Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 18:11, 29 December 2024

This is an archive of past discussions on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

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)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/CRAM diet -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 06:43, 26 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 Misplaced Pages: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/Archive 4#RfC lead and Talk:Imane Khelif/Archive 4#RfC on weight of "misinformation" in lead. TarnishedPath 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)

Looking for a paywalled source

Does anyone have access to the full text of PMID 27289303 in The Lancet Psychiatry? This is for Misplaced Pages talk:Perennial proposals#RFC: Should we add a section about proposals for adding prominent links to crisis hotlines at the tops of articles? where the article is claimed to be the only source about suicide-related content warnings on news/media (though this isn't evident from the abstract) and that it either says the evidence is "unclear" or that it's a "fact" that they don't work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

Off and on (more off than on lately...) but boy, am I glad to see you :-) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Input for List of chronic pain syndromes

I recently created List of chronic pain syndromes. This is my first time creating a list class article and I would really appreciate some feedback. Additionally I was wondering if since not every entry has a wikilink (nor do I think it would be reasonable to make each entry one) should I have descriptions for each disorder? CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

That looks pretty good. It's a good idea to have links to "vocabulary words" (e.g., for anyone doing a 'Dr Google' search on a diagnosis) or an explanation, but when I look at the list of "Chronic visceral cancer pain, Chronic bone cancer pain, Chronic neuropathic cancer pain", I think people just need to know what viscera and neuropathy are. I don't think they need an explanation that says "Chronic bone cancer pain is when you have pain in your bones all the time because of cancer". They'll be able to guess that much. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you for taking a look! I'll include the definitions for some of the medical terminology! (PS. I changed my username so thats why the signatures don't match) IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

What to do with Lists of diseases

I feel that our various lists of medical conditions have gotten out of date. Both List of genetic disorders and List of syndromes are inapropriately short considering their topics (many syndromes are missing). Our alphabetically sorted Lists of diseases is also in bad shape. Half the entries are syndromes (which I have also accidentally added syndromes to this list). Just looking at List of diseases (0–9), I don't think a single article on that list is a disease; all of them seem to be syndromes. There are also many duplications, redirects, and red links. I'm not sure how to fix the issue, but I do have a couple of ideas. I could go through all the pages and sort them into their respective lists (either List of diseases, List of disorders, or List of syndromes. This would obviously be time-consuming but would hopefully help with organization and also help de-orphan some pages. I was wondering if anyone knows what was originally used as a source for these lists. Also, should ref links and redirects be removed? (Pinging page owners @Alex.tan, Snakeyes (usurped), Brainist, PierreAbbat, Altenmann, and Lee Daniel Crocker: CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

This diff from 2004 has a list of sources. As a general rule, if a list or glossary is that old, there's a decent chance that it came from a public domain source. The only exception I'm aware of is the List of skin conditions, which largely came out of a medical school textbook. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I assumed they used either rarediseases or orphanet. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Help the Wikimedia Foundation better understand how on-wiki collaborations work

The Campaigns team at the Wikimedia Foundation is exploring how to expand it's work on campaigns, to support other kinds of collaboration. We are interested in learning from diverse editors that have experience joining and working on WikiProjects, Campaigns, and other kinds of on-wiki collaboration. We need your help:

• Take a survey about your experience with collaborations: with this Google Form
• Share examples of Collaborations or WikiProjects that have worked for you: https://meta.wikimedia.org/Campaigns/WikiProjects

Whatever input you bring to the two spaces will help us make better decisions about next steps beyond the current tools we support. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

done, thanks for sharing.JenOttawa (talk) 16:58, 18 October 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)

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Can You Trust Dr. Misplaced Pages?

For the interested. Nothing groundbreaking, but a good read. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Really interesting read. I’ll have to give it another read through before forming any opinions but thanks for sharing this! IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Contaminated blood scandal in the United Kingdom

I've created a move request to Infected blood scandal in the United Kingdom; would appreciate any input from this WikiProject.

If anyone could also go through the article and check that the prose is appropriate for a medicine-related article and that the sources are MEDRS-compliant, I would be very grateful too. Thank you! GnocchiFan (talk) 07:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

This closed, with the page being moved to the proposed title. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Symptoms of methanol poisoning

Hello MED folks. For 2016 Irkutsk mass methanol poisoning, is it fair to say the following:

• "symptoms of methanol toxicity include central nervous system depression"
• "The human body breaks down methanol into formaldehyde and formic acid, both of which act as nerve toxins and damage the optic nerve."

The article is currently going through a FAC, and I am not a medical expert, so I'd appreciate any input from project members. Thank you! Ed  21:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@The ed17 I'm not a medical expert either, but I have edited a lot of medical articles so hopefully I can help a bit. Both of these setences are medical claims which means ideally they should have WP:MEDRS sources to back them up which it doesn't look like they do. As for the accuracy of the two statements, I'm not sure but I would feel more confident if they referanced a medical article. To sum up WP:MEDRS biomedical information, such as symptoms, have a higher standard for sources. This means that ideally the source should be secondary (liturature reviews, systematic reviews etc.), published in reputable journal, and if possible published in the last 10 years. The source used doesn't fit the standard of WP:MEDRS so do with that what you will. As for the wording "central nervous system depression" is a bit vaugue and overly technical. It might be more helpful to list symptoms. To save you the hassle of searching for MEDRS sources I found this article which might be helpful:

Nekoukar, Zahra; Zakariaei, Zakaria; Taghizadeh, Fatemeh; Musavi, Fatemeh; Banimostafavi, Elham Sadat; Sharifpour, Ali; Ghuchi, Nasrin Ebrahim; Fakhar, Mahdi; Tabaripour, Rabeeh; Safanavaei, Sepideh (2021). "Methanol poisoning as a new world challenge: A review". Annals of Medicine & Surgery. 66. Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). doi:10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102445. ISSN 2049-0801.

This article is recent, from a repurable publisher and is a review. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, IntentionallyDense! I rewrote that part of the article with that source you gave. I appreciate you not making me find a source myself. :-))) I was aware of MEDRS, but haven't had to interact with it before. I didn't realize it applied to what I thought of as basic things, like these symptoms. The wording of "central nervous system depression" was taken straight from the Misplaced Pages article title, and I've simplified it. Ed  04:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'm glad I could help! IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Page views

I've been playing with some page views numbers. One thing I've learned is that, based on a sample of 10K random articles, most articles on Misplaced Pages get read once a week or less.

I think that WPMED's core articles (e.g., about diseases and drugs) traffic tends to be higher than average. If you're interested in checking out a favorite article, you can get the total annual page views at https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/ (default is the last 20 days, so switch it to a full year), and here's a quick cheatsheet to compare the result against (these are all from the 2023 calendar year):

• 100K page views per year: top 1%
• 10K page views per year: top 5%
• 1K page views per year: top 20%
• 100 page views per year: top 40%

If you are interested in working on our most popular articles, then you can find an updated list at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages. For example, Polio vaccine was the 994th most popular WPMED-tagged page last month, and its page views during 2023 (283K) put it around the top third of a percent of all Misplaced Pages articles, but it's barely in the top 2% of WPMED articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse I get. But Fibular hemimelia? Scratches head. Bon courage (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the Paralympians had it, or a celebrity's baby was just born with it. It wasn't in previous months, so it's probably just a temporary blip. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Many Paralympians, see Fibular_hemimelia#Notable_people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod at ILAE (talk • contribs) 02:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Help with writting about pseudoscientific topics

I'm not sure where this question belongs but I thought I pose it here. I would like to improve the page Adrenal fatigue however I'm running into a bit of an issue. Normally with an article about a disease people write about symptoms, causes, diagnosis, treatment etc. but when said disease doesn't exist should we be deviating from that format? I've found a number of reputable sources debunking adrenal fatigue however they don't always go into detail about symptoms, causes, diagnosis, and treatment. I've also found two somewhat reliable sources that go into detail about the theories behind adrenal fatigue. However my other question is, does the fact that these articles support the existance of adrenal fatigue make them inherantly unreliable? Could these sources be used to say "the symptoms associated with adrenal fatigue are xyz" or "proposed treatment for adrenal fatigue includes xyz" (note I would also follow this up by talking about why those treatments don't work etc). The two sources that I'm not sure about are:

• Wilson, James L. (2014). "Clinical perspective on stress, cortisol and adrenal fatigue". Advances in Integrative Medicine. 1 (2): 93–96. doi:10.1016/j.aimed.2014.05.002.
• Redmer, Jacqueline (2018). "Adrenal Fatigue". Integrative Medicine. Elsevier. doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-35868-2.00039-6. ISBN 978-0-323-35868-2.

