Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Archive 4

message: Hihi, I'm a medical student in London and i've have been playing around with the mediawiki software the past few days. I chanced myself upon here by accident via links from Medipedia.org (dead link Courtland 03:35, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)). Well, I have also created another medical wiki site not too long ago (Nov 2003). It's called Mednotes.net (dead link Courtland 03:35, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)) and it aims to be a medical textbook of sorts targetted towards undergraduate students first and later postgraduate if it becomes "successful". Not much has been added in the mediawiki site yet, however quite a few articles are being imported from an older Mednotes site based on TWiki. Mednotes provides concise outlines of various conditions and tries to integrate this with examination, history taking, differential diagnosis and EBM into every article. It's under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA license. I just read a few posts above (WikiMD.org, Mediwiki and Wikipedia sites) which mention that the target audience for medical students are questionable. I feel that it might be true for those who are already participating in Wikipedia, however there is a subpopulation of medical students who are interested in contributing articles at their level of knowledge for others to benefit. Many are making electronic notes already for themselves and most of these notes are a mish mash of various facts from everywhere. I think only a small step is needed to to share what they have made and that is especially after they have just graduated. It might not be as detailed as in wikipedia but it would be shared information nonetheless at a level suitable for medical students and possibly even the public and you never know, it might be easy to use summaries good enough to flesh out in wikipedia for full fledged articles.
Cheers from london,
--Weiming 12:10, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Weiming. Your efforts are much to be applauded. Wiki is a perfect format for a textbook, especially when you aim to keep things up-to-date (my textbooks from the late 1990s are already outdated!) You should be able to use wikipedia articles under the GFDL and adapt them to your audience. (PS which medical school are you in?) 19:20, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Jfdwolff for your comment, it is good to know that I am heading in the correct direction. I agree that a wiki is the perfect tool for a textbook, however I am always plagued by comments from potential contributors that the textbook is not trustable as it is not verified by recognised individuals in their field. It is sorta a chicken and egg thing. Anyway, I am definitely going to try and keep things up to date. It would be quite a challenge to do so but that is where the wikipedia, [medlogs] and [hubmed] come in handy. I'm a bit confused on what Wikiprojects imply, is mine one or is it a strictly defined entity in Wikipedia? Am asking cos I'm wondering whether I could get a link onto the project page in the "related wikiprojects" section. I would like some publicity to increase interest over the textbook. For the last question, I am a 4th year clinical student from Royal Free and University College medical school. Cheers, --Weiming 21:42, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another new wiki 

message: Diabetes Mellitus was recently nominated for WP featured article status. Despite some extensive editing in response to comments, it failed to reach that status. I am unsure just why, exactly, as it seemed that the objections noted were effectively and promptly addressed, but ... The nomination, comments and general back and forth are archived at featured article nominations. 
Those interested in contributing might want to note the colloquy at  which includes (more or less) the only remaining issues I can think of that might be appropriately addressed in a WP article. Maybe another pass at featured status in a couple of months might be appropriate, particularly if an endorsement from official WP medical folk as to accuracy is available. Anyway, I thought folks here might want to know. ww 20:23, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Diabetes is still a mess. Needs splitting into subarticles: complications of diabetes, etc. JFW | T@lk 08:48, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: featuring (non) result

message: As I'm not a physician myself, I'm curious as to what you docs are using as your references when writing articles. In particular, I've stumbled upon eMedicine more than a few times while Googling for a particular medical topic, and was wondering what your thoughts are in using it as a source of good clinical material. After reading their entries on patent ductus arteriosus and mitral valve prolapse, my first impression is definitely a positive one: most articles are edited by multiple docs, updated frequently (the PDA and MVP articles aren't even a month old), and the overall information in articles seems pretty comprehensive. What are your thoughts? --Diberri | Talk 06:08, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
:Emedicine is very good, but I don't know how permanent their URLs are. JFW | T@lk 08:48, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: emedicine is good and I don't have a good sense of its permanence for purposes of linking-- probably pretty good. I don't use it as a source because I know most of the topics I'm writing about at least to the depth of an emedicine article. The articles are reliable, and I haven't noticed errors, but the articles are similar to medical student textbooks or a quickly accessible source for out-of-our specialty overviews. In other words, you have to know a little more than that to treat patients with the diseases covered. Does that make sense? Alteripse 12:10, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Personlly, I normally write off the top of my head from memory. The BMJ is great as it is online in HTML (hate reading pdfs online). Erich 17:55, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Dave, the Emedicine articles are generally based on a few good systematic reviews. My general approach to articles is to find those reviews (e.g. in the NEJM) and abstract the relevant material accordingly. When more/better material becomes available (e.g. proof of rosiglitazone for PCOS), this can be worked into the article body later. JFW | T@lk 08:40, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  eMedicine articles as references 

