Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:06, 2 February 2015

• WT:MED

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 4 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

• In all Medicine articles (not talks)
• In articles with Top-, High-importance
• In articles with Mid-importance
• In articles with Low-importance
• In pages with NA, ???=unknown importance
• In the 1000 most popular articles (source)

Not mainspace:

• In all non-articles
• In all templates
• In Medicine navigation templates

Help needed with an AfC submission

Please help evaluate Draft:Tension and Trauma Releasing Exercises for acceptability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Just thought I would point out that there's already a page on it on the German Misplaced Pages. If someone who knows German reads this it'd be great if they could look at the sources in that article and see if they're reliable. After all, just having a page on another language Misplaced Pages doesn't prove notability. Everymorning talk 00:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks spammish "is an innovative series of exercises that assist the body in releasing deep muscular patterns of stress, tension and trauma." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The language can be cleaned up quite easily, if the article should exist at all and the sources are MEDRS, that is the question. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't think the sourcing as is looks sufficient to make this sufficiently notable for an article. Is there nothing stronger? Alexbrn 15:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wording seems to come from the founder's website. It sounds similar to the more well-known Trager Approach, which also has a wp article. Not sure its notable.Herbxue (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

it may not be very notable--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• A Department of Defense survey from June 2011 evaluated TRE and several other posture and tension modulation techniques (see: "Mind-Body Skills for Regulating the Autonomic Nervous System") Although further research is being requested, the effectivness of TRE is acknowledged: "TRE’s are a brief series of techniques designed to produce trauma healing and stress reduction by using six simple exercises that evoke neuromuscular tremors/shaking that is generally experienced as relaxing or pleasurable. It is believed that when evoked, the tremors begin to release deep chronic muscular tension held within the core (psoas muscle, paraspinal muscles, abdomen, etc.), or “energetic center,” in the body. When tremors are evoked, which generally occurs within 15 minutes, the shaking is observed to reverberate throughout the body, often beginning in the legs and pelvis, and traveling to other areas of the body releasing deep chronic tension throughout. TRE has been taught to U.S. military personnel prior to deployment with the intent of their being able to use it to modulate ANS during deployment. TRE holds appeal because the techniques can be easily self taught through a short instructional video or one two hour workshop, and individuals who practice the technique report immediate anxiety and muscular tension relief. The technique is easily reproducible and most who try the exercises experience the neurotremor release. The technique was discovered through observing the natural tremors/shaking response that can occur immediately after traumatic events. For some, it is recommended the technique be used in conjunction with therapy because it may release emotions and memories associated with past trauma. However, according the TRE founder, the neurotremor response is generally experienced as pleasurable, is under the individual’s control, and can be stopped by the individual at any time. Although no research investigating the efficacy of TRE exists, it appears promising for its ease of use, reducing hyper arousal and multiple anecdotal reports of its immediate benefit, including those from military personnel. Further research into the technique is merited. TRE has been used in large military populations as well as large traumatized civilian populations exposed to natural or war related disasters. Given a relative lack of research using biological measures to study the effects of tension release exercises, theories as to how tension release practices affect the ANS remain unknown. The reproducible nature of TRE raises the level of interest in understanding what the mechanism is of the neuromuscular tremor response." At present I can not find any stronger backing study; so now it´s up to you guys, if TRE is notabel enough for wp.--Heebi (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

as to notability, the closest I could find was this ,the problem is that the conclusion of this one single (the first on the list) clinical study found that," no relevant literature was identified regarding the clinical effectiveness of TRE for the treatment of patients with PTSD, anxiety, depression, or psychological trauma. No evidence-based guidelines associated with the use of TRE for the treatment of said disorders were identified. " As you can see the reference can be viewed, based on this unless another article dictates to the contrary, it would be difficult to find an objective avenue to proceed on this matter--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Artist

Hey All. We have a medical illustrator who has recently. Please welcome User:VHenryArt Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

welcome--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy to be here! -- VHenryArt (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I just looked at File:Obstetric Fistula Locations Diagram.png, and I have three things to say:

1. Wow.
2. There are three lines leading from the label "areas fistulas commonly occur", but there are four "red hot" spots in the diagram. Should the anterior vaginal wall also have a pointing line?
3. Would you mind making a separate one that uses numbers instead of words? Words in a drawing are best, unless the words aren't in your own language. If it says "1, 2, 3, 4" instead of "Bladder, Bowel, Vagina, Areas fistulas commonly occur", then it could be used in any language, with the translations given in the caption. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with "Wow" – this is great! More quality artwork on disease-related pages would be a great benefit – encyclopedic images which most of our general readership, I think, are comfortable with. And much better, imo, than prominently filling pages with *repellant* (for many) clinical images and *undecipherable* (often, for many) pathological images, etc – material which mostly would be better off tucked away in relatively unobtrusive galleries that are still readily consultable by readers who choose to. 86.134.203.235 (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I agree that illustrations can often do a better job at visually describing a concept than a photograph (and not just because I am a medical illustrator!). I am excited to lend my talents to the world of Misplaced Pages (and notably the WikiProject Medicine) to hopefully help people get a better understanding of what it is they are researching.

--To address WhatamIdoing's suggestions, I added an extra leader line to the fourth fistula position - good catch. For the labels, I have uploaded a couple of options (http://vhenryart.com/ObFistula_Labels.jpg) and I'd like opinions on which makes more sense. One option is a combination of words and numbers (this means there isn't a need for multiple versions of the file). The second is just numbered. Both versions would include corresponding numbers in the image description - where a translator can make changes. I am open to doing either. VHenryArt (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that either of those are workable. (I'm assuming the "box" on the second would go away. I don't like the box covering up your diagram.) Having only numbers means that a non-image-editing person can easily label it. Some Wikipedias strongly prefer to never see any English. (Most probably don't care much, and would just provide the translation in the caption.) Who else has looked at this and has a view? In addition to hoping that some of our translation-oriented folks would take a look, I'll ping User:TylerDurden as well. Tyler's been working on writing in plain English, and he'll probably have a sound opinion on what will be most easily understood by readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

the art is awesome (numbers would be better)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

From my limited understanding... the ideal solution would presumably be some way whereby the named labels could simply be relabeled in the target language. Matching labels to numbers requires more cognitive work by readers, at the expense of focus/assimilation. Bilingual labeling systems would probably be the least preferable option for the lay reader (though they might actually be convenient for some students/professionals who need to familiarize themselves with terms both in their own language and in the scientific lingua franca of English. 2c, 86.134.203.235 (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

- These are all good points and this is a good discussion to have. I can see the benefit to being able to adapt an image for translated pages. But, I do agree that having the labels directly on the image is the best approach, and so I will keep English labels on the main version. I've uploaded the version with the numbers and labels and included a corresponding table in the description. While I think the look of the combined version is less visually appealing than either just labels or just numbers, it does provide a nice compromise. I don't know if there is a way in the Commons to add dynamic text onto an image. I will look into it and see what I can find out.

- I would like to mention that it is very easy for me to make an alternative version of the image with translated labels in place of the English. Should a translator feel it would be beneficial to have that version he or she is more than welcome to request it. I have added a note to translators in the image's Discussion section informing translators that they are free to request a specific translated version of the image. VHenryArt (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

VHenryArt, greetings and welcome to WP, thank you so much for your willingness to contribute your talents. Seems the easiest way is two copies one with English and one with numbers. The one with numbers could be used for multiple languages other than English. Alternatively how about "numbered English" this would preserve the label in the drawing, give the lingua franca English and provide numbers that could be used for adding other languages. I agree it would be good to hear from the translation folks. Again thanks. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

both could be used, but perhaps if it were just numbered,this might be best (all languages would be equal)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If the images are in SVG format, any labels in them can also be easily translated using this tool. --WS (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It is good to know about the SVG format labels. I have uploaded a file in that format, but only the lines and text are vector since the drawing is raster.(File:Obstetric Fistula Locations.svg) The labels can be edited by a translator, should they not want to use the tool, if they are comfortable with downloading it and editing the XML directly in any text editor. I found another quick solution to the label issue by adding annotations to the image. Annotated version (Wikimedia Location). It seems like a bit of a hack, but it gets the job done. Anyway, now there are multiple version of the file to pick from. This has been a good exercise, I've learned a lot. Thank you all for your participation! VHenryArt (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

thank you for bringing your extraordinary talents, readers benefit from illustrations very much, and the articles will therefore be much better--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Acupuncture for patellofemoral pain syndrome

