Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 3

message: The papilledema article could use and addition.  Papilledema is also found in Addison's Disease.  This is significant because a positive diagnosis of Addison's would rule out a brain tumor (or at least make it unlikely).  (Cited: "Ocular Manifestations of Systemic Disease" by Blaustein.  ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.89.16.66 (talk) 08:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Papilledema]] in need of cleanup 

message: Lately, I have been working on criminology topics which is an area that Wikipedia sorely lacks. Often this topic is interdisciplinary and involves public health and medicine, as is the case here.  Last weekend, I discovered there was no article on "Gun violence", so started one. Most of the research literature pertains to the United States, so the article has become Gun violence in the United States. Obviously, people have strong POV on this topic. To try and rise above politics, I have only included the highest quality reliable sources (mainly peer reviewed, scholarly journals, many from public health). Personally, I really don't have a POV on this topic, and am staying out of the Gun politics in the United States article.  With the gun violence article, I have stayed with presenting the current state of research on this topic. I think is close to featured status, though some "gun rights" folks have already come along and place a neutrality tag on the article. I could really use some peer review on the article, at this point. Do you at all agree with the person who placed the neutrality tag? Any suggestions on making in more NPOV.  In reality, I feel that the article deals fairly with both POVs, citing strategies advocated by gun-control folks as ineffective, while citing some strategies advocated by the Bush administration as effective.  Do you have any suggestions on improving the article? are there aspects of the topic that are missing? Any help would be greatly appreciated. I have filed a formal peer request here, though feel free to leave comments on the article talk page if you prefer. Thanks. --Aude (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request - [[Gun violence in the United States]] 

message: The biggest medical publisher, could really use a good overhaul. Just a head sup for the interested. Circeus 18:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Elsevier]] in need of cleanup 

message: I went on a campaign yesterday to remove all links to histopathology.net yesterday. As a layman, I find this site very suspect - it claims to be written by just one medical doctor (there are hundreds, if not thousands, of detailed pages) and it doesn't seem to be aligned with any university or medical institution like other external links used in medical articles on wikipedia. Also see user talk:Graham87 #Mass-removal of histopathology-india.net links and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam # histopathology-india.net. When I checked special:linksearch this morning, I found that links to the offending site had been added by 124.7.98.26, 221.135.212.9 and 61.0.138.194, all of which come from India. Should I continue removing these links - seeing as they've been added for the last 7 months or so - or just let them be? Graham87 00:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say delete and it seems JFW also had problems with them.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See this. I think it's resolved now. Graham87 01:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Histopathology-india.net 

message: Please help rating the articles as we have about 1100 untagged articles. You can help here. NCurse  work 20:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article rating 

message: Hi there. I've proposed a merge of Rickets and Osteomalacia. I do not have a medical background, so this merge may be incorrect, but I was prompted to propose it because the Rickets article currently starts "Osteomalacia, also known as rickets" and I was surprised that Osteomalacia has its own article. I actually bolded Osteomalacia in the lead of the Rickets article before realizing this; it was previously normal text. Mike Dillon 03:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After reviewing the history more thoroughly, it looks like the change from Rickets to Osteomalacia was a copy-and-paste move done by  on January 5, 2006. Rickets then seems to have been recreated out of thin air on September 12, 2006 by  (with all sorts of spelling and character encoding issues)... I'm guessing this anonymous user is also  who was editing Osteomalacia around the same time. What a mess. Mike Dillon 04:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are some relevant diffs: ,  Mike Dillon 04:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please review merge proposal for [[Rickets]] and [[Osteomalacia]] 

message: Currently, Project Medicine has some guidelines on the writing of articles on drugs and diseases: what infoboxes to use, what sections to have, etc. I was wondering whether it would be helpful to develop similar guidelines for medical equipment articles. I tried looking into the list of featured articles, as well as A-class ones, and saw none on medical equipment, so I couldn't infer it from there. If this idea is supported, I would be happy to collaborate with someone on this and come up with certain guidelines. Gimlei 16:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical equipment articles guidelines 

message: Talk:Depleted uranium#Comparison of the two versions contains a comparison of the current version of Depleted uranium with a recent major revision which replaced a lot of what some people had been taking out of it over the past several months.  Please have a look and say which version you think should stand. If you want to make some or all of the revisions involved, please be WP:BOLD. LossIsNotMore 10:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship of peer-reviewed depleted uranium facts 

