Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Archive 7

message: The page was getting unmanageably large, so I've created Archive 4 and refactored this one. Hope that's OK with all of you. I've still left some pretty old discussions here, but curiously Dr. Ruben replied to an older message just some minutes ago that got swept up into the archive before I realized what was happening. The diff is here. 
Regards—Encephalon | ζ 20:46:08, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
:As above, I've created Archive 5 and refactored this page. I will move the most recent discussions over. --JohnDO|Speak your mind  13:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactored 

message: I started this project here. Please leave comments, help to create correct guidelines. Thanks. NCurse work 16:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical Genetics WikiProject 

message: Having an interesting discussion on Talk:Diabetes mellitus whether there is an endogenous form of the yeast glucose tolerance factor, a chromium-containing substance which may ameliorate diabetes. At the moment I'm having a bit of a déjà vu. JFW | T@lk 17:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diabetes 

message: Anyone else think this article is borderline quackery?  In my endocrinology book, they have one small paragraph on andropause in the menopause section, and it says There is a question as to whether there is an equivalent ‘andropause' in men.  Jpbrody 22:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of the article appears to be copied from various websites. I'll fix what I can. -AED 22:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Some of it is driven by the pharmaceutical industry, as well. Take a look at Androgel advertisements when you get the chance! InvictaHOG 00:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, I am curious.  Is there anything to a 'male menopause', or is it all bogus?jawesq 01:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for taking the time to explain this.  With all the television advertising, I have sometimes wondered if diseases or disorders ("social anxiety disorder" comes to mind) are invented to sell pharmaceuticals.  Alas it would not surprise me if aging is someday labeled a disorder. jawesq 05:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: yep.  I had no idea there was an article on it.  That's great!jawesq 06:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Andropause]]??

message: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles): I've proposed this as a Manual of Style guideline to writing medical articles, please comment on that talk page!--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 12:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfQ guideline: Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles) 

message: Opinions on how to handle Medicinal properties of dandelion? AfD? Merge? AED 23:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's tough, because the common dandelion page has not yet been created. I think that ideally a little of the information should be verified and kept there, though most could just be deleted. Eventually the page can be redirected or simply deleted. I don't think we need a page on this. InvictaHOG 23:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the "medicinal properties of dandelion" can be attributed only to taraxacum officinale (as the article claims) and not the other species, the page could be renamed Taraxacum officinale, as suggested on the talk page, once the information has been verified, and the page redirected there. This would be more likely to meet with consensus initially. --apers0n 06:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Medicinal properties of dandelion

message: While working in the wikification project, I came across this article that probably needs some expert attention.  I have no clue what the equation means, so if someone could look at that article, I'd really appreciate it.  It needs work to be cleaned up and such.  Thanks, Metros232 20:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a crack at it.  I think the basics are now there, but it is probably close to incomprehensible if you don't have an engineering degree. Nephron  T|C 21:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, wow, that's a big difference between where it started and where it ended up.  Of course I don't fully understand it still, but I understand it much better than I did in its previous state.  Thanks. Metros232 22:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Stress Strain Index]] 

message: I'm trying to find out when the state of New Jersey started regulating psychotherapy. Thanks in advance for any help. --JWSchmidt 04:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  regulation of psychotherapy 

message: Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas is a physician and author of a few medical review books. I'm thinking about nominating the article for deletion on the grounds that he doesn't appear to meet the standards set by Wikipedia:Notability (doctors) or Wikipedia:Notability (books), but I though it might be wise to get some feedback here first. Does being an author guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia? -AED 03:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it! InvictaHOG 11:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible AfD

