Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Edit with VisualEditor

Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 30 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

List of archives

Merged Archive WikiProject Preclinical medicine: 1 Merged Archive WikiProject Clinical medicine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 WikiProject Medicine Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171

CT / MRI viewer

We at Wiki Med Foundation have been working to develop a CT / MRI scan viewer. Currently it is functionally on EN WP as a trial and works fairly well on mobile and desktop. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

this is a very good idea, I believe this needs to be supported--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

That looks interesting. I think the UI needs a little more information. So first, for anyone who wants to take a look (do it!), just go to User:Doc James/CT scan viewer, and where it says "(requires turning on the gadget under preferences or this)" in the section heading, click on the word 'this'. (If you do that, you can test it without having to do anything to your prefs.) In the picture, a ► play button will appear. Click that.

Then wait several seconds for all the images to load. In this instance, there are 248 images. It'll give you a vertical bar with a slider dot at the bottom. After everything's loaded, you can slide that up and down to step through the images. If you want to view it image-by-image, then look at the text (sideways) that says "← (177/248) →" and click on the individual arrows.

I think this would be particularly interesting on CT scan, because it gives people an idea of what the results are. For that page in particular, I'd love to see a head-to-toe scan with a few labels (spine, lungs, liver?), so they can stay oriented.

Also, I wonder whether this could be integrated into MediaViewer. MarkTraceur, do you know a multi-part image has ever been considered there? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

As a member of Wikipedia Radiology task force, I always wanted this kind of gadget in Radiology related articles. Thankyou @Doc James for fulfilling this wish. I see this as a good starting point to move forward to its implementation. I agree with WhatamIdoing's comment about UI, and would also request this support to be extended to MR Scans as well. Thankyou. _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 03:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Yup it works for MRI images aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay CT/MRI viewer is now fully live. You can see an example of it here Appendicitis#Diagnosis. We have collected about 5,000 CT/MRI sets that are public domain here on NC Commons. Basically these are image sets from Radiopaedia that have been uploaded by US authors. And per the US copyright office are thus in the public domain. We have built a tool NCC2Commons that make moving the sets to Commons much easier. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

For those, like me, who weren't aware of this "per the US copyright office are thus in the public domain" thing. It's explained briefly here. Thanks for the info DJ! Very helpful to know! Ajpolino (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

How to write pages for categories of medical conditions.

I'm attempting to rewrite the page Connective tissue disease and I've kind of ran into an issue. When it comes to writting about catagories of diseases or more broad terms should we follow the classic format of signs symptoms, causes, diagnosis, treatment etc. or should this be modified a bit? The issue I've come across is that there usually isn't much information on the group of disorders itself as most research is directed on individual diseases. Meaning if i wanted to make a section for symptoms of Connective tissue disease the only resource i could find summerizing the general symptoms is the cleveland clinic page[1] and Cedars-Sinai page[2]. Currently a lot of the disease catgory pages just have the classifications for the disorders. Would it be appropriate to make the classification section its own section (instead of having it as a subsection of diagnosis) and moving it farther up due to it being relevant (like I've done in my draft for connective tissue disease). Sorry if this came off as a bit of a ramble but I've been meaning to ask this question for awhile. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you need much better sources! Pubmed stuff does tend to be on extremely specific topics - you may want to be looking at recent medical textbooks, which you won't find free online. Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Any recomendations for how I can find this kind of content? I find that Science Direct can be hit or miss for this kind of thing (example). CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's the sort of thing I mean (about Pubmed stuff does tend to be on extremely specific topics). Medical textbooks are hard to find online, as they want to get the students/doctors to pay their often very high prices. Can you get to a good college or medical school library. These days it is often paywalled online subs. Perhaps other medical editors can advise? Good luck. Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll start blindly looking in some rheumatology textbooks for now. Thanks for the help! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Perlego at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library has two potentially useful textbooks:

• The Rheumatology Handbook for Clinicians (ISBN 9781550599053), especially the chapter "The Patient Who Is Systemically Unwell: Is It a Connective Tissue Disease?"
• ABC of Rheumatology (ISBN 9781118793206), which has a bit on pediatric connective tissue disorders and a chapter at the end on epidemiology that includes a section on connective tissue disorders.

There are probably other sources available in TWL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

In the U.S., you can usually get just about any book you could imagine via a process called interlinbrary loan (known to librarians as “ILL”). Just about any municipal library could do it, otherwise find a county level or state library. Many states have state libraries for which some residents qualify.