message: I'm not sure if I should post this here or at the clinical medicine wikiproject.  Following a discussion at Talk:List of dog diseases, it's become clear that we need to decide whether to always have a separate article for the veterinary aspects of a disease, or if this can be tacked on to the main article (compare lymphoma in animals or cerebellar hypoplasia (non-human) to cryptorchidism or cleft).  While there are a lot of diseases exclusive to vet med, such as pseudorabies or Collie eye anomaly, there are many more that affect both humans and animals.  What's the best way to approach this?  I suspect that there is not always going to be a definite way to do this, but a general guideline would be great.  I know the ideal thing to do would be to set up a wikiproject for vet med, but that's more than I can do at this point.  --Joelmills 02:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think maybe the best way to go would be to create a work group within the Medicine project dealing specifically with veterniary medicine. That way the new group could take advantage of the existing project's structure, and the lack of formal separation of the two groups would make cooperation between the two units easier. I could set up a work group, sub-project page for this purpose if there was agreement to the creation of it. Badbilltucker 17:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a great idea, but I'm worried about how many people would participate.  There are only three vets that I know of that regularly participate in editing, including myself, and two of those specialize in certain areas.  However, if you feel it's worth trying, let's do it.  What's your opinion on my original question?  --Joelmills 03:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two responses. (1) Right now I'm kinda busy updating the Project Directory, but I will try to add a proposed project on veterinary medicine on the :Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page and drop messages on the talk pages of many of the Tree of Life projects about the new project. (2) This I know a LOT less about. My personal opinion would be to maybe, to eliminate redundancy, make separate pages only for those diseases which manifest much differently, either in symptoms, frequency, treatment, or other factors, between the various species. For the other diseases which are kind of standard across genetic lines, maybe only one page with perhaps different sections of the page relating to the different manifestations. Corneal ulcer might (I stress, might) be an example of this sort of case in which one article for all the species might do. One of the things I think most all projects want to do is bring as many articles up to good- or featured-article status as possible. Consolidation of these articles might help make more of these articles eligible for a coveted status. Badbilltucker 21:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veterinary medicine 

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★TWO YEARS OF MESSEDROCKER★ 03:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: I notice a lot of medical stubs seem to have no "permanent" categories at all, just one or more stub types;  the anatomy-stubs especially so.  Is anyone here working (or keen to work) on categorisation of these?  Would a list of the uncategorised articles, or a maintenance category populated with these be helpful to anyone?  Alai 13:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorisation of medical (stub) articles 

message: Hot flash / Hot flush (menopause) is still basically just a stub. Obviously many people are interested in this topic. Anybody care to improve? -- 201.51.221.66 11:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hot flash]] / [[Hot flush]] needs work 

message: While looking for information on Pharmacology I found that Wikipedia was woefully lacking - just look at the article - with lots of stub articles lacking essential information in the Pharmacology Catergory. As I am sure the member of this project know the understanding of human pharmacology is the basis for most of modern medicine, as well as to some extent surgery and of course herbal medicine. Without understanding pharmacology - non-infective pathophysiology makes little sense.
So what I propose is to make a Wikiproject Pharmacology as a sub if this main project. 
Is this a good idea? Are people willing to help? Your thoughts please. Cheers Lethaniol 15:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I should add, that when talking about pharmacology I am not so interesting in drugs or proteins which are covered elsewhere, but in the science of pharmacology - how we discovery/assess new drugs using pharmacological assays or discover the function of proteins and their place in molecular biology. Lethaniol 15:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There already exists Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs (shortcut WP:DRUGS) - would not this be the place to use for this particular improvement drive request, although I accept a slightly tangential view on drugs/medical overall ? The list of existing "science of pharmacology" topics should, presumeably, be found at Category:Pharmacology.   David Ruben  Talk  16:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and that is strange is it not - that there is a category for Pharmacology (am already working on sorting it out) but it is not associated with any Wikiproject. The problem with being part of Wikiproject:Drugs is that really drugs should be part of a Pharmacology Project not the other way round - not that am adverse to the suggestion I just thought Pharmacology would fit better as a subproject under Medicine. Pharmacology incorporates more of a meta view of drugs and systems - explaining how they work. Lethaniol 13:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Pharmacology 

message: I'm surprised no one from here has watched what has happened to Down syndrome during its stint on the main page, or discussed some of the changes proposed on the talk page.   A lot of work and review went into the article; I'm surprised no one is tending to it while on the main page, and responding to some of the discussion and proposed changes.  Sandy (Talk) 10:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the diff since TedE's last edit:   Sandy (Talk) 10:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main page 

message: There is now a proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Veterinary Medicine to deal with matters of veterinary medicine, a subject which currently has disproportionately low content in wikipedia. Any wikipedia editors who have an interest in working on content related to the subject are encouraged to indicate as much there. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the project should above is ever formalized, I would, as the putative founder, welcome the possibility of establishing it as a subproject of this project. Veterniary medicine is logically a subdivision of medicine, so it would to me make sense to have the project be a subdivision as well. Also, by doing so, we could help reduce the clutter of banners on talk pages. I would be very grateful for your response, positive or negative. Badbilltucker 14:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Veterinary medicine project 