The first review concludes no evidence for use of acupuncture, the second tentatively concludes there is some evidence of efficacy. I have access to neither full text. What should the wikipedia article state about acupuncture in PFPS? Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I was tidying this edit , but not sure now. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk)

The second review does not appear to be a review of the efficacy of acupuncture, but a review of the quality of the studies in this area, and it seems to conclude they are of poor quality. Hence using it to suggest efficacy would seem to be a mis-use. However, I don't have access to the full text so I can't be completely sure. Alexbrn 05:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

We need a link to the full study. The conclusion in the abstract of the 2nd study seems to contradict itself - while it does assess quality of studies, it concludes that the ones that are of sufficient quality suggest efficacy of acu, quad strengthening, etc.; but then a few sentences later is casts doubt by saying that generally the studies evaluated had enough qualitative problems that results are called into doubt. So, we need the whole paper to know if that last part referred to some or all of the studies they looked at. Herbxue (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Link. If I can't get to a paper directly through the PubMed entry, I always try Google using the title with quotation marks around it. :-) Sunrise (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sunrise, guess I should've googled myself :). Yeah, the paper is definitely about the process and the instrument and not a full review of the specific treatments. It shouldn't be used for any medical claims.Herbxue (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

So since I don't think we use the source for any medical claims I assume we are fine with the current content... Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence to support the use of acupuncture, low-level laser therapy, or chiropractic patellar mobilization to treat PFPS. Most studies touting the benefits of alternative therapies for PFPS were conducted with flawed experimental design, and therefore did not produce reliable results.

References

1. Crossley, K; Bennell, K; Green, S; McConnell, J (April 2001). "A systematic review of physical interventions for patellofemoral pain syndrome". Clinical journal of sport medicine : official journal of the Canadian Academy of Sport Medicine. 11 (2): 103–10. PMID 11403109.
2. Bizzini, M; Childs, JD; Piva, SR; Delitto, A (Jan 2003). "Systematic review of the quality of randomized controlled trials for patellofemoral pain syndrome". The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy. 33 (1): 4–20. PMID 12570282.

It would be better to not say "there is no evidence" in WP's voice, because there are primary studies available. I recommend saying the available systematic reviews do not support acupuncture for…" Herbxue (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

One could say their is "insufficient evidence" or "no high quality evidence" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thats reasonable but would only say that if the source says it, avoiding the appearance of original research.Herbxue (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

herbxue, my understanding is that we are not supposed to discuss the sources themselves, but merely reiterate what they state. So phrases like "a systematic review concluded xyz" are inappropriate.Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Depends on context I suppose - attributing an edit to the source within the text is the safest way to avoid making a mistake or oversimplifying in WP's voice - this particular text might just not be controversial so I may be splitting hairs unnecessarily. Herbxue (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the prior statement you cant say there is "no" evidence, but you can say there is no current "review article" for it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought we are not supposed to discuss the nature of the sources themselves? I feel that sentences such as "there are no current review articles which conclude there is evidence for xyz" are unencyclopedic. Ping WhatamIdoing if they have any insight here. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Surveying the literature and drawing conclusions like about what sources exist would technically be original research. It's also liable to going out of date very quickly, and is probably wrong (because you're probably only looking at English sources.) Furthermore, it appears that there there are "review articles", just none that are unambguously in favor of it.

My suggestions is to spend a lot less time worrying about whether it's proven efficacious and to focus on what it is. You could use these reviews to say that it's "been studied", for example, without trying to claim that it does (or doesn't) work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the one who originally edited the article, and I'm really confused as to why it isn't included that Acupuncture at least has some efficacy. So first, this paper by Jensen et al.reviewed the efficacy of acupuncture as a treatment, and found that it was effective at treating PFPS relative to the control group that received no treatment.