They are both published by Elsevier and seem okay at first glance but I'm not sure if it's appropriate to use them. Any guidance on the topic is appreciated. IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

There are definitely editors who would prefer to use a non-standard article format, because they want to signal in every way that it's Not Real™. There are also editors who prefer to use the standard format because it's generally a good way to organize the material, and prefer to use the words inside the section to communicate the complexities.

I think the best answer depends on exactly how non-real it is. I'd avoid the standard format for fictional (e.g., Dragon pox), invented (e.g., Marthambles), or purely historical diagnoses (e.g., Female hysteria). I'd use something similar to the standard format for diseases that are contested but tacitly accepted (think Gulf War syndrome, which may not be a single disease in nosological terms, but it's definitely not imaginary). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I think I'm going to stick to the typical format but just make it clear that it's not a real pathology as the concept behind adrenal fatigue isn't too out there. Do you have thoughts on the sources? IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes the 'standard' (/not standard) MOSMED headings are useful, but sometimes the FRINGE stuff is so whack they don't apply. A frequently useful heading for altmed topic is, for example, "Conceptual basis" which is not a 'standard' MOSMED one. Bon courage (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I was also thinking of modifying the headings a bit. Like instead of signs and symptoms putting "Associated symptoms" to show that they are associated with the disease but not actual symptoms persay. For causes I was thinking of putting "Proposed causes" to show that they haven't been proven (or in some cases even disproven). IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Analgesic#Requested move 11 September 2024

The request has been withdrawn. Please ignore this. --Un assiolo (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Analgesic#Requested move 11 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Un assiolo (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Articles for deletion.

There is a couple medical pages up for deletion that I would appreciate some opinions on.

Acral arteriolar ectasia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keratin implantation cyst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stippled nails (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tumor alopecia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is also some PROD pages if anyone wants to take a look at those:

Dysplastic nail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hypertrichosis simplex of the scalp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Any input or opinions are welcomed and appreciated! IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Since I pulled the page views numbers above, I checked these for fun. They're approximately in the top third of all Misplaced Pages articles for popularity.

These all look like the kinds of things that someone might see in a lab report or a doctor's note and ask Dr. Google to explain what the terms mean. I'm not sure that we need a separate article for any of them, but I believe that we need to have the information somewhere. Consequently, I think I would make a very general recommendation that you spend more time in Misplaced Pages:Proposed article mergers than in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion or Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion, especially for diseases and variations on diseases (e.g., Hypertrichosis simplex of the scalp, which is a specific monogeneic type of Hypertrichosis – a viable merge target – and also about which you might be interested in the table of genetic mutations here, and its place in a broader classification scheme here ). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Some of these I was on the fence about and some (such as the tumor alopecia page) I wouldn't choose to put up for deletion now (I would have instead redirected to alopecia). However I have redirected a lot of these smaller pages and the ones I chose to put up for deletion are pages that I didn't see a clear page to redirect to (although I do miss things). I do prefer to redirect when possible but some of these pages don't really have a page where I feel like they could be merged/redirected to. For example the page Acral arteriolar ectasia doesn't seem to have a page that it could be redirected to. As for Hypertrichosis simplex of the scalp there is no evidence that said disease exists. I could not find it in the source given and the only other mention of it described it as a type of alopecia and cites an article about HYPOtrichosis simplex of the scalp which leads me to believe it may have been a typo hence why I opted for deletion over a redirect. As always I really appreciate your feedback and knowledge. (I also for some reason could not access the two links you provided). IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that's fascinating. The table says that hyPERtrichosis simplex is autosomal dominant, MIM 146520 in gene CDSN at locus 6p21.  But https://omim.org/entry/146520 names the same gene and the same locus and says it's about hyPOtrichosis. Perhaps different mutations in the same gene have opposite effects?

The book says:

Michelson unterschied bei der Hypertrichosis folgende Formen:

1. Hypertrichosis indoles hereditaria

   A. Hypertrichosis universalis

   a) die exzessive Behaarung der Haarmenschen,

   b) die allgemeine starke Behaarung des männlichen Körpers,

   B. Hypertrichosis localis:

   a) Hypertrichosis simplex, die zu starke Behaarung einer Stelle bei unveränderter Haut

   b) Hypertrichosis hypertrophica, die exzessive Behaarung der sog. Naevi auf überpigmentierter und pathologisch veränderter Haut.

2. Hypertrichosis acquisata transitoria (Klebs) als im extrauterinen Leben erworben:

   a) Hypertrichosis neurotica, infolge neurotischer Ursachen,

   b) Hypertrichosis irritativa, als Folge von Hautreizungen

with the relevant bit being 1.B.a): 1. says that it's hereditary, B. says that it's localized, and a) says that it's too much hair in one place on otherwise normal skin.

BTW, Google Books gave the publication date as 2013, but it's a reprint of a 1932 book. Perhaps this is an older name and rarely used now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. I’m at a loss with this one. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

How to cite Dorland's medical dictionary?

Hello, can someone please explain how to cite Dorland's medical dictionary like this format. I found this format in this article, yet I am unable to access other definitions. I'm looking for the definition of pericapillary end foot on Dorland's, but every time I try accessing it, I get directed to this page instead. Can someone help me find it? PecMo (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@PecMo:.... Could try Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary (33rd ed.). Philadelphia: Elsevier. 2020. p. 117. ISBN 978-1-4557-5643-8.. Whispyhistory (talk) 07:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

References

1. "Podocyte" at Dorland's Medical Dictionary

Requested move at Talk:Hospital-acquired infection#Requested move 8 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hospital-acquired infection#Requested move 8 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe 04:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Belladelli et al. (2023)

As suggested at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Belladelli et al. (2023): Reliable or unreliable?, I have reposted here. Please, see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Belladelli et al. (2023): Reliable or unreliable? for further details:

Way6t has claimed Belladelli et al. (2023) is not a reliable source. I have claimed that Belladelli et al. (2023) apparently is a reliable source. WP:RS and WP:MEDRS have both been brought up in the discussion. Relevant discussion may be found at: Talk:Human penis size#Discussion on the inclusion of Belladelli 2023. I have shared some relevant, summarized details below. Please, feel free to take a closer look at the source and share your thoughts.

• "Worldwide Temporal Trends in Penile Length: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis":

"Worldwide Temporal Trends in Penile Length: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, authored by Federico Belladelli et al., and published in World Journal of Men's Health (from website: "Open Access, Peer-Reviewed", "Indexed in SCIE, SCOPUS, DOAJ, and More", "pISSN 2287-4208 eISSN 2287-4690") on Feb 15, 2023. Also, included in the National Institutes of Health/National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central and PubMed.

• Per Human penis size's "A note regarding sources" (editnotice), which links to WP:MEDRS:

"This is ultimately a medical/scientific article, and we should use medical/scientific sources that meet the de-facto standards here for sources in articles on medical topics. Given that we now have high-quality evidence in the form of several peer-reviewed studies on this topic published in reputable journals, including a systematic review of other studies, as sources for this article, we should not now be citing either crowdsourced user-generated data, or non-peer-reviewed analysis thereof, even if they been reported on in reliable sources such as the popular press."

Daniel Power of God (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

That would be:

• Belladelli F, Del Giudice F, Glover F, Mulloy E, Muncey W, Basran S, Fallara G, Pozzi E, Montorsi F, Salonia A, Eisenberg ML (October 2023). "Worldwide Temporal Trends in Penile Length: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis". World J Mens Health. 41 (4): 848–860. doi:10.5534/wjmh.220203. PMC 10523114. PMID 36792094.

which is a review in a weak (non-MEDLINE) journal, and which has gained some notoriety as a poster child for problematic peer-review and correction.. I would avoid using it. Bon courage (talk) 06:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean theres a lot of different things to look at here. It does pass some checks (it's recent, peer reviwed, not a case study etc.) but theres also some red flags such as the journal it's in, and controvery surrounding it. Ultimately it comes down to "is this the best possible source we could be using here". If there are better sources out there then I wouldn't personally include it but I could maybe make an arguement for it if it truly was the best resource we have on the topic. IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It may be a crazy idea but if there aren't great sources, maybe Misplaced Pages isn't absolutely obliged to say something about trends in penis length? Bon courage (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

While I do agree with this, the point I was trying to get across was "is there better sources?" as I'm a bit confused why this source specefically needs to be used. However I may not have gotten my point accross effectively. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/21100943924 gives that journal a good rating.

PMID 38792302 (in an MDPI journal) is the only paper that appears to have cited it.

Since WP:RSCONTEXT matters, I think it's worth taking a look at the proposed text, which is this (three paragraphs, three different parts of the article):

----

More recently, the meta-analysis and systematic review by Belladelli et al. (2023) of 55,761 men from 75 studies, done between 1942 and 2021, and based on estimations of pooled mean length, indicated that the average erect penis length was 13.93 cm (5.48 in), average stretched penis length was 12.93 cm (5.09 in), and average flaccid penis length was 8.70 cm (3.43 in). Belladelli (2023) indicated that "all measurements showed variation by geographic region. Erect length increased significantly over time in several regions of the world and across all age groups, while no trends were identified in other penile size measurements. After adjusting for geographic region, subject age, and subject population; erect penile length increased 24% over the past 29 years." Belladelli (2023) also indicated that "importantly, when the current analyses were adjusted for the technique to achieve erection, the point estimates remained similar."