For these kinds of works, you’ll likely get your ILL fulfilled by an academic medical center’s library in your state or from another state (if your state doesn’t have it).

Larger libraries let you make the request online. Others use paper forms. Be prepared to provide a LOT OF SPECIFICS of your desired textbook.

Gather key info like publisher, edition, and the likes.ALWAYS provide an ISBN. Be careful to NOT provide the e-book ISBN, as these are unique. If there are multiple formats or reprints, just provide as many ISBN options as you can so the librarians can try.

Amazon is an easy place to start your search for those identifiers. WorldCat is the authoritative source for this.

good luck!! Gobucks821 (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh by the way: typical loan period is 3 weeks, minimum. You’re allowed to renew as many times as the lending library allows. Often this is 3 renewals. Cheers!! Gobucks821 (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

PubMed is useful, and recall there are hundreds upon hundreds of academic journals spanning so many topics beyond medicine. Another free source would be Google journals.

If you find a great journal article via PubMed etc., but it’s behind a paywall, I propose commenting on the article’s talk page to ask for somebody with access to check that journal.

For example, I have access to plethora journals, and I’d be happy to find the requisite data/citations that are behind the paywall.

However, I of course cannot respond to every single post by myself. We’d need folks to volunteer their access. Gobucks821 (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Opinions needed on the topic of if the word rare is appropriate in the lead of Addison's disease

For some time not the first sentence in Addison's disease has been "Addison's disease, also known as primary adrenal insufficiency, is a rare long-term endocrine disorder characterized by inadequate production of the steroid hormones cortisol and aldosterone by the two outer layers of the cells of the adrenal glands (adrenal cortex), causing adrenal insufficiency." However there's a bit of a disagreement going on between me and another editor.

They removed the term rare stating "unquantified relative terms are meaningless". I reverted this edit with my reasoning being "taking out the fact that Addisons disease is rare doesn't make sense as it is well sourced and helpful to readers (eg. the average reader knows what rare is but may not understand that 1 in 10,000 is considered rare for a disorder" perhaps I didn't word this very well but i stand by this point. To which the other editor reverted my revert with the reaoning "an unquantified relative term does not provide the information that you seem to believe was taken out. the number you quote remains in the lead section" and started this conversation on the talk page.

I have weighed in on the talk page as to why i think rare should be kept in the lead but I'm not going to add it back as I want to prevent conflict and would appreciate some unbiased opinions on the topic. If anyone could weigh in on the talk page that would be greately appreciated. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

In some contexts, and countries, "rare disease" is a legally-defined term - see here for a starting point. Don't we have rare disease - yes, apparently we do. In most countries, Addison's disease would seem to meet the criterion. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Interesting! In my comment on the talk page I did list the FDA definiton which is the same as the one you linked. I didn't feel like digging up an international source as I doubted that Addison's disease would fail to meet other criteria used. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep, it’s 200,000 or fewer (in the US). I worked on a couple rare diseases in years past. Here’s the link to FDA, as mentioned.Gobucks821 (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Please see Talk:Human epigenome#This article should be merged into epigenome. At this point, I think they would love to hear from anyone who has glanced over the two articles, even if you don't really know much about the subject area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

FYI: This has been merged. Thnx! Gobucks821 (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikicommons picture on cover of CMAJ

As per the heading: the July/August 2024 Print Edition of the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) used a WikiCommons picture of eosinophilic esophagitis.

Does any one happen to know User:CoRus13? (He doesn't seem to be around much. I wonder whether he knows the CMAJ liked his image enough to use it.)

Note: The article was published electronically in February.

Nephron  T|C 22:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I will check out their website, but my very first guess is that this is a fake journal to churn papers. We see this all the time from companies that invite even the least experienced folks to publish. Hate to speculate, but this is in line with the practices of such pseudo journals. Gobucks821 (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

This journal is old enough that it's unlikely to be a fake journal. Regional journals aren't usually prestigious, but most countries have a medical association that publishes papers of interest to the practitioners in that country. The big journals may not want to run a "Prevalence of common cold in Ruritanian Kindergartens" article, but the Ruritanian Medical Association might think it an excellent piece for their little journal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

PS - CMAJ previously used one of my images of diffuse alveolar damage on the cover (for an article about ARDS in July 2021)... and violated the terms of use. (I saw the image when it was published. They ended-up publishing a correction.) Nephron  T|C 22:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Special:EmailUser/CoRus13 might work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Low-dose naltrexone

