reference and adding links to his/her Yahoo! Groups chat board at Seborrhoeic dermatitis.  I've left a note on the Talk page.  If several people would add that article to their watchlists for the next week or two, then we might be able to step on the reversions a little faster.  Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Watchlisted. MastCell Talk 18:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, this list is a bit horrifying. I removed a couple dozen links to Yahoo! health discussion forums, but started fatiguing. Anyone else want to take a look? MastCell Talk 19:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Uh oh: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch/groups.yahoo.com. 4261. That needs a different kind of premedication altogether... JFW | T@lk 21:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could suggest that as a task for a bot? Colin°Talk 22:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair warning:  External links 

message: An anon editor is unhappy that I deleted a link to a microtia-related charity.  (It provides funding for microtia surgery, but I saw very little information about the condition on their website.)  If the complaints keep going, then it would be nice to have someone else involved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Microtia

message: I'm working on a project dealing with heart transplants, and I needed to know the "field" in which heart transplantation would be considered.  Rather, what field all transplants would come under.  Would this be immunology?  Please help! (I wasn't sure if this was where to ask my question...) 68.109.10.26 (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello! Nice to see that this important topic will improve! I think we should use the immunology category and the :Category:Transplantation medicine as well. Let us know if you need any kind of help. NCurse  work 18:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think this is a helpdesk-style question, actually. Transplantation is surgical, for starters. Transplantation of individual organs probably comes under the purview of the surgical specialty that deals with those organs normally. That is, there is no overarching "transplantation" specialty. For example, a cardiothoracic surgeon would do heart transplantation, but not a liver transplantation. Hope that makes some sense. Antelan talk 19:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A medicine question... 

message: I am traveling, with limited access to a slow dialup.  There is no such diagnostic entity as "rage attacks", they are not linked to Tourette syndrome, and there is no such thing as "rage epilepsy".  I think this article needs to be AfD'd; it appears to be the work of one author.  It is speculation unsupported by medical evidence as far as I know.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Explosive kids"? I mean, really? The first cited source states "Rage attacks is not a recognized diagnostic disorder or term [...]"! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When has that ever stopped Wikipedia? MastCell Talk 07:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rage Epilepsy]] 

message: I have run across an article called Sublingual immunotherapy just now.  I know nothing about it except what's in the article.  Has anyone heard of it?  Is it effective?  Should it have an alt-med tag on it?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The science behind the idea is sound, but this is an emerging treatment approach.   and  are promising;   abstract says guidance issued, but someone will have to read the paper to find out what that guidance is. --Una Smith (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've read about it, this has been studied for quite a few years now as an alternative to desensitisation using injections. It has little to do with alt-med. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone know anything about sublingual immunotherapy? 

message: Obesity hypoventilation syndrome has been improved (I think). Comments and ruthless copyediting invited. I will try to find some illustrations. JFW | T@lk 12:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could anyone add anything about the importance of papilloedema in this condition? JFW | T@lk 14:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snore... gasp... 

message: I went through all ~40 articles rated High and Stub, and demoted many of them from High or promoted them from Stub.  A few I think deserve special attention:
Short list for improvement:
*Microsleep
*Patient education
*Pelvic examination
*Stethoscope 
Merge into / reorganize wrt others:
*Arthroplasty
*Allograft
*Fetal screening 
*STD testing
*Stethophone 
--Una Smith (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated again, now just 13 high stubs, listed here. --Una Smith (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI: I've just merged Actimetry and Actigraph into Actigraphy.  Maybe not just a stub anymore?  --Hordaland (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks, you are quick! I'm no expert, just thought the 3 articles about essentially the same thing was unnecessary. It can't be 'good' without more references, which shouldn't be hard to find.  And I'm not sure all the commercial links are a good idea.  It's a Start, as you say. --Hordaland (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think most of the recent re-classifications are fine, but "pelvic exam" and possibly "self-care" may deserve extra points based on their potential for popularity with normal readers.  I wouldn't object to lowering the ratings on several others:  functional symptom, medical advice, patient education, standards of care.  I can see these both ways:  they are clearly fundamental concepts for professionals, but they may not attract any normal readers.  I've also been wondering whether pharmacotherapy ought to be merged with Medication.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, merge Pharmacotherapy into Medication.  I think functional symptom, medical advice, and standards of care are high importance;  they are very important to patients too.  --Una Smith (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I moved the information from Pharmacotherapy into Medication.  However, I see that there are links to a journal by that name; should the now-redundant stub become a redirect to Medication, or a stub for the journal?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like Pharmacotherapy should be a disambiguation page. --Una Smith (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I looked around. I would make Pharmacotherapy a redirect to Medication, and work the external links etc into that article.  The link to that journal website is link spam, by the way, I'd delete it. --Una Smith (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  High stubs 

message: For which article can it be usefull? Alex Spade (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My Russian is quite rubbish. Transcranial doppler, which is what I suspect this machine is for, already has an image that seems to have been cropped from the one under discussion. Why are you asking? It's an image on commons, so it may be in use at other projects. JFW | T@lk 21:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think he's asking because he uploaded the picture and he wants to add it to any relevant articles. Axl (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Doppler ultrasound analyzer of blood velocity.jpg]] 

message: I'm slightly confused about how we should be linking article fulltext in references when the fulltext is available free on PubMed Central. My personal practice is not to include the link in the "url=" parameter of  but to use the template  with the PMC article ID (not the PMID) as the article's identifier. What am I meant to be doing? Is there any need for the PMC template at all? JFW | T@lk 22:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I never use  so I use  a lot; I see no need to delete it. I thought PMC had switched all of their IDs to PMID, and the differences had disappeared? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I always use PMC when it's available; when the article is available from the journal website or Medscape, I simply add a regular link titled "Free full text"—I never use the url= parameter, though I'm not sure why :)  does still use the PubMed Central ID, not the article PMID. Changing this would be simply a matter of making the template use  instead of , but then all links would have to be updated! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PMC links 

message: I've submitted a peer review request for concussion, I was hoping someone familiar with neurotrauma could check it over for any factual errors or distortions that I may have introduced by accident (I'm not an expert). Thanks much! delldot talk 18:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:Peer review/Concussion]] 

message: We have an anonymous editor, , who's been adding links plus text to various articles such as Scoliosis, Low back pain‎, Fall prevention, etc. He's continued doing this despite requests to stop. Before we blacklist these links, I want to check with more knowledgeable editors as to whether these are links we want or not.
These links are being discussed at:
*Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Help with user 84.222.140.56
Thanks for any light you can shed on this. Thanks, --A. B. (talk)  20:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's obvious COI spam. Any secondary sources that could help us? JFW | T@lk 23:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.rothbartsfoot.info -- quackery or useful 

message: In the first two sentences, this article asserts that Oral allergy syndrome is an allergic reaction to various kinds of food, and that it is not a food allergy.  Do we have anyone here who knows where, exactly, to draw this line?   WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Aggh - Article is in a mess. Term "Oral allergy syndrome", as the article currently uses, would suggest specific food allergies to various fruits where associated with various pollen-allergies. However some papers on PubMed use term for any fruit-allergy even where no pollinosis, and some even for non-fruits (raw fish in Japan). The article need radical lead-in definition rewrite, or merger to Food allergy. I've posted a long series of discussion points and references at Talk:Oral allergy syndrome#Merge proposal with Food allergy. Please discuss there to help clarify use of the term, or whether to merge.David Ruben  Talk  04:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oral allergy syndrome 

message: There is an RFC which will be of interest to wikiproject participants at Talk:Homeopathy#RFC: Should homeopathy be described as quackery in the intro? and heated discussion elsewhere on that talk page.  Please weigh in.  Thank you. MilesAgain (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  homeopathy quackery? 