message: I got into this subject from wondering what the difference between Neurology and Neuroscience was,
and I concluded that there isn't a very big one, nor is it a distinction that pervades European language. It's not in Czech, German, or Polish. One is a research discipline. The other tends to refer to pathology. I also ran into minor objections, one of them being that there are too many categories that some articles would fit in. No big deal in my book, especially since I'm trying to eliminate a category. Some elaborate articles should get into many categories. This is my thinking, if I continue:
Pathology: Any condition for which there is a laboratory test or medical imaging to confirm or deny a diagnosis. In rural areas, I'm left to believe that G.P.s often interpret lab results. This category is the main difference between Neuroscience and Neurology. IOW, if an article is about both NeuroScience and Disease, then it properly belongs only in Neurology.
Symptoms: I would abandon categorizing articles under Symptoms for being literally equal to Pathology, but then I would be left with no distinction for an article that was under neuroscience, but described a disease that should be under Neurology as it was orijinally distinguished from NeuroScience.
Buttressing my rationale, in a rough manner of side issues, is a relatively unused :category:medicine, and I really think the stubs category is far too big. Aren't all wiki articles stubs? An edit tab is at the top of just about every page on wikipedia. Isn't that enough to prompt input from someone who knows what they're talking about? So, if an article seems to be complete or not likely to expand, you'll excuse me for deleting the stub templates.
Someone objected to a fifth :category:treatment, but that again offers a reason to class an article under neurology. If I heed the objection, it will be because treatment falls into Neurology. If I ignore it, it will be because articles exclusively about treatment will likely remain a small category.
:— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.170.79 (talk • contribs)  08:30, 14 August 2006
:As previously stated (can't remember which talk page it was), neurosciences is the underlying sciences and study including normal functioning (e.g. Sodium-potassium channels, neuroembryology, characteristics of neuronal depolarisation etc). Whilst "neurology" deals with pathology true, this misses the point that "Neurology" is a medical discipline and thus is the practice of medicine to neurological disorders. Medical articles do not need to be listed under every possible classification scheme as you suggest - :Category:neuroscience can deal with underlying mechanisms of function (but we don't also automatically add to such articles :Category:Biochemistry or:Category:Electricity), :Category:Neurology should apply to the development of the medical speciality and diseases it covers. :Category:treatment would be pointless and is superfluous as could be applied to all disease articles - instead top level existing categories are :Category:Medicine with subcategory :Category:Medical treatments, and :Category:Pharmacology, which together lead to :Category:Pharmacologic agents which in turn has subcategories, eg :Category:Anticonvulsants. David Ruben  Talk  23:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merjing NeuroScience into Neurology 

message: It has been suggested in Talk:Medical tourism that Medical value travel, Medical tourism in Thailand, and Medical Tourism India merge to Medical tourism. Anyone care to comment before this is done? -AED 00:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Medical tourism

message: I created a bio for V. Craig Jordan, pharmacologist who published lots on tamoxifen.  But I have no medical training and would appreciate it if someone with more of a clue could take a brief look and see if I misrepresented anything or left out something blindingly obvious. Thanks. --SiobhanHansa 08:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left some comments on the talk page. I think this could aid in providing historical background on tamoxifen and SERM as well. JFW | T@lk 10:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expert help for V. Craig Jordan bio

message: I think I've already crossed the 3RR line, so I could use a bit of assistance in Myopia. Someone with socks keeps adding "Behavioral myopia" (a concept that gets only 4 Google hits) to a part of the article that makes a true description false. Thanks! -AED 04:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Political myopia? Clinical myopia? It's a great metonym! JFW | T@lk 08:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Myopia

message: This article first clinical syndrome should be merged with medical student syndrome.  While the article describes things that may be unique to India, the entities themselves are essentially identical.  70.19.131.66 19:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First clinical syndrome 

message: Cross-posted from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology -- Samir   धर्म 07:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ulcerative colitis, debate at Talk:Ulcerative colitis#RfC.  The Radical Induction Theory of Ulcerative Colitis was proposed in one paper by Dr. Jay Pravda.  It has never been cited by another publication, but ulcerative colitis contains four references to it, and 12 lines of text based on it.  Does this violate WP:SOAP?  Crossposted at WP:CLINMED -- 07:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It holds a ground between WP:NOR, WP:N and WP:SOAP. I would strongly recommend you have it sent for AFD. Let us know when you do. Specific theories on pathogenesis are almost never notable, unless they are earth-shattering (such as all cancers being due to watching television). JFW | T@lk 15:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Done that, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radical Induction Theory of Ulcerative Colitis. Please vote. JFW | T@lk 16:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ulcerative colitis]] RfC 

message: Anyone want to have a peek at this new article?  I've disputed the use of secondary sources and web sites on the talk page -- Samir   धर्म 14:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reacted on the article's talk page. NCurse  work 14:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does Wikipedia need both this article and Computed tomography? --apers0n 16:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think they're really different topics. Have a look at the first two paragraphs of the full-body scan article. I didn't know it neither. :) NCurse  work 16:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full-body scan 

message: has been inserting links to the site that bears his username, which contains case reports and howto's. We now disagree on whether a link of his on polycythemia is appropriate. JFW | T@lk 11:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look at the polycythemia case entry, and while it's a good clinical case, material contained in the case interpretation should be encyclopedized into the article as opposed to placing an EL -- Samir   धर्म 04:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But as long as it is not all in there, it is a valuable link. --WS 06:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinical Cases 