Next, Bizzini et al. conducted a meta-study that reviewed several studies that had evaluated treatments of PFPs, one of which was the study by Jensen et al. While most of the studies that Bizzini et al. reviewed turned out to have design flaws, they found that the Jensen et al study met all of their criteria for proper experimental design except for "randomization described" (see chart on page 9). On Page 14, they describe their review of Jensen et al. saying that

"Although the mechanism by which acupuncture reduces pain is unclear, it is believed to be related to the gate and endorphin theories of pain reduction. Jensen et al assessed the effect of acupuncture in the treatment of PFPS and found significant improvements in pain and function in those patients who received acupuncture. This trial was assigned a score of 83 points (Table 5). The only item in the scale for which this trial did not meet the minimum level of quality was the item related to the description of randomization (Table 2). Based on the results of this study and in light of its quality score, acupuncture appears to be effective in the treatment of PFPS."

So a study (Jensen et al.) concluded that acupuncture can be an effective treatment of PFPS, and a meta-study verified that the first study was conducted properly. I think the confusion may have been because most of the studies reviewed by Bizzini et al. had problems, but Jensen et al. wasn't one of them. --192.104.54.179 (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

192.104.54.179, thanks for following this up. The problem as I see it now is that we shouldn't really use Jensen et al. itself as a source because it is a primary source (WP:MEDRS). Instead we should use a review paper which discusses it. It was argued above by another editor that the review article (Bizzini et al) we have currently which cites Jensen et al. is focussed on the quality of RCTs for PFPS and not the efficacy of interventions. However we do have another review (Crossley et al) which concludes directly, that there is no evidence of efficacy for acupuncture in PFPS. However Crossley was published in 2001 ... older than Bizzini 2003. Not sure if Crossley included the Jensen study, I will have to find the fulltext. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That argument smells a lot like "anything to get rid of a source whose POV I disagree with". (Also, they're both elderly.) I really don't think we should say there's no evidence (or anything like that) if there is a (any halfway decent) review article that says the opposite.

I still think the best approach here is to name it as a treatment that's sometimes been used or studied, without mentioning efficacy (especially not on the basis of a 13-year-old source). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no disagreement about the pov of the source, just seeking consensus and trying to follow sourcing guidelines. However I feel that not mentioning efficacy will read the same as a statement that "it works". If we have reliable sources which disagree with it's efficacy then i feel that we should make some attempt to reproduce this uncertainty in the article. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

" then i feel that we should make some attempt to reproduce this uncertainty in the articleic "..this is of course what logic dictates should be done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Two new studies about Misplaced Pages

Just came across these and thought they might be of interest to other medical editors. The first study is about Parkinson's disease--not the disease itself, the Misplaced Pages page about it. The second one is about the readability of 41 Misplaced Pages articles about epilepsy (and information about epilepsy on other websites as well). I have access to the full text of the second, but not the first. The second is interesting in that it says that Misplaced Pages articles about epilepsy have a difficult readability level. Everymorning talk 01:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes we are well known to have a high reading level when calculated using specific automated tools. When medical students were asked why they use Misplaced Pages rather than other sources one of their top reasons was that we are easy to understand. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you perhaps add the pmids? I can't even follow the first link, I should have access to everything on Springer but the link gets me an "error - page does not exist". -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

First is PMID 25596713, second PMID 25601720. Adrian J. Hunter 13:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I added these to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/Research publications and made notes of them at Health information on Misplaced Pages. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

the second article, is very informative--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

A discussion of further reading

Is occurring here Talk:Autism#DiscussionDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello from a new pharmacist editor

Hi All - I'm a Canadian pharmacist and pharmacy prof at the University of Waterloo. I'm learning how to edit Misplaced Pages. I'd like to eventually teach my students to contribute their knowledge as well. I'm open to any tips and tricks and welcome any feedback. Kagpharm (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

hi glad to have you here--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Redirects involving Dr. Who and medical doctors