message: This newish page, Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology, appears to need an editor (or several) to -- well, I basically think the whole article should be deleted, no matter what its primary author thinks about his favorite article.  I'd be willing to entertain a merge with List of syndromes and diseases with unknown etiologies or other improvements, but the basic idea seems to be promoting some WP:SYNTH ideas.  I really don't understand how it survived the original prod.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A hopeless WP:SYNTH - would support WP:BOLD and redirecting, but try to involve the original author  before doing so. JFW | T@lk 00:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the primary author can give a little more clarity on the organization of this article, I would support you in WP:BOLD efforts. Djma12 (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Vote now closed, outcome was list deleted. David Ruben  Talk  04:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of syndromes and diseases with unknown etiologies - hopeless list IMHO. Please vote. JFW | T@lk 22:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Vote now closed, outcome was list deleted. David Ruben  Talk  04:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD List of syndromes and diseases with unknown etiologies

message: Wikipedia has 2 articles: William C. Dement and William C. DeMent.  Can one of you doctors please ask Dr. De[mM]ent how he wants his name spelled?  Maybe it's a matter of contention within the family, but Wm. C. must have (had) a standard signature?  We need to know which of these article titles to keep if we're to merge them.  
Please be so kind as to answer on one of the two articles' talk pages.  Thanks.  --Hordaland (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: His website at Stanford does not capitalise the M. I am merging the pages into the former. JFW | T@lk 17:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DeMent vs. Dement 

message: I think we have the same kind of problem with Template_talk:Obstetrical_procedures.  It's tagged, but it's not getting placed in the correct category.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope - different problem.  The "C" in "class" was capitalized, and the template requires it to be in lowercase.  I fixed this on the talk page.  --Scott Alter 03:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Part 2

message: Dear colleagues from the English wiki; concernig our article on Emergency medicine I don't know, if "emergency medicine" is in anglo-american countries (for example the US) really a speciality like surgery or urology? - Redlinux (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in the UK, although only recently developed its own Royal College and specialty examinations. Axl (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hallo Axl, to enable us to compare it with the German speciality examinations; do You know how long it - approximately - takes to achieve the title "emergency medicine"? 2 years, five years? Many greetings Redlinux (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the U.S., emergency medicine is a recognized specialty, accredited by the American Board of Emergency Medicine. The residency is typically 3 years following graduation from medical school, though some are 4 years. It's a relatively new specialty but a fairly popular one. MastCell Talk 18:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank You for Your answer. I don't know much about the US- system of accreditation. In our country a speciality can just be accredited by the "chamber of physicians"; so a speciality of a "Board of Surgeons" or  "Board of Emergency medicine" would not officially be recognized, although there are also non-official organisations doing similar. So my questions - is this different in the United states? Who accreditates an official speciality maybe like surgery, internal medicin, urology and so on; also a similar "Board of surgery"? - Maybe this question sounds silly in Your ears, but I'd ask You to answer, cause otherwise, I cannnot compare the education of Your country and ours. We also have the speciality "Emergency medicine" in in many German countries; but it is of less value then surgery or urology; we call those specialities "additional speciality". So for example in my case, I have the speciality "Internal medicine" and some additional specialities like "Sportsmedicine, Emergency medicine ..." Many greetings Redlinux (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Emergency medicine used to be predominantly a surgical subspecialty, but it is now attracting more physicians as well. The British Association for Emergency Medicine is the "Royal" College as David indicated. Under Modernising Medical Careers, emergency medicine has its own core training ("acute care common stem") that includes intensive care, acute general medicine, emergency medicine and so on. I have the feeling this is going to be a temporary thing. JFW | T@lk 07:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ooh, the BAEM and the College for Emergency Medicine are merging this months and are applying for Royal Charter: http://www.emergencymed.org.uk/Merger/ - wish them luck. JFW | T@lk 07:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank You for the hints; so I think, what we call speciality is the same as a Consultant. - So can a physician became a Consultant in Emergency medicine, Sportmedicin or so on? Redlinux (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speciality (Consultant) "Emergency medicine"? 

message: I was updating some info on CABG and PCI today and came across the coronary stent and drug-eluting stent articles.  The DES page appears to have been largely created as a marketing page by one of the device companies - it has since been cleaned up by other users.  The coronary stent page was a stub and did not meet wiki guidelines.  A lot of the information on the DES page should be moved onto the PCI or coronary stent page.  The DES page should be about the drug-eluting stents themselves; the info on placement and complications should be on the PCI page, the history of stents should be on the coronary stent page.  The credit for the picture of the stent on the DES page is the FDA - the FDA  may not be the originator of the picture - it could be used with permission of Boston Scientific. I have already made some of these changes, but there is still more to be done - more eyes looking at it would be good. Dlodge (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the readership would be best served if we merged everything into coronary stent (or even percutaneous coronary intervention). There would be ample space to discuss the bare metal vs drug-eluting stent controversy. We need a place to discuss the rationale for a choice between stents (e.g. it is better to use bare metal stents in situations where anticoagulation for other indications in ongoing, e.g. in atrial fibrillation, and 1 year of clopidogrel in addition to warfarin would give an unacceptable bleeding risk). JFW | T@lk 07:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think DES deserves its own article, but a lot of the content of that article can definitely be merged into a coronary stent article, again separate from PCI. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coronary stents 

message: Has anyone ever heard of Random hypertension phases?  Google's only hits are derived from copies of this article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've prodded it. The original creator seems to have left, and it is unverifiable waffle. JFW | T@lk 07:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random hypertension phases 

message: Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects. 
Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.
If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 16:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder of the Philip Greenspun Illustration project 