message: Who is going to read this week's The Lancet closely and update HIV, AIDS and related? JFW | T@lk 08:40, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: HIV

message: I found out from the Wikipedia:Pages needing attention that aortic aneurysm is pretty much a copyviolation of an emedicine article. I've subsequently deleted the text but it needs redoing. I've started with a stub. Alex.tan 08:59, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Aortic aneurysm]]

message: This user has been banned from editing on the english wikipedia (? period) for POV editwars, particularly on alternative medical topics, especially iridology. I propose removing him from the wikidoc membership list until he proves himself worthy of being a normal wikipedia member. Alex.tan 08:59, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding [[User:Irismeister|Irismeister]]

message: Hi, I'm rewriting the Respiratory distress syndrome page. 
Content's not fully there, yet, but I was wondering what tags or other special code I should include to 'categorize' the article within the project.
Thanks in advance for the info, Aside 14:53, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: To categorise, you add Category:Intensive care medicine at the bottom. The wiki picks it up and adds this article to the relevant category. To link to a category, make use to add a colon before the name, because otherwise the page you're working on is added to the category as well! For example :Category:Hematology takes you to :Category:Hematology. JFW | T@lk 15:37, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working on ARDS 

message: see the notice re VIPs Erich 13:38, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikitriage

message: I got video from one of the first diagnostic endoscopies from Dr. Hirshowitz.  How can I upload this?  Also I uploaded the image of Hirshowitz's first endoscope, photo courtesy of Hirshowitz. Kd4ttc 00:24, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting Video

message: Hi docs, could you look at the following pages please. 1. Thomas Barlow, Royal Physician.  I have put in his career details but I'm not so certain about what he did to medicine.  2. phagy - I have written a stub on the ecological term but it also has medical meanings I think.  Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:17, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some pages to look at 

message: I just came accross this distburbing post in my meanderings. Through gritted teeth I've just had a go at one of the pages, but Child sexuality is technically well beyond me. Alteripse! help!! my reflex would be to request speedy delete on the lot but I'm trying to be NPOV. feel free to dust along side and be even more vigorous! best wishes to all Erich 10:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you and support what you did. Please keep doing it. I think the JAMA article you found says everything better than I could. I would ask for rapid administrative support right from the top to direct all related content to a single article on pedophilia that is carefully monitored and maintained to protect this entire project from content that could destroy it and make us all sorry to have been involved, at least in this country. Nothing would make me halt participation here faster than accommodating material that could be construed as supportive. I will add this to the mailing list later. Thank you for bringing it up. Alteripse 12:36, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: good. thanks. well I'm going to bed soon and will leave this to other timezones to push. I'll pick up the batton tommorro ;-) Erich 12:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just read the article Child sexuality. I do not believe this article should be under a "a single article on pedophilia" since the article in question doesn't really mention pedophilia but is about sexuality in children. I realise the article is translated from German and this makes it difficult but it really would be better able to stand where it is if each of the claims was referenced. Being a psychiatrist who has read some of the literature, nothing in the article jars except perhaps the claim "Sexology agrees that a person longs for sexual satisfaction from birth to ripe old age. Male fetuses are even known to have erections." This seems to be a non sequitur and the first sentence needs to be justified by references. As long as the article contains credible research backed statements presented in a NPOV manner then I think it's OK. --CloudSurfer 20:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Please perform the indicated surgery on the article. I would extract both sentences.Alteripse 20:22, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Done with it being put on the talk page for discussion. --CloudSurfer 20:48, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: disturbing content on 'pedia