The meta-analysis and systematic review by Belladelli et al. (2023) of 55,761 men from 75 studies, done between 1942 and 2021, and based on estimations of pooled mean length, indicated that the average erect penis length was 13.93 cm (5.48 in), average stretched penis length was 12.93 cm (5.09 in), and average flaccid penis length was 8.70 cm (3.43 in). Belladelli (2023) indicated that "all measurements showed variation by geographic region. Erect length increased significantly over time in several regions of the world and across all age groups, while no trends were identified in other penile size measurements. After adjusting for geographic region, subject age, and subject population; erect penile length increased 24% over the past 29 years." Belladelli (2023) also indicated that "importantly, when the current analyses were adjusted for the technique to achieve erection, the point estimates remained similar."

The meta-analysis and systematic review by Belladelli et al. (2023) of 55,761 men from 75 studies, done between 1942 and 2021, and based on estimations of pooled mean length, indicated that the "current report identified a significant difference in penile measurements across different geographical regions." The average flaccid penile length was 8.09 cm (3.19 in) in Africa, 7.23 cm (2.85 in) in Asia, 9.44 cm (3.72 in) in Europe, 9.82 cm (3.87 in) in North America, and 11.00 cm (4.33 in) in South America. The average stretched penile length was 12.53 cm (4.93 in) in Africa, 11.60 cm (4.57 in) in Asia, 13.40 cm (5.28 in) in Europe, 13.75 cm (5.41 in) in North America, 15.60 cm (6.14 in) in South America, and 12.13 cm (4.78 in) in multiple regions. The average erect penile length was 14.88 cm (5.86 in) in Africa, 11.74 cm (4.62 in) in Asia, 14.12 cm (5.56 in) in Europe, 14.58 cm (5.74 in) in North America, 15.71 cm (6.19 in) in Oceania, 14.50 cm (5.71 in) in South America, and 15.33 cm (6.04 in) in multiple regions. Belladelli (2023) indicated that "importantly, when the current analyses were adjusted for the technique to achieve erection, the point estimates remained similar." Belladelli (2023) also found that "after adjusting for geographic region, subject age, and subject population; erect penile length increased 24% over the past 29 years."

----

This does not comply with the rule to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Cite sources, don't describe them. Compliant text for the first paragraph would sound approximately like this:

"The average erect penis length was 13.93 cm (5.48 in), average stretched penis length was 12.93 cm (5.09 in), and average flaccid penis length was 8.70 cm (3.43 in), with more recent studies showing longer erect penis length."

That's it.

Also, we probably shouldn't be reporting "the average" (Median? Geometric mean? Arithmetic mean? Weighted arithmetic mean?) down to a tenth of a millimeter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I want to add: Given how bad the rest of the article is, it would not be surprising if someone thought that the verbose version above was actually preferred. I've just cut bunch of text out from one section, and far more of that work needs to be done.

It's also in need of a lot of WP:MEDDATE. One of the sources cited was from 1988 – 36 years old, and 31 years older than what WP:MEDDATE recommends. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Belladelli was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. ^ Belladelli, Federico; et al. (Feb 15, 2023). "Worldwide Temporal Trends in Penile Length: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis". World Journal of Men's Health. 41 (4): 848–860. doi:10.5534/wjmh.220203. ISSN 2287-4208. OCLC 10168435334. PMC 10523114. PMID 36792094. S2CID 263309386.
3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Belladelli3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. ^ Belladelli, Federico; et al. (Feb 15, 2023). "Table 2: Worldwide Temporal Trends in Penile Length: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis". World Journal of Men's Health. 41 (4): 848–860. doi:10.5534/wjmh.220203. ISSN 2287-4208. OCLC 10168435334. PMC 10523114. PMID 36792094. S2CID 263309386.

Bon courage, IntentionallyDense, and WhatamIdoing, thanks for sharing your thoughts, findings, and observations.

Bon courage has pointed out that Belladelli et al. (2023) is a review in a non-MEDLINE journal (World Journal of Men's Health). Bon courage has also shared the source from PubPeer, which shows: Guillaume Cabanac shared two excerpts (accepted by PubPeer in August) from the Times Higher Education's "Peer review will only do its job if referees are named and rated", which was authored on August 14, 2024 by Randy Robertson. Per Susquehanna University, Randy Robertson is an Associate Professor of English and Creative Writing. Robertson does not appear to be a subject-matter expert in a relevant field, which seems to make the claims made in the article, including the cited excerpts from PubPeer, questionable in terms of weight as it relates to this present discussion.

WhatamIdoing has shared the source from Scopus and pointed out that Scopus gives the World Journal of Men's Health a good rating (CiteScore rank 2023: 7.6, #11/120, 91st percentile) as well as pointed out that Belladelli et al. (2023) has been cited by Bene et al. (2024) via Journal of Clinical Medicine (an MDPI journal). World Journal of Men's Health indicates that, via Crossref, Belladelli et al. (2023) is cited by Bene et al. (2024), Hanson et al. (2024) via Archives of Sexual Behavior (a Springer Science+Business Media journal), and Seranio et al. (2023) via International Journal of Impotence Research (a Springer Nature journal).

If the observation made about the cited excerpts from PubPeer being questionable is accepted and PubPeer, in this particular case, is accepted as not ultimately bearing weight in the discussion about Belladelli et al. (2023), then what has apparently been established is that the World Journal of Men's Health is a non-MEDLINE journal with a good rating from Scopus, and that Belladelli et al. (2023) – an article in the World Journal of Men's Health – is cited by three articles, one from an MDPI journal, one from a Springer journal, and one from a Springer Nature journal. What do you all think? Daniel Power of God (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Avoid. Bon courage (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Power of God, I think that "is this reliable?" is not the question that needs to be asked right now. The article has much bigger problems.

Would you please read the Talk:Human penis size#WP:MEDSAY copyediting and try to implement that for a couple of sections? After you learn how to apply WP:MEDSAY to this subject, then I think you'll be in a better position for talking about this particular source.

@Ozzie10aaaa, if you have some time available in the next couple of weeks, would you mind dropping {{primary-source-inline}} and {{outdated source}} on that article? I think the contributors there are trying their best, but they seem to be creating a comprehensive bibliography instead of an encyclopedia article. I'm pretty lenient about the five-year recommendation in WP:MEDDATE, but about 20% of the cited sources are from the previous century, meaning that a whole generation has been born and finished university since they were published. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

WAID. will do tomorrow, no problem, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

•  Done --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you! WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Requesting input at Teahouse on a draft

Please comment at Misplaced Pages:Teahouse#How should I move Draft:Childhood dementia to the mainspace?, not here. Moving the draft itself when ready is trivial, so the main question I am seeking additional viewpoints to is if Draft:Childhood dementia is indeed ready for mainspace or suggestions for improvement. Thank you, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

did a few edits--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Calculators

We at Wiki Med have been working on developing medical calculators which you can see here on EN WP User:Doc_James#Calculator or at mdwiki:Body mass index or mdwiki:CHA2DS2–VASc score. Not sure if there is interest here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

very useful to add to some articles, IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Perspiration#Requested move 21 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Perspiration#Requested move 21 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Post herniorraphy pain syndrome

I have been asked to relay a request for an update to post herniorraphy pain syndrome; the cites are all more than a decade old, and it seems to be an area of active R&D, where expertise would be really useful. Many thanks in advance to anyone who takes this on, or recruits someone who does. HLHJ (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like there isn’t a whole lot of literature on the topic but I’ll see what I can do! IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, IntentionallyDense! HLHJ (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Improving + Translating APBD article

My name is Jeff Levenson and I am a volunteer co-president of the Adult Polyglucosan Body Disease Research Foundation (APBD RF). APBD is a genetic neurodegenerative, glycogen storage disease type IV which often mimics MS. Because of that, most of our patients are misdiagnosed and take on average seven years to be properly diagnosed. I have been working on the APBD Wiki page in hopes of improving awareness about this disease. There is an English and German versions of the APBD page, but we desperately need help on other translations. i.e. Spanish, Portuguese, Polish, etc.

Can someone tell me if there a red link index and if it is recommended to use Wikidata platform and/or Wiki Project: medicine to grapple with the challenges of spreading the word about APBD and allied diseases? BabaJuly1982 (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, @BabaJuly1982. Before you request translations, I suggest that you look for some more sources. The main goal is to have the facts be up to date, but also to make it easy for editors to see at a glance that the facts are probably up to date, just by looking at how old the cited sources are. The ideal is to get high-quality sources within the last five years; for rare diseases, it's often necessary to stretch that a bit. Here is a list of newer medical journal articles that might be useful, if you'd like to have a look.