Hi all, I'm not someone who usually edits medical topics but I have some concerns about the tone and content of Low-dose naltrexone and would appreciate having some more experienced editors look it over. I don't feel that I'm personally equipped to address this so I've gone ahead and tagged it for promotional content, but as this is a medical matter I wanted to raise it here to get some extra eyes on it. Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ethmostigmus, after you posted this, the page was substantially changed because of WP:COPYVIO problems. Did that happen to resolve your concerns? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the tone is much better now thanks to the removal of the copyrighted text and CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath reworking the lead. It still has plenty of room for expansion, but I'm very relieved that there is no longer any problematic content to worry about :) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ethmostigmus @WhatamIdoing @CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath I left some comments on the talk page. I understand that WP:MEDRS prefers secondary sources, so I'd appreciate your opinion on whether to incorporate newer RCTs that haven't yet been included in reviews. ScienceFlyer (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much, really appreciate your input :) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hierarchy of Evidence

I’ve recently been pointed to the WP guidelines advising against primary sources and privileging secondary sources for medical content. As a career clinical research I am surprised by the misinterpretation of the hierarchy of evidence. Many (most?) secondary sources are non-systematic and at least as prone to conflicts of interest as well-conducted large RCTs, and the source of the evidence is important, as large representative and new-agent phase 3 trials in high-impact journals may be more definitive than secondary sources in lower-impact journals or platforms. Not certain if this is the place to raise this broad issue but I’d be happy to work with the community to review and revise the guidelines, or join a community of experienced clinicians and researchers to improve the guidance. Best, EquityAce — Preceding unsigned comment added by EquityAce (talk • contribs) 13:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Certainly don't want that much from 'lower-impact' journals, but in general the job of this encylopedia is to summarize "accepted knowledge" as has been published, which is subtly different from what editors adjudge high-quality evidence, particularly novel high-quality evidence. Are there any examples of where the current guidance has a detrimental effect on an Article, in your view? Bon courage (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Bon courage. For convenience I’ll use a single recent example, though I’ve come across questionable citations as I ramp up edits on clinical topics. I’d just added mention of a recent well-conducted clinical trial from a reputable research group showing slowing of progression of diabetic retinopathy with fenofibrate, without any recommendation to take the drug. The trial was a culmination of years of suggestions that the agent is effective from observational studies. The Wiki editor @MrOllie removed the addition because it came from a primary source. The data are more informative than a casual narrative review (a purpose the Wikipedia page itself serves), and it deprives the WP community of knowledge of a low-cost generally safe preventive intervention in favor of the module’s mention of higher-cost injection therapies. It seems a delayed or missed opportunity. I’d say there’s a role for a properly performed systematic or scoping review and/or meta-analysis in fairly summarizing evidence, but that’s not the standard the current guidance encourages (ie any review is sufficient). @EquityAce EquityAce (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

There are reviews and reviews, and certainly some systematic reviews have been rejected too because WP:ECREE. I'd resist an overly-lawyerly reading of the guidance, and in a vibrant area like Diabetic retinopathy it's reasonable to wait for the WP:BESTSOURCES. We certainly shouldn't be trying to affect 'real world' decision making in any way. Bon courage (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

EquityAce - I think the specific guideline you are referring to is WP:MEDRS, and there is even as we speak a current discussion about this at WT:MEDRS#Reconsidering_a_blanket-ban_of_primary_sources that you are more than welcome to take part in. The guidelines have been shaped by a range of knowledgeable encyclopedians, clinicians, and researchers, of which you could join at meta:Wiki Project Med or here, as are you of course welcome of invite any of your contacts to join or take part of discussions.

What you may note, and bring to your discussion with MrOllie is that there is no blanket ban on primary sources, only a recommendation to give due weight. If there is a high quality clinical trial, that you report correctly (i.e. no recommendation), it may very well be apt to cite it. I would suggest looking at WP:MEDREV (subsection of MEDRS) that discusses how, and when to cite single large studies appropriately. I do not have the time to consider this particular case, but those pages do show where you could find appropriate arguments for including that material (or not). One of the primary arguments against including this specific trial may be WP:CRYSTALBALL or WP:NOTDIRECTORY (i.e. not a page for listing potential treatments/drug candidates). Simply stating that it is from a primary source is not enough if you have strong enough arguments for it that are in line with those guidelines.