message: Raynaud's phenomenon and Raynaud's disease disagree about the proper name for secondary Raynaud's: whether it is Raynaud's phenomenon or Raynaud's syndrome, and if it's the former, what to call the concept that embraces both primary and secondary. I made some lengthy comments on both talk pages, and built a tentative Dab at Raynaud's (replacing a worse Rdr). But i refrained from making any changes to the substance of the two articles, leaving that to someone who has some idea what they are doing.
It is also unclear to me whether Raynaud's is worth 2 or 3 articles: the 3 would be primary, secondary, and an article they would both lk to, stating the aspects they have in common and defining the core distinction. 
They probably also lack Cat tags, and all the incoming Dabs and Rdrs should be checked against editor's responses to the belief that R's p and R's d are synonyms. --Jerzy•t 09:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, yeah: it's probably worth trying to get separate pics where the patients have secondary and primary respectively. (As it is, i guess the shared pic could be primary without either article's caption lying, but it looks suspicious, and sleazy even if the suspicions are unfounded.) --Jerzy•t 09:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raynaud's 

message: I have recently had personal discussion with Jamie McClelland regarding the naming of Maze procedure, particularly if it should be renamed back to the original minimaze.  A discussion can be found on the talk page.  Unless there is objection, could someone with admin privileges rename maze procedure to minimaze and move the associated history.  Dlodge (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maze procedure 

message: Rhabdomyolysis is on peer review. Please offer your comments on Wikipedia:Peer review/Rhabdomyolysis. JFW | T@lk 15:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: Requesting assistance at Pregnancy - some questions and issues have recently arisen concerning the accuracy and layout of the article (see current discussions on talk page). Also, the article was originally written in British English, and I suspect much of the spelling is now American, so Brit members of the project would have a dual task - it would be helpful if you would "correct" any inconsistencies in spelling. Thanks in advance - KillerChihuahua?!? 19:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pregnancy 

message: I'm going to list this article for FAC. So now's the time for input. I've had a lot of help already, (see the talk page). I hope that any issues can be resolved before submission. Please help where you can. --GrahamColmTalk 22:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rotavirus]] 

message: Forgive me as I'm still getting used to the conventions used here. What I want to suggest is that the line which reads - A person with HME is also more likely to develop a rare form of bone cancer called chondrosarcoma as an adult, be edited to say the same thing but with a rewording of 'more likely'. I say this because it reads at present as though it's more likely that someone with the disorder WILL get bone cancer than NOT - if you see what I mean? I stress the importance of phrasing it such as I have four children who all suffer from the abnormality. When reading it, I wouldn't want them thinking they were 'more likely' to get cancer than not get it which is one way the current form of the sentence can be interpreted (and that would scare the life out of any kid reading it who suffers from the condition). I don't want to go ahead and do it myself as someone has obviously worked hard to get it into its current form. Thanks. OzScot (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to address this in the article.  Let's finish the conversation on the article's talk page.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hereditary multiple exostoses 

message: Athanasius Kircher has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Athanasius Kircher FAR 

message: With no clear consensus (IMHO) in past discussions to use Adrenaline over Epinephrine and with WP:MEDMOS giving clear guideline to stick with INN, the article recently got moved. I have reverted back, to what IMHO the WP:MED & WP:PHARM projects would generally consider as a useful approach set out in our WP:MEDMOS guidelines. As previously, Google results being cited, but if this is to be the case, then paracetamol would be Tylenol and penicillin would be whatever is the No 1 US brand (Google reflecting the US-predominant internet) and we would have no use of any generic names, let alone INN terms. 
Anyway could WP:MED members comment at Talk:Epinephrine David Ruben  Talk  12:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epinephrine vs Adrenaline (again) 

message: I've posted a heads up at :Template talk:Infobox Disease re a proposed infobox for phobias, which IMHO might be best merged with this template. Also I have then floated the idea of adding a classification parameter for field-of-medicine (eg Cardiology, Neurology).. David Ruben  Talk  03:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Disease 

message: Second opinion doesn't exist.  Is there an article on this general subject somewhere?  I've tried several names with no success.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think an article on that subject should be under that name anyway. It's going to be a sweet darling to populate, because I'm not sure which kind of primary studies addressing the impact of "getting a second opinion" in general have been performed. Still, PubMed gives 700 results for "second opinion" and 55 reviews, but a quick look shows that most of these results are very specific to one particular modality or disease. Best of luck. JFW | T@lk 22:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If we get >1500 words and references, suggest it for :Template:Did you know. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second opinion 

message: COuld someone do an external links/spam check on Baby Face Foundation?  I suspect that this article's existence is related to a minor edit war in microtia earlier this month.  My vision is screwed up in that about-to-have-a-migraine way, so it's time for me to sign off.  (I'll be fine.  I get the world's mildest migraines for about two hours, once every year or two -- nothing to worry about.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you mean Little Baby Face Foundation? It looks like it's about more than just microtia. It seems to have an international reach and is probably notable on those grounds. Is there press coverage related to its work? Much of the Google links to its work are YouTube/Myspace/Veoh videos. JFW | T@lk 07:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks for figuring out what I was talking about.  I couldn't see most of the screen while I was typing.  Let's take up the notability discussion on the article's talk page.  It's the idealist.org link that caught my eye; idealist is kind of an overgrown chatboard/advertising service/volunteer recruiting website for nonprofits.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baby Face Foundation 

message: Thanks to Wikinews Importer Bot, health stories from Wikinews are now listed automatically on Portal:Medicine. You're all welcome to have a look, and of course if you come by any important health stories, in the news or in articles you read, you're welcome to suggest them to me -or better yet, you can write an article on Wikinews! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical news on [[Portal:Medicine]] 

message: Regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine, does anyone here NOT want to merge with them?  That project seems to have been inactive for almost a year now.  As the parent of Preclinical medicine, WPMED should have the responsibility to absorb it if it is inactive and there is no opposition.
Most of their intended scope, stated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine#Scope, is already covered by other projects:
* Anatomy → Anatomy, Biology, & Medicine
* Physiology → Biology & Medicine
* Cellular and molecular → Biology, Cell Signaling, Chemistry, Medical genetics, Medicine, Metabolic Pathways, Microbiology, & Molecular and Cellular Biology
There are currently 9 articles tagged with their template () and an additional 6 articles tagged with their expansion template ().  The scope of the current preclinical medicine project is so narrow that it probably would not even warrant a task force here.  Is there any opposition for a merger?  If not, we can begin discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine and see if there is any response.  --Scott Alter 23:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the status quo is already the way you have described. If you are happy to lead the way, I'm sure this merge will be pretty uncontroversial. JFW | T@lk 23:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good JOB Scott! Hehe I didn't think there would be so few articles taged with the clinical and preclinical tags :). As Jfdwolff said, feel free to begin incorporating the preclinical onto here. Calaka (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Sounds great! Tkjazzer (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Preclinical Medicine 

message: Category:Unassessed-Class medicine articles is down to two pages:  the project page and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 5.  The problem in the archive appears to be in one of my own comments, which refs the category without a leading colon.  I've tried to fix it... but the page doesn't somehow recognize the change.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a colonoscopy. There was another instance of the category link without a colon. Should be fixed now. JFW | T@lk 00:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computer/Wikimedia problem 