When you feel like it's in good shape, then I suggest that you go to m:Talk:Wiki Project Med and click the "Add topic" button at the top of the page, and leave a note to ask if anyone is coordinating translations at the moment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

User:BabaJuly1982 yes we at Wiki Project Med have an ongoing translation project. We generally are only translating the leads of articles and for a lead of an article to be deemed ready for translation every sentence must be referenced to a high quality secondary source. Our translation dashboard is here and we have had more than 3,500 translations created by volunteers as a result of this initiative since 2021. Reach out when the lead of this article is ready and we can discuss next steps. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Priority rating maintenance

We seem to have some creep in Category:High-importance medicine articles. Here are a few that I thought should be removed (presumably to Mid-importance, but let me know):

• Alteplase
• Aliskiren
• Amantadine
• Arachidonic acid
• Blue baby syndrome
• Benzodiazepine dependence
• Bifidobacterium
• Bifidobacterium longum
• Clostridium (the genus, not Clostridioides difficile infection)
• Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
• Economic impact of HIV/AIDS
• Error (not Medical error)
• Friedreich's ataxia
• GI cocktail
• Human T-lymphotropic virus 1
• ICD-10
• Innate resistance to HIV
• List of medicine contamination incidents

The rules are: You tell me what rating you want, and it's okay with me. I've picked these out by scrolling through the first half of the category, and it would actually be extremely helpful and desirable for you to tell me that I'm wrong about any of these that you think should be kept at this level. If you don't have a good feeling for how we usually rate things, then click on the category and scroll around for a few seconds (or read the documentation, but scrolling through the cat will be faster and may be more helpful).

WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The only ones I could even see an arguement for being high priority are benzo dependance and GI cocktail however I have no issues with these being rated mid importance. IntentionallyDense (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sexual disorder#Requested move 30 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sexual disorder#Requested move 30 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Oracle Cerner#Requested move 19 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Oracle Cerner#Requested move 19 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 03:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Potentially innacurate/outdated sentence in Childhood Dementia

I raised some concerns over a sentence in Childhood dementia saying: "Neuronal ceroid lipofuscinoses, a group of lysosomal storage disorders, are thought to be its most common subtype."

Is anyone interested in joining the discussion?

My hope is that we can reach a consensus on whether the sentence is accurate or not. And if not, then what the best course of action is.

Thank you. Irina Rainbow (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Supraventricular ectopy

We have no entry for Supraventricular ectopy. Should we, or should it be a redirect? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it the same as Ectopic Supraventricular Arrhythmias? I'm not sure that it has to be a page persay but I'm not sure where you would redirect it to either. Did you have any ideas? IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no medical knowledge; I was looking for the topic as I know someone who was recently diagnosed with SEV. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It's possible that it could be redirected to Ectopic beat. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

What's the consensus on MOS with regard to conventional vs "person first language" ?

There's a disagreement over conventionally wording vs "person first language" phrasing regarding this edit. What's the general consensus on this and is there something in MOS that addresses this?

The long standing phrasing was: A needle and syringe programme (NSP), also known as needle exchange program (NEP), is a social service that allows injecting drug users (IDUs) to obtain clean and unused...

One user came along and keeps putting their preferred version: A needle and syringe programme (NSP), also known as needle exchange program (NEP), is a social service that allows people who inject drugs to obtain clean and unused...

I personally prefer the long-standing version, although I was wondering what the consensus of the project prefers. Graywalls (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls, have you found WP:SUFFER?

You could also address the problem in a different way, e.g., "...allows people to obtain clean and unused... This is intended to reduce the risks associated with injection of recreational drugs" (or something like that). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Yep, and I see "Many patient groups, particularly those that have been stigmatised, prefer person-first terminology", but no definitive guidance on which should, or shall be used in Misplaced Pages articles. Graywalls (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Non-stigmatizing language is preferable, of course, as is a writing style that is clear, direct, and concise. It is not always possible to achieve all of these desirable things in the same sentence. As for which to prefer in a tradeoff, we have not found it necessary to have a hard and fast rule, and of course one of the fundamental policies is that there are WP:No firm rules anyway.

Personally, if I were going to try to improve that article, I think it would be more productive to focus on the outdated facts instead of the wording of the one sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:, any objection to restoring the original phrasing alongside addressing outdated info? I think it's more concise and gets the point across. Graywalls (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Introduction and Hello

Hello everyone

I have been advised to come to this page and introduce myself. I am part of a team of instructors guiding undergrad students in creating articles on medical topics. These students are from the pharmacy and biomedical science disciplines at the faculty of medicine in our Uni. For various reasons, last semester I was involved in moving articles to the main space. Going forward this part will be handled by a more experienced editor in my location. How this space will be hugely beneficial is in helping us guide our students in writing quality articles.

To give you some background about our process, we begin by showing our students the requested medical article list. There are issues with this list and thanks to some helpful members of this community, I have already been given some suggestions on how to handle this list and ideas for modifying this element of our guidance. Any other suggestions regarding this list or suggestions on how to get our medical students started are welcome! The suggested ideas so far will require some substantial restructuring in our syllabus from assignment design to modification of the assessment rubric which may not be possible for the next cohort. Students go through a 3-month period from topic selection to drafting, peer reviewing to final submission before we move the articles to the main space. We make students submit a downloaded PDF version of their sandbox drafts to Turnitin for plagiarism checking. Their submissions come at the end of the semester, and students tend not to engage in continuous edits once they have completed the course with us despite us encouraging them to do so. We understand well that not all articles will be accepted and we tell students that the best ones will go through.

I have a lot of questions regarding general Misplaced Pages protocols as well as questions specific to medical articles. Now that I have found this space, I will use it to check our alignments when the course gets going in January and students submit drafts. Nice to meet you here and I look forward to engaging with you. G.J.ThomThom (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this note. But first I want you to show off some of the work done by your previous students. Nobody expects a perfect article from any new editor, but yours seem to have done pretty well so far, and you've done a good job of teaching them that material needs citations from the beginning.

If you've got a list of those still in Draft: space, that would also be useful to have. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Here you go:

Dorsal pancreatic agenesis

Artificial saliva

X-linked genetic disease

Dermatologic surgical procedure

Acquired hand deformity

Blue light spectrum

Sex and drugs

Face washing

Microneedles

Pregnancy hormones

Catatonic depression

Human chimera

Virus crystallisation

Tissue transplantation

Congenital pseudarthrosis of the tibia

High-dose chemotherapy G.J.ThomThom (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments @WhatamIdoing G.J.ThomThom (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

With the next cohort, I will share excerpts during the drafting phase for comments and suggestions if I need them (very likely!). G.J.ThomThom (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this list. I see a couple of them ended up getting merged and redirected to another article, which is fine. Some of these surprise me: How did we not have articles on face washing or high-dose chemotherapy until this year? In general, I think we're missing a lot of "intermediate" level articles: we have Chemotherapy and we have articles on individual drugs and regimens, but we don't have all the articles on general categories.

I know that you and IntentionallyDense are working on a list of possible articles for the next class, which should make things a little easier. Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Medicine needs some clean up work. You might also think about topics that are unrequested but still appropriate. For example, we have the general article for Brain tumor, but no article specifically about brain tumors in children, and that's the second most common category of pediatric cancer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

PRAL

Hello everyone. In Potential renal acid load (PRAL) it appears that this concept is somehow valid and is somehow contradicting: One the one hand the body produces acid which on the other hand does not affect pH of the blood (which is good, as otherwise the wrong food will kill you).

Is there more reliable information about this? Best --Julius Senegal (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

There's an alternative medicine diet about acid-producing foods, and I think that having a good article here might be the best defense against pseudoscientific nonsense creeping in.

@Julius Senegal, there is some information about how PRAL is calculated in this book (start on pg 136, second column, and continues to the next page) and this book might also be useful. PRAL correlates with Net acid excretion. This book and this one describe it in terms of a dietary pattern (fruits and vegetables good; aged cheese bad) for kidney patients. There is a related concept of Dietary acid load (PRAL plus the acid actually in the food ).

I'd love it if you'd have a go at expanding that article a bit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Second Opinion on the page Tumor necrosis factor

I've decided to officially ask for a second opinion on the Tumor necrosis factor GA review (page:Talk:Tumor necrosis factor/GA1 and nominator:@AdeptLearner123) I'm mostly looking for second opinions regarding prose, readability, and broadness. Feel free to jump in wherever and offer what suggestions you have! IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Best Practices for Teaching Students to Write Effective Lead Sections

The boxed content originally appeared at WP:ENB; please follow up below the box. Mathglot (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Copy of discussion originally at Misplaced Pages:Education noticeboard#Best Practices for Teaching Students to Write Effective Lead Sections.