message: The existing  template for citing refs to the Mendelian Inheritance in Man database was far too long-winded for any but the first usage on a page, while the  alternative was too short for ANY usage in my opinion.  I've split the difference, and now present for your editing pleasure: .  Please feel free to copy this talk post wholesale and put it anywhere else it needs to be seen, e.g. WikiProject:Medicine subprojects' talk pages, etc.  I don't spend much time in this dept. so I really don't know where the right places to post this might be. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New OMIM3 template for concise Medelian Inheritance cites 

message: I just happened across the Tilt table test [sic] page, and noticed no reference to Atrial Fibrillation. As a recipient of this test in the diagnosis phase of my own AF, I was curious to know more about it. I hesitate to add to the page myself, as a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Maybe a cardiologist should give it a look?MArcane 04:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tilt Test may need review by Cardiologist

message: FYI, you may be interested in reviewing the subtle debates about "inline citations" over at Wikipedia talk:What is a good article?. And, if you have not already done so, you may want to review Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines, and indicate consensus agreement (or not) on the talk pages there. linas 05:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a good article? 

message: I stumbled across this page, and I just wondered: what is the use, the purpose, the value of a group of articles that are basically just the index pages from a (probably important) book? Either you have the book, and then you have the index: or you don't have the book, and then the index is of no value either. Am I missing something or can these be safely put up for WP:Prod? Fram 20:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of subjects in Gray's Anatomy: Alphabetical: W]]

message: Hippocrates, an article related to this project, is a current Featured article candidate. Comment on the discussion are appreciated. Circeus 19:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dwaipayanc has tried to help:  I gave up, and struck my oppose (the nom was restarted in spite of several opposes on prose, comprehensiveness, and references).  Sandy (Talk) 02:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA candidacy of a related article 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 18:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Please help support and protect this List of articles related to quackery from the current attacks by those who are attempting to suppress development of this resource. By avoiding any labelling of the items listed, we can avoid NPOV problems. Please read the embedded cautionary notes when editing. They are only visible in the editing mode. -- Fyslee 23:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left some comments on the talk page. I'm afraid the only "alert" I see is of an unsourced list heading rapidly towards AfD. Colin°Talk 12:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no fan of quackery, but I believe this list is fundamentally misguided. I don't believe it successfully avoids POV problems and the attempts to do so are leading to violations of other policies, principally verification. Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of articles related to quackery. -- Colin°Talk 17:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alert 

message: Hysterectomy, and (to a lesser extent) Oophorectomy could really use some expert attention and cleanup, in the wake of some biased editing. In particular:
* The references added need to be checked to see if they are good.
* The literature needs to be searched to see if there are any responses to the studies cited, or other (preferably more recent) studies coming to different conclusions.
* Benefits of hysterectomy need to be described with references.
* Make the article less biased without removing good information. Dfeuer 09:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot to mention: It would probably be wise to read this article's talk page before editing it. Dfeuer 09:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hysterectomy 

message: Castration seems to be more a social, psychological, and cultural phenomenon than a medical procedure.    It would be nice to have a proper Orchiectomy article (not a redirect) to discuss the procedure in a medical context, leaving Castration to deal with other contexts, and other notions of castration.  Dfeuer 09:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agree. Orchiectomy should not redirect to castration. That's actually insulting. Having one testicle surgically removed because you have cancer does not mean you were castrated. MoodyGroove 00:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate orchiectomy from castration? 

message: An expert opinion could be used at Stillbirth and Miscarriage to help resolve uncertainty over whether the medical definition of "stillbirth" includes miscarriages prior to 20 weeks. Thank you. -Severa  (!!!) 00:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stillbirth

message: The article for the tilt-table test does not appear to provide any complete explanation of what a tilt-table test is, and only includes criteria for diagnosis and an incomplete list of diagnostic applications. This is kind of thing is rampant throughout wikipedia as many authors i fear will tend to flex their their eloquence rather than their articulation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smooerman (talk • contribs) 18:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tilt-table test 

message: I have run across the article dolorimeter, about devices for measuring pain. Does anyone want to help? It is in sort of sad shape. And I need good reference materials/reviews to work from.--Filll 16:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you say, the article is in bad shape. Speaking as a Medical Practitioner of some 38 years experience, my inclination is to put the thing up for ; I have not yet decided. The essential point is that pain is wholly, totally subjective, and is therefore intrinsically unmeasurable. Not only will different people experience pain to varying degrees, but also an individual will experience pain in wildly differing degrees in different circumstances. Trying to measure pain is like trying to measure joy, or sadness, or any other sensation. Good luck with the article, but I would suggest forget it.--Anthony.bradbury 17:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assistance needed on [[Dolorimeter]]

message: Members of this project may be interested in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_27#Category:Diabetics. Note: this does not concern deletion; it is a question of style. Our proposed guidelines at WP:MEDMOS have been cited, which of course, are always subject to further discussion. Colin°Talk 16:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category: Diabetics 

message: I've put a Speedy Deletion notice on Wristop. It appeared to me to be an advert. Could someone from here with more medical knowledge than me have a quick look and comment on it's discussion page as to wether I was correct? - X201 14:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wristop]]

message: To my eyes, it looks like one organ system is missing in human anatomy#Systems of the human body, Template:Organ systems and :Category:Organ systems: the hematopoetic/hematopoeitic system. Am I missing something? I am not sure to what extent the concept "organ system" has one clear cut definition, or if there are several. Hematopoietic system is a MESH heading, though. // habj 15:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haematopoiesis is discussed as part of the skeletal system. Although it's not 100% accurate and haematopoiesis can occur elsewhere, I think this is where it should be. --Scott 21:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organ systems - hematopoietic system missing? 