(P.S. Additional essay-pages [not guidelines or policies are those linked above] that may be of relevance: WP:Why_MEDRS, Help:Wikipedia editing for medical experts, and one more that I forgot what it was called that covers why Wikipedia isn't cutting-edge [in part because this tends to lead to bloat, as it is easier to add new details than to go back removing old debunked things that were once thought to be novel and cutting-edge, the latter requiring more subject-matter expertise]). CFCF (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Excellent response. Provides much more context. Thank you. EquityAce (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly and absolutely agree with each and every sentiment expressed by EquityAce, and I too am a seasoned researcher. In many cases, such articles may be the ONLY source of critically needed data, making these so-called primary sources necessary. It would be prudent to cite well-referred articles from reputable journals for such topics—think of rare diseases, in particular. In a sense, due to the editorial process, these have a (slight) degree of secondary source because nonsense would be rejected and go unpublished. This said, it would be absolutely key, as time goes by, to revisit these citations and augment or amend them as science evolves. Gobucks821 (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

There was an attempt to list the rare cases where primary sources might be used at WP:MEDFAQ#WHENMEDPRIMARY. Rare diseases are mentioned, Bon courage (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Copyright issues with diagnostic criteria

I'm currently trying to improve the page Mixed connective tissue disease and I've ran into a bit of an issue. For context Mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD) has 4 different sets of diagnostic/classification criteria. Usually when I add in classification or diagnostic criteria for a disorder I'll just re word it a bit. The issue is that the diagnostic criteria for MCTD is so specefic that it's hard to reword it without losing meaning. I'm not super familiar with the details of copyright rules but I believe some of this falls under WP:LIMITED. If someone could check out the classification section of my draft for the artcle (User:CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath/sandbox3) and let me know if what I have is appropriate, that would be much appreciated. I also used an open access article for the diagnostic criteria (link) so I think it would also be okay to leave the text the same and put in an attribution template but I'm not fully sure if that's needed or what the logistics of that are. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Diagnostic criteria are not copyrightable. Only the expression of a work is protected, not the contents. It would be perfectly acceptable to publish the criteria exactly as worded. In fact, re-wording the criteria could be injurious to the article and its readers.

I haven’t reviewed your article, but in many cases, such criteria are presented in table format—or it’s much more convenient to do so. Thus, if you haven’t already, I suggest word-for-word content in a table. Hope this helps!

Of course, I welcome input from senior/other editors. Gobucks821 (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! I decided not to go with a table as I couldn't find a way to format it in a way I liked however the information is presented in a way that could be easily put into a table if anyone chooses to do so!CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The copyright question is very much "it depends". Copyright applies to expressions but not to facts. If there's only one way to express a given fact (e.g., "≥40 mcg/dL" or "has low back pain"), then it's not copyrightable.

When the diagnostic criterion is just a number or other simple fact, then copyright is not a significant concern. When the criteria are expressed as complex sentences/paragraphs (e.g., anything in the DSM), then we always need to re-write them in our own words. The complicated moment is when it's somewhere in between the two extremes. The dividing line between "just simple enough to not be copyrightable" and "just complex enough to require re-writing" is not always clear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Request to merge Frisson into Goose bumps

I have noticed that these two articles talk about the same thing. I have created a proposal on Goose bumps's talk page to discuss a merger. 80.0.166.171 (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

IMO not the same...frisson is an emotional experience, goosebumps are the physical reaction that may come after--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Stachybotrys chartarum

There seems to be some controversy going on over at Talk:Stachybotrys chartarum. I'm really not familiar with this topic; however, the article is quite popular and seems to need some work. It seems like this page may be particularly valuable to WP:FRINGE. I just wanted to put this on people's radar, as I know these controversial topics can cause some issues with Wikipedia pages. (Also commented on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants) CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I’m writing to introduce myself as a subject expert in medicine! I first joined Project Pharmacology and was referred to join WikiProject Medicine by WhatamIdoing. I’ve been in medicine for 15 years, spanning clinical and translational research at the bench and in the clinic. My current focus within clinical trials is administration and operations, along with regulatory work. I look forward to contributing and am always open to constructive feedback! Thanks!

Please note that I have access to hundreds of academic databases and journals, so I’m able to cite work, including works that may be behind a paywall. On that note, if you need access, contact me, and I’ll see what I can do to help! Gobucks821 (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirect for Discussion: Medical coding

Medicine adjacent topic: I've listed Medical coding and Clinical coding over at RfD to see if we can get them pointing at the same target. Never started an RfD before so opinions and suggestions appreciated. Little pob (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I’d tend to agree. Just an FYI: We ought to keep in mind the differences between *billing* coding and “medical” or “clinical” coding. Some CPT codes are not acceptable for billing, just as some ICD codes are not acceptable for billing. Gobucks821 (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Lucy Letby has an RfC

Lucy Letby, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. NebY (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

per [3] other relevant Wikiprojects that should be notified as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyone have an idea why Limonene is the most popular WikiProject Medicine Page?