Hello everyone,

I am an instructor guiding students in composing medical articles for Misplaced Pages. Currently, I am focused on updating our guidelines and have several questions that I hope you can help with. My questions here are generic questions concerning the lead section.

In our academic setting, we emphasize the importance of supporting claims with citations, and our grading reflects this by marking down submissions that lack adequate citations. However, the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section suggests that while the lead should be well-sourced, citations are commonly found in the body of the article rather than the lead.

Q1: Are we being too stringent expecting our students to include citations in the lead section since this is not an expectation from Misplaced Pages? Is it a major problem if they do provide citations throughout the lead? What justification can we provide for not including citations in this section?

My second question is on structuring. We currently teach our students that the lead section should not only summarise the main content but also reflect the order of that content as presented in the body of the article. We use Misplaced Pages's "featured articles" as exemplars and models for this. However, we recognise that Misplaced Pages articles are subject to ongoing edits and updates that may shift the content and structure over time. This dynamic nature can lead to discrepancies between the lead and the body of an article, especially if the lead does not consistently mirror updates made to the article's main content.

Given this:

Q1: Are we guiding students correctly on the arrangement and order of information in the lead?

Q2: When significant changes are made to the body of an article, is it a common or recommended practice to revise the lead accordingly to ensure it remains an accurate and concise summary of the article and mirrors the order of the content?

Thank you in advance for your advice and suggestions! G.J.ThomThom (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@G.J.ThomThom I personally enjoy the essay Misplaced Pages:How to create and manage a good lead section, I highly suggest you take a look at it as it covers a lot of these smaller details. In general if content is sourced in the body of the article it does not need to be cited in the lead. The exeption to this is controversial material. However quite a few medical articles will have citations in the lead because pretty much anything in the feild of medicine can be considered controverial in a way. As far as order I do typically follow the order of the body of the article but I don't think that is a strict rule. If siginificant changes are made to the body the lead should reflect that as well. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for the link! We've had disagreements as teachers about what we mark down re citations. We understand that citations are required if the points being made are controversial but alas it's not always easy to identify if the content is controversial. So far we have told them, if in doubt, cite! Secondly, I take on board your suggestion regarding stubs. This is something I will bring to the team G.J.ThomThom (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I would generally agree that with medical content it's better to cite than not to cite. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

First, your course on medical topics is relevant to two boards, this one, and wP:MEDRS, but given that most of your questions are about citations, WP:MEDRS is the governing principle here and this discussion would have been much better placed at WT:MEDRS, and not here, in order to get definitive answers to your citation questions. I urge you to move it there (see {{Discussion moved to}}; if you agree to move it but need technical assistance to do so, just ask).

Briefly:

• Too stringent? – maybe, but they don't hurt, and no one will complain unless you pile up five at a time. There is no guideline saying you cannot place citations in the lead, so your are not violating anything by doing so.
• Order: the lead need not follow the same order as the body, though often it does. Editing order is: body first, lead second (because it is a summary of the most important points of the body).
• Discrepancies: Yes, revise the lead after altering the body if the changes there significantly alter the most important points of the body. A great many body edits will not be in this category, and require no changes to the lead. A typical newbie mistake is to head straight for the lead and start altering it (or worse, the lead sentence, with no consideration for the body. I have often thought it would be useful to programmatically prohibit lead changes from new users, but there is no general support for that view that I am aware of, though it would save many experienced editors lots of time undoing edits to the lead by new users.

Think about moving this. Mathglot (talk) 05:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot Happy to move this and yes to technical assistance please G.J.ThomThom (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion moved here upon request. Please respond to User:G.J.ThomThom's questions about "guiding students in composing medical articles for Misplaced Pages" below. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

You'll want to look over Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Content sections, if you haven't before. The lead for a well-developed article about a disease usually has four paragraphs, and they usually combine some of these elements:

• Definition, cause, and symptoms
• Diagnosis and treatment
• Screening, prevention, prognosis
• Epidemiology, history, cultural information

I've broken this list up to suggest four possible paragraphs, but ►you must use your judgment to pick the right elements. For example, some disease have no treatment and the diagnostic process is simple and boring (e.g., run a lab test), so diagnosis and treatment wouldn't make a good paragraph. Or the cause is unknown and it has no symptoms. In that case, merge, rearrange, or omit whatever doesn't seem important.

I don't think that medication articles follow the same pattern, but Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide#Sections has a few specific details that they recommend including. As a general rule for a Misplaced Pages article, you can look down the Table of Contents for the article, and the lead ought to say something (sometimes only half a sentence) about most of the sections.

I helped with the recent updates to MOS:LEADLENGTH, and I think that your students could set a goal of having at least 100 words in the lead. That's usually feasible even for an article that isn't very long or well-developed yet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you and all noted. A lot has been clarified for me now regarding the lead. G.J.ThomThom (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

What the heck happened to the nicotine article?

I am posting this here instead of on the talk page of the article, because I'd like to get the opinion of a broader base of editors interested in this, rather than just the (likely zero) people who read the talk page of the article in question.

I was reading the article on nicotine and noticed that the "Adverse effects" section was looking very sparse considering the nature of the substance. Particularly the subsection on the effects on the cardiovascular system was suspiciously sparse, given that nicotine is widely known to have an effect on blood pressure and heart rate. I checked an older version of the page from 2019, and back then the "Adverse effects" section was much longer with many paragraphs of comprehensively cited text (did not evaluate the contents of the citations though), including on cardiovascular health. Sure, it wasn't perfect and was in obvious need of cleanup, but the difference to the current article is night and day.

What happened? Given the subject matter, my spidey sense detects a whiff of foul play. I am probably incapable of really doing anything about it myself (far from my field of expertise, and the article seems pretty controversial), but this bothered me enough that I wanted to ask for the opinions of editors with more experience on articles like this. —turdas 19:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Turdas, it looks like there was a sock named User:Westwourd editing that article in 2020, but I thought all of that got reverted. That section had already been re-written by that point. I wonder if the changes you've noticed could be found in the list of edits from this user.

The best thing to do at this point would be to find a really great source and start over from scratch. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

How to use withdrawn Cochrane reviews

Hello! I am currently working through this category of articles which retractionbot has tagged as citing retracted articles. While doing so I noticed a substantial portion of these related to medicine come from Cochrane Library. Cochrane withdraws articles after a period of time - even before forthcoming updated medical reviews are published.

I understand the risk of outdated medical articles, but many of them that I have seen cited are done for what I understand to be showing common treatment methods, rather than experimental treatment methods. This post here is seeking advice from those with more experience editing medical articles on how such withdrawn papers can or should be used. The following questions are especially helpful:

• Should withdrawn Chochrane reviews still be cited for basic information on common treatment methods and/or experimental methods, or should they be tagged with ?
• Should withdrawn Cochrane reviews have their year cited in text if they have been withdrawn due to being outdated?

Relm (talk) 10:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Good question! I remove a withdrawn review citation entirely. If the evidence shared is still accurately conveyed, I try to replace it with a high quality secondary source that shares the same evidence in background sections or by looking to see if a new review supersedes it (if not updated). JenOttawa (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi again @Relmcheatham: when you fix or replace a citation in an article from the list what do you do? Do you edit the list to let people know it has been verified/completed? Thanks.JenOttawa (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

If they're only withdrawn out of precaution for being outdated, and are still the most up-to-date Cochrane review, then there's no real reliability issue save possibly for WP:MEDDATE. See also Tom Morris's 16:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC) comment in Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-06-08/Special report. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! I think that fits with the examples I gave in the comment below of where I handled it. Please feel free to give those a look and see if there is perhaps a more preferable way to tag those. Relm (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I do the following:

• I check the context (is it a medical claim, is it just one sentence or is it something integral to the page, is it the author's work, is the retraction mentioned on the page, etc)
• I check the retraction notice/reason
• If it is intentional cite, I tag it (you just insert '|intentional=yes' at the end of the reference) and mark the edit as minor (if that's all I do, otherwise I leave it as a major edit).
• If it is an unintentional citation that is specific to that one study, I remove the claim citing the reason in the retraction. (Data manipulation, fraud, etc)
• If it is an unintentional citation that seems likely to be backed up by other sources, then I tag it with and per the context.
• If it is any more complex than that to where I would need to pick apart the page or find replacement sources, I will either leave it alone for now (not tag it so it stays in the category) or I post on the page's talk section so someone more familiar with the subject can handle it.