message: I remember there use to be a warning template at the top of pages about medications telling users to not use Wikipedia to make medical choices.  Does anyone know why it has stopped being used?  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:General disclaimer and WP:MEDMOS  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  warning template 

message: I think it'd be a smashing idea, if, for the next few months and years we aim to make wikipedia an excellent clinical reference for medical professionals. I'm getting out my drug information documents and expanding Hydroxyzine, so it's both factual, interesting, but also a resource for medical professionals above and beyond those found at web-based sites. If anyone wants to start it, just reply and tell me how! :-P James.Spudeman 12:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might find the manual of style for medicine related articles helpful. Do try and remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles should be for the general reader. Check out Paracetamol for an example of a featured drug article, this should give you something to go on. You've made a great start so far, will try and give you a hand where I can --Scott 13:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Chagas disease and Lesch-Nyhan syndrome are both undercited or uncited and will need to go to WP:FAR soon if they aren't referenced.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've expanded it quite significantly, with guidance from the medical guidelines, and yes -- i've made it more available to the average reader. James.Spudeman 19:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinical reference drive! 

message: Does anyone mind if I expand the list?  Thanks--LtlKtytalk | contribs 01:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to modify it! We'll definitely watch it. :) NCurse  work 12:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks!--LtlKtytalk | contribs 21:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of medicinal herbs]] 

message: I've started doing them; first off with hydroxyzine. Just like there are chemical data articles, i'm making them which detail the general information for prescription, etc. Still! It's under wikipedia guidelines; relax. James.Spudeman 16:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drug information pages. 

message: It is nearly 11 months since we established this review process as a minimal process after we failed to reach consensus about a number of matters. During that time it has been largely left alone with nobody really keeping a close watch on it. A couple days ago I cleaned everything up. I archived old reviews, corrected the tags on talk pages and made minimal changes to the process based on what I had learnt. I also reviewed how it had operated. There were some reasonable reviews and some that attracted no interest what so ever, but I guess that is the case even with Wikipedia:Peer review. Some entries may have missed some attention since they were not properly formatted, or had no tag on the article's talk page and hence did not appear in the category. See Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review for my review and report on the clean up.
Of course, in hindsight, I wonder whether we, and particularly I, could have done better a year ago. In hindsight, does anyone have ideas how we progress this review process. To be worthwhile, it must attract reviews that perhaps would not go elsewhere such as Wikipedia:Peer review and it must attract expert reviewers to add to what might be achieved by the general Wikipedia:Peer review. If it can not do either, perhaps we should close it down and just encourage articles to go to Wikipedia:Peer review. Articles for review are listed on the science WikiProjects such as this one, but they are transcluded in so changes do not appear on watchlists. I have also added recent reviews to Wikipedia:Peer review in the same way that WikiProject reviews such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Peer review are added. In this way both review pages refer to the same page for the review discussion and hopefully more editors will be attracted. The key point is attracting expert reviewers who might look at Wikipedia:Scientific peer review but not look at Wikipedia:Peer review.
If you have any ideas on this, please add your views at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review. --Bduke 03:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Scientific peer review]]

message: The article Gillian McKeith has WP:BLP concerns and quackery concerns as detailed here. WAS 4.250 09:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gillian McKeith

message: Input is needed regarding a category rename at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_11#Category:Autistic_people. Doczilla 05:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Autistic spectrum disorders

message: This is what happend..The gentlemen was sleeping and out of no where started Dry Heaving and he was asked to get up and he did not respond. Finally he had opened his eyes when he was asked to sit up, his response was "I can't." He does have a history of long term smoking. Also he is taking different medications. Does that help any?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.233.170.46 (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dry Heaves causing Seizures continued.... 