message: Please feel free to add/edit. BjarteSorensen 13:00, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Added [[gastroenteritis]]

message: Is there anything useful about a list of diseases, most of which are repeated entries of earlier disease, most of which are undefined. I was tempted to start editing the pages list of diseases starting with A, but it is very long and unappealing. What do you think? Mehrenberg 22:55, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
:I agree - the only thing good about those lists is they would not have taken long to cut and paste from somewhere. Rather than starting at A, I reckon we should start with the most important topics... as a step in that direction I created Very Important Pages and Where They're At so we could triage the pages needing work. It's a collective work in progress - feel free to (actually: please) add to the list and reorder it. Erich 06:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: List of diseases

message: I came up with an interesting way to keep tract of the articles that I am interested in.  What I do is keep a bookmark that points to the medline reference for the article.  Then, in folders, I arrange the bookmarks based on what the articles are about.  Using folders within folders, it is an easy way to keep tract of a lot of articles.  As a bonus, since I use Mozilla Firefox as my browser, it allows me to easily search the bookmarks for a particular bookmark, allowing me fast access to the medline abstract for any study that I bookmarked.
For example, I created a folder called CHF.  Inside that folder is a folder called Digoxin.  Inside that folder is a bookmark that points to the medline abstract for the DIG trial.
Using this to keep tract of my references, I'll probably be adding more references to my Wiki articles.  Just something I thought some of you guys might find interesting/useful. :-)
Ksheka 22:52, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
If we had more people here, your system could be a great collaborative process. However, I yawn at digoxin and expect you would be equally unenthusiastic about my ped endo refs. We need to recruit more docs! Alteripse 23:31, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: True, it's not really good for group efforts.  I'm not even sure if I would like other cardiologists to mess around with my list.  But for each individual to keep track of which articles they find useful, it's a pretty good way to remain paperless. Ksheka 23:52, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
If you need more search capabilities.. I like to email certain links, articles, etc. with GMail.  It has the same search capabilities as google.  I commonly use it to search through email headers to find what article, number, topic, person, etc. I was looking for.  It's still currently in Beta, but it's pretty easy to get an invite.
--Daria k 23:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence based medicine

message: Would it be a good idea to add the boxes to the categories under the description of the category? The medicine box to the medicine category below the description of the medicine category and so on? - Fuelbottle | Talk 20:27, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Boxes and categories

message: Category talk:Specialisms of medicine. Specialisms' – Is this an actual word? I just thought I should check with some people in the proffession before I moved the page and changed the links.--ZayZayEM 09:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm an almost-graduated medical student in Chicago. I have never heard the term "specialism"; we always say specialty. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Specialisms of medicine

message: The articles on Magnetic resonance imaging and Raymond V. Damadian have been anonymously edited in ways that seem to me to violate NPOV (concerning Damadian's complaints about the award of the 2003 Nobel Prize in medicine).  I'm not knowledgeable about the technical issues, though.  I've tried to NPOV the Damadian article but haven't even touched MRI.  Even on Damadian, I may have left in too little or too much of the anon's dismissal of Damadian's work.  If anyone can take a look it would be appreciated. JamesMLane 02:58, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for help -- MRI controversy

message: While looking at Klüver-Bucy syndrome, I noticed it had no category. So I tried :Category:Behavioral disorder, but that doesn't exist. Even worse, Behavioral disorder is a completely inappropriate redirect to National Institute of Mental Health.
Is the term "behavorial disorder" a medically defined term to begin with, or just a popular medicine label? Could anyone with more knowledge sort the matter out? I want to turn Behavioral disorder into a stub, but I have zero expert knowledge to do it with. JRM 16:24, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
Kluver-Bucy syndrome is a behavioral disorder resulting from organic hypothalamic dysfunction-- i.e., an organic brain syndrome. It is usually categorized as a neuropsychiatric disorder. It could go under psychiatric disorders if we have such a category.alteripse 17:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Behavioral disorder]]