message: Asperger syndrome has been subjected to extensive off-Wiki canvassing on numerous autism activist websites, and may need sustained attention from knowledgeable editors.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the non-initiated, could you describe the nature of the advocacy being solicited, just so I know what to be on the lookout for? MastCell Talk 16:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mostly WP:UNDUE issues, giving extra weight to minority viewpoints, and advocacy claims that the article is dominated by "NT"s.  If you want specific links to the off-Wiki posts, pls e-mail me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AS again 

message: Can someone please add information as I have seen it a lot of times and there is not much on it besides links to other pages. I have also noticed that it says epilepsy instead of epilepsies.
I tried to make a few changes but I got confused. I am now using the copy and paste method to copy the formatting from other posts so this may end up in the wrong palce.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.192.131 (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Progressive myoclonic epilepsy looks like an extremely specialised topic. 137 papers on PubMed, most of them technical. What kind of information are you looking for? JFW | T@lk 22:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The page already lists the three main causes, and the articles on these diseases mention the genetics for each. JFW | T@lk 23:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Heh, it was a matter of time before Colin would end up dealing with this. JFW | T@lk 00:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to add to the article what I've found (but it will still be a stub). I didn't have time last night to do more than jot down the above. Colin°Talk 08:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I'd appreciate if someone could read it over to check it all makes sense. Colin°Talk 23:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have worked wonders.  It looks great.  Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progressive myoclonic epilepsy 

message: A recent edit to Phenytoin inserted news from the FDA of an increased risk of  suicidal thoughts and behaviours in patients taking antiepileptic drugs. The source was yahoo news, but better sources are the FDA news and FDA Information for Healthcare Professionals. I initially removed this insert since (a) the editor had added it only to phenytoin and (b) the FDA report didn't look at any studies involving phenytoin. The news has been reinserted with a clarification that the FDA expect all antiepileptics to have the same problem. A news item on MedlinePlus has feedback from two experts, one of whom expected it and the other who questioned it.
Now, I'm sure the FDA know what they are doing, but I'd love to know (and read) the research. From a quick search, I've been unable to find the published study behind this. I'm puzzled about the existence of a set of patients with epilepsy who are taking only placebo pills. This generally isn't done as it is unethical. Most drugs are studied as add-ons initially, and later in comparison with a known antiepileptic drug. I'm aware these drugs are also tested on healthy volunteers, but the report specifically mentions patients with epilepsy. So I'm curious about how they reached this conclusion. Any help in this matter would be appreciated.
Assuming this adverse effect is notable, should it be added to all our anticonvulsant drug articles, and how? Colin°Talk 14:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This was the closest thing I found, and it doesn't say that they're all like that. Did they really say that epileptic people were taking placebo pills?--Rmky87 (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I found that, but it is just one guy from Moscow. The US FDA study looks like a meta-analysis and would probably require loads of authors. The FDA Information for Healthcare Professionals contains the most info. They group the studies by "Trial Indication" and say "the relative risk for suicidal thoughts or behavior was higher for patients with epilepsy compared to those patients with psychiatric or other disorders" (relative risk being defined "Incidence of Events in Drug Patients/Incidence in Placebo Patients"). I'm puzzled. Sure there are studies that involve placebo pills, but they are taken on-top of existing medication, so nobody in these studies, with epilepsy, is off drugs. Sorry, guys, if this is a bit off-topic, but I'm hoping some Wikidoc has access to the journal that contains this study. Unless, it isn't published yet... Colin°Talk 18:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes the source is a private document of the clinical trials research community;  maybe clues exist on clinicaltrials.gov.  --Una Smith (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is almost certainly no published study. The FDA requested this data from the drug manufacturers, who were responsible for going back to their trial databases and assessing the number of suicides ("The individual sponsors of the drugs were responsible for identifying suicidal behavior and suicidal ideation events in their databases based on the instructions provided by FDA.") In other words, this is unpublished data requested by the FDA for regulatory purposes. Only a portion of data collected by drug companies and submitted to the FDA makes it into publication - see the recent NEJM article for a related example (). There may (probably will) be a publication at some point in the future, but at this point it's raw data belonging to the drug companies, who are likely not in a huge hurry to rush it to publication. The absolute risk suggests that for every 1,000 patients treated with AED's, 2 will experience suicidal ideation as a result of the AED treatment. In terms of completed suicides, there were 4 among 27,863 treated patients. MastCell Talk 23:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicidality and Antiepileptic Drugs 

message: MEDMOS currently enjoys a unique position wrt MoS, in that we submitted our guidelines to broad community consensus, outside the Project.  Other subpages of MoS don't/haven't, creating contradictions.  Input needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MEDMOS and MoS 

message: I'm not very familiar with the medical articles (not to mention I haven't access to the fiull article), so I'll leave this here for those more interested: 
Basically (IIUC), they've rendered mice vulnerable to rhinovirus, which normally affect only humans and apes, which should make the study of them simpler. Circeus (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out. I would imagine it will shed light on the reason why asthmatics get attacks after suffering a cold. But I'm not sure if the development of an animal model needs mention in any of the articles. JFW | T@lk 21:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it's a big step towards a vaccine?--GrahamColmTalk 22:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Medicine is not my field, so I'm not sure which spin, if any, would be appropriate to use. If I knew, I would have added it myself! Circeus (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Awards Nobel Prize to GrahamColm for discovering a vaccine for the common cold. JFW | T@lk 22:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure where best to add this 

message: Here's the current list of stubs rated high-importance:
* Disorder (medicine)
* Enuresis
* Functional symptom
* Medical advice
* Patient education
* Standards of care
* Sudden cardiac death
* Terminal illness  (now start-class)
I'm going to see whether I can figure out how to expand terminal illness.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  High stubs 

message: Can anyone tell me the difference between Post viral cough and a minor case of Asthma that lingers after an upper respiratory infection?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Asthma is a chronic condition, not something that comes and goes. Postviral cough is a poorly explained phenomenon that is, as the page states, probably due to increased sensitivity of nerve endings in the bronchi. In constrast, asthma requires chronic airway inflammation and reversible bronchoconstriction, and patients typically report wheeze as well as cough. JFW | T@lk 12:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post viral cough 

message: *I'm sure we have had past discussion that the modern convention is that eponymous diseases should nolonger use the possessive forms; as they are named after a person, rather than being the disease they personally had.  has just moved Graves disease to Graves' disease.
# I can't locate/recall where previous discussion was had on this, can anyone help ?
# Should I revert back the Graves disease move ?
# Eitherway, some mention of this need adding to WP:MEDMOS#Naming conventions.
David Ruben  Talk  01:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for Talk:List of eponymous diseases link, and agree for now with above suggestion. It was not the expression of editor views I vaguely recall, but it is a far better description of the issues - so thank you Colin. Personally I'm rather pleased if the appostrophy is kept, both for historical reasons and it just "sounded better" (hmmmm not the educated use of language sought in that talk discussion thread). David Ruben  Talk  23:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eponymous disease possessive naming 

message: The current Medicine Collaboration of the Week is .
	Last week's collaboration was Stroke.
NCurse  work 17:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Medicine Collaboration of the Fortnight! 