On that last point I actually intended to narrow down the simple retracted citations until it was just the difficult ones that are too woven into the page or should be handled with care (around half of the retracted citations are medical in nature), and once that happened I would make a topic here with a list + summary of the more complex ones left. Examples of these complicated cases would be Weight Loss and Type A and Type B personality theory where both cases are cited many times throughout the body of the article, and would likely need the eyes of someone far more familiar with the subject. I am a historian, so I have been leaning on caution when choosing what to edit and what to leave alone.

I came here to ask this question since this particular source gave me trouble, and I know that there is a higher standard of scrutiny for editing medical articles and wanted to make sure I was doing it correctly. So far I have only edited three articles with a cochrane retraction.

1. One was for a routine treatment for tongue disease that had been retracted due to the dentists not being able to update the study years later. This is the dif for that.
2. Another was where I removed the source. In hindsight I believe given the context that this was a mistake, and so I have put it more in line with the previous example.
3. The third I would need to hunt down again, but I handled it like the first.

Hope this helps. Relm (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Relm, I just want to say Thank you for dealing with that category. It's important work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem! A few months ago I saw a post on a noticeboard requesting people sort through it. I did a few of the notable anti-vax figures before I got carried away with other projects. I went back to it and thought it would be a nice project while I have some free time to try and reduce it from 260 to as low as I can get it before calling in the specialists. ^^ Relm (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The Cochrane update bot is still working well. This flags reviews that are cited in articles when an updated version of the same review is published via MedLine, it updates the list monthly. It is up to date this month. This does not flag retracted reviews though.JenOttawa (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The seven-year itch#Requested move 16 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The seven-year itch#Requested move 16 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

DMOZ and Curlie in External links

For a long while, this group has encouraged people to add a link to a DMOZ or its successor, Curlie. The advantage is that having a link to a Web directory means we had less on-wiki maintenance to do and could redirect any spammy promoters to those websites. However, the nearly moribund Curlie has finally shut down, and after a WP:TFD discussion, all of these links are being removed by bot.

If you want to add Misplaced Pages:External links to an article, please consider a web directory. You should pick the best site you can find, even if it's not an "official" webpage in any way. Alternatively, pick a small number of websites that do not substitute for article content. Finally, if you decide that the best result for that article is no links, then consider moving any bulky sister link templates up into the top of the previous section (whatever that is), and then remove the ==External links== section heading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the update WAID. Any chance someone who isn't afraid of template syntax could remove Curlie support from {{Medical resources}}? It's template protected so you'll need to be a template editor or administrator (or setup an edit request, which should be fairly straightforward; I can sort the latter out, I just thought it might be smoother coming from someone who understands templates).

I think that's the only change needed in our guidance docs. I removed the Curlie recommendation at MEDMOS relatively recently. Ajpolino (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks like it'll be pretty easy to strip out. I've posted an edit request with the necessary details, as best as I can make out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that did make it look easy! Ajpolino (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Peer review request for Crohn's disease

Hi all, AdeptLearner123 is requesting feedback on Crohn's disease at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Crohn's disease/archive2. Please have a look to help with their efforts to improve the article. Ajpolino (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

EviCore

I recently created a stub for EviCore, a medical benefits management company. The company is the subject of a recent article by ProPublica titled “Not Medically Necessary”: Inside the Company Helping America’s Biggest Health Insurers Deny Coverage for Care. It may be of interest to members of this project. Thriley (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

interesting article, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Marburg outbreak

have started Rwanda Marburg disease outbreak , it should be noted this is the first time this occurs in Rwanda (and in recent years in other countries) please feel free to add/delete, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Added stuff on the socioeconomic/legal reasons that we don't have a vaccine in production yet. See also economics of vaccines.

I should like to see an analysis of whether the existence of legal monopolies in the biomedical field is a net benefit to taxpayers, because it clearly has enormous negative externalities. This is doubly important because, outside the chemical and pharma sector, patents seem not to be a net benefit even to their owners (in the US, as of 2008; from a Refdesk query). So the onus is rather on patents to show that they should exist. HLHJ (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I will also add some material, thanks for starting it Noxoug1 (talk) 08:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

References

1. Bessen, James; Meurer, Michael J. (2008). "1". Patent failure : how judges, bureaucrats, and lawyers put innovators at risk. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691143217. Retrieved 28 January 2021. (from fulltext of chapter one available at URL as a free sample)}}

Also started Marburg vaccine, just by copy-pasting from existing articles, because we have Ebola vaccine and did before one was in production, and because organizationally, a central place for that information would be good. HLHJ (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

DOIs vs PMIDs

Given the choice we should be preferring the former I think as it is an International Standard not a proprietary one. I suppose there may be a risk that PMIDs stop working if the US govt has its resourcing pulled? Bon courage (talk) 06:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

But they aren't equivalent. PMID 37111210 takes me to the PubMed website with its own copy of the abstract and author details and other links and information. doi:10.3390/nu15081991 takes me to the publisher website's copy of the article. Surely there's a similar risk that a publisher might go under or suffer a Crowdstrike-like systems failure. And if PubMed stops being funded, who's to say International DOI Foundation might have some big falling out or loss of funding too, meaning all our doi.org links stop working. I don't know why you are asking us to prefer one or the other. Let's have both. -- Colin° 09:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Both sounds a safe option. I suppose I'm feeling jittery after seeing what problems the disappearance of the Internet Archive caused, which it was easy to assume was a permanent part of the Web, and because it's apparent the PUBMED infrastructure is subject to one government's ideals, which might change in odd ways. Bon courage (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I suspect if PubMed lost funding from US Gov then it would be important enough to the international community to keep alive elsewhere. We'd have to rewrite the URLs from pubmed.ncbi.nlm.gov to pubmed.org or something, but that's a problem for the templates. -- Colin° 16:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

At least part of PubMed is already mirrored by Europe PubMed Central. If PubMed lost funding from the U.S. government, then we are in a real world of . Boghog (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a reason to prefer DOI to PMID. DOI represents the publisher's intention. Bondegezou (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Both are useful for different reasons. There is no reason to prefer one over the other. Boghog (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

PubMed provides a lot of useful information that is often lacking in the publisher sites, such as related citations, cited by, indexing (MeSH, gene ID, etc.). Boghog (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention links from PubMed to PubMedCentral which contains full text that is sometimes missing from the publisher site. Boghog (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

What makes PubMedCentral so valuable is the NIH Public Access Policy. In short, any publication resulting from research funded by the NIH must be freely available to the public through PubMedCentral. Boghog (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

In the event of an announcement that PubMed was closing (it surely wouldn't happen by surprise overnight) then one of our bot wizards could look up all the PMID links to extract the DOI on the PubMed page, and add any missing DOI parameters/link to our references. Maybe there's a bot doing that already? If I use the Cite Journal editing tool, and supply a PMID, it can fill in the citation fields and the DOI. But if I supply a DOI then it can't lookup the PMID. So arguably the PMID is more useful at the moment, as it unlocks information about the other IDs that a DOI can't. I remain puzzled why we are being asked to prefer one. -- Colin° 08:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, User:Citation bot already does this. If at least one of |pmid=, |pmc=, or |doi= is specified, it can usually fill in the missing ones if they exist. Boghog (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Fake AI-generated article?

I'm concerned about the content of canfosfamide. I noticed that the references for this article have broken DOIs. Upon investigation, I found that the titles of the references cannot be found by a Google search. This type of real-looking but fake references is characteristic of what is written by ChatGTP and other AI text generators. I suspect that this article was largely written by AI. Other medical articles started by Ashleythesciencenerd may have the same problem (example). 108.2.108.191 (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Yep, this article contains AI-generated fake references. While the topic is legitimate, the entire article needs to be rewritten. It appears that ChatGPT was used to create this content, which is cannot be used for reliable sourcing. Perplexity is generally a much more reliable option for generating accurate references. Regardless, if an AI tool is used to create content, it must be carefully checked by editors before posting. Boghog (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Rewritten sported by real citations. Boghog (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Request for Help: Expanding Psychological and Neurodevelopmental Disorders Section in NF1 Article

Hello everyone,

I am currently working on improving the Psychological and Neurodevelopmental Disorders section of the Neurofibromatosis Type 1 (NF1) article. Specifically, I need assistance with finding reliable resources and expanding the content related to Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in NF1.

Both ASD and ADHD are highly prevalent in individuals with NF1, and they often exhibit distinct characteristics compared to idiopathic forms. I believe that enhancing this section will be especially useful for parents of affected children, as it could provide valuable insights into these unique challenges.

If anyone has access to relevant studies or publications, or if you have experience with this subject, I would greatly appreciate your guidance in improving this section.

I have found articles about ADHD in NF1, such as the one by Lion-François et al. (2020), which discusses the differences between ADHD and the syndromic ADHD in NF1. Honestly, I feel like this topic is a bit beyond my understanding, and I don't want to make mistakes when editing the article. If anyone has a good grasp of this issue, I would greatly appreciate your collaboration.