message: has been making a few edits to the lung cancer page which, er, don't exactly conform to WP:NPOV—our WikiDocs may want to add it to their Watchlists. Fvasconcellos 22:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lung cancer 

message: Could someone please assess the quality and importance of the electrocardiogram article? Best, MoodyGroove 00:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Electrocardiogram

message: I have a list of missing topics related to medicine. I've tried to find any appropriate redirects or similar articles but I'd appreciate if some experts could have a look at the list. - Skysmith 11:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you can merge the list to Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences/Medicine and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/Missing_diseases. I made some redirects and started a few stubs. --WS 21:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some missing topics 

message: I just expaned the article on Artificial limbs (it had been a stub) and would appreciate any feedback in order to improve the article Nfk17 21:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artificial Limbs 

message: I'm traveling, with limited internet access, and noticed this issue when a link was (incorrectly) changed on tourettism; I don't have time to correct and work on everything alone, and am hoping someone can help.  Links to the recognized medical condition, Fetal alcohol syndrome have been redirected to a non-recognized medical condition, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder on at least 50 articles.   The links from referenced literature on tourettism (referring to fetal alcohol syndrome) were redirected to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder—not supported by the literature.  Surely Wikipedia should link to the recognized diagnosis rather than a speculative diagnosis.  I'll do what I can to correct the links and repair the original article, but have limited internet access.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is still incorrectly named; I've left a long list on the talk page, and would appreciate help.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help on [[Fetal alcohol syndrome]]

message: Hello all. Please take a minute to look at this email thread.  Also, please consider actively stripping medical advice from Wikipedia.  Thank you, GChriss <always listening><c> 22:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for linking this. We must not show any kind of dose related information. I'll make a bigger search for doses in the articles. NCurse  work 06:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't read the whole thread yet, but I don't think we should remove the doses from all drug articles. That is actually important information and the same disclaimers as for all medical articles apply to these articles as well. --WS 23:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then this medical disclaimer should be much more visible. NCurse  work 07:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NDT for why there are no disclaimer templates. --Scott 19:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rx Dosage Instructions in Wikipedia 

message: I'm not going to change the medicine collaboration of the week this time, as I want to wait one month before refreshing it and we'll see how many edits are being made. NCurse  work 06:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MCOTW 

message: The teenage pregnancy article could do with a medical viewpoint. Fionah 17:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teenage pregnancy 

message: :Category:People with autistic spectrum disorders, which recently got renamed through CfD, is already undergoing another CfD and needs comment. Over the last four days, the discussion has mainly been between two people disagreeing with each other. . Although I expressed my own opinion about it a few days ago, I'm actually okay with either outcome. I just feel more people need to weigh in on this. Doczilla 19:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Autistic category already revisited

message: What would be the correct medical term for this?  Does anyone here know?  Having an expression that refers to the reader ("you") seems out of place in an encyclopedia. Reswobslc 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would go with Winded or Diaphragm spasm. This was the best resource I could find, which defines it as a "blunt trauma to the solar plexus". --Scott 15:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Getting the wind knocked out of you]] 