Here's a rather interesting issue that's come up that is at least partially relevant to folks here. Essentially, the folks over at Wikiproject Dr. Who want to redirect the term "the doctor" to Doctor (Doctor Who) whenever someone searches for that specific term. Currently, searching for either "doctor" or "the doctor" will lead to the same disambiguation page, Doctor. Does anyone here see issues with having the two terms lead to different disambiguation pages? One disambiguation could eventually lead to a single primary topic, but that's not really the question I'm posing right now at least. It seems like a silly distinction at first (I thought so too) but it seems like something that could use a look by the wider community. Discussion on this question is at Talk:Doctor#Propose_splitting_out_all_.22The_Doctor.22_terms. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Memorial University of Newfoundland

At Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 25#Template:MUNAnatomy, we are talking about deleting links to the Memorial University of Newfoundland, because they are dead and unarchived, as far as we can tell. If anyone knows if there is another source for these pages, a comment at that discussion would be appreciated. Thanks. —PC-XT+ 06:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Further reading

An RFC at Talk:Autism, related to books authored by women. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Chiropractor

The page is clearly about the degree but editors have turned it into a coatrack. The title should be changed to Chiropractic degree. See Talk:Chiropractor#Things are getting worse. QuackGuru (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if the page is merged the title should be fixed first. QuackGuru (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

the discussion about merging has been ongoing since November, actually. I just put the appropriate tags on. Jytdog (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

What makes you think that "The page is clearly about the degree" instead of about the whole job? Should biologist or nurse cover only the education, and not what happens afterwards? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

that is true--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Intimate partner violence article -- "Gender symmetry"

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Intimate partner violence#"Gender symmetry". A WP:Permalink to the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on my funding proposal to work with UNESCO

Hi all

I’m looking for feedback and endorsement for my Wikimedia Foundation PEG grant to be Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO. I’d very much appreciate if you would take a look, I want to include as many different projects and languages as possible and create sustainable connections between existing Wikimedia contributors and some of UNESCO's 380+ partner organisations. The most relevant goals to Misplaced Pages are:

1. Train UNESCO and its partner organisations to contribute to Wikimedia projects: Provide UNESCO and its partners with the skills, tools, resources and connections to contribute to Wikimedia projects in a meaningful, measurable and sustainable way. To integrate into the Wikimedia community both online and by matching them with local Wikimedia organisations and volunteers for in person support and collaboration. The project will create and improve content receiving 100,000,000 views per year on Wikimedia projects, educate 1000 people in over 200 organisations to learn more about Wikimedia projects. This will include 500 newly registered users trained to contribute to Wikimedia projects and 500 articles formally reviewed by experts.

2. Make content from the archives of UNESCO and its partners available on Wikimedia projects: This project will facilitate the upload of 30,000 images, audio files, videos, data and other content to Wikimedia projects from UNESCO archives (24,000 images), UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) and other sources including 10 organisations changing their content license to be Wikimedia compatible, a completed pilot project is outlined in the Goal section.

The most exciting prospects for me in terms of medical information are UNESCO and their partners:

• Improving articles including expert review.
• Contributing prewritten medical books and other information to Wikibooks and Wikimedia Commons.
• Adding images to Commons.

I ran a pilot project that resulted in the images found in the Wikimedia Commons category Images from the archive of UNESCO, here are a few examples:

• The Soda volcano, Oromia, Ethiopia.
• Rubble of the cathedral after the earthquake that hit the Capital Port au Prince just before 5 pm on 12 January 2010.
• Young monk, wearing a special costume, July-August 1991, Sikkim, India.
• Sabha, 6, getting ready to walk to school from her house on the borders eastern Gaza strip, where she and her family are still living in tents.
• Not far from Mohenjo-Daro (or Mohenjodaro) - These Mohana fishermen/hunters use lures from real birds to catch more birds. They will either eat them or sell them. Mohenjodaro, Pakistan.
• Priest of rock-Hewn Churches of Lalibela, a high place of Ethiopian Christianity, still today a place of pilmigrage and devotion.

I'm working towards this as an example for other UN organisations to emulate, if you think this is a worthwhile project please click this link and click the endorse button.