Thank you in advance for your support! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fechu93 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

maybe this...Walsh, Karin S.; Vélez, Jorge I.; Kardel, Peter G.; Imas, Daniel M.; Muenke, Maximilian; Packer, Roger J.; Castellanos, Francisco X.; Acosta, Maria T. (February 2013). "Symptomatology of autism spectrum disorder in a population with neurofibromatosis type 1". Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 55 (2): 131–138. doi:10.1111/dmcn.12038. ISSN 1469-8749. Retrieved 3 November 2024.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Bots tagging "outdated" Cochrane reviews

Hello,

This bot-tagging of Cochrane reviews when they are updated with newer ones is a helpful feature to keep wp up to date. However I have a situation where both the older review and the updated one are cited. Therefore, the bot's actions are unhelpful. I reverted one such bot edit already, but now it happened again.

Here is the section in question: Ventral_rectopexy#Controversy_regarding_use_of_mesh

This section of the article is a "background" or "history" of the development of the procedure. I thought the earlier Cochrane review was an important landmark publication to include in this section. The latest Cochrane review is cited in the next sentence. Thoughts? Thank you Moribundum (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/Cochrane update tells you how to stop the bot repeating the tag. I think maybe the bot's edit comment should point this out. Thincat (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for answer. Moribundum (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

See also #How to use withdrawn Cochrane reviews, Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-06-08/Special_report, and this comment. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for flagging. Great to see these articles being improved. I do the following in these instances (shared on the bot project page) "If we wish to use the old review in an article (e.g.: in the historical context), the reference can be marked with <!-- No update needed: PMID -->, where PMID is the Pubmed ID for the reference, and the bot will ignore it." JenOttawa (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to be so late, I see that this was figured out. This edit looks good to me Moribundum! ] If it get's re-flagged please let me know and I can get some help looking for another solution.JenOttawa (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Delirium caused by Anticholinergic medications

Hello. An experienced Doctor recommended I ask for help with the Delirium article here, he says he isnt available and very busy.

Delirium, as most of you know, is a disorder / syndrome which occurs mostly in old / elderly people above age 70 or so. However, there is another type of Delirium caused by anticholinergic medications, and the Delirium article confuses readers by talking about mostly the elderly part of age over 70 people who have Delirium, not the other type caused by anticholinergic medications.

I came here to ask for help with improving the Delirium article for that. Are there any people who can possibly help me improve Delirium article? Doctors I prefer of course, but anyone with medical knowledge generally. Noam Atadgy (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to say. I've improved Delirium article myself by alot! But theres some work needs to be done. Noam Atadgy (talk) 06:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I suppose there are many substances which can cause acute delirium. These should be mentioned in context without giving undue weight among the many causes overall. Bon courage (talk) 07:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the redirect Substance-induced delirium (also ICU delirium) should be turned into a separate article. G.J.ThomThom, the latter might be a good option for your students. Category:Redirects with possibilities might be an interesting place to find likely missing articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thats an amazing idea. I had no clue this redirect even exists. If a doctor can help write the basic info and start that new article it'd help alot. Although the current Delirium article talks about delirium caused by medication as well, it doesnt go into full details about it. Readers who read Delirium article, read about the one in old / elderly 70+ patients in hospitals. We need to separate the 2 types of Delirium.

Another thing is. In the past Delirium was also called "Acute confusional state"? What does that mean? Noam Atadgy (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Noam Atadgy, if we wait for one of the physicians to do this, it could be years. Why don't you try putting together a very short article in User:Noam Atadgy/sandbox, just to get us started? You can copy relevant text and sources out of the main article. You can make a list of substances from this book. This book has two long paragraphs specifically about anticholinergic delirium, which you could probably summarize in two or three simpler sentences. I think you could be successful in creating this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits by AdeptLearner123

AdeptLearner123 recently cut down Crohn's disease from 257 references to only 45. I didn't go through all 243 of their recent edits to that page, but it seems unlikely this is an improvement. Thoughts? They cut down Tumor necrosis factor as well. An IP also left a comment on the Crohn's disease talk page about this issue. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The majority of those references were from unreviewed webpages, or outdated papers. I have focused the references around a smaller number of articles from highly reputed journals, such as Nature and Mayo Clinic. AdeptLearner123 (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I did not cut down the tumor necrosis factor article; the prose increased from 250 to 300 kB. My changes brought the TNF article to GA status. AdeptLearner123 (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was just looking at the number of references (83 to 40). ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Although I haven’t looked through the Crohn’s disease article it’s not uncommon to remove sources for various reasons. For example according to WP:MEDDATE articles over 5 years old should be replaced with newer sources. So perhaps maybe a couple older refs were replaced in favour of newer more comprehensive sources? It’s also not uncommon to have one comprehensive article replace several smaller less comprehensive sources. Pretty much what I’m trying to say is although it may look odd, removing sources isn’t always a bad thing especially with medical articles. IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@IntentionallyDense if there aren`t any newer sources, is it ok to keep the existing ones? what would be recommended? Noxoug1 (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

If there is no newer sources then use the most recent, reliable and comprehensive source you can find. IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with IntentionallyDense: Use the best sources you can, and remember that MEDDATE is trying to guide you to the best sources, rather than providing a hard and fast cut off date. Usually, in a heavily researched area (think Hypercholesterolemia), you can write a great article using only review articles from the top-ranked journals and the best med school textbooks, every source published in the last five years, and still have plenty of high-quality sources left over. In a less popular area, you may need to stretch that: maybe the sources need to be from mid-ranked journals. Maybe you need a couple of primary sources. Maybe you need sources that are 10 years old.

Our advice is to aim for the ideal, but to do what's practical. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

When I updated prostate cancer and brought it to featured article status, the number of references dropped from 355 to 128. Some of that was trimming material, but much of that loss was updating the sourcing to more recent, higher-quality references. When an article grows bit-by-bit you often get 100 facts with 100 references. When sections or whole articles are updated at once you might get 100 facts with 20 references. Neither is inherently better. I'd suggest picking a section of Crohn's disease (or any other article you're concerned about) and comparing the text/sources before and after to see if you feel it's improving or not. Hopefully you'll find it is (I haven't looked at it myself). If you find particular concerns, we'll have more to discuss here. Ajpolino (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Article on subjective refraction

Hello - as there does not seem to be an optometry WikiProject I am asking here instead in the hopes that someone has the necessary expertise. The article Subjective refraction, despite being (as far as I know) a fairly important topic in optometry, is in a rather unacceptable state. The vast majority of the article is written as a how-to guide and not a well-formatted one at that. Some content is probably salvageable, but everything else needs to be completely rewritten, so I think this will require some subject matter expertise. There seems to be a list of medical textbooks in the references. Thanks.  — RTao (talk • contribs) 01:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief you don’t need any medical expertise to edit medical articles on Misplaced Pages. I understand you may not be comfortable editing such a technical area but I encourage you to try! IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@IntentionallyDense Fair point. I have edited in areas I know little about before, and I should probably do some of the basic cleanup there if I have time. Nevertheless, I hope someone with topic knowledge will contribute to making the eventual article more comprehensive/balanced.  — RTao (talk • contribs) 02:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:MED articles with no references

Hi all, WikiProject Unreferenced articles is holding a backlog drive this month to further reduce the number of articles tagged as completely lacking sources. This number has fallen precipitously over the last several years: from 153180 (Nov 2021) to 135232 (Nov 2022) to 1169778 (Nov 2023) to 78548 today. Perhaps we can help them out by taking a look at the 138 articles currently tagged with our project's tag and {{unreferenced}}. A single reference to backup material in the article is sufficient to remove the tag. That list is at my sandbox, feel free to edit/comment that list directly or post here if you prefer. Ajpolino (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I will put some time aside this month to look at these articles. Thanks for flagging @Ajpolino Noxoug1 (talk) 08:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you... I will try and help too. Whispyhistory (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

If I make a list of promising new-ish editors who have recently edited medicine-related articles, is someone willing to invite them to help out? This seems like a good project for someone who would like to help but aren't sure where to start. Also, can we send out a new Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course, I'm happy to help. Also I can put together a new newsletter this week. If anyone has thoughts/suggestions for newsletter topics or alternative formats that would make the newsletter more useful, please share them at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter. Ajpolino (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Sent. If you don't subscribe to the newsletter, you can change that by adding your name to the mailing list. Apologies if the height of the side-by-side boxes looks janky at your screen width (you'll be comforted to know it looks great with my settings). If someone knows how to come up with a more universal solution, please do let me know. Ajpolino (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Could you please see if these changes violate MEDRS?