It is currently dwarfing all other pages. I find this totally mystifying... Willmskinner (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure it gets mentioned a bit in O-Chem courses as an example students work on that may play a part, but Limonene#Uses may be better hint. When I see dietary supplement or cosmetics, that may mean some advertising on it is driving views to the page, but use as a cleaner/solvent may be doing it, especially if it's for "natural" cleaning ingredients posted on social media. That's at least my guess, but those seem like likely avenues. KoA (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Willmskinner: Do you have a link to a tool indicating the relative level of popularity here? We had discussion of a phenomenon earlier this year where the rather unremarkable article on "Neatsville, Kentucky" was dwarfing all other Kentucky topics, which was not resolved but led to speculation that some kind of external bot activity was involved. BD2412 T 20:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

From the list here... Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages Willmskinner (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Slightly relatedly, Lil Peep also shows up in the list of most popular WikiProject Medicine pages, clearly added to the WikiProject in error. I'm somewhat new here - can someone show me how to remove that page from being included in the WikiProject? Thanks! Willmskinner (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you have to remove {{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Low|toxicology=yes|toxicology-imp=low}} from the its talk page. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

A quick-test regarding rabies

Another English-language wikipedia has an "article" about [simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabies_antigen a quick-test regarding rabies].--Does English-wiki need (or want) the linked title? 2001:2020:30B:E14C:19ED:F846:28E5:B3AB (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like an advert, and is up for deletion over there. Bon courage (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

•  Done - that article has been deleted (so there is nothing to be gotten from the article, anymore). 2001:2020:30B:E528:DC4C:FF34:D4A4:DC9F (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Input needed on Vasculitis

I've started a discussion on Talk:Vasculitis#Signs_and_symptoms and I would appreciate input from this wikiproject!CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Input requested on Talk:Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome

Trying to reach consensus on best wording to convey status of genetic testing on illness in section Description genetics in lead Thank you. Ward20 (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

•  Done Ward20 (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Not updated for years

How in the world has nobody actually noticed that the current page for Medical Collaboration of the Month hasn't been updated for 3 years now? Did nobody bother? Mox Eden (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you will find it hasn't been properly maintained since 2009 when Jfdwolff stepped down from it. Perhaps the process was formalized too much that no one dared. Feel free to change it, I don't think the nomination page should be considered essential if it only means it isn't updated. CFCF (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Intersex healthcare draft feedback

EDIT: Nevermind, draft was accepted:D I you still have any feedback though feel free to add it to the article's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urchincrawler (talk • contribs) 04:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I saw that there was a page of intersex-related redlinks including intersex healthcare since the intersex medical intervention page focuses mostly on intersex children. I whipped up a draft but I've never made such a hefty article from scratch (especially not a medical related article) so I'd appreciate some gentle feedback. Here's the draft. Thanks. P.S. feel free to add stuff if you happen to be knowledgeable about this subject.

Urchincrawler (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking for a paywalled source

Does anyone have access to the full text of Reply

Mail me. CFCF (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

FWIW thar review does not mention content warnings in any way, shape, or form. It refers to media depictions of suicide and to hotlines, but not to content warnings or disclaimers. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Fvasconcellos, I did not realize you were active again (just when I'm not)! Hooray and welcome back! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jansen_deVries_syndrome

I'm struggling to get my article approved for publication (this is my first time working on an article for wikipedia). I was hoping you could help me identify (and possibly fix) my mistakes. DEF2051 (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Lets see:

• https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Draft:Jansen_deVries_syndrome&url= copy vio
• MEDRS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_MEDRS%3F
• MEDMOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles

(BTW per the copyvio which indicates https://jansen-devries.org/about-jdvs/ might you have a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest)

...though it is notable per https://www.orpha.net/en/disease/detail/653767 and https://www.omim.org/entry/617450, you may want to start over (slowly) and then submit...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Expertise in evaluating systematic review & adding appropriate language to an article

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Tribulus terrestris regarding the evaluation of a small systematic review & how to include its findings in the article. The thread is Male sexual performance. The discussion is about the topic Tribulus terrestris. Thank you.