Many thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:INTEGRIS

Hello once more, medical experts. While investigating this draft, I came across INTEGRIS Cancer Institute of Oklahoma, INTEGRIS Southwest Medical Center, INTEGRIS Bass Baptist Health Center, INTEGRIS Baptist Medical Center, and INTEGRIS Health Edmond. All of these seem badly referenced. Is it usual for Misplaced Pages to have articles about individual hospitals unless there is something particularly notable about them? Or should they be combined into one article about INTEGRIS, assuming some independent and non-directory references can be found? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

there is some very obvious undisclosed paid editing going on here. ugh. Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

One thing paid editors share in common with students is both groups LOVE capital letters. We need a discussion regarding how we should handle paid editing when it comes to medical topics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I personally think it is useful to have pages of hospitals, even if there is nothing particularly notable. We do the same for schools. Readers do search for these pages, and having a stub may generate more useful content. Mamyles (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I AGREE WITH DOC JAMES THAT SUCH A DISCUSSION WOULD BE USEFUL, though I imagine a lack of notability would just necessitate content deletion in many cases. And sorry, I couldn't resist. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI, an older discussion of these articles at WP:COIN: Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_78#Integris_and_the_advertising_agency_Ackerman_McQueen. Deli nk (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

There is also a related draft article, just started today, at User:Tyrannothesaurus Rex/sandbox. Deli nk (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You could also bring it up at WikiProject Hospitals. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

if it isn't notable for some specific- medical, historical, etc, reason,,then is the purpose of the article to say -were on Misplaced Pages, just because--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hospitals are subject to WP:ORG, and, when talking about hospitals in developed countries, it is really rare for anything except the very smallest of hospitals not to pass that low bar. I don't even need to look at the articles to know that all of these should be kept. The fact is that it's basically impossible to build, open, re-name, or close an actual hospital in this country (i.e., the US; Oklahoma is one of those squarish states in the middle) without independent reliable sources taking note of it. Actually, for most hospitals, you can't even re-paint without a newspaper story about it. If you'd like to get some independent sources (which I gather is a problem from these comments), then two of those seem to be among the largest in that state (by number of beds: "Baptist" has 640 and "Southwest" has 406)., according to this government report. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with articles about hospitals in general. I have issues with PR firms writing spammy sounding articles about hospitals on Misplaced Pages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Me, too, but WP:Deletion is not cleanup. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that the information be deleted, but if after removing spam there isn't much left, an individual hospital page could be redirected to the larger organization and listed there, perhaps temporarily, until such time as someone takes on the task of rewriting the article from a neutral point of view.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's easier for new editors to expand a sub-stub than to expand a redirect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

i am thinking that all the integris articles, including the draft, should be merged together and cleaned up. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I sympathize, and you know I'm a dedicated mergeist. But "Integris" (according to their website) was formed in 1983 and didn't acquire the hospitals until the 1990s. That's just 20 years, and I'm going to bet that there are individual hospitals in that list that are nearly a century old (I haven't looked). It usually works better to have separate articles on individual hospitals, because healthcare mergers are a very recent phenomenon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I think Jytdog idea is worth looking at--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

paid editing

Interested in folks thoughts on this: Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Odesk.2C_etc. Maybe it would be worthwhile to post such a listing here, for health-related requests that pop up at sites like that? Jytdog (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes agree it would be a good idea to do this. Other things we could try is requesting that Odesk and Elance take down these types of jobs. I will try to get a hold of people at these organizations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog that is a very good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Odesk and Elance have merged. Odesk's TOR do not allow activities that infringe upon other websites TOU per 20.1 https://www.odesk.com/info/terms/ Emails sent regarding working together on the issue of undisclosed paid editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

oh awesome!!! nothing like taking initiative. maybe we can cut 'em off at the pass, as it were. or a bunch of them at least. thank you! Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Medical Innovation Bill

Something a bit different: medicine meets law-making. This parliamentary Bill is the subject of some controversy in the UK. I recently created an article on it and now there is some edit-warring. More wise eyes would be welcome ... Alexbrn 15:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hypewatch: Media Overreach on Soda Story