message: NPOV tag placed, could use input.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know much about it, but just looking at the acronym, the label looks like it describes a broad class of "disorders".  The emphasis on whether or not PANDAS is hypothetical seems inappropriate, since I'd expect controversy over a specific disorder, not about a word that seems to refer to a class of disorders in general.  What exactly is the focus of the controversy?  The streptococcal part?  The neurological part?  Whether the "disorder(s)" is/are all in one's head?  The article should make that clear. Reswobslc 02:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of your assumptions may be wrong, perhaps because the NIH didn't name it well (it does apply to a rough constellation of conditions).  It's not a broad class of disorders; perhaps it's just too loosely-defined as a hypothesis.  The entire hypothesis is controversial—there is no part of it that isn't (pls do read some of the links sourcing that statement - this one is full text, but  is probably the better paper, if you can get the full text).  Encephalon had started to rewrite it at one point, but he hasn't been around Wikipedia much, and I have no interest in expanding on an article that is an unproven hypothesis.  As far as I know, there is no one else on Wikipedia who knows PANDAS, which isn't unusual, since few physicians do (I seem to run into this problem every time I ask for medical help on TS-related articles).  The concern is the POV tag:  where's the POV?  It is an unproven hypothesis, and the article is well-referenced, albeit brief.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll go see if I can scare up Encephalon; he'll understand.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's some excerpts I had typed into a sandbox, when Encephalon was going to help.  User:SandyGeorgia/PANDAS  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, I would have tagged the article as POV myself, because it clearly demonstrates an attempt to persuade the reader that PANDAS is quackery.  The bias is obvious to me.  If the article were rewritten to say "PANDAS stands for this and refers to this... criticism includes allegations that PANDAS is unproven..." then it wouldn't be so POV anymore.  See WP:NPOV Reswobslc 17:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PANDAS is not quackery by any means; it is a well-studied, well-published unproven scientifically-based hypothesis that has engendered massive controversy and doesn't enjoy widespread support of specialists outside of the NIH.  Nothing about it is quackery.  To my eyes, the article does say PANDAS is this, the controversy is this; a more specific example of adjustments needed would be helpful, keeping in mind that undue weight would actually require more to be written about the controversial aspects (text I don't feel qualified to expand).  This is quite difficult without an expert on board, but NPOV requires mentioning the controversy, which is currently understated if anything.  If you see attempts to persuade, pls give me some concrete examples of where to adust.  The facts are the facts; it is massively controversial, and that is undermentioned in the current version of the article.  (I do appreciate that someone is at least looking at it, since there are so few editors on Wiki who can examine this topic, and we have an editor placing an POV tag based on anecdotal personal experience—thanks for helping.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's opening statement calls PANDAS a hypothesis, but the NIH reference it attributes it to does not.  In fact, the article appears to be plagiarized word-for-word from the NIH site, and then altered to say it's a hypothesis.  Don't get me wrong, it's OK to plagiarize the US Government, as copyright doesn't apply to its works.  But right now, the article calls PANDAS a hypothesis, and attributes that assertion to a source that clearly does not say that.  We can't have that.  You can attribute the idea of PANDAS to NIH in the article, and then attribute the dissenting viewpoint to the dissenters, but the article cannot narratively call PANDAS a "hypothesis" (nor can it refer to it as "fact") when that is a matter of disagreement between NIH and others. Reswobslc 08:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who wrote the original article, but the NIH is public domain, so it's not a problem.  Please produce an ICD or DSM code for PANDAS, and the word hypothesis can be dropped.  Here's a starting place for searching for diagnostic codes; note what they say about PANDAS.   Listed under complications of the strep diagnosis, they state:  "existence of PANDAS as a distinct entity is controversial: autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders have been described after streptococcal infection, overall evidence weak based on small case series and case reports."  Again, in the absence of a diagnostic code, it's a hypothesis (not the same as quackery), as recognized by an enormous body of journal-published research.  Alternately, maybe someone here can suggest a better word. Either it is a recognized medical diagnosis, or it's not.  That's not an issue of POV; it's a matter of fact. I'll be traveling for the next two weeks, so replies will be sporadic.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This may help: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/547096?rss  There is no diagnosis; only diagnostic criterion proposed by the NIH.  "The study investigators were concerned that the PANDAS diagnosis had been widely adopted in the community without confirmatory scientific evidence, ..."  Studies are based on the criteria proposed by Swedo/NIH ("The center used diagnostic criteria for PANDAS that were based on research criteria established in 1998 known as the Swedo criteria for their founder, Susan Swedo, MD, from the National Institute of Mental Health.").  (Just a note, Murphy is one of the few non-NIH proponents of the theory; this article quotes her more extensively than others—even as a proponent, she says, "The gap reflects the fact that PANDAS still has nebulous criteria that may need more refining.") SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the article is neutral and shows no undue weight now. TimVickers 18:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[P.A.N.D.A.S.]]

message: This article is a single sentence and has not been edited for two years. It has come up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Articles in the block I am trying to recover. I'm not sure about it. Does it make sense? Can it be expanded into a proper article? Can be be merged somewhere? Should it be deleted. Please advise or just do something about it. --Bduke 10:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only three articles link to it, but Google gives signficant hits, including this one, which seems to suggest it should be an article.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps one of our kidney specialists at WP:Nephro could have a look? Fvasconcellos 16:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your wish is my command FelixFelix talk 23:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Humm, it does have a fair number of results on Google. I would suggest leaving it as an article. Maybe someone, somewhere, sometime will be looking into this and expand on it. --Scott 08:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Low-protein diet]]

message: Could someone possibly take a look at this article and consider making it less POV? At the moment it's full of big pharma conspiracy allegations and other such stuff:)  I will try too:)Merkinsmum 21:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Aspartame controversy]]

message: Could someone knowledgeable take a look at Coenzyme Q10?  Much of the article reads like an advertisement for supplement companies that sell this chemical compound.  Some of the external links appear to be spam. Even some of the "references" are spam-like links to a ad-heavy Wiki site - hardly a reliable source. I'll take a crack at cleaning it up if someone more knowledgeable doesn't step in first.  Thanks.  Deli nk 13:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that most of the content I found inappropriate was added not too long ago by one individual, so I removed that person's edits, and performed a bit more cleanup.  The article could still use the attention of an expert, though, if anyone is interested.  Deli nk 14:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coenzyme Q10 

message: Although my field is chemistry, I started an attempt to overhaul this article today. It reflects the POV of clinical ecologics—those who believe MCS is a strictly physical disease, who are in an extreme minority. I began with what I believed were modest changes. Anyhow, it seems that User:Dr. Meggs has taken ownership of the article. I don't want to get near three reverts myself, but any attention you could give this article would be greatly appreciated. Cool Hand Luke 07:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help on [[Multiple chemical sensitivity]]

message: I added a WPMED template to Alternative medicine, as that subject needs expert edits from people with knowledge of medicine. Right now, the article is a terrible mess. If it's outside the scope of WPMED, the template may be removed. --Another question, can anyone give an article assessment rating, or only handpicked editors? Narssarssuaq 13:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article assessment rating is open for everyone. Feel free to rate the article! NCurse  work 18:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! What about the importance rating, is it free as well? Narssarssuaq 10:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Alternative medicine]]