message: Dear all,
I just created two long-needed templates (thanks to WikiProject Cycling):
* : adapted from , this template can be used to welcome new users (both for anons and registered users, which is detected automatically by the template), and has a little message pointing to our project and portal.
* : for people who add themselves to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Participants. I would like to ask everyone to add the latter page to their watchlist, and if a new member reports for duty, please greet them!
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, I amended the invite to contribute more to "cycling articles" to "medical articles" ! Where did you derived this from :-) Anyway, agree much over due, I've added them to list of templates shown on the project page. David Ruben  Talk  03:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's excellent. Another user (Wouterstomp?) was kind enough to notify me of the project's existence early in my Wikipedia career and invite me to join, which was quite helpful. Let's use these. MastCell Talk 04:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Welcome Templates 

message: Greetings,
I just wrote Perianal hematoma, and I haven't written a medical article before, so I was hoping for some guidance? Any comments greatfully received...  Fosnez (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Perianal hematoma]] 

message: This article is a candidate for FAC. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Reactive attachment disorder. If anyone has any expertise in this area, it would be appropriate to read the article and provide feedback on the article contents. It is a DSM-IV-TR diagnosis, so it a good candidate for medical input. If there is a psychiatric portal, I cannot find it, so I am listing it here. Thanks!  Mattisse 22:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article Candidate 

message: Would someone else like to express opinions about the WPMED assessment rating of Bacterial flora and Medication?  They're kind of weird pages and don't really fit neatly into the usual scheme.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment stumpers 

message: : The NREMT page had been deleted twice in the past because of poor writing (meaning no references or copyvio or whatever). Now it is back in a form that is perfectly acceptable to Wiki. (It was just a matter of taking the time to write and reference it.) What the National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians article needs now is the attention of additional Wikipedia-capable editors to expand it heavily. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NREMT 

message: I note that PubMed now clearly displays the PMCID code for articles that are available free in PubMed Central. I have corresponded with PMC about this, so perhaps this is the result of that exchange.
I think the time has come to integrate a field for PMC codes in the  template. Alternatively, I can file a bug report to give PMCID the same "magic" as PMID does at the moment. The problem with the latter option is that people will neglect to cite the full article and instead just write PMCID 1234567. The problem with the former is that we would have to manually alter all the references (unless someone has a bot that could do this). JFW | T@lk 11:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A bot could be an option for both the template and other non-template citations if it can replace external links to PMC with . Even better, a bot could check PMID-references for free full text in PMC and add this automatically? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We can ask David Iberri to adjust his tool, but I think we need consensus first on the way we should integrate PMCIDs in citations. JFW | T@lk 13:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PMC 

message: Integrated care, shared care and transmural care are important and related issues in modern medicine. The first has no article (but there is integrated primary care as a stub). The second has a short article needing work. The third I created as a stub ages back, but it's now been put up for AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transmural care‎) having been transwikied as a dictionary definition. This is a huge topic area and I barely know where to start, nor whether there should be one, or three, or more articles. So, I'm flagging this up as a problem area and will try to do some work on it myself. Without prejudicing the outcome of the AfD, interested parties may wany to take part in the discussion there. In terms of resources, one good starting point is the International Journal of Intergrated Care. Bondegezou (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Integrated care/shared care/transmural care 

message: this may be in the wrong space, but i'm running out the door. The Canon of Medicine - this medical text looks like it is extremely important in the field of medicine but has no assessment/wikiproject template. thought you'd might like to know. JoeSmack Talk 17:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs assessment by your project 

message: Hi. This article has passed GA and been peer reviewed. I'd be most grateful if someone with knowledge of the subject could pass their beady eyes over it before I nominate it for FAC. Thanks. Fainites barley 14:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Reactive attachment disorder]] 

message: The article Hyperviscosity syndrome is rather hard to read at the moment. I found myself adding in wiki links for five words in the short 'Diagnosis' article... but I doubt that having to look up five words just to make sense of a paragraph is a good idea. Now, I'm not sure if I've even understood any of it at all, so I wanted to leave the rewrite to the experts. Just wanted to leave you guy's a head's up! :) -pinkgothic (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyperviscosity syndrome 

message: Although they could be different subjects, immunization and vaccination appear to cover basically the same material.  Should we merge the pages or split the content?  If the decision is to merge, I think the resulting page should be rated 'Top' priority for the WPMED project.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge, without a doubt. Vaccination is an obsolete term but used by absolutely everybody because it sticks. Most immunisations are not actually vaccinations anymore but variolations. JFW | T@lk 01:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point -- but that means we should consider the variolation page (redirects to inoculation) in this conversation as well.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical merge 

message: Does anyone know what the current recorded incidence of diabetes is? The articles on WP relating to type 1 and type 2 seem to be singularly reticent about this, except that type 1 is said to be 5-10% of type 2, as far as I can tell! I see all sorts of speculation, mostly totally without foundation, in various talk pages around the subject. We've recently had a campaign called "The missing million" in the UK about diabetes, so I guess that might give us some clues. Soarhead77 (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidence is not a very useful indicator in a chronic condition. Prevalence will give you much more information. The prevalence of diabetes is different in each country. This page has some useful data sources on the subject. JFW | T@lk 14:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Don't have the fulltext, but  discusses the epidemiology of diabetes in the UK and its methodological issues. JFW | T@lk 14:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for that, I also now have a better understanding of incidence and prevalence. You learn something every day! I'll make an epidemiologist one day Soarhead77 (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diabetes 

message: Please check in on possible COI issues here.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Further conversation here and here; blog removed, COI issues, and source added to many articles, is it a reputable journal?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I left a note here about the journal.  It basically seems to be legit, but that's not the same as "good."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can some medical folk look in on ?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GNIF COI watch 

message: Can an experienced medical editor please take a look at Gluten sensitivity and suggest ways in which the article can be improved?  At the moment, many of the terms in there are beyond the average reader, yet the information may be very useful, so should not necessarily be thinned out. Thank you.  Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked its principal author to work on it. JFW | T@lk 23:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gluten sensitivity 