A IP editor posted a study about the efficacy and safety of Tribulus terrestris. I responded that we avoid primary sources. I also found a systematic review concerning dietary supplements for erectile dysfunction. Since this out of my league, I am requesting help in some WikiProjects where this be more apropos. Peaceray (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

CRAM diet

The CRAM diet article describes an (apparently) medical dietary treatment for diarrhea and gastroenteritis. The sources for it are terrible. We've had the article for 14 years, and it's been flagged as poorly sourced the entire time. I can't find any worthwhile references to add (but this is very far from my field of knowledge). Can anyone find anything about it? What should we do with the article? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 21:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if that might be a pediatrics thing. See also BRAT diet (Bananas, Rice, Applesauce, Toast). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete the article. I cannot find any references. Jaredroach (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CRAM diet -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 06:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Grail (company) edit request

I'm reviewing old edit requests and Talk:Grail_(company)#April_2024_COI_edit_requests has been open for a while. The first couple bullets here seem to fall squarely under WP:MEDRS - it seems like the company has some kind of controversial cancer detection test, and the COI editor wants to add a couple studies evaluating the test. Is anyone up for taking a look? Rusalkii (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of List of foodborne illness outbreaks in the United States

There is a proposed rewrite at Talk:List of foodborne illness outbreaks in the United States#Proposal for a rework of page that may be of interest to this WikiProject. This rewrite is still a work in progress, so please feel free to share any suggestions, critiques, etc. at the aforementioned talk page or User talk:TinglesFrickinMap/sandbox/United States foodborne illness outbreak list rewrite. TinglesFrickinMap (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

TinglesFrickinMap, I think that User:TinglesFrickinMap/sandbox/United States foodborne illness outbreak list rewrite looks okay. My main suggestion is that you remove unnecessary details from the descriptions. This would probably include some of the exact dates and ways to identify which products were recalled. Knowing that products with this code or that best by date have been recalled is useful during the outbreak but basically trivia years later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyone know the fate of Human Anatomy Online?

Apparently there was a resource for anatomy images assembled by SUNY Downstate Medical School called Human Anatomy Online (archive from 2016). Sadly, I was ignorant of its existence until I saw it referred to in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#External_links today. We even have a template {{SUNYAnatomyFigs}} transcluded on a few hundred pages that provides deadlinks to what I'm sure was a lovely resource. Does anyone know if this resource lives on under another name? I tried Googling, but didn't turn up anything. It'd be great if we could update the MEDMOS suggestion and fix the template. Ajpolino (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20160504211300/http://ect.downstate.edu/courseware/haonline/acknow.htm has a list of names of people who might know. https://www.gold-standard.com/ might be the website for the publisher. One of the linked websites suggests learn gold-standard.com as a possible way to reach them, though if you can find them on a social media platform, that might be more effective. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you WAID, I haven't reached out to those people yet. But I have checked about 5 dead links, and for each there's a version of the page archived in Internet Archive (example), and it's the type of static page that an archive can fully recapitulate. Unfortunately, the archives aren't all on the same date, so I can't rescue the template by just building an internet archive URL. My un-clever idea is that I could manually replace each templated instance with a link to an appropriate archived version, but that would take some time. Any chance you can think of a clever-er way to replace the links with the archived versions? You seem tech savvy. Ajpolino (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

AFAICT all clever ways of linking to the Internet Archive begin with talking to GreenC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I did this Special:Diff/827027496/1242311373 as a generic solution, imperfect but should mostly work. If you want to replace each template with an archive URL I can do that via bot, which is better since it will verify each archive is working and leave a {{dead link}} if not. But takes a little more work to setup and run. Post a request to WP:URLREQ. -- GreenC 04:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both! Per usual, you've saved the day. I'll check a couple dozen instances this evening, and if it seems necessary I'll post at URLREQ. Ajpolino (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Eastern equine encephalitis outbreak in Massachusetts

Please see Talk:Eastern equine encephalitis#2024 Massachusetts outbreak. Any additional MEDRS-related tips appreciated there, for a new user who asked about this a the Teahouse. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Imane Khelif

There are currently two RFCs at Talk:Imane Khelif. Interested editors are invited to participate at Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC lead and Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC on weight of "misinformation" in lead. TarnishedPath^talk 09:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This BLP is one of the Olympic athletes in Boxing at the 2024 Summer Olympics who has been the subject of speculation about whether she is intersex. As her private medical information appears to still be private, there is no medical content here, except perhaps to educate people on the difference between being trans and being intersex. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)