message: Is anyone knowledgeable enough to help clean up the Vanishing twin article?  It is a mess.  A new user just added a bunch of reference material, which is great.  However, this user said that they have just published a review article on this topic and the papers they are citing are the references they used in their review paper.  I don't have access to all the publications so I am not sure if this is (a) an expert in the field contributing their work to Wikipedia or (b) someone who is too close to the subject using Wikipedia to advance their ideas on the subject.  It may be a bit of both.  There are some comments on the article's Talk page.  Can someone help out, please? Johntex\talk 16:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vanishing twin needs attention

message: The above article is currently linked to WikiProject Medicine. Is this appropriate? It seems to me that 731 were occupied with biological warfare research, not medicine. Without this distinction, could not Josef Mengele also be linked here? RomaC 16:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, it shouldn't be linked to the medicine project. BetacommandBot tagged it by chance. I removed the tag, thanks for the note. NCurse  work 18:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Unit 731]]

message: Can some of you knowledgable and discerning medical and scientist Wikipedians take a look at this please? This article has currently been getting some coverage in popular "gee whiz funny link of the day... how goofy!" type blogs ( I hate it when this happens and the article in question is dubious... I think it gives a bad impression of wikipedia), but it seems to be mainly based on the idea that this one insect scientist guy wrote some goofy comments for an insect sting pain index one day. Ok, I agree that insect scientists are allowed to have senses of humour (WITHIN LIMITS, for the sake of us all), but I am concerned that 1) this scale is not really widespread and may be just one scale promoted by one guy without much acceptance in the insect expert and/or medical community. 2) the pdf article linked which this wikipedia entry seems to be based on does not seem to say that Schmidt actually wrote those goofy comments. Its a bit ambiguous, but its seems to say that "the media" (without specifying what media) came up with the goofy comments to append to Schmidt's original dry scale(I think this may be another case where people exaggerate or misinterpret what an article is saying). I dont have any access to science or medical journal databases, and am certainly no science or insect expert. But these concerns and quick scans of google books and google scholar led me to bring this issue to wiser heads. Thanks very much  for checking this out. 88.109.1.60 16:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Schmidt Sting Pain Index]]

message: Gray's images are awful for anatomy.  Please find better ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.92.132 (talk • contribs) 
:True. Copyright rears its ugly head over attempts to download images from a lot of more recent publications. Not all, I concede, but Gray is so amazingly available!--Anthony.bradbury 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if you have any idea, don't hesitate to tell us! NCurse  work 09:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need better Anatomy images 

message: After Steven Fruitsmaak left to Wikinews, I need a new maintainer as I can't do this job alone. Is anybody interested in maintaining the medicine portal with me? I'd help in any ways and would describe the tasks more deeply. NCurse  work 09:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medicine Portal: recruiting 

message: I believe the Inhaler page needs to become a disambiguation page because it omits the types of inhalers such as nasal inhalers (e.g. Vics Vapor Inhaler, sprays,NasalCrom,...). I know it may cause a few stub articles but once going it may take a much informative form. Anyone else care for comment?
--RonEJ 10:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should [[Inhaler]] Become A Disambiguation Page? 

message: I'd appreciate if some of our American editors could put Epilepsy on their watch lists. It lay vandalised between 00:41 and 07:48 UTC this morning. It isn't a heavily vandalised article, but going 7 hours undetected is a bit embarrassing. Thanks, Colin°Talk 08:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it to my watchlist. NCurse  work 05:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epilepsy vandalism 

message: Hi there. A discussion is proceeding on the Talk:Antioxidant page about the validity of a recent review of clinical trials of antioxidant supplements. Expert advice would be much appreciated. Thank you. TimVickers 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expert advice wanted

message: I have been working on expanding the Amaurosis fugax article.  It is still extremely inadequate/incomplete, and I will continue to work on it in the coming days; but, I wanted to get feedback on the work I have done.  Would you be willing to give me some feedback?  This is my first article. Kilbad 20:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've made a great job. It's now a referenced, well-structured article. NCurse  work 05:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Will you check my Amaurosis fugax article

message: I'm currently studying to be a medical technologist, and I've noticed that a number of articles in my primary fields of interest (immunohematology, hematopathology, and genetics) are stubs. Is the consensus here that contribution should be limited to doctors and/or professionals, meaning that I should wait until I have my licensure, or may I expand as my studies permit? SkepticalGal 21:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to join in—I'm a layperson, and there's plenty of ways to contribute.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Qualifications for Contribution