message: I left a question at Talk:Concussion#Move to Mild TBI? about terminology.  It's a tough one because there's no consistent use of the terms, and I wondered if anyone with expertise could offer advice.  
Similarly, I've been trying to figure out if post-traumatic seizure and post-traumatic epilepsy (Currently at User:delldot/pts and User:delldot/pte because they're still very crappy) should be one article or two, because it seems like they're sometimes used to mean the same thing and sometimes not.  Any help there would also be much appreciated.  Thanks much, delldot on a public computer talk 05:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The ILAE have a task force that works to classify and define the terms for epilepsy. Their web site may contain some useful info. Another useful resources is their journal, Epilepsia, of which a chunk of their archive is free. The ILAE's list of epilepsy syndromes explicitly excludes "immediate and early post traumatic seizures". PTS and PTE are not the same thing: one is a clinical event that may be a one-off, and the other is a diagnosis and is by definition a chronic condition. I recommend you keep them separate. I'll try to leave some comments on your drafts on your talk page later tonight. BTW: I'm not a doctor; WP:MED doesn't seem to have any active neurologists, which is a shame. Colin°Talk 19:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

text: We had  for a while. His last edit was on the 17th. You could also send him an email. Otherwise, we have no long-term neurological contributors. JFW | T@lk 20:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming/terminology help 

message: We have been utilizing unilateral iv therapy on major trauma patients. Most of the paramedics are trained in bi-lateral iv therapy but not in unilateral.
I have searched several internet links, but had no success in finding any citations or credit worthy information regarding the usage of bilateral vs. unilateral intravenous therapy in the pre-hospital trauma environment.
Any ideas? Your comment/discussion would be appreciated.
Paramedix (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you asking this in connection with a particular Wikipedia article? JFW | T@lk 20:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that this question has been studied in any systematic way, for a number of reasons from the ethical to the logistical. With a trauma patient, more access is usually better, so why would you choose to limit yourself to 1 IV if you could place more? IV's infiltrate and veins blow all the time. Is that the question you're asking? MastCell Talk 22:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unilateral IV Lines 

message: hi! i would like to recommend that these edits:  r cross-checked vis-a-vis WP:NPOV and WP:OR... thx... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They fail it, for the most part. What would you like us to do? MastCell Talk 22:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whatever is ethically and legally feasible... :-) --Homer Landskirty (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ryke Geerd Hamer]] / recent chg-es 

message: Gluten sensitivity turned up on my list of articles to review today.  Something about this cluster of articles (see :Template:Gluten sensitivity) doesn't smell quite right to me.  They may have some WP:UNDUE issues:  a quick scan leaves you wondering whether every problem in the world is due to eating wheat.  My quack-o-meter tripped when I realized that most of these articles were basically written by a single dedicated editor, with remarkably few familiar names in the history.  
To be fair, the articles reference many reliable sources, and they may be just fine; I just don't feel qualified to judge the big picture here.  If anyone here has an interest in this subject, please consider this to be an invitation to provide some "oversight" to the articles.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have resisted hacking into those articles for some time. With the increased recognition of gluten sensitivity it has become fashionable to link every condition to it in some form or description.  obviously knows a lot about the subject but has not been able to frame the content in an accessible way. I agree that enumerating single case reports is not helpful and definitely fails WP:WEIGHT. JFW | T@lk 22:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gluten sensitivity 

message: Talk:Dysphagia could use attention from a wider audience. The issue is whether or not it is possible for a patient to have dysphagia without being aware of it. --Arcadian (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Arcadian beat me to the request.  The dysphagia article is quoting a number of medical dictionaries that say dysphagia means "Difficult Swallowing" without saying that it is a symptom.  Gastroenterology and Medical textbooks say that Dysphagia is a symptom.  It has been proposed that wikipedia needs to reflect the diversity of opinion on usage of the term. Alternatively, wikipedia does not need to propagate an error.  Beyond the simple issue of definition, I am interested in reworking the Dysphagia article into an article on Swallowing Disorders, which the Dysphagia article has become, and to add an article on Symptoms of Esophageal Dysfunction (or something like that) where dysphagia, odynophagia, globus, phagophobia, cough, abnormal phonation, salivation, water brash, hiccoughs, heartburn, and other symptoms can be compared and contrasted.  With dysphagia being represented as disordered swallow instead of a symptom the future articles will be quite confused.
Thanks in advance for commenting.  Stephen Holland, M.D. Kd4ttc (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: In the UK, the term "dysphagia" is certainly used in situations where the patient has swallowing abnormalities without necessarily being aware of it. This scenario arises most commonly in acute stroke settings. This is not quite the "dysphagia" that I try to elicit when hunting for oesophageal carcinoma or achalasia. JFW | T@lk 06:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dysphagia 

message: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-25/Dispatches (and yes, some serious review of the medicine and health-related articles languishing at WP:FAC would be most appreciated).  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of those articles are really quite technical and limited in scope. I don't treat reactive attachment disorder on a daily basis. JFW | T@lk 23:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, apparently no one on Wiki knows what to do with that one; too bad, since the authors put a lot of work into it.  There's also Paleolithic-style diet.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I read both of those articles at FAC, but I find I have nothing to say about them, pro or con.  They remind me of science articles that don't make it into Science and Nature;  possibly excellent work but not my area of expertise nor a topic of broad interest nor a wildly brilliant treatment. --Una Smith (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biology and medicine featured articles 

message: Comments welcome here on this AfD nom. Coffee4me (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Article for Deletion nomination is [here]. --Una Smith (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The History Behind Electronic Personal health Recods]] 

message: Follow up / Clarification to previous question posed... 
We would like to gather some thoughts on the use of placing two intravenous lines (IV) unilateral vs placing bilateral intravenous lines for the severely heamodynamically compromised patient.  Currently, in the pre-hospital setting, our training does not provide a clear yes "do it" or no "don't do it" answer. We have searched on the internet but failed to find any definitive or conclusive information.
The areas of discussion sourrounding the topic (Two IV lines on one arm) are as follows:
1. Should you elect to place two intra venous lines unilateral, do you start placing them distal to proximal as per usual, or do you place them from proximal to distal??, as the latter appears to be the sensible choice in this case scenario. Should you however place the 1st IV line distal, you have a chance of compromising the 1st distal IV line if you perform an unsuccessful veni-puncture at a site proximal to the 1st IV line.
2. Does it not make sense to have have the IV lines on one side of the patient as it allows for a less cluttered scene??  You will only need to watch out for one side, with regards to pulling out already successfully placed IV lines, by hooking them etc.  You would also only need one IV stand or holder..  Both the flow controls will be next to each other which will allow for easy management there of, and preventing trying to find the other one.
3. On how many occasions have you taken a patient the to emergency department and the staff complains as you have now left them without any veins to perform their veni-puntures for blood samples.  By performing 2 IV lines unilateral, you will leave the hospital staff an arm with intact veins.
4. Anything else???
Paramedix (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are posting on a page intended very specifically for discussions on how to improve Wikipedia articles on medical articles. If you want to find a forum of doctors managing medical emergencies there are numerous other avenues available. JFW | T@lk 13:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unilateral Intra Venous Therapy 