I initially posted this at WP:Helpdesk#Could someone who knows WP:MEDRS, please look at these changes?, so I wont repeat it here. I was recommended here, though if you'd prefer you can answer there. These were changes by a newish account that I am reluctant to revert myself, not my changes. – user usually at 2804:F14::/32, currently 143.208.239.58 (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to make it easier, the source they used is https://www.acespsychiatry.com/2024/10/12/what-to-say-to-kids/. – 143.208.239.58 (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for sharing! while the content is sourced (has references) it does not appear to be peer reviewed. In addition, on closer inspection, this is posted on a clinic website. The content itself may be helpful for improving the article. You could suggest that the person look at the reference list that the author generated for high quality secondary sources and improve the article using those if the person feels that the content is appropriate and helpful for improving the article.JenOttawa (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I just went to your post at the help deck. Good to see this was reverted as pretty weak source! JenOttawa (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

California opioid crisis

It would be helpful to have some more views on a proposal to merge Fentanyl crisis in San Francisco into California opioid crisis, the case being short text, context, and overlap. The discussion is at Talk:California opioid crisis#Fentanyl crisis in San Francisco. Klbrain (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 11 § Ro (antigen)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 11 § Ro (antigen). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Updating Stroke

Hello, and hope you're well. Last month, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association published "2024 Guideline for the Primary Prevention of Stroke". The abstract says the 2024 guideline replaces replaces the 2014 "Guidelines for the Primary Prevention of Stroke." Is it just me, or does Stroke (or any other article, for that matter) not cite the 2014 guidelines at all? Thanks! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 08:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. Do you have a specific edit suggestion? I can take a look at the guideline but if you have an idea of places in the stroke article that needs to be updated with the new recommendations that would be great! JenOttawa (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Not really. My suggestion would've been, "Maybe I could at least replace citations of the old guideline with the current 2024 one," but I think the Stroke article does not cite the old guideline at all! I otherwise have not had a chance to closely compare the article to the current guideline; I actually heard about the update from the Associated Press, but I don't know if the AP summary is accurate. I know AP itself is accurate and that scientific reporting in even reputable newspapers for laypeople like me can be all over the place. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Human penis concerns

Hi, I'd like someone way more knowledgeable about biology to take a look at Human penis#Female phenotypic quality. I raised some concerns on the talk page yesterday, but no one has commented yet. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Clovermoss Thank you for bringing this to our attention! IntentionallyDense 14:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It looks like we need to strip ancient and primary sources out of that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

About med school

It looks like we need a few med students at d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Medicine#Modelling internship, residency, fellowship of physicians to talk about how education and training of physicians is organized in each country (e.g., is residency "employment"?). Please join the discussion over there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Consciousness

Consciousness has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

WHtR below 0.4, values for anorexia, emaciated?

At Waist-to-height_ratio#Recommended_boundary_values there are clear boundary values 0.4, 0.5 and 0.6 and above.

Any boundaries known below WHtR 0.4? E.g. for

• Anorexia_nervosa
• Emaciation
• what is the lean counterpart of Obesity-associated_morbidity?

Uwappa (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Uwappa I’m not fully sure of your question here but I’ll try my best to answer.

Anorexia is diagnosed based partially off BMI not waist to height ratio although i’m sure you could find some study that gives info on the average WHtR.

Malnutrition, specifically Malnutrition#Effects has information on the health effects of malnutrition. Anorexia nervosa#Prognosis goes over the complications of anorexia as well. IntentionallyDense 19:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Doing a little quick math, for an average-height woman, it's called Size zero. The average US woman is 5'4", and 0.4 ratio means a waist size below 25.5", which is a size 0 dress on the Lands' End website (it will be a size 2 or 4 for some other brands). It's not automatically a medical problem.

I don't think there is a single lean counterpart, because causes become more important. Anorexia nervosa, BTW, can appear in any size body. It's about what happens in your head, not about the current shape of your body. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Please have a look at: Waist-to-height_ratio#Recommended_boundary_values and .

NICE defines 0.4 as the lower bound of healthy.

Anything below 0.4 is unspecified, grey in the chart.

Any source that defines 'yellow' and 'red' boundaries below 0.4?

Is grey really grey? Unspecified? Really? Uwappa (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It might be. The thing is, especially for women, two individuals could have the same overall body composition, but because one has an hourglass figure and the other has a straight/rectangular figure, they could fall on different sides of the same line. That doesn't mean that the one with the narrower waist is more or less healthy. The cutoff lines for these things are always somewhat arbitrary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I understand all of that, especially at the high end of the scale. That is not my question.

The question is: Any boundary values known below 0.4, just like above 0.5? Uwappa (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Arthur E. Hertzler

I've started an article on Arthur E. Hertzler. Having started to dig into the numerous references about him, there's much more there than I currently have the time to write about, particularly in material found at this page. There is also other material that I can see referenced, but can't read because of journal paywalls, such as this article, and there's material about him in The Kansas Doctor: A Century of Pioneering by Thomas Neville Bonner, which I also don't have access to.

Hertzler by all accounts seems to have lived a fascinating life, and was clearly both brilliant and quite a character. Would anyone here be interested in expanding this article? — The Anome (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The JAMA article is available via Misplaced Pages:The Misplaced Pages Library. After you're logged in, this direct link will probably work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Autism on Misplaced Pages

Hi, a friend at Wikimedia UK suggested it could be wise to post about this here: I have a piece just out in Thinking Person's Guide to Autism, on 'How Misplaced Pages Systematically Misleads People About Autism'. It describes some of my experiences editing relevant pages here, and argues that Misplaced Pages's autism coverage is badly out of date. I don't use the term in the article, but effectively Misplaced Pages's guidelines tend to enshrine a strong status quo bias. One consequence of this is that a biomedical framing of autism is largely taken for granted, despite the attitudes and insights of contemporary autism specialists, not to mention autistic communities.

I understand that similar biases have affected Misplaced Pages's coverage of marginalised groups across the board, but it seems that to date, there has been far more coordinated and institutional investment in correcting systematic gender bias, LGBT exclusion and racial prejudice.

I bring this up here because my impression is that Misplaced Pages's main Autism entry has inherited a framing and structure that is ubiquitous in our coverage of diseases and disorders, but which is questionably relevant and arguably unhelpful when it comes to something like autism - with pathophysiology, management, prognosis, epidemiology and so on.

Its physiology is much-studied, but still poorly understood, and many would question the appropriateness of the 'patho-' prefix; 'management' is not really an appropriate way of thinking about a difference that affects someone's entire way of being; 'prognosis' can be summed up in the single word 'lifelong'; 'epidemiology' …I mean, there are some reasonably interesting things to be said about the statistics (variations in which inevitably reflect the limitations of the data more than objective real-world differences) but there are so many other things that are more important.

So I guess I'm posting here partly to just give people a heads-up about the article, and partly to enquire about how attached people are to this general structure… and why?

I note that gender dysphoria is a separate article from transgender, allowing one to focus on the formal, medicalised interpretation of trans experience, while the other is more about being trans. Stuff that non-clinicians are actually likely to want to know, or benefit from knowing. Not sure that's an ideal solution, but it's an interesting one that's been discussed a couple of times in Talk:Autism as well; there are various helpful parallels that are worth considering, I think. Oolong (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing milestone

Hello, all:

We've been working this month on getting at least one source into unreferenced medicine-related articles. There are now less than 100 unsourced articles on the list! A few years ago, that list was over 400 articles. Less than a year ago, it was over 200 articles. We have made really good progress this year. Please take a minute and see if you can add a source to at least one article.

We are doing this now to support the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/November 2024 and also because we think that sources are particularly important for anything medicine-related on Misplaced Pages. The backlog drive has officially resulted in about 7,000 of Misplaced Pages's unsourced articles getting a new source (i.e., with #NOV24 in the edit summary), plus all the pages that got new references but which weren't tagged.

Please join in and do your bit. We'd really appreciate it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

PCORI (Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute) as MEDRS?

Is there a consensus that using PCORI is an acceptable WP:MEDRS source? There is a six-year old discussion about using PCORI that was pointed out to me. -Whywhenwhohow (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I place PCORI in the same category as CDC or NIH. But I have seen edit wars centered on whether or not an NIH medical dictionary was WP:MEDRS, and the resolution was not(!), so I suppose these sources in whole or in part may not be WP:MEDRS. But if none of their work product is, one starts to get very close to the conclusion that nothing is WP:MEDRS. Jaredroach (talk) 11:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

One of the challenges with "MEDRS" is that there is the ideal (e.g., a peer-reviewed review article published in a highly reputable journal within the last five years) and then there is the good-enough (you don't need an "ideal" source to say that the common cold is caused by a virus). Even if PCORI isn't "ideal", it might be "good enough", depending on what's being said. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I think that it is depending on what is being shared from the source and if it is a medical claim or paraphrased background information that fills an important gap in an article.JenOttawa (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Spinal disc herniation#Requested move 13 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Spinal disc herniation#Requested move 13 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Martha Hughes Cannon

Martha Hughes Cannon has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)