• "Hypewatch: Media Overreach on Soda Story" User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, I saw a lot of headlines about this study, (which is here) but they were all about menstruation, not breast cancer. Nevertheless this confirms that the popular press sometimes gets medical stories wrong. Everymorning talk 19:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes confirms why we do not allow it for sourcing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Media attention

http://blogs.plos.org/plos/2015/01/researchers-changing-way-respond-epidemics-wikipedia-twitt/ mentions Misplaced Pages's Influenza information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

More media attention

There is a new story in CMAJ about WikiProject Medicine. User:Doc James is discussed. Apparently he's the most prolific Misplaced Pages medical editor--impressive! Everymorning talk 23:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. First I have seen it :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Complicated project templates

Am trying to get this very complicated "assessment statistics" table to work . C quality articles are not listed.

Even though there are a lot here

They however do not show up here

Full list of articles is here

Wondering if anyone knows how to fix this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, re-running the bot doesn't seem to update the underlying table. You might want to talk to User:Theopolisme about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes might simply need some time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Working now :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Sexophobia article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Sexophobia. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Couple of links

Selective_serotonin_reuptake_inhibitor contains links in the infobox to which lists all the meds in the class and what they are used for. Plus a discussion of the relative economics

Peoples thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts are this: though Consumer Reports is supposedly a non-profit organisation, I've never found their information helpful. (And I do resent being constantly barraged with adverts from them through the mail.) The "Best Buy Drugs" label in the infobox is misleading because the price really depends on where you live and in what country as well as what insurance, if any, you have. The information on treatments for depression is superficial and points towards drugs, not even mentioning other possible non-pharmacological solutions. And all their links advise subscribing to Consumer Reports for complete information. So it's basically an ad, IMO. EChastain (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Consumer Reports is fine however they don't seem to indicate alternatives for treatment--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Both these give very US-centric advice, and far from include all SSRI brands. I'll take a look if there is any EU equivalent to balance this with. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The European Medicines Agency has a similar page, but it doesn't allow the same search type. This is an example of a treatments for Major Depressive Disorder -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The NIH druginfo has a very clear page for Antidepressants, and if you click on the Category button you will find a listing of 86 different medications, not all being SSRI. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

please see ANI discussion on how medical questions should be handled by the Reference desk

ANI - Does Misplaced Pages offer medical advice now?

EChastain (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I find it strange that such a discussion should even exist when there is a strict no medical advice (period).--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup we must not give medical advice. Could result in badness. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Going off that statement I have an general question: legally who would be at fault if a user were to give medical advice a) on an noticeboard, or b) in an article? Is there or should there be some sort of protocol where we contact those directly effected by such events? Peter.C • talk • contribs 00:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

An article as such has not been given to a particular person and is hence to advice as such. This is entirely different to a conversation on a talk page. I presume culpability would lie with the person who gave advice. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Legally both situations are supposed to be covered by WP's general and specific medical disclaimers. So no-one.Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that the above comment is why we also disclaim the offering of legal advice on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages's disclaimers were solely designed to protect Misplaced Pages (the site and WMF) from liability. Any legal cover they might provide to nitwits practising medicine (or law)—or otherwise giving advice they damn well shouldn't is purely incidental.

That said, I've always been extraordinarily frustrated by Misplaced Pages users and editors who believe that protection from legal liability is the sole and overriding concern. One should not give medical advice on Misplaced Pages because, first and foremost, someone could get hurt. (And in my experience, the editors who are most likely to violate our rule about not giving medical advice tend to be the ones who are least competent to realize when they're doing it particularly badly.) Someone getting hurt can lead to lawsuits, yes—but it also leads to harm to the project's reputation, damage to our ability to fundraise, difficulty recruiting competent medical experts and scientists who won't want to be associated with us, and Jimbo dealing with a PR disaster on the 6 o'clock news. (Who here is 'old' enough to remember the Seigenthaler controversy, out of which we got the BLP policy?) Worst and most essentially, someone getting hurt means that someone got hurt.