message: The current Medicine Collaboration of the Week is .
	Last week's collaboration was Knockout mouse.
NCurse  work 17:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medicine Collaboration of the Fortnight: Osteoporosis 

message: Please add a key or caption to the trophy box template on this page.  what do the stars mean? what the red x s through the stars mean?  It may seem intuitive to a regular, but for a first timer, it is not easily understood.
Also, please add a way to see which articles are tagged with wpmed template but are not accessed or ranked in the box/template at the top.  ThanksTkjazzer (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comments.  I am pleased to report that at this time all WPMED-tagged articles been assessed for quality, and that about 80% of them have been rated for priority.  Apparently the bot that counts them removes the "Unassessed" line automatically when the entire line is zeroed.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The images on the trophy box are already labeled:  featured articles and former featured articles.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 suggestions (key/caption to trophy box and unaccessed articles with wpmed template) 

message: Why is there no article or redirect on Impetaigo? I'd like to read about it here on wiki and don't know enough to write it myself. — Rlevse • Talk •  14:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Impetaigo is a variant spelling of impetigo;  I'll make a redirect. --Una Smith (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That article could definitely stand some expansion - I'll put it on my list. Anyone else feel up to it? MastCell Talk 22:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impetaigo 

message: The FA article Prostate cancer has had changes that leave it substandard for its rating. Specifically, a Diet section was added with writing that fails, at a minimum, the criteria of "well-written", "neutral", and "consistently formatted inline citations". Besides wording issues in the new content, Diet does not use standard referencing, though it does have references listed at the end of the section, which may have balance concerns. I have made changes to patch up some of faults, but proper correction  here extends beyond modest copyediting.   -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What - lycopene and then what? We are seeing time and time again that dietary approaches to prevent cancer are supported by either inconclusive or no evidence. JFW | T@lk 07:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the question. I didn't add Diet section to the article, but the section is broken and would currently fail the article of FA status if it were submitted in its current state. Prostate cancer should be fixed or, failing that, the article needs to go to Featured article review. I hope it could be fixed through WikiProject Medicine (the project in scope, per Talk:Prostate cancer) before taking that step. If the fix should be removal of the section entirely per reliable sources, then that is a decision which could be made by the project team. I am not qualified to make it. -- Michael Devore (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Ah, I see MastCell had acted upon the section since my initial post. Good job, that. -- Michael Devore (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text: My point was that dietary interventions in the prevention and treatment of cancer are utterly overrated. The research is dodgy (e.g. it is performed on rodent cell lines), overhyped by the press and conflicting. I think you were quite right to take the content in question to this forum, and perhaps we need to ensure that all our featured articles are properly patrolled. JFW | T@lk 12:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Prostate cancer]] 

message: Heads up.  Here is a discussion about NPOV involving wikilinks to Homeopathy.  --Una Smith (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV noticeboard 

message: I invite all of the usual suspects to figure out a more formal name for Getting the wind knocked out of you.  I have no idea what it should be, and I cheerfully leave it up to your excellent judgment.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if there is actually a name for this all-too-well-known phenomenon. JFW | T@lk 07:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several technical terms for this;  see redirects that link to the page. --Una Smith (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the medical term is exwindication. :) MastCell Talk 19:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Heh MastCell. The Straight Dope lists some possible causes but does not provide a medical term. Using Una's approach we get the terms "diaphragmatic spasm" (which is actually more like hiccups) and "temporary paralysis of the diaphragm" (which is possibly not correct because it is possible to breathe using intercostal and accessory musculature). This sounds like a hard one. JFW | T@lk 21:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When I last edited pages on that topic, months ago, I searched some literature and the web, and came up most often with something between "diaphragmatic spasm" and "temporary paralysis of the diaphragm". --Una Smith (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I found one source that uses "transient diaphragmatic spasm (after excluding all of the "epidemic transient diaphragmatic spasm" pages).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting the wind knocked out of you 

message: Would someone please review the tiny stub on lesser auricular nerve, which begins:  "The lesser auricular nerve does not exist"?  Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Um (anatomy) 

message: Paleolithic-style diet is a featured article candidate.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anyone have a look?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paleolithic-style diet at FAC 

message: Maybe its just me, but I've not got either of the two templates to work (ie bizzare display) in user's talk pages unless substituted. Hence I use  and . Am I getting this wrong? For now I have altered the details so that one can copy & paste with "subst:", but do revert if I'm just being a WikiDunceCap <:-) David Ruben  Talk  19:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project welcome templates subst: use 

message: Anyone like dermatology?  Welt (medicine) and Wheals need some sorting.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both horrible micro-stubs. Should be merged, with close cross-referencing with generalised wheals or urticaria. JFW | T@lk 09:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Worse Wheal and Wheals exist ! Clearly can be solitary so singular (and better article with refs) should be used ( Wheals merged in to Wheal). I'll also merge in Welt (medicine) next. Finally can people comment on Talk:Wheal as BrE usage seems to be without an "h" i.e. "weal". David Ruben  Talk  13:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wheals 

message: on Gaiter is a peculiar section "Medical usage";  does that section belong in the article?  Or is some form of disambiguation needed? --Una Smith (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Never heard of the use of gaiters for venous insufficiency. I don't think disambiguation is needed: if "medical gaiters" are verifiable, they should remain part of that article. JFW | T@lk 20:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The intended meaning seems to be that "gaiter" is a synonym for crus and the rest of the paragraph is extraneous.  I have moved the text to Crus and Venous ulcer.  --Una Smith (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaiter, medical usage? 

message: Is going to FAC this Sunday, please take a look.--GrahamColmTalk 21:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rotavirus]] 

message: Action potential has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
Why can't I post this: http://adventuresincardiology.wordpress.com/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.130.129 (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Action Potential]] 

message: Enuresis was a "high stub", the main article on its topic being Urinary incontinence.  I made the former a redirect and merged text from the former into the latter, except for two wikilinks to "enuresis" on other Wikipedia.  Should I move the wikilinks to Urinary incontinence? --Una Smith (talk) 02:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On whatlinkshere, I see more than just two pages that wikilink to the enuresis redirect (a perfect solution, BTW, which I gratefully support).  Did you have two pages in particular in mind?   WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I meant Enuresis has two outbound links to other wikipedia;  what to do with those?  --Una Smith (talk) 05:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Enuresis is not the same as incontinence. JFW | T@lk 07:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a good topic for discussion on Talk:Urinary incontinence, and probably also important to add to the article. --Una Smith (talk) 15:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Enuresis is a term that is shifting. I would appreciate input on how to best handle this issue. Please see further discussion on the Talk:Urinary incontinence page. Wshallwshall (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enuresis 