message: Sugarman syndrome has been tagged "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards" since November 2005. "The oldest cleanup requests are the highest priority, to prevent embarrassing problems from going unfixed for an indefinite length of time." . Article is a very short stub: "Sugarman syndrome is the common name of Oral-facial-digital syndrome type III." One of the two external links provided seems to be dead. Thanks for your attention. -- Writtenonsand 06:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sugarman syndrome]] needs your help 

message: Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dereks1x,  is merely a sock puppet of Dereks1x.  Doc United States has,  however, been editing medical articles over the last several days in what I suspect was an attempt to bolster his false medical credentials.  While some of Doc United States' edits were sourced, others weren't.  I hope the participants in this project will take some time to check Doc United States contributions for accuracy given the circumstances. · j e r s y k o talk · 12:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only condition I'm semi familiar with in his contribs is Wilson's disease; his contrib there looks valid.     SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please check a user's contributions 

message: I'm curious to know if the following listed at List of medical abbreviations is real or a hoax:
FIBD Found in Bed Dead 
FLK Funny Looking Kid (suggesting an unspecified syndrome, should now be termed "dysmorphic features") 
FOF Found on Floor (Patient fell out of bed) 
If not real, perhaps someone should delete them. If real, then it sure is educational.Heliocybe 12:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FLK (Funny Looking Kid) was a real term used in the UK to describe infants/children with odd appearances suggestive of an unspecified or yet-to-be described syndrome or genetic disorder. It certainly was inserted as a discrete abbreviation into notes when I was training (as a warning to other doctors to consider that seemingly unrelated problems might have an underlying single cause). Nowdays with more PC (as well as ability of paraents and in due time the child themselves to have access to the notes), the term "Dysmorphic features" would be used but there will be hardcopy notes out there still having "FLK". David Ruben  Talk  02:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of medical abbreviations]] 

message: Can someone please take a look at this article and tell me if what I am doing is correct. Cortisporin is just a drug brand name so it really shouldn't be a drug article? Should I get rid of all the info and just refference it? How would I go about refferencing it, when it is made up of 3 different drugs (Neomycin, polymyxin B, and hydrocortisone? Sorry for the dilema made, I saw it as a request to make the article and automatically created it, but now I am having doughts. Any comments or help would be greatelly appreciated. Thanks. petze 14:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cortisporin]] 

message: The proposed guideline WP:MEDMOS has been declared "historical" due to lack of activity. Please can we push towards consensus and make it a formal guideline. If we think it is close, we can advertise on the Village pump. Discuss on the talk page. Colin°Talk 15:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) 

message: Is there a category for physical diagnosis that lets me browse all articles tagged as such? Badgettrg 21:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean: :Category:Medical signs? NCurse  work 15:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Physical diagnosis

message: Just searching for some input here. Inflammation as it stands is a messy, half-done article focusing more on acute inflammation from a clinical standpoint. Chronic inflammation is a little stub at the moment. I'm in two minds at the moment over what to do with them. I would prefer to have Inflammation as a general introduction to both with each having their own pages, rather than having both in one article. What do you guys think would be the best course of action? -- Serephine ♠ talk - 11:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably be best if the Inflammation article was expanded and worked on, and then having a seperate page for both chronic and acute inflammation. Hopefully in time someone can end up putting effort into working on the articles, but maybe if no progress is done, for the time being just do redirects for chronic and acute inflammation into just inflammation? petze 05:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflammation -  to merge or not to merge? 

message: Having been diagnosed with Meralgia paresthetica, I read the wikipedia article and informative articles on emedicine.com, aaos.org, mayoclinic.com, neurosurgery.ucla.edu.  The wikipedia article was notable for failing to mention the site of the nerve constriction that usually causes this condition.  I added the information that I had gleaned from the other sites, and edited some wikicommons pictures from Gray's anatomy to illustrate the text.  I invite professional review to make sure the article conforms to WP:MED standards.
I also noticed an article on chiroweb.com suggesting that chiropractic treatment is often effective for this condition.  I do not know how chiropractic medicine is treated in this venue, and I have no authoritative references for such treatment, so I have not added any mention of such treatment in the article.  I bring this up in hopes that an informed professional has something useful and encyclopedic to add. –Dan Hoey 22:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to User:Davidruben and User:Arcadian for the cleanup.  By the way, the note on exercise came from http://neurosurgery.ucla.edu/Diagnoses/PeripheralNerve//PeripheralNerveDis_3.html ; I don't know how reliable that's considered. –Dan Hoey 00:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I've added above ref to the details (and also added suggestion for trial NDSAIDs) David Ruben  Talk  00:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And thanks again for the good work.  It doesn't look like a stub any more, so maybe Talk:Meralgia_paraesthetica is due for a rating change, though I don't know enough to give it a grade.  The only really annoying part (and this is probably true of a lot of infoboxes) is that printing the article, which wisely expands the external links, makes the infobox picture so wide that the first page is half empty.  We would need someone with deep knowledge of template design to work on that.  –Dan Hoey 15:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review request: [[Meralgia paresthetica]]