That's not a good thing to risk when the reward is someone on the Reference Desk got to enjoy playing doctor. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Quick sanity check

Is S. Nassir Ghaemi likely to be notable? He is Professor of Psychiatry and Director of the Mood Disorders Program at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. I have just started a draft at Draft:S. Nassir Ghaemi but if it's going to be mission impossible I'd rather stop and move on to more productive editing. He is mentioned and cited in several articles here on WP and seems to be an authority on bipolar disorder. So should I continue or drop it? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, if you look on google news you'll hit enough independent sources to qualify. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

he seems to have quite a few sources on Google, hes also written a book, however in the process of creating the article those on the talk page will determine (via consensus) how important his contributions are and therefore what the length of the article should be--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I find that I do my best Wiki-writing when I know absolutely nothing about the subject. Using Google Scholar I found stuff by him, not about him, so of very limited usability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, Ozzie10aaaa, I prefer to write a draft by myself to the point where I am satisfied that the basic requirements for an article, such as notability, verifiability, neutrality, etc., have been met - only then do I throw it to he lions on mainspace. So my method is a little different to the way you describe. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

yes, of course--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The book has also been reviewed in the NY Times, a good sign for notability. Everymorning talk 16:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that a notable book is only supportive, not definitve, for the notability of the author. Thanks everyone, I have sufficient sources to get the draft started. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Google scholar shows there is a lot of interest in his work by other scientists and he is a full professor at Tufts Medical Center. The latter is often cited as evidence of notability, per WP:PROF. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Medical Kiwix by language

We know have ZIM files for just medical articles broken down by language here http://tmp.kiwix.org/medicine/ This is part of an effort looking at sending out medical content on cellphone cards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

measles outbreaks on WP

Measles is getting a lot of attention nowadays. The article, and many articles related to measles, especially MMR-related articles, have been getting a lot of edits. Many of these edits are "updates" to recent outbreaks in the Recent outbreak section on the Measles article. This section reads like a newspaper, as does the article Measles outbreaks in the 21st century. Many outbreaks and epidemics are missing, and information for most of the rest is outdated. Additionally, measles is still endemic to many nations, it is difficult to keep up-to-date information on smaller outbreaks, and there are simply too many outbreaks that occur to include them all. All in all, it just looks like a mess. What's the best way to deal with this? ComfyKem (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Create a subpage called Epidemiology of measles and move the in depth discussion there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I second that emotion. Then use a "main" link and the lead of the new fork as the only content in the section left behind. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it a good idea, though, to encourage any article to become or remain a rather slipshod blog of measles outbreaks? One that will focus, almost exclusively, on cases in first-world, English-speaking nations, that take place when there isn't a sexier disease (Ebola, anyone?) on the cable news cycle, because those are the easiest sources? (Let's be honest, would there be anywhere near as much coverage of or interest in the recent California outbreak if it didn't happen to have a connection to Disneyland?)

"Move the blog to another article" reduces the noise level at the main article and is, I suppose, a "win" in that sense—but deliberately creating midden heaps for all the scraps we throw out of the good articles isn't appealing. And I admit that WP:NOTNEWS is probably our most-ignored core policy; there's no practical way to get enough editors to hold off on adding each new clipping to our articles as they happen. But we should be asking and looking for editors who are willing to clear out the underbrush, who can go back and summarize coherently after the initial rush, converting the "blogging" based on primary news sources into proper article content based on scholarly secondary sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Health

Opinions are needed on the following matter: User talk:Flyer22#Health category. Rathfelder stated, "My understanding was that categorisation was heirarchical. So it makes sense to put articles in more specialised categories. If we fill the top categories with everything that could be included in them they won't help people to find their way around. Am I wrong?"

I stated, "Hello, Rathfelder. Before you made this change to the section on my talk page, I was about to bring up the fact that I reverted you at a number of articles, including the Vaginal flora article (seen here). I fail to see how the Vaginal flora article does not belong in Category:Health unless one makes the argument that it's already covered by being included in Category:Feminine hygiene. As for the other articles, I reverted you at, seen here, here, here, here, here, and here. I mainly reverted you (as indicated) because you were changing the categories with no explanation and marking the edits as WP:Minor. You should ask about these matters at WP:Med."

And the discussion continued from there. I'm asking WP:Med whether they think that Rathfelder's categorization was correct at all of the articles I reverted him at (listed in the second paragraph above). Flyer22 (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)