message: An anon added some info to the myelophthisis stub today.  I've just cleaned it up, based on my best guess of what the ref probably covered.  We now have a redlink to acute megakaryoblastic leukemia.  I haven't yet found AMegL under any other names; does anyone know if we're missing this article entirely?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We are. It's essentially a subtype of Acute myeloid leukemia. Some children with Down syndrome get it, due to GATA1 mutations. Probably worth an article. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 02:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Myelophthisis]] 

message: Can anyone provide a definitive definition of what a French is equal to.  The Wikipedia article states that 1 F = D(mm)*3.  I think this is clearly incorrect. It may be 1 FR = 1/3 mm or is it 1 FR = 1/π mm?  I believe 10 FR is about 3 mm in diameter.  I would like to add this to the Conversion of Units page in Wikipedia; but, I want to make sure it is correct.  Can you provide references? --Rpwolfgram (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I may be missing something, but I think all of your examples are mathematically equivalent to the 1F = D(mm)*3 equation which you're uncertain about. Here are some refs: from a surgical supply company, and Stedman's medical dictionary. Hope that's helpful. MastCell Talk 04:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  French Catheter Scale 

message: I don't see where to list new articles for this project, so I'll add it here. I just created it and will expand the stub(iness) sometime this week. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to list new articles unless you need help with something.  Just placing the  template on the article's talk page is enough.  The template will automatically add your article to :Category:WikiProject_Medicine_articles for you.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lenoir Memorial Hospital]] 

message: Is a FAC and apart from Colin, why are there no comments from the project? --GrahamColmTalk 20:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to do a gentle copyedit but got distracted. Have offered comments now. Brilliant work and of major importance. JFW | T@lk 22:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good of you to weigh in Jfd.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rotavirus]] 

message: Can anyone suggest what should be done with this heading?
According to http://www.emedicine.com/NEURO/topic365.htm, "Temporal Lobe Epilepsy" (note that to see this text requires scrolling down the page),
:TLE was first recognized in 1881 by John Hughlings Jackson, who described "uncinate fits" seizures arising from the uncal part of temporal lobe and the "dreamy state." In the 1940s, Gibbs et al introduced the term "psychomotor epilepsy." The international classification of epileptic seizures (1981) replaced the term psychomotor seizures with complex partial seizures. The ILAE classification of the epilepsies uses the term temporal lobe epilepsy and divides the etiologies into cryptogenic (presumed unidentified etiology), idiopathic (genetic), and symptomatic (cause known, eg, tumor).
Would it be correct to redirect psychomotor epilepsy to complex partial seizure? If so, would the same also be true of psychomotor seizure, for example as used in the John Hughlings Jackson article? -- The Anome (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Better to redirect psychomotor epilepsy to temporal lobe epilepsy and psychomotor seizure to complex partial seizure.  I assume you are creating redirects in case someone searches for the term, rather than to use those terms in an article? The John Hughlings Jackson article has no reason to use the outdated term psychomotor seizure since, as your source points out, it was first used 30 years after his death. What a shame Jackson's article isn't in better shape. It reflects badly on Wikipedia when these medial heroes are neglected. Colin°Talk 21:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Jackson article is not half bad. It just needs some sources. JFW | T@lk 23:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, perhaps I sounded too negative. The lack of sources is what I picked up on. I'm thinking of all the charlatans who end up at AfD where folk spend hours fighting over whether a handful of published papers makes someone notable or not. If they'd spend those hours writing about the folk who shaped medicine.... *sigh* Colin°Talk 23:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Psychomotor epilepsy]] 

message: I think this page didn't exist until today, Challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge, which I believe is a medical protocol for small subject designs and idiosyncratic responses to medications.  Confirm/delete?  There seems to be support for it in medical literature, , but my familiarity stops at Talking back to prozac.  WLU (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has very little to do with Breggin and his antipsychiatry lot. It has to do with, like you said, drug allergy. In tuberculosis treatment, rechallenge after drug-induced hepatitis is used commonly. The stub should be rewritten with a useful source (i.e. not Breggin). JFW | T@lk 00:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Breggin was where I read about it about eight to ten years ago and I remember a vivid example from the book.  I'm ashamed.  WLU (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The page has been re-written to a certain extent to expand beyond the Breggin reference.  However, it's still very much focussed on SSRIs, so if there's any extra info regards other uses of the protocol, feel free to expand or drop them on the talk page and I'll have a go at it.  WLU (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New page 

message: Could someone with medical knowledge take a look at overdiagnosis? Today it was completely rewritten by, I believe, someone working in the field (but new to Wikipedia). I did some wikification but I don't have any domain knowledge so an extra pair of eyes would be very welcome. Haukur (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Overdiagnosis]] 

message: HIV is at FAC here. --Una Smith (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not any more.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HIV is at FAC 

message: AIDS has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIDS FAR 

message: Apparently the order of appendices ("See also" and "External links" and so forth) was standardized last year.  Most of our longer articles were written before the order was settled.  User:Betacommand has written a bot that can automatically conform the order (of just the appendices, not the rest of the articles) to what's listed in WP:LAY:
* See also
* Notes (or Footnotes)
* References (or combined with Notes into Notes and references)
* Bibliography (or Books or Further reading)
* External links
Would we like to do this for the WPMED articles?  Personally, I'd much prefer that his bot did this for our 12,000+ articles, instead of doing it by hand.  If we can demonstrate a consensus for this, then it sounds like it will be easy enough to get this one-time bot use approved.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  I don't want Betacommand anywhere near articles I work on.  It's not worth risking the errors and disruption just to get the layout right.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So you don't mind it being done, or being done by a bot, but you think his programming may not be sufficiently robust?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lots of concerns about Betacommand.  Of course we should do it, and as far as I know all of our recent FAs comply.  I'm just not interested in turning Betacommad loose on articles, and I don't think the upside (compliance with WP:GTL) is worth the potential downside of issues I've seen in the past with Betacommand.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support the use of the bot for this purpose. --Arcadian (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the work should be done by a bot, no opinion on whether it should be Betacommand's or someone else's.  delldot talk 22:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I'll feel a lot better about it if Betacommand allows Gimmetrow to examine the code, but if this goes forward and if past experience is a guide, we should be prepared for mistakes and civility issues. Don't say I didn't warn 'ya :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know anything about bot programming.  Is it difficult to restrict edits to a certain category, or to do a hundred pages and stop for the rest of the day, and then pick up where you left off the next day?  Something like that would give us time to discover problems.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It almost certainly could be set up to work like that. We could also have the bot only update articles currently marked with a "stub" tag, until it had proven itself. --Arcadian (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a workable idea (but how many stubs have all those sections?)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I support (whether by using a bot or such) to organize all the articles so that there is consistency throughout in accordance with the above... I am sure a test of 100 articles can be done to see what bugs occur with the bot doing this and if so, the bot can be modified or maybe someone can go about making the fixes at whatever pages have errors... I am sure there won't be a problem on a majority of the articles. Calaka (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appendices