message: If anyone might be interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Enzyme. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 01:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Enzyme]] nominated for FA 

message: I've started :Category:Pages needing attention from an expert in medicine. Interested users can have a look and maybe weigh in on several issues posted there. Maybe we could create a Task Force within this project to cover those articles?
Also, I've asked for a bot to automatically sort pages needing expert attention into categories.
To add an article to this category, replace you can replace  by .
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Pages needing attention from an expert in medicine 

message: For whoever is interested:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who have published in Public Library of Science journals --WS 19:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another article for deletion

message: Feedback requested at Template talk:Interventions infobox. --Arcadian 23:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interventions

message: Someone has made a template on STD's :Template:STD/STI and is vehemently arguing without evidence that Hepatitis C is an STD.  Sexual transmission of Hepatitis C is very low, and even the CDC no longer lists sexual transmission as a risk factor of hepatitis C.  .  The American Association for Studies of the Liver (AASLD) does not even recommend the need for barrier protection in monogamous couples where one member has Hepatitis C  .  Our own article makes it clear that it is not an STD.  As such, I've removed it from the template, but one editor disputes this.  The template is now blocked because of an edit war.  Comments are requested. -- Samir धर्म 06:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be solved. Anyway you're a hepatitis expert, your references seem to be perfect. The template mustn't be on that page. NCurse  work 06:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hepatitis C]] and STDs 

message: A recent edit has removed a point of controversy in Emergency Medicine.  Before adding back the information, I'd like others thoughts, since I am some what personally biased. 
There are two competing board certifications ABEM and BCEM. The major difference is that ABEM certifies physicians who are residency trained in Emergency Medicine, while BCEM will certify those who have followed a practice track. Many who are residency trained in Emergency Medicine feel that the "practice track," while once sufficient, is no longer enough to make one a competant Emergency Physician. Those who have taken and passed the BCEM because they were no ABEM eligible clearly disagree. Florida allows the BCEM by statute, North Caroline rejects it and there is a fight among individual hospitals about whether they will accept BCEM as equivalent to ABEM for "Board Certification in Emergency Medicine. 
I'm looking for other people's thoughts about if and how this should be incorperated in the article. Bdolcourt 16:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Emergency Medicine]] 

message: I was wondering if cofact is used anywhere outside of the Netherlands? I could only find information about it on dutch websites. If not, what do you use to treat patients receiving oral anticoagulants who are bleeding? --WS 12:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's usually called cofactor or a hemostatic agent. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Prothrombin complex is a specific drug. My drug guide says it "Consists of purified plasma-derived factors II, IX and X. This product also contains heparin 200 units and antithrombin III 25 units per vial." Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cofact 

message: Thanks to everyone who worked on, peer-reviewed, and discussed the acute myeloid leukemia article. It looks pretty good (although of course can always be improved) and has been accepted as a Featured Article. MastCell 23:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks for work on [[acute myeloid leukemia]] 

message: I was wondering if someone might want to briefly check the contributions of a new user who has been adding information to various pharmaceutical articles. Some of the information  User:Chrisgaffneymd has added appears to have been copied from drug data sheets and his Talk page indicates he has a (short) history of adding copied material. The subject matter is beyond my area of expertise. -AED 03:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: Not a participant in this project, and probably the wrong place to put this, but Fiona Godlee has "cited" Wikipedia (most likely this article) in her editorial in this week's BMJ: editorial • commentary Fvasconcellos 21:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty cool. I wish the article had references itself so we could make sure it really is true! InvictaHOG 21:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia ref in BMJ 

message: Psychosis is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Psychosis]]

message: I've put this article up for DYK, hoping that it will have the same fate as Robinow syndrome did... I'm inviting everyone to improve this article!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tree of Hippocrates]] is a DYK candidate 

message: For those interested:
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quackpotwatch. -AED 05:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Various articles for deletion

message: Oculoplastics to Oculoplastic surgery or Oculoplastic surgery to Oculoplastics? -AED 07:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would redirect to oculoplastics. InvictaHOG 17:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. EyeMD 15:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Which way to redirect?

message: David Ruben and I are involved in a tedious revert war involving external link spam in the article Psoriasis. I'd appreciate any third party help! Thanks. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 08:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war on [[Psoriasis]]